mattlantz

WSJ Editorial Page: A Rationale

Brad DeLong has an answer for why the WSJ Editorial page is what it is:

As I remember--and since I didn't write down notes afterwards, I may have some details wrong--I was seated at lunch in Washington DC, and at the table immediately behind me were then-representative Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) and Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH). They started talking about why the WSJ editorial page was what it was. They settled on the conclusion that the Journal editorial writers thought that their role was to make not the strongest but rather the most persuasive case for lower taxes and Republican candidates in every circumstance--that they had a duty not to inform their readers, not even to make the truest arguments for the side that they had been hired to support, but rather to make the arguments for the side they had been hired to support that would strengthen that side the most by convincing the most people.

Brad DeLong Hits the Nail on the Head

Brad DeLong gets it right why conservatives are afraid of a public plan.  And lays it out in economics-ese:

The arguments against a public plan are two:

1. It would be able to provide people with better health care more cheaply, and would drive the private-insurance companies out of business, and their executives would lose their jobs and be sad, and their shareholders would lose their money and be sad, and their lobbyists would lose their jobs and be sad, and their tame legislators would lose their campaign contributions and be sad.

2. Mankiw's argument that a public plan will inevitably receive large and wasteful federal subsidies no matter what the initial law says.

They Can't Be Let Off the Hook

As usual, I agree with Krugman:

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Fix the Presidency

The Atlantic has an interesting piece on Article II of the Constition.

But sometimes a president with little or no political mandate uses the office to further a surprising, obscure, or discredited political agenda. Under these circumstances, what poses as bold leadership is in fact usurpation. The most egregious case arises when a president’s policy and leadership have been repudiated by the voters, either by a defeat for reelection or by a sweeping rejection of his congressional allies in a midterm election. When that happens, presidents too often do what George Bush did in 2006—simply persist in the conduct that has alienated the country. Intoxicated by the image of the hero-president, unencumbered by any direct political check, stubborn presidents in this situation have no incentive to change course.

Best Care Anywhere

I just wanted to bookmark the link to the Washingon Monthly article on the VA health care system.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

Andrew Sullivan Nails It

All I can add to this is AMEN!  Andrew Sullivan's editorial on gay marriage in the September issue of The Atlantic:

What if gays were straight?

The question is absurd—gays are defined as not straight, right?—yet increasingly central to the debate over civil-marriage rights. Here is how California’s Supreme Court put it in a key passage in its now-famous May 15 ruling that gay couples in California must be granted the right to marry, with no qualifications or euphemisms:

These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.

What’s notable here is the starting point of the discussion: an “individual.” The individual citizen posited by the court is defined as prior to his or her sexual orientation. He or she exists as a person before he or she exists as straight or gay. And the right under discussion is defined as “the opportunity of an individual” to choose another “person” to “establish a family” in which reproduction and children are not necessary.

John McCain's Preacher

This may not actually be his minister, but he actively sought his endorsement and hasn't repudiated him for his preaching; from Washington Monthly:

YET MORE HAGEE....According to pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain says he's glad to have, the Holocaust was God's way of punishing European Jews for not emigrating to Israel quickly enough and Hitler was His divine instrument for getting this done. Charming. Audio here. Unfortunately, AIPAC and likeminded organizations long ago made their peace with crazy Christian preachers who support Israeli expansion because Armageddon needs a proper battleground, and this means they're unlikely to insist that McCain repudiate Hagee. Quite the contrary, in fact. They like Hagee.

Of course, this whole thing is just garden variety white crazy, and the audio clip is more than five seconds long, which means that neither Sean Hannity nor CNN will play it on a 24/7 loop. I guess that leaves it up to the mighty blogosphere to draw attention to it.

Police State

Ok, this stuff doesn't happen overnight.  It happens slowly.  Just take a look at where the technology is being developed.  From the Rolling Stone:

Sometimes called "market Stalinism," it is a potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarian communism — central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance — harnessed to advance the goals of global capitalism...

Remember how we've always been told that free markets and free people go hand in hand? That was a lie. It turns out that the most efficient delivery system for capitalism is actually a communist-style police state, fortressed with American "homeland security" technologies, pumped up with "war on terror" rhetoric. And the global corporations currently earning superprofits from this social experiment are unlikely to be content if the lucrative new market remains confined to cities such as Shenzhen. Like everything else assembled in China with American parts, Police State 2.0 is ready for export to a neighborhood near you.

Wow His Appointees are Even Dissing Him

I suppose they're figuring out that he can no longer do anything for them, so they're actually trying to be human beings.  This is from the NY Times:

Presidential appointees rarely diverge so forcefully from the president’s own spending plans, or at least avoid doing so in writing. Dr. von Eschenbach’s action surprised agency observers and was taken as perhaps a sign of the president’s waning influence in the closing months of his presidency.

“In 30 years at the agency, I never saw anything like this happen before,” said William Hubbard, a former deputy F.D.A. commissioner.

Oil Company Corporate Welfare

We're not talking about windfall taxes - instead direct subsidies to oil companies; from the Washington Monthly:

However, one thing that I did notice when I was doing a little google-fu on the issue is that there appears to be approximately 20 to 50 billion dollars spent by the federal government per year on direct subsidies (as opposed to tax breaks) given to the oil industry each year. Unfortunately I can't pin down the exact number any better than that — it appears to vary every year and spread out amongst different agencies. Still, the GAO should be able to track the exact numbers down, so instead of an extra tax on oil companies, why not just eliminate their direct subsidies? Not only would that generate more revenue than the "windfall tax" (estimated to be $15 billion), but it would do so without getting the federal government into the problematic business of deciding how profitable companies are allowed to be.