I have been putting up a couple of posts on the iPad and reading a lot of reviews and from the responses it is pretty clear that people just don't get what it is and what it isn't. If you start thinking of it as a netbook then some features seem inexplicably missing, but if you start from the standpoint of functionality, of what you would want it to do I think it all comes into focus. So I am going to tell a story of a black plastic clipboard that could.
____________________________________________________________
Johnny is a mid-level supervisor at a medium size firm and like a lot of supervisors splits his time between his office where he does what he has to do and then out with his people training, coordinating and communicating. On the day in question he walks in the door ten minutes late (train was delayed) and finds his boss waiting for him with a shiny black clipboard to replace his old brown manual one. When Johnny asks why the change the boss says "This is a magic clipboard." When Johnny asks what it can do, the boss says "Pretty much whatever something that size and shape could do, Just ask.' Then handed Johnny the clipboard and walks away.
So Johnny starts thinking and talking aloud. As a supervisor pretty much everything runs by the clock. As he says 'clock' one appears on the clipboard, and not just any clock, but a customizable world clock with alarm functions. Then of course you don't supervise for a single day, you need a scheduling calender. And one appears on the clipboard. As Johnny walks he mentions other tools he uses on a daily basis: 'training manual, employee manual, company personnel policy' each shows up on the clipboard and then reduces to an icon. 'Phone list', 'org chart'. 'Supply catalog' 'Company Product Catalog'. Hmm, 'Outside Contacts/Rolodex'. Suddenly Johnny's office bookshelves are looking emptier and emptier as is his physical desktop.
Johnny stops to talk to a couple of his team about an ongoing project and says 'Project management tracking' and that application which had been back on his office computer displays on his magic clipboard. The company has an automated J-I-T inventory system, why not have a window into that? Presto. Then Johnny asks for and receives the four or five key professional texts and directories he needs on a regular basis and there they are. Johnny has a clipboard with a dozen or so icons, each representing a tool he uses every day.
After doing some rounds Johnny steps back in his office and sees some family photos on his desk. How about having more of them all displaying on his magic clipboard. And it happens. Okay what other tools does Johnny use on a daily basis that can be provided by a magic clipboard. How about something that tracks his portfolio? Bink. Records, schedules, and TV times for his favorite spots teams? Bink. Bus and Transit Schedule? Bink. Local weather projections? Bink. Local TV News alerts? Bink. All when not needed retreating to a neat little icon on the screen.
Okay Johnny has work and the world kind of covered with those 20 icons, time to spread out. How about a Facebook application? Done. Johnny likes crosswords, what if he had one touch access to unlimited crosswords? Done. Johnny also plays a mean game of Chess, how about a beautifully rendered traveling chess board? Done.
So we leave Johnny with his magic clipboard that is one at the same time and all by selecting a single icon at a time a work reference library, a time management system, a project management and inventory tracker, a customized news/weather/sports/stocks aggregator, a social networking tool and a source of diversions for his breaks in the forms of games and puzzles.
___________________________________
But neither Johnny or us has to stop there. The iPhone software running the iPad comes with multi-language voice recognition, it should be easy to turn it into an automatic on the go translator at least for simple daily personal and business transactions. Imagine being able to go up to anyone speaking a standard world language and having your clipboard translate it into spoken and written English. That is kind of a mind blowing possibility but nothing I see would prevent it even just using today's technology.
So lets put on another hat, that of the college kid. You got a magic clipboard, what would you have it do. Well for starters you might want a combination of alarm clock and class/social schedular. Plus maybe a full screen Facebook Wall. Copy of the college course catalog and schedule, along with a library catalog window would be nice. As would be a customized TV, movie, club and concert schedule. Of course you want your music and your videos, two more icons for that. Then you might as well load your textbooks, at least the heavy ones, on plus some reference books. Suddenly that backpack is looking oddly empty. Add in another couple of icons representing your own news sources and you have a pretty cool student clipboard. Or in his case iPad.
What else would you want? Most people could use some sort of mapping/directions function which in this case is built in. And of course most people would like a full page Internet browser, also built in. But after that the choices are only bound by your own interests and hobbies. Interested in dining? Download or scan in restaurant menus. Cooking? Download cookbooks, recipe applications, and a cooking time. Bird-watching? Load on a Field Guide. Hiking? Get a set of USGS Topos loaded on, the clipboard already has onboard GPS and a compass function. Want to learn a foreign language? Add a language module.
What the iPad represents is an information machine, it allows you with a few simple steps at the beginning to have dozens of customized information sources for every facet of your life from the minute to wake up to its alarm clock to the minute you fall to sleep to its music. In between it can act as a totalizing scheduler and reference library and media player and social networking tool.
Okay what about the drawbacks? Well some are illusory to start with but lets go down the list:
1) No Flash Player capability. Well that is mostly a listening issue/pissing match between Apple and Adobe, both companies are making it clear that Flash Applications will be able to run on the IPad and within iPhone/iPad Apps, expect this to be resolved by product shipment.
2) No Camera, No Video. Well the form factor of the iPad makes it pretty awkward as a point and shoot camera anyway, Apple is already making adapters ready that take either a USB cable from an existing digital camera or alternately an SD Card, so that seems to be a non-issue. As to video I would think I 3rd party Bluetooth solution should be readily doable.
3) No USB. Well this is not quite true, the sync/recharge cord is USB and there is already a combination dock/keyboard to plug the iPad into to make it a passable desktop.
4. No Physical Keyboard. See three above. The onscreen virtual keyboard seems reasonable enough to me, and if the iPad can simply plug into the dock/keyboard it should be possible to attach it via adapter to any other traveling USB keyboard. Plus there is always wireless via Bluetooth.
5. No Video Out. Well there seem to be plans to allow hookup to an exterior monitor, but really how many people have a need to connect a Netbook up to a monitor to start with?
Summing up I think this Magic Clipboard once understood not as an office computer in the wild but instead of as an accumulation of life and business tools customized right to the actual daily needs of the user will be seen as indispensable for anyone reliant on text and audio based anything. And who among us doesn't reach for a TV Guide, a menu, a Bus Schedule, a manual, a catalog or something during the course of the day? Who doesn't check the news or need to look something up? And not only does the iPad allow you replace all those guides and schedules it does so in a way that is even more easy and elegant that the original
Friday, January 29, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Latin: Conservo vs Liber
Conservo, conservare: to conserve, preserve
Libero: free
Over the last few months I have been putting up occasional posts about the origins of modern conservatism in the political and economic tumult of late 18th century Britain, and I stick by that you can understand much of the conservative movement by realizing they still take their leads from Edmund Burke. But understanding that political Conservativism can be seen simply in reaction to demands for democracy and workers rights doesn't quite explain modern Conservatism and its central conundrum from the Liberal point of view: Why do so many objectively working class people go against their clear class interest and support conservative leaders?
I put up a post or two awhile back deriving from Fustal de Coulanges "The Ancient City". And if we revert to that world to the era-of pre-Classical Europe we find an economy and a society centered around the householder and his proprietary rights. A modern expression that captures some of this is "A man's home is his castle" (another is "You kids get off my lawn!"). In the world of the "Ancient City", the head of the household however humble is king and literally high-priest. And within the house, Latin 'domus', the householder holds dominion over all other inhabitants from wife and children down to servants and slaves, if any.
While households can exist in isolation with the house surrounded by its own fields surrounded in turn with its own wall and perhaps separated from the next by some distance, as for example was typical of Settlement Iceland, generally households are clustered in groups in villages, towns, and cities and so had a need for collective decision making. For most purposes this decision making fell into the hands of the householders, each speaking for his own house, which meant leadership by the fully aged, in Latin 'seniores' hence Senators.
But parallel to this was another structure. In time of danger it was not only householders who were called to duty, instead that fell to a larger group of tribesmen, or villagers or townholders, those who were called in Latin the liber homines, the free men. In most other aspects of social, economic and religious life they might fall under the ultimate and unquestioned rule of the head of household, but war requires a different structure and one that is by nature more communitarian.
So I suggest that Conservatism as its name suggests is always rooted in property rights of householders not only from enemies beyond the wall but over everthing within them. While Liberalism as its own name suggests is always rooted in the community interests of the whole aggregate of liber homines, the free men.
_________________________________________
Liberals generally have a difficult time understand why so many working class people stick with conservative leadership and conservative parties even where doing so means going against their own clear economic interests, and often look to answers in the form of inherent subservience to authority or simple stupidity. Instead I suggest that social, economic and political conservatism might all have their roots in the desire to maintain property rights over your own household and its contents, including its human contents. From that perspective everything from father-daughter Purity Balls and 2nd Amendment Absolutism falls right into a coherent package. And BTW not one motivated by malice, most everyone understands the principle "Not in my house".
Libero: free
Over the last few months I have been putting up occasional posts about the origins of modern conservatism in the political and economic tumult of late 18th century Britain, and I stick by that you can understand much of the conservative movement by realizing they still take their leads from Edmund Burke. But understanding that political Conservativism can be seen simply in reaction to demands for democracy and workers rights doesn't quite explain modern Conservatism and its central conundrum from the Liberal point of view: Why do so many objectively working class people go against their clear class interest and support conservative leaders?
I put up a post or two awhile back deriving from Fustal de Coulanges "The Ancient City". And if we revert to that world to the era-of pre-Classical Europe we find an economy and a society centered around the householder and his proprietary rights. A modern expression that captures some of this is "A man's home is his castle" (another is "You kids get off my lawn!"). In the world of the "Ancient City", the head of the household however humble is king and literally high-priest. And within the house, Latin 'domus', the householder holds dominion over all other inhabitants from wife and children down to servants and slaves, if any.
While households can exist in isolation with the house surrounded by its own fields surrounded in turn with its own wall and perhaps separated from the next by some distance, as for example was typical of Settlement Iceland, generally households are clustered in groups in villages, towns, and cities and so had a need for collective decision making. For most purposes this decision making fell into the hands of the householders, each speaking for his own house, which meant leadership by the fully aged, in Latin 'seniores' hence Senators.
But parallel to this was another structure. In time of danger it was not only householders who were called to duty, instead that fell to a larger group of tribesmen, or villagers or townholders, those who were called in Latin the liber homines, the free men. In most other aspects of social, economic and religious life they might fall under the ultimate and unquestioned rule of the head of household, but war requires a different structure and one that is by nature more communitarian.
So I suggest that Conservatism as its name suggests is always rooted in property rights of householders not only from enemies beyond the wall but over everthing within them. While Liberalism as its own name suggests is always rooted in the community interests of the whole aggregate of liber homines, the free men.
_________________________________________
Liberals generally have a difficult time understand why so many working class people stick with conservative leadership and conservative parties even where doing so means going against their own clear economic interests, and often look to answers in the form of inherent subservience to authority or simple stupidity. Instead I suggest that social, economic and political conservatism might all have their roots in the desire to maintain property rights over your own household and its contents, including its human contents. From that perspective everything from father-daughter Purity Balls and 2nd Amendment Absolutism falls right into a coherent package. And BTW not one motivated by malice, most everyone understands the principle "Not in my house".
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Social Security Trust Fund: Barrell Lid and not Barrell
In our ongoing debate with Bruce Krasting he seems unable to understand the difference between a Pension Fund like CalPers and Social Security.
In a standard Public Retirement System employers and employees pay into a Pension Fund which then invests the money and then pays out whatever the amount of the contracted pension at retirement. The better the choices and economic luck of the Fund managers the easier it is to pay out the pension when the time comes. That is because the payouts come off the top.
Social Security is different, the payouts come out the bottom. Try this image:
Take two graduated cylinders. The one labeled CALPERS is filled to its ideal level with green. It has two inputs near the top, one which delivers a steady trickle of employer and employee contributions, and the other that delivers ROI on that water. It also has an output which drains off some or all of those earnings to pay retirement checks. If anything is left over retained earnings plus new contributions increases the amount of productive water in the cylinder. But in any event it is the retained water that constitutes most of the volume of the water, moreover for this purpose it is relatively still, all the action is at the surface.
Now examine the cylinder marked Soc Sec TF. For this cylinder the the big input is at the bottom as a flood of receipts from payroll tax flows in. Just above that is another input through which periodic injections of tax on benefits come. On the other side of the cylinder three outputs such water out into channels called benefits, admin and RRB Xchange. Any fluid that doesn't get pumped out right away congeals with a mass floating on top of the rushing stream in and out of the cylinder. That mass is the Trust Fund. But right at the lower edge of the Trust Fund mass and floating with it is another input that represents interest on the dollar value of the floating lid. If inflow continues to exceed outflow it just joins with that surplus and congeals into the floating mass. But in any period in which outflow exceeds inflow a portion of it joins the outflow with only the overage congealing. In this case interest is increasing the mass of the TF even as it contributes a little fluid to the outflow out the bottom.
In the case of CalPers earnings get tapped first, if they drop the put the retained water at risk as some gets tapped off.
In the case of Social Security earnings get tapped second to last, variations in them don't necessarily change anything in the short run, the key is not as in CalPers who much earnings the mass of fluid throws off, but instead how much fluid is flowing into the cylinder, if that flow slackens or if outflow increases then the bottom of the TF mass sinks down towards the output port and eventually that comparatively small stream of interest coming in starts having some of its flow go to the outflow. But the total volume of the interest stream is so relatively small compared to the main flow of tax revenue above and the mass above that there is no perturbation in the system as a whole.
Well this wasn't as simple as I hoped, It will have to do for today.
