When Dissent Is Exiled

TW: The Dems are not perfect in this respect but the monochromatic, toe the line or else mentality of the current Republican approach certainly makes one wonder what role dissent can play amidst their governance approach.

From Bruce Bartlett:
"As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.

Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.

Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.

Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI."
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud

My Fellow Americans...Such As They Are (cont.)

From NBC:
"A new Research 2000 poll of more than 2,000 Republicans...has some eyebrow-raising findings:
-- 63% of them believe President Obama is a socialist
-- 53% believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama is
-- 39% believe he should be impeached
-- 36% believe he wasn't born in the United States
-- 31% believe the president hates white people
-- 24% believe the president wants the terrorists to win
-- 23% believe their state should secede from the union"

TW: That any sane person believes Palin is qualified to be POTUS much less more so than Obama frames squarely the challenges of democracy in America. I realize many Dems wanted Bush impeached (not including me btw) but that was after he transformed a huge budget surplus into a deficit, invaded without cause Iraq, initiated torture as national policy and was overwhelmed by the Katrina disaster amongst other gems.

And that Obama who is in fact half "white" and was raised by his beloved "white" grandparents would hate "whites" in the minds of many Republicans speaks to them more than him.

Some on the left are pissed that Obama has not moved faster but ponder these stats first, he is not emperor. He is playing the cards he is dealt in terms of the American populace.

Bruce Bartlett's comment on the poll (and yes he worked for that deity of the right Mr. Reagan):
"I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."

TW: I know many on the right feel condescended to but if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck then yeah you are fugging stupid. This does not mean opposition to Obama is stupid only support for ignorance and folks like Pence, Palin and Chambliss is.

Clusterfuggery In Place Of Governance

From Ezra Klein:
"Bruce Bartlett thinks that Timothy Geithner is becoming a liability to Obama, but there's not much Obama can do about it.

'Geithner's political tone-deafness is becoming a serious liability to Obama. The problem with replacing him, as I have said earlier, is finding someone who is qualified, confirmable and not connected to Wall Street. Given that half the top political appointees at Treasury are still awaiting Senate confirmation, I think Obama may be stuck with Geithner no matter how low his stock falls. Is there a potential replacement who has paid his taxes, has populist leanings, knows Wall Street but isn't part of it, who wouldn't be filibustered by the Republicans?'

I made this point the other day, as well. A Senate that can't be trusted to confirm non-controversial nominees can't be trusted to confirm controversial nominees. In that way, holds and filibusters, which are supposed to make the executive branch's nominees more accountable, in fact makes confirmed nominees much less accountable, as the president can't trust his ability to easily replace them and so can't take the risk of firing them. I thought of ending this post with a line about how Republicans who want Geithner gone are actually making it impossible for him to go, but then I realized that Republicans probably don't want Geithner gone. They're served best by making him both unpopular and irreplaceable."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/if_you_cant_hire_you_cant_fire.html

Bartlett Right Literally But Wrong In Substance

TW: Bartlett brings out a quote from one of his books to counter Harry Reid's comparison of the Civil Rights Act passage to the current health reform process. Comments like Reid's are not particularly useful since they are easily countered with passages like below. But while Bartlett's point about Republican participation in the Civil Rights Act is accurate, it's accuracy holds only relative to the electoral composition as of 1965.

The Civil Rights Act itself was a primary (although not exclusive) catalyst for the fracturing of the Democratic party whereby almost all of those inclined to vote against things like the Act migrated in ever more rapid fashion to the Republican party. Yes relics like Byrd exist but then he is over 90 years old. When his genre have died or retired they have not been replaced within the Democratic party. The transition did not happen overnight it has taken decades but it is now nearly complete.

So while Bartlett's quotes are literally true, the more important lesson is what happened after the passage of the Act. Not only are the old Southern Dems nearly extinct, those Republicans of 1965 who voted for the Act are a nearly extinct species in today's Republican party.

Bartlett failed to mention the wing of the Republican party which also voted against the Act, the Goldwater wing the direct forebears to the Reaganites of the 1980's and the W. Bushies of the 00's. Combine those blocs with today's tea bagging, Palin worshipping base of the Republican party, who would have had nothing to do with the Act in 1965 just as today it viscerally opposes efforts to legitimize gay marriage and rails against any perceived "government" intervention which was a prime argument of those Southern Dems in 1965 (and for decades prior) to the Civil Rights Act, and voila you have today's Republican party. Little wonder any moderation in opposition to any moderate to progressive legislation is considered a vice by the Republicans.

