Month: April 2011

Lost in the Ryan budget debate, we can forget that, as Catherine Rampell reminds us, we "already have a number of 'serious' long-term fiscal restraint proposals on the table":

None of these myriad proposals have ever gotten any traction, and they have, for the most part, been less drastic than Mr. Ryan’s. They’ve failed not because they were unserious, but because even these less drastic measures were too politically unpopular. For this reason, I’m not betting any money that the Ryan plan, with its even more painful provisions cutting entitlements, will somehow be more politically palatable in the near future.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The country’s budget problems are not a failure of policy ingenuity, but a failure of political willpower.

Aaron Carroll runs through other plans to get our fiscal house in order.

Martin Rees, a theoretical astrophysicist, has won the 2011 Templeton prize, which "honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works." Rees is nonreligious, but his acceptance statement makes clear his contribution to the greater good (pdf):

Some people might surmise that intellectual immersion in vast expanses of space and time would render cosmologists serene and uncaring about what happens next year, next week, or tomorrow. But, for me, the opposite is the case. My concerns are deepened by the realization that, even in a perspective extending billions of years into the future, as well as into the past, this century may be a defining moment. Our planet has existed for 45 million centuries, but this is the first in its history where one species—ours—has Earth’s future in its hands, and could jeopardize not only itself, but life’s immense potential.

The above graphic depicts the the first 1,235 planets and stars NASA's planet-hunting telescope has found. 54 are deemed habitable like Earth.

(Hat tip: Religion And Science Today)

"You expect that wolves will eat meat," – Mike Huckabee on Mother Jones' correct article detailing the destruction of his records of his time as Arkansas governor.

In the spirit of the United States of Awesome and the United States of Shame, we get the United States of the Environment, in both naughty and nice iterations:

Tyler Cowen goes through the Ryan plan, and provides several sane objections. But he also notes this is just an opening bid in – finally! – a real debate. His bottom line:

The more the Democrats criticize this plan, the more it helps Ryan and the more it hurts the Democrats.  It reframes sticker shock, and the entire debate, simply to argue about $6 trillion in budget cuts.

On April 21st Gary Johnson will announce his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination. Johnson says he is ready to defend his support of marijuana legalization and contends that legalization “is an issue that under the light of day does really well.” Pete Guither just hopes Johnson “can stay in the race long enough to generate some good discussions.”:

Johnson really has it together. He doesn’t have any other potential fringe baggage that can be exploited (no gold standard, no racist newsletters, etc., etc.), so the only thing they’ll really be able to come after him on is pot. And he’s ready and willing to take that head on.

The GOP primaries are going to be as lively as they could be fascinating. We may be lucky enough to have the first serious intra-party debate over foreign intervention and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and we’ll get another debate on marijuana legalization. Yes the final answer on both counts may well be more empire and continued suppression of real liberties at home. But merely airing the debates on these issues is helpful. Slowly it becomes acceptable to argue for a draw-down of US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Europe. Gradually, with respect to marijuana legislation, the familiar reaction of giggles, taboos and condescension may decline.

Two more prominent Christianists join Inhofe:

[L]ast night, Fox News Host Glenn Beck defended “the current Christian president” Gbagbo, downplaying the atrocities he has committed, and excusing his refusal to leave office by saying that “he fears that [Ouattara] is going to round up all of [his] supporters and kill them all.” Beck also attacked President Obama for supporting Ouattara, noting the challenger is “a Muslim.”

And today, Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, who has repeatedly defended the dictator, said that Gbagbo’s impending departure is a “great tragedy” because the country is now “going to be into the hands of Muslims.”

The GOP has now completed its transition from anti-Communism to anti-Islam. Which means that any future Republican president is going to embrace religious war as the guiding principle in foreign policy and treat Muslim-Americans with suspicion bordering on hostility. And that in turn fuels alienation and possible Jihadism in the US. Which confirms the Christianist premise. And so the cycle continues. My view is that the world is too precarious for that kind of bigotry to strut around on the world stage. Those who most exemplify it in the current gaggle of GOP presidential wannabes? Huckabee, Palin, Trump (did I just write that?), Bachmann, Barbour … well it would be easier to name those not so invested in religious warfare. That would be Romney (so far) and Daniels.

Thought Catalogue's Ryan O'Connell delivers it, for publishing “The Funny Thing About The Slutwalk” by Chelsea Fagan:

The suggestion that victims of sexual assault are partially to blame for wearing revealing clothing is ludicrous, indicative of serious self-loathing and makes me want to vomit all over my computer screen. The writer seems to believe that she’s respecting herself by wearing more conservative clothing. In reality, however, she’s turning over her power to men and accepting this cycle of abuse. The idea that men have always been this way and that women have to adapt is so defeatist and in a way, allows these assaults to actually occur. If you think you’re respecting yourself and receiving a “Get Out of Rape Free” card by wearing demure clothing, you’re delusional.

