Thursday, December 31, 2009
Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky Says
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them."
The Last 10 Miserable Years
Ten Miserable Years
Why it's going to so hard--and why it's so important--to put this decade behind us.
E.J. Dionne Jr.
Ten Miserable Years The Whipping Boy Church and State December 31, 2009 | 12:00 am
How Barack Obama Ended the Culture Wars--For Now
Dionne: Why Progressives Need to Stop Screaming and Start Organizing for the Next Health Care FightWASHINGTON -- Certain decades shape the country's political life for generations by leaving behind an era to embrace or, at least as often, to scorn.
The 1960s were definitely such a decade. The 1930s qualify, and so do the 1980s. But as important as all these periods have been, their significance may be dwarfed by the reckless and squandered decade that is, mercifully, ending.
I'm afraid that the past 10 years will be seen as a time when the United States badly lost its way by using our military power carelessly, misunderstanding the real challenges to our long-term security, and pursuing domestic policies that constrained our options for the future while needlessly threatening our prosperity.
I am aware that the previous paragraph is thoroughly controversial, and that befits any description of a politically consequential decade. Much of the contention surrounding Barack Obama's presidency is simply a continuation of our argument over the effects of George W. Bush's time in office.
That is why Obama, despite his fervent wishes, has been unable to usher in a new period of consensus. Bush's defenders know that Obama's election represented a popular reaction against the consequences of the 43rd president's time in office. Because Obama is both the anti-Bush and the leader of the post-Bush cleanup squad, his success would complete the rebuke. So the Bush camp -- Karl Rove's regular contributions to The Wall Street Journal's opinion pages are emblematic -- must stay on the attack.
Domestically, Obama inherited an economic catastrophe. Dealing with the wreckage required a large expenditure of public funds that increased a deficit already bloated by the previous president's decision to fight two wars and to cut taxes at the same time. Bush's defenders, preferring to focus attention away from this earlier period of irresponsibility, act as if the world began on Jan. 20, 2009, by way of saddling Obama with the blame for everything that now ails us. But the previous eight years cannot be wished away.
Our current president is more deliberate about the use of American power than his predecessor was, and determined to repair America's image with other nations. Obama is committed to fighting terrorism, but does not believe that a "war on terror" should define American foreign policy.
This leads directly to another essential argument over the meaning of the last decade: whether the proper response to the 9/11 attacks included not only the widely supported retaliation in Afghanistan but also the invasion of Iraq. Obama's view -- that the Iraq War wasted American power and dissipated good will toward us around the world -- is a direct reproach to the core assumptions of the Bush foreign policy.
So is Obama's refusal "to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests," as he put it in his recent West Point speech, as well as his insistence upon appreciating "the connection between our national security and our economy." This measured approach to the use of force is antithetical to a foreign policy based on "bring 'em on" and sweeping pledges to "defeat our enemies across the world."
But this makes it imperative for Obama to inspire trust in his capacity to thwart terrorism, and his administration's initial response to the Christmas Day airliner attack fell short. Republicans were shameless in politicizing the incident, knowing that rehabilitating Bush's approach to terrorism depends upon discrediting Obama's. The president can't afford to give them anything to work with, as he finally seemed to grasp on Tuesday.
It should not surprise us that the battle for the future will be shaped by struggles over the past. How often over the last 40 years have conservatives defended their policies in the name of rolling back "the excesses of the '60s"? For even longer, liberals were charged with being locked into "the New Deal approaches of the 1930s." Liberals, in turn, pointed proudly to both eras as times of unparalleled social advance.
As for the 1980s, they remain a positive reference point for conservatives even as progressives condemn the Age of Reagan for opening the way to the deregulatory excesses that led to the recent downturn.
Americans instinctively recoil at living too much in the past. Yet we have no choice but to reach a settlement about the meaning of the last 10 years. It is the only way we will successfully turn the next 10 into a decade of renewal.
Why it's going to so hard--and why it's so important--to put this decade behind us.
E.J. Dionne Jr.
Ten Miserable Years The Whipping Boy Church and State December 31, 2009 | 12:00 am
How Barack Obama Ended the Culture Wars--For Now
Dionne: Why Progressives Need to Stop Screaming and Start Organizing for the Next Health Care FightWASHINGTON -- Certain decades shape the country's political life for generations by leaving behind an era to embrace or, at least as often, to scorn.
The 1960s were definitely such a decade. The 1930s qualify, and so do the 1980s. But as important as all these periods have been, their significance may be dwarfed by the reckless and squandered decade that is, mercifully, ending.
I'm afraid that the past 10 years will be seen as a time when the United States badly lost its way by using our military power carelessly, misunderstanding the real challenges to our long-term security, and pursuing domestic policies that constrained our options for the future while needlessly threatening our prosperity.
I am aware that the previous paragraph is thoroughly controversial, and that befits any description of a politically consequential decade. Much of the contention surrounding Barack Obama's presidency is simply a continuation of our argument over the effects of George W. Bush's time in office.
That is why Obama, despite his fervent wishes, has been unable to usher in a new period of consensus. Bush's defenders know that Obama's election represented a popular reaction against the consequences of the 43rd president's time in office. Because Obama is both the anti-Bush and the leader of the post-Bush cleanup squad, his success would complete the rebuke. So the Bush camp -- Karl Rove's regular contributions to The Wall Street Journal's opinion pages are emblematic -- must stay on the attack.
Domestically, Obama inherited an economic catastrophe. Dealing with the wreckage required a large expenditure of public funds that increased a deficit already bloated by the previous president's decision to fight two wars and to cut taxes at the same time. Bush's defenders, preferring to focus attention away from this earlier period of irresponsibility, act as if the world began on Jan. 20, 2009, by way of saddling Obama with the blame for everything that now ails us. But the previous eight years cannot be wished away.
Our current president is more deliberate about the use of American power than his predecessor was, and determined to repair America's image with other nations. Obama is committed to fighting terrorism, but does not believe that a "war on terror" should define American foreign policy.
This leads directly to another essential argument over the meaning of the last decade: whether the proper response to the 9/11 attacks included not only the widely supported retaliation in Afghanistan but also the invasion of Iraq. Obama's view -- that the Iraq War wasted American power and dissipated good will toward us around the world -- is a direct reproach to the core assumptions of the Bush foreign policy.
So is Obama's refusal "to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests," as he put it in his recent West Point speech, as well as his insistence upon appreciating "the connection between our national security and our economy." This measured approach to the use of force is antithetical to a foreign policy based on "bring 'em on" and sweeping pledges to "defeat our enemies across the world."
But this makes it imperative for Obama to inspire trust in his capacity to thwart terrorism, and his administration's initial response to the Christmas Day airliner attack fell short. Republicans were shameless in politicizing the incident, knowing that rehabilitating Bush's approach to terrorism depends upon discrediting Obama's. The president can't afford to give them anything to work with, as he finally seemed to grasp on Tuesday.
