Month: November 2014

A Volunteer You Wouldn’t Have A Beer With

Derek Willis flags research showing that a “mismatch between volunteers and voters could be a problem for today’s data-driven campaigns, which are having more direct conversations with more voters”:

In a forthcoming paper in the American Political Science Review, Ryan D. Enos, an assistant government professor at Harvard, and Eitan D. Hersh, an assistant professor of political science at Yale, describe how they surveyed more than 3,000 Obama campaign volunteers in the midst of the 2012 election. They found that “individuals who were interacting with swing voters on the campaign’s behalf were demographically unrepresentative, ideologically extreme, cared about atypical issues, and misunderstood the voters’ priorities.”…

When campaigns were mostly focused on television advertising, they could present a single message to voters on air, one that was typically less extreme than that espoused by its most fervent supporters. But the increased emphasis during the last two elections on directly contacting voters makes it more important for campaigns to send not just the right message but one delivered by the right messenger.

Kale Juice Will Remain Unaffected

Berkeley just passed the nation’s first soda tax. Roberto A. Ferdman puts it in context:

The beverage industry’s fixation on Berkeley is a testament to its growing nervousness that America is falling out of love with sodas and other sugary drinks. Per capita consumption of soda is down almost 30 percent since its peak in 1998, according to data market research firm IBIS World. And the fight in Berkeley underscores the lengths to which soda makers are willing to go to block soda tax measures. The industry has spent more than $100 million in the past five years to stop dozens of similar taxes in other cities and states across the United States.

Jazz Shaw considers the disproportionate class impact the law may have:

I do appreciate the fact that the coverage is at least honest enough to refer to it as a punitive tax, which is exactly what it is. But who is being punished with this action? The obvious answer is the poor, who are probably the most likely to be drinking Big Gulps in the first place. The wealthy professors and cocktail party crew don’t need to worry about a ten percent hike in costs, but the people who tend their lawns and gardens, clean their pools and empty their trash might.

The Dish thread on Bloomberg’s attempts at a soda tax is here.

A British Tory Is An American Democrat

Here’s an indication of just how far to the right the American political discourse is, compared with Britain – the developed country most in tune with American neo-liberalism:

tax5

That’s why David Cameron and Barack Obama have long had such an easy relationship. Either one could fit easily into the other’s cabinet. And maybe it does help explain why I still consider myself a conservative. I am, as a Brit.

“Does This Mole Look Like Cancer To You?”

Bourree Lam ponders the issue of doctors treating their friends and family:

[A]sking for medical advice isn’t exactly like asking your astrophysicist friend to explain string theory to you. Doctors face ethical dilemmas when they are asked to treat, or further write prescriptions, for their friends or family. Additionally, even though one might prefer a friend or relative to be their doctor—the flip side might be a totally different story: They might not want to be your doctor.

This is the topic of a recent New England Journal of Medicine essay by a group of doctors looking at the challenges M.D.s face when asked to discuss illness, refill a prescription, or even perform surgery for a friend or family member.

The essay says that there are complicated ethical issues involved in treating friends and family, as anxiety and emotional investment can result in bad medical judgment. Additionally, a friend or family member is less likely to sue for malpractice, which could meddle with how doctors think about risk.

Yet an informal poll on NEJM’s website has 62 percent saying yes to a hypothetical situation of writing a prescription for an asthma albuterol inhaler for a neighbor, though 88 percent say they would not prescribe an antidepressant for an acquaintance. And although the American Medical Association and American College of Physicians recommends against treating friends and family members, two surveys cited in the essay indicate that 4 percent of children had their parents as their doctor, and 83 percent of doctors had prescribed medication for relatives.

Quote For The Day

“It never happens and I’m sick of it. It’s ridiculous. Whether or not you agree with gay marriage or the fact that people don’t choose to be gay, we share the same emotions, needs and wants. I just think that everyone should be included in that. It’s definitely time,” – Kacey Musgraves, on gay inclusion in country music lyrics. Her unabashedly transgressive and gay-inclusive song “Follow Your Arrow” won song of the year at Wednesday night’s Country Music Awards. (Fun fact: One of its fellow finalists was “Drunk On A Plane” – a more traditional country theme.)

