Don’t Means-Test Medicare

Sooner or later (I hope) Congress will get past self-created problems like the shutdown and the debt ceiling and start talking about something real: the long-term budget and how to pay for expensive-but-necessary programs like Social Security and Medicare. And when that day comes, one idea the Republicans will put forward is means-testing. (It’s already happening: Tuesday 51 Republican congressmen wrote to Speaker Boehner calling for “Means-testing benefits for high-income recipients of Social Security”.)

At first glance, it makes sense: The $15,000 a year that Social Security pays the average retiree may be a lifesaver to people who didn’t manage to save anything when they were working (or who did save but lost it all to fraud, accident, or a health problem), but Warren Buffett probably won’t even notice if his checks stop coming. And how much are janitors and check-out clerks putting into Medicare just so the government can pay for Warren’s cancer treatments?

Back in February, Yuval Levin put the case like this:

Democrats want to close the budget gap by having the government lean more heavily on the wealthy, while Republicans want to close it by having the government spend less money. Both sides should agree at least to spend less money on the wealthy — via means testing. It may surprise some Americans to learn that the United States spends quite a lot on the affluent, especially through the entitlement programs at the heart of the budget fight: Social Security and Medicare. Both programs move money from relatively poorer young people to relatively richer old people, and they are growing ever more expensive. Means-testing — allocating benefits according to need — might offer both sides a way out.

Levin is a conservative who used to work for the Bush administration, edits the right-leaning National Affairs, and occasionally writes for the conservative flagship, National Review. So what does he have against the rich? And why does a liberal like Paul Krugman defend those upper-class benefits?

Part of the issue is technical: When you do the math, means-testing doesn’t save any significant amount of money unless you’re cutting benefits for people considerably closer to the middle class than Warren Buffett. (Conservatives often make that case with regard to tax increases, but it’s much more true here. The top 1% make 19.3% of the national income, but I doubt they account for 19.3% of Medicare spending.)

But that can’t be the heart of it, because every little bit helps, right? Even if we’re not talking about much money, every dollar we don’t spend on wealthy people is one more we don’t have to borrow.

Here’s the heart of it: Means-testing is actually the opening shot in a much longer strategy to cut entitlement benefits for everyone. It relies on a broader principle you can see all around you: If you want to destroy a public program, first get the rich people out of it.

Think about cities with first-class public transportation like San Francisco or Washington. At rush hour on the BART or the Metro you’ll see a lot of three-piece suits, because no matter how much money you make, public transit is just a good way to get to work. But in cities with crappy systems — dirty buses that don’t come very often and don’t go where you want — public transit is mainly for the underclass. Maids and janitors take the bus to work, but bankers don’t.

Now obviously, rich people have options, so they won’t ride a crappy system. But the arrow of causality also points the other way: Systems that rich people don’t ride tend to get crappier and crappier. It’s not hard to understand why: When there’s a budget crunch, the people who decide what to cut are rich, or at least well-to-do politicians who have to answer to rich donors. If they think of public transit as something other (i.e. poorer) people use, it’s easy for them to imagine those people making do with less. But if they use it themselves, they’re going to fight to keep it operating at a high level.

Ditto for schools. In towns where everybody’s kids — rich and poor alike — go to the public high school, you can be sure the school will have a full range of options and amenities. When times are tough, the well-to-do decision-makers may not understand why poor kids need foreign languages or music or calculus. But it’s different if their own kids and grandkids are going to have to do without (and explain that deficiency when they apply to Harvard).

So if you want to kill public schools in your town, start a voucher program that draws the children of the well-to-do to private schools. That way, rich and professional-class parents — people who have the ear of decision-makers and could be articulate spokesmen for all parents — will stop taking public-school issues personally. Debates about public education will be about those people — and what can you really expect out of their kids anyway? Rhetoric about “throwing money down a rat hole” won’t offend anybody who really matters.

Imagine if we means-tested the public libraries or the parks. You could only get in if you could prove that you were too poor to afford your own books or a yard big enough for your kids to play in. I think before long we’d decide that the poor don’t need a lot of books, and if their parks are over-crowded and poorly maintained, well, what do they expect?

So yeah, let’s remove the rich people from Medicare. Let’s turn it into a welfare program, and make non-participation a status symbol. Then when we cut taxes again and create new deficits, budget-cutters can sharpen their pencils, secure in the knowledge that benefit cuts won’t hurt anybody who lives in their neighborhood. (I mean, seriously, do waitresses really need the latest chemo-therapy drugs? What do those people expect, anyway?)

On the other hand, we could let entitlements be entitlements — care you get not because you’re poor, but because you’re American. Then when future budget-cutters make their proposals, they’ll have to explain why Americans don’t deserve the best.

October 14, 2013 – 9:57 am Categories: Articles | Comments (3)

The Monday Morning Teaser

I don’t think you need me to tell you that the government is still shut down and we’re getting scarily close to the debt ceiling. Nonetheless, I think there’s some value in trying to sort out where the situation stands. I’ll do that in the weekly summary.

When things do start to happen, they’ll probably happen fast. And those last-second flurries of activity are when bad ideas are most likely to find their way into law. So for one particularly bad idea I’ve decided to get my protest in now, before it’s a done deal. The featured article this week will be: “Don’t Means-Test Medicare”. It should come out shortly. The thesis is simple: If you want to destroy a government service, the first thing you do is get the rich people out of it.

The rest of the weekly summary (called “Apocalyptic Methods” after a lead-in quote from Apocalypse Now) will include

  • a report Democracy Corps wrote after doing focus-groups of like-minded Republicans. It’s fascinating inside-the-locker-room talk that most liberals never hear.
  • reviewing the facts about the growth of government under Obama: spending is flat, the deficit is shrinking, and the number of government employees is down sharply. This comes as a surprise to most people, which tells you something about media bias: If the media were biased in one direction, you’d expect them to create popular misconceptions that slanted that way. So the popular misconceptions about the growth of government point to a conservative media bias.
  • the hilarious story of the Ride for the Constitution, a protest where ten thousand truckers were going to shut down the D.C. beltway all last weekend, demanding the arrest of liberal politicians who have violated their oath of office. It was going to be America’s “Egypt moment”, and millions of people around the country were going to join the protest in all sorts of ways. In reality, about 30 trucks showed up and rode around the beltway for a while, disturbing no one. Conservatives saw the lack of coverage (except for Fox, or course) as more evidence of liberal media bias; I guess because they think Anderson Cooper shows up whenever 30 liberals get together to protest something.
October 14, 2013 – 8:04 am Categories: Morning tease | Post a comment

Burning Down the House

No visible means of support and you have not seen nothin’ yet.
Everything’s stuck together.
I don’t know what you expect staring into the TV set,
fighting fire with fire,
burning down the house.