This stratification of the parties where the odd alliance within the Democratic party of the old Southern bloc and the Yankee liberals no longer holds. Whilst the Rockefeller Republican social liberals no longer align with old line Midwestern conservatives has greatly altered electoral equations and made comparisons to pre-1965 party alignments and bi-partisanship efforts largely irrelevant.

From Bruce Bartlett:
"The enormous desire to memorialize the senseless murder of John F. Kennedy, plus Johnson’s determination to demonstrate his power and purge his own racist past by getting a substantive civil rights bill through the Senate, proved a formidable combination...[but the bill was filibustered anyway] people like Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, whose individual filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill is the second longest in history..Only a true believer would ever undertake such a futile effort.

Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill—the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea” votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay” votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support. As Time Magazine observed, “In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.”

A similar story is told in the Senate...Of those voting “nay,” 80 percent were Democrats, including Robert C. Byrd and former Vice President Al Gore’s father, who was then a senator from Tennessee...Close observers of the Senate deliberations recognized that the Republican leader, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, had done yeoman work in responding to the objections of individual Republicans and holding almost all of them together in support of the bill. “More than any other single individual,” the New York Times acknowledged, “he was responsible for getting the civil rights bill through the Senate.”
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1300/who-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964

Bartlett Gets It

TW: Bartlett, fmr. Reagan economist, and Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics, are converging. In this piece readers will see more familiar angles: the need for spending to revive the economy; the paradox of thrift which leads folks to save rather than spend tax rebates/cuts; and importantly a reminder of the ignorance of those claiming "Obama is spending America into [name your bombastic abyss]". The deficits were going to be huge this year and for coming years regardless of who became POTUS. Most importantly contractionary policies this year would have been "nonsensical" (I would add "dangerous").

What folks neglect amidst the braying about "socialism" and "spending us into the abyss", is what alternative policies would the numbskulls have proposed?

From Bruce Bartlett at Capital Gains and Games:
"...According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement.

Therefore, unless one thinks that McCain would have somehow or other raised taxes and cut spending (with a Democratic Congress), rather than enacting a stimulus of his own, then a deficit of $1.2 trillion was baked in the cake the day Obama took office. Any suggestion that McCain would have brought in a lower deficit is simply fanciful.

Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.

To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.

It should be further noted that revenues are lower to a large extent because of tax cuts included in the February stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these tax cuts reduced revenues in FY2009 by $98 billion over what would otherwise have been the case. This is important because the Republican position has consistently been that tax cuts and only tax cuts are an appropriate response to the economic crisis.

...As if we needed further evidence that transfers have virtually no stimulative effect, the Bureau of Labor Statistics just issued a report on the 2008 tax rebate showing that only 30 percent of the money was spent; the rest was saved, thus providing no stimulus to short-run growth...On January 24, 2008, George W. Bush assured the country that a tax rebate was just the right medicine to prevent an economic downturn.

It continues to amaze me that no one on the left or right seems to have noticed that the essential factor causing the economic downturn is a decline in velocity: the number of times that money turns over in the economy, which is measured as the ratio of the money supply to GDP. In 2006 and 2007 this ratio was 1.9. I take that as normal. In 2008, velocity fell to 1.76 and currently is 1.69. (I divided end of year M2 into 4th quarter GDP; the latest figure is 2nd quarter GDP divided by end of June money supply.)

If velocity were 1.9 instead of 1.69, 2nd quarter GDP would have been $1.6 trillion higher. Therefore, no recession. The output gap would have simply disappeared. From this I conclude that a lack of spending in the economy is the central problem and the only policies that will help are those that increase spending - consumer spending, investment spending, net exports or government spending. How tax cuts would have helped - or at least the type of tax cuts advocated by Republicans - is a mystery to me.

I continue to believe that the Republican position is nonsensical. Final proof is that the previously cited CBO report shows total federal revenues coming in at 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product in FY2009. According to the Office of Management and Budget, one has to go back to 1950 to find a year when federal revenues were lower as a share of GDP. For reference, revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP during the Reagan administration and were never lower than 17.3 percent - 2.4 percent of GDP above where they are now.

