Ross Douthat argues in a New York Times column that President Obama should follow the Texas model, and abandon "liberal" economic policies. According to Douthat, conservative Texas is thriving, while liberal California is failing. Ergo liberalism is bad, while conservatism is good. Wow, if life really operated so simplistically, we could take a perpetual vacation from thinking.
Ezra Klein has obliterated Douthat's utterly sloppy analysis in a Washington Post column. Earlier this year, I went after a similar assault on California and liberalism. See: Has the Left Destroyed California? Um, No! Last month, Douthat published another sci-fi column in the New York Times, which provoked a substantial response from Dissenting Justice. See: Racial Exhaustion in the New York Times. Thanks, Klein for disposing of Douthat's recent article and for allowing me to take a break.
Update:
Nate Silver of 538.Com also makes good points.
Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman makes the absolutely obvious -- but ignored -- point that Texas is not the only red state and that other red states are experiencing painful economic decline.
And over at The Atlantic, Derek Thompson demonstrates the cost of the Texas-style economy. The state ranks last or near the bottom with respect to many important measures of social health. While Douthat would likely argue that these are costly liberal policies, the majority of Americans support public education and medical care for indigent children. On these issues, Texas is indeed another country.
Update II
Zandar Versus the Stupid (great blog title) makes this interesting (and brutally sarcastic - just the way I like it) contribution to the discussion: Blind Squirrel Still Unable To Locate Nuts.
Monday, August 3, 2009
More Lunacy: McCain Thought Palin Was Fit for VP, But That Sotomayor Unfit for SCOTUS
Interesting: Senator John McCain has decided to vote against Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Previously, I defended McCain and Palin (when appropriate), but this decision is indefensible. According to McCain's decision making, Palin was qualified for the job of Vice President, but Sotomayor is unfit for the Supreme Court. Will the madness ever end?
Socialized Medicine: Only 13.3% of Americans Purchase Their Own Health Insurance
Despite the cries of "socialized medicine" that have permeated debates over health care reform, Gallup has released polling data that provides a useful context for analyzing this rhetoric. The survey shows that 56.5% of Americans receive health care through employer-sponsored plans, 30% rely on government-sponsored plans, and only 13.3% receive health care through "some other means," including self-purchasing. Generously assuming that all of the persons in the "some other means" category purchase their own insurance coverage still means that only 13.3% of Americans purchases their own health insurance.
A closer look at the largest share of health insurance -- the employer-sponsored plan -- reveals that the government already greatly subsidizes or directly covers the utilization of health care in the United States. Employer-sponsored plans masquerade as "private" plans, but they are closely linked with public policy -- particularly federal and state tax policy. Favorable tax treatment for employers and employees allows this system to work.
The federal government does not tax health care benefits"earned" as a part of employment, even though these benefits would ordinarily meet the definition of "income" contained in the tax code. Furthermore, employers can deduct health care expenses just as they deduct the payment of wages or other business expenses. Accordingly, the government subsidizes employee health plans by immunizing the payments to employees from taxation and by allowing employers to deduct these payments as business expenses.
A 2007 study by the Office of Management and Budget found that the beneficial treatment of employer health insurance benefits in the tax code represented the single largest category of "tax expenditure" by the government (see analysis of this issue here and here). "Tax expenditures" are "revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability." When the benefits from state tax treatment are added to the federal policies, the magnitude of public expenditures for "private" insurance becomes even larger.
According to a study by health care researchers Thomas Selden and Bradley Gray, federal and state governments funded over 1/3 of all employer-sponsored family health plan expenditures in 2006. Furthermore, as the Gallup survey indicates, 30% of Americans are already directly covered by a government plan. Accordingly, the notion that the health care industry in the United States is purely private -- even excluding Medicare and Medicaid -- is absolutely false. This fact does, however, not tell us how health care reform should look. Nevertheless, as I have argued previously, the extent of public sponsorship of health care makes the socialist versus private rhetoric completely unhelpful and bankrupt.
A closer look at the largest share of health insurance -- the employer-sponsored plan -- reveals that the government already greatly subsidizes or directly covers the utilization of health care in the United States. Employer-sponsored plans masquerade as "private" plans, but they are closely linked with public policy -- particularly federal and state tax policy. Favorable tax treatment for employers and employees allows this system to work.