In a standard Public Retirement System employers and employees pay into a Pension Fund which then invests the money and then pays out whatever the amount of the contracted pension at retirement. The better the choices and economic luck of the Fund managers the easier it is to pay out the pension when the time comes. That is because the payouts come off the top.
Social Security is different, the payouts come out the bottom. Try this image:
Take two graduated cylinders. The one labeled CALPERS is filled to its ideal level with green. It has two inputs near the top, one which delivers a steady trickle of employer and employee contributions, and the other that delivers ROI on that water. It also has an output which drains off some or all of those earnings to pay retirement checks. If anything is left over retained earnings plus new contributions increases the amount of productive water in the cylinder. But in any event it is the retained water that constitutes most of the volume of the water, moreover for this purpose it is relatively still, all the action is at the surface.
Now examine the cylinder marked Soc Sec TF. For this cylinder the the big input is at the bottom as a flood of receipts from payroll tax flows in. Just above that is another input through which periodic injections of tax on benefits come. On the other side of the cylinder three outputs such water out into channels called benefits, admin and RRB Xchange. Any fluid that doesn't get pumped out right away congeals with a mass floating on top of the rushing stream in and out of the cylinder. That mass is the Trust Fund. But right at the lower edge of the Trust Fund mass and floating with it is another input that represents interest on the dollar value of the floating lid. If inflow continues to exceed outflow it just joins with that surplus and congeals into the floating mass. But in any period in which outflow exceeds inflow a portion of it joins the outflow with only the overage congealing. In this case interest is increasing the mass of the TF even as it contributes a little fluid to the outflow out the bottom.
In the case of CalPers earnings get tapped first, if they drop the put the retained water at risk as some gets tapped off.
In the case of Social Security earnings get tapped second to last, variations in them don't necessarily change anything in the short run, the key is not as in CalPers who much earnings the mass of fluid throws off, but instead how much fluid is flowing into the cylinder, if that flow slackens or if outflow increases then the bottom of the TF mass sinks down towards the output port and eventually that comparatively small stream of interest coming in starts having some of its flow go to the outflow. But the total volume of the interest stream is so relatively small compared to the main flow of tax revenue above and the mass above that there is no perturbation in the system as a whole.
Well this wasn't as simple as I hoped, It will have to do for today.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Why Soc Sec TF Balances Grow in a Time of Recession
Blogger/Reader BK: I know what the TF says and I know what the CBO says,and I think they are both wrong. We will top out the Fund at a much lower number $2.8 T and it will come much sooner than anticipated.To see why this isn't so and actually just can't be we need to inspect the following table from the 2009 Report Table IV.A3.—Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, Calendar Years 2004-18. The second column from the right shows the Combined Trust Funds projected to go from $2.4 trillion in 2008 to $4.0 trillion in 2018. What would it take to freeze it at $2.8 trillion? Discussion below the fold.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Krasting at Zero Hedge: Taking it personal
What a Tangled Web we Weave. In the linked post I give some links and background. A blogger named Bruce Krasting posted a piece arguing that the current recession had dealt a very serious blow to Social Security and one that required an immediate response. I am currently working with some policy people in DC to ward off the Conrad-Gregg proposal for a Commission that among other things would address the perceived Social Security 'crisis'. The key vote on this is scheduled for next week and I think it important to push back on any suggestion that Social Security actually needs a short-term fix, at least when that fix is pre-defined as benefit cutbacks. I have also been engaged in a policy dispute over the last year with some scholars at American Enterprise Institute about whether the current recession has really dealt that aforementioned serious blow or whether they are misinterpreting certain monthly reporting. So when I got pointed to a blogger who in the week prior to this critical vote was making the same argument based on the same monthly reporting and getting his math wrong in the same way I assumed that he might be following the lead of perhaps the foremost and most formidable of Social Security 'reform' advocates, former Deputy Commissioner of Social Security and proprietor of Social Security blog Notes on Social Security Dr. Andrew Biggs.
Well I may have been wrong on that, Mr. Krasting claims he came up with all this on his own. And while I stand behind the substance of the substantively hostile but mostly light in tone comments I left on his web-site to SS Trust Fund-2009 Full Year Results-Ugh! I might even have advanced an apology based on the fact that not everyone admires my mockery, especially when directed at them. Instead Mr. Krasting decided to elevate this to a pissing match by posting the following on Zero Hedge in I'm No Chicken Little
___________________________
BK: FICA and SECA taxes were less than benefits paid for the first time in history in 2009. That is a significant milestone
Apparently Mr. Krasting defines 'history' as 'starting in 1983'. If we examine the historical results as reported in the 2009 Trustees Report we come across Table VI.A4.— Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, Calendar Years 1957-2008 [Dollar amounts in billions] and can see that FICA trailed benefit payments in many years from 1958 to 1971 as the TF ratio shrunk form 298 (three years of reserve) to 95 up to 103 and then in all years from 1975 to the low point a low point of 14 in 1983. While you can argue that both 1966 and 1971 represent 'milestones' in that the TFs fell out of actuarial balance in those years, in point of act the General Fund honored its obligations all the way down and indeed until now, that the TF goes cash fund negative not being important in itself.
BK: Yes, if you divide 2.5 trillion by 5 billion you get 500. But we both know that is an irrelevant calculation. You think that math adds to this debate?
Words fail. What after all could math add to a debate over solvency of the Trust Fund? Moving on.
BK: But we have 10% unemployment and few prospects for job creation. If we started getting increases in NFP of 700k per month, I might back off. But we are still losing jobs. I think that net of census hiring we will lose jobs for the full year. I am not alone in that view of employment. What is your outlook for jobs creation? Are you looking for 10mm net new hires this year? If not, you might want to consider the implications to the Fund.
Well I have looked at implications for continuing 10% unemployment and they are not pretty. On the other hand the numbers show that Mr. Krasting's numbers are off by a minimum of half a trillion dollars over five years. If that is you add math to the debate.
BK on COLA: “The December to January benefits number fell by $475mm ($6b annualized). The first time ever absence of a COLA adjust may have contributed to this unusual phenomenon. In the past decade there has not been any years where this has occurred. The percentage change in the past few years were 06/07 = + 2%, 07/08 = + 1%, 08/09 = + 5% and 09/10 = -1%. A big swing in direction for 2010."
Wow, I guess math does matter. In any event the lack of a COLA for 2010 is because the 5.8% COLA adjustment for 2009 was set too high based on an estimate of energy prices that most more than actually occurred. But there was no actual drop in benefit checks per recipient in January any more than there was an actual drop in May, July, Aug, October or November which saw similar drops month to month. Krasting put too much weight on a single data point that from his own table just can't substantiate his argument.
BK on career advice: "Coberly and Webb have unique knowledge of the workings/numbers of the Fund. They could turn that into an opportunity to make a buck. They should try it. It is rewarding in many ways. But I doubt that they see the forest for the trees."
Dale is retired. On the other hand I am open for an opportunity, if someone wants to pay me for this stuff I'll do my best to extract myself from the forest. But what this has to do with an argument on the substance kind of escapes me.
BK: That was not a little rain shower we just went through. That was the storm of the century. Yes we have eaten into the surplus. In 2010 we may start to ‘live off the interest’. And this ship is far from being turned around.
Wow and I thought I was the king of overwrought metaphors, but even I would not thought of eating the seed corn during a hurricane. But that aside the century is still young. I am old enough and suspect Krasting is too to remember 1975-1980 a period that the Trustees report averaged 0.9% productivity, 8.9% CPI, 6.8% unemployment, and 8.5% interest rates. Now that was a storm. And if we take 'century' to mean 'in the last hundred years', this is a little hyperbolic, we having al long way to go between 10% unemployment and Great Depression 24% levels.
BK: You have me right on this point. I am alarmed. While I agree that this is not an issue for the SSTF, it most certainly is an issue for the entire fixed income market. In prior years the SSTF acquired Treasury IOU’s for as much as 50% of the total deficit. In a few years the Fund will be a seller versus a buyer. Do you really think that is not a significant development?
This is a little incoherent. The Special Treasuries in the TF were not acquired in the fixed income market and won't be liquidated into it by 'selling'. About half of the balances in the TF are the result of accrued interest that were not financed at all even as they were counted as part of Unified Budget Surplus/Deficits and these Treasuries will be redeemed (not sold, they are not marketable) at a predictable rate. This will require either allocation of tax revenues or offsetting borrowing but the impact on the fixed income market will be proportionate to the percentage of that market these would represent. When I look at the numbers by year I see a moderate strain in the late 2030s but in constant dollars don't see anything like the challenges Bush budgeting presented or the current stimulus/war spending, elevating Social Security finance to an existential threat just doesn't hold up to the numbers. Table VI:F7: Constant Dollars
The fund has proposed either a 2% increase in payroll taxes or a 13% cut in benefits (or some combination). The 2% solution proposed by the Fund would increase payroll taxes by $115 billion annually. That number would rise each year thereafter. Please point me to the economist, Senator or Congressperson who would sign up for that. I think the voters in the States that they are from would be anxious to hear about that. You have my email. Send me the list and I will publish it.
The Trustees said that ‘creative thinking’ would be required. I don’t see you two putting anything new on this table.
Well that is because you have never checked. Coberly and I along with a guy named Arne Larsen have developed a plan we call The Northwest Plan for a Real Social Security Fix The supporting spreadsheet is here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r49_nOHQG4QdHuwcbMGmP0Q and it shows that a 0.3% increase in FICA devoted to the currently in the red DI component of OASDI fixes combined Social Security until 2026. If you would have done a little background work, maybe like Googling 'Bruce Webb Social Security' you might have run across it PRIOR to making a fool of yourself at Zero Hedge. The NW Plan hits the median household's take home at $1.50 a week initially with equivalent increases needed starting in 2026.
And I don't even want to get into the Gates argument. At what point would you actually start means testing and how much savings would you actually yield? Their just are not that many billionaires that stripping some $30k apiece in SS checks would make any difference, in order to get real money you have to dip down far into the middle class and so fatally undercut political support for Social Security. Which of course is the point.
Krasting if you come by know that you didn't have to take it to the level you did, but near as I can tell all you did was ended up pissing up a rope.
Well I may have been wrong on that, Mr. Krasting claims he came up with all this on his own. And while I stand behind the substance of the substantively hostile but mostly light in tone comments I left on his web-site to SS Trust Fund-2009 Full Year Results-Ugh! I might even have advanced an apology based on the fact that not everyone admires my mockery, especially when directed at them. Instead Mr. Krasting decided to elevate this to a pissing match by posting the following on Zero Hedge in I'm No Chicken Little
I wrote a piece on the 2009 results that were published by the SSTF. Some of my assumption and many of my conclusions have come under criticism. Mr. Bruce Webb, a well-respected fellow, suggested that I was “peddling crap”. He went on to suggest that I was in collusion with two leading economists, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). There is no truth to that. Right or wrong I have come to my observations on the Fund on my own. I have written a total of 11 pieces (out of 180) on the SSTF in the past year. They have all been published outside of my blog. I am not that new to this debate.Well I don't know about "well-respected", but I like to think that I myself "am not that new" and am perfectly prepared to fricassee this Chicken.
___________________________
BK: FICA and SECA taxes were less than benefits paid for the first time in history in 2009. That is a significant milestone
Apparently Mr. Krasting defines 'history' as 'starting in 1983'. If we examine the historical results as reported in the 2009 Trustees Report we come across Table VI.A4.— Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, Calendar Years 1957-2008 [Dollar amounts in billions] and can see that FICA trailed benefit payments in many years from 1958 to 1971 as the TF ratio shrunk form 298 (three years of reserve) to 95 up to 103 and then in all years from 1975 to the low point a low point of 14 in 1983. While you can argue that both 1966 and 1971 represent 'milestones' in that the TFs fell out of actuarial balance in those years, in point of act the General Fund honored its obligations all the way down and indeed until now, that the TF goes cash fund negative not being important in itself.
BK: Yes, if you divide 2.5 trillion by 5 billion you get 500. But we both know that is an irrelevant calculation. You think that math adds to this debate?
Words fail. What after all could math add to a debate over solvency of the Trust Fund? Moving on.
BK: But we have 10% unemployment and few prospects for job creation. If we started getting increases in NFP of 700k per month, I might back off. But we are still losing jobs. I think that net of census hiring we will lose jobs for the full year. I am not alone in that view of employment. What is your outlook for jobs creation? Are you looking for 10mm net new hires this year? If not, you might want to consider the implications to the Fund.
Well I have looked at implications for continuing 10% unemployment and they are not pretty. On the other hand the numbers show that Mr. Krasting's numbers are off by a minimum of half a trillion dollars over five years. If that is you add math to the debate.
BK on COLA: “The December to January benefits number fell by $475mm ($6b annualized). The first time ever absence of a COLA adjust may have contributed to this unusual phenomenon. In the past decade there has not been any years where this has occurred. The percentage change in the past few years were 06/07 = + 2%, 07/08 = + 1%, 08/09 = + 5% and 09/10 = -1%. A big swing in direction for 2010."
Wow, I guess math does matter. In any event the lack of a COLA for 2010 is because the 5.8% COLA adjustment for 2009 was set too high based on an estimate of energy prices that most more than actually occurred. But there was no actual drop in benefit checks per recipient in January any more than there was an actual drop in May, July, Aug, October or November which saw similar drops month to month. Krasting put too much weight on a single data point that from his own table just can't substantiate his argument.
BK on career advice: "Coberly and Webb have unique knowledge of the workings/numbers of the Fund. They could turn that into an opportunity to make a buck. They should try it. It is rewarding in many ways. But I doubt that they see the forest for the trees."