Here’s what it comes down to: Any victim of sexual assault is in no way responsible for the attack. “Oh, I apologize that my super cute dress from Zara caused you to force yourself on me. Next time I’ll wear a burka!” As fucking if. How does anyone expect women to advance as a gender if we subscribe to these rules?

In a piece tackling some eugenic nonsense, Will Wilkinson provides an elegant conservative critique of contemporary Republicanism:

I think grasping the inevitability of the cultural evolution of ideology is helpful in clarifying the role of the intellectual. The task is not to discover and promote the true final philosophy. (And certainly not to promote the inclusive fitness of the true final philosophy’s adherents!) The task is to help steer the distributed process of cultural evolution toward truth and/or goodness by acting as a virtuous selection pressure. The attempt to enforce an orthodoxy–to protect a doctrine against cultural evolution–is the religious apologist’s task. The only plausible way of making the content of an ideology stable enough to sustain the hope that our grandchildren will believe what we believe is to make an institutional religion out of it.

Intellectuals who spend their time enforcing ideological orthodoxy as though it were a religion, but without the aid of religious institutions, are wasting it.

That's a pretty good definition of today's right.

There are a few infallible, eternal truths that must be adhered to, like a papal bull, if one is to remain in good standing with the GOP – regardless of the circumstances. So cutting taxes is sacred if we are in a boom or a bust, if we have soaring debt and if we have a healthy surplus. The same with foreign policy, where the orthodoxy demands constant intervention abroad, a crude reliance on firepower as a measure of strength, and a public stance of us-or-them belligerence personified by Palin and phonily mimicked by Romney.

All of this assumes an untruth: that ideologies need not adapt to changing circumstances. And that is why I have long argued that today's Republican party, in its eternally fixed ideological purism, is actually a deeply unconservative movement.

As Burke well understood, what cannot change will not survive.

A reader writes:

I'm not sure if you consider this a "hard left" question or not, but why don't you plainly state what Paul Ryan is trying to do: abolish Medicare.  I'm not saying we can't have a policy debate about it, but let's speak honestly and admit that the policy calls for the end of federally-subsidized and guaranteed medical care for the elderly.  (Josh Marshall lays this out pretty clearly.)  Do you think calling the policy an "abolition" or "elimination" of Medicare is somehow unfair?

And regarding Ryan, it's pretty amazing that you think he is acting like an honest broker here.  The plan simply ignores the CBO budget estimates (which the Republicans insisted were the "gold standard" until they didn't agree with the estimates) and assert that repeal of Obamacare will reduce the deficit despite all math to the contrary.  Also – how is it an act of seriousness that grapples with Bush-era deficit creation to continue cutting taxes for the rich and cutting services for the poor?  He doesn''t even recommend getting rid of the Bush era tax cuts.

Since Medicare will abolish itself in its current trajectory, I think the onus is on those who want to do little to rein in its cost. Yes, the pilot programs in Obama's universal health reform could bear dividends in the future. But I doubt they will be enough. As for the tax cuts, I agree and said so. The Ryan plan could lower tax rates and increase tax revenues, if Ryan wanted to. It's the semi-religious, a priori refusal to raise revenues that gets in the way. Another writes:

Boy, that reader response you printed was something else. Saying that Rep. Ryan wants to essentially round up and gas the poor strikes me as Moore Award-esque. But that said, I, as a hardened liberaltarian, take issue with the idea that Ryan's plan is "serious."

First of all, there's this whole notion about taking on Bob Gates' recommendation for  targeting "inefficiencies" within the Pentagon. This statement, to me, is so nebulous as to be completely meaningless. Isn't it inefficient to have troops stationed in Germany sixty-five years after the end of World War II? Isn't it inefficient to keep the private-public debacle of the military-industrial complex going? Isn't it inefficient to fight two or three (depending on how one views Libya) wars to continue to extend the influence of the American Empire? But these aren't the inefficiencies Gates was talking about; like most small-time thinkers, Gates was referring more to redundant posts and bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Sure, it's a good idea to eliminate waste, but "targeting inefficiencies" sounds, to me, like another buzz-phrase like McCain's taking on "earmarks." Sure, it sounds good, but what the hell does it actually mean?

Then there's Ryan's absurd notion of reforming the tax code. Having just paid my own taxes, I'd be thrilled as hell to reform the tax code, and I like what he has to say about closing loopholes. But you have to watch the sneaky language that he uses. What does he mean when he says the GOP wants to consolidate brackets? That, to me, sounds like a terrible idea. What particular brackets would he consolidate? Would a person earning $30,000 per year now suddenly be in the same bracket as one earning $100,000? Would someone earning $75,000 be in the same bracket as someone earning $300,000?

Lastly, I actually agree with Ryan that open-checkbook Medicare is an unviable option. I know this for a fact because my grandmother, a wealthy woman, still got Medicare checks (as well as Social Security) until her death. That said, I'm not convinced about the reforms Ryan recommends. In particular, the plan for individuals to choose from premiums gives me the heebie-jeebies because that's not what Medicare is supposed to be for.

