In usual fashion of course, his framework is built on faulty assumptions, each which help his argument out a great deal, but all of which prove the fallacy of his thinking (full article here via NY Times):

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

Well, we can stop here, because the New Deal did not magically arrive at a philisohpical moral imperative which has been around for centuries.  Sorry Mr. Krugman, but morals are actually shared by most humans and this one is included regardless of your self-serving ability to not see it.

No, this novel concept didn’t begin in the 1930′s.  Most of us probably know or have heard the axiom, when much is given, much is expected.  Or this one, the idea that a rich person’s trip to Heaven is analogous to threading a camel through the eye of a needle (historically this meant using smaller entrances to walled cities, not actually a needle and thread).

But no matter, as for Mr. Krugman, the New Deal is the beginning of it all….. So where to go from here?  How about a false dichotomy (article cont’d):

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft…

Notice the word play here in these back to back statements.  He sets up the framework as side A against side B, and while he doesn’t actually state that side B believes the less fortunate should fend for themselves, the implication in the setup is that this is the case.

Moving to his point however, I will admit in Libertarian circles and I’m sure other political idealogies taxation equals theft is a strongly held belief.  Unlike Mr. Krugman however, I can see that this strongly held belief is a minority opinion and not representative of the “other side.”  Try as he might, acting as if the two are equal won’t make it so.  Only by painting the entire opposition with the outlying views of a small percentage can he offer such a false choice.

But I digress, the true dichotomy of the average citizen isn’t a belief in the welfare state as being more moral than the other side’s dog eat dog world.  It’s really a question of degree since we nominally agree you can measure a society based upon how they treat the least fortunate among them.

The difference isn’t moral, it’s in how we get there, with the real dichotomy being:

Both sides agree that they don’t want people to die from lack of nececessities in such a rich country.

One side believes through use of government, fewer freedoms, and higher taxes the less fortunate will be helped more so than through the other side’s plan: lower taxes and more freedom.  One side believes it’s better for local charties to take on these responsbilities, the other side thinks this is a naive view of the world.

But when you’re entire point is to prove to everyone how perfectly moral you are, then it’s helpful to use anything you can to call your opponents immoral.

& besides, without that setup, he couldn’t have painted his opponents as violent, all while claiming the mantle of civility (article cont’d):

That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty….

Too bad it’s all based upon a faulty assumption of the modern right, but put together, it sums up his world view quit nicely: His side is full of morality and civility, which includes utopian visions of free healthcare, the other side is against affluent people spending their wealth on anyone other than themselves and are pro-violent rhetoric.

If you ever find yourself in such an enviable position as Mr. Krugman’s, where you are absolutely sure that everything you’re doing is moral and everything the other side is doing is immoral, it’s probably time to check your premises; perferabbly outside of your echo chamber.

When you’re Mr. Krugman however, you simply write it down and argue it as fact.

CAIRO — Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the most prestigious centre of religious learning in the Sunni Muslim world, said on Tuesday that Islam bans suicide for any reason.

“Sharia law states that Islam categorically forbids suicide for any reason and does not accept the separation of souls from bodies as an expression of stress, anger or protest,” said Al-Azhar’s spokesman Mohammed Rifa al-Tahtawi in a statement on state news agency MENA.

“Al-Azhar cannot comment on the cases of people who had burned themselves, as these may be suffering from a mental or psychological condition that forced them to do so,” he said.

It might seem odd to some, but the Muslim scholars are actively pushing an idea which devalues the Islamic terrorists’ main weapon, suicide bombings.  & they do so in a very definitive way.  Even though the escape hatch of narrowly aiming their critiques to only self-immolation is obvious, they still don’t speak in political terms or try to limit themselves to suicide by fire.

Instead of taking the easy path; they took the moral one and stated directly that suicide in any form is forbidden under Islam and recent attacks may well involve psychological issues.

Which interestingly enough, brings us back to the Arizona shooting debate (DA post here) where I argue that rhetoric or guns can’t cause a free and moral people to suddenly and irrationally take up arms.  Indeed by proffering so, people are ignoring the fact that America, as well as many other semi-free countries, has a culture whereby the vast majority agree that killing is not an appropriate reaction to someone else exercising their free speech (agree vocally & through our legal system).