Obama’s Supreme Pen Pal In Tehran

Yesterday, the WSJ broke the news that President Obama sent a secret letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month, “aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal”:

Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement with global powers on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline, the same people say. The October letter marked at least the fourth time Mr. Obama has written Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader since taking office in 2009 and pledging to engage with Tehran’s Islamist government. The correspondence underscores that Mr. Obama views Iran as important—whether in a potentially constructive or negative role—to his emerging military and diplomatic campaign to push Islamic State from the territories it has gained over the past six months.

The letter represents a significant shift in the administration’s approach to Iran:

The disclosure of the letter is likely to raise the political pressure on the White House, which is already coming under fire from lawmakers in both parties concerned that the administration is prepared to make far-reaching concessions to Tehran in order to strike a landmark nuclear deal before a Nov. 24 deadline. It also raises new questions about the precise contours of the White House’s Iran policy. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said the U.S. wasn’t working with Iran on the fight against the Islamic State.

Tom Rogan rejects that shift:

[W]hen he receives solicitous letters from the American president, Ayatollah Khamenei can only be encouraged to make a deal on Iran’s terms. It’s important to remember that while Khamenei is a hardliner amenable to pragmatic concerns, he’s only allowing Rouhani to negotiate for a simple reason: economics. With Iran’s economy suffering under the dual burden of sanctions and low oil prices (oil revenue being critical to Iran’s government expenditure), Iran must negotiate. As overlord of a young population that has increasing cultural and intellectual connections with the West, Khamenei fears that continued economic pain will feed social instability and threaten his ongoing Islamic revolution. His pragmatism is thus a consequence of Iran’s economic pain.

President Obama should pay closer heed to Iran’s economic pain and abandon his current carrot-heavy approach in favor of clarifying three precepts to the Iranians. First, America seeks a deal and will allow low-enrichment activities in return for an unimpeded inspections regime, the verified closure of high-risk weaponized facilities, and centrifuge limits. Second, America will not accept a bad deal and will introduce tougher sanctions if the deadline expires. Third, the military option, though complex, is very much on the table. Republicans should support President Obama in this effort.

Allahpundit on the letter:

Riddle me this, though. Why would Khamenei care about formal U.S. cooperation against ISIS? Western airstrikes appear to be making headway against the group, slowing its advance if not quite reversing its gains (yet). Americans support the anti-ISIS campaign heavily so Obama’s going to keep it up whether Khamenei will take his calls or not. The main virtue of formal cooperation, I would think, is the propaganda value in it. Having the U.S. coordinate with Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s sworn enemy would be a humiliation to both allies. Maybe there’s something in that for Khamenei, but to get it he’d have to step back (a little) from the anti-Americanism that helped birth Khomeinism. How do you go from “Death to America” to “Let’s fight ISIS with America” overnight?

John McCain and other Iran hawks are predictably furious. Juan Cole rolls his eyes at the shallow analysis their reaction betrays:

[T]he US needs Iran in Iraq, but views Iran as an enemy in Syria. McCain’s reaction is mainly about Syria, not Iraq. But if you look closely at the latter country, you can see that ISIL probably cannot be defeated without Iranian help. McCain has never appeared to meditate the mistakes he made in arming Muslim radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, which led in some ways to the rise of al-Qaeda.

Great powers always have to make friends among states that are enemies of one another. The US has to have good relations with Greece and Turkey, and with Pakistan and India. Obama needs Iran in Iraq. It may be unpalatable, but the US needs Iran. Moreover, the US cannot defeat ISIL in Syria if it concentrates on bombing the al-Assad government, as McCain wants. McCain, who doesn’t usually show evidence of being capable of a nuanced or subtle foreign policy, doesn’t appreciate this need.

