Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
The rest is just commentary...
From a blog post on the Economist:
"...neither party is prepared to make the basic compromises that are essential to a deal. Republicans refuse to accept that taxes will have to rise, Democrats that spending on “entitlements” such as health care and pensions must fall. No real progress is likely until after the 2012 presidential election."
This is the entire issue at hand here. The rest of the column is just commentary, which makes me wonder if the work of the Gang of Six can be so promising with the 2012 election hanging in the background:
"The popular culture tends to treat “politician” as a synonym for “craven.” But I think the Gang of Six is the kind of undertaking that should give politics a good name. After all, true believers are usually the ones who get us into wars; negotiators get us out of them. Revolutionaries are the people to see if you’re trying to overthrow a bad government; politicians are the folks to call if you’re building a better one.
In my experience, the great reformers tend to have three things in common. They are optimists, because reform begins with a sense that things can be better. They have the courage to stand up not only to their adversaries but also to their allies. And they can bend. People tend to remember Nelson Mandela as the moral champion who liberated South Africa by suffering in prison for 27 years. The fact is he liberated South Africa by sitting down and cutting a deal with the white leaders who put him in prison."
"...neither party is prepared to make the basic compromises that are essential to a deal. Republicans refuse to accept that taxes will have to rise, Democrats that spending on “entitlements” such as health care and pensions must fall. No real progress is likely until after the 2012 presidential election."
This is the entire issue at hand here. The rest of the column is just commentary, which makes me wonder if the work of the Gang of Six can be so promising with the 2012 election hanging in the background:
"The popular culture tends to treat “politician” as a synonym for “craven.” But I think the Gang of Six is the kind of undertaking that should give politics a good name. After all, true believers are usually the ones who get us into wars; negotiators get us out of them. Revolutionaries are the people to see if you’re trying to overthrow a bad government; politicians are the folks to call if you’re building a better one.
In my experience, the great reformers tend to have three things in common. They are optimists, because reform begins with a sense that things can be better. They have the courage to stand up not only to their adversaries but also to their allies. And they can bend. People tend to remember Nelson Mandela as the moral champion who liberated South Africa by suffering in prison for 27 years. The fact is he liberated South Africa by sitting down and cutting a deal with the white leaders who put him in prison."
‘Today on our class trip we visited the Department of Housing and Urban Development.’
David Brooks’ column in today’s New York Times reads more like a child’s essay after a class trip, but it does get the point across about how a government office actually does its job and how good leadership can make a difference:
"Unlike some political appointees, [HUD Secretary Shaun] Donovan and [VA Deputy Secretary Scott] Gould are deeply involved in the intricacies and are powerfully driving policy. Many government efforts are designed to minimize failure and avert scandal. In this program, each region has a clear numeric definition of success. There are clear standards for how quickly veteran homelessness should be reduced year by year. So far, the program is surpassing its targets by 46 percent."
"Unlike some political appointees, [HUD Secretary Shaun] Donovan and [VA Deputy Secretary Scott] Gould are deeply involved in the intricacies and are powerfully driving policy. Many government efforts are designed to minimize failure and avert scandal. In this program, each region has a clear numeric definition of success. There are clear standards for how quickly veteran homelessness should be reduced year by year. So far, the program is surpassing its targets by 46 percent."
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Finally, hard evidence … but about whom?
For some reason, the birth certificate issue is even being analyzed down under in Australia. A professor at the University of Western Australia astutely picks up on the reason why seemingly intelligent people plug into ideologies that are deeply flawed:
"It has been a long-standing source of puzzlement among outside observers how the Soviet Union and its satellites could bumble along for so long without reforming their sclerotic economies. Didn’t they notice that the shelves were empty? That Western workers enjoyed a far more comfortable life-style than their Soviet brethren?
No, the Soviet ideologues didn't notice and they wouldn't have seen anything even if someone had forced them to look.
Because ideology trumps facts.