Dale is retired. On the other hand I am open for an opportunity, if someone wants to pay me for this stuff I'll do my best to extract myself from the forest. But what this has to do with an argument on the substance kind of escapes me.
BK: That was not a little rain shower we just went through. That was the storm of the century. Yes we have eaten into the surplus. In 2010 we may start to ‘live off the interest’. And this ship is far from being turned around.
Wow and I thought I was the king of overwrought metaphors, but even I would not thought of eating the seed corn during a hurricane. But that aside the century is still young. I am old enough and suspect Krasting is too to remember 1975-1980 a period that the Trustees report averaged 0.9% productivity, 8.9% CPI, 6.8% unemployment, and 8.5% interest rates. Now that was a storm. And if we take 'century' to mean 'in the last hundred years', this is a little hyperbolic, we having al long way to go between 10% unemployment and Great Depression 24% levels.
BK: You have me right on this point. I am alarmed. While I agree that this is not an issue for the SSTF, it most certainly is an issue for the entire fixed income market. In prior years the SSTF acquired Treasury IOU’s for as much as 50% of the total deficit. In a few years the Fund will be a seller versus a buyer. Do you really think that is not a significant development?
This is a little incoherent. The Special Treasuries in the TF were not acquired in the fixed income market and won't be liquidated into it by 'selling'. About half of the balances in the TF are the result of accrued interest that were not financed at all even as they were counted as part of Unified Budget Surplus/Deficits and these Treasuries will be redeemed (not sold, they are not marketable) at a predictable rate. This will require either allocation of tax revenues or offsetting borrowing but the impact on the fixed income market will be proportionate to the percentage of that market these would represent. When I look at the numbers by year I see a moderate strain in the late 2030s but in constant dollars don't see anything like the challenges Bush budgeting presented or the current stimulus/war spending, elevating Social Security finance to an existential threat just doesn't hold up to the numbers. Table VI:F7: Constant Dollars
The fund has proposed either a 2% increase in payroll taxes or a 13% cut in benefits (or some combination). The 2% solution proposed by the Fund would increase payroll taxes by $115 billion annually. That number would rise each year thereafter. Please point me to the economist, Senator or Congressperson who would sign up for that. I think the voters in the States that they are from would be anxious to hear about that. You have my email. Send me the list and I will publish it.
The Trustees said that ‘creative thinking’ would be required. I don’t see you two putting anything new on this table.
Well that is because you have never checked. Coberly and I along with a guy named Arne Larsen have developed a plan we call The Northwest Plan for a Real Social Security Fix The supporting spreadsheet is here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r49_nOHQG4QdHuwcbMGmP0Q and it shows that a 0.3% increase in FICA devoted to the currently in the red DI component of OASDI fixes combined Social Security until 2026. If you would have done a little background work, maybe like Googling 'Bruce Webb Social Security' you might have run across it PRIOR to making a fool of yourself at Zero Hedge. The NW Plan hits the median household's take home at $1.50 a week initially with equivalent increases needed starting in 2026.
And I don't even want to get into the Gates argument. At what point would you actually start means testing and how much savings would you actually yield? Their just are not that many billionaires that stripping some $30k apiece in SS checks would make any difference, in order to get real money you have to dip down far into the middle class and so fatally undercut political support for Social Security. Which of course is the point.
Krasting if you come by know that you didn't have to take it to the level you did, but near as I can tell all you did was ended up pissing up a rope.
Krasting Biffs Trust Fund Arithmetic
(Draft-maybe I'll complete this later)
In order to understand how Krasting went so wrong we have to go back to fundamentals.
Social Security is based on an insurance model. It collects premiums in the form of payroll taxes and funds payouts in the form of disability, survivor, and retirement benefits. Although the monthly payouts are based on the amount of money paid in the total payout is not, if you die on your 65th birthday and have no eligible survivors you get nothing. On the other hand if you live to 115 you get an inflation protected annuity, as you would if you were totally disabled at 35 even if that payout vastly exceeded your actual contributions. It's insurance and not savings.
Social Security has four potential sources of income. First and foremost is a tax on wage income, Social Security takes 6.2% of your paycheck which is matched by an additional 6.2% from your employer for a total of 12.4%. Additionally since 1983 Social Security has taxed benefits on higher income retirees. Over the long run the amount taken from wages and tax on benefits is designed to pay all benefits with a modest amount left over to serve as a reserve in a time when receipts lag because of economic conditions. These overages are invested in interest earning Special Treasuries and held in two Trust Funds, one for the Disability Insurance program (DI) and one in the Old Age/Survivors insurance program (OAS) which are for most purposes treated together as something called OASDI. In good times the OASDI Trust Fund(s) more or less sit there absorbing any cash surpluses from tax collections not needed to fund current benefits and interest on its total balance which combination has built that balance to $2.5 trillion dollars. But this point is crucially important, the Trust Fund does NOT finance Social Security in normal times, instead SS is a Pay-Go system where current benefits are financed from current receipts, the Trust Fund only being needed as a backup if and when.
Well if and when is now. The DI Trust Fund has been running negative for a couple of years now DI: the Sick Man of Social Security. The damage isn't mortal, the DI Trust Fund having accumulated assets of $202.5 billion, but then again it is down $5.4 billion for the year meaning that benefits are exceeding not only taxes collected but also the interest accruing on the TF. Meaning DI needs to be fixed.
On the other hand DI is only about 10% of the size of OAS which on the whole is doing fine. At the end of Nov it was also down $4.4 billion but this was out of a balance of $2.3 trillion and we know that for technical reasons November is a down month, December should make up that deficit and more for a year over year surplus in OAS. On paper. But here is where things get deep. In any month in which either DI or OAS receipts from taxation trail costs the difference has to be made up with cash from the General Fund which is offset by retirement of certain maturing bills and notes. But not necessarily all of them.
In order to understand how Krasting went so wrong we have to go back to fundamentals.
Social Security is based on an insurance model. It collects premiums in the form of payroll taxes and funds payouts in the form of disability, survivor, and retirement benefits. Although the monthly payouts are based on the amount of money paid in the total payout is not, if you die on your 65th birthday and have no eligible survivors you get nothing. On the other hand if you live to 115 you get an inflation protected annuity, as you would if you were totally disabled at 35 even if that payout vastly exceeded your actual contributions. It's insurance and not savings.
Social Security has four potential sources of income. First and foremost is a tax on wage income, Social Security takes 6.2% of your paycheck which is matched by an additional 6.2% from your employer for a total of 12.4%. Additionally since 1983 Social Security has taxed benefits on higher income retirees. Over the long run the amount taken from wages and tax on benefits is designed to pay all benefits with a modest amount left over to serve as a reserve in a time when receipts lag because of economic conditions. These overages are invested in interest earning Special Treasuries and held in two Trust Funds, one for the Disability Insurance program (DI) and one in the Old Age/Survivors insurance program (OAS) which are for most purposes treated together as something called OASDI. In good times the OASDI Trust Fund(s) more or less sit there absorbing any cash surpluses from tax collections not needed to fund current benefits and interest on its total balance which combination has built that balance to $2.5 trillion dollars. But this point is crucially important, the Trust Fund does NOT finance Social Security in normal times, instead SS is a Pay-Go system where current benefits are financed from current receipts, the Trust Fund only being needed as a backup if and when.
Well if and when is now. The DI Trust Fund has been running negative for a couple of years now DI: the Sick Man of Social Security. The damage isn't mortal, the DI Trust Fund having accumulated assets of $202.5 billion, but then again it is down $5.4 billion for the year meaning that benefits are exceeding not only taxes collected but also the interest accruing on the TF. Meaning DI needs to be fixed.
On the other hand DI is only about 10% of the size of OAS which on the whole is doing fine. At the end of Nov it was also down $4.4 billion but this was out of a balance of $2.3 trillion and we know that for technical reasons November is a down month, December should make up that deficit and more for a year over year surplus in OAS. On paper. But here is where things get deep. In any month in which either DI or OAS receipts from taxation trail costs the difference has to be made up with cash from the General Fund which is offset by retirement of certain maturing bills and notes. But not necessarily all of them.
Krasting, Biggs, AEI
In the previous installment I all but accused Bruce Krasting for being a sock-puppet for Andrew Biggs and Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute something Krasting denies. Well okay perhaps they came upon what I see as the same fallacious argument on their own. Andrew Biggs and I have jousted quite a bit in times past maybe with me punching a little above my own weight. Biggs along with his day job at AEI maintains a blog called Notes on Social Security Reform. Andrew is a heavy hitter, and in many ways maybe THE heavy hitter among the opposition to traditional Social Security. From 'Notes'
Biggs is a paid career advocate for eliminating Social Security as it currently exists in favor of a private system based on something based on an IRA model. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, its a free country and anyone is free to push market based solutions in preference to government ones. But equally I am free to point out the policy bias, Andrew is not a neutral analyst here, by training, inclinaton and paycheck he is pushing a specific argumentative line. I think of Biggs as a particularly skilled lawyer one who is not going to throw up his hands and say "Your Honor, my client is guilty as hell. You know it , I know it, the jury knows it. lets send him to jail and go out for a drink". Nope Biggs will argue his case to the very end. Admirable enough but meaning don't drop your guard, this is not neutral ground, not a level playing field, the other team is out to win.
Andrew G. Biggs I am a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where my work focuses on Social Security policy. Previously I held several positions within the Social Security Administration, including Deputy Commissioner for Policy and principal Deputy Commissioner. Prior to that I was a Social Security Analyst at the Cato Institute. In 2005 I worked on Social Security reform at the White House National Economic Council, and in 2001 I was on the staff of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. My Bachelor's degree is from the Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland. I have Master's degrees from Cambridge University and the University of London and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Science. I can be contacted at andrew.biggs @ aei.org.Biggs doesn't do full justice to his role at Cato. He was instead deputy director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice previously known under a more open name of Project on Social Security Privatization
Biggs is a paid career advocate for eliminating Social Security as it currently exists in favor of a private system based on something based on an IRA model. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, its a free country and anyone is free to push market based solutions in preference to government ones. But equally I am free to point out the policy bias, Andrew is not a neutral analyst here, by training, inclinaton and paycheck he is pushing a specific argumentative line. I think of Biggs as a particularly skilled lawyer one who is not going to throw up his hands and say "Your Honor, my client is guilty as hell. You know it , I know it, the jury knows it. lets send him to jail and go out for a drink". Nope Biggs will argue his case to the very end. Admirable enough but meaning don't drop your guard, this is not neutral ground, not a level playing field, the other team is out to win.
"What a tangled weave": Social Security in a time of crisis
Well this is going to take some time to unpack. We have a disturbance in the force. Up unto a couple of days ago we had two bloggers blissfully unaware of each other, one named Bruce Krasting and one named Bruce Webb. Krasting mostly being a finance guy who started out as a bond seller and Webb being a historian turned civil servant each of whom latched onto Social Security policy essentially as a hobby only to come into collission. Webb thinks Social Security is on the whole sound enough that a policy of doing "Nothing" is better than almost all proposals out there, while Krasting is convinced that we need to move on Social Security RIGHT NOW because the current recession has done unalterable harm to it. And bridging the gap between "Nothing" and "Something" is going to take some doing. So call this part one.
Let's set the stage. On January 13th Krasting published this piece as Zero Hedge: I'm no Chicken Little striking back by name at my and Dale Coberly's attacks in comments on his previous piece at his own blog SS Trust Fund-2009 Full Year Results-Ugh! where Krasting comes to a particular conclusion:
Or perhaps you could cut to the chase and read the following article from some real experts Paul Van de Water and Kathy Ruffing: Social Security Does Not Face a Near-Term “Reckoning” Alarmists’ Claims Are Unjustified, But Action Is Needed to Restore Long-Term Solvency. Paul and Kathy's views remain their own and need no endorsement from me and what follows in the next few posts is entirely my own opinion, but for those who don't want to track down this particular dispute between the Bruce's could by-pass the whole thing and read Van de Water and Ruffing.
Let's set the stage. On January 13th Krasting published this piece as Zero Hedge: I'm no Chicken Little striking back by name at my and Dale Coberly's attacks in comments on his previous piece at his own blog SS Trust Fund-2009 Full Year Results-Ugh! where Krasting comes to a particular conclusion:
I think that the recession of 08 and 09 and the anticipated high unemployment (low employment) in 2010 has crippled the Fund. Nothing short of a major overhaul can turn it around at this point. The damage has been too great.Well I believe this conclusion is offbase and itself based on a total misunderstanding of Social Security finance, and enough so that I accussed Mr. Krasting of essentially being a sock puppet for Andrew Biggs and Keven Hassett of the American Enterprise who argued the same case last March. This argument more or less started with this article by Hassett in Bloomberg Recession Bites Into Social Security’s Surplus: Kevin Hassett which got picked up in this article by Lori Montgomery in the WaPo a day latter Recession Puts a Major Strain On Social Security Trust Fund: As Payroll Tax Revenue Falls, So Does Surplus which sparked the following post at Angry Bear Vanishing Surpluses-Yet Again. If you really want to follow the story you would need to read the pieces in order and work back from there with the sequence being: Hassett, Montgomery, Vanishing Surplus, 2009 Full Results, Chicken Little.
Or perhaps you could cut to the chase and read the following article from some real experts Paul Van de Water and Kathy Ruffing: Social Security Does Not Face a Near-Term “Reckoning” Alarmists’ Claims Are Unjustified, But Action Is Needed to Restore Long-Term Solvency. Paul and Kathy's views remain their own and need no endorsement from me and what follows in the next few posts is entirely my own opinion, but for those who don't want to track down this particular dispute between the Bruce's could by-pass the whole thing and read Van de Water and Ruffing.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Golden Age vs Utopia Part 1A: Restoration vs Progress
The following is a comment I posted on Digby basically recasting the argument of Part 1. At some point I will try to provide a synthesis.