Medicare is supposed to supplement any costs that elderly and enfeebled patients might have over and above what they can pay – a safety net, if you will, to avoid having a bunch of dying seniors the way we did during the Great Depression. But let's say I'm a senior who has hip problems but not upper respiratory problems. I choose a Medicare option based on that information. Suddenly, at age 75, I develop pneumonia, which really drags down my respiratory system (this is not far-fetched). Would Rep. Ryan's plan cover my health problems if I were unable to afford them.

I want to be clear: I'm glad somebody is talking fiscal sense in this country. I've been let down time and time again by the president and the do-jack-shit Democrats of the last few Congresses. But I think a lot of Ryan's proposals, while occasionally well-intentioned, recede into the morass of typical bullshit that we've been getting from politicians of all stripes for the past decade.

There's some of that in there – especially the assumptions about future growth and unemployment. But if we see the Ryan plan as the opening bid, and work constructively to keep the savings he promises by different means and with different emphases, we can make it a better and fairer proposal. Another:

The thing is, Andrew, is that you have a habit of viewing warmly any plan that anyone ever comes up with that appears to be a budget cut, no matter how appalling that idea is.  If some Republican tomorrow got on TV and announced that he could cut the defense budget 15% by outsourcing nuclear weapons production to the North Koreans and paying them in plutonium, you'd say something to the effect of "well, it's an unrealistic and somewhat facetious idea, but at least it shows that the GOP sincerely wants to cut government spending."  Everybody has their own policy issues that they get soft on – yours is fiscal conservatism.  And there's nothing wrong with that, except that the ideas they're coming up with are dangerous and half-baked and need to be called out as such by people who are interested in fiscal conservatism and are sane.   

Of course Medicare spends too much money – of course, we're going to be in serious fiscal trouble in 20 years if something isn't done about it.  But every sane proposal that gets put up, the Republicans either ignore or twist into something utterly demented. 

End of life care is some outrageous and alarming percentage of medical spending, but if you suggest trying to convince people that their 92-year-old grandfather shouldn't go through another round of chemotherapy and surgery at a cost to taxpayers (via Medicare) of $120,000, when it has a 5% chance of working anyway, and will make him miserable for the three months he'll have left regardless of what care he gets, you get accused of trying to kill the elderly or rationing care.  

Drug prices are beyond ridiculous, and in a uniquely American way.  Don't get me wrong – you and I both have literally been kept alive by the discoveries of the pharmaceutical industry, but I've had the experience of buying a prescription drug in Italy at 1/10 the price it sells for in the US (and was identical – both US and Italian formulations of the drug were manufactured in Switzerland!).  I'm also currently on another medication which is so insanely expensive and rare (I have to mail order it, my insurance pays something like $4000 per dose) that were I to lose insurance, I'd be in serious, serious danger. 

Of course drug companies need to make money to keep making new drugs, but there's a lot of evidence that suggests that prices are arbitrary and capricious (see that compounded drug for premature birth that was in the news this month, sold for 100x as much when the monopoly in its manufacture was given to one company?).  Want to control costs?  Control drug prices.  But even suggest it, and the implication is that you're putting a revolver to the collective heads of the public.  Strangely enough the VA seems to do perfectly well getting medications to veterans at $10 a prescription, without bankrupting drug companies, but suggest that the non-VA government do anything to set prices and suddenly you're a socialist.

For that matter, the whole Medicare payment system is set up in such a way that people who are treated the most poorly are the most profitable patients.  One Medicare patient can be bounced around from doctor to doctor making money for each medical practice, but ironically getting very poor care because his or her treatment is so bad that it only leads to more treatment.  But suggest that fee-for-service might not be the best route, and that we should reward outcomes and not process, and you get accused of socialism or of wanting to enslave doctors.

Want to cut the deficit seriously?  Look at those three areas. Any one of them could cut tens of billions from Medicare spending.  But it's a lot less sexy than redoing everything for ideological reasons.

These are points well-taken. But my embrace of almost any plan that really would cut spending and lower deficits is a function of how serious the fiscal gap now is. By the way, I have long supported the Obamacare proposal – killed  by Sara Palin – that all Medicare recipients should be asked if they wish to issue instructions via a proxy about how they want end-of-life care. No pressure. But my bet is that a hefty proportion of Americans do not want a massively expensive effort to keep them alive for a few more days – when that money could be better spent or saved. On drugs, I favor a co-pay that is a percentage of the actual cost of the drug. 20 percent would be a good start. Once you do that, patients have a real incentive to forgo the latest innovation and pick a generic.

(Photo: Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, pauses during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, April 5, 2011. U.S. House Republicans today unveiled a plan to overhaul the federal budget and slash the deficit in coming years by about three-quarters, with a $6-trillion cut in spending and 25 percent cap on tax rates. By Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg via Getty Images.)