— Talking Heads

This week’s featured posts both have something to do with the shutdown/debt-ceiling crisis. “Countdown to Augustus” takes the long view, while “7 Key Points About the Shutdown” is more immediate.

This week everybody was talking about (what else?) the shutdown

Usually I try to be the calm voice in the room, and to balance the over-hyped Big Issue that the news networks fixate on by pointing out that other things are happening in the world.

This week, though, I’m probably more obsessed with the government-shutdown/debt-ceiling-default than my readers are, and I keep wondering why everybody isn’t more freaked out. Like, why is the stock market drifting gently downward rather than crashing?

I continue not to see an end to this that doesn’t involve some market-crash or riots-in-the-streets type of disaster. I don’t think the Democrats can give in without setting up more hostage crises down the road. So the only way out is for the Republicans to back down without extorting anything in return. And I don’t think they can do that, because their whole mindset says that re-assessing your position in the face of reality is weakness.

So something external has to force this. It doesn’t end any other way.

Jon Stewart has been amazing through this whole mess. It’s hard to pick a favorite, but I think I go with his Rockin’ Shutdown Eve last Monday.

and raids against al Qaeda

The U.S. launched two raids in Africa this weekend. The Libya raid successfully captured Abu Anas al Libi, allegedly a high-ranking al Qaeda guy. And the Sudan raid ran into heavy resistance, but may have killed a guy who may have been connected to last week’s mall shooting in Kenya. So far all we know is what the government is telling us, so wait and see before you draw any conclusions.

and ObamaCare

The web site had problems, as often happens as things roll out. Keep in mind that ObamaCare is fundamentally about health insurance, not about the web. So a problem about the web site is not necessarily a problem with ObamaCare.

Last week I linked to part one of Kurt Eichenwald’s Vanity Fair series on ObamaCare. It covered the lies conservatives have been telling about ObamaCare, and so had a polemic tone. It’s hard to discuss blatant lies calmly and dispassionately.

Part two is much drier: It focuses on the logic of ObamaCare, the problem it’s trying to solve, and what’s in it for you even if you already have insurance. It is full of facts about the uninsured, the cost of providing emergency care for them through our current system, why they die sooner than they should, and the uncomfortable reality that

the vast, vast majority of them are hard-working Americans who simply do not have the same salary and benefit opportunities that others might. And again, no, there are not tens of millions of higher-paying jobs with benefits sitting out there unfilled.

and you also might be interested in

Michele Bachmann claims that her decision not to seek re-election has nothing to do with the ethics charges against her 2012 presidential campaign. But AP reports this about the guy on the other side of the transaction:

Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson … resigned from office Wednesday after investigator Mark Weinhardt concluded Sorenson likely broke ethics rules in receiving $7,500 in monthly income from Bachmann’s political action committee and presidential campaign in exchange for being Bachmann’s state chair in 2011.

The Ron Paul campaign is also implicated. Sorenson switched his allegiance to Paul, allegedly after receiving $75,000 in what AP calls “suspicious payments that may be linked to Paul’s campaign”.

Here’s a consequence of the shutdown that is going to hit people where they live: Notre Dame might have to drop two games out of its football schedule. It’s scheduled to play the Air Force academy on October 26 and Navy on November 2. The academies are currently shut down with the rest of the government. [Tuesday update: Not really. See the comments for a correction.]

A Pro Publica investigation shows that Tylenol is not as harmless as you probably think.

Some straight talk about rape prevention:

If your advice to a woman to avoid rape is to be the most modestly dressed, soberest and first to go home, you may as well add “so the rapist will choose someone else”.

About that IRS scandal … never mind.

October 7, 2013 – 1:58 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (3)

Seven Key Points About the Shutdown

1. This is not a pox-on-both-your-houses situation. The Republicans planned this shutdown and carried it out.

Last Monday, on the eve of the shutdown, Rachel Maddow showed the tapes of one Republican candidate after another making campaign speeches about shutting down the government and being cheered for it. That never happens on the Democratic side. No Democratic candidate for Congress tells his crowds he’s going to shut down the government and expects to get a cheer. Rachel summarized:

What is happening tonight is happening tonight because this is what Republicans want to do. This is what they promised to do. … Elect Republicans and they will burn the place down and they will laugh while they do it and have a great time.

The Daily Beast’s David Freedlander talked to a number of Republican donors from the banking industry, who said Rep. Walden (chair of the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, which wants their money) told them “We have to do this because of the Tea Party.” (An NRCC spokesman denies Walden said that.)

Jonathan Chait traces the Republicans’ post-2012-defeat strategy to a meeting in January.

If you want to grasp why Republicans are careening toward a potential federal government shutdown, and possibly toward provoking a sovereign debt crisis after that, you need to understand that this is the inevitable product of a conscious party strategy. Just as Republicans responded to their 2008 defeat by moving farther right, they responded to the 2012 defeat by moving right yet again. Since they had begun from a position of total opposition to the entire Obama agenda, the newer rightward lurch took the form of trying to wrest concessions from Obama by provoking a series of crises.

The first element of the strategy is a kind of legislative strike. Initially, House Republicans decided to boycott all direct negotiations with President Obama, and then subsequently extended that boycott to negotiations with the Democratic Senate. (Senate Democrats have spent months pleading with House Republicans to negotiate with them, to no avail.) This kind of refusal to even enter negotiations is highly unusual. The way to make sense of it is that Republicans have planned since January to force Obama to accede to large chunks of the Republican agenda, without Republicans having to offer any policy concessions of their own.

2. This “budget” showdown has nothing to do with the budget. Both sides agree on the spending number that should be in the continuing resolution.

That’s because Democrats agreed to the Republicans’ number. In other words, the only genuine concession in this process has come from the Democrats. John Boehner could have taken that concession, passed a continuing resolution to avoid the shutdown, and then called a press conference to declare victory. Instead he shut down the government.

3. The threat not to raise the debt ceiling is unprecedented, except for when these same Republicans made the same threat in 2011.

