Hear, Hear (cont.)

TW: Matthews is exasparating and cloying frequently but here he is spot on:
"...Sen. David Vitter, R-La...was asked where he stands on whether President Obama should be sued for not being an American, and he said that such a suit would be "valid and possibly effective."

Question: Why would a United States Senator support a court case arguing that the President isn't one of us, isn't an American? Why would he say for all to hear that bringing such a case in U.S. courts could be an "effective" way of exposing the President of the United States as an undocumented alien, who not only doesn't have the right to be in the White House, but also, on the same legal basis, doesn't have the right to be among us in the United States? Why would he say that the president needs to be deported to some country where he, according to this brand of thinking, was born?

So, Vitter backs "Birthers." Well, that's bad enough... But there are a dozen other Republican members of Congress who've backed the Birther movement.

This no-nothing-ism is catchy. During the last presidential campaign, a trio of Republican candidates – Tancredo (No surprise there!), Huckabee (Join the club!), and Sam Brownback – all said that they didn't believe in evolution.

The beat goes on. No matter how much information is accumulated on climate change, it's okay in the Republican Party to simply deny it, this despite the fact that the Nixon Library just released a memorandum from Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1969 warning of the impact of climate change. Four decades of science is simply rejected. Not a single Republican Senator is now ready to take action on climate change.
Sarah Palin likes to talk about being a "common sense conservative."

Where's the common sense in all this refusing to use your brain?"

The Shelby Note To the White House

TW: You may have heard Richard Shelby, Republican Senator from Alabama, has held up ALL Obama appointees pending clearance of some of his earmarks. Click on the link below for the actual note he sent to the White House (via Ezra Klein, give it a few seconds to load).

http://contactsheet.org/cgi-bin/ransom.pl?thedata=Hey+Obama%2C%0D%0A%0D%0AMeet+me+in+the+park+outside+the+Senate+with+40+billion+dollars+worth+of+pork+%0D%0A%0D%0AOr+you%27ll+never+see+any+of+your+appointees+ever+again%0D%0A%0D%0AAnd+NO+COPS!!!!!!&Button=Generate+Ransom+Note

So You Think the Republicans Actually Want Financial Reform?

TW: If one person has retained his reputation amidst the financial carnage of the past couple of years it is Paul Volcker. Apparently the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee does not hold him in such high esteem though. Folks somehow think Republicans are less to blame for the finanical crisis than the Dems but I am highly skeptical. Their ideological pursuit of deregulation since the 1980's (with Democratic support at times) has set the table for many of the recent problems.

If not Volcker what do they support, more deregulation? Higher Wall Street bonuses?

From Time:
"That was quick. Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, is throwing cold water all over President Obama's bank bashing populism of last month. According to dealReporter,

A proposal by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to limit bank's proprietary trading will be either be dropped or significantly modified in the Senate, lawmakers and staffers told dealReporter. Senate Banking Committee ranking member Richard Shelby (R-AL) said he opposes the so-called Volcker rule and the Obama administration's call to levy a USD 90bn tax on banks. . . . Speaking to this news service on Thursday, Shelby said if Democrats push forward with the proposals they risk unravelling much of the bipartisan support already reached regarding the passage of financial regulatory reform in the Senate. Shelby said that the Obama administration risks losing Republican support for the bill if they begin to “politicise” the issue.

This could just be a negotiating position, but the signs do not point to much optimism. A staffer for Chris Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the committee, is quoted later in the story saying of his boss, “He is not going to risk bipartisan support to make the White House happy.”http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/01/volcker-rule-and-bank-tax-doa-in-senate-suggests-shelby-r-ala/

There Is That And Then There Is This

TW: There is this...

From Paul Krugman at NYT:
"Last week Mike Pence, the third-ranking Republican in the House, was asked what compromise he would agree to on health care. His answer, word for word, was

'Well, look, you know, I was, uh, yeah, yeah, look, uh.'

Today Tim Pawlenty has an article in Politico, which is a bit more articulate than that — but as Bruce Bartlett says,

'he rants about the deficit without proposing any spending cuts and insisting on still more tax cuts.'

Well, look, you know, he was, uh, yeah.

The moral here is that right now the GOP literally has no ideas about how the nation should actually be governed.

And the scary thing is that lack of ideas seems to be a winning platform."

TW: and then there is this...I really wish the country would give the guy a chance to govern instead of listening to the pantheons of incoherent bloviation like Pence/Palin et al.