It should not surprise us that the battle for the future will be shaped by struggles over the past. How often over the last 40 years have conservatives defended their policies in the name of rolling back "the excesses of the '60s"? For even longer, liberals were charged with being locked into "the New Deal approaches of the 1930s." Liberals, in turn, pointed proudly to both eras as times of unparalleled social advance.
As for the 1980s, they remain a positive reference point for conservatives even as progressives condemn the Age of Reagan for opening the way to the deregulatory excesses that led to the recent downturn.
Americans instinctively recoil at living too much in the past. Yet we have no choice but to reach a settlement about the meaning of the last 10 years. It is the only way we will successfully turn the next 10 into a decade of renewal.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Joe Klein on Health Care Reform
The Left's Idiocy on Health Reform
By Joe Klein Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2009
In the snarkier precincts of the left-wing blogosphere, mainstream journalists like me are often called villagers. The reference, so far as I can tell, has to do with isolation: we live in this little village on the Potomac — actually, I don't, but no matter — constantly intermingling over hors d'oeuvres, deciding who is "serious" (a term of derision in the blogosphere) and who is not, regurgitating spin spoon-fed by our sources or conjuring a witless conventional wisdom that has nothing to do with reality as it is lived outside the village. There is, of course, some truth to this. Washington is insular; certain local shamans are celebrated beyond all logic; some of my columnar colleagues have lost touch with everything beyond their armchairs and egos.
But there is a great irony here: villagery is a trope more applicable to those making the accusation than to those being snarked upon. The left-wing blogosphere, at its worst, is a claustrophobic hamlet of the well educated, less interested in meaningful debate than the "village" it mocks. (At its best, it is a source of clever and well-informed anti-Establishment commentary.) Indeed, it resembles nothing so much as that other, more populous hamlet, the right-wing Fox News and Limbaugh slum. Hilariously, as we stagger from one awful decade into the next, there has been a coagulation of these extremes — a united front against the turgid ceremonies of legislative democracy, like compromise, and disdain for the politician most responsible for nudging our snarled checks and balances toward action, Barack Obama. The issue that has brought them together is opposition to the Senate's health care–reform bill, which makes some sense on the right, but none at all on the left.
(See the 5 things that the House and Senate have to iron out on health care.)
The prejudices of the tea partiers, birthers, deathers, Palinites and other assorted "real" Americans are well known; the historic conservative opposition to universal health care isn't news. The dyspepsia of the left blogosphere is less easily explained, though. It has its roots in an issue the left got right and almost everyone else got wrong: the war in Iraq. There is still intense, unabated anger on the left because its opposition to the war was often ridiculed and almost always ignored in 2003. The anger at so-called moderates — actually, Democratic conservatives like Joe Lieberman — who supported the war is especially intense. This was the anger that fed the Howard Dean movement in 2004, and it sets the emotional parameters for other issues far more complicated than the war, like health care. Those who were wrong about Iraq can't be trusted on anything else.
Actually, both the left and right opponents of health care reform are drinking from the same watercooler. Activists on both sides — consulting their focus groups, no doubt — found that the message that most roused their troops was the same: a government takeover of health care. The tidbit in the plan that came closest to embodying that message was a worthy but relatively minor provision called the public option, which would offer something like Medicare as one of a menu of choices for several million Americans not receiving health insurance from their employers. For the right, this was socialism. For the left, it was a step toward stripping private insurers of their choke hold on the system. When the public option was killed — by Lieberman, of all people — the left saw Iraq redux and rebelled. Not only was there no public option, but people would also be mandated — forced! — to patronize the same insurance companies that exploit them now. There would be a windfall of 30 million new customers for the insurers and drug companies. What a sellout! Bloggers at sites like Daily Kos, the Huffington Post (including Arianna herself) and FireDogLake held a village bonfire. Dean materialized to help fan the flames.
(Read "Forcing Insurers to Spend Enough on Health Care.")
To be sure, the bill that emerged from the Senate has problems. But it is landmark social legislation that guarantees and subsidizes health care coverage for 30 million Americans who don't have it now. Yes, this means a lot of new customers for the insurance companies — but the insurers will face strict new regulations, and many of their new customers will be people they refused to cover in the past. Ultimately, it means an annual income redistribution of $200 billion to help the working poor pay for insurance, which is why Republicans oppose the bill. But Jacob Hacker, the leading promoter of the public option, favors it. Every Democratic Senator, including those like Ohio's Sherrod Brown who have impeccable liberal records, favors it.
By Joe Klein Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2009
In the snarkier precincts of the left-wing blogosphere, mainstream journalists like me are often called villagers. The reference, so far as I can tell, has to do with isolation: we live in this little village on the Potomac — actually, I don't, but no matter — constantly intermingling over hors d'oeuvres, deciding who is "serious" (a term of derision in the blogosphere) and who is not, regurgitating spin spoon-fed by our sources or conjuring a witless conventional wisdom that has nothing to do with reality as it is lived outside the village. There is, of course, some truth to this. Washington is insular; certain local shamans are celebrated beyond all logic; some of my columnar colleagues have lost touch with everything beyond their armchairs and egos.
But there is a great irony here: villagery is a trope more applicable to those making the accusation than to those being snarked upon. The left-wing blogosphere, at its worst, is a claustrophobic hamlet of the well educated, less interested in meaningful debate than the "village" it mocks. (At its best, it is a source of clever and well-informed anti-Establishment commentary.) Indeed, it resembles nothing so much as that other, more populous hamlet, the right-wing Fox News and Limbaugh slum. Hilariously, as we stagger from one awful decade into the next, there has been a coagulation of these extremes — a united front against the turgid ceremonies of legislative democracy, like compromise, and disdain for the politician most responsible for nudging our snarled checks and balances toward action, Barack Obama. The issue that has brought them together is opposition to the Senate's health care–reform bill, which makes some sense on the right, but none at all on the left.
(See the 5 things that the House and Senate have to iron out on health care.)
The prejudices of the tea partiers, birthers, deathers, Palinites and other assorted "real" Americans are well known; the historic conservative opposition to universal health care isn't news. The dyspepsia of the left blogosphere is less easily explained, though. It has its roots in an issue the left got right and almost everyone else got wrong: the war in Iraq. There is still intense, unabated anger on the left because its opposition to the war was often ridiculed and almost always ignored in 2003. The anger at so-called moderates — actually, Democratic conservatives like Joe Lieberman — who supported the war is especially intense. This was the anger that fed the Howard Dean movement in 2004, and it sets the emotional parameters for other issues far more complicated than the war, like health care. Those who were wrong about Iraq can't be trusted on anything else.
