Paul Krugman: Party of Denial

The party of pragmatic solutions versus the party of denial, obfuscation, and stalling:

Party of Denial, by paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: During Barack Obama’s Sunday appearance on Fox News, the interviewer asked him for an example of “a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line” and say that Republicans have the better idea.

Mr. Obama’s answer was puzzling because he gave credit where it isn’t due — and thereby undermined what could be a very effective Democratic line of argument.

In particular, Mr. Obama attributed to Republicans the idea that regulation can be flexible rather than a matter of “top-down command and control,” and in particular for the idea of controlling pollution with ... tradable emission permits rather than rigid regulations.

Well, that’s not at all what actually happened... It’s true that the first President Bush established a market-based system for controlling ... acid rain. But by then the idea of markets in emission permits had long been accepted by ... leading Democrats. The Environmental Protection Agency began letting cities meet air-quality standards using emissions-trading systems during the Carter administration — which also led the way on deregulation of airlines and trucking.

Furthermore, the ... scheme actually marked a sharp change in policy from the Reagan administration, which — committed to the belief that government is always the problem... — spent eight years opposing any effort to control acid rain. ...[E]ven as the consequences of acid rain became ever more alarming... — the Reaganites insisted that there was no problem at all. They denied the evidence, questioned the science, called for more research and did nothing. Sound familiar?

And that, surely, is the line the Democrats should be pushing in this election: Republicans have become the party of denial. If a problem can’t be solved with deregulation and tax cuts, they pretend it doesn’t exist.

Climate change is the obvious contemporary parallel with acid rain. But if the Democrats really want to pin the denialist label on John McCain, health care is the place to focus.

The health care situation, in case you haven’t noticed, is going from bad to worse. ... The Democrats have been offering real plans in response; they’re not perfect, but they are serious.

The G.O.P., by contrast ... hasn’t even tried to address concerns about coverage.  ... Until a few days ago, the only answer the McCain campaign offered to those worried about lack of coverage was the vague, implausible assertion that the magic of the marketplace would make health care cheap enough for everyone to afford.

Now Mr. McCain has admitted that maybe a government program is needed.... This appears to be a response to criticism from Elizabeth Edwards, who has been pointing out that deregulated insurers would deny coverage to anyone with, say, a history of cancer — a category that includes both her and Mr. McCain himself. But the way Mrs. Edwards has rattled the McCain campaign is evidence of just how vulnerable he is on the issue.

The point is that the health care issue could be Exhibit A for a Democratic campaign based on the argument that they are the party of pragmatic solutions, while modern Republicans won’t even acknowledge problems that don’t fit into their rigid ideological framework.

But are Democrats ready to make that case?

To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday.

But I think Mr. Obama is doing much more harm to the Democratic cause by echoing Republican attack lines on such issues as insurance mandates and Social Security. And now he’s demonstrating his post-partisanship by giving Republicans credit for good ideas they never had.

Comments

[Alex Tolley]

It may not be a strict party line split, but there is a difference in outlook between those that want to change things by enacting new laws and those that might want to try other mechanisms, such as the markets. If the Democratic party has been painted as taking the legal approach, then maybe they need to make it clear that this is not their primary solution.

I would be quite happy for either party to take a more technocratic approach and design the most appropriate mechanism to fit the situation, rather than start from the political default solution.

I would argue that we are drowning in laws that never sunset and also putting too much faith in markets that eventually fail.

[esb]

The "Democratic cause" will be nothing more or less than precisely what Barak H. Obama chooses to enunciate in his address immediately following his pronunciation of the words, "so help me God" in January, 2009.

To know what the cause(s) will be listen to the words of the future leader.

This is the first leader in your lifetime who cannot be captured ... he knows exactly who he is and what he wants.

It will be fall in line or get the hell out of the way, and this is exactly what Krugman and others cannot brook since they want to be the intellectual foundation, the leader(s) of the leader, the co-creators of the cause(s).

Krugman (and others) want to capture the imagination and mind of Barak but cannot, and it is this simple failure that frustrates them.

So refreshing...watching this play out...watching the frustration.

Meow, Michelle.

[turquoise]

“To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday.”

Obama opposed the gas tax. Dear Professor, would please praise him a little bit – just a little bit? Believe me, you will feel much better.

[acerimusdux]

Shhhhh-

Don't tell them it was a Democratic idea,
they'll never support it if they know that.

[reason]

I want to support Alex Tolley here. There are two aspects to politics
1. Deciding what our priorities are, what we want to acchieve
2. Deciding how to do it.

I think politics should concentrate on #1 and a competent technocratic public service should mostly deal with #2. We spend too much stupid effort debating how to do things before we have even decided what we want to do. And yes we should review, simplify and rationalise our laws more often.

[Lafayette]

esb: It will be fall in line or get the hell out of the way

Thanks for our daily quota of Intellectual Insipidity.

The Inner Belt is going to fall in line behind Obama - our newly elected Drill Sargent?

Yeah, right. This remark shows blind ignorance of what happens in DC. If BO tries this tack, his presidency will end-up as well-intentioned and as meaningless as Jimmy Carter's.

And, just as short.

[Cyrille]

"Obama opposed the gas tax. Dear Professor, would please praise him a little bit – just a little bit? Believe me, you will feel much better. "

He did so already. Krugman is being fair about Obama. The problem is that his partisans seem to demand worship, because that's what they themselves do. Cue esb...

[ds]

krugman need to lighten up a little. his favorite candidate is going to lose, so he might as well join the better side of the remaining two instead of fighting the windmill. the questioner on fox was just trying to get obama to pay the republicans a compliment -- and he did. no matter what happens, democrats are going to have to work with republicans to get anything done, so why not show them some respect every once in a while?

[Lafayette]

Sic transit gloria mundi

AT: I would be quite happy for either party to take a more technocratic approach and design the most appropriate mechanism to fit the situation, rather than start from the political default solution.

Me too.

But, it is difficult to wean America away from its penchant for "Market Solutions". As well as its inbred suspicion of any Federal Agency that turns up saying "I'm from the Federal Agency and I'm here to help you!"

But, as I've been opining for a while now, that IS the solution to Health Care in America, which is tantamount to expanding Medicare to the masses.

Such nationalized health care has proven itself effective in the countries listed as best Health Care countries globally by the World Health Organization. It requires Social Expenditures and mandating Health Care service fees to cap them at reasonable levels. Both of which are anathema in an America fixated on Private Enterprise.

So, carry on -- the solutions that all three candidates are proposing go .... nowhere. The Blog Buzz on Health Care is guaranteed a very long half-life in the US.

Just look at what Romney tried to do in Massachusetts along the very same lines; in order to get elected PotUS, btw. It is not showing, even remotely, its much touted benefits. (But, maybe Mitch is going to settle for VP under McCain. Sic transit gloria mundi.)

PS: Someone want to tell me the difference between nationalized Health Care for all American citizens and Corporate Welfare for the military-industrial-complex? Thought not.

[reason]

ds...
actually I'm pretty sure Edwards would have been his favourite candidate. But I'm also sure that Krugman doesn't really care about WHO wins, he cares about what policies are implemented. Krugman would never admit it, but in his heart he doesn't presidential politics, he would rather live under a parliamentary democracy.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

Paul said:

"To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday."

