The $3.75 Million Dollar Man (and Friends)

Democratic legislators are receiving millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the Medical Industrial Complex. Baucus and friends, the "moderate" Blue Dogs who are killing the public option and defending insurance monopolies, are raking it in. Baucus alone has received $3.75 million over six years from the medical industry, one quarter of his total campaign contributions. Tell me again, why are we trusting these employees of Big Medicine to represent our national health care interests? As BusinessWeek observed over a month ago, the health insurers have already won.

Rogues' gallery here.

Max Baucus (Bozo-MT)

Addendum: The Baucus bill is out of committee and proves, as everyone knew, that he is a spineless shill for the insurance industry. The comment of one of his constituents:

As a resident of Montana, I would like to thank Senator Baucus for all his hard work looking out for insurance companies.

With its requirement to carry health insurance, it’s estimated that this bill will bring approximately $700 billion in new business to the health care industry.

And since he fought hard to ensure there is no public option or, worse, a single payer option, we have the Senator to thank for making it harder for the rest of us to get affordable insurance.

All in a day's work in Washington I guess.

— avrds, Montana

Our Nerd in Chief

Not sure if someone who oozes as much cool as Obama could really be a nerd, but comedian John Hodgman takes a run at the idea in his roast at the Radio and TV Correspondents' Dinner. So often these things misfire, but I thought he was pretty good. I even felt a little nerdly pride.

The Revulsion Gene

I've commented before that I am a liberal sojourning in a land of conservatives. (My self-denial of liberalism is directed at specific ideologies, not disposition.) While there are certain conservative causes I support, as hard as I've tried, I cannot evince within myself those basic attitudes that actuate most conservatives, like respect for authority and antipathy for cultural change. I can feel a liberal's anger at unfairness and discrimination, but not a conservative's disgust at disrespect of tradition and the foreign.

Nick Kristof has a fascinating column today about the psychological basis of the liberal/conservative divide. After his Daily Me column (my take), he was contacted by psychiatrists who informed him that changing disposition and bias is not that simple:

Studies suggest that conservatives are more often distressed [than liberals] by actions that seem disrespectful of authority. . . .

Likewise, conservatives are more likely than liberals to sense contamination or perceive disgust. People who would be disgusted to find that they had accidentally sipped from an acquaintance’s drink are more likely to identify as conservatives.

The upshot is that liberals and conservatives don’t just think differently, they also feel differently. This may even be a result, in part, of divergent neural responses.

In other words, the brains of liberals and conservatives may just be wired differently. Some of us may lack the revulsion gene that would enable us to be proper conservatives. Kristof links to a "disgust test" that I plan to take (when not at work), to help gauge one's moral disposition and aptitude for liberalism/conservatism. I'll post my score.

Trending towards Homogeneity

I found interesting Nick Kristof's take on one consequence of the global migration away from consuming newspapers to grazing on-line news. One result, he argues, is that we will see further polarity and more entrenched homogeneity of perspectives, because we naturally self-select news that is most congenial to our personal perspectives. The more empowered we are to self-select our media, the less diversity we are exposed to. One pundit calls this new self-selected Internet news "The Daily Me":

The effect of The Daily Me would be to insulate us further in our own hermetically sealed political chambers. One of last year’s more fascinating books was Bill Bishop’s “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.” He argues that Americans increasingly are segregating themselves into communities, clubs and churches where they are surrounded by people who think the way they do. Almost half of Americans now live in counties that vote in landslides either for Democrats or for Republicans, he said. In the 1960s and 1970s, in similarly competitive national elections, only about one-third lived in landslide counties. “The nation grows more politically segregated — and the benefit that ought to come with having a variety of opinions is lost to the righteousness that is the special entitlement of homogeneous groups,” Mr. Bishop writes. One 12-nation study found Americans the least likely to discuss politics with people of different views, and this was particularly true of the well educated. High school dropouts had the most diverse group of discussion-mates, while college graduates managed to shelter themselves from uncomfortable perspectives. The result is polarization and intolerance. Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor now working for President Obama, has conducted research showing that when liberals or conservatives discuss issues such as affirmative action or climate change with like-minded people, their views quickly become more homogeneous and more extreme than before the discussion. For example, some liberals in one study initially worried that action on climate change might hurt the poor, while some conservatives were sympathetic to affirmative action. But after discussing the issue with like-minded people for only 15 minutes, liberals became more liberal and conservatives more conservative.

