It Gets Harder If You Actually Try To Solve Something

TW: McArdle is a conservative but a thoughtful one. She has actually suggested an alternative approach to reform. It sounds interesting on first blush but once exposed to the scrutiny all alternatives must eventually face (much different than just saying NO!!!) begins to unravel and raises more questions than it answers. But at least she is trying as opposed to most in the Republican party. We have real problems, we need solutions.

From Economist:
"MEGAN MCARDLE has a plan:
'Raise the Medicare tax by half a percentage point, and eliminate the tax-deductibiity of health insurance benefits for people making more than $150K a year in household income, $100K for singles. Then make the federal government the insurer of last resort. Any medical expenses more than 15% or 20% of household income, get picked up by Uncle Sam.

I think this is a reasonablish plan. It would be interesting to see how the CBO would score it. But here's the problem: having Uncle Sam pick up all medical expenses over 15% or 20% of household income wouldn't just be extremely expensive, it would essentially mean single-payer government catastrophic health insurance for everyone.

Why's that? Well, catastrophic illness always costs more than 20% of a household's income, apart from the very rich. There aren't that many people in the country who earn five times as much each year as radiation therapy costs. Obviously, what Ms McArdle means is that the government would pick up the tab over and above whatever your private insurance covers. But that means the obvious incentive for private insurers is to make sure they never cover any medical expenses above 20% of your income. They'll try to shift all of those expenses to the government. And since you'll know the government is picking up the tab anyway, you won't care. In fact, it will become impossible for private insurers to offer policies that cover expenses running higher than 20% of your income. You would have no interest in paying the extra premiums to buy such a policy; your care will already be covered by government.

The effect on policies and premiums could be complicated, and without more details it's hard to say exactly what happens. (Do premiums count as "health expenses" towards that 20% of income? What about if your company pays part or all of the premium?) But the general effect will be to have insurance cover very little of the kinds of costs associated with catastrophic care, so that the costs quickly mount to 20% of the patient's income and everything new is shifted onto the taxpayer. And you'll have no private insurer who covers the cost of procedures or drugs that in and of themselves cost more than $25,000 or so, since the federal government will pick up most or all of the tab for almost all patients. If you could buy a policy that was $1,000 a year cheaper but didn't cover cancer or transplants, but you knew the maximum cost to you of such treatments would be just 20% of your income anyway, you'd buy the cheaper policy. So private catastrophic insurance will all but vanish.

Once that happens, every harm which Ms McArdle and conservative-leaning critics have claimed would result from single-payer insurance will ensue. The taxpayer will be paying for almost every cancer patient in the country. That means the government will likely regulate how cancer is treated: what treatments are warranted and reimbursable under what circumstances. (Did someone say "death panels"?) The government will decide how much to pay for expensive drugs, and will negotiate the prices of, for example, biologics like some kind of MedPAC on steroids. Market pricing for biologics, transplants, and other expensive drugs and procedures will largely cease to exist, since the government will be the only buyer.

I frankly don't have a problem with this. I think America would be much better off with single-payer health insurance than with the system it has now. So I say, great, creative idea. Of course it'll never get anywhere, since unions and big business will never allow the elimination of tax deductibility for health insurance for people making more than $150,000 a year. And the insurance companies will kill it too, since it would incentivise large numbers of people and businesses to drop out of the private insurance market entirely and just rely on the government's 20% maximum guarantee. Still, if conservatives did widely embrace such a plan, it would serve the important function of protecting them against accusations that they don't have a plan."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/libertarian_health_care_proposal_single-payer

Dick "the Toe" Morris' 2009 Predictions

TW: For shits and grins I get Dick Morris' email screeds. That Morris once worked for Bill Clinton is a huge blemish on Clinton's legacy. That Morris HATES Hillary Clinton speaks well for her. Morris has rooted against Obama with a full throated roar (he is on Fox regularly) since Obama took the Democratic nomination.