Who Is Your Leader?

TW: The Daily Telegraph in the UK prepares an every other year list of top leaders amongst conservatives and liberals. I found the lists instructive.

From Telegrah UK:
Conservatives:
1) Dick Cheney
2) Rush Limbaugh
3) Matt Drudge
4) Sarah Palin
5) Bob Gates (Sec. Def.)
6) Glenn Beck
7) Roger Ailes (head of the Fox Republican News Network)
8) David Petreaus
9) Paul Ryan (Wisconsin representative)
10) Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota governor)

Liberals
1) Barack Obama
2) Hillary Clinton
3) Nancy Pelosi
4) Bill Clinton
5) Rahm Emanuel
6) Al Gore
7) Oprah Winfrey
8) Tim Geithner
9) David Axelrod
10) Harry Reid
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6990965/The-most-influential-US-conservatives-20-1.html

Cynical Demagougery

TW: This piece summarizes the Republican candidate for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat's views. What exactly do folks think they are going to get with a person like Scott Brown. Apparently many folks buy into the fantasies of cut taxes in order to cut the deficit, let Medicare spending continue rise far above inflation but somehow provide universal care, and that all of the government action to stave off GD 2.0 was a waste of $ because the economy would have magically corrected itself despite the fact that by the end of September last year we were on the verge of a completely locked up financial system.

I realize folks like to bitch and whine and think if they just keep throwing the bums out nirvana will arrive but really. You think these type folks would do better?

From Andrew Sullivan:
"His Globe piece is presumably a good way to assess his platform. And it highlights all the bankruptcy of the current conservative establishment. Take a couple of issues. He starts by listing national problems:

'Public debt has reached $12 trillion and counting, and Washington politicians want to borrow trillions more. '

His solution?
'My plan for the economy is simple: an across-the-board tax cut - in the tradition of John F. Kennedy - for families and businesses that will increase investment and lead to immediate new job growth. More tax increases will hurt our recovery. That’s why I have taken a no-new-tax pledge. My opponent will raise taxes.'

Does anyone see the contradiction here? Without any tax increases, indeed with more tax cuts, the spending reductions required to reduce the debt will be fantastic: massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and defense. Where does he outline these spending measures? Nowhere. Fiscally, he's as fraudulent as Bush.

More absurdity here:
'It’s time to admit that while the $787 billion stimulus had the best of intentions, it failed to create one new job.'

Even if you believe that stimuli are wasteful or inefficient, I know of no sane economist who believes that $800 billion did not create one new job.

Then he's in favor of the Massachusetts universal health insurance reform, on which Obama's is based, but for some reason against the one for the country. Why?

But the healthcare bill under discussion in Washington is not good. It will raise taxes and increase spending. If you are a senior on Medicare, it will lead to a half trillion dollars in cuts to your care.

So Brown supports health care exchanges, a mandate, and universal care ... but opposes healthcare exhcanges, a mandate and universal care. He is worried about the debt but actually opposes the proposed cuts in Medicare that can make universal insurance affordable - let alone the cuts necessary to bring us back from the fiscal abyss.

He is, in other words, a parody of the brainless bush Republican, mixed with Romney-like cynicism. "
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/scott-browns-mindless-oped.html#more

Kinda Harsh...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/anntelnaes/?hpid=opinionsbox1&referrer=emaillink


TW:...but we always like blog reader suggestions....

Every Senator Counts

"All of you all over the country -- please remember that Senate seats are not about a particular state. They're about our country. Every vote I take is not about South Carolina. It's about the United States of America."
-- Sen. James DeMint (R-SC), quoted by The State.

TW: DeMint challenges Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma as my least favorite U.S. Senator (Burris being an unelected short-timer gets a mulligan). But this quote is spot on, anyone who puts on blinders and votes for their senator merely based on local parochial issues is bringing the rest of us into their little world at the expense of the greater good.

Doug Hoffman Summarizes the Current State Of His Party

TW: This is Republican/Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman's website missive:
"I'm running for Congress because I sense the America I love is being taken away from us. I want to tell Washington: No more bailouts. No more taxes. No more trillion dollar deficits. That's what I'm fighting for...My opponents are a liberal Republican who voted for gay marriage (twice) and was endorsed by ACORN. And a Nancy Pelosi Democrat...In 1980, I helped Lake Placid with our Olympics when the US beat the Russians in hockey – the same year Reagan was elected. It’s time to send Washington a new message now."