____________________
Conservatives don't believe in Progress with a capital P. I am not being flip, I have recently been examining Conservatism in its larger historical and cultural context and have convinced myself that the difference between Conservatives and non-Conservatives is not defined by capitalism, or authoritarianism, or even by religion as conventionally defined. Instead I see Conservatism as a continuum from pre-Christian European thought.
If you examine any of the mythic traditions of Europeans or better Indo-Europeans you see a clear pattern of devolution: in the beginning was the Golden Age of the gods, followed by the Silver Age of the heroes, finally terminating in the Bronze Age of mortal men. And even within the world of men there is thought to be a devolution, our grandfathers being more morally strong than us, and our remote ancestors even more so. It is also striking that these traditions are largely lacking in eschatology, there is very little sense of their being any kind of collective end times, and where you do see it as in Scandinavian Ragnorak it is seemingly imported from Christianity.
In this worldview everything good and true about the world is transmitted from the past to the present, and it is the paramount duty of man to conserve that transmitted truth and where practice has departed from tradition to restore it.
In contrast to conservatism is the Enlightenment. Some time during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries people almost abandoned the idea that all truth was to be found in Classicism on the one hand (Renaissance meaning literally re-birth) and folk knowledge and traditional law and ritual on the other (the Ancient Constitution) but that with Newton we could see farther because we were standing on the shoulders of giants. And with this came the idea of Progress and Utopianism that place the Golden Age in the future.
Utopianism is a mortal danger to Golden Age Conservatism, Change means abandoning the old and so tried and true, for the new which is inherently risky. From this perspective Conservatives are not worshipers of authoritarianism as such, only of that kind of authoritarianism that maintains the old order, which historically has manifested itself in the form of 'King and Church!'. Certainly they reject the kind of Utopian Authoritarianism manifested in Communism. Nor are Conservatives inherently selfish, within traditional structures they can be generous enough, it is just that their whole world view rejects the idea of progress towards Utopia via societal transformation. Which also explains their ambivalent relation to Christianity, it provides strength to traditional structure "Honor thy father and thy mother" while at the same time the Teachings of Jesus both challenge those structures directly AND point to an ideal future and/or end times in direct contrast to Conservative belief in a Golden Age in both the medium and long term past.
A lot of what seems like Conservative Evil to Progressives is simply a rejection of the whole concept of Progress to start with. Progressives look at the world and see it in dangerous need of improvement, Conservatives look at the world, see it as degraded and want to restore it to its past glories. Think of it as two people standing back to back each wondering why the other just can't see what they see so clearly. It is because Progressives are looking forward to a Bright Future and Conservatives are looking back at a Glowing Golden Past.
I am going to be developing this idea on my own blog, but I think it explains a lot about a whole range of Conservative thought from its strong attachment to partriarchy and traditional gender roles, to its acceptance of all types of traditional authority, to its resistance to the idea of drastic action on global warming. It is not just that they reject the slogan "Change we can believe in!", they don't believe in 'Change' to start with.
They are after all Conserve-atives.
____________________
Conservatives don't believe in Progress with a capital P. I am not being flip, I have recently been examining Conservatism in its larger historical and cultural context and have convinced myself that the difference between Conservatives and non-Conservatives is not defined by capitalism, or authoritarianism, or even by religion as conventionally defined. Instead I see Conservatism as a continuum from pre-Christian European thought.
If you examine any of the mythic traditions of Europeans or better Indo-Europeans you see a clear pattern of devolution: in the beginning was the Golden Age of the gods, followed by the Silver Age of the heroes, finally terminating in the Bronze Age of mortal men. And even within the world of men there is thought to be a devolution, our grandfathers being more morally strong than us, and our remote ancestors even more so. It is also striking that these traditions are largely lacking in eschatology, there is very little sense of their being any kind of collective end times, and where you do see it as in Scandinavian Ragnorak it is seemingly imported from Christianity.
In this worldview everything good and true about the world is transmitted from the past to the present, and it is the paramount duty of man to conserve that transmitted truth and where practice has departed from tradition to restore it.
In contrast to conservatism is the Enlightenment. Some time during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries people almost abandoned the idea that all truth was to be found in Classicism on the one hand (Renaissance meaning literally re-birth) and folk knowledge and traditional law and ritual on the other (the Ancient Constitution) but that with Newton we could see farther because we were standing on the shoulders of giants. And with this came the idea of Progress and Utopianism that place the Golden Age in the future.
Utopianism is a mortal danger to Golden Age Conservatism, Change means abandoning the old and so tried and true, for the new which is inherently risky. From this perspective Conservatives are not worshipers of authoritarianism as such, only of that kind of authoritarianism that maintains the old order, which historically has manifested itself in the form of 'King and Church!'. Certainly they reject the kind of Utopian Authoritarianism manifested in Communism. Nor are Conservatives inherently selfish, within traditional structures they can be generous enough, it is just that their whole world view rejects the idea of progress towards Utopia via societal transformation. Which also explains their ambivalent relation to Christianity, it provides strength to traditional structure "Honor thy father and thy mother" while at the same time the Teachings of Jesus both challenge those structures directly AND point to an ideal future and/or end times in direct contrast to Conservative belief in a Golden Age in both the medium and long term past.
A lot of what seems like Conservative Evil to Progressives is simply a rejection of the whole concept of Progress to start with. Progressives look at the world and see it in dangerous need of improvement, Conservatives look at the world, see it as degraded and want to restore it to its past glories. Think of it as two people standing back to back each wondering why the other just can't see what they see so clearly. It is because Progressives are looking forward to a Bright Future and Conservatives are looking back at a Glowing Golden Past.
I am going to be developing this idea on my own blog, but I think it explains a lot about a whole range of Conservative thought from its strong attachment to partriarchy and traditional gender roles, to its acceptance of all types of traditional authority, to its resistance to the idea of drastic action on global warming. It is not just that they reject the slogan "Change we can believe in!", they don't believe in 'Change' to start with.
They are after all Conserve-atives.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Golden Age vs Utopia Part 1: a Different Reading of Conservatism
Over at Open Left Paul Rosenberg is leading a conversation focused on how liberals can counter the authoritarian streak characteristic of modern movement conservatism, one that allows conservatives to front counter-factual and contradictory arguments in favor of their positions. For example conservative Republicans are simultaneously arguing against cuts to Medicare and calling for a Bi-Partisan Commission to propose massive cuts to Medicare. At one level there is an incoherency at play but this is not because the argument is at bottom irrational, instead the key is to be found at the core of conservatism itself, something which is much older that current conceptions of 'left' and 'right' and even of 'liberty' and 'tyranny'. What distinguishes conservatism is orthogonal to each. But before discussing that a disclaimer. The following is based on a lifetime of reading, but is not a research paper. I don't have access to a major research library and most of my own library is in storage meaning I am working out of my own head without a safety net except a stray Google search or two. I fully stand behind what I write and will defend it on its own merits, but in the end it is a blog post, something meant to start discussion and not to definitively end it. With that in mind:
___________________________________
Conservatism as it name itself implies is all about holding on to what you have which in turn can manifest itself as selfishness, an attitude of "I've got mine, Jack". Equally it tends to manifest itself as a devotion to the established order which in turn means acceptance of ones own place in that order, which can manifest itself as subservience to authority. Additionally conservatives tend to accept established religion, even or especially when that religion is traditional and dependent on revealed truth. And finally many conservatives tend to be suspicious of novelty in thought which manifests itself as appearing to be close-minded and ignorant. All of which leads liberals to see conservatives as selfish, subservient, fundamentalist ignorami open to manipulation by the Becks, Palins and Limbaughs of this world. But I suggest that ignores the fountainhead of conservatism, a common factor that drives all of these manifestations. Instead the key is that Conservatives believe in the Golden Age, one that by definition occurred in the past.
The concept of the Golden Age lies deep within western myth and thought and can be summarized that the History of the World is one of decline. When you examine the deepest strata of European and indeed Indo-European thought you see a sequence that the Greeks identified as Golden, Silver, and Bronze. The Golden Age is that of the Gods, struggling amongst themselves and with their opponents the Titans or Giants. This Battle which ultimately results with the victory of the Gods is explicitly set at the Beginning of History. The subsequent period, the Silver Age, is marked by the lives, loves and struggles of the Heroes, demigods and men that are literally and figuratively larger than life. And then we come to the Age of Men. who in comparison to the 'Men of yore' are puny, almost inconsequential. That is traditional European society and thought was oriented to the past, to your ancestors, your tribal heroes and your tribal gods, all of whom might in various ways still be present but whose acts are explicitly set in the past.
Accompanying this belief in past ages of heroes and gods is the idea that older is better when it comes to law and ritual each of which is supposed to have been passed down unchanged from the hero or god who first set them down. Wherever you look in ancient European thought is that success in ritual and law depends on strict adhesion to the exact sequence of acts and language handed down from your ancestors, even as that language had developed in ways that the ancient words were quite meaningless to anyone but the priestly class, and often enough even to them. That is experts in Roman ritual report that certain words and actions were entirely traditional and their semantic import quite lost on more modern audiences.
Which gets us to the heart of conservatism, which in this context is just inherited thought of European (and perhaps Indo-European) predecessors, novelty is a bad thing and worse a dangerous thing. Because there are consequences to getting ritual wrong. Many years ago the Professor who introduced me to Celtic Mythology told the class something that jolted at least me: "The Ancient Greeks hated their gods". This was I think (deliberately) too strong, but in re-reading Greek, Celtic and Scandinavian mythology with this new insight it was abundantly clear that pre-Christian Europeans feared their gods and equally feared their dead, between whom there were no clear and fast lines (dead family blending into dead ancestors blending into heroes and then to the gods, none of whom were necessarily dead in a final sense at all). In Greek mythology the Erinyes the Furies, the goddesses charged with punishing transgressions by men were also known as the Eumenides, the Kindly Ones. Why the dichotomy? Professor O'Hehir explained it was the same reason the Irish almost always call the Fairies, who are after all tricksters who steal babies and replace them with changelings, 'The Good People'. Because they might be listening.
Examined in the light of this traditional mindset a lot of contemporary conservatism starts looking much more coherent. If you start from the fundamental premise that ideal order was established in the distant past by your ancestors and tribal gods and was handed down to you on strict conditions that you don't vary from that on penalty of visitation by those ancestors or the instruments of those gods (the Furies/Kindly Ones) the novelty not only isn't "Change you can believe in" it is inherently dangerous. And such beliefs easily extend themselves to a commitment to the current social and economic order which clearly exists with at least the forbearance and perhaps the approval of the invisible powers that be, in such a world view Divine Right of Kings and Patriarchy and Revealed Truth (and its counterpart resistance to Science, i.e. new knowledge) all merge into Cosmic Order.
What is absent from this Cosmic Order? Any idea of an ideal future. The essence of traditional European thought, which I am identifying with the basis of modern conservatism can be summed up as "There were giants in those days". And this doesn't just apply to the distant heroes of myth, it equally applies to your own ancestors: the pioneer, the immigrant who came to America with nothing, the grandparents that made it through the Depression by hard work and Faith, that is by sticking to traditions handed down from the distant past. Because that is what conservatives do.
If Conservatism is about venerating and where possible maintaining the Golden Age what is its counterpart? Well I suggest it is Utopianism, the idea that perfection lies at the End of Time and not the Beginning, in Christian terms in Heaven and not in Eden. And I suggest that it was through Christianity that the old European order was first challenged. Because Christ and the early Pauline Church is all about Change in preparation for the End Times, there is nothing about throwing money changers from the Temple, the Sermon on the Mount, and Pauline doubts about such things as traditional marriage (because "It is better to marry, than to burn" doesn't disguise that Paul and the early Church thought abstinence was the best path for ALL the truly faithful). And if we turn back to myth we see how problematic some of this was. In purely pre-Christian Greek myth there is little to no expression of a future heavenly state, certainly not for the masses. While certain heroes might expect to be elevated to the status of demigods or be transported to an island in the Far West, mostly the dead are confined to the dark of underground or night, they don't walk by day. And even in Celtic Myth whose texts were initially committed to text by Christians you only see hints of anything more definitive than that of the Greeks. Whereas Scandinavian myth is more conceptually confused. Its texts were first written down several centuries after the oldest Irish texts and so are more penetrated by Christian Eschatology. In particular the common Indo-European motif of the battle between the Gods and the Giants, which in Vedic, Greek and Celtic tradition are clearly set at the Beginning in Scandinavia Ragnorak gets set at the End of the World and come complete with a new creation myth, all of which creates a confusing mishmash that is an appropriate metaphor for modern conservative thought.
But despite the challenges Traditional European thought/conservatism was able to accommodate itself to Christianity and vice-versa as Christ the King came largely to supersede Christ the Redeemer and Popes and Kings alike claimed their powers were directly derived from God. But the late Middle Ages the Church had mostly inserted itself into the role of preserver of tradition and source of revealed religion, while never quite displacing ancestor worship and inherited law. By say 1500 AD the concept of the Christian Conservative was fully formed and to a large degree unchallenged.
Then started a period of a few centuries that presented Conservatism with a whole new set of challenges. Subject for a forthcoming post.