I find this trend very disturbing, but am not sure it is substantially the result of changes in how we get our news. That is simply one facet of the democratization of information that the Internet has brought about. But the enormous welter (relative to the past) of opinions and viewpoints that we are now all exposed to has no doubt caused an increasing retreat into ideological subcultures in a search for foundational worldviews and certainty. This also has factored into the great growth of conservative religious movements (yes, like Mormonism).

I'm one of those strange people who really likes to be challenged by alternative cultural perspectives. I find it invigorating. Homogeneity, for me, is anathema. But I do not think print media inherently promotes a greater diversity of perspective. Newspapers are products, after all, that their publishers are trying to sell. They serve their readership, necessarily. But in that respect, true enough, they can never compete with the infinite alternatives available on the Web.

Warning: Long Rant

Listening to NPR this morning on manufacturing in the US, I experienced a moment of insight on just how badly managed our country has been, especially under Republican leadership. Apologies in advance, but I need to vent, which is why blogs exist.

Here are some facts. We basically have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, one of the main things driving corporations and jobs overseas. Other countries use value added taxes (VAT) on goods to pay for things like government services and health care. These costs, then, are borne by consumers. We use corporate payroll taxes, which are almost half of all tax dollars, to pay for government, and then we make employers bear most the cost of worker health care besides. Or not, as companies continue to roll back or drop coverage, or pass costs on to workers.

We have the highest health costs and lowest health care coverage among first world nations, and ranked last in heath care in a recent international study. In healthy life expectancy (HALE), we rank behind 27 other countries, tying with Slovenia. Given that practically everyone over the age of 8 in Slovenia smokes, yet their infant mortality is less than half of ours (very significant to this metric), Americans are by any measure very unhealthy. But get the government involved in our health care? Why, it would ruin it!

Back to taxes. The very "unamerican" VAT of virtually all other countries saddles us with a huge trade disadvantage, because foreign VATs are not levied on trade goods. US manufacturers pay steep taxes on goods they produce, taxes which foreign manufacturers do not pay at all, and must price even their trade goods to cover those taxes. The US government also offers just a bare fraction of the tax incentives other nations offer to manufacturers. These are the major reasons American consumer manufacturing has effectively disappeared.

I challenge you to go to Wal-mart and find anything there made in America, except cans and boxes of processed food, which is of course to Americans what smoking is to Slovenians, a slow death by self-administered poison. Most stimulus money spent on consumer goods will simply leave the US. We only retain a major presence in capital manufacturing (e.g., airplanes and hydroelectric generators) because of our historically superior education and vocational training, which since the '70s has been in steady decline. We now face a serious shortage of skilled workers. Look for these jobs to go next.

Republican economic policies have of course fostered the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few, broadening the income gap. The GOP's paradigm is based on supply-side, trickle-down economics. Basically, keep taxes very low on the wealthy, and their ever-expanding wealth will trickle down and raise up everyone else. Hence, e.g., the GOP has rolled back sharply taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, leading the richest man in the world, Warren Buffett, to marvel that he only pays 17% of his income in taxes while his secretary pays 32%. Yet Republicans are screaming about the unfairness of Obama wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for top earners, employing their best "you'll be next" fearmongering as a smokescreen.

In the place of manufacturing jobs for low- and middle-income workers, our economic policies have erected a financial services empire for the wealthy. Kind of like England and Iceland. And now that that industry is devastated, with about ten years of market gains wiped out, $50+ trillion gone and no end in sight, all three of these countries are in deep trouble. And their rich are less rich, though to be sure, still very rich. (The retirees who have lost trillions, however, are mostly not rich.)

On the other hand, middle-class wages have been effectively stagnant since the '80s. The middle class has kept apace with inflation first by become two-earner households, then by becoming deeply leveraged, thanks to cheap credit and inflated home values. Now that joblessness is headed to double-digits (already there in five states), home values have collapsed, and credit is scarce and costly, the middle class is in deep $*&!. Where the poor have always been.

These policies and economic ideology have been insufficiently opposed by most moderates and progressives, due to these ideas' notional popularity and to the power of K Street, advocates of the wealthy. Republicans continue to be masters at reductionism. They have no good ideas right now, but are great at populist spin. How could low taxes not be good? Indeed, low taxes on the middle class and corporations would be good. On the other hand, high taxes on fuel, consumption, and the wealthy would also be very good. Likewise one could deconstruct similar spin on small government, deregulation, etc.