Posturing about the debt ceiling is perennial: “Look how profligate the party in power is. They’ve run up so much debt we have to raise the ceiling.” But making a credible threat not to raise the debt ceiling unless your legislative demands are met? No. That is an absolutely new tactic in American politics.

Slate’s David Weigel goes through all the alleged examples of the Democrats threatening the debt ceiling. In 1981, Tip O’Neil tried to get President Reagan to promise that Republicans wouldn’t use a debt-ceiling vote against incumbent Democrats in the next election cycle (i.e., no policy demands), but passed it in plenty of time. In 1984, a Democratic committee chair blocked a debt ceiling bill for one day, seeking defense spending cuts. He was roundly criticized for “brinksmanship” and backed down.

That’s it. Dozens of other times Democratic majorities in Congress have passed debt-ceiling increases proposed by Republican presidents without making an issue of it.

If Democrats accepted the tactic Republicans are using, the September, 2007 debt-ceiling increase would have been an opportunity for Nancy Pelosi to demand deficit-reducing changes like a repeal of the Bush tax cuts or an end to Iraq War. But that didn’t happen, because Democrats don’t operate by extortion.

4. Republicans have redefined he words negotiate and compromise.

ThinkProgress’ Judd Legum summed up the Republican “negotiation”:

Can I burn down your house?
No
Just the 2nd floor?
No
Garage?
No
Let’s talk about what I can burn down.
No
YOU AREN’T COMPROMISING!

In a real compromise, both sides give something and both sides get something. So far, the Democrats have been offered nothing.

In the 2011 crisis, President Obama repeatedly tried to negotiate a “grand bargain” with Speaker Boehner that would knock trillions off the long-term deficit. That failed, and the “supercommitte” negotiations that were supposed to replace the sequester failed, on the same point: Republicans insisted there could be no tax increases in the deficit reduction plan. Zero. During one Republican presidential debate, the candidates were asked whether they would accept a 10-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. All said no.

Since April, Harry Reid has been trying to form a conference committee so that the House and Senate can work out a budget compromise. The Republicans have refused to appoint their conferees, preferring to wait until they had the “leverage” of a government shutdown and debt default. The point here is exactly what Chait said above: to extort concessions out of the Democrats without offering any concessions of their own. “OK then, half the ransom” is not a concession, no matter what Ted Cruz says.

5. The principle at stake is majority rule.

I talked about this in detail last week. Speaker Boehner wants to tell the story that the shutdown represents a disagreement between two branches of government that have conflicting popular mandates: The public elected President Obama, but it also elected a Republican House of Representatives.

That’s not what this is about at all. If it were, Boehner could bring the Senate’s clean continuing resolution to the House floor for a vote and defeat it. He can’t do that, because given the chance the people’s representatives would pass it. In blocking that resolution, Boehner does not represent the majority of the House, he only represents “the majority of the majority”, i.e. a minority.

The entire give-us-what-we-want-or-we’ll-burn-the-house-down strategy is against all American ideals of democracy. The constitutional way to pass a law (or repeal a law you don’t like) is to do what the Democrats did to pass ObamaCare in the first place: Win not just a majority in the House, but also a substantial majority in the Senate (to overcome a filibuster, which the Founders never envisioned), and win the White House (to avoid a veto). The Republicans can’t do that, because they are a minority. (Even their House candidates collectively got a million fewer votes than the Democrats in 2012.)

6. Don’t believe the leak that John Boehner won’t allow a debt-ceiling default.

Thursday the NYT quoted multiple anonymous Republican congressmen saying that Boehner had told them he wouldn’t allow a default. But Matt Yglesias points out that Boehner has been saying such things all along, while also saying the opposite.

Boehner’s position, dating back to 2011, has been twofold. On the one hand he says that failing to raise the debt ceiling would be catastrophic and that he favors avoiding catastrophe. On the other hand he says that he requires unrelated public policy concessions in order to agree to a measure that he himself says he supports.

It is, in other words, the classic suicide hostage strategy: Do what I want or I’ll detonate the bomb strapped to my chest. This has always been Boehner’s position.

For example, on Friday Boehner said:

I don’t believe that we should default on our debt. It’s not good for our country. But after 55 years of spending more than what you bring in, something ought to be addressed. I think the American people expect if we’re going to raise the amount of money we can borrow, we ought to do something about our spending problem and the lack of economic growth in our country.

In other words, he wants concessions. And notice: Boehner doesn’t suggest doing something about the deficit, which has a revenue side. He only wants to discuss “our spending problem”. So he’s seeking spending cuts with no tax increases, the same no-compromise position that doomed the budget negotiations in 2011.

And then Sunday he reiterated:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So under no circumstances will you pass a clean debt limit?

BOEHNER: We’re not going down that path.

Stephanopoulos’ question: “So you sit down with the president. What would you offer him in that conversation?” got no answer. And when pushed on the tax issue Boehner said: “Very simple. We’re not raising taxes.”

He described Harry Reid’s proposal to negotiate about the budget after the shutdown and debt ceiling had been dealt with as

My way or the highway. That’s what he’s saying. Complete surrender and then we’ll talk to you.

So he wants concessions and won’t give anything in return. Without his extortion demand, he has nothing to talk about, so giving it up is “complete surrender”.

7. The clearest head in the room belongs to Elizabeth Warren.

The boogeyman government is like the Boogyman under the bed. It’s not real. It doesn’t exist. What is real, what does exist are all those specific important things that we as Americans have chosen to do together through our government. In our democracy, government is not some make-believe thing that has an independent will of its own. In our democracy, government is just how we describe the things that We the People have already decided to do together.

October 7, 2013 – 1:10 pm Categories: Articles | Comments (8)

Tagged , , |

Countdown to Augustus

Losing the Republic one day at a time

About once a year, I recommend that Sift readers take a look at Colleen McCullough’s Masters of Rome series of novels. It covers the final century of the Roman Republic, from the rise of Gaius Marius to the establishment of the Empire under Caesar Augustus. I recommend the series not just because it’s a good yarn (which it is), but because it’s a cautionary tale about how republics are lost.

Your high school world history class probably gave you a highlight-reel version of the fall of the Roman Republic — crossing the Rubicon and all that — but didn’t really cover the century-long erosion of public trust that made the big rockslides inevitable.