Actually, both the left and right opponents of health care reform are drinking from the same watercooler. Activists on both sides — consulting their focus groups, no doubt — found that the message that most roused their troops was the same: a government takeover of health care. The tidbit in the plan that came closest to embodying that message was a worthy but relatively minor provision called the public option, which would offer something like Medicare as one of a menu of choices for several million Americans not receiving health insurance from their employers. For the right, this was socialism. For the left, it was a step toward stripping private insurers of their choke hold on the system. When the public option was killed — by Lieberman, of all people — the left saw Iraq redux and rebelled. Not only was there no public option, but people would also be mandated — forced! — to patronize the same insurance companies that exploit them now. There would be a windfall of 30 million new customers for the insurers and drug companies. What a sellout! Bloggers at sites like Daily Kos, the Huffington Post (including Arianna herself) and FireDogLake held a village bonfire. Dean materialized to help fan the flames.
(Read "Forcing Insurers to Spend Enough on Health Care.")
To be sure, the bill that emerged from the Senate has problems. But it is landmark social legislation that guarantees and subsidizes health care coverage for 30 million Americans who don't have it now. Yes, this means a lot of new customers for the insurance companies — but the insurers will face strict new regulations, and many of their new customers will be people they refused to cover in the past. Ultimately, it means an annual income redistribution of $200 billion to help the working poor pay for insurance, which is why Republicans oppose the bill. But Jacob Hacker, the leading promoter of the public option, favors it. Every Democratic Senator, including those like Ohio's Sherrod Brown who have impeccable liberal records, favors it.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Malkin Award
From Andrew Sullivan
28 Dec 2009 06:23 pm
Dish Award Results 2009: Malkin Award Winner
By a mile, it's Glenn Beck, with 42 percent of the near 8,000 votes in this category. His award-winning statement:
“We call them progressives now, but back in Samuel Adams’ day, they used to call them tyrants. A little later, I think they were also called slave owners."
28 Dec 2009 06:23 pm
Dish Award Results 2009: Malkin Award Winner
By a mile, it's Glenn Beck, with 42 percent of the near 8,000 votes in this category. His award-winning statement:
“We call them progressives now, but back in Samuel Adams’ day, they used to call them tyrants. A little later, I think they were also called slave owners."
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Palin's Death Panels "Lie of the Year"
Death Panels Lie On Factcheck.Org's 'Whoppers Of 2009'
The non-partisan group, however, pinned most of the blame on longtime reform foe Betsy McCaughey.
"Death Panels" The "pulling the plug on grandma" falsehood really took off once former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin coined the term "Death Panel," but this falsehood got its first push from former New York lieutenant governor and health care overhaul opponent Betsy McCaughey.
She misrepresented a provision (since dropped) that merely called for Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling sessions to help seniors make end-of-life care decisions, such as designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice or writing a living will. McCaughey twisted that into "a required counseling session" that would "tell them how to end their life sooner." Palin later wrote on her Facebook page that she doesn't want government bureaucrats to decide whether her parents or child with Down Syndrome are "worthy of health care." Who would? Certainly not legislators, who didn't call for the creation of any such "Death Panel" in the health care bills.
The non-partisan group, however, pinned most of the blame on longtime reform foe Betsy McCaughey.
"Death Panels" The "pulling the plug on grandma" falsehood really took off once former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin coined the term "Death Panel," but this falsehood got its first push from former New York lieutenant governor and health care overhaul opponent Betsy McCaughey.
She misrepresented a provision (since dropped) that merely called for Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling sessions to help seniors make end-of-life care decisions, such as designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice or writing a living will. McCaughey twisted that into "a required counseling session" that would "tell them how to end their life sooner." Palin later wrote on her Facebook page that she doesn't want government bureaucrats to decide whether her parents or child with Down Syndrome are "worthy of health care." Who would? Certainly not legislators, who didn't call for the creation of any such "Death Panel" in the health care bills.
Friday, December 25, 2009
FROM ANDREW SULLIVAN
December 25
My Reader's Literary Mentor
A reader writes:
The tone of the "From The In-Tray II" emails reminds me of the great Ignatius J. Reilly character in A Confederacy Of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole. Maybe the funniest book I've ever read. A few Ignatius gems...
"A firm rule must be imposed upon our nation before it destroys itself. The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss.”
and
"I am at this moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip."
December 25
My Reader's Literary Mentor
A reader writes:
The tone of the "From The In-Tray II" emails reminds me of the great Ignatius J. Reilly character in A Confederacy Of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole. Maybe the funniest book I've ever read. A few Ignatius gems...
"A firm rule must be imposed upon our nation before it destroys itself. The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss.”
and
"I am at this moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip."
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Senate Passes Health Care Reform
from Paul Krugman
December 24, 2009, 10:47 am
Noo Yawk Roolz!
I watched the Senate vote this morning, and despite all, it was an inspiring moment. A few random thoughts:
1. It’s petty and silly, but after what seems like a whole adult lifetime in which Central Casting insisted that major politicians be either Southern gentlemen or Midwestern heartland types, it felt good to watch and listen to Chuck Schumer, speaking the language of my roots, at the victory press conference — even with that green tie. Noo Yawk Roolz!
2. More seriously, Jon Chait is right: this is a great achievement.
3. As expected, self-proclaimed centrists can’t bring themselves to say anything nice about a bill that delivers everything they claim to want. Many people have pointed to David Broder’s piece this morning; let me add a historical note. Back in 2006, Broder hailed the Massachusetts health reform as a “major policy success”. Now the Senate has passed a bill that is, broadly speaking, a better-funded version of the MA plan plus a major effort at cost control. Where’s the praise?
Anyway, a pretty good morning.
December 24, 2009, 10:47 am
Noo Yawk Roolz!
I watched the Senate vote this morning, and despite all, it was an inspiring moment. A few random thoughts:
1. It’s petty and silly, but after what seems like a whole adult lifetime in which Central Casting insisted that major politicians be either Southern gentlemen or Midwestern heartland types, it felt good to watch and listen to Chuck Schumer, speaking the language of my roots, at the victory press conference — even with that green tie. Noo Yawk Roolz!
2. More seriously, Jon Chait is right: this is a great achievement.
3. As expected, self-proclaimed centrists can’t bring themselves to say anything nice about a bill that delivers everything they claim to want. Many people have pointed to David Broder’s piece this morning; let me add a historical note. Back in 2006, Broder hailed the Massachusetts health reform as a “major policy success”. Now the Senate has passed a bill that is, broadly speaking, a better-funded version of the MA plan plus a major effort at cost control. Where’s the praise?
Anyway, a pretty good morning.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
"I Never Read Poetry"
"I never read poetry. It might soften me."