___________________________________
Conservatism as it name itself implies is all about holding on to what you have which in turn can manifest itself as selfishness, an attitude of "I've got mine, Jack". Equally it tends to manifest itself as a devotion to the established order which in turn means acceptance of ones own place in that order, which can manifest itself as subservience to authority. Additionally conservatives tend to accept established religion, even or especially when that religion is traditional and dependent on revealed truth. And finally many conservatives tend to be suspicious of novelty in thought which manifests itself as appearing to be close-minded and ignorant. All of which leads liberals to see conservatives as selfish, subservient, fundamentalist ignorami open to manipulation by the Becks, Palins and Limbaughs of this world. But I suggest that ignores the fountainhead of conservatism, a common factor that drives all of these manifestations. Instead the key is that Conservatives believe in the Golden Age, one that by definition occurred in the past.
The concept of the Golden Age lies deep within western myth and thought and can be summarized that the History of the World is one of decline. When you examine the deepest strata of European and indeed Indo-European thought you see a sequence that the Greeks identified as Golden, Silver, and Bronze. The Golden Age is that of the Gods, struggling amongst themselves and with their opponents the Titans or Giants. This Battle which ultimately results with the victory of the Gods is explicitly set at the Beginning of History. The subsequent period, the Silver Age, is marked by the lives, loves and struggles of the Heroes, demigods and men that are literally and figuratively larger than life. And then we come to the Age of Men. who in comparison to the 'Men of yore' are puny, almost inconsequential. That is traditional European society and thought was oriented to the past, to your ancestors, your tribal heroes and your tribal gods, all of whom might in various ways still be present but whose acts are explicitly set in the past.
Accompanying this belief in past ages of heroes and gods is the idea that older is better when it comes to law and ritual each of which is supposed to have been passed down unchanged from the hero or god who first set them down. Wherever you look in ancient European thought is that success in ritual and law depends on strict adhesion to the exact sequence of acts and language handed down from your ancestors, even as that language had developed in ways that the ancient words were quite meaningless to anyone but the priestly class, and often enough even to them. That is experts in Roman ritual report that certain words and actions were entirely traditional and their semantic import quite lost on more modern audiences.
Which gets us to the heart of conservatism, which in this context is just inherited thought of European (and perhaps Indo-European) predecessors, novelty is a bad thing and worse a dangerous thing. Because there are consequences to getting ritual wrong. Many years ago the Professor who introduced me to Celtic Mythology told the class something that jolted at least me: "The Ancient Greeks hated their gods". This was I think (deliberately) too strong, but in re-reading Greek, Celtic and Scandinavian mythology with this new insight it was abundantly clear that pre-Christian Europeans feared their gods and equally feared their dead, between whom there were no clear and fast lines (dead family blending into dead ancestors blending into heroes and then to the gods, none of whom were necessarily dead in a final sense at all). In Greek mythology the Erinyes the Furies, the goddesses charged with punishing transgressions by men were also known as the Eumenides, the Kindly Ones. Why the dichotomy? Professor O'Hehir explained it was the same reason the Irish almost always call the Fairies, who are after all tricksters who steal babies and replace them with changelings, 'The Good People'. Because they might be listening.
Examined in the light of this traditional mindset a lot of contemporary conservatism starts looking much more coherent. If you start from the fundamental premise that ideal order was established in the distant past by your ancestors and tribal gods and was handed down to you on strict conditions that you don't vary from that on penalty of visitation by those ancestors or the instruments of those gods (the Furies/Kindly Ones) the novelty not only isn't "Change you can believe in" it is inherently dangerous. And such beliefs easily extend themselves to a commitment to the current social and economic order which clearly exists with at least the forbearance and perhaps the approval of the invisible powers that be, in such a world view Divine Right of Kings and Patriarchy and Revealed Truth (and its counterpart resistance to Science, i.e. new knowledge) all merge into Cosmic Order.
What is absent from this Cosmic Order? Any idea of an ideal future. The essence of traditional European thought, which I am identifying with the basis of modern conservatism can be summed up as "There were giants in those days". And this doesn't just apply to the distant heroes of myth, it equally applies to your own ancestors: the pioneer, the immigrant who came to America with nothing, the grandparents that made it through the Depression by hard work and Faith, that is by sticking to traditions handed down from the distant past. Because that is what conservatives do.
If Conservatism is about venerating and where possible maintaining the Golden Age what is its counterpart? Well I suggest it is Utopianism, the idea that perfection lies at the End of Time and not the Beginning, in Christian terms in Heaven and not in Eden. And I suggest that it was through Christianity that the old European order was first challenged. Because Christ and the early Pauline Church is all about Change in preparation for the End Times, there is nothing about throwing money changers from the Temple, the Sermon on the Mount, and Pauline doubts about such things as traditional marriage (because "It is better to marry, than to burn" doesn't disguise that Paul and the early Church thought abstinence was the best path for ALL the truly faithful). And if we turn back to myth we see how problematic some of this was. In purely pre-Christian Greek myth there is little to no expression of a future heavenly state, certainly not for the masses. While certain heroes might expect to be elevated to the status of demigods or be transported to an island in the Far West, mostly the dead are confined to the dark of underground or night, they don't walk by day. And even in Celtic Myth whose texts were initially committed to text by Christians you only see hints of anything more definitive than that of the Greeks. Whereas Scandinavian myth is more conceptually confused. Its texts were first written down several centuries after the oldest Irish texts and so are more penetrated by Christian Eschatology. In particular the common Indo-European motif of the battle between the Gods and the Giants, which in Vedic, Greek and Celtic tradition are clearly set at the Beginning in Scandinavia Ragnorak gets set at the End of the World and come complete with a new creation myth, all of which creates a confusing mishmash that is an appropriate metaphor for modern conservative thought.
But despite the challenges Traditional European thought/conservatism was able to accommodate itself to Christianity and vice-versa as Christ the King came largely to supersede Christ the Redeemer and Popes and Kings alike claimed their powers were directly derived from God. But the late Middle Ages the Church had mostly inserted itself into the role of preserver of tradition and source of revealed religion, while never quite displacing ancestor worship and inherited law. By say 1500 AD the concept of the Christian Conservative was fully formed and to a large degree unchallenged.
Then started a period of a few centuries that presented Conservatism with a whole new set of challenges. Subject for a forthcoming post.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
A Minaret for Stonehenge
(this unfinished post was originally set for Angry Bear but started drifting in too political and idiosyncratic a way. I may or may not finish it, proceed at your own risk but feel free to comment)
Parts of the Left Blogosphere are ablaze with outrage over the recent Swiss vote to ban future construction of minarets. And given who was promoting the law and the current state of relations between various mostly immigrant islamic populations of western Europe and the larger communities of the various countries you would have to be a fool to deny that there is some bias entering the equation. But I think people need to step back and look at this in a larger context. Would you support a proposal to but a minaret next to Stonehenge? Or closer to home in any designated Historical District in any town or city in America? Would it be religious hatred to deny a permit to build a huge mosque in the center of Colonial Williamsburg? Because there is a Church with a steeple right at the center of Duke of Gloucester Street, wouldn't blocking a permit for a mosque of equivalent size and a minaret of the same height as the steeple be a priori proof of religious discrimination? http://www.history.org/Almanack/TourtheTown/flash.cfm
Well maybe. On the Planet Kumbaya. But don't expect a groundbreaking anytime soon, that a rule, regulation or law has an impact on the free exercise of religion does not a priori invalidate that rule or law, as a non-lawyer it seems to me that such a judgement rests on intent. More examples below.
Parts of the Left Blogosphere are ablaze with outrage over the recent Swiss vote to ban future construction of minarets. And given who was promoting the law and the current state of relations between various mostly immigrant islamic populations of western Europe and the larger communities of the various countries you would have to be a fool to deny that there is some bias entering the equation. But I think people need to step back and look at this in a larger context. Would you support a proposal to but a minaret next to Stonehenge? Or closer to home in any designated Historical District in any town or city in America? Would it be religious hatred to deny a permit to build a huge mosque in the center of Colonial Williamsburg? Because there is a Church with a steeple right at the center of Duke of Gloucester Street, wouldn't blocking a permit for a mosque of equivalent size and a minaret of the same height as the steeple be a priori proof of religious discrimination? http://www.history.org/Almanack/TourtheTown/flash.cfm
Well maybe. On the Planet Kumbaya. But don't expect a groundbreaking anytime soon, that a rule, regulation or law has an impact on the free exercise of religion does not a priori invalidate that rule or law, as a non-lawyer it seems to me that such a judgement rests on intent. More examples below.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
More Advice from a General
Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004
And what I thought I would do tonight is go through the ten crucial mistakes to this point that we've made. Because I think it helps frame what, in fact, has happened over time ... and is going to be the first part of that history. And I will conclude with maybe some thoughts on the way ahead, at least from my point of view.Gen Zinni was CentCom Commander prior to Tommy Franks and in this days of demanding that we listen to the Commanders no matter what, some wonder why nobody wanted to listen to Tony Zinni in real time. There is a lot of selective memory going on about the period between Sept 11, 2001 and March 20, 2003 and equally about the events in Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the Surge announced in January 2007. There has been a tendency towards triumphalism among war supporters along the lines of "The Surge Worked" which totally ignores that Army Chief of Staff Shinseki was effectively sacked in 2003 because he testified to Congress that more troops would be needed, and that Zinni's reaction was in point 8 of the linked speech:
The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground. There were a lot more troops in my military plan for operations in Iraq. I know when that plan was presented, the secretary of defense said it was "old and stale." It sounded pretty new and fresh to me, and looking back at it, now because there were a hell of a lot more troops. It was more the (Eric) Shinseki model that I think might have been a hell of a lot more effective to freeze the situation. Those extra divisions we had in there were not to defeat the Republican Guard, they were in there to freeze the security situation because we knew the chaos that would result once we uprooted an authoritarian regime like Saddam's.If Rumsfeld had just listened to his Generals we might not have had to waste four plus years and thousands of Americans dead that were in large part the result of going in too light the first time. Bush/Rumsfeld apologists themselves have a lot to apologize for. You screwed up and trusted the Neo-Cons. Bad move.
War is a racket.
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Peterson Conspiracy: Cross Posted from Open Left
As they say, even paranoids have real enemies. In the last couple of weeks there has been a renewed effort to push the parallel bills Conrad-Gregg and Cooper-Wolf each of which would establish a Bi-Partisan Commission to tackle the 'Entitlements Crisis' by sending a set of proposals to Congress that could only be voted up or down on a model set by BRAC (the Base Realignment and Closure Commission of the 1990s. The current push is to attach this to whatever legislation is used to raise the Public Debt Ceiling, something that has to be done in the next few weeks to avoid defaulting on some interest payments. The problem is that Conrad-Gregg and Cooper-Wolf did not come out of nowhere and 'bi-partisan' does not mean what it would normally mean. Instead these bills exist to realize the vision of one man, a man who has founded and lavishly funded a series of 'Bi-Partisan' Institutions and Working Groups whose goals are, at times perhaps unknown to many of the participants in them, explicitly to destroy the crown jewel of the New Deal, that is Social Security, while also doing as much collateral damage to Medicare and Medicaid as possible in the process.