His type cheer against America if it would help his now conservative soulmates. He made a couple of predictions about this time last year. I kept them assuming they would not age well. What is most striking is the memes the tea-baggers and much of the Republican leadership have pounded for the past year were not organic based upon evolving events; they were pre-baked, honed and ready to roll even BEFORE Obama actually took the oath.

From Dick Morris from January 9, 2009:
"Now I want to turn the crystal ball to the war on terror and foreign affairs and make my predictions for the new year.

Obama has given power to men and women who really don't believe terrorism is much of a problem. They implicitly share the European view that an attack here or there is not worth turning what they regard as constitutional guarantees on their heads. The result is that we will be vastly more vulnerable and have a good chance of being hit again soon."

"The politics of 2009 will be dominated by a continuation and deepening of the global Depression. Under the guise of stimulating the economy, look for Obama to pursue a radical, socialist agenda that will bring America into conformity with the government domination of health care and the economy that prevails in the European Union. When the dust clears, the economy will still be in the tank. The new president's stimulation packages will do little or nothing to abate the depression, but they will transform American life and politics. For his part, Obama will take advantage of his built-in majorities in Congress to pass his agenda, but will suffer rapidly dropping ratings. By the end of the year, he will be as radioactive as Bush is today."

SWAT's Up

TW: The interviewee in this piece is from Reason a hard-line libertarian magazine, I do not agree on many things with them but on matters of civil liberties our interests cross paths. I recall the SWAT TV show from thirty years ago when they were a novelty. Now they are ubiquitous both in number and use. I remain skeptical that our security is enhanced.

From Economist:
"DIA: You've written about the creeping militarisation of law enforcement in America. How has this trend manifested itself and what are the consequences for the quality of policing?

Mr Balko: The most obvious way it has manifested itself is in the explosion in the use of SWAT teams and similar paramilitary police units over the last 25 years. The criminologist Peter Kraska has surveyed their use over that time. He's found that the total number of SWAT-team deployments in the 1970s was a few hundred times per year, over the entire country. By the 1980s, it was a few thousand times per year. And by around 2005, Mr Kraska estimates around 50,000 times per year. The surge has been driven entirely by the drug war, with the vast majority of SWAT deployments being used to serve drug-related search warrants.

This has led to a militaristic mindset among America's police departments, beyond just SWAT teams. Driven by "war on crime" and "war on drugs" rhetoric set by political leaders, police officers have increasingly taken on the psyche of soldiers. There's a pervasive and troubling "us versus them" attitude in policing today. Policing has become more reactionary, more aggressive, and it's poisoning the relationship between the police and the communities they serve.

I should add that I don't think police officers themselves are to blame for this, nor, obviously, are all police officers guilty of it. These are problems spawned by 35 years or so of bad policies set by politicians. That's really where any reform would need to start."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/11/five_questions_for_radley_balk

Mike Murphy On Demographic Political Realities

TW: Mike Murphy is a long-time Republican operative who gained some fame with this infamous snippet from last year's Republican convention when he reacted to the Palin nomination. Murphy is one of those operatives who tends to spend less time on polemics and more time on trying to figure out how to move his party forward.

The themes he touches we have covered here before but he does so with better data and eloquence.

From Mike Murphy at Time:
"...I've made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way.
Demographic change is irritating to politicos, since it works on elections much as rigged dice do on a Las Vegas craps table: it is a game changer. For years, Republicans won elections because the country was chock-full of white middle-class voters who mostly pulled the GOP lever on Election Day. Today, however, that formula is no longer enough.

It was a huge shock to the GOP when Barack Obama won Republican Indiana last year. The bigger news was how he did it. Latino voters delivered the state. Exit polls showed that they provided Obama with a margin of more than 58,000 votes in a state he carried by a slim 26,000 votes. That's right, GOP, you've entered a brave new world ruled by Latino Hoosiers, and you're losing.

In 1980, Latino voters cast about 2% of all votes. Last year it was 9%, and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35-point margin. By 2030, the Latino share of the vote is likely to double. In Texas, the crucial buckle for the GOP's Electoral College belt, the No. 1 name for new male babies--many of whom will vote one day--is Jose. Young voters are another huge GOP problem. Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points. And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow.