The federal government does not tax health care benefits"earned" as a part of employment, even though these benefits would ordinarily meet the definition of "income" contained in the tax code. Furthermore, employers can deduct health care expenses just as they deduct the payment of wages or other business expenses. Accordingly, the government subsidizes employee health plans by immunizing the payments to employees from taxation and by allowing employers to deduct these payments as business expenses.
A 2007 study by the Office of Management and Budget found that the beneficial treatment of employer health insurance benefits in the tax code represented the single largest category of "tax expenditure" by the government (see analysis of this issue here and here). "Tax expenditures" are "revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability." When the benefits from state tax treatment are added to the federal policies, the magnitude of public expenditures for "private" insurance becomes even larger.
According to a study by health care researchers Thomas Selden and Bradley Gray, federal and state governments funded over 1/3 of all employer-sponsored family health plan expenditures in 2006. Furthermore, as the Gallup survey indicates, 30% of Americans are already directly covered by a government plan. Accordingly, the notion that the health care industry in the United States is purely private -- even excluding Medicare and Medicaid -- is absolutely false. This fact does, however, not tell us how health care reform should look. Nevertheless, as I have argued previously, the extent of public sponsorship of health care makes the socialist versus private rhetoric completely unhelpful and bankrupt.
Madness from the Left and Right: Obama's Birth and Palin's Divorce
Apparently, liberal and conservative blogs are seeking traffic by any means necessary. Conservative blogs have produced (yet) another "birth certificate" for President Obama, that purports to demonstrate that he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States and that he is therefore unqualified for the presidency. Also over the weekend, a liberal blogger in Alaska circulated rumors suggesting that Sarah Palin's marriage was about to end. Palin swiftly denounced the rumors and threatened legal action against the blogger.
Earth to liberals and conservatives: Please stop the madness. Step away from Palin and please let go of the citizenship drama. Both sides are beginning to look creepy.
Earth to liberals and conservatives: Please stop the madness. Step away from Palin and please let go of the citizenship drama. Both sides are beginning to look creepy.
Obama and Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Political Hot Air?
The military is preparing to discharge another decorated service member because he is gay. Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach faces discharge after a civilian disclosed his sexual identity to military personnel. Although Fehrenbach did not "tell" the military about his sexuality, he could still lose his job and benefits that attach to it, including a pension and health care.
Is Obama Serving "Hot Air" on This Issue?
President Obama says that he opposes the military's anti-gay policy, and during his campaign he promised to seek the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Obama, however, has not moved on this or many other promises he made regarding GLBT rights.
Although politics involves compromises and strategies, President Obama has consistently compromised or remained silent on GLBT issues. During his presidential campaign Obama opposed the Defense of Marriage Act (along with DADT), which he described as unfair. Earlier this year, however, the Department of Justice filed a controversial brief that defends the legitimacy of the statute. The brief makes the specious claim that Congress enacted DOMA to save money, rather than discriminate against same-sex married couples.
After GLBT activists condemned the brief, Obama scheduled a White House meeting with many of them. The event coincided with the anniversary of New York City's Stonewall Riots, a significant historical milestone in the development of GLBT social movements. During the White House event, Obama defended his position on GLBT rights, and he stated that he was "already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress."
Even though Obama has stated that he is "working with" members of Congress to repeal DADT, the extent of his efforts remains unclear. Recently, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida suggested that Obama is saying much more than he is doing regarding the repeal of DADT.
In a formal statement posted on his website, Hastings said that as a result of pressure from members of Congress and from the White House, he withdrew a proposed amendment to a defense funding bill that would have banned the use of money to "investigate or discharge" military personnel who reveal their sexual orientation.
Hastings also says that in late June, he and 76 other members of Congress sent Obama a letter requesting that he work with them to repeal DADT; according to Hastings, Obama never responded to the letter.
Fehrenbach, who faces discharge from the Air Force, attended the June meeting that Obama hosted for advocates of GLBT rights. Fehrenbach met Obama and told him that he faced dismissal. Obama promised that "we are going to get this done." After the meeting, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the Obama administration was trying to make DADT more "humane," including possibly declining to discharge individuals who, like Fehrenbach, are "outed by a third party." Today, however, Fehrenbach remains subject to dismissal.