The Concord Coalition is a nationwide, non-partisan, grassroots organization advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy. The Concord Coalition was founded in 1992 by the late former Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), former Senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), and former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson. Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Ne.) was named a co-chair of the Concord Coalition in January 2002. The Concord Coalition is dedicated to educating the public about the causes and consequences of federal budget deficits, the long-term challenges facing America's unsustainable entitlement programs, and how to build a sound economy for future generations.Bolding mine. For PGP and his like-minded colleagues, followers and employees the problem mostly start and stop with 'entitlements', a word whose existence largely owes itself to Peterson to begin with. The current head of Concord is Robert Bixby and its current main instrument is its Fiscal Wake Up Tour in which Bixby and former Comptroller General David Walker go around the country essentially selling 'Entitlements Crisis'. Now while Walker is invariably described by his former title and so an a more or less neutral observer, he actually has a day job with a somewhat more revealing title: President and CEO of the Peter G Peterson Foundation, itself endowed by PGP with a cool billion (with a 'b') dollars to promote its mission. About the PGPF On this page you will see the smiling faces of PGP himself and Walker and among other things a link to I.O.U.S.A.: the Movie itself a documentary of the Fiscal Wake Up Tour, which the About page proudly reports:
The Foundation awarded the Concord Coalition $1.5 million to expand its highly acclaimed Fiscal Wake-Up Tour, an urgent, bipartisan call for changes to America's fiscal policies in the tradition of Paul Revere.. So lesson one. Anytime you see the names Robert Bixby or David Walker know that you are talking full time employees of the PGP founded Concord Coalition or the Peter G Peterson Foundation. Lesson two. Almost every time you see the buzzwords 'fiscal responsibility', 'bi-partisan' anything, 'intergenerational equity' odds are you are only one or two degrees of separation from a PGP entity or employee. But what does this have to do with Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission. Well if we follow the link on the PGPF About page announcing the grant we find the following:
Partners in the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour include The Concord Coalition, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation. The Concord Coalition is a 501(c)3 organization focused on promoting federal fiscal responsibility.What the hell is 'left-leaning' Brookings doing in this mix? Well there is a tale. Back in 2008 Brookings and Heritage announced the formation of their 'Fiscal Seminar' which in time produced the following report Facing Our Fiscal Future (PDF) itself signed by sixteen authors, seven from Brookings, three from similarly 'left leaning' the Urban Institute, and one from the Progressive Policy Institute. Certainly seems bi-partisan. Until you realize that PPI is the creation of signatory Will Marshall and was the prime vehicle for sending Clintonism down the DLC/New Democrat/Third Way which mostly adds up to 'Renouncing FDR and All His Works'. And that a bunch of the Brookings people are similarly Clinton-Rubinista Deficit Hawks like Alice Rivlin and that the Urban Institute people include similarly hawkish former CBO Director Robert Reischauer. Plus among the remaining signatories from the center to right we have Robert Bixby (again), Maya MacGuineas (an author of a draconian Social Security 'reform' plan known as Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick or LMS), and Stuart Butler the author of a detailed plan from 1983 to undermine and kill Social Security under the charming name Social Security Reform: Achieving a "Leninist" Strategy (PDF) which has to be read to be believed. What do we find if we delve into Facing our Fiscal Future? Unsurprisingly we find a reprise of the central message of the Fiscal Wakeup Tour
The authors of this paper are longtime federal budget and policy experts who have been drawn together by a deep concern about the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook. Our group covers the ideological spectrum. We are affiliated with a diverse set of organizations. We have been meeting informally for over a year, under the auspices of The Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation, to define the dimensions and consequences of the looming federal budget problem, examine alternative solutions, and reach agreement on what should be done. Despite our diverse philosophies and political leanings, we have found solid common ground. We agree that: • Unsustainable deficits in the federal budget threaten the health and vigor of the American economy. • The first step toward establishing budget responsibility is to reform the budget decision process so that the major drivers of escalating deficits—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are no longer on autopilot.Once again the "ideological spectrum" means from barely center-left to right, and the only problem that matters is not military spending or regressive taxation, nope everything is the fault of Social Security and Medicare. And what is there solution? One establish a system of triggers that would automatically slash Social Security and Medicare benefits (and so keep Congress's hands clean when and if) or
Alternatively, the trigger process could require that a commission make recommendations for closing the gap to the president and Congress on which an up or down vote must be held.. I.e. some version of Cooper-Wolf. Pete G Peterson and associates want to kill Social Security under the guise of 'fiscal responsibility'. And PGP has spent decades founding organizations largely or wholly devoted to that end and committed a billion dollars of his own money to do so. In the days and weeks to come look for the key words, starting not least with 'bi-partisan', and names like Bixby and Walker. These people are paid professional agents of the open conspiracy to roll back the New Deal. And that ain't paranoia talking. Follow the links.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Senate Health Care Bill & CBO Scoring
by Bruce Webb
The new Senate Health Care Bill (big PDF) and the CBO Score. The outlines were reported last night, an $894 billion bill offset with enough taxes and fees to produce a $127 billion ten year reduction in the projected deficit, plus another $650 reduction in the ten years after that. (Traditionally CBO limits itself to 10 year scores, but the Republicans asked for a longer time frame for the stimulus bill, goose and gander). Also widely reported, but not quite correctly was the news that the bill would extend coverage to 94% of all Americans, or alternately all American citizens. In fact once you include Medicare and exclude illegal immigrants the actual coverage for legal American residents rises to 98%.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Food Security in America: a comment on Hullabaloo
There is a lot of discussion in the blogosphere around this NYT article and the response to it from the right: Hunger in U.S. at a 14-Year High which includes this response from Robert Rectum, er Rector at Heritage
________________________________________________
There is a big difference between being hungry and being mal-nourished. Many third world people would likely shake their heads at the idea that anyone can starve in America, after all even the most meagre food stamp allocation would allow a family to buy enough corn meal and cooking oil to sustain life with maybe some potatoes and other root crops thrown in. Or alternately you could buy a fifty pound bag of rice. Or a bushel of oatmeal and some bacon trimmings. Whatever your heritage chances are that you have ancestors that lived day in and day out on that or less.
But we are not 21st century Sudan, 20th century China, 19th century Ireland, 17th century Scotland, there is no reason why Americans should not have access to balanced nutritional meals anymore than there is reason to deny them a change of clothes or a daily bath just because after all your great-great grandfather didn't have indoor plumbing.
I bring this up because it is a common rhetorical move from the right to argue that poor people in America are not really poor because they are fat, or have a TV, or a cell-phone. Or because in the end if they have a heart attack they will be admitted to the ER: "You can't be poor, look at how big your kids got eating government cheese".
I don't quite know how to counteract this move, there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence that promises 'life, liberty and the pursuit of a pizza and a side salad' but kids have a sense of injustice that goes beyond simple hunger pangs.
I wrote about this last Christmas Eve with a post called 'Why Does Santa Hate Poor Kids'
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-does-santa-hate-poor-kids.html
Because most every year every kid in poverty learns a hard lesson, rich kids get lavish gifts from Santa and dollar bills from the Tooth Fairy and big Easter Baskets from the Easter Bunny, while poor kids get squat. Which is a pretty fine way to socialize kids into just accepting their proper role in society.
So I don't know how much actual biologic hunger there is in this country, but people and especially children deserve something better than simple subsistence, that you can live on rice and beans doesn't mean that you should when all around you are living in relative lavishness. Did Charlie of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" REALLY need that chocolate bar? Well yes he did and not just because his stomach was growling.
“Very few of these people are hungry,” said Robert Rector, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “When they lose jobs, they constrain the kind of food they buy. That is regrettable, but it’s a far cry from a hunger crisis.”Which prompted well deserved outrage. But I tried to frame it a little differently over at Digby with the following and thought I would share it here.
________________________________________________
There is a big difference between being hungry and being mal-nourished. Many third world people would likely shake their heads at the idea that anyone can starve in America, after all even the most meagre food stamp allocation would allow a family to buy enough corn meal and cooking oil to sustain life with maybe some potatoes and other root crops thrown in. Or alternately you could buy a fifty pound bag of rice. Or a bushel of oatmeal and some bacon trimmings. Whatever your heritage chances are that you have ancestors that lived day in and day out on that or less.
But we are not 21st century Sudan, 20th century China, 19th century Ireland, 17th century Scotland, there is no reason why Americans should not have access to balanced nutritional meals anymore than there is reason to deny them a change of clothes or a daily bath just because after all your great-great grandfather didn't have indoor plumbing.
I bring this up because it is a common rhetorical move from the right to argue that poor people in America are not really poor because they are fat, or have a TV, or a cell-phone. Or because in the end if they have a heart attack they will be admitted to the ER: "You can't be poor, look at how big your kids got eating government cheese".
I don't quite know how to counteract this move, there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence that promises 'life, liberty and the pursuit of a pizza and a side salad' but kids have a sense of injustice that goes beyond simple hunger pangs.
I wrote about this last Christmas Eve with a post called 'Why Does Santa Hate Poor Kids'
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-does-santa-hate-poor-kids.html
Because most every year every kid in poverty learns a hard lesson, rich kids get lavish gifts from Santa and dollar bills from the Tooth Fairy and big Easter Baskets from the Easter Bunny, while poor kids get squat. Which is a pretty fine way to socialize kids into just accepting their proper role in society.
So I don't know how much actual biologic hunger there is in this country, but people and especially children deserve something better than simple subsistence, that you can live on rice and beans doesn't mean that you should when all around you are living in relative lavishness. Did Charlie of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" REALLY need that chocolate bar? Well yes he did and not just because his stomach was growling.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Thoughts on trying Terrorists in NYC
Article III Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
Of course we have it from the highest authority that the Constitution is just a god damn piece of paper and where it isn't that Article II Section 2 obviously rules over all other Articles and that pesky Bill of Rights.
Trial by jury? In New York? Where do these anti-American terrorist lovers come up with crazy shit like that?
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec2
___________________________________________
How do mature societies deal with this?
http://www.werenotafraid.com/about.html
"We are not afraid to ride public transportation.
We are not afraid to walk down a crowded street.
We are not afraid of each other.
We are not afraid to say that terrorism in any form is never the answer.
We’re not afraid is an outlet for the global community to speak out against the acts of terror that have struck London, Madrid, New York, Baghdad, Basra, Tikrit, Gaza, Tel-Aviv, Afghanistan, Bali, and against the atrocities occurring in cities around the world each and every day. It is a worldwide action for people not willing to be cowed by terrorism and fear mongering.
The historical response to these types of attacks has been a show of deadly force; we believe that there is a better way. We refuse to respond to aggression and hatred in kind. Instead, we who are not afraid will continue to live our lives the best way we know how. We will work, we will play, we will laugh, we will live. We will not waste one moment, nor sacrifice one bit of our freedom, because of fear.
We are not afraid."
___________________________________
Conservatives are fond of mocking people for adopting a "Pre-9/11 Mindset" as if not living in a state of constant fear and paranoia and xenophobia is somehow a bad thing. This doesn't mean not being vigilant, it means not dismissing written intelligence warnings titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States".
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b44925.html
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
Of course we have it from the highest authority that the Constitution is just a god damn piece of paper and where it isn't that Article II Section 2 obviously rules over all other Articles and that pesky Bill of Rights.
Trial by jury? In New York? Where do these anti-American terrorist lovers come up with crazy shit like that?
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec2
___________________________________________
How do mature societies deal with this?
http://www.werenotafraid.com/about.html
"We are not afraid to ride public transportation.
We are not afraid to walk down a crowded street.
We are not afraid of each other.
We are not afraid to say that terrorism in any form is never the answer.
We’re not afraid is an outlet for the global community to speak out against the acts of terror that have struck London, Madrid, New York, Baghdad, Basra, Tikrit, Gaza, Tel-Aviv, Afghanistan, Bali, and against the atrocities occurring in cities around the world each and every day. It is a worldwide action for people not willing to be cowed by terrorism and fear mongering.
The historical response to these types of attacks has been a show of deadly force; we believe that there is a better way. We refuse to respond to aggression and hatred in kind. Instead, we who are not afraid will continue to live our lives the best way we know how. We will work, we will play, we will laugh, we will live. We will not waste one moment, nor sacrifice one bit of our freedom, because of fear.
We are not afraid."
___________________________________
Conservatives are fond of mocking people for adopting a "Pre-9/11 Mindset" as if not living in a state of constant fear and paranoia and xenophobia is somehow a bad thing. This doesn't mean not being vigilant, it means not dismissing written intelligence warnings titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States".
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b44925.html
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Read the Bill! Part 3; and a possible reading error
by Bruce Webb
On July 28th I put up a post on what I considered to be the most important provision of the Tri-Committee Bill as introduced. The post was called Sec 116: Golden Bullet or Smoking Gun
All of this is clearly forward looking, a procedure is being set out that will govern insurance plans once the Exchange is established and three years are given to get the Health Choices Commissioner and the HBAC in place, for the MLR methodology to be established, for the final benefits package to be defined, to get all of that through the pubulication process, and to go through contract negotiations with the various insurance companies in time to meet the Jan 1, 2013 deadline. Altogether a pretty ambitious schedule, but one necessary to govern the Exchange going FORWARD.
On October 29th, a new and somewhat re-organized bill was introduced which included a whole new Title I called Immediate Reforms which were to go into effect right away on enactment of the bill. This included some truly new proposals including a new high risk pool to cover current uninsured between now and the start of the Exchange, plus a provision that allows family plans to cover children up to the age of 26. plus it moved some other protections on pre-existing conditions and prohibition of recessions forward. But it also did something curious, and ultimately inexplicable, it also moved the provisions of Sec 116 forward. In the new bill the equivalent language to Sec 116 is found in new Sec 102
Yesterday on the assumption that it was the same thing I put up a post at Angry Bear STILL the Most Important Sentence in the House HC Bill citing only the (a) section. Commenter Gerald Weinand who took my advice to closely read the bill added this
I am not sure what to say, I only had this pointed out to me late last night, but my current thinking is that someone, somehow just screwed up. In their zeal to get certain protections in place right away they swept Sec 116 which clearly is focused on a FUTURE Exchange and tried to enforce its requirements on the current market. Which leads to some curious problems of language. What does ''adequate participation' mean in reference to an existing market? What about ensuring 'competition'? This language which makes perfect sense in the context of a competitive future exchange is pretty odd when applied to a market that already exists. Plus how do you immediately implement a methodology that has yet to be developed? How do you apply a process that mandates rebates on plans that are already in place based on MLRs that are on average about four points under the minimum set out in the legislation? Does every company in America expected to rebate 5% of its current premiums?
Well I got more questions than answers. But one partial solution is to get everyone on one page. Up to now people have been forced to rely on the original Tri-Committee Bill as introduced, only after Oct 29th did we have access to the bill as brought to the floor of the House, which induced some people, okay me, to read it too quickly. Well we now have some breathing room to examine the House Bill as passed with Amendments, Previously I had been linking to and using PDF versions which were pretty clumsy to navigate. The following link is to the bill as passed and engrossed, and should I think be the starting point for future discussion. ttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c1113ofzd6::
If that link is unstable you can Google it or use this pdf version:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3962eh.txt.pdf
On July 28th I put up a post on what I considered to be the most important provision of the Tri-Committee Bill as introduced. The post was called Sec 116: Golden Bullet or Smoking Gun
SEC. 116. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.A Qualified Health Benefit Plan or QHBP is one that meets all the requirements outlined in the bill to be qualified for the Health Insurance Exchange itself scheduled to start on Jan. 1, 2013. Among those requirements is compliance with the detailed Acceptable Benefits Package whose fine points are to be established by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee who will be appointed after enactment of the bill. Premiums of a QHBP will be governed by requirements to meet a set Medical Loss Ratio whose set point will be established in accordance with principles set out in Sec 161.
(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.
(b) BUILDING ON INTERIM RULES.—In implementing subsection (a), the Commissioner shall build on the definition and methodology developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the amendments made by section 161 for determining how to calculate the medical loss ratio. Such methodology shall be set at the highest level medical loss ratio possible that is designed to ensure adequate participation by QHBP offering entities, competition in the health insurance market in and out of the Health Insurance Exchange, and value for consumers so that their premiums are used for services.