The highlight reel may have left you with the impression that at a few key moments, individuals failed or made bad, self-serving decisions: If Cicero and Cato had carried the day, if Julius Caesar didn’t march on Rome, if Octavian had restored the power of the Senate after Actium rather than becoming Emperor… everything would have worked out. And so people who apply the Roman model to the American Republic usually end up matching personalities: Who is our Caesar, our Cicero, our Brutus? Is there a parallel between FDR’s four terms and Marius’ seven consulships? Between the assassinations of the Kennedies and of the Gracchi brothers? And so on.

That’s a fun party conversation for history geeks, but the closer (and scarier) match is in the steady erosion of political norms.

As Chris Hayes has observed on several occasions (at around the 3:30 mark here, for example), republics don’t work just by rules, the dos and don’t explicitly spelled out in their constitutions. They also need norms, things that are technically within the rules — or at least within the powers that the rules establish — but “just aren’t done” and arouse public anger when anyone gets close to doing them. But for that public anger, you can often get an advantage by skirting the norms. And when it looks like you might get away with it, the other side has a powerful motivation to cut some other corner to keep you in check.

For the last few decades, we’ve been in a Romanesque downward spiral of norm-skirting. One side does something that just isn’t done, but calibrates it to avoid a rush of public anger. And the other side responds by doing something else that isn’t (or didn’t used to be) done.

One example has been growing use of the filibuster in the Senate. Once an arcane device that showed up more often in movies than in the Capitol, the filibuster is now in such constant use that journalists now write as if the Constitution required 60 Senate votes to pass a law. The brand new use of the filibuster not just to block the passage of laws but to nullify laws already passed (by blocking appointments to the agencies that enforce those laws) led the Obama administration to push the boundaries of recess appointments, which then led the courts to push the boundaries of their norms against getting involved in political conflicts between the executive and legislative branches.

Another example is impeachment. When Democrats began an impeachment process against President Nixon  in 1974, both parties proceeded somberly and with utmost caution, because the only precedent, Andrew Johnson’s impeachment in 1868, wasn’t something to take pride in. By contrast, the impeachment and trial of President Clinton in 1998-1999 had a circus atmosphere; Republicans were giddy that one of their endless investigations had turned up something they could exaggerate into an impeachable offense. Today, Tea Party Republicans see the Constitution’s definition of an impeachable offense as a technicality. This August, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI) told his constituents that impeaching President Obama would be a “dream come true” except for the annoying little detail that “you’ve got to have evidence” and he doesn’t have any.

That follows a pattern that a Masters of Rome reader easily recognizes: The rules give an explicit power to some office, along with the implicit duty to wield that power to achieve a particular public purpose. But as the erosion of norms proceeds, the power becomes something the officeholder owns, and can use however he likes. So Congress was given the impeachment power to save the Republic from a president who had been suborned by a foreign power or domestic special interest. But the Tea Party believes a Republican Congress just owns that power to use according to its whims; the hurdle to overcome isn’t assembling the evidence, it’s acquiring the votes.

Similarly, the president has the power to enforce the laws and the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. More and more, those institutions are coming to own those powers rather than wield them for a public purpose. So the meaning Constitution’s commerce clause changes from one case to the next, according to the whims of the Court’s conservative majority.

An abuse by one branch legitimizes an abuse by another. Congress’ inability to even compose a new immigration law (much less debate it and bring it to a vote) allows President Obama to be the champion of the popular Dreamers by stretching his powers of prosecutorial discretion. The norms of Congress used to allow simple legislative fixes to complex programs during the implementation phase; even if you opposed a program to begin with, you supported improving it once it was already established in law. But the refusal of the Republican House to allow any changes in ObamaCare short of repeal or sabotage has legitimized Obama in pushing the limits of executive orders.

That also is something an MoR reader will recognize: About half of the erosion in Rome was done by the good guys, in order to seek justice for popular causes that the system had stymied.

And that brings us to the present showdown over funding the government and managing the debt ceiling. Until Newt Gingrich, government shutdowns were glitches: Congress thought it could get the laws passed in time, but something went wrong and the government had to shut down for a day or two until Congress could get it fixed. With Gingrich the government shutdown became a tactic, comparable to a labor strike closing a factory: Give us what we want, or we’ll shut the place down.

In 1995-96, the public recognized that the norms had been violated and reacted with appropriate anger. Gingrich had to back down, and his partner-in-crime Bob Dole was soundly thrashed by Bill Clinton in the next presidential election.

President Bush’s clashes with Democrats in Congress were bitter, but impeachment and shutdown were never serious threats. With the anti-Obama backlash and the rise of the Tea Party in 2010, government shutdown has again become just another tool in the congressional toolbox. And for the first time, threatening the debt ceiling has become a tactic. Both parties had repeatedly postured over the debt ceiling in the past, but in 2011 it was a brand new norm-violation to demand concessions in exchange for allowing the government to pay debts lawfully incurred. Obama blundered by not standing on principle then, and so we are where we are.

Later today I’ll have more to say about where that is, but right now I just want to point out where it fits in the larger pattern. The Republicans have President Obama in a Roman-style box: He can surrender to this new minority-rule tactic with the prospect of more surrenders in the future, or he can watch havoc unleashed on the financial markets, with unpredictable effects on the American economy, or he can break the norms himself by invoking the 14th Amendment or minting a trillion-dollar coin or choosing which of Congress’s contradictory laws (the appropriations bills or the debt ceiling) he will enforce.

In the short run, the third choice — find your own norms to violate — does the least damage to the country.  But it keeps the countdown-to-Augustus clock ticking. As Congress becomes increasingly dysfunctional, as it sets up more and more of these holding-the-country-hostage situations, presidents will feel more and more justified in cutting Congress out of the picture.

We know where that goes: Eventually the Great Man on Horseback appears and relieves us of the burden of Congress entirely. He may come from either the Left or the Right, but when he arrives the people will cheer — as the people cheered first Julius Caesar and then Caesar Augustus — because the trust they have placed in the Republic has been so badly abused.

October 7, 2013 – 11:53 am Categories: Articles | Comments (17)

Tagged , , |

The Monday Morning Teaser

I’m in a weird position this week. Normally, I think of the Weekly Sift as a balance to the hype of the TV news networks: They fixate on one story at a time and tell you the same five details over and over with breathless anxiety; my role is to remind you that there’s a lot more going on in the world, and to calm you down on the One Big Story they’re overblowing.