-General Hindenburg (1912)
From "The Case for Books" by Robert Darnton
-General Hindenburg (1912)
From "The Case for Books" by Robert Darnton
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Krugman Likes the Impending Health Care Bill
Paul Krugman likes the bill. That's good enough for me. He points out that all the Republicans ever propose is to cut taxes on the rich and remove some regulations on business, whereas finally the Democratically controlled Congress has at long last addressed the nation's number one problem with appropriate legislation.
December 19, 2009, 3:55 pm
The Insincere Center
Matthew Yglesias makes a good point: The health care bill
represents a return, after fifteen years, of the idea that congress should be trying to pass major legislation that tackles major national problems. And even beyond that, it restores an even longer-lost tradition of congress trying to pass major legislation on specifically progressive priorities.
More than that, it represents a rejection of the view that the solution for all problems is to cut some taxes and remove some regulations. In that sense, what’s happening now, for all the disappointment it represents for progressives, is a historic moment.
And let’s also not fail to take note of those who had a chance to join in this historic moment, and punted.
I’m not talking about the progressives who have rejected this bill because they don’t think it’s good enough; I disagree, but I respect their motives. I’m talking instead about the self-described centrists, pundits and politicians, who have spent years lecturing us on the need to make hard choices and actually come to grip with America’s problems; you know who I mean. So what did they do when faced with a chance to help confront those problems? They made excuses.
Health care costs are, as everyone serious acknowledges, at the core of many of our difficulties, very much including long-term budget deficits. What reformers have been saying for years is that the only way to tackle health care costs is in the context of a reform that also tackles the problem of uninsurance; and so it has proved. As Atul Gawande and others have pointed out, the Senate bill tries a wide variety of approaches to cost containment — in fact, just about everything that has been suggested. We don’t know which of these approaches will work or how well, but that’s more than anyone has managed to achieve ever before.
Oh, and the legislation is fiscally responsible from the start.
So did the deficit scolds, the people who preach the need to rein in entitlements and start paying our way, rally behind the cost-containment plans? Um, no. As I said, they made excuses, whining that the bill doesn’t do enough (as if there were any chance of passing a bill with everything they want), or insisting that even though the legislation does do the right thing, it doesn’t matter, because Congress won’t let the cost cuts go into effect — which turns out to be a claim at odds with the evidence of history.
And the lesson I take from that is that these people are insincere. They like posing as defenders of fiscal rectitude; they like declaring a pox on both houses; but when push comes to shove, their dislike of social insurance, their refusal to consider any government economy measures that don’t involve punishing people with lower incomes, trumps their supposed concern about acting responsibly.
Gentlemen — everyone I can think of here does happen to be male — this was your moment of truth, your test of character. You failed.
December 19, 2009, 3:55 pm
The Insincere Center
Matthew Yglesias makes a good point: The health care bill
represents a return, after fifteen years, of the idea that congress should be trying to pass major legislation that tackles major national problems. And even beyond that, it restores an even longer-lost tradition of congress trying to pass major legislation on specifically progressive priorities.
More than that, it represents a rejection of the view that the solution for all problems is to cut some taxes and remove some regulations. In that sense, what’s happening now, for all the disappointment it represents for progressives, is a historic moment.
And let’s also not fail to take note of those who had a chance to join in this historic moment, and punted.
I’m not talking about the progressives who have rejected this bill because they don’t think it’s good enough; I disagree, but I respect their motives. I’m talking instead about the self-described centrists, pundits and politicians, who have spent years lecturing us on the need to make hard choices and actually come to grip with America’s problems; you know who I mean. So what did they do when faced with a chance to help confront those problems? They made excuses.
Health care costs are, as everyone serious acknowledges, at the core of many of our difficulties, very much including long-term budget deficits. What reformers have been saying for years is that the only way to tackle health care costs is in the context of a reform that also tackles the problem of uninsurance; and so it has proved. As Atul Gawande and others have pointed out, the Senate bill tries a wide variety of approaches to cost containment — in fact, just about everything that has been suggested. We don’t know which of these approaches will work or how well, but that’s more than anyone has managed to achieve ever before.
Oh, and the legislation is fiscally responsible from the start.
So did the deficit scolds, the people who preach the need to rein in entitlements and start paying our way, rally behind the cost-containment plans? Um, no. As I said, they made excuses, whining that the bill doesn’t do enough (as if there were any chance of passing a bill with everything they want), or insisting that even though the legislation does do the right thing, it doesn’t matter, because Congress won’t let the cost cuts go into effect — which turns out to be a claim at odds with the evidence of history.
And the lesson I take from that is that these people are insincere. They like posing as defenders of fiscal rectitude; they like declaring a pox on both houses; but when push comes to shove, their dislike of social insurance, their refusal to consider any government economy measures that don’t involve punishing people with lower incomes, trumps their supposed concern about acting responsibly.
Gentlemen — everyone I can think of here does happen to be male — this was your moment of truth, your test of character. You failed.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Smartphones and Shopping
If I EVER start using a phone for shopping, then you will know that I have completely lost my mind. . . FLH
THE STORY
Mobile Phones Become Essential Tool for Holiday Shopping
Peter DaSilva for The New York Times
Michael Robison uses an application called ShopSavvy to find deals, but he doesn't always go for the product that costs less.
Powerful software applications for devices like the Apple iPhone are making it easy for bargain-hunting consumers to see if another retailer is offering a better deal on a big-screen HDTV or pair of shoes and to use it to haggle at the cash register.
Online retailers are revamping the mobile versions of their sites so consumers can make purchases without tedious typing. And offline retailers, battling for every last dollar, are sending cellphone users electronic coupons to lure them away from competitors.
One in five shoppers said they intended to use their cellphones to shop this holiday season, according to an annual survey by Deloitte, the accounting and consulting firm. Of those, 45 percent said they would use their phone to research prices, 32 percent said they would use it to find coupons or read reviews and 25 percent said they would make purchases from their phones.
“We are at the cusp of this technology really driving a lot of activity during the shopping season,” said Stacy Janiak, United States retail practice leader at Deloitte. “It is both an opportunity and a challenge for a retailer, because you can have a consumer who can cross-shop your store with other bricks-and-mortar stores or online, all from the convenience of your aisle.”
THE STORY
Mobile Phones Become Essential Tool for Holiday Shopping
Peter DaSilva for The New York Times
Michael Robison uses an application called ShopSavvy to find deals, but he doesn't always go for the product that costs less.
Powerful software applications for devices like the Apple iPhone are making it easy for bargain-hunting consumers to see if another retailer is offering a better deal on a big-screen HDTV or pair of shoes and to use it to haggle at the cash register.
Online retailers are revamping the mobile versions of their sites so consumers can make purchases without tedious typing. And offline retailers, battling for every last dollar, are sending cellphone users electronic coupons to lure them away from competitors.