And it doesn't matter what the ideology is, whether socialism, any brand of fundamentalist religion, or free-market extremism. The psychological literature shows quite consistently that a threat to one's worldview is more than likely met by a dismissal of facts, however strong the evidence. Indeed, the stronger the evidence, the greater the threat—and hence the greater the denial."
This reminds me of a lot of the things I’ve heard from conservatives about President Obama and progressive policies, such as:
Just to be clear, I'm not implying it's conservative issue alone. There are many liberals that hold ideologically rigid views as well. It's one of the reasons I wasn't disappointed when Keith Olbermann's show went off the air.
Now someone might think that I'm glutton for punishment for debating issues with people this ideologically rigid. The reality is I don't mind because not only does it keep me honest but I agree with these kinds of people more times than they realize. Not with the statements above because although I don't mind strong opinions as long as the person knows they're opinions and not passing them off as facts, like they are here.
It never hurts to look into the opposing point of view, under the assumption that they are the ones that are right, to find something that you may agree with. One thing I've learned is my position tends to stay closer to where it originally was but becomes a bit more nuanced than before.
As far as whether or not Obama is a socialist or communist or fascist or jihadist, etc., forget what everyone else says and just go to the source. It's best way to really find out what makes a person tick, regardless of whether or not you like them.
"It has been a long-standing source of puzzlement among outside observers how the Soviet Union and its satellites could bumble along for so long without reforming their sclerotic economies. Didn’t they notice that the shelves were empty? That Western workers enjoyed a far more comfortable life-style than their Soviet brethren?
No, the Soviet ideologues didn't notice and they wouldn't have seen anything even if someone had forced them to look.
Because ideology trumps facts.
And it doesn't matter what the ideology is, whether socialism, any brand of fundamentalist religion, or free-market extremism. The psychological literature shows quite consistently that a threat to one's worldview is more than likely met by a dismissal of facts, however strong the evidence. Indeed, the stronger the evidence, the greater the threat—and hence the greater the denial."
This reminds me of a lot of the things I’ve heard from conservatives about President Obama and progressive policies, such as:
- "You may have doubts about trickle down, but we do have empirical evidence that socialism and communism do not work."
- "Obama is a socialist. Everything he does and says (when he is talking to his supporters) are excellent examples of socialism."
- "This perpetual welfare we have started with endless unemployment is just giving the incentive not to work for a much smaller pool of people than would be employed in a strong economy."
- "[W]ho passed the health care bill against the wishes of the majority? Who wants to put people in jail if they choose not to have health insurance? Which party is it that wants to regulate everything that exists in America?"
Just to be clear, I'm not implying it's conservative issue alone. There are many liberals that hold ideologically rigid views as well. It's one of the reasons I wasn't disappointed when Keith Olbermann's show went off the air.
Now someone might think that I'm glutton for punishment for debating issues with people this ideologically rigid. The reality is I don't mind because not only does it keep me honest but I agree with these kinds of people more times than they realize. Not with the statements above because although I don't mind strong opinions as long as the person knows they're opinions and not passing them off as facts, like they are here.
It never hurts to look into the opposing point of view, under the assumption that they are the ones that are right, to find something that you may agree with. One thing I've learned is my position tends to stay closer to where it originally was but becomes a bit more nuanced than before.
As far as whether or not Obama is a socialist or communist or fascist or jihadist, etc., forget what everyone else says and just go to the source. It's best way to really find out what makes a person tick, regardless of whether or not you like them.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
What do you mean the birth certificate is real!?! What do you mean he's really a moderate!?!
Ezra Klein explains where Barack Obama's policy ideas come from. Democrats aren't going to believe it and Republicans are going to be in denial about it:
"President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican from the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him."
"President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican from the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him."
"On Wall Street, Why Is Enough Never Enough?" It's not just Wall Street Mr. Cohan...
William D. Cohan, author of "House of Cards" and "Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World" penned an opinion piece in the New York Times today about the Raj Rajaratnam insider trading verdict asking the question of why so many people that made their money legitimately (and not through drugs or illegal activities) still end up breaking the law because they don't have enough. The short answer, because it's human nature Mr. Cohan.