TW: The above is his entire message (but for inserts asking for money). The "liberal Republican" has now dropped out. This guy will likely be elected in a the strongly Republican 23rd district in upstate NY. What does the message say in not so many words:
1) he is afraid...of what is not spelled out but I suspect it is the fact the Ozzie and Harriett days are over, which scares many folks
2) No bailout and taxes and he would suggest what as an alternative? This is the Hooverian B.S. which if actually implemented would really create an economic crap storm.
3) Gay marriage-"ooo gay people ick"
4) And by god I worked on the Olympics when we beat those damn COMMIES.

It is all fun to bitch about deficits and fret about change and lament that the world is changing but where are the solutions? WHERE ARE THE SOLUTIONS?

Bi Partisanhip on Climate Change?

TW: Any joint Lindsey Graham/John Kerry article was bound to get attention. But the article speaks to the compromises necessary to achieve significant bi-partisan climate change legislation. Their piece called for more nuclear power (good idea), more off-shore drilling (mediocre idea but if that floats conservative boats so be it, I can think of far worse alternatives) and potential carbon import taxes (dubious but not non-sensical idea). I think Graham is a sleeper for POTUS in '16, he is very much a conservative but not blind to actually trying to govern in conjunction with Dems. More importantly if there were more joint editorials like this one many other issues could be tackled more effectively.

From Economist Mag:
"MANY commentators fear that Barack Obama’s plans for a cap-and-trade bill have got fatally stuck in the Senate. Their calculations were shaken up over the weekend when Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, joined John Kerry, a liberal Massachusetts Democrat, to write an article headlined “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)” in the New York Times.

...The part most likely to bring a few extra Republicans on board concerns nuclear power. The two call for streamlining regulations on new plant construction, and putting more money into research on handling waste. This sop to nuclear power is more likely than anything else to bring on board John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and a strong nuclear supporter. Green Democrats are wary of nuclear, but the edge of their worry has been dulled by the even greater worry over climate change...

The second main provision of the Kerry-Graham agreement is renewed offshore drilling for oil and gas. Many conservatives want to mitigate America’s energy-security problems by looking to domestic fossil fuels. This has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions, but it might help a bill that does contain carbon caps to pass.
The third announcement from Senators Kerry and Graham is that “we should consider a border tax” on goods from countries with lax environmental standards. This will cause righteous howls from the big developing countries, especially China and India, which note America’s historical responsibility for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If included in the final bill, it would make a deal at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December more difficult. But the weasel-word “should consider” may eventually mean giving the president a lot of discretion on whether to levy such “carbon tariffs”. In other words, a classic fudge.

...The maths is still daunting. But the leap by Mr Graham, who voted against two earlier cap-and-trade bills, may well mean something."
(Note Economist magazine but not blog articles are now behind a paywall)
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14652475

We Know What To Do Just Not How To Do It

From Newsweek's review of Taylor Branch's new book on his Bill Clinton tapes taken during Clinton's presidency:
"...Clinton tells Branch that the embargo on Cuba is a 'foolish, pandering failure' but seems unable to do anything to lift it, while the ruling Assad dynasty in Damascus apparently has access to the State Department and the White House at all times. There is daily concern about the volatility of Israeli politics and the spread of irritating yet apparently somehow unstoppable Jewish "settlements..."

From Karen Tumulty at Time interviewing former Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist (TN):
"...Were he still in the Senate, "I would end up voting for it[health care reform]," he said. "As leader, I would take heat for it. ... That's what leadership is all about...

Frist also faults some in his own party for injecting alarmism into the debate. "Clearly, the death panels and public plan arguments have been overblown," he says. Frist noted that Republicans themselves voted for a Medicare prescription drug bill that would have established a version of a public plan--with the government negotiating directly with drug companies--if private-sector competition had failed to materialize. That is similar to the approach that Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is taking with her amendment to establish a public option with a "trigger."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216052

While Frist believes that the bill will pass, he worries that the Obama Administration and Congress have not given enough attention to what happens next: the implementation. The first few years are likely to be rough, he predicts. States will be struggling to set up new marketplaces for insurance coverage, their medicaid rolls will grow, taxes will go up, and consumers will not yet see the benefits. "The Republicans will go wild," using the start-up difficulties as a tool for fundraising and for making their case in the next election... "
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/bill-frist-on-health-bill-id-vote-for-it/

TW: It is all very easy when out-of-power. Clinton states the obvious (and recall these were comments when he was still in office) on things like Cuba and Israel but could do little to shift policy. Frist sounds imminently reasonable on health care but I strongly doubt he would have stated the above had he still been in office. The solutions are not always the difficult part (AfPak is a likely exception). Getting democratic institutions to implement them is a different story. Why is that? Competing parochial interests (wanna lose several Florida house seats, open up Cuba), dysfunctional institutions (perpetual campaigning, what about actually governing for a bit) and a hundred other reasons.