How about her "actual votes" as they relate to the War and Occupation of Iraq...? Just an example, not only does she talk like a Republican (dirt bag), she walks like a Republican and "acts" like one as well. She wasn't just 100% wrong on this issue, she was 200% wrong. To my knowledge she still has not apologized, or even admited to the families of our dead and wounded brothers and sisters, that whe was wrong.

"Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday."

Really....?

SHE DID....! It just seemed like the politically expedient thing to do at the time.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[reason]

ds...
Yes the problem is of course that very few current Republicans actually deserve Respect. The appropriate strategy of course would be to pick a few who do and mention them by name (divide and conquer strategy).

[esb]

Cyrille:

Thanks for the cue.

It is not worship but simple respect.

The group surrounding Barak is amazed at his resistance and reluctance to resorting to deceit and deception of any kind, even if votes are not gained or are lost as a result.

Most important, it is the candidate himself who most understands that the window for repair of some of the damages of the past eight years will be open for only a very short time and that the solution package must be both comrehensive and breathtaking in scope.

Some unusual tactics must be employed, and the most interesting that I have heard proposed is an invitation to the public to visit the Capitol for the inauguration.

I will bet that if the new President goes with this that several millions will take up the invitation, providing an novel impetus to the legislative package which will go to the Congress February 1.

I can see Chris Matthews salivating as I type, not to mention Keith Olberman (and the rest of the gang over at MSNBC/NBC).

Actually, Cyrille, there is a bit of "worship" over there.

[Cyrille]

For the upteenth time, the decision to go to war was NOT put to vote.

I'm not saying Clinton's vote was right -as I said before, being French, of course I disagreed- but a vote to go to war it was not.

As for Obama not using any deception of any kind, the kindest I can say is probably "cough".

[hari]

In the aftermath of the Wright Q & A at National Press Club, you can be sure BO and his political fate now rests with Indiana and its working class voters. As I said earlier, and inspite of his approach to consensus politics, he's failed to connect with the working class...and comes out as an elitist with more or less Professorial air of being sort of aloof from daily grind of election process. If this perspective is close to reality, the guy has a tough time ahead not only convincing Indiana...as a serious candidate for WH ...but keeping HRC from (finally) pulling away from him and making Denver Convention a floor fight for nomination.

[anne]

"To my knowledge she still has not apologized, or even admitted to the families of our dead and wounded brothers and sisters, that she was wrong."

Enough with being a profane monster.

[anne]

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1525

May 3, 2007

Statement On Deauthorizing the War
By Hillary Clinton

U. S. Senate

Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day. Madam President, I yield the floor.

[anne]

"Meow, Michelle."

Sexist rottenness, the new old "cannot be captured" sexist rottenness.

[Lafayette]

Flim-flam Man

esb: The group surrounding Barak is amazed at his resistance and reluctance to resorting to deceit and deception of any kind

Does he walk on water, too?

It is deception to promise "change we can believe in" with a wishy-washy political platform that promises not much more than the same old same old. It is deception to ask for our confidence when it is based on nothing but wishful change. Does he take us for fools?

So many questions:
*What breathtaking infrastructural initiatives does he propose to renew America and perhaps invigorate industry?
*What's his plan for a decent education of America's youth, such that they don't end up flipping hamburgers at Macdonalds?
*His health-care plan is "optional", which means American will have the option of going to see a private GP. How does that reduce Health Care costs? It's the problem, not the solution. Duhhhhhh
*Why does he not propose stiff marginal-tax rates for upper incomes to correct the imbalance of wealth accumulation? Why does he not even whisper about Income Inequity?
*Where's the onus on necessary changes to tackle an ecological nightmare that is in the making. Where does he show his intent to tackle Detroit's lack of enthusiasm to build more advanced cars. To wean America away from CO2 producing carbon-molecule electricity generation? To upgrade its electricity grid?

Where's the beef, esb, where's the beef? The oratory is all dressing. The devil is in the details. BO is waxing romantic on change, but the details are lacking. Like many a politician before him, he hasn't the courage to go into details, for fear of not mastering them.

And, frankly, neither does Hillary show much beef either. This electioneering campaign is flim-flam. Maybe it's what we deserve ...

[Don Quijote]

The devil is in the details. BO is waxing romantic on change, but the details are lacking. Like many a politician before him, he hasn't the courage to go into details, for fear of not mastering them.

Mastering the detail is not the problem, most politicians are fairly bright people and the details aren't all that complex, the problem is that the solution to most of our problems are radical & will require sacrifice.

Take healthcare as an example: The solution is a single payer system (Medicare for all) with an option for people to buy supplemental insurance (insurance regulation so that Joe Average can understand and compare policies with out getting a lawyer to explain the difference between policy A offered by Aetna & Blue Cross). Needed for a single payer system to work is Doctors who graduate out of Medical school without being up to their eyeballs in debt. So financing Medical education is going to have to be change.

Now I haven't even started thinking about nurses, hospitals or drug companies and I have already gored more oxes that I care to count, if a politician ever laid out in detail all the reforms needed to make their solutions work, they would lose their electability and it is irrelevant as to whether they are right or wrong.

[Lafayette]

Choose your Doctor, not your Health Plan

DQ: the problem is that the solution to most of our problems are radical & will require sacrifice.

That is what I mean by "mastering the details". Presenting a plan that acknowledges the sacrifices to be made, if necessary.

One that promises, in Churchillian terms, "blood, sweat and tears" -- without the blood. But it is straightforward, frank and believable. What's this "change we can believe in" -- he promises to wash whiter than white (no pun intended)? We are not buying soap powder, we are electing a PotUS.

Dammit, we aren't children.

The solution is a single payer system (Medicare for all) with an option for people to buy supplemental insurance (insurance regulation so that Joe Average can understand and compare policies with out getting a lawyer to explain the difference between policy A offered by Aetna & Blue Cross).

Health Care is four times more expensive than equivalent modern nations (principally in Europe) for about the same quality of service -- except that in Europe it promises "universal coverage" and has done so since inception more than a half century ago.

To tackle Health Care, you don't give people a choice between private insurance plans that do nothing to cap costs. That amounts to no change whatsoever. People will still decide that all the plans are too expensive, and so off they go to ER for palliative care -- falling through the cracks. How is that a solution?

Palliative care is too late. What is necessary is preventive care, which means regular check-ups -- but since GPs are so damn expensive and because 15% of the population is not covered. Do you get the message? Or, how many more neonatal deaths have to occur because poor young mothers "wing it on a prayer"?

Besides, what is the meaning of "choice" between plans? If National HC is funded out of payroll taxes, who should care about choice? Patients can select a Practitioner Registered by the Health Service (meaning the practitioner accepts the pricing schedule established) of their choice. Having chosen a GP, they pay their bills, and are refunded by the National Health Service (the single-payer for all medical bills, including medicines).

That is what choice is all about ... choosing your doctor/specialist, not your insurance plan.

It is so damn simple over here in Europe, it is difficult to understand why Americans are wasting their time with privatized Health Care. And, for less money, we've got good universal coverage.

The entire system needs redesign from top to bottom -- and, there, you are right. It is going to require sacrifice, above all on the part of private GPs/Specialists. They're gonna have to take a cut in remuneration for America to get affordable Health Care (and remember, perhaps, that they took the Hippocratic Oath).

How about THAT for sacrifice?

[bakho]

Market based solutions devolve into solutions that business can devolve into WTF they wanted to do anyway. Republicans deserve some credit for "flexible regulations", but not Ronald Reagan who has come to define modern Republicanism. The credit goes back to Nixon who formed the EPA. EPA brings all the parties to the table before it enacts policy. They utilize a risk assessment/risk management approach that brings to the table the best scientific risk management information along with economic cost/benefit analysis. Negotiations over how to best minimize a risk are common.