Barak Ravid notes that Israel might not have been told about the letter, speculating that “if Israel … learned of it only from the Wall Street Journal, that is liable to deepen the already severe lack of trust between Jerusalem and Washington on an issue –Iran – that is critical to their relationship”. Dov Zakheim accuses Obama of pushing Israel toward war:

[I]f an arrangement with Iran is seen to be likely to hold, the result could well be another American war in the Middle East. Israel has been threatening for years that it is prepared to take unilateral action against Iran if that country does not discontinue its nuclear weapons program. Given the total lack of trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were there no real prospect that Congress could block the deal from taking place, Israel might well launch an attack against Iranian targets. In response, Tehran would not only attempt to retaliate against Israel, it would most certainly hold the United States accountable as well, regardless of any denials emanating from Washington. Should Iran attack American forces, or ordinary Americans anywhere in the world, the administration would have no choice but to react. The president would find himself doing exactly what his appeasement of Iran sought to avoid: a costly war whose demands on American personnel and materiel would stretch the military to its limits.

The usual threats from the Israel lobby should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Zack Beauchamp cautions that the move could easily backfire:

Obama’s goal is probably in part to use this letter, by setting up linkage with Iran between nukes and ISIS, as a incentive to make Iran more willing to strike a nuclear deal. But Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, thinks the linkage idea could make ISIS cooperation needlessly harder to get. Maloney argues that if the US-Iran negotiations had stayed on two separate tracks, nuclear and ISIS, the success of one wouldn’t be dependent on the success of the other. But once Obama’s position is that the US needs nuclear concessions in order to consider ISIS cooperation, then getting ISIS cooperation becomes harder.

But cooperating with Tehran on ISIS might be a bad goal in itself. In Syria, Iran’s principal objective isn’t destroying ISIS: it’s defending Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime. Making a deal with Iran would likely mean an at least implicit degree of alliance with Assad, which might actually end up making ISIS stronger. This is more possible than you think, and underscores just how dangerous a game Obama is playing with Khamenei.

I’d love to know who leaked the letter and why. It’s a bold move, it seems to me. But very hard to read in the context of negotiations we have, understandably, little access to. Overall, I find it encouraging – evidence that the president knows how crucial this move will be, and how central to his legacy it could become. It will be fascinating to see Hillary Clinton’s response to the deal, if it emerges. She may actually have to take a stand at some point, after all.

The Immigration Battle Begins

Yesterday, I urged the president to hold off on amnesty by executive order. In his first post-election press conference, John Boehner warned Obama against “playing with matches” and “poisoning the well” with the incoming Congress by pursuing unilateral action on immigration reform, stressing that there would no chance of reform legislation passing both Republican-majority houses if the president went ahead. Russell Berman gauges the seriousness of that threat:

It’s a lot of sound and fury, but it probably won’t change the mind of a president who has been waiting for House Republicans to act on immigration reform for nearly two years. Boehner can’t do any less on the issue than he’s already done, and few in Washington gave much chance to an overhaul passing under Republican rule in 2015 anyway. …

Perhaps a more legitimate worry for the president is that beyond killing the slim-to-none prospects for congressional action on immigration, he would extinguish the hopes for bipartisan cooperation with the new Republican Congress on other issues. Well, those are limited to begin with, and as McConnell made clear with his remarks on Wednesday, Republicans need to get legislation signed by the president to advance their political interests, not his.

I don’t buy this. Portraying the president as a lawless illegal-lover is also in their political interests. Waldman argues:

I’ll bet that John Boehner would like nothing better than to have Barack Obama issue some executive orders on immigration. Then he’d have an easy answer every time someone asked when he was going to allow a vote on a comprehensive immigration package. What can I do? Obama poisoned the well. It’s not my responsibility anymore.

Peter Weber wants Obama to call Boehner’s bluff:

Boehner and his fellow GOP leaders aren’t just threatening to withhold something they can’t deliver anyway — they are threatening to withhold something they still need. Latinos are angry that Obama threw them under the bus by not acting before the election, but they still gave Democrats 62 percent of their votes (in a terrible year for Democrats). As Obama told Boehner in their discussions, “There will never be another Republican president again if you don’t get a handle on immigration reform.”

