Category: Politics

Making pretend with capitalism

I mostly stayed away from The Internets over the Thanksgiving holiday, so I have little to say on whatever hot topics are in the news now until I have time to catch up. However, I did stumble on an thought-denying article by Dr. James Dobson title “Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage”. I’m not going to run through the eleven arguments because I think one will suffice to discredit Dr. Dobson’s effort, unless one chooses not to think. Consider argument number six:

6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.

This could be the straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry in Western nations, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage. Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee. It is estimated by some analysts that an initial threefold increase in premiums can be anticipated; even with that, it may not be profitable for companies to stay in business.

And how about the cost to American businesses? Will they be able to provide health benefits? If not, can physicians, nurses, and technicians be expected to work for nothing or to provide their services in exchange for a vague promise of payments from indigent patients? Try selling that to a neurosurgeon or an orthopedist who has to pay increased premiums for malpractice insurance. The entire health care system could implode.

Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? I don’t know.

I can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Dobson is either lying or ignorant. Although the Dr. associated with a PhD is no guarantee of intelligence, I’m betting on lying. Perhaps millions of new dependents would become eligible for coverage, but I suspect the insurance industry is capable of handling the extra load. From paying attention in my Finance classes during my undergraduate education, I remember something about risk. Insurance companies provide customers with risk management. If a customer wants health insurance, an insurance company will accept some of that risk. But here’s the key: they expect compensation from the insured for managing that risk, appropriate for the level of risk.

Dr. Dobson’s concern regarding HIV-positive patients customers is particularly misguided. Ignore Dr. Dobson’s ridiculous implication that HIV infection correlates to same-sex marriage specifically, and homosexuality in general. Also, assume for a moment that estimates by some analysts predicting a threefold increase in premiums are accurate. Isn’t it obvious that the insurance companies are demanding more compensation to manage more risk? And if the threefold increase in premiums isn’t sufficient and insurance companies can’t stay in business, the fault will rest with the insurance companies unable to manage risk, not HIV-positive patients customers seeking coverage. We should expect them to go out of business, understanding that competent businesses will soon replace them. It’s called capitalism.

Just as amusing is Dr. Dobson’s assertion about the cost to American businesses. Forget everything after his initial “concern” for American businesses. Maybe this is perfect time to get American businesses out of the health care business and let it be a transaction between individuals and health care insurers/providers. But that’s just a suggestion. Given Dr. Dobson’s apparent misrepresentation of business, I don’t expect much.

Dr. Dobson’s remaining arguments are equally absurd. Read them if you’ve finished reading everything else on The Internets.

Update: Fixed a few grammatical mistakes and added text about the HIV+/homosexuality correlation. Kip explained this perfectly in the comments.

All politics is activist

In his most recent article for Townhall.com, Ben Shapiro offers a rebuttal to the “sky is falling” analysis pro-choice supporters foresee. Consider:

If Roe were overturned, the people in each state would decide abortion policy for themselves. Voters in California would decide abortion policy in California; voters in Alabama would decide abortion policy in Alabama. Some states would likely restrict abortion heavily; others would allow free access to abortion. Instead of a broad national answer dictated by the Supreme Court, we would have a plethora of answers dictated by the people.

I actually agree with Mr. Shapiro on this point. Federalism is an amazing experiment, producing a broad spectrum of data points on the issues facing our nation. However, perhaps a refresher of Mr. Shapiro’s words during last year’s presidential campaign could provide some insight.

With the judicial branch acting to usurp legislative power on this issue, a federal amendment is no longer optional but is a necessity in order to protect marriage.

I suspect Mr. Shapiro would defend the difference in his statement with a deeper analysis of judicial activism, but I’m not buying it. This is little more than federalism when it’s convenient and agreeable. Whose words to better refute Mr. Shapiro than Jonah Goldberg, who wrote this about the FMA when it first appeared.

You can’t favor federalism for only good ideas or ideas you like. Experimentation means allowing local communities to make mistakes.

Should I read anything into the obvious conundrum of Mr. Shapiro’s argument? He supports federalism for abortion, with the expectation that it would remain legal in most, if not all, states? But he thinks federalism isn’t sufficient for same-sex marriage? Either I’m reading it wrong and he’s only left his federalist pro-life argument at an early stage that would eventually lead to a constitutional amendment defining a fetus as a human being from conception, or he’s more worried about the negative impact of same-sex marriage than abortion. How is that logical? One caveat: convince me without resorting to the alleged judicial activist disparity, since the legislators in this are just as activist.

Some thinking required

Yesterday, I wrote about the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. I discussed the economic stupidity of the scheme, making it clear how I thought it should work. In the comments to that post, I received the following from BrStarr:

So you don’t care if Boston, New York or LA gets blown up?