So today I'm in a testy, "we've been sold a pack of lies" kind of mood. Bless Obama, curse Reagan and all his offspring. Obama is not getting everything right, but at least he understands all this. His plans for health care, education, tax reform, etc., may be too ambitious in this dire moment, but I understand the urgency he feels. I feel it too. And if his policies remake America into an European-style socialist republic, color me a socialist.

Rise of the Dittoheads

This has been dismal week, and that fact was probably behind a post I wrote and then deleted (too grim) about the whole AIG boondoggle, which will probably cost every family in America about $3000 each. Then I hear today that the $13 billion we just gave a very badly mismanaged GM has already disappeared, and they need another $16 billion to keep the lights on next week. As Gail Collins just observed of the PennyMac swindle, "Once again, we are reminded that life is not fair. Lately these unfairness bulletins have been coming so fast and furious that there isn’t time to get upset about all of them. Prioritization is essential." I'm about to stroke out with rage at the trillions we taxpayers are just handing, after the fact, to greedy and feckless bankers and execs. I don't even know where to direct my spleen first. So I'm just going to breathe deep, leave the unfairness bulletins to other people, and instead turn to some political comedy.

Rush Limbaugh. Now, there is someone truly funny. Not his jabs and jibes, but the man himself. Just thinking about him makes me smile. If you do not know why, well, it would take too long to explain (start here for bio and here for his warped reality). But I see him as a one-man vaudeville act. I smiled even wider today at Timothy Egan's column. I realize that Republicans are headless and desperate, and the turn to Newt Gingrich I understand, but the rush to Rush leaves me really bemused. I liked (and agreed with) Letterman's comment that at his much ballyhooed CPAC address he looked like an Eastern European gangster. And he raved like a madman. If I could take him seriously, he would frighten me. And I am frighted that there are millions of people who do take him seriously, including (at least in appearance) some Republican leaders.

In a saavy move, the Dems are in fact championing El Rushbo as the face and voice of the Republican party. The GOP is drowning and the Dems are throwing them an anvil. This too makes me smile, but it somewhat disappoints me as well. I think government is better when both parties are strong, and as I've said before, I am at heart a disaffected Republican who wishes the party would come back to me. Not looking like that will happen anytime soon.

A Radio Patriarch Passes

I loved Paul Harvey as a kid. His conservative politics went over my head, of course, but in some small way I'm sure he contributed to my formation. The conservative media celebrities of the present, the Hannitys and O'Reillys and Limbaughs, have nothing like his power (except Glen Beck, who has a small touch of his magic). They're all shock-jocks. They love to make critics. Harvey made everyone fans. He had unparalleled gifts for making everything sound like common sense, and the inspired delivery of a born entertainer.

I was sad to read of his passing on Saturday. There may be a few Garrison Keillors out there (though I only know of the one) who will keep alive his folksy flame, with or without his conservatism. But with all the pandering and snark in today's conservative media, I'm afraid Harvey belonged to a bygone era. We'll never see a broadcaster quite like him again.

The Aphorist

Someone (an otherwise insane poster, in fact) sent this out to a philosophy listserv I subscribe to under the title "Political Philosophy - Pithy Version." Most of it may be more humorous than true, but there are a few choice bons mots. Apologies for length.

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.  -- John Adams

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.  -- Mark Twain

There is no distinctly native American criminal class . . . save Congress.  -- Mark Twain

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.  -- Mark Twain (1866)

Talk is cheap . . . except when Congress does it.  -- Anonymous

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. -- Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.  -- Thomas Jefferson

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.  -- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.  -- Winston Churchill

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.  -- George Bernard Shaw

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.  -- Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.  -- Voltaire (1764)

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.  -- James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.  -- Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.  -- Ronald Reagan (1986)

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.  -- Will Rogers

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!  -- P.J. O'Rourke

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!  -- Pericles (430 B.C.)

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.  -- Ronald Reagan

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.  -- Winston Churchill

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.  -- Mark Twain

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.  -- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. -- Mark Twain

Why I Am Not a Liberal

I used to think I was a conservative, then I thought I was a liberal, then a progressive, then a pragmatist. Now I regard myself as post-ideological. That's another way of saying, everyone gets it right and wrong in turns, whatever their ideology. No -ism will infallibly guide. If I had to chose a political label, it would simply be critic. Or maybe aphorist (see tomorrow's post). Or crooked timberist (see below).