This issue does strike me as being very similar to the Red-State obsession with tax cuts for the wealthy. Thomas Frank wrote a great book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" about how conservatives essentially duped regular people into thinking the wealthy will trickle down their earnings to everyone else.
For the people at the top, it's not about their own personal wealth. It's about their wealth relative to others. The wealthy will always aggressively pursue the last dollar they can get regardless of how much they are taxed, which is why progressives believe the argument that tax cuts for the wealthy encourages economic activity is a straw man at best. So long as there is money to be made in doing so, there will be firms and businesses that cater solely to making the wealthy wealthier at a cheaper and cheaper relative price. They have access to advice and information (legally, mind you) that the average person doesn't have and never will get, making it less labor intensive to accumulate wealth compared to the average person that has to do all the leg work because it's not possible to just hire advisers to do this for you.
Yet the average person is convinced that they will be able to play in the same ballpark as the people trying to put bigger and bigger walls around that ballpark, as I was reminded by via a back-and-forth I had with a conservative a few months ago about the Bush Tax Cuts:
"The tax cuts were across the board for everyone. Its not "for the wealthy" like the left wing media portrays it. I doubt they "hoard" their money. But even if they "hoarded" their money what is wrong with that? It is their money to hoard after fall. Last I checked we lived in the US and people had a right to spend their money or not spend their money as they choose. Wait let me correct that statement, last I checked, a year and a half ago people had the right to...."
So it's okay to hold on to money for yourself even though it is to create jobs and spur economic activity? (And oh yes, the President that signed the largest tax cut in history took away peoples' right to choose how to spend their money, but this is an issue for another day and another argument.) I applaud the people that made their money through their own hard work. However, they are still people and as with all people, some have a larger appetite for greed and corruption than others. The only issue is they also have enablers that will help them get off scot-free because their own less substantial livelihood depends on it.
This issue does strike me as being very similar to the Red-State obsession with tax cuts for the wealthy. Thomas Frank wrote a great book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" about how conservatives essentially duped regular people into thinking the wealthy will trickle down their earnings to everyone else.
For the people at the top, it's not about their own personal wealth. It's about their wealth relative to others. The wealthy will always aggressively pursue the last dollar they can get regardless of how much they are taxed, which is why progressives believe the argument that tax cuts for the wealthy encourages economic activity is a straw man at best. So long as there is money to be made in doing so, there will be firms and businesses that cater solely to making the wealthy wealthier at a cheaper and cheaper relative price. They have access to advice and information (legally, mind you) that the average person doesn't have and never will get, making it less labor intensive to accumulate wealth compared to the average person that has to do all the leg work because it's not possible to just hire advisers to do this for you.
Yet the average person is convinced that they will be able to play in the same ballpark as the people trying to put bigger and bigger walls around that ballpark, as I was reminded by via a back-and-forth I had with a conservative a few months ago about the Bush Tax Cuts:
"The tax cuts were across the board for everyone. Its not "for the wealthy" like the left wing media portrays it. I doubt they "hoard" their money. But even if they "hoarded" their money what is wrong with that? It is their money to hoard after fall. Last I checked we lived in the US and people had a right to spend their money or not spend their money as they choose. Wait let me correct that statement, last I checked, a year and a half ago people had the right to...."
So it's okay to hold on to money for yourself even though it is to create jobs and spur economic activity? (And oh yes, the President that signed the largest tax cut in history took away peoples' right to choose how to spend their money, but this is an issue for another day and another argument.) I applaud the people that made their money through their own hard work. However, they are still people and as with all people, some have a larger appetite for greed and corruption than others. The only issue is they also have enablers that will help them get off scot-free because their own less substantial livelihood depends on it.
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
Matt Miller wants you to repeat after him, "The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit. The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit."