Who do you think pays enough taxes so that you farm belt people can have your huge subsidies?

Winn-Dixie?

I responded, though sadly only in comments, since BrStarr left no contact information.

Read through the archives and you’ll find that it’s no secret that I live in the Washington, DC metro area, which I do not believe is in the farm belt. I acknowledge that I face greater risk living here. As such, my cost to insure my life, health, and property will likely go up, if the private insurance market is paying attention. I accept that, as well as believing that the farm belt should not have to pay it since they don’t live here and didn’t force me to live here. And if I showed you my tax bill, you’d realize that I’ve “earned” the right to get a “favor” from Congress. I’d rather have lower taxes and a private insurance market, but that’s the crazy libertarian in me.

As to the other points, no, I don’t want to see Boston, New York, or LA blown up. I’ve been to all three cities and like them well enough that I’d like to be able to revisit them.

And I don’t like farm subsidies. I’d rather pay the price at the supermarket than at the Treasury. Either way, I’m paying. Crazy me, I think the market can do it better. Also, as a vegan, I benefit little from subsidies for beef, chicken, milk, etc. Again, my personal choices. And the private market could handle them.

Today’s lesson: don’t call me a hypocrite until you have facts. Have a day.

I should’ve added that the leap in assumptions to go from me saying that terrorism risk insurance should be private to believing I’d belittled the threat of destruction to three of our largest cities is gargantuan, but no matter. Criticism with no basis is easy to dismiss when I know I’m right. But I’d be a fool to think I’m always right. I know that I’m sometimes misguided due to imprecision or accusing too broadly. Sometimes, I’m sure I’m even wrong. That’s okay. I’m writing as much to figure out what I believe as I am to inform and convince.

If I just wanted to enjoy my writing without criticism, I wouldn’t have comments. They’re open on every post, and I welcome responses. If I’ve said something stupid, inaccurate or incomplete, I’m willing to listen to alternatives. I’ll respond if appropriate. As much as I want to influence opinion, I want to learn more. Read through the archives and I think you’ll notice the same progression in my thinking and expressing that I’ve noticed.

I know my opinions challenge some who read this site, and you express it from time to time. I don’t expect anyone to comment just to comment. But if you think you have a better way of looking at something, say so. The ideas and principles are more important to me than being right all the time.

Who didn’t see this coming?

In what will likely be sold as fiscal sanity, but is in reality only a calculated political conclusion that eliminating tax cuts raising taxes is more acceptable than eliminating wasteful spending, the Senate Finance Committee decided not to extend dividend and capital gains tax cuts.

Facing a stalemate over one of President Bush’s top economic policy goals, the Senate Finance Committee yesterday gave up efforts to extend deep cuts to the tax rate on dividends and capital gains and approved a $60 billion tax measure largely devoted to hurricane relief and tax cuts with bipartisan appeal.

The measure, which could pass the Senate today, marks the latest in a string of legislative setbacks for Bush, who has repeatedly called on Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent and has taken particular pride in the 2003 dividends and capital gains tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2008.
…

“The fact is, these are a confluence of challenges that require a confluence of choices,” said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), who forced Republican leaders to back down on the dividends and capital gains extensions when she argued such cuts would primarily benefit the wealthy as Congress was moving to cut programs for the poor.

A confluence of challenges indeed. Perhaps she and her fellow Senators should look in the mirror to find the biggest source. But benefiting the wealthy? Sure, but they’re hardly alone. I’m not wealthy, yet those tax cuts affect me by helping me become wealthy. It’s might be helpful for the Senate to remember that I’m doing the work to make myself wealthy, not the multitude of spending nonsense they offer. Might it be better to start with spending than with taxes?

When Republicans start co-opting the economic language of Democrats, little hope remains.

This probably means I’m unpatriotic

The latest from Iraq:

Talk of a secret detention center at the Interior Ministry compound had surfaced in Baghdad this summer. Officials of the ministry, whose ranks are made up mainly of former members of Shiite militias, have repeatedly acknowledged some human rights abuses by their forces but never confirmed the rumors of a secret torture center run with the help of intelligence agents from neighboring Iran.

The first official acknowledgment of the allegations came Monday, when Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, the Interior Ministry’s undersecretary for security, said an investigation would be opened into unspecified reports that ministry officers tortured suspects detained in connection with the country’s insurgency.

We rightfully must speak out against this nonsense, because turning Iraq from a tyrannical pro-torture government into a democratic pro-torture government isn’t much of a win. But President Bush should, even though he never will, understand that our moral ground is now quicksand on this. Well done.