I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts."
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts

Reason #432 Why TV "News" Sucks

TW: Obviously Bartlett has joined my go to list of pundits/experts. But he frame succinctly why most TV news has degenerated into a boiling morass where conflict is everything. Substance and nuance be damned. And yes....we get what we pay for...if substance and nuance were truly desired by the audience Charlie Rose et al. would be ubiquitous rather than Hannity/Olbermann et al.

From Bruce Bartlett at Capital Gains and Games:
"Anyone who regularly does TV interviews knows that one is always required to do a pre-interview in which a producer feels you out as to what you will say in response to certain hypothetical questions. It would be simpler if they just came out and said, "We are looking for someone to go on air and say Obama is the anti-Christ (or whatever). Are you willing to do that?"

Such a method, however, is crass and offends the dignity of potential guests, so instead the producer will talk around the issue. She (they are almost always female) will say something like this: "We are thinking about doing a segment on whether Obama is the anti-Christ and looking for guests who will debate this topic. If we had you on what would your take be?"

If you say that the idea is ridiculous you will be thanked and the producer will move on to the next name on her list. Eventually she will find a crazy person like Alan Keyes to say what she wants him to say or someone so desperate to be on TV that he will play Devil's Advocate and pretend to believe that Obama is the anti-Christ for the sake of 5 minutes of air time..."
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1171/perils-talking-head

Bartlett v. Kudlow

TW: This conversation ultimately goes nowhere, it is CNBC after all. But it accomplishes much. We see a moderate Republican, Bartlett, seek to have a real conversation on fiscal policy; whilst being interviewed by an ideologue, Kudlow, who regardless of Bartlett's answers spouts cliches, tired slogans and punchlines. Overlying this is the 2nd interviewer, Trish Regan, who mostly appears clueless but occasionally interjects the standard slanted BS (i.e. "obamanomics caused the housing bubble", Reagan was a god) of those of her generation who drank supply side kool-aid through the 80's and 90's rather than studied.

Bartlett's point is that neither Reaganesque/Laffernomics, Keynes or anyone else has a monopoly on good policy, one must adjust one's policies to the realities of the situation. Unlike Kudlow whose answer to all challenges is "tax cut (preferably for the wealthy and corporations)", all the while while alleging that he Kudlow is stating "universal truths".

I also link a Krugman response to the Barro tangent Kudlow threw out. Kudlow also mentioned the quack Amity Schlaes. Bartlett's reponse- "she is wrong" sums up her value.

From Paul Krugman at NYT:
"...Barro makes a great deal of the fact that private spending fell during World War II, rather than rising the way it should in a classical Keynesian (oxymoron?) story.

What I and others immediately pointed out was that this tells us very little about what would happen under current conditions: during World War II there, um, was a war on: consumption goods were rationed, construction required special permits, and so on. The government was, in other words, deliberately suppressing private spending, through direct controls. So WWII is not a useful data point for determining what the multiplier is under other conditions.

Barro’s response to this, as far as I can tell, was … nothing. I don’t think he even acknowledged the nature of the complaint..."

Raise the Retirement Ages (Amongst Other Things)

TW: Bartlett makes more sensible points regarding fiscal reform. The most important angle being the need to address the issues now even if taking contractionary measures today amidst the Great Contraction makes no sense. What is important is to define the measures with phased in enactment so that the market can see more stringent fiscal policy out in the future and the measures can be created in a non-crisis environment.

Bartlett focuses on retirement ages but the process point (define now for later enactment) is relevant to other potential changes (e.g. defense, public pensions, benefit levels etc.).

From Bruce Bartlett at Forbe:
"...we don't want to impose spending cuts or tax increases that would take effect until we are past the crisis. But that doesn't mean that we can't start planning now for deficit reduction or put in place policies that wouldn't take effect for several years. If we wait until another crisis is upon us that demands deficit reduction, many options that are available today will be foreclosed by the necessity of acting quickly...

...if Congress is under pressure to achieve budgetary savings right away in response to a crisis resulting from runaway inflation, a crashing dollar or sky-high interest rates. That is because the only means of cutting entitlements in the short run are extraordinarily difficult to achieve, politically, and don't even achieve lasting savings. But those that are easier to achieve and have long-term effects necessarily require a considerable amount of time to take effect.

Regarding Social Security, it is simply impossible to cut benefits in the near term. Beneficiaries believe, rightly or wrongly, that they have earned every penny they receive and will ferociously fight any effort to cut them as strenuously as a mother bear would fight to protect her cubs.

