Month: October 2011

Unless he has a Senate supermajority, Romney can't repeal the regulatory aspects of healthcare reform. Chait looks at what he could do through reconciliation:

If [Romney and congressional Republicans] eliminate the subsidies but leave the regulations in place, you’ll have insurers required to sell policies to people who are sick, but no way to bring healthy people into the risk pool. A few states tried that. It created a cost spiral that collapsed the whole market. Romney would end up screwing the health insurance industry, which is much harder to do, politically, than screwing the uninsured. The industry has lobbyists.

So what is Romney actually proposing? David Frum breaks it down:

Mitt Romney has an interesting idea. Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act enables the secretary of Health and Human Services to grant waivers to states from many ACA regulations.

With a majority of the states challenging ACA before the Supreme Court, there should be no shortage of takers for the waivers.

But as always, there are some catches.

·      The waivers are only available for plan years beginning after Jan. 1, 2017.

·      The replacement plans must provide benefits at least as generous and at least as affordable as those previously provided by the ACA's mechanisms. The replacement plans must also cover at least as many people.

·      The waivers would not save the federal government any money. Subsidies due to individuals within the states under the ACA mechanisms would be granted in a block to the state government.

In other words: President Romney would find himself enforcing President Obama's law for at least three-quarters of his own first term. 

Frum goes on to outline his preferred reforms of Obamacare.  

He shares the day – fun fact! via Kevin Sessums' Facebook page – with Margaret Thatcher. Here he is in a darker comic bit, about solitude and the end of life:

And here's how he actually died, via Wiki:

On August 3, 1966, Bruce was found dead in the bathroom of his Hollywood Hills home at 8825 N. Hollywood Blvd. The official photo, taken at the scene, showed Bruce lying naked on the floor, a syringe and burned bottle cap nearby, along with various other narcotics paraphernalia. According to legend a policeman at the scene said “There is nothing sadder than an aging hipster” which itself possibly was one of Lenny Bruce’s lines. Record producer Phil Spector, a friend of Bruce's, bought the negatives of the photographs to keep them from the press. The official cause of death was "acute morphine poisoning caused by an accidental overdose."

Israel has agreed to swap 1000 prisoners with Hamas for the release of the IDF soldier captured in 2006. Paul Pillar applauds:

The deal is good news, of course, for the prisoners on both sides being released and for their families. For the rest of us, the good news is that despite the strong and unrelenting animosity in both directions between the two parties that struck the deal, a deal was nonetheless struck. And this was a complex agreement. It involves a phased release of the Palestinian prisoners and a possible side agreement between Israel and Egypt, which played a mediating role, entailing an Israeli apology for the recent killing of Egyptian security personnel following a cross-border Palestinian raid.

See what Netanyahu can do if he actually wants to? Daniel Levy is less sanguine, as are Jeffrey Goldberg and Alon Pinkas. I find it fascinating that Netanyahu can make astonishing concessions to Hamas that clearly weaken Israel's security, but not to the PA in a manner that would improve Israel's long-term security. The usual absolute prohibition against talking to terrorists is, it turns out, not-so-absolute. But the prohibition against stopping settlements in order to engage non-terrorists is unbreakable. It only makes sense if you realize that Netanyahu is a Greater Israel fanatic, not an anti-terror absolutist. Ilya Somin outright opposes the deal:

Among the Hamas prisoners released in the deal are dozens who have committed brutal acts of terrorism against civilians in the past. If even a few of them commit further terrorist atrocities in the future, the resulting death toll is likely to far outweigh the benefit of saving Shalit. Moreover, such a lopsided deal (trading hundreds of hardened terrorists for an ordinary soldier) incentivizes future hostage-taking. Hamas officials have already said that the deal encourages them to kidnap more Israelis. If one hostage is worth 1000 prisoners, what can they get for two or three or ten? As one Hamas leader puts it, “[s]omeone who agrees to release 1,000 prisoners will agree to release 8,000 in the future.” If even a right-wing Israeli government that has otherwise taken a hard line against Palestinian terrorism is willing to go for such a deal, what about other liberal democracies? The precedent set by the Israelis is likely to endanger other nations as well as themselves.

Walter Russell Mead tries to get into the Israeli leadership's head on the issue.

(Photo: Israelis celebrate outside the Prime Minister's residence on October 11, 2011 in Jerusalem, Israel. Israel and Hamas have reached a prisoner exchange deal that will secure the release of abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas militants since 2006. By Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images.)

He was more right than he knew.

A reader writes:

In Europe, the press response has been fascinating. In the Independent – the word "plot" also appears in scare quotes in the print edition. Why would Iran hire a used car salesman? asks Rupert Murdoch’s Times [pay-wall]. Süddeutsche Zeitung talks about "supposed assassinations plans" and notes prominently that Iran rejects the claims as "ridiculous theater." Le Monde notes that Mueller himself calls it a "Hollywood script," and calls the announcement a brusque escalation of the game between Washington and Tehran. All give a thorough reporting of the Washington claims, but balance it with Iran’s response, displayed just as prominently, and go on to say that this has to be considered in the context of Washington’s perpetual sabre-rattling vis-à-vis Iran.

I have to say I remain somewhat incredulous at the alleged details of the alleged plot. But also relieved. It sure seems as if government anti-terror units are awake. Maybe too awake at times, which is a good problem to have.

Gotta question? askandrew@thedailybeast.com

A quote from Kinsmo:

Romney’s campaign is hoping he gets through the primaries without losing his appeal to independents and moderate Democrats in the general election. Meantime, his attempts to enlist the right are like serving haggis (sheep’s stomach stuffed with oatmeal — yum!) to your distant cousins from Scotland when they visit. You can’t stand the stuff, but they’re supposed to like it.

Massie adds a vital amplification on what's wrong with the American version of haggis, as served to distant Scottish cousins: it's lacking "the all-important sheeps' lungs." Not allowed under US law, apparently. Final thought from Alex:

Meanwhile, as one of the few blogs keeping an eye on American haggis policy (see, god help us, here, here and here) it is depressing to remind you that Barack Obama retains a haggis restrictionist, prohibiting the importation of lung-rich offal products. Obama: worse than Bush on medical marijuana, no better than Bush on haggis.

For torture. Seconded. HRW is also onboard. Either the Geneva Conventions are the law or they are not.

A backlash is in process.

It's more of a slogan than plan:

One look at the plan itself proves this. And to any readers who clicked on the link, yes, that is the entire thing. That’s not just an abbreviated talking points-oriented summary. It’s the entire plan. 1140 words, of which only 378 relate to the immediate effects of the plan, or what it consists of. The rest are devoted to bromides (“We can not spend our way to prosperity”), tactical rather than practical reasons for supporting the plan (“unite the “Flat-Taxers” with the “Fair-Taxers”) or bizarre policy non sequiturs whose connection to these specific tax rates is never explained (“launch properly structured Empowerment Zones to revitalize our inner cities”).

Bartlett dismembered it here as well. 'Tis a pity he's a whore. A feasible plan for simpler flatter taxation would be a mitzvah.