But I can’t play that role on the shutdown/debt-ceiling story, because I’m probably more obsessed with it than you are. And I keep wondering why people aren’t more freaked out about this than they are. So if you are coming to the Sift today looking for a steadying, calming voice and a reminder that we’ve been here before and it worked out fine — I have to warn you that you’ve come to wrong place.

I’ll be posting two featured articles this week: One that I haven’t named yet (actually I have; it’s “N Points About the Shutdown”, but I still haven’t determined the value of N) about the specifics of the current debate, and “Countdown to Augustus” discussing how this confrontation fits into the long-term story of the decline of the Republic. Those two articles give the weekly summary a shutdown theme also, so it’s called “Burning Down the House”.

I don’t know what to predict about when those articles will appear, because I’ll also have one eye on the breaking news. (The Dow futures point to the market opening sharply downward. Is this the crash I was talking about last week, or just another step in an orderly retreat?)

October 7, 2013 – 7:16 am Categories: Morning tease | Post a comment

Plagues

A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere,
or a cataclysmic earthquake I’d accept with some despair.
But no — You sent us Congress.
Good God, Sir, was that fair?

— John Adams, 1776

This week everybody was talking about government shutdown

I covered that in a separate article, “Tea Trek: Into Darkness“. The gist is that the current government-shutdown and debt-ceiling confrontation represents something bigger than a fight over ObamaCare. It’s about the Republicans giving up on democracy and seeking to rule from the minority.

and lots and lots of nonsense about ObamaCare

Critics exaggerate the unpopularity of ObamaCare, usually by lumping together the people who want the government to do nothing to help the uninsured (i.e., most Republicans, as Ross Douthat more-or-less acknowledges) with the people who want universal insurance through a single-payer system (i.e., me).

But even to the extent ObamaCare is actually unpopular, you have to take into account that it is the most lied-about program in the history of government. If some guy wants ObamaCare repealed because Rick Santorum convinced him his special-needs child will be euthanized — well, how much weight does that opinion deserve? How much consideration should you give to people who are against ObamaCare but support the Affordable Care Act?

Vanity Fair’s Kurt Eichenwald refutes some of the most outrageous anti-ObamaCare claims, but he opens with a level of vitriol that your conservative friends will never wade through. (So send them excerpts rather than a link.) The NYT’s Philip Boffey addresses the ObamaCare-is-killing-jobs argument. Gannett’s Fact-Checker column gave a 0-out-of-10 rating to the truthfulness of the Congress-exempted-itself-from-ObamaCare claim.

As for various implementation glitches as the exchanges roll out on Tuesday: All large government programs have them. The difference with ObamaCare is that Republicans in Congress have refused to cooperate in the post-passage/pre-implementation process of legal fine-tuning that is usually bipartisan and uncontroversial. Any Republicans who genuinely wanted to improve the program rather than sabotage it would find Democrats more than willing to work with them.

Matt Yglesias points out the irony of Senator Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham during his anti-ObamaCare pseudo-filibuster Tuesday: The Dr. Seuss classic is about irrational resistance to something you’ve never tried. If anyone is Sam I Am in this analogy it’s President Obama, who knows the country will like ObamaCare if it ever gets to try it.

Posts by Middle Class Political Economist explain why two pillars of Republican health-care reform won’t work.

We know selling insurance across state lines is a bad idea because we’ve seen this movie before with interstate banking: Rather than increase competition, banks just moved their credit-card operations to the states with the weakest consumer protections, South Dakota and Delaware. The framing of this idea is also weird, particularly for a party that claims to limit federal power: “Allowing” interstate competition is the same as “banning” states from regulating their health-insurance markets, i.e., the federal government will be the only effective health insurance regulator.

We know medical-malpractice reform won’t cut costs, because 39 states have tried this kind of reform with no significant effect. Texas is the prime example.

I’ll add a personal reflection on malpractice reform: The claim is that “defensive medicine” (doctors doing unnecessary tests or treatments to avoid malpractice lawsuits) drives up costs, and so legal reform can lower them. But my wife and I both believe that defensive medicine saved her life. In 1996 she had a mildly suspicious mammogram, and the radiologist recommended rescanning her in six months. But the doctor who had just changed her birth control to something riskier breast-cancer-wise (in other words, the one on the hook for malpractice) insisted on a biopsy. She had stage-2 breast cancer, which could have been stage 3 or 4 six months later.

and promising foreign-policy developments

Just a few weeks ago, I’d have said this was impossible: Friday the UN Security Council voted unanimously — that means Russia and China too — to make Syria give up its chemical weapons. Today, the international team that is supposed to oversee the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons is leaving from The Hague. They should arrive in Damascus tomorrow.

Now, there’s a lot that can still go wrong. But so far nobody seems to be slow-rolling this process, which is what you’d expect if the critics are right and it’s all some elaborate ruse to help Assad keep his weapons rather than get rid of them.

In other news, President Obama and new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani talked on the phone. That may not sound like much, but nothing similar has happened since the days of the Shah. They said nice things to each other. Will that conversation go somewhere? Unclear, but it’s the first optimistic turn in US/Iranian relations in a long, long time.

and the new IPCC report on climate change

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the first part of its Fifth Assessment report, updating the Fourth Assessment in 2007. The report itself, even just the 36-page summary for policy-makers, is dense reading for the non-scientist. Grist’s John Upton , ThinkProgress’ Ryan Koronowski and Quartz’ Eric Holthaus summarize.

If you’ve been paying attention to the climate-change issue, there are no big shockers. Between 2007 and 2013, models get better, levels of certainty increase, and the story remains the same: By burning fossil fuels, humans are raising the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, which causes the Earth to reflect less of the Sun’s energy back into space. That’s causing atmospheric temperatures to increase, the ocean to get more acidic, sea levels to rise, glaciers to recede, and so on.

Holthaus calls attention to one process detail worth noting:

What makes the IPCC so important is simple: They are required to agree. Last night, the group pulled an all-nighter to ensure that representatives from all 195 member countries agreed on every single word of the 36-page “summary for policymakers” (pdf).

in a saner world, that process by itself would lay to rest the idea that there is some kind of scientific “controversy” about global warming. There are disagreements about levels of certainty, or how fast things are changing, but the scientists who spend their lives studying this stuff agree on the general outlook.

Predictably but sadly, the release of any major new scientific report about climate change is matched by climate-change deniers turning up the volume on their disinformation campaign. Debunking climate-denier disinformation soaks up a lot of scientific effort that could be better spent elsewhere, but it has to be done: here, here, here, and elsewhere.