Indeed, there is an effort underway in Congress right now to pay a Social Security COLA in January even though there has actually been deflation--a falling price level--over the past year. Between August 2008 and August 2009, the Consumer Price Index fell 1.5%. Yet because of the power of the elderly on Capitol Hill, there is a good chance that they will get what they want, because they always get what they want.

...The easiest and best way to cut both Social Security and Medicare is to raise the age of eligibility...

This year, one will need to be age 66 before drawing full Social Security benefits. This will rise to 67 in the year 2022. Thus it will take almost 40 years for the rise in the retirement age to become fully effective. People may still retire at age 62 with much reduced benefits--benefits that are permanently reduced and do not rise when one reaches age 66. Early retirees are also severely penalized for working by having their benefits reduced if they earn over a small amount.

...Long ago, the age to qualify for Medicare should have been raised to the same age to qualify for Social Security.

...Congress didn't increase the retirement age nearly enough. Just since 1980, life expectancy for men at age 65 has increased by almost three years, from 14 years to 16.9 years. For women, the increase has been from 18.4 years to 19.3 years past the age of 65. Social Security's actuaries predict that longevity will continue to rise. By 2050, men are expected to live another 19.6 years beyond age 65 and women will live another 21.7 years.

Giving people the same number of years on Social Security that they received in 1940 would require a normal retirement age of at least 70 right now. With the anticipated growth in longevity, we would need a retirement age of 73 by the year 2050.

I am not necessarily advocating a particular retirement age. I'm only pointing out that there is ample justification for taking an action today that would not take effect for many years and that would achieve significant savings in entitlement spending that might be doable, politically.

But precisely because an increase in the retirement age would have to be phased in over many years, it would necessarily be off the table in the event of a fiscal crisis requiring cuts in spending immediately and in the very near future.

Given the limited opportunities for cutting spending in the very near term and the fact that entitlements are effectively off limits owing to their nature, it has long been the case that tax increases were the fastest way of cutting deficits when Congress has been moved to act. Indeed, almost all of the real deficit reduction of the 1980s and 1990s budget deals came from higher taxes.

Therefore, those who wish to prevent tax increases in the future should be doing everything in their power to enact changes in entitlement programs today, before the crunch hits..."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/08/deficit-medicare-social-security-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

A Republican's Fiscal Ideas

TW: Conservative supply-side acolyte Pethoukoukis summarizes fellow our new favorite conservative Bruce Bartlett's proposals on fiscal policy. I insert comment below.

From James Pethokouki at Reuter:
"Bartlett on how much revenue a VAT would raise:
If we only need to raise taxes by a percentage point or two, to say 20% of GDP, then we don’t need a VAT unless we want to use it as a pure tax reform. We could use the revenue to abolish the AMT, abolish the estate tax, maybe abolish the corporate tax, whatever. That would be fine with me because we don’t need the revenue today. But I think we will need it in the future because I don’t see any natural limit to spending or any appetite in either party for significant spending cuts. Therefore, unless we want deficits of 10% of GDP forever we have to raise revenue. When the day comes that the political class finally agrees to raise net new revenue it will be better to raise it through a VAT a percent or even fraction of a percent at a time. If the VAT is already in place that will be easy—too easy, you probably think. But the only other alternative is to raise tax rates, which is worse.
TW: He is right VAT is a very powerful tax instrument that can raise revenue quickly without the direct and poltically unpalatable pain of income taxes. For that reason it is dangerous. On the other hand, where are the folks standing up volunteering to cut their social security or Medicare or cut defense spending?

Bartlett on a tax system he likes better than the VAT:
My ideal tax system is a...flat tax, always has been. At this point I think it is inevitable that if we adopt a VAT it will basically be as an add-on to all the other taxes—that’s the way it is in every other country. If we can get rid of some worse taxes as part of the deal, that’s great. But to make that deal, conservatives have to play the game. If Democrats have to raise taxes on their own, they will do it in the worst possible way, economically. But if the Republican alternative is to do nothing, then Democrats will do what they have to do as they did in 1993. If they decide to do a VAT they would undoubtedly be very amenable to using some of the revenue for tax cuts that would enhance growth. But, again, if Republicans refuse to play the game and won’t commit themselves to support the final package, then Democrats will do it on their own and we will end up with something worse—multiple rates, exemptions that create inefficiency, and higher income tax rates to boot.
TW: Obviously I am not as cynical about the Dem as Bartlett, but I agree a bi-partisan tax plan would likely be better than a "liberal" Dem plan. But like they say it take two to tango. I do not believe the Repubs are anywhere near ready to deal on taxes.