Final Thoughts: The Power of Politics
I completely accept the proposition that any changes in this area must result from strategies that might include compromise and patience. I also believe that Hastings, who represents a very liberal district in which many GLBT individuals reside, was engaging in generous amount of political grandstanding for his constituents when he proposed the measure to defund the enforcement of DADT.
Nevertheless, I do not share the opinion of writer Jackson Williams, who, in an article published by the tirelessly pro-Obama Huffington Post, contends that Hastings was "foolish" for raising the issue of DADT while Obama is struggling to pass health care. The number of excuses that Obama and his supporters have offered to justify his tepid approach to GLBT rights is increasing. The economy, the wars, inaction by Congress, and now health care all render GLBT rights trivial and complicated. Whatever happened to multi-tasking?
The wars will not end in the foreseeable future, and the economy will remain in a precarious state for some time -- according to Obama himself. Furthermore, the passage of health care reform will not retire the issue because any changes will require implementation.
Furthermore, the excuses that Obama and his supporters offer to justify inaction on GLBT rights conflict with many of the best reasons for ending anti-gay discrimination, including arguments that Obama accepted in the past. For example, Obama and his supporters contend that the wars and national security require a delay in the repeal of DADT. Obama, however, previously argued that repealing DADT is important for national security because the policy deprives the armed forces of talented individuals. Obama and his supporters also argue that repealing DADT cannot occur until the government stabilizes the economy. Enforcing the policy, however, deprives people of jobs, and during a time of high unemployment, this is extremely problematic. Persons who condemn Hastings for pressing the matter during health care debates conveniently neglect to mention that the enforcement of DADT causes many service members to lose health benefits.
More importantly, as I have previously argued on Dissenting Justice (and elsewhere), social movements must push politicians to take positions. This "pushing" includes strategies like the one Hastings recently employed. Hastings has now taken a hard stance on the issue, and he has formally "called out" Obama for taking a conservative line. As a result of this exchange, the stakes will be higher for Obama in the future. If he continues to dance around GLBT issues, then the level of disappointment among his liberal base will continue to rise, which will undermine his reputation as a trustworthy advocate. Eventually, Obama must deliver something tangible to his liberal base -- just as Hastings has done. Placing pressure upon moderate politicians like Obama, who claim to support GLBT issues, likely represents the only viable path to real change.
Is Obama Serving "Hot Air" on This Issue?
President Obama says that he opposes the military's anti-gay policy, and during his campaign he promised to seek the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Obama, however, has not moved on this or many other promises he made regarding GLBT rights.
Although politics involves compromises and strategies, President Obama has consistently compromised or remained silent on GLBT issues. During his presidential campaign Obama opposed the Defense of Marriage Act (along with DADT), which he described as unfair. Earlier this year, however, the Department of Justice filed a controversial brief that defends the legitimacy of the statute. The brief makes the specious claim that Congress enacted DOMA to save money, rather than discriminate against same-sex married couples.
After GLBT activists condemned the brief, Obama scheduled a White House meeting with many of them. The event coincided with the anniversary of New York City's Stonewall Riots, a significant historical milestone in the development of GLBT social movements. During the White House event, Obama defended his position on GLBT rights, and he stated that he was "already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress."
Even though Obama has stated that he is "working with" members of Congress to repeal DADT, the extent of his efforts remains unclear. Recently, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida suggested that Obama is saying much more than he is doing regarding the repeal of DADT.
In a formal statement posted on his website, Hastings said that as a result of pressure from members of Congress and from the White House, he withdrew a proposed amendment to a defense funding bill that would have banned the use of money to "investigate or discharge" military personnel who reveal their sexual orientation.
Hastings also says that in late June, he and 76 other members of Congress sent Obama a letter requesting that he work with them to repeal DADT; according to Hastings, Obama never responded to the letter.