Rather than face up to all this, too many in the GOP are stuck in a swoon of nostalgia. Most of our party leaders come from bloodred GOP states or safe districts, so they are far more at home in the tribal politics of Republican primaries than in those of the country as a whole. You could say their radio dials are stuck on AM. The result is we hear a lot about going back to "the winning ways of Ronald Reagan." Well, I love Reagan too. But demographics no longer do. In 1980, Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by 10 points. If that contest were held again today, under the current demographics of the electorate per exit polls, the election would be much closer, with Reagan probably winning by about 3 points.

...Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights. With changing demographics come changing attitudes, and aping the grim town elders from Footloose is not the path back to a Republican White House. The pro-life movement can still be a central part of the GOP--it has support among all ages (and a slim majority of Latino voters)--but the overall GOP view on abortion must aggressively embrace the big tent. "
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html

Drug Legalization: The Libertarian View

TW: I have pounded the table on this, here is a libertarian economist making some of the same points we have previously expressed.

From Jeff Miron via CNN:
"...The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence.

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.

Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.

Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.

Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.

...Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.

Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.

The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.


...It is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition. The U.S. has been at the forefront of this puritanical policy for almost a century, with disastrous consequences at home and abroad...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

Get Rid Of the Mortgage Subsidies

TW: Cows will fly first but I do strongly support eliminating or reducing real estates subsidies aka the sacrosanct mortgage interest deductions. I have never seen a compelling case for the subsidies. But the deductions are now so firmly entrenched in American psyche that they are likely impossible to displace (especially amidst the current crash, although obviously the bubble might have been mitigated with less aggressive subsidies). Why should housing receive such preferential treatment? You tell me.

The Republicans want to take the subsidies to new heights (in fairness the Dems fall over themselves as well). I say if no subsidies work for Swiss then it should work for us.

From Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:
"David Freddoso lauding the House Republicans' new housing plan. You will be non-shocked to learn that it consists of a bunch of new tax breaks, including — naturally — elimination of the capital gains tax on investment property. Yawn.

But wait! It turns out that the House GOP's plan has inspired some surprising comity between right and left: they both hate it. Jerry Taylor gives the conservative rationale for opposing the plan:

I know that there is plenty of political capital to be gained by providing handouts to middle-class homeowners and little political capital in removing the same. But a political party that ostensibly stands for free markets and limited government should not be in the business of underwriting or subsidizing private investments in anything unless we can find some plausible market failure in need of correction (and perhaps not even then).

Matt Yglesias provides the lefty view of why this plan sucks:

Preferential subsidies for investment in housing lead people to, on average,consume more housing and less stuff-that-isn’t-housing than they otherwise would. In other words, bigger houses instead of fancier clothes. This, in turn,has a substantial negative impact on the economy. Larger houses cost more to heat and cool, and larger houses lead to longer commutes. We shouldn’t stop people from buying big houses if that’s what they want to do, but it’s quite harmful to be specifically encouraging them to invest their resources in this way quite independently from the financial crisis. Reduce the tax-side subsidies to homeownership and we’d have somewhat faster economic growth, somewhat more public revenue, and a somewhat cleaner environment.

So: get rid of housing subsidies and we'd have both a freer market and bigger government. It's a win-win! Except for anyone who actually voted for it, of course. But at least we get this bonus factoidish wonkery from Taylor:

For what it is worth, Switzerland is the only major country I am aware of that does not implicitly or explicitly subsidize housing in any substantial manner.Home ownership rates are somewhere around 35% as a consequence. But no one thinks of Switzerland as poor or deprived somehow because it does not receive the positive externalities allegedly associated with private home ownership."

The Anatomy Of Flackery: The "Need" For Corporate Jets

TW: One of my favorite things is learning how media is manipulated by PR firms, corporations and most of all governments. Salmon provides a quick example relative to stories on the need for corporate jets suddenly appearing this week. Corporate jets are the ultimate perk and they are sweet (and if you have ever been on one you would start pondering how to get your own...). There are legit uses for them but probably only about 1 time out of 10 times they are used.