Republicans, traditionally in favor of a robust executive branch, may be hoping that Obama falls into a trap, enacting unpopular immigration measures and bolstering their assertion that he’s an imperial president. Maybe the second part will stick, but voters are with Obama on this issue. Even among the Democrat-slaying electorate that showed up on Tuesday, 57 percent favored giving illegal immigrants a path toward legal status.

Randal O’Toole advises the GOP to give up this fight:

Considering that Latinos are one of the nation’s fastest-growing demographics, and that they regard a war on illegal immigration to be a war on their families, Republicans should reverse course. The economic truth is that immigrants have always added more to our economy than they take away, and by achieving the American dream for themselves, they create demand for more work for people who already live here.

Worries that immigrants will abuse our welfare system are just symptoms that the welfare system should be reformed, for if it gives immigrants bad incentives, it must also give American citizens bad incentives. Reversing course on immigration is not just the economically correct thing to do, it is also politically strategic because it will allow Republicans to regain the support of Latinos, many of whom hold conservative beliefs and should feel right at home in a Republican Party that doesn’t treat them as enemies of the state.

But Jonathan Tobin suspects the executive order will backfire, as I do:

[F]or the president to now defy both public opinion and the will of Congress by acting on his own will do more than embitter his Republican antagonists. Though it will mollify one part of his coalition, rather than putting the issue to bed this end run around the law will create even more anger in the political grass roots around the country that will ensure that this issue will still be red hot in 2016. As they should have learned this year, it takes more than an energized base of minorities to win elections. Amnesty for the current crop of illegals will bring us more border surges and more damage to the rule of law. Obama may be content with that being part of his legacy, but it will be his fellow Democrats who will still be stuck trying to explain a move that can’t be defended when they go back to the voters in the future.

Greg Sargent gears up for what he expects to be a long and nasty rumble:

If this reaches such incendiary levels, how far will GOP leaders feel compelled to go in fighting it? McConnell is already pledging that “there is no possibility of a government shutdown.” But if there is any area where conservatives will continue to demand maximum confrontation, you’d think it’s here. If so, they will demand a Total War posture against Obama’s efforts to defer the deportations of millions. Democrats should be ready for this. It could very well be a huge battle. And by the way, the politics of it won’t be easy. While majorities favor legislative legalization, it’s not clear how the public will react to executive action on immigration.  I would not be surprised if the broader public disapproves of it.

Me neither.

The Greatest Threat To Obamacare

Yesterday, Stuart Butler doubted that “a Republican Senate, in tandem with the House, will rip out the vital organs of the ACA”:

[T]hat’s an unlikely scenario, mainly because these organs aren’t so vital anymore. For one thing, the Administration recognizes that the mandates will likely have to be watered down to maintain much public support. But as individuals and businesses adapt to the law, and more Americans obtain often-subsidized insurance, the mandate stick is less necessary to achieve enough coverage for the ACA to be viable. Meanwhile expect worried insurers to pressure the GOP enough to prevent adjustments to the risk corridors from causing a collapse.

A lethal blow is unlikely to come from the Republican Congress. Rather a more likely threat is from the Supreme Court’s Halbig case. If the Court does strike down federal insurance subsidies in states with federal rather than state-run exchanges, that would be quite a body blow. At the very least it would eliminate a central plank of the ACA in over 30 states.

That threat to Obamacare just became reality. Earlier today, SCOTUS announced that it will hear a case challenging Obamacare’s subsidies:

The case, King v. Burwell, contests the financial help available to some enrollees on the federal insurance exchanges in 36 states. It makes a similar argument as a better-known case, Halbig v. Burwell. Without subsidies, health reform starts to fall apart.

Lyle Denniston explains what’s at stake:

Since the health care exchanges have been in operation, nearly five million individuals have received federal subsidies to help them afford health insurance on an exchange run by the federal government. The fate of those subsidies apparently will now depend upon how the Court interprets four words in the Affordable Care Act.   In setting up the subsidy scheme, Congress said it would apply to exchanges “established by the State.”

The challengers to subsidies for those who shop for insurance on a federal exchanges have argued that those words limit the availability to the tax benefits solely to state-run exchanges.  That argument failed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in the ruling now under review.  It was accepted in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but that ruling has now been set aside while the full D.C. Circuit reconsiders the issue.