I prefer this comparison though:
"The classic definition of chutzpah was a kid who kills his parents and then asks for the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan. The new definition of chutzpah is Republicans who vote for the Ryan plan that adds trillions in debt and who then say the debt limit goes up only over their dead bodies!"
I prefer this comparison though:
"The classic definition of chutzpah was a kid who kills his parents and then asks for the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan. The new definition of chutzpah is Republicans who vote for the Ryan plan that adds trillions in debt and who then say the debt limit goes up only over their dead bodies!"
"The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural..."
R.A. Dickey channels his inner Sith, although like the Sith versus the Jedi, he's not quite the same as a naked Yoda (aka Pedro Martinez) running through the team's clubhouse.
I just wish we had a picture like we did with David Wright's shirt.
I just wish we had a picture like we did with David Wright's shirt.
Dollar Dollar Bills Y'All!
From Steven Pearlstein this week:
"When half of the world's currency is pegged to the dollar, the United States winds up handing over control of its currency to foreigners who have become quite clever at using it to their economic advantage. And by making it so cheap and easy to borrow money, we have been enabled and encouraged to live beyond our means, taking on so much debt that the dollar's role as reserve currency is now called into question."
"When half of the world's currency is pegged to the dollar, the United States winds up handing over control of its currency to foreigners who have become quite clever at using it to their economic advantage. And by making it so cheap and easy to borrow money, we have been enabled and encouraged to live beyond our means, taking on so much debt that the dollar's role as reserve currency is now called into question."
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
The Shea Faithful | New York Mets Star David Wright Wore a Ridiculous Shirt Last Night
Yes, that is David Wright wearing a shirt with a picture of ... David Wright!
Thursday, April 21, 2011
What was that excuse again Governor?
The Wall Street Journal's Wealth Report posts that in spite of the ludicrous theory on the right that a so-called "millionaire's tax" drives millionaires out of such states, a recent study shows nothing can be further from the truth. This flies in the face of Gov. Chris Christie's veto last year of a millionaire's tax in New Jersey, probably the most practical place where one should exist.
This brings to mind two questions:
1. How would the right play down empirical evidence contradicting their ideology this time?
2. How did someone from The Wall Street Journal get away with posting something on their website that disagreed with long-held Republican positions?
This brings to mind two questions:
1. How would the right play down empirical evidence contradicting their ideology this time?
2. How did someone from The Wall Street Journal get away with posting something on their website that disagreed with long-held Republican positions?
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
"Chavez, great speed; Reyes, great speed; LoDuca, good guy."
Rich Coutinho makes a great case for the Mets batting Josh Thole 2nd in the lineup. Not a bad idea, considering the Jose Reyes/Paul LoDuca duo at the top of the lineup in 2006. The only thing I would disagree with is Coutinho suggests moving Pagan back to the #2 spot when Jason Bay returns. I'm not entirely sure that would be a good idea, especially if Thole is performing in the two-hole.
In other New York Mets news, great column by Steve Popper in The Bergen Record about David Wright taking more of a leadership role on the team. He also mentions the game of catch with the Braves fans before Sunday's game.
By the way, does anyone remember that Howie Rose quote that I used for the title of this post?
In other New York Mets news, great column by Steve Popper in The Bergen Record about David Wright taking more of a leadership role on the team. He also mentions the game of catch with the Braves fans before Sunday's game.
By the way, does anyone remember that Howie Rose quote that I used for the title of this post?
Monday, April 18, 2011
"We'll make it. Just don't ask me how."
Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein wraps up his two-week sojourn to India with a wrap-up of where India has been and where she's headed. In the end, there is a sense of reserved optimism or hopeful pessimism in India, which goes hand-in-hand with the quote that I used for the title of this post, "We'll make it. Just don't ask me how."
The blurb from the article that stood out for me, for personal reasons, was:
"Cummins, the big U.S.-based engine company, has had a plant in Pune since 1962, and demand for its products are so brisk that it will open a second, bigger production campus 90 miles away."