One in five shoppers said they intended to use their cellphones to shop this holiday season, according to an annual survey by Deloitte, the accounting and consulting firm. Of those, 45 percent said they would use their phone to research prices, 32 percent said they would use it to find coupons or read reviews and 25 percent said they would make purchases from their phones.
“We are at the cusp of this technology really driving a lot of activity during the shopping season,” said Stacy Janiak, United States retail practice leader at Deloitte. “It is both an opportunity and a challenge for a retailer, because you can have a consumer who can cross-shop your store with other bricks-and-mortar stores or online, all from the convenience of your aisle.”
Friday, December 11, 2009
Is the Future of Digital in Your Phone?
I do hope that I will NEVER be reading off of my phone.
Bonus Pool Size | Main | Why A Housing Bubble Came About »
Dec 10 2009, 4:33 pm by Derek Thompson
Are You Reading This on Your Phone?
How have our media-consumption habits changed over the last few decades? Print has shriveled, radio has gone mute and the Internet has obviously soaked up a lot of those lost eyeballs and ears. Via Felix Salmon, these cool pictures break down where we consume most of our information -- TV vs. Internet vs. newspapers, etc -- and how our media diet has evolved in the last 40 years. My takeaway: The information revolution is living in your pocket.
My favorite graph is this one, that explains how our information consumption habits have changed since 1960 and 1980:
The big loser here is evidently print and radio. Old-fashioned print represented a quarter Americans' consumed words in 1960, and now struggles along at 9 percent, one-third of computers. The big winner, as I see it, is phones, which have exploded as a source of reading in the last few years. Google acquired Ad Mob, a mobile display advertising company, in November precisely because this trend is growing exponentially and Google needs to stay of Internet ads, wherever we access them.
Mobile ad spending is expected to grow 15 percent next year. I think that prediction could be conservative. As the smart phone war between iPhone, BlackBerry, Palm, Android, etc heats up, the competition will only drive up their capacity and utility and encourage more people to think of their phones as small computers that can make calls, rather than phones pretending as small computers.
Bonus Pool Size | Main | Why A Housing Bubble Came About »
Dec 10 2009, 4:33 pm by Derek Thompson
Are You Reading This on Your Phone?
How have our media-consumption habits changed over the last few decades? Print has shriveled, radio has gone mute and the Internet has obviously soaked up a lot of those lost eyeballs and ears. Via Felix Salmon, these cool pictures break down where we consume most of our information -- TV vs. Internet vs. newspapers, etc -- and how our media diet has evolved in the last 40 years. My takeaway: The information revolution is living in your pocket.
My favorite graph is this one, that explains how our information consumption habits have changed since 1960 and 1980:
The big loser here is evidently print and radio. Old-fashioned print represented a quarter Americans' consumed words in 1960, and now struggles along at 9 percent, one-third of computers. The big winner, as I see it, is phones, which have exploded as a source of reading in the last few years. Google acquired Ad Mob, a mobile display advertising company, in November precisely because this trend is growing exponentially and Google needs to stay of Internet ads, wherever we access them.
Mobile ad spending is expected to grow 15 percent next year. I think that prediction could be conservative. As the smart phone war between iPhone, BlackBerry, Palm, Android, etc heats up, the competition will only drive up their capacity and utility and encourage more people to think of their phones as small computers that can make calls, rather than phones pretending as small computers.
Consuming "Data"
From The NY Times
Part of the Daily American Diet, 34 Gigabytes of Data
E-MailPrint
BuzzPermalinkBy NICK BILTON
Published: December 9, 2009
The average American consumes about 34 gigabytes of data and information each day — an increase of about 350 percent over nearly three decades — according to a report published Wednesday by researchers at the University of California, San Diego.
According to calculations in the report, that daily information diet includes about 100,000 words, both those read in print and on the Web as well as those heard on television and the radio. By comparison, Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” contains about 460,000 words.
The researchers, who built their work on previous studies of information consumption, found that Americans take in data through various channels, including the television, radio, the Web, text messages and video games. Most of this time is spent in front of screens watching TV-related content, averaging nearly five hours of daily consumption.
Second is radio, which the average American listens to for about 2.2 hours a day. The computer comes in third, at just under two hours a day. Video games take up about an hour, and reading takes up 36 minutes.
Most of these experiences happen simultaneously, like talking on the phone while checking e-mail, or instant messaging while watching TV.
Overall, information consumption is increasing at about 6 percent a year, the report estimated.
“Gaming saw the biggest leap in the number of bytes we consume,” accounting for about 55 percent of the total, said Roger Bohn, a professor of technology management and co-author of the study, which is the first to consider video games part of overall data consumption.
Consumption of print media has declined consistently, Professor Bohn said. “But if you add up the amount of time people spend surfing the Web, they are actually reading more than ever,” he added.
Collectively, American households consumed 3.6 zettabytes of information of all kinds in 2008, the researchers estimated.
A zettabyte is equal to one billion trillion bytes: a 1 with 21 zeros at the end. A single zettabyte is equivalent to 100 billion copies of all the books in the Library of Congress, or as the report says, seven layers of textbooks covering the continental United States and Alaska.
Financing for the research project came from AT&T, Cisco Systems, I.B.M., Intel, LSI, Oracle and Seagate Technology, with early support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Part of the Daily American Diet, 34 Gigabytes of Data
E-MailPrint
BuzzPermalinkBy NICK BILTON
Published: December 9, 2009
The average American consumes about 34 gigabytes of data and information each day — an increase of about 350 percent over nearly three decades — according to a report published Wednesday by researchers at the University of California, San Diego.
According to calculations in the report, that daily information diet includes about 100,000 words, both those read in print and on the Web as well as those heard on television and the radio. By comparison, Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” contains about 460,000 words.
The researchers, who built their work on previous studies of information consumption, found that Americans take in data through various channels, including the television, radio, the Web, text messages and video games. Most of this time is spent in front of screens watching TV-related content, averaging nearly five hours of daily consumption.
Second is radio, which the average American listens to for about 2.2 hours a day. The computer comes in third, at just under two hours a day. Video games take up about an hour, and reading takes up 36 minutes.
Most of these experiences happen simultaneously, like talking on the phone while checking e-mail, or instant messaging while watching TV.
Overall, information consumption is increasing at about 6 percent a year, the report estimated.
“Gaming saw the biggest leap in the number of bytes we consume,” accounting for about 55 percent of the total, said Roger Bohn, a professor of technology management and co-author of the study, which is the first to consider video games part of overall data consumption.
Consumption of print media has declined consistently, Professor Bohn said. “But if you add up the amount of time people spend surfing the Web, they are actually reading more than ever,” he added.