In a move you will understand if you read the comments on any major-news-service article on the IPCC report, Popular Science announced Tuesday that its web site will no longer allow readers to comment on news stories. The reason is kind of sad: The trolls won. PopSci realized that its comment threads were promoting more ignorance than knowledge.

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

and you also might be interested in

When I’m not writing about politics, I write about religion. Here’s my latest column for UU World.

The NSA revelations keep dribbling out. Now, the NSA is mapping social connections between Americans. In theory, the NSA is only supposed to spy on foreigners and Americans who have some connection to terrorism investigations. But more and more it looks like that’s just about everybody. It’s a six-degrees-of-Bin-Laden game.

In other NSA news, NSA head General Keith Alexander refused to give a straight answer to Senator Wyden’s question of whether the NSA uses GPS data from American cell phones to track people. The larger theme of Senator Wyden’s tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee has to do with his frustration about knowing secrets that he can’t tell the public, even though the public ought to know. So probably this interaction is about Wyden trying and failing to get something into the public record that he already knows is true.

New laws in Texas really are keeping people from voting. ThinkProgress tells the story of 84-year-old Dorothy Card, whose legal-aide daughter is making a fourth attempt to get Dorothy a voter-ID card.

Remember how for several years the economy would seem to be coming back in the winter only to sputter in the summer? Turns out that was a glitch. The 2008-2009 crash happened in the winter, so for three years after that the seasonal-adjustment algorithm tried to seasonally adjust to another crash. When the economy didn’t re-crash in the subsequent winters, the seasonal adjustment made it look like it was doing great. The algorithm would then smooth things out by making the summer look bad.

I know, I know: The reporting system can’t be that stupid, can it? Looks like it could. Major policy decisions were based on recoveries and set-backs that never really happened.

The early skirmishes of 2016 are taking place in image-making feature articles.

Liberal Democrats (i.e., people like me) are torn: As in the 2008 cycle, Hillary Clinton is the early favorite. In terms of name recognition and public respect, she looks like the Democrats’ strongest candidate to keep the White House, particularly if she can sail through the primaries without a serious challenge. She’d also rally the women’s vote, which has to be an important part of any Democratic strategy.

OTOH, Clinton would carry forward everything I (and folks like Jonathan Chait) dislike about Obama: the surveillance state, kowtowing to Wall Street, and so on. The presidency of her husband, Bill (The-Era-of-Big-Government-is-Over) Clinton, was a time of peace and relative prosperity, but it left us with a low-expectations liberalism that was content to watch the 1% capture all the economic growth.

That ambivalence is playing out in feature articles. Without discussing 2016 directly or putting forward somebody to run against her, what if we remind everyone of the downside of Clintonism and see if that story takes off? So New Republic has an article about sleazy Clintonista Doug Band, while New York Magazine runs a more positive Hillary profile.

and let’s end with something to make you smile

The New York Times Magazine has a wonderful article about a 103-year-old New Yorker who still enjoys fine restaurants.

“Maybe because I’m eating alone at my age, people at other tables start conversations,” he said. Yes, he tells them, he lives alone, in a modest studio apartment on West 57th Street in Manhattan, and he always eats dinner out, always orders the fish. “They always ask my age, and I often lie and tell them I’m 90,” he said. “If I tell them my real age, it becomes the whole subject of conversation and makes it look like I’m looking for attention, which I’m not.”

September 30, 2013 – 1:28 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (3)

Tea Trek: Into Darkness

The same people who told us a government shutdown couldn’t happen are now sure we’ll avoid a debt-ceiling crisis.

Unless a miracle occurs, the lights go off at midnight.

This week we got to see House Speaker John Boehner repeatedly flummoxed by events that played out in an utterly predictable way: Tea Partiers in the House refused to fund the government without killing ObamaCare. (Delaying it is just killing it in stages. If threatening a government shutdown or a debt-ceiling catastrophe can get it delayed this year, delaying it further can be an annual ransom demand for as long as Republicans have a majority in the House or 41 seats in the Senate.) Democrats in the Senate refused to let a minority party (even the Republicans in the House represent a minority of the voters) repeal laws.

And so the government will shut down at midnight.

For weeks, pundits have been telling us it wouldn’t come to this. No one could lay out a plausible alternate scenario, but it just wouldn’t happen. Boehner or somebody would pull a rabbit out of this hat and the government would get funded, like it (almost) always does.

Now the same pundits are telling us that a short shutdown won’t be that bad, and it really, really won’t come to a debt-ceiling default.*

However, the same configuration holds: House Tea Partiers insist on killing ObamaCare and Senate Democrats refuse to let a minority party repeal laws.

Late last week, several talking heads I usually agree with (like Chris Hayes and Ezra Klein) were even rooting for a shutdown, under the theory (as Rachel Maddow summarized it) that Republicans would “get their ya-yas out” and then be more reasonable about the debt ceiling. I think this view projects too much rationality onto the Tea Partiers. More likely, they will look at a government shutdown and say, “Look what we can do if we stick together and refuse to compromise! On to the debt ceiling! Obama may not be caving in yet, but he’ll really have to surrender then!”

As Rick Perlstein wrote Wednesday:

Despite a continuous flow of examples to the contrary this spring, summer and, now, autumn, our side keeps on wishfully, willfully and rather ignorantly denying the plain evidence in front of their faces about how conservative politics works. Namely, I keep seeing predictions that this, that or the other signal from polls or the political establishment or a traumatized public will “finally” “break the spell” of right-wing extremism on a certain issue, or even on all issues—and then we see that prediction spectacularly fail.

We can’t keep on going this way, my friend. You have to finally come to terms with how conservatism works. Now, that guy in the White House, Obama—I’ve given up hope that he’ll ever get it. I still have faith in you, though. Stop judging conservative by the logic of “normal” politics, or by the epistemology of the world as you, a liberal, understand it. Or as Poli Sci 101 understands it. Every time you do that, you denude us of strength for the fight. Grasp the right on its own terms. Stop trying to make it make sense on your own.

Jonathan Chait followed Perlstein’s lead in a fascinating-but-scary post on Friday.

Chait sees the current showdown in terms of a prophetic article “2012 or Never” that he wrote a year and a half ago during the Republican primary campaign. The Right was being unusually hysterical in 2012 — the same Mitt Romney who had been the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008 was now far too moderate, despite having moved further the the right in the meantime — because it could feel the country slipping away from its control forever. Every cycle, it saw the electorate become less white, more secular, and less homophobic. Young voters and new citizens were breaking decisively against it.