My family comes from Pune and my father had a job offer from Cummins in 1970. He had also just gotten an immigration visa to the United States and decided to turn down the Cummins job offer and move to the United States instead. It's kind of nice to see Cummins still operating in Pune and still holding the same presence that I had always heard about.
The blurb from the article that stood out for me, for personal reasons, was:
"Cummins, the big U.S.-based engine company, has had a plant in Pune since 1962, and demand for its products are so brisk that it will open a second, bigger production campus 90 miles away."
My family comes from Pune and my father had a job offer from Cummins in 1970. He had also just gotten an immigration visa to the United States and decided to turn down the Cummins job offer and move to the United States instead. It's kind of nice to see Cummins still operating in Pune and still holding the same presence that I had always heard about.
David Wright playing catch with kids during pre-game warmups...
This is just awesome. Prior to Sunday's game versus the Atlanta Braves, David Wright decided to play catch with some kids in the stands during the pre-game warmup.
Really really really cool!
Really really really cool!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Don't vote if you don't like facts...
Great column about how little the voting public actually knows about issues:
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The REAL Fair and Balanced
Great quote from Jerry Miller, who runs KISU-FM:
““I’m a conservative,” he said. “I have a political philosophy that leans to the right. I know when I hear slanted reporting — and I do hear it sometimes on NPR. But on the whole, it’s very balanced and detailed.””
Unlike Fox News, which claims you can get women’s health services at Walgreens.
““I’m a conservative,” he said. “I have a political philosophy that leans to the right. I know when I hear slanted reporting — and I do hear it sometimes on NPR. But on the whole, it’s very balanced and detailed.””
Unlike Fox News, which claims you can get women’s health services at Walgreens.
Friday, April 15, 2011
India needs Wal-Mart? Perhaps/Perhaps Not.
The Economist has an interesting blog post that suggests India could transform its retail sector by opening up foreign direct investment to firms like Wal-Mart. There are two ways to look at this. Wal-Mart will either take advantage of its legitimate supply chain management and illegitimate business practices to end up becoming the only game in town, much like it has done in small-town America OR Wal-Mart’s reputation for unethical business practices combined with its leverage could be the only thing capable of taking on and taking down the hideously corrupt Indian bureaucracy.
The thing is politicians in India have two gravy trains:
1) Rural villagers exploited into thinking they’re going to be exploited by foreigners or urban Indians.
2) Wealthy interests greasing the politicians’ palms to get what they want at the expense of everyone else not willing/able to pay a bribe.
Neither of these is conducive to Wal-Mart ending up in India, regardless of whether you think it will be a blessing or a curse.
The thing is politicians in India have two gravy trains:
1) Rural villagers exploited into thinking they’re going to be exploited by foreigners or urban Indians.
2) Wealthy interests greasing the politicians’ palms to get what they want at the expense of everyone else not willing/able to pay a bribe.
Neither of these is conducive to Wal-Mart ending up in India, regardless of whether you think it will be a blessing or a curse.
Where are the answers Mr. Ryan?
Steven Pearlstein again with another stellar column asking some questions that really haven’t been answered yet:
“Is it fair that the market economy has directed virtually all of the benefits of economic growth to the top 10 percent of households? No answer.
Given this increasingly unequal distribution of incomes, isn’t there room to make the tax code slightly more progressive? No answer.
Given that people with low incomes rely disproportionately on government services and transfer programs, wouldn’t a deficit reduction plan based solely on domestic spending cuts require more sacrifice from the poor than the rich? And why isn’t that as much class warfare as raising taxes on millionaires? Again, no answers.”
We’re waiting Mr. Ryan. We’re still waiting…
“Is it fair that the market economy has directed virtually all of the benefits of economic growth to the top 10 percent of households? No answer.
Given this increasingly unequal distribution of incomes, isn’t there room to make the tax code slightly more progressive? No answer.
Given that people with low incomes rely disproportionately on government services and transfer programs, wouldn’t a deficit reduction plan based solely on domestic spending cuts require more sacrifice from the poor than the rich? And why isn’t that as much class warfare as raising taxes on millionaires? Again, no answers.”