All of this is clearly forward looking, a procedure is being set out that will govern insurance plans once the Exchange is established and three years are given to get the Health Choices Commissioner and the HBAC in place, for the MLR methodology to be established, for the final benefits package to be defined, to get all of that through the pubulication process, and to go through contract negotiations with the various insurance companies in time to meet the Jan 1, 2013 deadline. Altogether a pretty ambitious schedule, but one necessary to govern the Exchange going FORWARD.
On October 29th, a new and somewhat re-organized bill was introduced which included a whole new Title I called Immediate Reforms which were to go into effect right away on enactment of the bill. This included some truly new proposals including a new high risk pool to cover current uninsured between now and the start of the Exchange, plus a provision that allows family plans to cover children up to the age of 26. plus it moved some other protections on pre-existing conditions and prohibition of recessions forward. But it also did something curious, and ultimately inexplicable, it also moved the provisions of Sec 116 forward. In the new bill the equivalent language to Sec 116 is found in new Sec 102
SEC. 102. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.Okay the language is a little more bureaucratic and comes in the form of inserting new language into an existing title the Public Health Service Act but otherwise it is all the same thing, just old wine in new bottles. Right? Oh, oh, maybe not.
(a) Group Health Insurance Coverage- Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act is amended by inserting after section 2713 the following new section:
`SEC. 2714. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
`(a) In General- Each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the small or large group market shall provide that for any plan year in which the coverage has a medical loss ratio below a level specified by the Secretary (but not less than 85 percent), the issuer shall provide in a manner specified by the Secretary for rebates to enrollees of the amount by which the issuer's medical loss ratio is less than the level so specified.
`(b) Implementation- The Secretary shall establish a uniform definition of medical loss ratio and methodology for determining how to calculate it based on the average medical loss ratio in a health insurance issuer's book of business for the small and large group market. Such methodology shall be designed to take into account the special circumstances of smaller plans, different types of plans, and newer plans. In determining the medical loss ratio, the Secretary shall exclude State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees. Such methodology shall be designed and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market, and value for consumers so that their premiums are used for services.
`(c) Sunset- Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to health insurance coverage on and after the first date that health insurance coverage is offered through the Health Insurance Exchange.'.
(b) Individual Health Insurance Coverage- Such title is further amended by inserting after section 2753 the following new section:
`SEC. 2754. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
`The provisions of section 2714 shall apply to health insurance coverage offered in the individual market in the same manner as such provisions apply to health insurance coverage offered in the small or large group market except to the extent the Secretary determines that the application of such section may destabilize the existing individual market.'.
(c) Immediate Implementation- The amendments made by this section shall apply in the group and individual market for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2010, or as soon as practicable after such date.
Yesterday on the assumption that it was the same thing I put up a post at Angry Bear STILL the Most Important Sentence in the House HC Bill citing only the (a) section. Commenter Gerald Weinand who took my advice to closely read the bill added this
Bruce:Well I was thrown for a loop. Instead of the orderly process set out in Sec 116 to establish rules for an Exchange that would start three years out via a scheduled process overseen by people to be appointed we have new rules that are subject to "Immediate Implementation" and which SUNSET on the day the Exchange opens. Moreover you can search through the bill as Gerald did and as I belatedly did and not find any specific mechanism to govern profits AFTER establishment of the Exchange.
Subsection (c) reads:
‘(c) Sunset- Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to health insurance coverage on and after the first date that health insurance coverage is offered through the Health Insurance Exchange.’.
I read through Title III. A. Sec. 304 and didn't see any refernce there to MLR's at all. Is the 85% established for policies offered through the exchange?
I am not sure what to say, I only had this pointed out to me late last night, but my current thinking is that someone, somehow just screwed up. In their zeal to get certain protections in place right away they swept Sec 116 which clearly is focused on a FUTURE Exchange and tried to enforce its requirements on the current market. Which leads to some curious problems of language. What does ''adequate participation' mean in reference to an existing market? What about ensuring 'competition'? This language which makes perfect sense in the context of a competitive future exchange is pretty odd when applied to a market that already exists. Plus how do you immediately implement a methodology that has yet to be developed? How do you apply a process that mandates rebates on plans that are already in place based on MLRs that are on average about four points under the minimum set out in the legislation? Does every company in America expected to rebate 5% of its current premiums?
Well I got more questions than answers. But one partial solution is to get everyone on one page. Up to now people have been forced to rely on the original Tri-Committee Bill as introduced, only after Oct 29th did we have access to the bill as brought to the floor of the House, which induced some people, okay me, to read it too quickly. Well we now have some breathing room to examine the House Bill as passed with Amendments, Previously I had been linking to and using PDF versions which were pretty clumsy to navigate. The following link is to the bill as passed and engrossed, and should I think be the starting point for future discussion. ttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c1113ofzd6::
If that link is unstable you can Google it or use this pdf version:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3962eh.txt.pdf
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Abortion Coverage and Health Care Reform: an e-mail exchange
The following is the last (for now) stage of an e-mail exchange with my reply leading off. I deleted names not because any of the views expressed are in any way embarrassing but because I didn't get permission. Hopefully none of them will get too mad at me. But I thought my reply addressed a larger issue and I wanted to save it.
______________________
Me to (Man 1) I think you are missing the larger point. The argument for including abortion as a covered service is not at basis an economic one but instead stems from two deeper philosophic disputes: the separation of Church and State and the nature of a patriarchal society. I mean where do you stop? There are religious arguments against circumcism. And Christian Scientists have a valid argument that they shouldn't have to pay for the medical health care of others, particularly as their own practices are excluded. That is to the degree that objections to abortion are authentically based on religion enforcing those beliefs is a violation of the establishment clause.
But I don't believe these objections are actually religiously based, or rather that those religious objections are ultimately not based on any devotion to the principle of sanctity of life. For example immediately after Moses delivered the Ten Commandments to the Chosen including "Thou shalt not kill" his Lieutenant and Successor Joshua led his people into the Promised Land and exterminated nearly all its inhabitants excepting the one city whose people they saved to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, i.e. slaves. (I strongly suspect that the original Hebrew carried the meaning 'murder' and not 'kill'-in ancient law as today two very different concepts) So if the fundamental objection is not religious as such, or if the religious objection itself derives from some source other than the sanctity of life then from where does it derive?
Well the answer is pretty clear, from the same motive that would have women wear burqas or have widows perform purdah (religious suicide after a husband's death) or condemning women to death for BEING raped or having eunuchs as harem guards or in milder form strictly imposing the principle of chaperonage. That is whether you look at this from the biological or anthropological or sociological or historical perspective it is blindingly obvious that men are fundamentally driven by a desire to control the sexuality of "their" women whether that be consort or dependent. Thus the danger of birth control and abortion is that one of "your" women may be having sex with someone else without your knowledge and perhaps worse enjoying it more, and that you will never know. That this cross-cultural imperative has ended up embedded into those cultures religious practices is perfectly natural but let us not fool ourselves into thinking that its origins are spiritually based in some concept of the sanctity of life. Scratch the surface of anyone of 'God's children' and you can see the jealous baboon hidden inside. These guys are just defending the pack against outsiders who want access to the females. Pandering to this desire is just government enforcement of the basest kind of patriarchy.
Sure we could and probably should set up an alternative form of financing for abortion but ultimately being only a little bit of a slave is like only being a little bit pregnant, the question is whether women should be autonomous or not. Me I am a sucker for freedom and equality.
On Nov 8, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Man 1 wrote:
i am hoping i understand this: without being robbed by the insurance companies, most women would have enough money to pay for their own abortion if they needed one. at least that's close to the point i am trying to make. i fail to understand how that would "hold another person and their right to freedom of choice captive to religious, moral, and political motivations." rather the opposite. it seems to me that (Man X) is the one trying to hold others captive to HIS religious, moral, and political motivations. It seems to be impossible to convince people who think they don't have religious views that that IS a religious view.
if you (he) are seriously saying that not only does a woman have a right to an abortion (i agree) but she has a right to a government paid abortion, i hope you can see why you drive "conservatives" crazy.
On Nov 8, 2009, at 4:40 AM, Woman 1 wrote:
I assume that within less than ten years, an abortion case will go to
the Supreme Court, challenging that portion of the law. As the
non-profit or reduced profit players in health care see their fat
profits dry up, the case might even be brought by, or supported by
them.
Either way, general prosperity will expand when the punitive burden of
health coverage is lifted. There may not be money available for a
particular woman, but the numbers of women having the means will rise.
(Woman 1)~off to read the news this morning~
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM, (Man 2) > wrote:
(Man 1):
Save how for an abortion? With a declining income that has been undermined
for the last 30 years with increased expenses, lower paying jobs, denial of
equality, and a lack of opportunity. I find it reprehensible a political
party would hold another person and their right to freedom of choice captive
to religious, moral, and political motivations.
We will fund healthcare for cancer caused by smoking, we will fund
healthcare for those who over eat and suffer from diabetes, we will fund
healthcare for those who choose to use their heads as a battering ram on the
highways of America from riding motorcycles, we will fund healthcare for
those who abuse themselves from over dosing on drugs and alcohol; but god
forbid, a teen or the lady driving Reagan's Pink Cadillac gets pregnant and
it is then we choose to become self-righteous
______________________
Me to (Man 1) I think you are missing the larger point. The argument for including abortion as a covered service is not at basis an economic one but instead stems from two deeper philosophic disputes: the separation of Church and State and the nature of a patriarchal society. I mean where do you stop? There are religious arguments against circumcism. And Christian Scientists have a valid argument that they shouldn't have to pay for the medical health care of others, particularly as their own practices are excluded. That is to the degree that objections to abortion are authentically based on religion enforcing those beliefs is a violation of the establishment clause.
But I don't believe these objections are actually religiously based, or rather that those religious objections are ultimately not based on any devotion to the principle of sanctity of life. For example immediately after Moses delivered the Ten Commandments to the Chosen including "Thou shalt not kill" his Lieutenant and Successor Joshua led his people into the Promised Land and exterminated nearly all its inhabitants excepting the one city whose people they saved to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, i.e. slaves. (I strongly suspect that the original Hebrew carried the meaning 'murder' and not 'kill'-in ancient law as today two very different concepts) So if the fundamental objection is not religious as such, or if the religious objection itself derives from some source other than the sanctity of life then from where does it derive?
Well the answer is pretty clear, from the same motive that would have women wear burqas or have widows perform purdah (religious suicide after a husband's death) or condemning women to death for BEING raped or having eunuchs as harem guards or in milder form strictly imposing the principle of chaperonage. That is whether you look at this from the biological or anthropological or sociological or historical perspective it is blindingly obvious that men are fundamentally driven by a desire to control the sexuality of "their" women whether that be consort or dependent. Thus the danger of birth control and abortion is that one of "your" women may be having sex with someone else without your knowledge and perhaps worse enjoying it more, and that you will never know. That this cross-cultural imperative has ended up embedded into those cultures religious practices is perfectly natural but let us not fool ourselves into thinking that its origins are spiritually based in some concept of the sanctity of life. Scratch the surface of anyone of 'God's children' and you can see the jealous baboon hidden inside. These guys are just defending the pack against outsiders who want access to the females. Pandering to this desire is just government enforcement of the basest kind of patriarchy.
Sure we could and probably should set up an alternative form of financing for abortion but ultimately being only a little bit of a slave is like only being a little bit pregnant, the question is whether women should be autonomous or not. Me I am a sucker for freedom and equality.
On Nov 8, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Man 1 wrote:
i am hoping i understand this: without being robbed by the insurance companies, most women would have enough money to pay for their own abortion if they needed one. at least that's close to the point i am trying to make. i fail to understand how that would "hold another person and their right to freedom of choice captive to religious, moral, and political motivations." rather the opposite. it seems to me that (Man X) is the one trying to hold others captive to HIS religious, moral, and political motivations. It seems to be impossible to convince people who think they don't have religious views that that IS a religious view.
if you (he) are seriously saying that not only does a woman have a right to an abortion (i agree) but she has a right to a government paid abortion, i hope you can see why you drive "conservatives" crazy.
On Nov 8, 2009, at 4:40 AM, Woman 1 wrote:
I assume that within less than ten years, an abortion case will go to
the Supreme Court, challenging that portion of the law. As the
non-profit or reduced profit players in health care see their fat
profits dry up, the case might even be brought by, or supported by
them.
Either way, general prosperity will expand when the punitive burden of
health coverage is lifted. There may not be money available for a
particular woman, but the numbers of women having the means will rise.
(Woman 1)~off to read the news this morning~
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM, (Man 2) > wrote:
(Man 1):
Save how for an abortion? With a declining income that has been undermined
for the last 30 years with increased expenses, lower paying jobs, denial of
equality, and a lack of opportunity. I find it reprehensible a political
party would hold another person and their right to freedom of choice captive
to religious, moral, and political motivations.
We will fund healthcare for cancer caused by smoking, we will fund
healthcare for those who over eat and suffer from diabetes, we will fund
healthcare for those who choose to use their heads as a battering ram on the
highways of America from riding motorcycles, we will fund healthcare for
those who abuse themselves from over dosing on drugs and alcohol; but god
forbid, a teen or the lady driving Reagan's Pink Cadillac gets pregnant and
it is then we choose to become self-righteous
Sunday, November 01, 2009
HR676: Political Fool's Gold
In discussions around the blogosphere about HR3962, the House Health Care Bill, some individuals suggest that at 1990 pages it was simply bloated and used the 30 page HR676 (Single Payer) as a clean, easy, effective alternative. Which led me to wonder "How the Hell can you reform the entire U.S. Code as it relates to health care in 30 pages?" So I read the bill and found out that it is a mirage. HR676 is so far from a political starter as to be literally laughable. To see why I offer some language and interpretation.