Priceless

TW: Good to see SNL back in action , the 2nd half with the Carville bit is a cant miss as well

Plus ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose. (cont.)

circa 1994...h/t Pour Me Coffee blog

Stewart And McCaughey: Dissecting Conspiracies

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

TW: I thought this Stewart segment with infamous NY Republican Betsey McCaughey was extraordinary:
1) This was a very detailed conversation of the type one almost never sees on TV (I embedded part 1 of 3, go to the Daily Show site for the whole thing)
2) McCaughey knew details BUT so did Stewart and he did not back down
3) Therefore, McCaughey was not able to get away with insinuation
4) The entire end of life counseling turned into death panels is based upon convoluted interpretation which as evidenced by McCaughey requires an extraordinary amount of disparate pieces to be tied together to find the "Conspiracy to kill Grandma"
5) Do folks really believe this was the Dems/Obama's intention? That is irrelevant, what matters is opposition being able to obsfucate and plant the seeds of doubt. In this respect truth loses but the McCaughey's win and build their careers accordingly. Unless...the generally passive populace pays more attention...

From the Economist on conspiracies:
"...The conspiracy is everywhere. It is all-powerful, yet it cannot be seen. Evidence of its existence is seized eagerly. Lack of evidence is seized even more eagerly, to show just how powerful the conspiracy is—it can hide its tracks whenever it chooses. Can't find the death panels in the health-care bill? That's just what they want you to think...Everyone's heard of it, no one has really read it, it's far too complicated for the laity to understand anyway, and so trusted authorities will tell you what to think about it..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/the_view_from_my_holiday.cfm
From another Economist blogger post:
"...Conspiracy theorists often follow a flawed chain of reasoning. First, they spot anomalies in the official version of events. (If an event is complicated and involves multiple witnesses, there will always be some.) Second, they conclude from these anomalies that the official account is a pack of lies. Third, they pick an alternative explanation that fits their prejudices. Fourth, they congratulate themselves for seeing through the smokescreen that those in power have created to fool them.

Scepticism is a virtue, but it does not mean automatically disbelieving anything the authorities say and then credulously swallowing the most exciting alternative explanantion."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2009/08/conspiracy_theories.cfm

Republican Hypocrisy On End Of Life Consultations

TW: I understand politics is nasty. But that does not mean all politics must be intentionally, expressly without character. What is worse? Republicans who are clueless (Palin et al.) or Republicans who willfully mis-lead vulnerable voting groups (i.e. seniors) in order to achieve their ends? Why do people give Gingrich, Grassley, Steele, Giuliani etc. etc. etc. and all of the other Republicans the time of day?

From Amy Sullivan at Time:
"You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid. Yes, that's right.

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning."

The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill. So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley"

The Gap Between Mainstream Republicans And the Real Wing-Nuts Narrows

TW: Two comments today from Republicans:

From Taegen Goddard:
"XX tells Esquire that President Obama didn't tell voters what he was going to do during the presidential campaign.Said Bush: "Barack Obama would not have gotten elected if he'd let us in on his secret plan prior to the election. He would not have gotten elected if he'd said, 'My idea is to create a $1.8 trillion deficit for the next fiscal year. My idea is to spend $750 billion over the next ten years on a government-sponsored, government-subsidized health-care policy. My idea is to create a massive cap-and-trade system [based on the idea] that CO2 is [a] pollutant and we need to tax it in a massive way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.' Those ideas, which are now embedded in his budget, and the ideas in the stimulus package, weren't central in his campaign."

From Andrew Sullivan:
"I don’t know why I’m telling you this, but maybe now you’re beginning to understand the high-stakes game we’re playing here. This ain’t John McCain’s logrolling senatorial club any more. This is a deadly serious attempt to realize the vision of the 1960s and to fundamentally transform the United States of America. This is the fusion of Communist dogma, high ideals, gangster tactics, and a stunning amount of self-loathing. For the first time in history, the patrician class is deliberately selling its own country down the river just to prove a point: that, yes, we can! This country stinks and we won’t be happy until we’ve forced you to admit it,"
-- YY , revealing that National Review is now circling the drain of Glenn-Beck-insanity.