Bartlett on Republicans and budget deficits:
At some point, conservatives have to realize that they have to make a choice. Refusing to make one by living in a dream world where truly massive spending cuts are enacted to keep spending and taxes as a share of GDP in their historical range is not an option, in my opinion. If conservatives think I am wrong about the need for significantly higher taxes, then I think they have a responsibility to put plans on the table to seriously cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and put real effort into getting them enacted. But I don’t see it. All I see are pie-in-the-sky plans to privatize these programs and somehow magically cut spending without reducing anyone’s benefits. Those aren’t going to happen, ever. So if we are going to live in the real world, how will spending be cut enough to prevent the need for higher taxes. If you find out, let me know."
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/10/08/vat-attack-the-value-added-tax-bruce-bartlett-and-deficits/

Rots a Ruck Reigning In Entitlements

TW: This piece puts meat on the bone of how hard it is to control spending. It is a relatively trivial example and slightly convoluted but useful. Due to the detailed rules with Medicare premiums since inflation is so low overall, Congress will further reduce the ratio of out-of-pocket premiums for doctor visits even though the costs of those visits do have some inflation.

Without getting too far into the trees, the monthly premiums for those elderly couples earning over $170K were set to rise by $16 a month. Not anymore, a "fix" passed 406-18 (there is bi-partisanship for you) to annul this potential travesty. My Dems proposed the "fix" and the allegedly newly fiscally conservative Republicans jump right in with them. Another $2.8 billion down the drain. And as Bartlett points out, the $2.8 billion will likely expand into tens of billions as Congress appears unable to put any increases onto the elderly.

From Bruce Bartlett at Forbes:
"The main reason why it's so difficult to control federal spending is because so much of it is on automatic pilot. Spending for entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare rises automatically and cannot be cut except by changing the law governing them. They are also so large and complex that small, almost invisible changes in formulas for calculating benefits can end up costing billions upon billions of dollars.

One of these changes involves Medicare Part B, which pays for doctors visits. Part A pays for hospitalization and Part D pays for prescription drugs...Part B premiums [are set] at 25% of [actual] costs with taxpayers subsidizing the elderly by paying the rest.

Increases in Part B premiums take effect at the same time COLAs increase Social Security benefits, so beneficiaries generally don't notice them too much since COLAs are usually larger in dollar terms than the increase in Part B premiums. However, this is one of those years when that is not the case...Since prices have not risen enough this year to compensate for the unintended bonus, Social Security recipients won't receive a COLA in January.

This created a problem for Medicare because Part B premiums can't increase more than Social Security COLAs increase--at least for most beneficiaries. But some 27% of Part B participants are not held harmless. These include those with low incomes who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, those with incomes above $85,000 ($170,000 for couples), new Medicare enrollees and those whose premiums are not automatically deducted from the Social Security checks.

These beneficiaries would see their Part B premiums rise from $96.40 per month to between $110 and $120 per month...

In reality, the vast bulk of those affected by this premium increase are also held harmless because their premiums are covered by Medicaid. So the individuals would not be any worse off, but the increased cost would be borne by the states. New enrollees are not really suffering because they haven't been paying Medicare premiums at all until now, and the number of people who don't have premiums deducted automatically is very small.

The main people affected by this situation are those with high incomes for whom paying $6 to $16 a month extra can hardly be considered burdensome. Nevertheless, the alleged unfairness of their predicament moved the House of Representatives to extraordinary action.

On Sept. 23, Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., introduced H.R. 3631, which would freeze all Part B premiums for one year--including those for couples with incomes over $170,000. It would pay for the $2.8 billion cost by raiding the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund and the Medicare Improvement Fund. This legislation came up the following day and passed the House by a vote of 406 to 18.

...Interestingly, the only representative willing to speak against this unjustified give-away was House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. He mocked the fact that multimillionaire Ross Perot's Part B premium would be frozen by the legislation, as well as those of members of Congress covered by Medicare such as himself, and asked how can we afford to take care of everyone regardless of their ability to pay? At some point there won't be sufficient resources for the truly needy, Hoyer said.