From Felix Salmon at Portfolio:
"Two high-profile financial columnists filed two strikingly similar opinions on corporate jets today:
#1
A private plane is really a flying office. It is a way for a busy executive to get from one place to another as efficiently as possible, to get as much work done as possible on the way, and to avoid down time.The executive of an important company has immense responsibilities. His or her time is precious. To waste that time in an airport security line or dealing with flight delays is, quite frankly, a sin against the stockholders. Flying on a private plane is not a decadent act -- it is just a way to move a very valuable asset around to maximize its productivity. To keep executives from using these planes is as foolish as not allowing them to use cell phones or computers.
#2
I have some sympathy for the industry. There is actually some point to executives of big companies with plants or facilities spread across the US, and indeed around the world, flying point-to-point by corporate jet to visit them.As a shareholder, I would prefer senior executives to save time in this way rather than having to queue at airports to get through security check points.

Is there some kind of PR push going on? As it happens, yes there is! And it was announced today! Well done, PR people!"

Robert Novak's Retirement Is A Big Loss For Both Sides Of the Aisle

TW: Robert Novak has been a fixture in American political reporting for decades. Either through television, his columns or the Evans and Novak report, he was fairly ubiquitous. He is very conservative and opinionated but that did not prevent him from actual relatively unbiased reporting. The latter distinguishing him vastly from the next generation of right-wing media- William Kristol, Limbaugh, Hannity etc. His departure from the scene due to health creates another void in the crumbling edifice of much needed but lacking MSM reporting.

From Kos:
"[The newsletter] was respected for a reason -- while run by two conservatives (and then one), the team was known for hardnosed reporting. Novak had many faults, but he is the conservative writer I've most respected, and his newsletter was a must-read. Why? Because he never let that ideology get in the way of the facts. And in the world of conservative media, that is indeed tragically rare. So if one was interested in what reality-based political observers thought about a race or a particular piece of legislation, there were few better sources than Novak. I was crushed to see him forced into retirement, and he's left a void that no one has yet filled."

From the final Evans and Novak report"
"Politics has a tendency to cast down the mighty and lift up the lowly. Politics makes a fool of any commentator or participant who, explaining the significance of a recent political development, uses the words "never" or "from now on."
Everything about politics—the heroes, the goats, the dynamics, the rules of thumb, the alliances, the enmities—comes and goes. With sadness, so does the Evans-Novak Political Report."

Talk Is Weakness Or Is Talk Strength

TW: I completely concur with and like Economist's analogy on the conservative reaction to Obama's talk relative to the Muslim world. Why folks believe the slightest bit of humility is weakness rather than strength always perplexes me. Do Krauthammer et al. ever have alternatives to "fear and strength"?

From Economist:
"AS NIGHT follows day, conservative columnists have found Barack Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya "needlessly defensive and apologetic", in Charles Krauthammer's words. Never mind that Mr Obama did not apologise; he did say that mistakes had been made. Mr Krauthammer thinks that the wars on behalf of Muslim peoples in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq stand as all you need to know about America's real stance towards the Muslim world. He also notes Mr Bush's visit to Islamic centres and his declarations such as "Islam is peace".

Mr Krauthammer is right, if you only look at half the balance sheet. And if I only looked at the deposits, not the withdrawals, in my bank account, I would be a rich man. Inexplicable that my bank does not see it that way."

Fretting Repubs Are a Good Thing Too But Even Better

TW: Love to read these responses from the right, as this is the type fretting that means Obama is doing well. Plus Mr. Lewis manages to disparage numerous fellow Republicans, those not sufficiently hard core. One also detects some generational angst as well.

From conservative AOL blogger, Matt Lewis:

"As I write this, young conservatives on Twitter are discussing Barack Obama's dinner with certain august members of the conservative intelligentsia, and the general opinion is one of skepticism. David Brooks is certainly no longer a conservative -- if he ever was one. And though George Will certainly qualifies as a conservative, many younger conservative bloggers -- who view how one came down on the issue of Sarah Palin as a sort of "legacy vote" -- would argue that he is, at least, not generally representative of modern conservative thought.