TW: The first is from former FL governor, scion of the Bush family Jeb Bush, the latter from David Kahane wing-nut writer in the National Review. It is one thing for crackpots like Inhofe from OK and Demint from SC and even Alaska to make really crazy claims but Jeb Bush was meant to be the brains of the Bush family. Folks always want to equivalize Dems and Republicans but our leaders generally are not out there claiming our POTUS has "secret plans" and then just butchering truth.

Obviously Obama ran on a platform of health care reform and energy policy reform to claim they are part of a "secret" plan is just drivel. He twists reforming energy policy into making "CO2 a pollutant". These are the simplistic attacks that try to turn legitimate political discourse into twisted battles of ignorance. CO2 is not a pollutant it merely has huge negative externalities. Obama and others are attempting to deal with them.

As for the deficit, Jebya naturally neglects that Obama inherited about 80% of the deficit from his bumbling brother. The vast majority of the balance being related to stimulus measures.

How far is Jebya's comments from the right-wing nuttery, not far which is a problem for American democracy. Craziness will not solve our growing challenges domestically or relative to the rest of the world.

Bobby Jindal a Republican We Will Hear From Again

TW: I do not agree with much of the substance of Bobby Jindal's political positions but I am not a Republican. However, he is the type leader the Republican should be embracing to lead their future rather than others with more strident, flashy and far less substantive reputations. He stubbed his toe badly with his Kenny the Page speech last winter. But that snafu is survivable as in the mean time he appears to be constructing concrete accomplishments down in the Bayou.

From Economist:
"...The speech didn't do Mr Jindal any favours, but it was only one speech, and no one expected him to beat Mr Obama in an oratorical cage match. If I were an advisor to Mr Jindal I might want him to be a little bit more public, because as it is the Kenneth-the-Page moment is the lingering impression

...The important thing is that Mr Jindal has, since taking office in January 2008, been an effective governor. During the campaign, for example, he promised to reform Louisiana's ethics laws, and that was one of the first things he did: the reforms were signed in March 2008. As a result, this year Louisiana leapt 43 spots in the Center for Public Integrity's rankings of standards for legislators—from 44th place to 1st. That's a tremendous jump.

Another focus of the young administration is economic development. To that end they are taking steps to show that the state is a good place to do business.

...One other note about Mr Jindal, in light of the news of the day. His experience gives the lie to Sarah Palin's implicit claim that liberal elitists and the mainstream media are set on personally destroying anybody who imperils the cozy, cliquish white-male old-money boy's club. We hardly hear a peep about Mr Jindal's personal life. I don't even know if he has kids. Possibly because if he does he's not always using them as props in glamorous photo shoots. We hear only a little about his remarkable religious experiences, but only a little, because he doesn't generally refer to Jesus when he's explaining his political beliefs or governing decisions. Had Ms Palin gone back to Alaska after the campaign and paid attention to governing the sideshow part of life would quickly have subsided. It's like Dr Phil says, Ms Palin: you teach people how to treat you."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/07/bobby_jindal.cfm

You Reap What You Sow: Tea-Bag Away

TW: This video of TX Senator and pretty darn conservative John Coryn getting grief at this past weekend's tea-bagging event is getting much play. His sin, voting for last Fall's financial bailout (the one that kept your ATM functioning) and not speaking out more vociferously for Hooverite contractionary fiscal policy amidst the Great Contraction. These events speak to the challenge Republicans face if their base is a blood-thirsty, anti-intellectual, unfettered populist (not to mention not very diverse) group of folks, who are merely confused and afraid and grasping at straws. The Republicans cannot really run away from this movement (which Fox is featured daily at the Fox Nation), but to embrace them is cancerous.

And who is the one Republican politician who would achieve rapturous applause at any of these events? I shall not mention her name.

From TPM:
"...The tea party in Boiling Springs, South Carolina, featured a colorful cast of characters. The headline speaker was Alan Keyes, who has been a leading name of the "Birther" movement. Lead organizer Michael Brady came dressed up as Thomas Paine -- who in real life was a left-winger in favor of progressive taxation and opposed to traditional religion. One attendee took out a flyer that said, "Zelaya today, Obama tomorrow," but said he was advocating impeachment of Obama after he was asked directly whether he was in favor of a coup..."