Bush has kneecapped the process by pulling the chair out from under scientific risk assessment and replacing scientific studies with the truthiness of political hacks. Corrupt businesses want a corrupt government who will give them a process that can be gamed. More ethical businesses have watched silently as the Bush administration has given them the shaft and threatened reprisals if they complain. The Republicans have set up a pay to play system for all federal regulations and that corrupt system is hard to break once people buy in. It is a worse mess than the Aegean stables.

[Don Quijote]

Dammit, we aren't children.

Yes we are! How else do you explain Shrub got into the White House?

but since GPs are so damn expensive and because 15% of the population is not covered

When you walk out of school a couple of hundred G's in the hole, somebody has got to pay that tuition bill.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Obama at least recognizes that not all government regulation is effective or efficient, give him a little credit for that.

Will the Democrats put McCain into the White House? Stay tuned.

[anne]

Republican regulation....

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5izF_4ASNV87KDm5U4H2Hao-QS5UQD90DA6JO0

May 2, 2008

Embattled EPA Administrator for Midwest Resigns
By Associated Press

CHICAGO — The top U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator in the Midwest resigned Thursday amid internal fights over dioxin contamination near Dow Chemical Co.'s world headquarters in Michigan, according to a published report.

Mary Gade, regional administrator of EPA Region 5, told the Chicago Tribune she resigned as regional administrator of EPA Region 5 after two top EPA officials stripped her of her powers and told her to quit or be fired by June 1.

"There is no question this is about Dow," Gade told the paper for a story on its Web site. "I stand behind what I did and what my staff did. I'm proud of what we did."

Dow spokesman John Musser said Gade's departure came as a surprise. He said the chemical giant would rather work with the federal government than with Michigan officials, who have been designated by the agency to oversee future dioxin cleanup.

"Flatly, we never asked or implied that Ms. Gade be removed from her post," Musser told The Associated Press in a telephone call late Thursday. "We have no idea what the EPA's reason was for this move."

Lana Pollack, president of the Michigan Environmental Council, said that Dow and the EPA had "succeeded in muzzling a woman of unquestioned credentials and integrity who was doing her job enforcing our environmental laws."

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman in Washington, told the Tribune Gade had been placed on administrative leave until June 1, but declined further comment. A woman who answered the telephone at Region 5 referred calls to Shradar, who was not immediately available.

Gade is a former corporate attorney who led the Illinois EPA under Republican Gov. Jim Edgar. President Bush appointed her in 2006 to head the federal agency's Region 5, which covers the states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/opinion/02krugman.html

Rather than admit that pollution is a problem the government has to solve — even as the consequences of acid rain became ever more alarming, not to mention as America's failure to act provoked a near-crisis in relations with Canada, which was suffering the effects of U.S.-generated sulfur dioxide — the Reaganites insisted that there was no problem at all. They denied the evidence, questioned the science, called for more research and did nothing. Sound familiar?

And that, surely, is the line the Democrats should be pushing in this election: Republicans have become the party of denial. If a problem can't be solved with deregulation and tax cuts, they pretend it doesn't exist.

Climate change is the obvious contemporary parallel with acid rain....

[Precisely.]

[swells]

Lafayette, in re: "PS: Someone want to tell me the difference between nationalized Health Care for all American citizens and Corporate Welfare for the military-industrial-complex? Thought not."

Well, it would seem, according to you, that one is a good idea and the other isn't. Is it possible that neither is a good idea because they really are, deeply fundamentally, alike? Or, are they both a good idea because they are deeply, fundamentally alike.

I tend to think neither is a good idea because both involve coercing people into things and I think coercion, unless absolutely necessary, isn't a good idea.

[anne]

"Someone want to tell me the difference between nationalized Health Care for all American citizens and Corporate Welfare for the military-industrial-complex? Thought not."

"Well, it would seem, according to you, that one is a good idea and the other isn't. Is it possible that neither is a good idea because they really are, deeply fundamentally, alike? Or, are they both a good idea because they are deeply, fundamentally alike."

"Fundamentally alike?" Such complete nonsense.

[anne]

"I tend to think neither is a good idea because both involve coercing people into things and I think coercion, unless absolutely necessary, isn't a good idea."

Health care is human right. Say what?

[ken melvin]

Some aren't ready for democracy.

[swells]

Anne, how do you come to the conclusion that health care is a human right? What is the philosophical underpinning for it? There are problems here that you gloss over. For instance, self-defense is a fundamental human right. However, if you see a gang of 14 people beating someone to death, are you compelled to intervene and get yourself beaten to death too? Why does the existence of a particular human right impel you to abrogate your own right to the same?

Your position on human rights seems pretty incoherent to me.

[swells]

Anne, in re: ""Fundamentally alike?" Such complete nonsense." Well, since your opinion is admittedly an extremely fundamental principle in terms of how the universe works, they do seem to differ in that you approve of one and disapprove of the other. My bad.

[kharris]

hari,

As a Son of Indiana, let me just say, probably not. Conventional counts of likely delegate splits for the remaining primary states strongly suggest that Clinton cannot win the nomination prior to the convention. She trails Obama in delegates, and Democratic rules for delegate distribution make it very likely that Clinton can, at best, be very close to Obama after the primaries are done. All Indiana can do is reenforce or undermine themes we already know. In relative terms, rather than absolute, it seems to be old for Clinton, young for Obama, white for Clinton, black for Obama, rural for Clinton, urban for Obama. (Happy to be corrected on any of these splits by anybody who is dealing in real information, rather than emotion.)

On the assumption that there will still be a decision to make after the primaries, the obvious thing to do is figure out from these patterns who can undercut McCain best in swing states. However, we can't rely on superdelegates to make their decision entirely based on who has the best shot against McCain. They all have constituents and donors and family who have a say.

[anne]

"Anne, how do you come to the conclusion that health care is a human right?"

By being, like, human; like even thinking.

[anne]

"Why does the existence of a particular human right impel you to abrogate your own right to the same?"

Nonsense, but keep trying.

[esb]

Lafayette:

Are you asking for the candidate to enunciate specific industry-detrimental parts of a comprehensive legislative package and thus attract a sufficient level of monied opposition for a defeat.

I do not think so, unless McCain is your man.

This strategy is best because it is working.

Looking at the campaign from the contributions side and especially from the "unaffiliated" groups side (and esp. the amount of usually Republican leaning money attracted thereto) the strategy is the best possible, far and away.

That said, the trial balloon phase of the strategy is soon to be initiated in earnest and should provide a few tidbits and morsels.

[kharris]

The nice little irony of the Democratic race is that the state which moved their primaries forward to gain influence in the outcome, but the candidates are now struggling to win in the last few states to hold primaries. The good news is that just about every state is going to have influence over the outcome in rough equivalance to its number of primary voters, just like it ought to be. The Republicans, with their all-or-nothing primary system, managed to wrap things up early, but that may turn out to be a mixed blessing.

[esb]

After NC, which locks up the numbers.

[reason]

Wrt And yes we should review, simplify and rationalise our laws more often.