Give Obama credit, though, for rounding up journalists he might be able to, at least, temporarily, co-opt (In fact, based on the attendee list, one can only wonder why Kathleen Parker wasn't invited to attend this affair...) Simply put, it is a bit misleading to describe this group as the "conservative media" -- though calling them the "mainstream conservative media" (meaning conservatives who are tolerable enough for the New York Times and Washington Post to publish) -- would be more accurate. Still, as an act of political sagacity, one has to applaud Obama for taking the time to do this. George W. Bush did not have the time nor inclination to attempt to woo his friends, much less his enemies -- partly because of his 9:30 pm bed time. But just as Ronald Reagan was able to convince some liberal journalists to give him a break (because unlike George W. Bush, he courted them -- and they personally liked him), I expect to see some fawning columns these next few days out of at least some of the attendees."

And They Eat Their Own Too

TW: We posted the other day on 2010 Senate elections already evolving with all of the turnover, either Dems heading into the Obama administration or GOP retirements.
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2009/01/2008-senate-turnover-sets-table-for.html

There is a new entrant, George Voinovich Repub. OH, is retiring. This will make another GOP vulnerable in 2010, although Rob Portman will likely be a strong GOP nominee. Ohio will probably be a good bellweather with the party with the big mo in '10 taking it. Voinovich has been a relative moderate which means perhaps he will be a key swing vote over the next two years.

What stuck me most was the visceral reaction of some on the right to his departure. Apparently moderation is not particularly respected amongst the right-wing nuts.

From Michelle Malkin:
"When I think of George Voinovich, I think of his inane blubbering about the shamnesty debacle. Blubber, blubber. I think of his crusading for the massive auto bailout. And I think of his mortifying meltdown in opposition to John Bolton’ UN ambassador nomination in 2005...Crybaby George. You represent some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party. Won’t be missed"
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/11/i-cant-say-ill-miss-george-voinovich/
"

Lets See Who Thinks These Were Truly Achievements

TW: Fred Barnes would make my list of least respected right-wing pundits, he has been at it for a long time yet continues to receive compensation despite his ignorance. Here he summarizes ten "great achievements" of the Bush presidency. They are:

1) Rejection of the Kyoto accords and general skepticism towards global warming
2) Propagation of "enhanced interrogation techniques" aka torture
3) Pushing executive power to new limits
4) "Unswerving support for Israel"
5) Creating the No child left behind legislation
6) The promotion of democracy internationally
7) Supporting the medicare prescription act
8) Naming Alito and Roberts to the SCOTUS
9) Improving relations with certain Asian nations (Korea, Japan, Australia, India)
10) The surge in Iraq

I would argue #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are either exactly what we should not have done (#1, 2, 3, 4, 8) or incredibly poorly executed actions leaving us worse off than before (6 and 10, without initiating the war in Iraq there would have been no need for a surge a fact usually left off by the right-wing).

Items #5 and #7 are at best pushes. NCLB remains a highly dubious initiative and the medicare act perpetuates discriminatory benefits for elderly while digging our fiscal hole even deeper.

#9 fine, improving relations was a concept frequently left off the Bush agenda but all of those East Asian nations were eager to hedge their bets relative to an emerging China.

And lets not forget what is not on the list: economic success of any sort NONE!

Fundamentally, Barnes columns frames the yawning gap between the right-wing and where this country should be headed. Lets see the list as it could have been:

1) US ratifies Kyoto and works with other leading nations to address global warming
2) US despite 9/11 reacts with maturity reflective of the world's greatest power and upholds its cherished liberties whilst combating terrorism
3) Bush works with Congress and the courts to balance the needs of the GWOT with the Constitution
4) US engages in balanced diplomacy in the Middle East protecting Israel's fundamental right to exist and original borders while encouraging a fair settlement to the Palestinian issue
5) Creating the No child left behind legislation
6) While promoting democracy internationally where relevant the US engages in multi-lateral initiatives to promote economic success, free trade, and good governance
7) Supporting the medicare prescription act while addressing the fiscal challenges faced by the US, spending was reduced on ???.
8) Moderates were named to the SCOTUS
9) Improving relations with certain Asian nations (Korea, Japan, Australia, India) and Africa and South Asia and Europe etc.
10) The US continued to constrain Saddam Hussein while multi-laterally defeating the Taliban and capturing Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora etc.