I juxtaposed American culture against some religious fundamentalist examples.  One, the Muslim online magazine (Inspire), which in mid-2010 was still pushing for revenge against Danish media for daring to print Mohammed cartoons.  Not only pushing, but the cleric writing the article stated (paraphrased) assassinations, bombings, killings, etc, are all valid responses to religious “slander”.  Additionally, I used the recent assassination of a provincial governor in Pakistan in which clerics (500+) issued decrees that anyone caught grieving for the slain governor can be punished.

The governor’s sin?  Agreeing with the national government of Pakistan that blasphemy laws currently on the books should be repealed.

Both are examples of a different a culture where killing in response to slander or blasphemy (both forms of speech) is acceptable.  Therefore, a culture in which vitriol about the blood of patriots or having to get your pitchforks out means something entirely different than it means in America.

So much in the same way that America isn’t culturally like a lot of Pakistan when it comes to the belief that violence is a respectable tool in almost any case, neither is Egypt.  As Egypt also has a societal belief, proven in their laws and willingness to prosecute terrorists, that terrorism and suicide bombings are not the way to make political points.

In the hearts and minds game, Egypt progressed past its beginnings to reach this point.  It has to be noted that Egypt worked hard at this and came about it only after many years, through the force of a moderate leader who was assassinated. (side story:  UN investigation into Hezbollah’s <funded by Iran> hand in the assassination is what brought down the Lebanese government) Culture is after all a generational problem (or benefit).

To see the full context, Stratfor’s piece on Egypt written in light of recent terrorist attacks within Egypt by Muslims against Christians is an excellent resource.  Stratfor starts by providing context, detailing Egypt’s ruthless efficiency for dealing with terrorists, even after President Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981.  Giving an underpinning to the reason why the terrorist attacks in Egypt deserve special attention; Egypt is entering a time of leadership change.  Therefore the two sides of Egypt, the more liberal side (liberal for the Middle East that is) against the Islamists (read entire piece here):

What is clear, however, is that the attack on a church in one country — Egypt — is far from common and was particularly destructive. Egypt has been relatively quiet in terms of terrorism, and there have been few recent attacks on the large Coptic Christian population. The Egyptian government has been effective in ruthlessly suppressing Islamist extremists and has been active in sharing intelligence on terrorism with American, Israeli and other Muslim governments. Its intelligence apparatus has been one of the mainstays of global efforts to limit terrorism as well as keep Egypt’s domestic opposition in check.

An

This house believes that America’s political system is broken.

The current debaters are Matthew Yglesias, defending the motion and Peter Wehner arguing against.   In their second round of the debate, the house is winning with a full 75% agreeing to a broken US political system.

I say it doesn’t seem to have any useful answer as the most likely result from such a poll will be based mainly upon emotions.  Since most lay people don’t typically sit around and try to analyze political systems, the answers from the majority of respondents will have to fall back on other knowledge and human behavior demoonstrates this is likely to be emotions.  IE – if I like what’s going on, no fixing.  If I don’t like what’s going on, it needs fixing.

Reminds me a little of an argument I’ve seen a number of times in the health care debate.  Invariably, someone will put up a poll telling me how many people think their health care costs are too high.  & my retort stays the same, with some variation of Socratic questioning like… ”So?  Did you expect to see a poll that said most Americans want to pay more for anything?”

But I digress, the question has been asked and for Mr. Yglesias, things aren’t going well.  His baisc argument starts something like this:

American political institutions are in a period of crisis. The source of the crisis is relatively simple. Our institutions work only when leaders can reasonably expect broad bipartisan co-operation, but the emergence of more ideologically rigorous parties makes such co-operation extremely unlikely…

Which might make for a good thesis, assuming you can prove that broad bipartisan co-operation is indeed a requirement (hell, prove it’s useful…) as well as proving that more ideologically rigorous parties have come into existence.

His proof?  In the short, yet varied history of the US, he points to the last few election cycles – excluding all information about 9/11 and two wars and the nominal fact that the higher the consequence of any legislation the more ferocious the public debate – he starts his historical research by going all the way back to President Bush the younger; who entered the presidency with:

…an unprecedentedly weak electoral mandate. More voters marked their ballots for Al Gore than marked their ballots for Mr Bush. The median voter in the election supported Mr Gore. But thanks to a combination of litigation, stubbornness and the perversity of the electoral college, Mr Bush succeeded in prevailing and becoming president….

Just a quick note here – is it a little odd to start an arguement to theoretically prove that idealogically rigirous institutions are harming us, by being idealogically rigid… but whatever.