I have often argued that one problem with a lot of software engineering methodologies (bear with me) is that they forget an important step, that every does but isn't ever formalised. They all talk about analysis, but nobody ever talks about synthesis. Synthesis is the process of realising that a lot of the analysed processes have components in common, and identifying what they are and abstracting the best way to meet the common but not quite identical requirements. Synthesis is if you like the process of indentifying reusable parts. We need to do it with LAW - there is too much law, and all the training and administration involved in keeping up this complexity is a massive waste of resources. It isn't very sexy, but rationalising law should be an ongoing process and very much a part of what the legislature does.

[realist]

those working folk gave the guy they'd like to have

a beer with two term.look where we are now.

give me an elitist everytime

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2008/05/10000-longshore-workers-strike-against.html

May 2, 2008

25,000 Longshore Workers Strike Against Iraq War
By Juan Cole

In a sign of a reinvigorated American Left, longshore workers declined to come to work on Thursday, paralyzing ports along the West Coast from Los Angeles to Seattle, in protest against the Iraq War. The union workers complained that "many of the big shipping companies are profiting from the war."

If the Democrats could get both the executive and both houses of Congress in the fall, one measure of whether they are just time-servers and lackeys or whether they are serious about reforming the country away from its current abuses will be whether they revise Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin, the 50s-era legislation that laid the legal groundwork for the successful union-busting by US corporations of the past three decades. Despite the myths, most unionized workers are substantially to the left of the white collar middle class on important social issues, and gutting the unions has ensured that their voices have been muted. On Thursday we got a glimpse of what they think and an inkling of what the US would be like if union membership hadn't plummeted * to only about 12%. Corporations are very wealthy and very organized. The rest of us are not wealthy and not organized at all in comparison. And in politics, that means we almost always lose. Unions are the main form of organization that could at least sometimes prevail over corporation policies that injure the rest of us, and if they are strong then we have lost our shield....

* http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/union-membership-byte/union-rates-fall-severe-drop-in-manufacturing-in-2006/

[swells]

Anne, bald assertions really aren't substitutes for a good argument. All I'm trying to get to, and I suspect the reason you are evading the question, is some coherent argument that 1 - establishes that health care is a human right and 2 - establishes that mandatory participation in a universal health plan is consistent with # 1. Personally, I don't think you can get there from a human rights perspective. I think it might be possible to get there from utilitarian arguments. So, I think the human rights approach is a bit silly and a waste of time.

So, do you have any arguments for your position or is your opinion to be the tyranny under which we all operate.

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2008/05/10000-longshore-workers-strike-against.html

Of course, not all corporations benefit from the Iraq War, and some actually are suffering from it in some ways, which is probably the main hope for ending it.

-- Juan Cole

[Interesting.]

[anne]

Health care, mine especially, is a human right. Say what?

[swells]

Anne, so there is then no principled way to distinguish your position from some war profiteer who acts to maximize a local maximum thereby assuring the achievement of a non-local minimum? Would that be a fair statement?

[Lafayette]

It's insane

DQ: When you walk out of school a couple of hundred G's in the hole, somebody has got to pay that tuition bill.

Bingo, you just won the Kewpie doll.

Welcome to the forum. I'm the poster here who keeps commenting -- with nauseating frequency -- that Social Expenditures in the US should "grow up". At least to the same height of its Bigger Brother, the DoD annual budget.

Do you know how much it costs for a doctor's education in France? About a 800 euros a year in inscription fees (room and board, books, etc. are theirs to pay). Tuition is free, as it is for all tertiary education. And, France is no exception to the rule. (Yep, blame it on those pinko-godless socialists that infest Europe. Never fear, though, God shall surely smite them on judgment day! ;^)

University students even get a monthly stipend of 400 euros a month, which is wholly inadequate in most large cities where the universities are located. So, mom and dad chip in. Students also will work at Macdonalds or Pizza Hut during their four-to-six years (I think) of university - just as in the states. It's the sine qua non of a university education everywhere, but it does NOT lead to an albatross around your neck whilst you take the diploma in hand.

They then apprentice, like doctors in America, on a modest salary and then they decide whether they want to be Registered Practitioners (they accept the state specified charges) or Free-lancers (they charge whatever they like).

And, the only lack of doctors I know are in the countryside where they apparently do not earn enough money -- so France is recruiting doctors from the ex-Eastern Bloc nations. Polish doctors commute to England and Germany to work weekdays. Ditto nursing staff.

France has one of the oldest traditions of medicine in Europe and its state-of-the-art is current - sometimes on the cutting edge (pun intended).

All of which, as I said, leads to (for the EU) one of the finest Health Care systems in the world. I know plenty of American expats who would say the same.

But, of course, we can't have that for Americans stateside, can we. Rather, let's have $150,000 (average salary) doctors. Right -- to pay off their university debt. It's insane.

[anne]

"Anne, so there is then no principled way to distinguish your position from some war profiteer who acts to maximize a local maximum thereby assuring the achievement of a non-local minimum? Would that be a fair statement?"

Some must always play at being monsters; play on.

[anne]

Lafayette:

"Do you know how much it costs for a doctor's education in France? About a 800 euros a year in inscription fees (room and board, books, etc. are theirs to pay). Tuition is free, as it is for all tertiary education. And, France is no exception to the rule...."

Nice.

[hari]

kharris -

You make good objective points to consider in Indiana & NC.
My prediliction with BO is that no matter how much I'd like to see him finish first, he ain't going to make it. American politics is *racial* and irrespective of how much we try to avoid talking about it, the damn division of races does matter and specially to the working class white's.

That's my real fear is primaries will once again raise the issue of racism in American political culture. The media is, of course, not helping much by using *elitist* norms to attack his cool!

At my age, and as a professional, I've faced Heads of Gov's and their PMs in negotiations which can at times get out of order...simply because you're trying to get them to accept the TRUTH! I know what the guy is going thru...it ain't easy.

[Patricia Shannon]

Don Quijote says...

Dammit, we aren't children.

Yes we are! How else do you explain Shrub got into the White House?

Gore won, despite the efforts of the MSM to sabotage him, and the efforts of the RNC (Republican National Committee) to sabotage elections.. Shrub got in the White House because the U.S. supreme court selected him. That we keep getting comments about Bush winning in 2000 is a current example of the saying "history is written by the winners".

[kthomas]

"....However, if you see a gang of 14 people beating someone to death, are you compelled to intervene and get yourself beaten to death too? Why does the existence of a particular human right impel you to abrogate your own right to the same?"

That's most absurd supposition I have ever read. In what way would such a situation be compared? A society, and therefore a government, providing for decent medical benefits to her people, is not to be compared to a person watching a violent criminal act. Absurd.

Let's stick to the subject: Prof. Krugman whining about Sen. Obama.

[Bruce Wilder]

I saw Arianna Huffington interviewed the other night on Charlie Rose, about her book Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe

Charlie Rose is rarely hostile to his guests, and he certainly likes Arianna personally, but he was quite hostile to Arianna's thesis. This did not surprise me, because I watch Rose's program a lot, and I know who he is.

Arianna's book is a critique of two groups of people: 1.) the lunatic Right, of course, and 2.) the Media middle-of-the-roaders, who accomodate and facilitate the tactics of the lunatic Right with their neutral voices, declaring who are "serious people" (and, by implication, who is a dirty friggin' hippie). Charlie Rose is, himself, Exhibit A, for Group 2. Arianna, to her great discredit, did not come to the interview prepared to confront Charlie Rose, as an exemplar of Group 2. But, Charile had read her book, and he was not lying down for her.