We’re waiting Mr. Ryan. We’re still waiting…
Thursday, April 14, 2011
"My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I AM the President"
Great flick, starring Michael Douglas and Annette Bening. President Obama's speech yesterday was very direct and to-the-point in a positive, yet passive aggressive way, much like President Andrew Shepherd in The American President. If you missed it (Obama's speech yesterday, not Michael Douglas's speech in the movie), check it out:
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Playing chess among checkers players...
The details of the budget cuts are coming out and the Right isn't happy about it. A key blurb from the article:
"The full details of Friday's agreement weren't being released until overnight as it was officially submitted to the House. But the picture already emerging is of legislation financed with a lot of one-time savings and cuts that officially "score" as savings to pay for spending elsewhere, but that often have little to no actual impact on the deficit.
As a result of the legerdemain, Obama was able to reverse many of the cuts passed by House Republicans in February when the chamber passed a bill slashing this year's budget by more than $60 billion. In doing so, the White House protected favorites like the Head Start early learning program, while maintaining the maximum Pell grant of $5,550 and funding for Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative that provides grants to better-performing schools."
Before everyone jumps off the deep end, this is actually the first example of true compromise in a long time. One important aspect of negotiation is to allow your adversary to back out of the deal without losing face. The adversary for Obama here wasn't the Rebpublican leadership but rather the Tea Party. This deal allowed John Boehner to get it passed with the votes he needed and the votes Harry Reid needed in the Senate without Boehner having to rely upon the Mike Pences and Michele Bachmanns of the world.
This also allowed Pence and Bachmann to continue kowtowing to the Tea Party by voting 'Nay' on the continuing resolution.
See, everybody wins!
"The full details of Friday's agreement weren't being released until overnight as it was officially submitted to the House. But the picture already emerging is of legislation financed with a lot of one-time savings and cuts that officially "score" as savings to pay for spending elsewhere, but that often have little to no actual impact on the deficit.
As a result of the legerdemain, Obama was able to reverse many of the cuts passed by House Republicans in February when the chamber passed a bill slashing this year's budget by more than $60 billion. In doing so, the White House protected favorites like the Head Start early learning program, while maintaining the maximum Pell grant of $5,550 and funding for Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative that provides grants to better-performing schools."
Before everyone jumps off the deep end, this is actually the first example of true compromise in a long time. One important aspect of negotiation is to allow your adversary to back out of the deal without losing face. The adversary for Obama here wasn't the Rebpublican leadership but rather the Tea Party. This deal allowed John Boehner to get it passed with the votes he needed and the votes Harry Reid needed in the Senate without Boehner having to rely upon the Mike Pences and Michele Bachmanns of the world.
This also allowed Pence and Bachmann to continue kowtowing to the Tea Party by voting 'Nay' on the continuing resolution.
See, everybody wins!
I called it too...
In his daily Wonkbook today, Ezra Klein talks about how President Obama is expected to announce that he is backing the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan. Although I am a regular reader of Ezra Klein's blog, I missed the post where he predicted this would happen. So either I am really tuned into Ezra Klein's thinking or I'm starting to think along the same lines because I posted the same prediction on this blog last Thursday.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
"What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."
Great column in The Week. Some important questions it raises:
• Do you really want to replace Medicare with vouchers for private insurance?
• Do you really want to lose guaranteed coverage – and pay more and more for less and less?
• Do you really want to exchange Medicare for a market that puts profits ahead of people?
• Do you really want to slash Medicaid so the sick are left without help in order to lavish tax cuts on the wealthy?
• Do you really want to let Republicans get their budget-cutting hands on your Social Security – because that’s the next target?
• Do you really want to let insurance companies cancel the coverage you paid for across the years once a loved one gets cancer or some other serious illness – and the bills mount up?
Unless you answered 'Yes' to all of these questions, you'll never fully understand what it is the House Republicans are fighting for.
• Do you really want to replace Medicare with vouchers for private insurance?