He contends that the result of the weak mandate  and an inability to overcome a Senate fillubuster worked well:

…This led to a fair amount of legislative co-operation in the first Bush term. A series of important changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act were approved; an extremely costly new prescription drug benefit was added to Medicare; income taxes were steeply cut—all on an at least somewhat bipartisan basis….

Somewhat bipartisan?  Like idealogically rigirous, “somewhat bipartisan” is undefinable in any concrete terms, but a quick look on just the tax cuts seems to indicate consistent partisan fighting.

What we know?

The cuts themselves were passed in two bills.

1. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 &
   1. Senate vote here, House vote here
2. Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
   1. Vote totals here

In 2001: only 1 Republican voted against it in the Senate out of 33 nay votes (the other nays were Democrats), and in the House, all but one of the 154 nay votes were cast by Democrats.  & of course out of the yea votes, while less one sided, still doesn’t appear to be bipartisan.  In the Senate, 12 of the 58 yea votes were cast by Democrats and in the House 28 votes our of 240 yea votes were cast by Republicans.

& 2003?  I guess Mr. Yglesias would also be surprised to learn that in the 2003, the tax debate was even more lopsided, including such a tight vote in the Senate that the VP had to vote to pass the legislation and break a tie:

Final Senate vote:

& least you think the tax cuts were picked specifically due to its ability to polarize politicians, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act didn’t fair any better on a theoretical chart of degree of partisanship (Senate totals here, House totals here).

Possibly another surprise to Mr. Yglesias, but this vote was just as contentious.  It passed the Senate well enough, but almost failed to pass in the House and the lines were demarcated as expeted:  most Republicans voted yea and they made up the vast majority of yea votes cast and most Democrats voted nay and made up the vast majority of nay votes in both chambers.

But, like all pundits, Mr. Yglesias must be saying to himself  ”let not facts interfere with a core belief” because reality won’t stop him from taking indefinable terms which have more factual evidence against them than for them and acting as if it’s still the basis for some reasonable conclusion.

So he continues with his thoughts about this period of enlightenment, this…. awesome togetherness known as bipatrisan support, and moves to when it all began to come down:

The larger problem, however, was political. Co-operating with Mr Bush brought congressional Democrats no help at the polls in 2002 and 2004….

Which according to his logic, pushed Democratic leadership, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Ried specifically to change tacts:

…Thus, even in the Democrats’ apparent moment of deepest political weakness, the key was to refuse to co-operate. The out-of-power party would have no obligation to make concrete proposals or difficult choices, and could simply unite in rejection of the Bush agenda. So in the second term, Mr Bush, despite his stronger mandate, suddenly found himself unable to make progress on reforming immigration, privatising Social Security, overhauling the tax code, or indeed much else….

Which, again, according to Mr. Yglesias, proved effective as:

Democrats rode this strategy to victory in 2006 and 2008….

Even to the point Republicans blindly followed the same effective strategy of billigerent obstructionism just a short time later:

…learned from history and spent 2009 and 2010 urging a united caucus to say “no” to everything….

He veers off here, once again, to throw in a quick political punch, because after all when arguing against idealogically rigirous parties, one apparently needs to be intensely idealogical….

Suddenly Republicans who had eagerly embraced Keynesian arguments in the past professed to find them outlandish. GOP support for climate change and immigration reform legislation vanished. Democrats whined. And in the 2010 midterms, the GOP won big….

I say her veered off as he failed to mention the overwhelming majority of Democrats against a percription drug benefit for which they normally would be championing.  He also doesn’t mention the very recent history where Democrats are moving away from the White House and towards former President Bush in the current tax cut debate.

Of course neither the GOPs’ nor the Democrats’ fondness for changing political tracks when public opinion moves has anything to do with whether the system itself is broken, but that doesn’t stop the idealogically rigid people amongts us.  Mr. Ygelsias concludes:

…the rules of the Senate give even a defeated minority extensive power to block policy change. In an era of weak, poorly sorted parties this was not a big deal. Indeed, it was not even much of a problem insofar as actors in the political system did not properly understand how it worked. But now that congressional minorities have discovered that their best path back to power is blanket obstruction we are faced with a profound problem. It is unrealistic to expect bipartisan agreement on major issues if the benefits of agreement will all flow to the president and his party….