Palin Resigns As Governor

TW: I understand amidst this Great Contraction being governor of any state is not the best platform from which to build a basis for higher office- declining revenues, rising costs and general voter angst and all. Tim Pawlenty saw that in MN and announced he would not run for re-election and the Governator probably wishes he had not sought re-election in CA.

Then you have the bopsie triplets- Mark Sanford said "F it what do I care, I am in love", preceded by the Blagojocrook, and Eliot "I pay to play" Spitzer-all have blown up in the past year.

But can you set yourself up any better than Ms. Palin has this week. A completely inane cheesecake piece in Runner's World ("sweat is my sanity"), your former campaign managers debating how crazy you are then the capper- resigning your office amidst the Great Contraction no less "because she has accomplished her goals". Talk about cuttin' and runnin'.

Funny how in a petro state one's approval can drop from 90ish% to below 50% pretty darn quickly. She is a corker.

I REALLY hope this does not mean she is considering NOT running. Because as much as I viscerally despise the concept of Ms. Palin, I would really miss her. If there is one thing that could get the Dems to a true super-majority amidst the Great Contraction in 2010 it would be her at the head of the ticket.

This quote gives me hope:

From WaPo:
"The first term governor is stepping down "so that she can take the fight for her issues elsewhere," according to a Palin aide."

This person's ambitions are high, perhaps to the point of self-delusion....YES!!!

Jim Demint And Why the Republicans Are Poseurs On Health Care

TW: I frequently point out the lack of solutions from the Republicans on issues such as health care. They are good at complaining but not so much at solving. So here is an attempt from a Republican at health care reform. A taste (kinda) great, less (very much so) filling effort to say the least.

Sen. Demint of SC suggest giving vouchers to Americans for use in buying health care. At a superficial level it sounds like a "free market" type action instead of perfidious government led reform. The concept breaks down rapidly. Furthermore it is highly cynical as Demint claims it would not raise the deficit, but he "achieves" that goal by gutting the primary government measure to avoid GD 2.0 (TARP). So as the piece points out, it does not raise the deficit because TARP has already been funded (not to mention if one guts the primary measure against GD 2.0, perhaps the odds of GD 2.0 go up).

The fundamental challenge with vouchers is that it basically channels more money into health care with no measures to contain costs. Classic economics tells one that if you push more money into a good (think of oil prices) without increasing supply or limiting costs increases, all one gets is inflation. Demint's plan does not nothing to address folks with pre-existing conditions or merely sub-optimal demographics (i.e. being say 50 instead of 20 years old).

This is a nice example of a simple-minded "free market" approach to a market that is neither "free" nor normal.

From Slate:
"...The plan, basically, is for the federal government to give out annual vouchers to Americans which they can spend on any health care insurance offering they want: $2000 dollars for individuals, and up to $5000 for families.

Under the Health Care Freedom Plan, Americans would be able to keep the care they have now, but if they are uninsured or unhappy with their current plan, they could access a voucher to purchase health insurance anywhere in the country.

...And at no cost to the taxpayer!...

How, you might wonder, could the U.S. government offer a $5000 health care voucher to every uninsured American family without adding a dime to the deficit? The answer is brilliant: Pay for the program with TARP money! Yes, "The Health Care Freedom Plan" is paid for by requiring banks to pay back all their TARP money within five years, and then use that money for the vouchers.

Frankly, I am in awe. Nothing will be added to the deficit because we will be re-using money that was added to the deficit last September.

So what happens when TARP runs out? How would succeeding allocations of vouchers be funded? There's not a whisper of an answer to that question in the DeMint press release or summary.

Two other questions.
First: If the government is offering vouchers to anyone unhappy with their current coverage, why should businesses bother offering health care coverage to their employees at all? There's a built-in incentive here for employers to abandon their own
health care offerings, which would surely send the cost of the government program skyrocketing in short order. (Yes, this would be a potential problem with any government-subsidized health care reform, but the incentive seems particularly stark in this case.)

Second: How exactly would this plan work to bring down health care costs? At first glance it would seem to do exactly the opposite. A massive transfer of taxpayer dollars almost directly to the HMOs would seem inherently inflationary. What incentive does anyone have to cut costs when the government directly subsidizes the HMOs?"