Paul Krugman, to his great credit back in the day, was a Voice in the Wildnerness, crying out, "Bush et alia are crazy!"

The reality, today, is the lunatic Right is somewhat discredited with the mass of the American People. But, to a large extent that discrediting is superficial -- it is a matter, frankly, of the price of gas. And, one of the prime reasons that that discrediting remains superficial, is that Group 2 -- Charlie Rose, Tim Russert, Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Joe Klein, and on and on, the Mainstream Media, who confidently pronounce on who is a serious person, is still in charge of our national political discourse, and they have not repented.

Behind Charlie Rose, et alia, stands the billionaire class and the corporate executive class, and they have not repented, either, though, maybe, some are a bit worried.

I don't think any Democratic politician is in a good position to overturn this state of affairs; once a Democrat has assumed the role of candidate for office, that person has a limited range of credibility, and that person is very dependent on the Media personalities and pundits, who have a much wider range of credibility.

Both Democratic candidates have the same strategic problem of how to navigate between a hostile Media and the dissatisfaction of the American People, and still be in a position to govern responsibly. There's no obvious good solution, no ideal strategy to follow. I think it naive to assume that any Democrat can get elected without breaking my liberal heart.

I think Krugman is therefore foolish to focus on a few, highly selected bits of rhetoric, and over-interpret them, while ignoring much of the rest of the pattern. Krugman is foolish not to recognize that both Clinton and Obama have been fighting the Media, from day one, and both have had to trim their sails to avoid attracting the hostility of the billionaire/corporate executive classes. I cannot imagine what it cost Clinton, personally, to make kiss-kiss with Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife, let alone imagine what it will cost the country should she be elected.

The American People do not understand what has been done to them. I wish history put the Democrats clearly on the side of the Angels since the Richard Nixon burgled the Watergate, but it hasn't. The Democrats have been bullied and cajoled and fooled into going along for 30 years. And, the Media pundits leap on that cooperation. Charlie Rose was doing it in his argument with Arianna Huffington, asking whether the rescue of Bear Stearns was something she opposed, when she was trying to make a point about the economic lunacy of the Right. "Bi-partisanship" is something required by Hard Pundit Law.

Krugman is attacking one of the Democratic candidates, for a kind of whoring that both candidates are having to do. The willingness of the candidates to do this is disgusting, but they are doing what they have to do, to get elected. If we want our politics to change, we and Krugman are going to have to figure out who the real enemy is. It is not just the lunatic Right -- it is the Media. In this election, the Democrats will be running against the Media, running to overthrow the Media, as certainly as if Tim Russert were living at Versailles. Because Tim Russert is living at Versailles -- he's emptying chamberpots on the people outside, but that's where he's living and that's his job. If Krugman wants to do some good, he would give up his unbecoming advocacy for the Imperial Hillary, and start thinking seriously about how to deal with the arbiters of who is a very serious person.

[vorpal]

If Barack is for change, can he deliver on eliminating the penny? I bet he couldn't even take a stand on this simple little issue. Pennies are a waste of everybody's time and money. Every sensible analysis of the issue says that we should eliminate them...but could Obama say he was going to end penny production and actually do it?

After a quick search:

The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial One-Cent Coin Redesign Act (S-341) was co-sponsored by Barack Obama (D-IL), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Evan Bayh (D-IN).

Change we can believe in... a new design on the penny. Goooo Barack!!

[vorpal]

BTW: I picked the penny issue before I knew anything about BO's stance on it. I didn't "look" for a weak chink in Obamas "armor."

On another note, I think many people would do well to watch "O Brother Where Art Thou?" In it, there is a campaign with one candidate as the "reform" candidate. The other candidate, the incumbant, pines "WE need to get us some of that REFORM." Just give Obama a broom and have him say, "I'm a gonna sweep Washington clean of lobbyists and scoundrals!" He would fit right into the movie.

[wogie]

Krugman is quite right that BO should not credit the Republicans with deregulation of transportation.

Under Carter (partial) economic deregulation of Airlines and trucking exposed these carriers to competition, with vastly positive results in terms of reduced prices and improved service. Also, rigid regulation of freight railroads was eased, allowing them to restructure and compete with trucking, resulting in almost a 50% reduction in inflation adjusted rail rates since 1980. Democrats should claim these benefits in the debate.

On the downside, securities markets deregulation under Carter has not worked to the country's advantage, as we see today.

[swells]

kthomas, Well, it actually isn't all that far-fetched. Let's say that you have a family of four. That family has minimal skills but is getting by in the sense that they have enough to eat, barely and a place to get out of the rain. But, they don't make enough to have health insurance. Now, let's say the employer, who didn't provide health care insurance, is suddenly compelled to contribute to the cost of universal health care and can't afford it without laying off employees. The minimally skilled family of four gets laid off. Well, they have health care but now they don't have any money for food or for housing.

That's roughly apposite to the example I gave I think.

[agricanto]

Good God Krugs you can't be serious! There is no comparison. Betcha most of the best leaders we ever had came up fast from smaller (local) office and blew away the reigning order. HRC is part of the reigning order no matter how (Hillaryuously) she tries to re-cast herself as a neo-proletarian antiplutocratic champion of the American Virility Party.

I'm impressed at the ability of the Hillary 4prez camp to constantly "forget" what she just blurted yesterday or the day before. Barak might say things that sound vague or even need follow-up questions, esp on big issues like "the end of the world as we know it" brought to us by around or under Bush/Cheney (climate change, peak oil, war without end, hijacking agriculture for the gas pump, healthcare costs, secrecy of the executive branch, etc.) But he has been more lucid than HRC on the financial meltdown, US foreign relations, crafting a new politics for actual forward motion in a time of psychic/social and economic standstill.

But Mrs. H Rodham Clinton re-cast as NASCAR trucker chasing shots with beer, posing with plaid wool shirt guys who say she has "testicular fortitude" (to do what?), promising to obliterate Iran, attacking her Democratic opponents former preacher's theology with a gotcha at the Press Club, using Dem Party electeds' offices in every state as her campaign staff, twisting arms for delegate votes--screw the voters!) speaks to a whole different kind of Dem leader. This is one I would not vote for if she suddenly and unexpectedly "won" the nomination. At this point a bourgeois feminist trying to prove she has the balls to push the nuclear button is contradictory, shameful and disgusting. In this regard Barak is a greater feminist; he is gentle, confident and centered without having to posture aggression or toughness. (How you gabachos love toughness).

I repeat my self.. Reject Obama and miss the last chance for course correction before the starship America gets pulverized in a meteor shower. Vote for Hillary McClinton and... get ready for white woman testiculocracy.

[hari]

@ Bruce Wilder -

As usual very little to disagree with your closeup brush of American scene.

I still insist on *racism* as a pervasive force in US politics - when a Black candidate is involved.

But, tell me, how is it possible for a Great Power of this 21st Cent - after having reached the zenith of almost complete supremacy - to be so foolishly messmerized by tinpots and God knows such intrinsic *illiteracy* on ways and means of preserving a great civilization - without breaking the household silver and glass?

[OhNoNotAgain]

"Synthesis is the process of realising that a lot of the analysed processes have components in common, and identifying what they are and abstracting the best way to meet the common but not quite identical requirements."

As a software developer myself, let me just say that if you're (meant in the general sense, not you personally) not doing the above, then your "analysis" is way off base. Every software project I've ever done has that basis requirement as step one. It's the only way to keep the number of bugs to a minimum. Furthermore, it's the whole reason behind an entire industry devoted to providing componentized objects for other developers to use and leverage, an industry that my software company is actually in.