Allahpundit is shocked:

The big mystery: Which four justices voted to grant cert? There’s no way to know since the Court doesn’t release that information so we have to guess. It stands to reason that it wasn’t any of the Court’s liberals: With the D.C. Circuit set to overrule the three-judge panel, why would they tempt fate by voting to give the Supremes’ five conservatives a chance to wreck ObamaCare? It had to be four justices from the conservative wing. And I agree with Benjy Sarlin: It seems highly unlikely that John Roberts, having taken withering fire from the right in finding the mandate constitutional two years ago before O-Care launched, would now turn around and nuke the law a year after implementation based on a dispute over statutory construction, with millions of people’s coverage hanging in the balance. Roberts probably wanted no part of this. So odds are it was Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy(!) who pulled the trigger, and now Roberts is in the hot seat again. Will he double down by saving ObamaCare a second time? Or will he effectively destroy the law by ruling the subsidies for federal consumers are illegal?

Nicholas Bagley reads tea leaves:

None of this bodes well for the government. That’s not to say the government can’t win. It might. As I’ve said many times, the statutory arguments cut in its favor. But the Court’s decision to grant King substantially increases the odds that the government will lose this case. The states that refused to set up their own exchange need to start thinking—now—about what to do if the Court releases a decision in June 2015 withdrawing tax credits from their citizens.

Is Russia Invading Ukraine… Again?

Ukraine’s military claims that a column of “32 tanks, 16 howitzer artillery systems and trucks carrying ammunition and fighters” crossed into the country from Russia yesterday:

“The deployment continues of military equipment and Russian mercenaries to the frontlines,” spokesman Andriy Lysenko said in a televised briefing referring to Thursday’s cross-border incursion.

Nato said it has seen an increase in Russian troops and equipment along the Ukraine border was looking into the reports. “We are aware of the reports of Russian troops and tanks crossing the border between Ukraine and Russia,” a Nato military officer told Reuters. “If this crossing into Ukraine is confirmed it would be further evidence of Russia’s aggression and direct involvement in destabilising Ukraine.” The report of a new Russian movement of armour across the border follows a charge on Thursday by pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine that Kiev government forces had launched a new offensive – which Kiev immediately denied.

Morrissey calls this a move “directly out of the Crimea playbook”:

In that seizure, Russian troops infiltrated the peninsula in uniforms without insignia, seized control of the region, and then held a plebescite on annexation to the country that had occupied their land. Immediately afterward, Russia invaded Crimea militarily, this time openly, and secured its new possession. This is exactly what has unfolded in Donetsk and Luhansk, just over a longer period of time. …

It’s the classic fait accompli challenge: what is the world to do when an aggressor nation simply takes what it wants in defiance of the international community, especially on the arguable basis of self-determination with the phony plebescite? It’s always a bit dangerous to reference analogous actions from the 1930s, but this was also the way Adolf Hitler expanded German reach, with the Austrian Anschluss and the seizure of Czechoslovakia despite Western security assurances to both nations.

The situation on the Ukrainian border was already tense; Ukraine also claims to have killed around 200 rebel fighters with artillery shelling near the Donetsk airport yesterday. And that’s to say nothing of relations between Russia and the West in general. Even before the latest escalation, Dimitri Trenin sounded the alarm that these relations were in a state of permanent crisis:

In contrast to the Cold War with which the present Russian-Western confrontation is often compared, the current situation lacks agreed, if unwritten, rules, is characterized by gross asymmetry in power, and is utterly devoid of mutual respect. There is also a near-universal lack of strategic thinking. It is thus more prone than the US-Soviet conflict to lead to a collision in the style of 1914. The Cold War, after all, stayed largely cold. There is no such certainty about the present situation. Crisis management must ensure, at minimum, that there is no resumption of hostilities in eastern Ukraine. Should Kiev, with Washington’s blessing or its acquiescence, attempt to retake Donetsk and Lugansk, the Kremlin may not confine itself to restoring the status quo. It may be that the Russian military will then receive an order to go for Kiev.