Fehrenbach, who faces discharge from the Air Force, attended the June meeting that Obama hosted for advocates of GLBT rights. Fehrenbach met Obama and told him that he faced dismissal. Obama promised that "we are going to get this done." After the meeting, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the Obama administration was trying to make DADT more "humane," including possibly declining to discharge individuals who, like Fehrenbach, are "outed by a third party." Today, however, Fehrenbach remains subject to dismissal.
Final Thoughts: The Power of Politics
I completely accept the proposition that any changes in this area must result from strategies that might include compromise and patience. I also believe that Hastings, who represents a very liberal district in which many GLBT individuals reside, was engaging in generous amount of political grandstanding for his constituents when he proposed the measure to defund the enforcement of DADT.
Nevertheless, I do not share the opinion of writer Jackson Williams, who, in an article published by the tirelessly pro-Obama Huffington Post, contends that Hastings was "foolish" for raising the issue of DADT while Obama is struggling to pass health care. The number of excuses that Obama and his supporters have offered to justify his tepid approach to GLBT rights is increasing. The economy, the wars, inaction by Congress, and now health care all render GLBT rights trivial and complicated. Whatever happened to multi-tasking?
The wars will not end in the foreseeable future, and the economy will remain in a precarious state for some time -- according to Obama himself. Furthermore, the passage of health care reform will not retire the issue because any changes will require implementation.
Furthermore, the excuses that Obama and his supporters offer to justify inaction on GLBT rights conflict with many of the best reasons for ending anti-gay discrimination, including arguments that Obama accepted in the past. For example, Obama and his supporters contend that the wars and national security require a delay in the repeal of DADT. Obama, however, previously argued that repealing DADT is important for national security because the policy deprives the armed forces of talented individuals. Obama and his supporters also argue that repealing DADT cannot occur until the government stabilizes the economy. Enforcing the policy, however, deprives people of jobs, and during a time of high unemployment, this is extremely problematic. Persons who condemn Hastings for pressing the matter during health care debates conveniently neglect to mention that the enforcement of DADT causes many service members to lose health benefits.
More importantly, as I have previously argued on Dissenting Justice (and elsewhere), social movements must push politicians to take positions. This "pushing" includes strategies like the one Hastings recently employed. Hastings has now taken a hard stance on the issue, and he has formally "called out" Obama for taking a conservative line. As a result of this exchange, the stakes will be higher for Obama in the future. If he continues to dance around GLBT issues, then the level of disappointment among his liberal base will continue to rise, which will undermine his reputation as a trustworthy advocate. Eventually, Obama must deliver something tangible to his liberal base -- just as Hastings has done. Placing pressure upon moderate politicians like Obama, who claim to support GLBT issues, likely represents the only viable path to real change.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Blog Roll
Alas, a blog
Balloon Juice
Balloon Juice
Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage
Buck Naked Politics
Corrente
DailyPUMA
DCBlogs
Donna Darko
Eloquence and Reason
false dichotomy by charles davis
Heidi Li's Potpourri
Hunter of Justice
Infidel753
Instapundit
Invictus
Legal History Blog
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
Media Matters for America
Mirabile Dictu
National Black Justice Coalition
Open Left - Front Page
Outside the Beltway
Pam's House Blend - Front Page
Past Progress
peacocks and lilies
Political Blogs On Blog Catalog
Politics and Critical Thinking
Pollster.com - Political Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis
Poverty Law
Reclusive Leftist
Rock The Truth
Stray Dogs That Amble In: Part IV
TalkLeft
Tenured Radical
The Confluence
The Michigan Partisan
The Rag Blog
The Volokh Conspiracy
Zandar Versus The Stupid
Excuse Me Dana Milbank, Your Sexism Is Showing (Again)
In an apparent effort at humor, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank has suggested that if Hillary Clinton had attended the recent Gates/Crowley "summit" at the White House, she would have ordered "Mad Bitch" beer. Milbank and Chris Cillizza, another Washington Post writer, lampooned the summit in their video "Mouthpiece Theatre," which jokingly described the meeting as the "Ménage à Stella Artois."
The Washington Post placed the video on its website but took it down following criticism from liberal bloggers (e.g., TPM) and from media watchdogs (e.g., Megan Garber's essay in the Columbia Journalism Review). Several blogs linked to a Youtube source for the video, but the user who submitted the file subsequently removed it. Dissenting Justice, however, has located the video from another source (see below).