______________________
One of the most fervent promoters of HR676 is Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and who naturally have a web page with all kinds of resources for defenders, including of course a link to the full text of the bill. So as a public service I suggest people wanting to push back on my analysis start there: http://www.pnhp.org/publications/united_states_national_health_care_act_hr_676.php
What I propose is a section by section analysis of the bill in real terms at each point asking the question "How do you sell this?" I don't think you can, once you get beyond the aspiration of Universal Single Payer, one which I share fully, there really is nothing here. So---
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORTTITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act’’.
(b) TABLEOFCONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions and terms
TITLE I—ELIGIBILITY AND BENEFITS
Sec. 101. Eligibility and registration.
Sec. 102. Benefits and portability.
Sec. 103. Qualification of participating providers.
Sec. 104. Prohibition against duplicating coverage.
TITLE II—FINANCES
Subtitle A—Budgeting and Payments
Sec. 201. Budgeting process.
Sec. 202. Payment of providers and health care clinicians.
Sec. 203. Payment for long-term care.
Sec. 204. Mental health services.
Sec. 205. Payment for prescription medications, medical supplies, and medically necessary assistive equipment.
Sec. 206. Consultation in establishing reimbursement levels.
Subtitle B—Funding
Sec. 211. Overview: funding the USNHC Program.
Sec. 212. Appropriations for existing programs.
TITLE III—ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 301. Public administration; appointment of Director.
Sec. 302. Office of Quality Control.
Sec. 303. Regional and State administration; employment of displaced clerical workers.
Sec. 304. Confidential Electronic Patient Record System.
Sec. 305. National Board of Universal Quality and Access.
TITLE IV—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Treatment of VA and IHS health programs.
Sec. 402. Public health and prevention.
Sec. 403. Reduction in health disparities.
TITLE V—EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 501. Effective date.
Sec. 101: "(a) IN GENERAL.—All individuals residing in the United States (including any territory of the United States) are covered under the USNHC Program entitling them to a universal, best quality standard of care."
"(c) PRESUMPTION.—Individuals who present themselves for covered services from a participating provider shall be presumed to be eligible for benefits under this Act, but shall complete an application for benefits in order to receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and have payment made for such benefits."
Meaning that undocumented workers and people on student and work visas are covered fully. A further provision covers tourists and visitors but provides some vague language about reimbursement and payment by the home country.
Sec. 102: " BENEFITS AND PORTABILITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The health care benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following: (1) Primary care and prevention. (2) Inpatient care. (3) Outpatient care. (4) Emergency care. (5) Prescription drugs. (6) Durable medical equipment. (7) Long-term care. (8) Palliative care. (9) Mental health services. (10) The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry). (11) Substance abuse treatment services. (12) Chiropractic services. (13) Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes). (14) Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids. (15) Podiatric care. (b) PORTABILITY.—Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits. (c) NO COST-SHARING.—No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits."
I particularly like the "at least". Want weekly chiropractic and acupuncture visits? Designer prescription sunglasses? Six-months at the Betty Ford Clinic? You got it, and at ZERO out-of-pocket expense. Great for that undocumented landscaper with a bad back or for hypochondriacs, but ya think this might get kind of expensive overall?
"SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS.
(a) REQUIREMENT TO BE PUBLIC OR NON-PROFIT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution. Private physicians, private clinics, and private health care providers shall continue to operate as private entities, but are prohibited from being investor owned."
Sorry Walgreens and Payless, goodbye Perle Vision, and oh yeah if you want to open a mental health clinic anywhere be sure to able to finance it on your own. And don't make a profit on selling any product or service. What about existing institutions? Not to worry-Uncle Sam will compensate you for "reasonable financial losses incurred as a result of the conversion from for-profit to non-profit status. "
"SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act"
"TITLE II—FINANCES
Subtitle A—Budgeting and Payments
SEC. 201. BUDGETING PROCESS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BUDGET."
The government pays for everything including construction of health facilities and all equipment.
"Sec 202. SEC. 202. PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE CLINICIANS"
All health care institutions get paid a single monthly payment. Physicians, dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, nurse practioners can either be salaried or get payment on a single set fee schedule. Which allows no variation because it will be established with the following criteria.
"(B) CONSIDERATIONS.—In establishing such schedule, the Director shall take into consideration the following:
(i) The need for a uniform national standard.
(ii) The goal of ensuring that physicians, clinicians, pharmacists, and other medical professionals be compensated at a rate which reflects their expertise and the value of their services, regardless of geographic region and past fee schedules."
"Subtitle B—Funding"
"(c) FUNDING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated to the USNHC Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:
(A) Existing sources of Federal Government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
(D) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions. "
Okay we will tax the top 5 percent of income at some unknown rate plus payroll at some unknown but graduated rate plus a similar unknown transaction tax. Good luck to the CBO in scoring that. Because they'll need it.
Title III: Administration
Set up bureaucracy
Title IV: Other provisions
"SEC. 401. TREATMENT OF VA AND IHS HEALTH PROGRAMS.
(a) VA HEALTH PROGRAMS.—This Act provides for health programs of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to initially remain independent for the 10-year period that begins on the date of the establishment of the USNHC Program. After such 10-year period, the Congress shall reevaluate whether such programs shall remain independent or be integrated into the USNHC Program.
(b) INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAMS.—This Act provides for health programs of the Indian Health Service to initially remain independent for the 5-year period that begins on the date of the establishment of the USNHC Program, after which such programs shall be integrated into the USNHC Program. "
Likely elimination of the VA system. Certain elimination of IHS.
Title V: Effective date
"TITLE V—EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act shall take effect on the first day of the first year that begins more than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to items and services furnished on or after such date."
Oh yeah and we will get the conversion of the entire health care delivery system from for-profit to non-profit including all necessary buy-outs in a single year.
_________________________________
Sorry, this is not a serious policy proposal, this is an aspirational manifesto that would take the U.S. health system far beyond even the British NHS. Under this system only the ultra-rich could ever dream of having a private room or a private nurse, everyone else is reduced to the lowest common denominator. It is common to hear commenters saying "no one is contemplating a government take-over of the medical system" or "no one is proposing an NHS system". Well sorry this is exactly that. The only terms that describe a system that makes all for-profit delivery of all medical, dental, mental health, substance abuse, vision and long-term care ILLEGAL and further makes any private insurance supplements ILLEGAL would set off all kinds of rhetorical alarms.
Progressives come on! I don't care how much of a bleeding heart you may have but do you really want to go to the country on the platform of "We provided universal free coverage to all illegal immigrants while abolishing the VA hospital system, oh and the Pharmacy section at your supermarket. Vote for us!" This is not serious policy, this is just posturing for effect. This bill demagogues itself.
______________________
One of the most fervent promoters of HR676 is Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and who naturally have a web page with all kinds of resources for defenders, including of course a link to the full text of the bill. So as a public service I suggest people wanting to push back on my analysis start there: http://www.pnhp.org/publications/united_states_national_health_care_act_hr_676.php
What I propose is a section by section analysis of the bill in real terms at each point asking the question "How do you sell this?" I don't think you can, once you get beyond the aspiration of Universal Single Payer, one which I share fully, there really is nothing here. So---
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORTTITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act’’.
(b) TABLEOFCONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions and terms
TITLE I—ELIGIBILITY AND BENEFITS
Sec. 101. Eligibility and registration.
Sec. 102. Benefits and portability.
Sec. 103. Qualification of participating providers.
Sec. 104. Prohibition against duplicating coverage.
TITLE II—FINANCES
Subtitle A—Budgeting and Payments
Sec. 201. Budgeting process.
Sec. 202. Payment of providers and health care clinicians.
Sec. 203. Payment for long-term care.
Sec. 204. Mental health services.
Sec. 205. Payment for prescription medications, medical supplies, and medically necessary assistive equipment.
Sec. 206. Consultation in establishing reimbursement levels.
Subtitle B—Funding
Sec. 211. Overview: funding the USNHC Program.
Sec. 212. Appropriations for existing programs.
TITLE III—ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 301. Public administration; appointment of Director.
Sec. 302. Office of Quality Control.
Sec. 303. Regional and State administration; employment of displaced clerical workers.
Sec. 304. Confidential Electronic Patient Record System.
Sec. 305. National Board of Universal Quality and Access.
TITLE IV—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Treatment of VA and IHS health programs.
Sec. 402. Public health and prevention.
Sec. 403. Reduction in health disparities.
TITLE V—EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 501. Effective date.
Sec. 101: "(a) IN GENERAL.—All individuals residing in the United States (including any territory of the United States) are covered under the USNHC Program entitling them to a universal, best quality standard of care."
"(c) PRESUMPTION.—Individuals who present themselves for covered services from a participating provider shall be presumed to be eligible for benefits under this Act, but shall complete an application for benefits in order to receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and have payment made for such benefits."
Meaning that undocumented workers and people on student and work visas are covered fully. A further provision covers tourists and visitors but provides some vague language about reimbursement and payment by the home country.
Sec. 102: " BENEFITS AND PORTABILITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The health care benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following: (1) Primary care and prevention. (2) Inpatient care. (3) Outpatient care. (4) Emergency care. (5) Prescription drugs. (6) Durable medical equipment. (7) Long-term care. (8) Palliative care. (9) Mental health services. (10) The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry). (11) Substance abuse treatment services. (12) Chiropractic services. (13) Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes). (14) Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids. (15) Podiatric care. (b) PORTABILITY.—Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits. (c) NO COST-SHARING.—No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits."
I particularly like the "at least". Want weekly chiropractic and acupuncture visits? Designer prescription sunglasses? Six-months at the Betty Ford Clinic? You got it, and at ZERO out-of-pocket expense. Great for that undocumented landscaper with a bad back or for hypochondriacs, but ya think this might get kind of expensive overall?
"SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS.
(a) REQUIREMENT TO BE PUBLIC OR NON-PROFIT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution. Private physicians, private clinics, and private health care providers shall continue to operate as private entities, but are prohibited from being investor owned."
Sorry Walgreens and Payless, goodbye Perle Vision, and oh yeah if you want to open a mental health clinic anywhere be sure to able to finance it on your own. And don't make a profit on selling any product or service. What about existing institutions? Not to worry-Uncle Sam will compensate you for "reasonable financial losses incurred as a result of the conversion from for-profit to non-profit status. "
"SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act"
"TITLE II—FINANCES
Subtitle A—Budgeting and Payments
SEC. 201. BUDGETING PROCESS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BUDGET."
The government pays for everything including construction of health facilities and all equipment.
"Sec 202. SEC. 202. PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE CLINICIANS"
All health care institutions get paid a single monthly payment. Physicians, dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, nurse practioners can either be salaried or get payment on a single set fee schedule. Which allows no variation because it will be established with the following criteria.
"(B) CONSIDERATIONS.—In establishing such schedule, the Director shall take into consideration the following:
(i) The need for a uniform national standard.
(ii) The goal of ensuring that physicians, clinicians, pharmacists, and other medical professionals be compensated at a rate which reflects their expertise and the value of their services, regardless of geographic region and past fee schedules."
"Subtitle B—Funding"
"(c) FUNDING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated to the USNHC Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:
(A) Existing sources of Federal Government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
(D) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions. "
Okay we will tax the top 5 percent of income at some unknown rate plus payroll at some unknown but graduated rate plus a similar unknown transaction tax. Good luck to the CBO in scoring that. Because they'll need it.
Title III: Administration
Set up bureaucracy
Title IV: Other provisions
"SEC. 401. TREATMENT OF VA AND IHS HEALTH PROGRAMS.
(a) VA HEALTH PROGRAMS.—This Act provides for health programs of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to initially remain independent for the 10-year period that begins on the date of the establishment of the USNHC Program. After such 10-year period, the Congress shall reevaluate whether such programs shall remain independent or be integrated into the USNHC Program.
(b) INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAMS.—This Act provides for health programs of the Indian Health Service to initially remain independent for the 5-year period that begins on the date of the establishment of the USNHC Program, after which such programs shall be integrated into the USNHC Program. "
Likely elimination of the VA system. Certain elimination of IHS.
Title V: Effective date
"TITLE V—EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act shall take effect on the first day of the first year that begins more than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to items and services furnished on or after such date."
Oh yeah and we will get the conversion of the entire health care delivery system from for-profit to non-profit including all necessary buy-outs in a single year.
_________________________________
Sorry, this is not a serious policy proposal, this is an aspirational manifesto that would take the U.S. health system far beyond even the British NHS. Under this system only the ultra-rich could ever dream of having a private room or a private nurse, everyone else is reduced to the lowest common denominator. It is common to hear commenters saying "no one is contemplating a government take-over of the medical system" or "no one is proposing an NHS system". Well sorry this is exactly that. The only terms that describe a system that makes all for-profit delivery of all medical, dental, mental health, substance abuse, vision and long-term care ILLEGAL and further makes any private insurance supplements ILLEGAL would set off all kinds of rhetorical alarms.
Progressives come on! I don't care how much of a bleeding heart you may have but do you really want to go to the country on the platform of "We provided universal free coverage to all illegal immigrants while abolishing the VA hospital system, oh and the Pharmacy section at your supermarket. Vote for us!" This is not serious policy, this is just posturing for effect. This bill demagogues itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)