At any rate, your point is a very valid one - our laws could use some trimming, and finding and eliminating the duplicate and overlapping principles would help immensely. The overriding problem, of course, is that when you see the laws as unnecessary or invalid in the first place, then you aren't going to be the person that is most likely to improve things, as we've seen with the current administration. We need to get the nerd patrol back in the White House, examining every nook and cranny for ways to streamline and improve things.

[swells]

kthomas, aside from the example I gave, I was trying to make a point with my original post that you cited. To say that people have human rights is all well and good. However, I think the idea that people are compelled to effect other's rights is fraught with danger. The main duty one has to other people's rights, as I see it, is not to transgress them.

The difference is this I think in a nutshell. People have a right to self-defense. We've normalized the proposition that people can be compelled to effect that right for others by support of the military industrial complex via the government's coffers. One result has been what we have in Iraq. A purportedly good thing (self defense) has been hijacked by idiots.

I've said before that I'm all for universally available health insurance but mandatory participation has costs to liberty (and to freedom of conscience) that are being discounted to zero "because it's a good thing". Surely you would be willing to agree that good things can be made into very bad things if people are dumb enough. I've not seen any indication that American's aren't dumb enough for about anything you can imagine.

[Lafayette]

Least Common Denominator

BW: The reality, today, is the lunatic Right is somewhat discredited with the mass of the American People.

That may be so, but that fact does not mean that the American people are shifting Left.

If they can remain oblivious to Income Inequality, then they remain just Right of center. They certainly do think, by now, that Bush was an error of judgment, but that will not prevent them (necessarily) from voting for McCain.

Tarnish the Repubs as much as we might like will not prevent a repeat of their last two victories. And, anyone who thinks that it does is fooling themselves about American politics.

Ours is the politics not of ideas, but of the Least Common Denominator.

Denominator = the number below the line in a vulgar fraction

[swells]

hari, you said it about right here "But, tell me, how is it possible for a Great Power of this 21st Cent - after having reached the zenith of almost complete supremacy - to be so foolishly messmerized by tinpots and God knows such intrinsic *illiteracy* on ways and means of preserving a great civilization - without breaking the household silver and glass?"

Watching the decisions my fellows make is driving me to despair. Race, as far as I can tell, is about how one's body synthesizes vitamin D. Yet, in 2008 it is a huge factor in the political process. People give me some grief on this board (and elsewhere) because I tend to resist ideas that give the state the power to coerce in ever more areas of life.

I would probably be more sanguine about state power if I could have a little more faith in my fellows but reality makes that very, very difficult.

[anne]

"I would probably be more sanguine about state power if I could have a little more faith in my fellows but reality makes that very, very difficult."

Sensible.

[Patricia Shannon]

Bruce Wilder, well said.

[Patricia Shannon]

Swells, do you think we need police and firefighters? Do we need people to inspect restaurants, etc? If so, how do you think they should be paid for?

If you had a child of your own who needed medical care you couldn't afford, you might have a different attitude.

[hari]

I saw the interview with Arianna Huffington...and suprise, suprise, she's repeating my views better than I can with her Greek (feminine) accent. Very charming lady but ravishingly intelligent and beautiful.

She's attacking both *right* and Left* for what I called messmerizing the validity of the Great Power of 21 Cent.
Me thinks, illiteracy has finally become far too ingrained and superior...academics have become real pawns of the great American game of *gotcha*!

Like ancient Greece and Rome, the rubles are all that will or may be left for posterity - who knows.

[swells]

Patricia, how right you are. Yes we need police. Yes we need firefighters. However, I've never seen either come with a guarantee that they will be there when you need them. Those services are provided with a best efforts approach which I think makes a lot of sense. And yes, I do realize those are paid for with taxes. I don't object to taxes and pay quite a lot of them.

Actually, having grown up in a home that was, quite literally, impoverished by medical bills I certainly took that into account when I was deciding not to have any children. That along with the idea that maybe just maybe there were already enough people on planet earth.

[CasualObserver]

Politics is war. Sun Tzu said the following:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

This should be a milk-run for the Democrats. It isn't. Why? Because they don't know their enemy and they aren't sure who they are themselves.

Bruce Wilder makes the wrong assumption about who is the sucker at the poker table.

[swells]

Patricia, It occurs to me that there might be something different about having children, something that I'm overlooking. While I don't think that people should have children they cannot afford, what about people who can afford them if things are normal but not if things head south of catastrophic. Just to be clear, I think those kinds of catastrophies are deserving of help and should be covered assuming the people have chosen to participate in a universally available health care plan. Anyone, well maybe except a few billionaires, could find themself in that position through no fault of their own.

Now, what do we do about people who have children they can't afford even if things aren't catastrophic?

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

"......."Anne, how do you come to the conclusion that health care is a human right?"...."

"By being, like, human; like even thinking."

Anne:

At least we have one thing in common....... However, I don't get it.......? How can you defend the Clintons.....? What's in it for you....? There's got to be something...... Those are two of the sleaziest people I've ever met. I can understand, that you being a woman, it would be great to have a woman president. Me being a man, I would love to see a woman get elected to the office, but not Hillary Clinton. Another Clinton in the White House....? It's kind of dynastic and I find it vulgar and undemocratic. I wouldn't be surprised If Bill mortgages the White House if she wins.... I just can't understand why you're so pro-Clinton.... They are horrible people.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[swells]

Economista Non Grata, I am sincerely curious what the philosohical underpinning of this whole health care as a human right thing is about. Mainly because I don't get it.

It seems to me that health care if fundamentally different than is, say, freedom of speech. Anyone can get on their soapbox but does anyone have a right to confiscate their neighbor's property so they can open a newspaper? Anyone can do their best to defend themself if, for instance, a rapist attacks them but does anyone have a right to dragoon a helpless bystander into the fight?

Do you get my drift here? I think it's pretty clear that people have a right to seek health care but where the whole thing breaks down for me is where they have a right to confiscate their neighbor's property to pay the doctor with.

Is there something I'm missing here?

[NLS]

Swells,

It's cheaper if the gov't provides it.

[2slugbaits]

wogie,

"Krugman is quite right that BO should not credit the Republicans with deregulation of transportation."

You're right if the issue is historical accuracy. President Carter was the one who started the deregulation ball rolling. But I think Obama was trying to be generous and associate himself with causes that Republicans like to think of as their own. And it's still true that Reagan did a lot of deregulating. It would have been a bit wonkish, but Obama could have credited the 1986 tax reform to Reagan even though it was actually a Democratic (Sen. Bradley) idea. Sometimes it's best to let the other guy think something was his idea even if it wasn't.

[anne]

"At least we have one thing in common...."

I know; but less needless vilifying of Clinton would be so nice.

[anne]

"I think it's pretty clear that people have a right to seek health care but where the whole thing breaks down for me is where they have a right to confiscate their neighbor's property to pay the doctor with."

Self-refuting.

[swells]

NLS, that is a utilitarian argument and one that I think is valid. What I'm trying to find out is what I'm missing vis a vis making the argument on the basis of health care being a human right. I don't think that argument works but nobody around here wants to actually offer arguments for the position that it is a human right. They just want to say it is because they say it is as far as I can tell.