• Do you really want to lose guaranteed coverage – and pay more and more for less and less?
• Do you really want to exchange Medicare for a market that puts profits ahead of people?
• Do you really want to slash Medicaid so the sick are left without help in order to lavish tax cuts on the wealthy?
• Do you really want to let Republicans get their budget-cutting hands on your Social Security – because that’s the next target?
• Do you really want to let insurance companies cancel the coverage you paid for across the years once a loved one gets cancer or some other serious illness – and the bills mount up?
Unless you answered 'Yes' to all of these questions, you'll never fully understand what it is the House Republicans are fighting for.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Death Panels and Tax Cuts: Not quite the same as Death and Taxes
Following up on the theme from yesterday's post on Matt Miller's column, Charles R. Morris authors an op-ed piece in Politico about how the US tax burden is really a red herring and the real issue isn't the quantity of taxes collected but the quality of the government spending them. He also calls out the people that think everything can be saved by cutting spending without raising a penny in taxes:
"But even a casual look at the country’s needs suggests that increased revenues have to be part of the solution. Cutting-edge U.S. research, mostly funded by the government, created the Internet and much of the scientific matrix supporting the semiconductor and biotech industries. But now research funds are under severe budget pressures. Roads, bridges and airports are in disgraceful condition after decades of scrimping on maintenance.
If we magically eliminated all waste in health care, the expanding technologies of “standard care” would still have far outrun middle-class paychecks. We have a terrible record in perinatal care, thereby incurring immense longer-term social and medical costs. Only in America do middle-class kids finish college with mountains of debt. And sad to say, it seems that economic mobility in America is now lower than in most European countries."
Thursday, April 7, 2011
The duplicitous choice between "Bad" and "Ugly"
This Matt Miller column in today's Washington Post is a must-read regardless of your political ideologies. Regular readers of my blog (all two of you!) know how big a fan I am of Matt Miller's pragmatic thinking or, as he puts it in his weekly radio show, 'Radical Centrism'. In today's column, he spells out the reasons why neither the Obama budget nor the Ryan budget is intellectually honest about the deficit and is really pandering to its own political agenda. A great point from the column:
"Paul Ryan proposes that the federal government spend $40 trillion over the next 10 years, as opposed to Barack Obama’s $46 trillion. The first thing to note is that there is thus about a 15 percent difference in the size of government envisioned by our two major parties. This difference matters greatly, of course, but shouting aside, this is a fight taking place between the 40-yard lines on either side."
My personal thought on this is although the president's budget is much closer to Ryan's budget, his preference would likely be what was proposed in the Simpson-Bowles Commission Report. That's just my hunch; I'm not basing it on any information confirming or denying it. Unfortunately, the President won't get it today from a Republican Party set on the emotional victory of making him a one-term president. The problem this would raise isn't that Republicans don't have the nation's best interests in mind. The real issue with the sport of politics being what it is, a Republican President in 2012 would only work between the 40-yard lines for four more years in hopes of securing a re-election, pushing off further necessary pain until 2016 at the earliest, which may be too late.
"Paul Ryan proposes that the federal government spend $40 trillion over the next 10 years, as opposed to Barack Obama’s $46 trillion. The first thing to note is that there is thus about a 15 percent difference in the size of government envisioned by our two major parties. This difference matters greatly, of course, but shouting aside, this is a fight taking place between the 40-yard lines on either side."
My personal thought on this is although the president's budget is much closer to Ryan's budget, his preference would likely be what was proposed in the Simpson-Bowles Commission Report. That's just my hunch; I'm not basing it on any information confirming or denying it. Unfortunately, the President won't get it today from a Republican Party set on the emotional victory of making him a one-term president. The problem this would raise isn't that Republicans don't have the nation's best interests in mind. The real issue with the sport of politics being what it is, a Republican President in 2012 would only work between the 40-yard lines for four more years in hopes of securing a re-election, pushing off further necessary pain until 2016 at the earliest, which may be too late.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)