Collectively, American households consumed 3.6 zettabytes of information of all kinds in 2008, the researchers estimated.
A zettabyte is equal to one billion trillion bytes: a 1 with 21 zeros at the end. A single zettabyte is equivalent to 100 billion copies of all the books in the Library of Congress, or as the report says, seven layers of textbooks covering the continental United States and Alaska.
Financing for the research project came from AT&T, Cisco Systems, I.B.M., Intel, LSI, Oracle and Seagate Technology, with early support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Coming to Terms with William Faulkner
The literate Southerner must come to terms with Faulkner. My task is to understand the man, the writer, without getting bogged down in his writings, which I find difficult. The novels demand a lot of the reader, and are not fun reading. The short stories are OK.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Stephen Oates - Faulkner: The Man and the Artist
I thoroughly enjoyed this biography of William Faulkner. For the first time I get a sense of the flesh and blood man. Faulkner seems to have been a hard man to get to know, for he was not garrulous and didn't not seek to reveal much of himself.
This book is valuable also because the author summarizes each of the novels. I have read some Faulkner, but do not plan to read any more except to finish the short stories and maybe read Alsalom, Alsalom.
What intests me is to come to terms with the man himself and his work as a whole without getting bogged down in particular works. He constructed his imaginary world with characters who wandered across multiple books. He said he wrote about universal themes based on the human heart in conflict with itself. He came out of small-town Mississippi in the early decades of the 20th century. He had family history and stories to draw on. The material was at hand for his writing.
I enjoyed reading about his time in New Orleans with writer Sherwood Anderson. Faulkner made the obligatory trip to Europe in the early 1920's. He had numerous stints in Hollywood writing movie scripts though none of them amounted to much. Given his acute and chronic alcoholism, it's amazing that he lived to almost 65. His wife Estelle was crazy in her own right---as much a drinker as he was. He would have long brooding spells when he would shut himself into his writing room.
At the time of death in 1962, he was planning to move to Virginia having fallen in love with that state when he served as writer in residence at UVA. I did not know this.
I suppose I will have further comments on Mr. Faulkner.
This book is valuable also because the author summarizes each of the novels. I have read some Faulkner, but do not plan to read any more except to finish the short stories and maybe read Alsalom, Alsalom.
What intests me is to come to terms with the man himself and his work as a whole without getting bogged down in particular works. He constructed his imaginary world with characters who wandered across multiple books. He said he wrote about universal themes based on the human heart in conflict with itself. He came out of small-town Mississippi in the early decades of the 20th century. He had family history and stories to draw on. The material was at hand for his writing.
I enjoyed reading about his time in New Orleans with writer Sherwood Anderson. Faulkner made the obligatory trip to Europe in the early 1920's. He had numerous stints in Hollywood writing movie scripts though none of them amounted to much. Given his acute and chronic alcoholism, it's amazing that he lived to almost 65. His wife Estelle was crazy in her own right---as much a drinker as he was. He would have long brooding spells when he would shut himself into his writing room.
At the time of death in 1962, he was planning to move to Virginia having fallen in love with that state when he served as writer in residence at UVA. I did not know this.
I suppose I will have further comments on Mr. Faulkner.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Another Glimpse at Palin
Palin Question of the Day
Isaac Chotiner
December 4, 2009 | 11:13 am 13 comments
Palinology 101?
Weekend Reading, December 4-6
You Think the American Relationship With Pakistan Is Fraught Now...Sam Tanenhaus' New Yorker review of Sarah Palin's book, as well as another book about the former governor, contains this nugget:
Palin, though notoriously ill-travelled outside the United States, did journey far to the first of the four colleges she attended, in Hawaii. She and a friend who went with her lasted only one semester. “Hawaii was a little too perfect,” Palin writes. “Perpetual sunshine isn’t necessarily conducive to serious academics for eighteen-year-old Alaska girls.” Perhaps not. But Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, gave a different account to [Scott] Conroy and [Shushannah] Walshe [authors of 'Sarah From Alaska']. According to him, the presence of so many Asians and Pacific Islanders made her uncomfortable: “They were a minority type thing and it wasn’t glamorous, so she came home.” [Italics Mine]
Why--and readers should weigh in--has this gotten absolutely no media attention?
Isaac Chotiner
December 4, 2009 | 11:13 am 13 comments
Palinology 101?
Weekend Reading, December 4-6
You Think the American Relationship With Pakistan Is Fraught Now...Sam Tanenhaus' New Yorker review of Sarah Palin's book, as well as another book about the former governor, contains this nugget:
Palin, though notoriously ill-travelled outside the United States, did journey far to the first of the four colleges she attended, in Hawaii. She and a friend who went with her lasted only one semester. “Hawaii was a little too perfect,” Palin writes. “Perpetual sunshine isn’t necessarily conducive to serious academics for eighteen-year-old Alaska girls.” Perhaps not. But Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, gave a different account to [Scott] Conroy and [Shushannah] Walshe [authors of 'Sarah From Alaska']. According to him, the presence of so many Asians and Pacific Islanders made her uncomfortable: “They were a minority type thing and it wasn’t glamorous, so she came home.” [Italics Mine]
Why--and readers should weigh in--has this gotten absolutely no media attention?
The NY Times Top 10 Nonfiction
1 GOING ROGUE, by Sarah Palin. (Harper/HarperCollins, $28.99.) A memoir by the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate. PABLUM FOR IDIOTS, FULL OF FACTUAL ERRORS, POLITICS FOR DUMMIES, A RACIST MANIFESTO.
2 HAVE A LITTLE FAITH, by Mitch Albom. (Hyperion, $23.99.) A suburban rabbi and a Detroit pastor teach lessons about the comfort of belief. WHO KNOWS? I MIGHT READ IT.
3 OPEN, by Andre Agassi. (Knopf, $28.95.) The tennis champion’s autobiography. I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT AGASSI.
4 SUPERFREAKONOMICS, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. I READ THE FIRST ONE (Morrow/HarperCollins, $29.99.) A scholar and a journalist apply economic thinking to everything: the sequel. I READ THE FIRST ONE AND WAS UNDERWHELMED. VASTLY OVERRATED. ECONOMICS FOR IDIOTS.
5 ARGUING WITH IDIOTS, written and edited by Glenn Beck, Kevin Balfe and others. (Mercury Radio Arts/Threshold Editions, $29.99.) The case against big government. REASON ENOUGH NEVER TO ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT LIKE BECK. IT'S SCARY THAT ANYONE TAKES THIS IDIOT SERIOUSLY.
6 TRUE COMPASS, by Edward M. Kennedy. (Twelve, $35.) The late senator’s autobiography. I HOPE TO GET AROUND TO READING IT.