[swells]

Anne, I agree that your position is self-refuting but I didn't expect you to agree with me-:) There still hasn't been any reason advanced that health care is different than any other right (hypothetically accepting that contention). What other right compels one person to effectuate the right for another? I can't think of one. If you are arguing that health care is somehow different than all other rights, I really would appreciate a clue how it is different. If your position is intellectually coherent, then it would behoove me to understand it.

[Alex Tolley]

hari: "But, tell me, how is it possible for a Great Power of this 21st Cent - after having reached the zenith of almost complete supremacy - to be so foolishly mesmerized by tinpots and God knows such intrinsic *illiteracy* on ways and means of preserving a great civilization - without breaking the household silver and glass?"

The same way that it happened in ancient Rome, the British Empire circa WW1 and probably every major power in between.

It's not that we are stupid, but that we don't learn enough from history to avoid similar trajectories.

[agricanto]

The American concept of rights is based on "rights from" and not "rights to". Today this has drawbacks because I think human beings (in a complex, wealthy, industrial society that can produce almost anything) do have a right to housing, a clean environment, education and, yes, healthcare. (Ironically the Declaration of Independence did have concepts of "rights to" which are without precedent and have not been imitated even by ourselves (right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

But we prefer to imagine a different era in a society where the economy could not produce almost anything and where rights were "rights from" unjust search and seizure, unfair proceedings, arbitrary state or church control, imposition of burdens, unjust taking of property, etc.

Our Constitution reveals this concept in the language it uses.. "Congress shall make no law that... abridges, restrains, prohibits, etc." It does not facilitate state power to meet needs but curtails it so as to inhibit excessive state control. This is why we have a hard time adding rights to the constitution such as the Equal Rights Amendment, or the right to clean air and water, or the right to housing and education.

Other countries with more modern constitutions spell out just what their citizens have a right to. The Mexican Constitution (1929) establishes the minimum wage, rights of peasant farmers to farm land, rights of workers to form unions, etc. The South African Constitution even grants rights for gay folks to marry.

says...

swells:

I do not understand how you are referencing confiscation of property. Are you referring to taxation? If so, that is not confiscation. the rule of Eminent Domain can and should be applied in this matter. Fair and equitable compensation in exchange for private property. Face value, not good will.

"Do you get my drift here? I think it's pretty clear that people have a right to seek health care but where the whole thing breaks down for me is where they have a right to confiscate their neighbor's property to pay the doctor with."

I do not get your "drift". I repeat, taxation is not confiscation, it is a need that provides to the benefit of a civilized society. Highways, public schools, armies, police departments, fire departments, municipal buildings, etc. etc. are financed with tax revenues as they should be. And so should universal, single payer heath care.

That is my position on this issue.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[swells]

agricanto, I don't think your argument holds up about rights from. These are just different sides of the same coin. The right to freedom of religion can be a right from (as in my case being an atheist) but active practice of one's religion is certainly covered. Same with free speech. Same with self-defense. These are definitely 'rights to' in your formulation. Does free speech, a right to, give one the right to set up a newspaper using other people's money taken from then imvoluntarily?

[swells]

says, well I would certainly hold eminent domain to be a confiscation. Dictionary.com for instance defines confiscation as:

1. to seize as forfeited to the public domain; appropriate, by way of penalty, for public use.
2. to seize by or as if by authority; appropriate summarily: The border guards confiscated our movie cameras.

Your points about police, fire departments, etc. are interesting. Do you realize that none of these are provided on a guaranteed to be there when you need them basis? The reason they aren't is because they aren't affordable if provided in that manner. How is health care different? Are you saying that it is more important to get an annual checkup than it is to not be mugged at gun point?

I mean, I'm right there in the hunt with you if people start passing laws that folk have to smoke or stuff down mcburgers at two meals out of three. That would violate a right to seek a healthy life. But, I still don't see how, on a human rights basis, it follows that being provided health care is a right. I mean, are we next going to force taxpayers to hire private speech writers for unintelligent people so they can effect their right to free speech in a more felicitous manner? Are we going to pass laws that we have to intervene at risk to our own persons when we see a gang beating up an individual so that individual's right to self defense can be effected?

I personally think that universally available health care is a good idea on a lot of prammatic, utilitarian grounds but I really don't get the "it must be provided as a human right" position. Even at that I don't think people ought to be coerced into participating.

Well, I did just think of something. Public education is, I guess, provided as a human right. But I think it would be better approached on pramatic, utilitarian grounds given how public education is working out for those who need it the most.

[sewells]

says, I misread the definition of confiscation by misplacing a subordinate claue. I guess eminent domain wouldn't be a confiscation. My bad. So, where I said confiscation, please read by taking money from people that don't want it spent that way.

[Patricia Shannon]

Sewells
Do you think we need police more than we do medical care?

[Patricia Shannon]

swells says...

Patricia, It occurs to me that there might be something different about having children, something that I'm overlooking. While I don't think that people should have children they cannot afford, what about people who can afford them if things are normal but not if things head south of catastrophic. Just to be clear, I think those kinds of catastrophies are deserving of help and should be covered assuming the people have chosen to participate in a universally available health care plan. Anyone, well maybe except a few billionaires, could find themself in that position through no fault of their own.

Now, what do we do about people who have children they can't afford even if things aren't catastrophic?

I'm sure you have an idea what I think. What do you think, that they should be allowed to die?

[Patricia Shannon]

If you're dead, you can't exercise any other rights.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

sewells:

"So, where I said confiscation, please read by taking money from people that don't want it spent that way."

The public welfare overrides any personal consideration...... I don't want my tax dollars being spent on a useless war, however, I still pay my taxes.

I am also well aware of the deficiency of our public schools and deficient as they are, they are still better than nothing. There's always room for improvement. And nothing, is basically what we have here as it relates to health care for approximately forty million Americans who can not afford health insurance and another one hundred ninety million who don't have "adequate" health care coverage. This country can afford single payer, universal heath care coverage for all of it's citizens and sooner or later, it's going to implement such a system. As in Iraq, we should leave now while we can rather than later when we have to.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[Winslow R.]

pk wrote: "implausible assertion that the magic of the marketplace would make health care cheap enough for everyone to afford."

I'm going to incorporate this idea into my framework. The Milken posts got me thinking of how the 'magic of the marketplace' is used to justify screwing up the politics of many different issues.

Political solutions should be made with politics not the marketplace. Using the marketplace just allows those with access to buy their way out. Who has dollars starts to matter where votes should have been the deciding factor.

Economists that push market based solutions for poltical problems are hereby on notice, your motivations are suspect.

[Lafayette]

"What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and loseth his own soul?" — Mark 8:36.

AT: It's not that we are stupid, but that we don't learn enough from history to avoid similar trajectories.

Quite right.

And, we forget a key element in the development of all countries – its culture. Culture is a collection and respect for the best of any achievements by a nation.

It is a concoction of part history, part art, part craft – which is why the French wax romantic about Versailles, Renoir and its Haute Cuisine, as some of the more prominent examples.

Culture is also defined by some fundamental principles that are declared sacrosanct, to the point that a nation is willing to die to defend them. Liberty falls into this category.

Somewhere along the way to the 21st century, however, America decided that individual achievement was defined by success in commerce or trade or industry. Our icons became Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts – and most recently Gates, Buffet, etc., etc. Even more recently, we’ve become fascinated by the Masters of the Universe – the financial universe where some manage to grab at the Golden Ring on the merry-go-round and obtain a jackpot beyond our wildest imagination.