Milbank, Sexism, Hillary Clinton and the Media
Normally, outlandish -- even sexist and racist -- "humor" does not exercise me. I have turned off my television, radio and exited many websites to escape humor that taps into gutter instincts. I even argued that the heated reaction to Don Imus and his racist and sexist commentary was overblown. But Milbank and Cillizza occupy a different position than Imus. They are not shock jocks. Instead, they are writers for one of the world's most esteemed newspapers, and people rely upon them and the Washington Post for political analysis. Accordingly, their sexist humor means a lot more than the rants of Don Imus.
Moreover, this recent flap seems to confirm observations of many commentators (myself included) who argued that the media, particularly male journalists, portrayed Clinton in sexist terms during her unsuccessful presidential campaign. In a May 2008 column, Milbank himself portrayed Clinton as a demented and masochistic individual because she remained a candidate in the extremely tight race -- even though the odds of her winning were evaporating. Male candidates, by contrast, have remained in presidential primaries without winning any states whatsoever, but their continued candidacy never resulted in such hysteria and criticism as Clinton's decision to keep going.
Recently, Milbank employed the "dumb Latina" stereotype that became pervasive in the analysis of many male commentators regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Milbank says that by choosing Sotomayor, President Obama "opted for biography over brain," and he concludes that she could not compete intellectually with other candidates. Milbank, however, offers no evidence for his conclusion.
Despite his harsh criticism of Clinton and almost unwavering support for Obama during the Democratic primaries, Milbank wrote Clinton "A Thank-You for 18 Million Cracks in the Glass Ceiling," a reference to a famed statement from her concession speech. Ironically, Milbank (and other liberal male media figures, like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews) benefits from this glass ceiling, and his sexist commentary certainly does not help to dismantle it.
Media Matters has the video footage, which I have embedded.
[Note: The video condemns a slew of other individuals, including many Republicans.]
The Washington Post placed the video on its website but took it down following criticism from liberal bloggers (e.g., TPM) and from media watchdogs (e.g., Megan Garber's essay in the Columbia Journalism Review). Several blogs linked to a Youtube source for the video, but the user who submitted the file subsequently removed it. Dissenting Justice, however, has located the video from another source (see below).
Milbank, Sexism, Hillary Clinton and the Media
Normally, outlandish -- even sexist and racist -- "humor" does not exercise me. I have turned off my television, radio and exited many websites to escape humor that taps into gutter instincts. I even argued that the heated reaction to Don Imus and his racist and sexist commentary was overblown. But Milbank and Cillizza occupy a different position than Imus. They are not shock jocks. Instead, they are writers for one of the world's most esteemed newspapers, and people rely upon them and the Washington Post for political analysis. Accordingly, their sexist humor means a lot more than the rants of Don Imus.
Moreover, this recent flap seems to confirm observations of many commentators (myself included) who argued that the media, particularly male journalists, portrayed Clinton in sexist terms during her unsuccessful presidential campaign. In a May 2008 column, Milbank himself portrayed Clinton as a demented and masochistic individual because she remained a candidate in the extremely tight race -- even though the odds of her winning were evaporating. Male candidates, by contrast, have remained in presidential primaries without winning any states whatsoever, but their continued candidacy never resulted in such hysteria and criticism as Clinton's decision to keep going.
Recently, Milbank employed the "dumb Latina" stereotype that became pervasive in the analysis of many male commentators regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Milbank says that by choosing Sotomayor, President Obama "opted for biography over brain," and he concludes that she could not compete intellectually with other candidates. Milbank, however, offers no evidence for his conclusion.
Despite his harsh criticism of Clinton and almost unwavering support for Obama during the Democratic primaries, Milbank wrote Clinton "A Thank-You for 18 Million Cracks in the Glass Ceiling," a reference to a famed statement from her concession speech. Ironically, Milbank (and other liberal male media figures, like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews) benefits from this glass ceiling, and his sexist commentary certainly does not help to dismantle it.
Media Matters has the video footage, which I have embedded.
[Note: The video condemns a slew of other individuals, including many Republicans.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)