7 A SIMPLE CHRISTMAS, by Mike Huckabee. (Sentinel, $19.95.) Christmas memories from the former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential aspirant. HUCKABEE HAS TIME TO WRITE THIS BETWEEN PARDONING CRIMINALS WHO GET OUT OF JAIL AND KILL AGAIN.
8 WHAT THE DOG SAW, by Malcolm Gladwell. (Little, Brown, $27.99.) A decade of New Yorker essays. NO THANKS
9 THE IMPERIAL CRUISE, by James Bradley. (Little, Brown, $29.99.) In 1905, during a diplomatic journey organized by Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft negotiated secret agreements with several Asian countries. NO REASON TO READ.
10 OUTLIERS, by Malcolm Gladwell. (Little, Brown, $27.99.) Why some people succeed, from the author of “Blink.” I ENJOYED IT.
2 HAVE A LITTLE FAITH, by Mitch Albom. (Hyperion, $23.99.) A suburban rabbi and a Detroit pastor teach lessons about the comfort of belief. WHO KNOWS? I MIGHT READ IT.
3 OPEN, by Andre Agassi. (Knopf, $28.95.) The tennis champion’s autobiography. I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT AGASSI.
4 SUPERFREAKONOMICS, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. I READ THE FIRST ONE (Morrow/HarperCollins, $29.99.) A scholar and a journalist apply economic thinking to everything: the sequel. I READ THE FIRST ONE AND WAS UNDERWHELMED. VASTLY OVERRATED. ECONOMICS FOR IDIOTS.
5 ARGUING WITH IDIOTS, written and edited by Glenn Beck, Kevin Balfe and others. (Mercury Radio Arts/Threshold Editions, $29.99.) The case against big government. REASON ENOUGH NEVER TO ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT LIKE BECK. IT'S SCARY THAT ANYONE TAKES THIS IDIOT SERIOUSLY.
6 TRUE COMPASS, by Edward M. Kennedy. (Twelve, $35.) The late senator’s autobiography. I HOPE TO GET AROUND TO READING IT.
7 A SIMPLE CHRISTMAS, by Mike Huckabee. (Sentinel, $19.95.) Christmas memories from the former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential aspirant. HUCKABEE HAS TIME TO WRITE THIS BETWEEN PARDONING CRIMINALS WHO GET OUT OF JAIL AND KILL AGAIN.
8 WHAT THE DOG SAW, by Malcolm Gladwell. (Little, Brown, $27.99.) A decade of New Yorker essays. NO THANKS
9 THE IMPERIAL CRUISE, by James Bradley. (Little, Brown, $29.99.) In 1905, during a diplomatic journey organized by Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft negotiated secret agreements with several Asian countries. NO REASON TO READ.
10 OUTLIERS, by Malcolm Gladwell. (Little, Brown, $27.99.) Why some people succeed, from the author of “Blink.” I ENJOYED IT.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Now or Never for Health Care Reform?
Reform or Else
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 3, 2009
Health care reform hangs in the balance. Its fate rests with a handful of “centrist” senators — senators who claim to be mainly worried about whether the proposed legislation is fiscally responsible
But if they’re really concerned with fiscal responsibility, they shouldn’t be worried about what would happen if health reform passes. They should, instead, be worried about what would happen if it doesn’t pass. For America can’t get control of its budget without controlling health care costs — and this is our last, best chance to deal with these costs in a rational way.
Some background: Long-term fiscal projections for the United States paint a grim picture. Unless there are major policy changes, expenditure will consistently grow faster than revenue, eventually leading to a debt crisis.
What’s behind these projections? An aging population, which will raise the cost of Social Security, is part of the story. But the main driver of future deficits is the ever-rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid. If health care costs rise in the future as they have in the past, fiscal catastrophe awaits.
You might think, given this picture, that extending coverage to those who would otherwise be uninsured would exacerbate the problem. But you’d be wrong, for two reasons.
First, the uninsured in America are, on average, relatively young and healthy; covering them wouldn’t raise overall health care costs very much.
Second, the proposed health care reform links the expansion of coverage to serious cost-control measures for Medicare. Think of it as a grand bargain: coverage for (almost) everyone, tied to an effort to ensure that health care dollars are well spent.
Are we talking about real savings, or just window dressing? Well, the health care economists I respect are seriously impressed by the cost-control measures in the Senate bill, which include efforts to improve incentives for cost-effective care, the use of medical research to guide doctors toward treatments that actually work, and more. This is “the best effort anyone has made,” says Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A letter signed by 23 prominent health care experts — including Mark McClellan, who headed Medicare under the Bush administration — declares that the bill’s cost-control measures “will reduce long-term deficits.”
The fact that we’re seeing the first really serious attempt to control health care costs as part of a bill that tries to cover the uninsured seems to confirm what would-be reformers have been saying for years: The path to cost control runs through universality. We can only tackle out-of-control costs as part of a deal that also provides Americans with the security of guaranteed health care.
That observation in itself should make anyone concerned with fiscal responsibility support this reform. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded, the proposed legislation would reduce, not increase, the budget deficit. And by giving us a chance, finally, to rein in the ever-growing spending of Medicare, it would greatly improve our long-run fiscal prospects.
But there’s another reason failure to pass reform would be devastating — namely, the nature of the opposition.
The Republican campaign against health care reform has rested in part on the traditional arguments, arguments that go back to the days when Ronald Reagan was trying to scare Americans into opposing Medicare — denunciations of “socialized medicine,” claims that universal health coverage is the road to tyranny, etc.
But in the closing rounds of the health care fight, the G.O.P. has focused more and more on an effort to demonize cost-control efforts. The Senate bill would impose “draconian cuts” on Medicare, says Senator John McCain, who proposed much deeper cuts just last year as part of his presidential campaign. “If you’re a senior and you’re on Medicare, you better be afraid of this bill,” says Senator Tom Coburn.
If these tactics work, and health reform fails, think of the message this would convey: It would signal that any effort to deal with the biggest budget problem we face will be successfully played by political opponents as an attack on older Americans. It would be a long time before anyone was willing to take on the challenge again; remember that after the failure of the Clinton effort, it was 16 years before the next try at health reform.
That’s why anyone who is truly concerned about fiscal policy should be anxious to see health reform succeed. If it fails, the demagogues will have won, and we probably won’t deal with our biggest fiscal problem until we’re forced into action by a nasty debt crisis.
So to the centrists still sitting on the fence over health reform: If you care about fiscal responsibility, you better be afraid of what will happen if reform fails.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 3, 2009
Health care reform hangs in the balance. Its fate rests with a handful of “centrist” senators — senators who claim to be mainly worried about whether the proposed legislation is fiscally responsible
But if they’re really concerned with fiscal responsibility, they shouldn’t be worried about what would happen if health reform passes. They should, instead, be worried about what would happen if it doesn’t pass. For America can’t get control of its budget without controlling health care costs — and this is our last, best chance to deal with these costs in a rational way.