These are our present heroes, all over the media whether printed or televised. And we have become fixated on wealth as THE measure of achievement.

Some of the world’s greatest achievers died paupers. A prime example is Mozart. Imagine his great, great fortune today had he lived now and been represented by a good agent.

Does the fact that he died a pauper diminish Mozart’s great contribution to our common culture? Of course not. His work will be remembered long, long after that of Bill Gates or the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

By fixating on personal achievement, we’ve forgot what matters most -- the well-being of our society as a whole. Any great distortion in the distribution of wealth, however meekly accepted by a citizenry, cannot but lead ultimately to social tensions and disruption. Which is why Great Fortunes in the past learned to be socially modest. Today, the trappings of wealth are flogged-in-our-face by the media moguls.

As a nation, we’ve lost our way. How did this happen? Let's call the phenomenon the Least Common Media Denominator. The media fashions our icons by giving us what we need. We want to believe that by dint of hard work and some luck, we too can enter into the Nirvana of Wealth, that state of perfect happiness. And, of course, be interviewed by some TV Talking Head in recognition of our "having made it".

More so, the fact that hallucinatory riches CAN be accumulated so easily by so few seems to startle no one. It is a perfectly natural phenomenon in a world where money itself has become the Prime Value and not the struggle necessary to obtain it.

When such happens, the world we live in becomes Darwinian. It is a struggle for survival … and only the fittest survive, or perhaps the most fortunate. I don’t believe that exaggerated riches as a requirement for well-being was ever considered / thought / discussed during the founding of this nation. Those Founding Fathers were more concerned with how to consolidate their newly won freedom into a functional nation that would preserve it.

They never would have conceived of an America where the well-being of the nation should be concentrated in such a small proportion of its citizens. And, yet, it was there, already, before their very eyes -- because they were mostly landed gentry with comparatively enormous wealth. Had they truly believed that “all men are created equal”, would they not have employed the word “humans” in that phrase – then freed the slaves and given the right to vote to women. But, they didn’t.

So, instead of “fairness”, the nation concentrated on “individual freedom” as demonstrated in personal success and rewarded by riches.

What became of that other virtue -- a sense of equity or fairness or humaneness? It was left waiting by the wayside, as we concentrated on bettering ourselves in a consumer society. For moral virtue, it was/is sufficient to appear in church on Sunday.

Should we not, however, be teaching fairness and a sense of humanity to our youth? Not mini-MBA programs showing them how to get rich quick. Nor the reflexive adulation of the “winners” -- when what was paramount was a chance, at least, to play the game.

Those who don't win are dismissed as the irrelevant, the unimportant or, worse, the debris of humanity. Whoever remembers who came in second? Or the "also-ran".

That is, the rest of us.

[kotzabasis]

The criticism of Obama by Krugman in this article undoubtedly is correct. But it also serves as a screen for the latter behind which he will be “SHOO-IN” Senator Clinton with roller skates that will glide her into the Whitehouse as it’s obvious that for Krugman Obama, with the shadow of Jeremiah looming over him is not the candidate who could win the presidential race. Hence he hopes, by painting Obama of being unable to articulate the Democrat’s values and blaming him for his mistake of giving credit to the Republicans for policies where credit is not due, to persuade a substantial part of the Democrats’ base, especially the Super Delegates, to switch their vote behind Clinton.

Of course for Krugman Senator Clinton is the better of a bad alternative but since he doesn’t have a horse to win the race he has no other choice but to pick a mule in place of a donkey.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03sat1.html

May 3, 2008

Spinning Iraq

President Bush will never live down "Mission Accomplished" — and should not. When the White House's spinners spun that claim five years ago (remember the aircraft carrier?), it seemed cocky and premature. As Mr. Bush continues his $526 billion war-without-end in Iraq, it seems stunningly deceitful.

The only mission that needs to be accomplished is an orderly exit from Iraq, and Mr. Bush is no closer to acknowledging that reality. Neither is Senator John McCain. All Congress seems capable of is hand-wringing.

So it is up to Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to revive the national debate on Iraq — and up the pressure on the White House....

[wogie]

2slugbaits

“But I think Obama was trying to be generous and associate himself with causes that Republicans like to think of as their own.”

I see what you mean, Slugs, but question if that is a good tactic in this instance. If followed one could easily ask why vote for BO when one can vote for the ”real thing” – McCain. More broadly, I have been trying to figure BO’s approach out. In a way I am leaning toward the idea he is trying to reconstruct Clinton’s 1992 approach, which rejected the “progressive agenda” and adopted the DLC position of moving to the middle politically. Claiming the good deregulation enacted during Carter’s Presidency would reinforce that move and appeal to any moderate Republicans. It could work; it did in 1992, and I think the middle is where most of the votes are to be found for Democrats. After all, that Democrat position allowed their only occupation of the WH in 8 of the last 40 years!!

[anne]

What troubles me still, especially so in reading defenses of Barack Obama policies, is that there are no defenses of Obama's policies. We are more than a year in on the candidacy and I still cannot tell whether Obama means to leave Iraq completely and quickly or whether Obama means to leave Afghanistan or leave Somalia and Pakistan alone militarily.

[anne]

When we have been told troop withdrawals from Iraq are going to end after a token number, when we are told this very day that there are plans to increase American forces in Afghanistan to 40,000 for reasons that are completely lost on me, when Iraq alone is slated to cost $178 billion directly over the coming year, with Afghanistan becoming ever more costly, though mysteriously so, I have no idea what Obama's policy plans are for either.

[anne]

What continually happens with Obama supporters is when Obama policies are asked about or challenged, the turn is simply to criticize Hillary and Bill Clinton, and especially to criticize them by writing history falsely or using absurd character criticisms. We are fortunate enough to have a long primary competition, and I would like to come away from the season understanding policy stances beyond a policy of hope and Republicanism accepted by a Democratic candidate.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html

May 5, 2008

Children Hurt and Hospital Is Hit in Baghdad
By ALISSA J. RUBIN

Iraqis in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood examined ambulances destroyed by an American missile. A hospital was also damaged and a group of children were injured.

[Will Obama be leaving Iraq?]

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/world/asia/03military.html

May 3, 2008

Pentagon May Add Forces in Afghanistan
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and THOM SHANKER

The increase would push the number of American forces there to roughly 40,000, the highest yet.

[Will Obama be leaving Afghanistan?]

[anne]

Will the coming President be firing missiles at Somalia (a country who invasion and occupation we supported, a country of dire need)? What of firing missiles at Pakistan, as America now frets militarily over progress made by the Pakistani government towards peace in the territories beyond the border with Afghanistan?

These are questions I want discussed.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html

May 4, 2008

Missiles Hit Hospital in Sadr City; Children Hurt
By ALISSA J. RUBIN

Missiles damaged a hospital and many of its ambulances in Baghdad. A group of children was also injured.

[ http://likovna-kultura.ufzg.hr/images31/Picasso.Guernica2.jpg ]

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2008/05/sadrist-crowds-denounce-al-maliki-at.html

May 3, 2008

Sadrist Crowds Denounce al-Maliki At Friday Prayers
By Juan Cole

Friday prayers were tumultuous in Baghdad's Sadr City on Friday, as supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr denounced Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for his brutal invasion of their township....

[Why have we been attacking Sadr City and Basra? Are we going to leave Iraq, completely and quickly? This is what supporters of each Presidential candidate must be asking, over and over.]