Per liberalism, David Brooks really nailed it in his column today. I discovered Brooks as an author (Bobos in Paradise, brilliant) before I discovered him as a columnist. But in him I find a post-ideological soulmate. It's "clear that we’re on the cusp of the biggest political experiment of our lifetimes," and his article frames the trepidation most of feel about that, whether Obama fans (as he and I are) or not. But I loved a particular biographical aside he offers up:

The political history of the 20th century is the history of social-engineering projects executed by well-intentioned people that began well and ended badly. There were big errors like communism, but also lesser ones, like a Vietnam War designed by the best and the brightest, urban renewal efforts that decimated neighborhoods, welfare policies that had the unintended effect of weakening families and development programs that left a string of white elephant projects across the world.

These experiences drove me toward the crooked timber school of public philosophy: Michael Oakeshott, Isaiah Berlin, Edward Banfield, Reinhold Niebuhr, Friedrich Hayek, Clinton Rossiter and George Orwell. These writers — some left, some right — had a sense of epistemological modesty. They knew how little we can know. They understood that we are strangers to ourselves and society is an immeasurably complex organism. They tended to be skeptical of technocratic, rationalist planning and suspicious of schemes to reorganize society from the top down.

Before long, I was no longer a liberal. Liberals are more optimistic about the capacity of individual reason and the government’s ability to execute transformational change. They have more faith in the power of social science, macroeconomic models and 10-point programs.

I have little faith in any of that. Odds are much of this will help some, but none of this will rescue the economy. It looks like Wall St. is agreeing with me, but hey, we all know what geniuses those guys are.

A Good Offense

No, this is not a post about the Steelers. In a strange departure, this post is actually a shout-out to a truly offensive artist for a cause, Oleg Volk.

Now, I am a registered Dem and a true liberal among Mormons. That last fact, of course, does not necessarily make me very liberal at all. And I confess, I am ultra-conservative in one cardinal respect. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, or RKBA in proper rightwing nut job lingo (the right to keep and bear arms). Many Mormon friends, who fear for my liberal soul, take great solace in the fact that I believe everyone has the right to pack heat.

To use a phrase like "everyone has the right to pack heat" is of course flippant. It would be seen as offensive and inflammatory to RKBA opponents. Most RKBA advocates take both the right and responsibility of gun ownership very seriously, and certainly I do. But at the same time, advocates love to use zingers like that, not privately (firearms are no joking matter), but rather publicly. At least in the right company. Mostly because they love to offend RKBA opponents. It's tail twisting.

But of course offense and humor have long been used to advance rights and causes. Since it is usually liberals who are activists, pretty much by definition, one does not encounter it so much in connection with conservatives. But done well, I think it is a rich role reversal.

So, Oleg Volk. Next to whack-em-n-stack-em Ted Nugent (even I detest him), he would surely be at the top of any anti-RKBA hate list. Volk is the founder/owner of The High Road, a massively popular gun and RKBA forum, and an emigrant from the USSR who knows something personally about oppression and defenselessness. He also produces pro-RKBA advocacy ads that are widely seen on the Interweb, especially on forums. At first I thought that most were in just shockingly bad taste, and more likely to retard than advance public opinion. But I think I've come to better appreciate the hyperbolic genre he is working in. Of course he wants to provoke, and even offend, and that he does. He even makes me uncomfortable. But I guess the best defense is . . .

Many examples of Volk's art and ads can be found on A Human Right. Here are a few mild ones:

Inauguration Day

I thought Pres. Obama gave a great inauguration speech, but one commentator said she liked even more his speech following the Lincoln Memorial concert Sunday afternoon. So I read it, and I liked it, and you too can read it here. Congratulations, Mr. President.

"We Blew It": A Republican Obituary

Conservative pundit P.J. O'Rourke, never short of words, has nevertheless let it all out in this fantastic post-mortem of the Republican Party's spectacular self-immolation. I now consider myself an independent caucusing with the Dems (makes me sound like Joe Lieberman, blech), and I am very enthusiastic about Obama, but I would love to return to the GOP. Or better, I would like it to return to me. I agree (most people would) with O'Rourke that the GOP is utterly lost, and this is a magnificent mea culpa. Read it all, but here is a snippet:

Where was the meum and the tuum in our shakedown of Washington lobbyists? It took a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives 40 years--from 1954 to 1994--to get that corrupt and arrogant. And we managed it in just 12. (Who says Republicans don't have much on the ball?) Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren't after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care. George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn't meet two out of three of those qualifications.