Some background: Long-term fiscal projections for the United States paint a grim picture. Unless there are major policy changes, expenditure will consistently grow faster than revenue, eventually leading to a debt crisis.
What’s behind these projections? An aging population, which will raise the cost of Social Security, is part of the story. But the main driver of future deficits is the ever-rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid. If health care costs rise in the future as they have in the past, fiscal catastrophe awaits.
You might think, given this picture, that extending coverage to those who would otherwise be uninsured would exacerbate the problem. But you’d be wrong, for two reasons.
First, the uninsured in America are, on average, relatively young and healthy; covering them wouldn’t raise overall health care costs very much.
Second, the proposed health care reform links the expansion of coverage to serious cost-control measures for Medicare. Think of it as a grand bargain: coverage for (almost) everyone, tied to an effort to ensure that health care dollars are well spent.
Are we talking about real savings, or just window dressing? Well, the health care economists I respect are seriously impressed by the cost-control measures in the Senate bill, which include efforts to improve incentives for cost-effective care, the use of medical research to guide doctors toward treatments that actually work, and more. This is “the best effort anyone has made,” says Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A letter signed by 23 prominent health care experts — including Mark McClellan, who headed Medicare under the Bush administration — declares that the bill’s cost-control measures “will reduce long-term deficits.”
The fact that we’re seeing the first really serious attempt to control health care costs as part of a bill that tries to cover the uninsured seems to confirm what would-be reformers have been saying for years: The path to cost control runs through universality. We can only tackle out-of-control costs as part of a deal that also provides Americans with the security of guaranteed health care.
That observation in itself should make anyone concerned with fiscal responsibility support this reform. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded, the proposed legislation would reduce, not increase, the budget deficit. And by giving us a chance, finally, to rein in the ever-growing spending of Medicare, it would greatly improve our long-run fiscal prospects.
But there’s another reason failure to pass reform would be devastating — namely, the nature of the opposition.
The Republican campaign against health care reform has rested in part on the traditional arguments, arguments that go back to the days when Ronald Reagan was trying to scare Americans into opposing Medicare — denunciations of “socialized medicine,” claims that universal health coverage is the road to tyranny, etc.
But in the closing rounds of the health care fight, the G.O.P. has focused more and more on an effort to demonize cost-control efforts. The Senate bill would impose “draconian cuts” on Medicare, says Senator John McCain, who proposed much deeper cuts just last year as part of his presidential campaign. “If you’re a senior and you’re on Medicare, you better be afraid of this bill,” says Senator Tom Coburn.
If these tactics work, and health reform fails, think of the message this would convey: It would signal that any effort to deal with the biggest budget problem we face will be successfully played by political opponents as an attack on older Americans. It would be a long time before anyone was willing to take on the challenge again; remember that after the failure of the Clinton effort, it was 16 years before the next try at health reform.
That’s why anyone who is truly concerned about fiscal policy should be anxious to see health reform succeed. If it fails, the demagogues will have won, and we probably won’t deal with our biggest fiscal problem until we’re forced into action by a nasty debt crisis.
So to the centrists still sitting on the fence over health reform: If you care about fiscal responsibility, you better be afraid of what will happen if reform fails.
I Hope We've Heard the End of Republican Tax Giveaways to the Rich
From Andrew Sullivan
The main reason to be a Republican is to believe that the main domestic purpose of government is to cut taxes for the rich---to make the richest amongst us prosperous with the largesse trickling down to the rest of us. This is and always has been nonsense.
The Stimulus Worked?, Ctd
Looking at the recent numbers, Bruce Bartlett makes the case:
The CBO also looked at the stimulative effect of various parts of the stimulus package. It found that purchases of goods and services by the federal government--such as for public works--had the largest bang for the buck, raising GDP by $2.50 for each $1 spent. Transfer payments had a lesser impact, but were still significantly more stimulative than tax cuts. Moreover, tax cuts of the sort favored by Republicans have the least impact. According to the CBO, tax cuts for low-income individuals raise GDP by as much as $1.70 for every $1 of revenue loss, while those for the rich and for corporations raised GDP by at most 50 cents for every $1 of revenue loss.
Lest one suspect the CBO of bias, private economists have also found that tax cuts are far less stimulative than spending under current economic conditions. Mark Zandi of Moody's ( MCO - news - people ) Economy.com, an advisor to John McCain last year, recently testified before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that the Republicans' favorite tax proposals--making all the Bush tax cuts permanent and cutting the corporate tax rate--would raise GDP by at most 37 cents for each $1 of revenue loss. By contrast, increased outlays for infrastructure, aid to state and local governments and extended unemployment benefits increase GDP by between $1.41 and $1.57 for every $1 spent.
The main reason to be a Republican is to believe that the main domestic purpose of government is to cut taxes for the rich---to make the richest amongst us prosperous with the largesse trickling down to the rest of us. This is and always has been nonsense.
The Stimulus Worked?, Ctd
Looking at the recent numbers, Bruce Bartlett makes the case:
The CBO also looked at the stimulative effect of various parts of the stimulus package. It found that purchases of goods and services by the federal government--such as for public works--had the largest bang for the buck, raising GDP by $2.50 for each $1 spent. Transfer payments had a lesser impact, but were still significantly more stimulative than tax cuts. Moreover, tax cuts of the sort favored by Republicans have the least impact. According to the CBO, tax cuts for low-income individuals raise GDP by as much as $1.70 for every $1 of revenue loss, while those for the rich and for corporations raised GDP by at most 50 cents for every $1 of revenue loss.
Lest one suspect the CBO of bias, private economists have also found that tax cuts are far less stimulative than spending under current economic conditions. Mark Zandi of Moody's ( MCO - news - people ) Economy.com, an advisor to John McCain last year, recently testified before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that the Republicans' favorite tax proposals--making all the Bush tax cuts permanent and cutting the corporate tax rate--would raise GDP by at most 37 cents for each $1 of revenue loss. By contrast, increased outlays for infrastructure, aid to state and local governments and extended unemployment benefits increase GDP by between $1.41 and $1.57 for every $1 spent.
About Faulkner
What interests me about William Faulkner is less the writing than the man himself: his trials and tribulations and the sources of his literature. In this Oates biography, for the first time I am getting a feeling for the man.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Stephen Oates Biography of Faulkner
I am reading this bio of William Faulkner and am thoroughly enjoying it. The mood to read this book came to me after driving thru Faulkner Country last week as Freddy and I drove to Little Rock and back. We drove thru New Albany, where he was born. We see a sign for Ripley, where you will find the statue of the Old Colonel, Faulkner's great grandfather and a major inspiration. We see the sign for Byhalia where he died in 1962. It's haunting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)