...More importantly, there is the fact that the law requires Medicare Part B beneficiaries to bear 25% of the program's costs. Since those costs are continuing to rise rapidly, there is going to have to be some kind of catch-up in the future to ensure that beneficiaries continue to pay 25%. When they are in effect forced to pay two or three years of premium increases all at once, the elderly are going to raise a major stink. History suggests that they will get whatever they want regardless of which party is in power.

The real point of this story is not to complain about a $2.8 billion drain on the Treasury, but rather to show how technical many important budgetary problems are and how difficult it is to even understand them. Yet many conservatives seem to think that all they have to do to get the budget under control is show up at a town hall meeting and scream about the deficit at the top of their lungs. These people were nowhere to be seen, however, when a little bit of opposition might have derailed this boondoggle.

...It's easy to rail against deficits in the abstract. It's a lot harder with the following circumstances: when voting on legislation that is popular with a key constituent group like the elderly, when the amount of money involved is small, when there is a genuine element of unfairness involved, when there is no opposition whatsoever, when the legislation is extremely technical and brought up for a vote almost immediately after it's introduced with no hearings, no committee mark-up, no committee report and under procedures reserved for noncontroversial bills. Those who think tea parties are the answer to our budget problems should keep this in mind the next time they feel moved to say that controlling deficits is a simple matter of will."

The Importance Of Managerial Competence In the White House

TW: The Latimer book has gotten press for the usual reasons (gossippy quotes about folks) but Bartlett focuses a more substantive issue. Bartlett a vet of the Reagan adminstration sees some of the Latimer perspectives as validating the widely held belief that W. Bush was just a poor manager. Effective POTUS tend to be effective managers (just like in about every other executive situation). W. Bush from most reports was just not a particularly effective manager. He lacked curiousity, was heavily biased. His decision lacked rigor. He was a fire, aim guy. Into this void stepped strong figures like Rumsfeld, Cheney etc. The results are still causing pain.

From Bruce Bartlett at Capitalgainsandgames blog:
"I am reading Matt Latimer's book...Two things struck me. First is confirmation of the portrait of George W. Bush that I painted in my Impostor book of a bully who cannot stand to be contradicted, who thinks he knows everything despite being grossly ignorant most of the time, and who browbeats those beneath him into agreeing with him.

Second is how different the Bush White House was from the Reagan White House where I worked. Reagan's WH was a model of thoroughness, adherence to proper procedure, and respect for the office of the president. Bush's WH seems amazingly slipshod, showing total disregard for all of the things that were important to Reagan in terms of how his administration functioned.

On the first point, I was struck by this paragraph as the author discusses his first session with Bush reviewing a draft speech he had written:

"The president's editing sessions went like this: he talked, you listened and scribbled furiously whatever he said. On occasion, he might ask a question. But usually he wasn't too interested in the answer. Sometimes in the middle of your explaining something, if he felt he wasn't getting what he wanted, he'd interrupt and say, 'Okay, here's what we need to do.' This wasn't a process that encouraged dialogue or pushback on an important point. This was George W. decisively telling you what he wanted to say, and you writing it down. Got it?"

The problem with such a bullying method is that the president isn't just some guy expressing a personal opinion when he speaks. If he were, then it would be perfectly appropriate for him to demand that his speechwriters wrote whatever he damn well told them to say. But the president of the United States speaks not just for himself, not just for his administration, but for the country as a whole. His words carry weight. Consequently, it is appalling to see him treating those words in such a cavalier manner.

Ronald Reagan, of course, was a trained actor, accustomed to reading dialogue written for him by others. Consequently, he had respect for those who wrote the words he spoke. Reagan was a great writer himself and would often edit his speeches. But he did it privately with an editing pen and usually for style, not substance. I think every Reagan speechwriter had enormous respect for Reagan's contributions to his own speeches and, in turn, he respected his speechwriters and didn't treat them like manual laborers, as Bush seems to have done.

...'Whenever we talked about an upcoming speech, Ed almost never said, 'Let me think about it' or 'What do you guys think?' He never said, 'Let's figure out what the message of the week is going to be.' He usually just offered an instant reaction. The whole White House was like that--infatuated with decisiveness, dismissive of deliberation.'

...I continue to believe that a great many of Bush's screw-ups, most especially on Iraq, resulted from his personal style, which eventually permeated throughout his entire administration. It disdained facts and analysis and glorified decisiveness and action. "Shoot first and ask questions later" could have been its motto."
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1119/bush-inside