Gay-bashing and immigrant-bashing used to be surefire crowd-pleasers. But now the right-wing populists were being told to tone it down for fear of spooking the independents.

2012 wasn’t just another election, it was the Right’s last chance.

If the terms of the fight grow more unfavorable with every passing year, well, all the more reason to have the fight sooner. This was the thought process of the antebellum southern states, sizing up the growing population and industrial might of the North. It was the thinking of the leaders of Austria-Hungary, watching their empire deteriorate and deciding they needed a decisive war with Serbia to save themselves.

At varying levels of conscious and subconscious thought, this is also the reasoning that has driven Republicans in the Obama era. Surveying the landscape, they have concluded that they must strike quickly and decisively at the opposition before all hope is lost.

Rebuild or dig in? After 2012’s decisive loss, number-crunching Republican consultants like Karl Rove preached adjustment: Soft-pedal the now unpopular social issues, placate the growing Hispanic bloc with immigration reform, reach out to young voters. Younger conservative pundits have imagined a Republican Party that offers right-leaning solutions to the problems of working poor, the struggling middle class, and those without health insurance, a party that has its own plan to deal with climate change, rather than denying the ever-increasing scientific consensus. Bobby Jindal fantasizes about not being “the stupid party” any more.

But it hasn’t gone that way, has it?

Instead of seeking to rebuild a majority, the Right now boldly seeks to rule from the minority. Their strategy is to gerrymander, block any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, suppress voter turnout, and double down on the white vote. The Hastert Rule, that a bill won’t come to the floor of the House for a vote unless it has “a majority of the majority”, is a prescription for minority rule: A majority can be 51%, and a majority-of-the-majority can be 26%. LIkewise, the increasing abuse of the filibuster in the Senate allows 41% of the Senate (which might represent a much smaller percentage of voters, since Utah gets the same number of senators as California) to thwart the will of the majority.

Rick Perlstein points out that there is another scenario for the youth vote other than the left-turn predicted by Peter Beinart:

So let’s assume Beinart is right in his generational diagnosis: kids who came to their maturity during the “Age of Fail,” whose formative experience of American exceptionalism is that America is exceptionally crappy, are pissed, and are willing to work hard for politicians who are willing to do something about it.

If that is so, another scenario looks like this: young citizens motivated by left-leaning passions run into a brick wall again and again and again trying to turn their convictions into power. The defining story of our next political era becomes not a New New Left but a corrosive disillusionment that drives the country into ever deeper sloughs of apathy.

This is the future the Republican Party is currently seeking.

Down with democracy. Much of the Republican rhetorical response to the 2012 loss wasn’t to learn lessons from the voters, but to disparage American democracy entirely. Building on Romney’s famous 47% argument, apologists for Romney’s loss (including Romney himself) argued that the United States had reached a “tipping point” where an electoral majority is dependent on government, and so will automatically vote for the Democrats.

Follow that thought to its logical conclusion: Elections are now illegitimate if the Democrat wins.

Friday Chait observed how this is playing out:

Paul Ryan candidly explained the calculation: “The reason this debt limit fight is different is, we don’t have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves. We are stuck with this government another three years.” This is a remarkable confession. Republicans need to compel Obama to accept their agenda, not in spite of the fact that the voters rejected it at the polls but precisely for that reason.

People who think this way are not going to change their minds when they see the polls turn against them. Quite the opposite, if Republicans become convinced that they will lose their House majority in 2014, that will make Tea Partiers all the more determined to have the decisive confrontation now.

Why ObamaCare? Why now? Sometimes, Ted Cruz claims he is representing the American people when he fights to repeal ObamaCare. But sometimes another agenda comes out:

No major entitlement, once it has been implemented, has ever been unwound. If we don’t do it now, in all likelihood we never will.

Again, that’s Chait’s now-or-never logic. And the threat it acknowledges is that once Americans see ObamaCare in action, they will like it. But there’s a deeper level to see than that: Cruz’s argument only makes sense if he’d like to repeal other entitlements like Social Security or Medicare, but can’t because they’re popular. This is an example of what Perlstein calls “time-biding”, in which conservatives pretend to support a popular program until they’re in a position to scuttle it.

Conservatives are time-biders. … They could not survive as a political tendency unless they clothed reaction in liberal raiment. You’ve seen that happen over and over again—like when people like Grover Norquist, whose aim is to roll back the entire welfare state, including Social Security, says what he’s really trying to do is save Social Security.

Where does it end? I have a prognosticating principle for situations like this: When a situation can only end one way, it will end that way — no matter how implausible that may look.

Tea Partiers will not back down. As Chait observes, Obama can’t back down either. Otherwise he is ratifying minority rule into the future. What he doesn’t surrender in this hostage crisis, conservatives will demand in the next one. And as elections are increasingly nullified by minority-rule tactics, the voters Democrats depend on for their future majorities will tune politics out. The Republicans’ whole 2012-or-never problem might go away.

So we’re on track for a debt-ceiling default. The only way out I can see is for Boehner and a handful of House Republicans to join Democrats in passing a clean debt-ceiling increase. Under the current balance of forces that can’t happen, because Boehner is afraid of losing the Speakership and the Republicans who might join him are afraid of Tea Party primary challengers.

What could change that calculation? The business community could change it. But why would they? A stock market crash could put the fear of God into them.

That’s what happened in the TARP vote in 2008. Bush administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke went to Congress and more-or-less said the financial markets would melt down without the $700 billion bailout package. The House voted it down anyway on September 29, and the next day the Dow dropped 777 points. The House passed TARP on October 3, after 57 representatives changed their minds.

I don’t know whether to expect that crash before or after we hit the debt ceiling. (As I write this, the Dow is drifting downward, but not crashing.) But I don’t see any other way out of this scenario.

* There’s been a lot of confusion about what this means, and this is one of the rare occasions where the media’s both-sides-do-it trope is really true. Republicans minimize the effects (building on their unfounded belief that vast amounts of wasteful government spending could just not be paid out without hurting anybody), while Democrats jump straight to defaulting on government bonds, which would send the world economy into chaos. A clearer picture is presented in slides put together by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

When the government can no longer borrow money, it will have to make do with the revenue coming in. Currently, that would mean cutting government spending by an average of 32%, though it would be more complicated than that because both expenditures and revenues are “lumpy”; it’s not like 68% of expenditures comes in every day. It’s also not clear how much the economic effects of a debt-ceiling breach would decrease revenue.