Perhaps we will do better this time
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp

Moron Alert: Beware Ben Stein

TW: Ben Stein is an actor of limited resume, author of limited talent and a vacuous pundit on investing, politics and "intelligent" design. Naturally he is a Republican. Naturally he most frequently appears on Fox. He is a prime example of one of those pundits who is so bad that if it were possible he would be charged with malpractice. Alas the standards of punditry are so low as to preclude successful prosecutions.

From Felix Salmon at Portfolio:

"...I don't think Stein actually has a policy in mind when he writes...things; he's just bullshitting, like he does on television, in the expectation that if he sounds authoritative, no one will notice that his words make no sense at all. The tactic seems to be working, too, at least when it comes to the readers who matter most: his editors at the New York Times. Maybe they were bludgeoned into insensibility by Stein's sequence of obnoxious observations:

High-end restaurants, like my favorite, Mr. Chow in Beverly Hills, are still almost impossible to get into... A friend in real estate in California has written to me that "the recession has destroyed our wealth," adding: "We are essentially bankrupt." ...The house across from ours in Beverly Hills was sold two years ago and leveled to build a house twice as big; the lot sits empty and is again for sale...My Cadillac dealer down here in the desert, near Palm Springs, is constrained by the credit crisis...

There is nothing here -- nothing -- of the remotest interest to Stein's readers. This is the business-page equivalent of Larry King's unlamented column in USA Today: a concatenation of insipid banalities, published for no reason other than the fact that the author has some kind of celebrity status..."

Blagosteria

TW: Am officially burned out on anymore Blago. I know the Repubs would like to tar my guy BHO with it or at least the Rahmster but...I don't think so...

From Chris Buckley at Daily Beast:
"Thank heavens Mr. Fitzgerald has given us another juicy political crisis to keep our mind off bailouts, the greatest economic crisis since the depression, and our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For a minute there, it looked we were might have to concentrate on The Big Picture. How much more diverting to focus on the villainy of a potty-mouthed Illinois pol."

Best of 2008: Brilliant Work By Scarborough

Parallel Universes

TW: View the video, then read the Ambinder piece, they discuss the same topic but provide utterly different answers. One is wrong, VERY wrong. You decide. Also if you have money to invest or invested you will need to chose a side.



Marc Ambinder from Atlantic:
"It's quite unsettling to talk to members of Barack Obama's transition teams these days, especially those who are helping with the economics portfolio. Without going into details, the sense I get from them is that they are very worried that the economy will get a lot worse before it gets better. Not just worse... a lot worse. As in -- double digit unemployment without the wiggle factors. Huge declines in aggregate demand. Significant, persistent deficits. That's one reason why the Obama administration seems to be open to listening to every economist with an idea and is stocking the staff with the leading lights of the field. In one sense, the general level of concern among Obama advisers and transition staffers is reassuring; they get the magnitude of the problems, and they're not going to assume that, just because the bottom has never dropped out before -- certainly not in the lifetimes of most people doing policy these days, the bottom will never drop out.

Where the discussion isn't going, at least in public, (or the PR level), is the possibility that the first foreign policy crisis the administration will face will be the complete economic collapse of a large, unstable nation. To be sure, Pakistan is nearly broke, and U.S. policy makers seem to be aware of that; but a worldwide demand crisis could lead to social unrest in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, Singapore, the Ukraine, Japan, Turkey or Egypt (which is facing an internal political crisis of epic proportions already). The U.S. won't have the resources to, say, engineer the rescue of the peso again, or intervene in Asia as in 1997..."
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/its_quite_unsettling_to_talk.php

Best of 2008: Certainly My Favorite Open Mic Moment