…America’s political institutions worked well during a period when we had a highly idiosyncratic party system; but that now that the party system has changed so profoundly our institutions need to change with it….

& there you have it.  With lots of facts which disagree with his premise, no supporting facts given, & a complete lack of any historical context, the US system is broken.

Bringing us back to where we started.  Even with an expert, or at least a very informed layperson in poltical affairs, an author paid to think and write about politics, even a senior fellow at a think tank, and all we got was his opinion that he doesn’t like what’s going on now.

But that’s just my two synapses… maybe I’m just jealous, he does get paid to do this after all….

According to the Congressional Budget Office, extending all the Bush tax cuts would add $2.3 trillion to the total 2018 debt. The single biggest step our government could take this year to address the structural deficit would be to let the tax cuts expire. Such a credible commitment to long-term fiscal sustainability should reduce interest rates today, helping to stimulate the economy….

According to Mr. Johnson, even though critics say letting the tax cuts expire would retard growth, that money could be used more effectively (he continues):

…If the goal is to boost growth and employment immediately, it would be better to let the tax cuts expire and dedicate some of the increased revenue to real stimulus programs…

You mean, stimulus programs like “Cash for Clunkers” (NBER working paper here)?

…Our empirical strategy exploits variation across U.S. cities in ex-ante exposure to the program as measured by the number of “clunkers” in the city as of the summer of 2008. We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 – only seven months after the program ended….

Or how about the stimulus plan we were told would keep unemployment rates to 8% (DA Post here), while they currently hover around 10% (here):

…in August, and the unemployment rate was about unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Or…maybe the government takeover/purchase of GM (post here):

…in reality, the US Treasury through pressure by the Obama administration spent $50 billion dollars to own 61% of the shares.  With roughly 500 million shares available, this means the US government current owns 305 million shares.  At the current stock price today of .375 dollars, their 50 billion dollar investment is worth roughly 115 million dollars….

Or maybe controlling healthcare costs by passing a bill no one understands…. which has already started failing as insurers have already started raising rates more than goverment predictions (post here):

…The economics and logic of these required rate increases are undeniable.  If someone, in this case the government through force of law, tells a private business that they must increase their spending, under force of law, some, if not all, of those new expenditures will be passed on to consumers…

So to sum up Mr. Johnson, even though evidence, extremely recent evidence, demonstrates what economic thinkers have told us for centuries:  government can not create jobs – the problem doesn’t lie with government spending, but instead in allowing people to keep their own money.

I don’t know when we start understanding what Albert Einstein expressed so eloquently so many years ago, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” but let’s hope it’s soon.

For more, excellent Cato article The Stimulus: The Government Job Creation Myth

…Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators….

To most, this might seem an obvious consequence of the legislation.  The economics and logic of these required rate increases are undeniable.  If someone, in this case the government through force of law, tells a private business that they must increase their spending, under force of law, some, if not all, of those new expenditures will be passed on to consumers (WSJ continues):

…Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates….

…Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada…

…Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon said the cost of providing additional benefits under the health law will account on average for 3.4 percentage points of a 17.1% premium rise for a small-employer health plan…

…In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Celtic Insurance Co. says half of the 18% increase it is seeking comes from complying with health-law mandates….

Not only should this seem obvious, but in a free country, any company should be able to set their rates for their services.

This of course assumes you don’t work for the government – then the news is shocking (WSJ continues):

…The White House says insurers are using the law as an excuse to raise rates and predicts that state regulators will block some of the large increases.

“I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you’re quoting… are justified,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House’s top health official. She said that for insurers, raising rates was “already their modus operandi before the bill” passed. “We believe consumers will see through this,” she said….

Not only shocking – but so wrong that even more force is needed.

Enter the Department of Health and Human Services threatening private business, for making private decisions, solely because those decisions disagree with the government’s predictions (via HHS website – bold added):

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act.  I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases….

…We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent….

…Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act.  Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections….

Think carefully about some of  these words/phrases used by government officials against private businesses in a free country: zero tolerance, misinformation, not tolerate, unjustified….all for raising theirs rates at a greater rate than the government assumed.

Maybe it’s just me, but when the government threatens people for fishy emails, then moves forward to threaten private business for deciding what to charge for their services…. well, it certainly doesn’t appear to be a free society.

As Thomas Jefferson stated so many years ago:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

]]> http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/09/13/healthcare-government-threats/feed/ 0