Interest payments on the debt average about 6% of the federal budget, so they could probably be made (despite the lumpiness) if the Treasury prioritized those obligations over, say, Social Security checks, disaster relief, supporting our troops in the field, and all the other obligations of the federal government. However, it’s not clear whether anybody has the constitutional authority to make choices like that. Up until now, a US government obligation has been as good as gold, whether it was a bond or a procurement contract or a pension. Appropriation bills and entitlement programs are laws, after all. If the law says a payment is to be made, who has the authority to say otherwise?

So the economic chaos will be compounded by legal chaos, as everyone whose payments are delayed sues. Who then can predict what the courts will do with those suits, or what the Treasury will do with whatever court orders it gets?

September 30, 2013 – 12:08 pm Categories: Articles | Comments (6)

The Monday Morning Teaser

There’s been a glut of news this week: the looming government shutdown, a renewed blast of disinformation about ObamaCare, progress with Syria and Iran, the mall shooting in Kenya, the new IPCC report on climate change, still more NSA revelations, and on and on. Plus, various pundits have written some fascinating stuff interpreting these events and projecting what they might imply about the future.

As a result, today’s Sift is in a chaotic state similar to Congress. Way too many half-written pieces are lying around like appropriation bills waiting to be finished and posted. Can they be amalgamated into one omnibus weekly summary, or (like the House’s farm bill) should each become its own post? Can I even agree with myself about what needs to be said? Does the weekly word limit need to be raised, or does that set a bad precedent and create a  larger problem for future weeks?

Unlike Congress, I will have this sorted out by the end of the day. The Weekly Sift will not shut down and will not default on its obligations. Beyond that, I make no promises.

September 30, 2013 – 7:41 am Categories: Morning tease | Comments (3)

Moral Masquerades

There is nothing so bad but it can masquerade as moral.

— Walter Lippman, A Preface to Politics (1920)

This week’s featured articles: “Hunger Games: Who’s Right About Food Stamps?” and “Pots, Kettles, and Projections from the Religious Right“.

This week everybody was talking about government shutdown

On Sunday’s interview shows, Republicans and Democrats alike were predicting the government would avoid shutdown, which will happen a week from tomorrow unless Congress passes something. But nobody was presenting a plausible scenario for how that is going to happen.

Friday the House has passed a continuing resolution to fund the government at sequester levels until December 15, except for anything having to do with ObamaCare. The Senate will probably remove the ObamaCare provisions and send it back to the House. Nobody seems to know what will happen then.

and ObamaCare

The reason Republicans are so desperate to get ObamaCare derailed right now is that the exchanges start up October 1. When Americans start dealing with the reality of ObamaCare rather than the monsters-under-the-bed conjured up by right-wing propaganda, they’re going to like it. And that might be good for America, but it will be bad for the Republican Party.

This week, Republicans finally got around to offering the “replace” part of their plan to repeal-and-replace ObamaCare. As Bloomberg’s editorial notes, it doesn’t really replace anything: ObamaCare lowers the number of uninsured Americans by about 25 million (more if red states would implement Medicaid expansion) and the Republican plan doesn’t.

The Republican plan is basically the same hodge-podge of proposals they floated in 2009. The CBO looked at them back then and …

CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that …17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance.

So President Obama has passed into law a plan to cut in half the number of uninsured Americans. Republicans counter with a plan that does not address that problem at all.

The most outrageous piece of the ObamaCare debate right now are the ads being run to get young people to “opt out” — in other words, to stay uninsured. These ads are being funded by the richest men in America, the Koch brothers, who have a combined net worth equal to Bill Gates.

If those young people who opt out have a major health problem, will the Koch brothers be there to help them? Don’t be silly. I tend to shy away from using the word evil, but this is evil. Rich people are trying to achieve their political goals by encouraging poorer people to do something that could ruin their lives.

and the Navy Yard shooting (i.e. guns)

It’s hard to argue with Dr. Janis Orlowski’s response:

There’s something evil in our society that we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate. … I would like you to put my trauma center out of business. I really would. I would like to not be an expert on gunshots and not to be an expert on this.

The gun issue seems to epitomize the entire liberal/conservative debate these days. On the one hand, you have liberals advocating a policy (gun control) that might or might not work. It seems to work in other countries (like Australia), but maybe America is different somehow. On the other hand you’ve got conservatives, who offer nothing.

Meanwhile, in as polite a way as possible, Starbucks asks people not to bring guns into their shops. And pro-gun commenters go ballistic.

and Food Stamps (but I wish we were having a more factual discussion)

Fox News would have you believe that Food Stamp recipients are freeloading surfing bums. MSNBC wants you to think they’re hungry kids. I decided to look at what the House’s proposed $39 billion in cuts actually are in “Hunger Games: Who’s Right About Food Stamps?”

and Syria

The weirdest thing about Syria is the disconnect between the American people and the pundit class. The people think it’s great that we might get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons without entering another messy war. The pundits find this solution weak.

Meanwhile, the plan is puttering along. Syria submitted its chemical-weapon inventory to international organization in charge of destroying chemical weapons.

and you also might be interested in

It looks like it must be an Onion news parody, but it isn’t: An op-ed in Fortune says it’s time for the 99% to “give back” to the 1%.

All proper human interactions are win-win; that’s why the parties decide to engage in them. … For their enormous contributions to our standard of living, the high-earners should be thanked and publicly honored. We are in their debt.

Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, it’s too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

As I recall, the original “modest proposal” was also pitched as a win-win interaction.

If you like the Fortune piece, this WSJ op-ed is right up your alley: A hedge-fund manager expresses his moral superiority over his son, who’s feeding the homeless.

Peter Beinart argues that the formative political/economic experiences of 20-somethings will place them outside the Reagan/Clinton boundaries that have defined the last few decades of politics.

and let’s end with something fun

I remember being a grad student: At certain points, any kind of time-consuming project seemed more interesting than finishing my thesis. So rewriting and re-performing “Bohemian Rhapsody” to explain string theory makes perfect sense.

I think this will be hard to beat for Gonzo Labs’ 2013 “Dance Your Thesis” competition. (Only one more week to get your video in.) Watch the 2012 winners here.

September 23, 2013 – 12:51 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (20)