The shocking psychology of job applications

In my (hopefully) growing wisdom, I work to be less excitable and more inclined to thinking than snap decisions. So, yesterday when I saw the news that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in 1985 of his adamant disagreement on the constitutional principles underlying legalized abortion, I dismissed it. Not because I particularly worry about his opinions on abortion; I don’t. I’d be more interested in his general belief on the right to privacy. The argument, whether or not Judge Alito agrees with it, that such a right to privacy is not in the Constitution would worry me considerably more. That’s what I want to know. If someone can’t read it within the Ninth Amendment, we should toss out the Constitution. Argue that the right to privacy doesn’t include the right to abortion but not that the state has the right to meddle in personal lives at will to promote some public good. Big difference.

But that’s not how Senate Democrats will use that information, as evidenced by this:

“This puts a much stronger onus on Judge Alito to answer questions on this subject,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who called the 1985 document “the strongest statement we’ve seen from a nominee on this very controversial subject for a long time.”

Want to bet he’ll discuss Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy on interpreting the Constitution? In what I’m choosing to interpret as a glimmer of hope, Sen. Dianne Feinstein offered this review after her meeting with Judge Alito:

“He said first of all it was different then,” she said. “He said, ‘I was an advocate seeking a job, it was a political job and that was 1985. I’m now a judge, I’ve been on the circuit court for 15 years and it’s very different. I’m not an advocate, I don’t give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law.'”

Feinstein, who will be one of the senators questioning Alito at his Jan. 9 confirmation hearing said she thought “he was very sincere in what he said.”

My thinking trumped any snap decision I might’ve arrived at because I came to the “advocate seeking a job” conclusion, as well. It was logical and took little more than a moment and a willingness to learn the truth without concern for scoring political points. I still want the discussion to come up in January’s confirmation hearings, but I don’t expect to be happy with the line of questioning.

Christian “federalism” in Virginia

Reading about a recent action by Pastor David Ensign restored a little faith in my fellow Virginians.

Clarendon Presbyterian Church Pastor David Ensign has an alternative air about him. He wears an earring and has been known to pick up his guitar to play a few hymns during Sunday services.

But he surprised even some of Arlington’s die-hard progressives Nov. 3 at the county’s annual human rights awards ceremony, where his church was honored. He used the occasion to announce the church’s new wedding policy:

Traditional marriages are out. “Celebrations of commitment” are in.

To protest Virginia’s laws banning same-sex marriage, Ensign and the church’s governing council decided recently that Clarendon Presbyterian will no longer have any weddings, and Ensign will renounce his state authority to marry couples.

Any heterosexual couple who has their union “blessed” in a “celebration ceremony” at the tiny church will have to take the extra step of being officially wed by a justice of the peace at the courthouse.

“What we’re saying is that in the commonwealth of Virginia, the laws that govern marriage are unjust and unequal,” said Ensign, 45, who has served as the church’s pastor since 2003. He said that the matter had been bothering him for months and that he suggested the policy to the congregation’s leaders because his conscience would not allow him to continue performing legal marriages on the state’s behalf.

In the coming months, I’ll follow all the available options to protest the proposed “traditional” marriage amendment to the Virginia Constitution, even though I’m resigned to the realization that it will pass. But as Pastor Ensign shows, there is hope. No doubt he’ll face some form of punishment or rebuke from Presbyterian Church USA, but he deserves credit for acting Christ-like, which I thought was the purpose of Christianity.

Thankfully, our elected leaders in the General Assembly are smarter than us and know just how to frame decent actions like this. Right?

“I think it’s a shame that this clergyman would seek to undermine traditional marriage, which is the foundation of American society,” said state Sen. Nick Rerras (R-Norfolk), one of the legislation’s sponsors. “It’s a terrible message to send to our youth.”

It’s always about the children, isn’t it? I also thought individual liberty and freedom from tyranny were the foundation of American society, but I’m just some guy, not a State Senator. I’m willing to examine Pastor Ensign’s action from Sen. Rerras’s assumption, although I’m not quite sure what message Sen. Rerras thinks Pastor Ensign is sending. Is he upset that Pastor Ensign is teaching his congregation to reject immoral, unfair social policies? Or is he upset that Pastor Ensign is not teaching his congregation to hate? I suppose the lesson is that America is a Christian nation, unless a Christian pastor determines that his church is in “the Jesus business, not the marriage business.*” Then what, he’s a godless traitor?

I don’t know where Sen. Rerras developed his sense of American government, but it’s pathetic when a pastor understands the function of civil society better than an Assemblyman. I’d laugh at Norfolk for electing Sen. Rerras, but my neighbors are equally stupid.

* This is a quote from the article by Wilson Gunn, general executive of the National Capital Presbytery. I wish I could take credit for it.

No Vengeance, Know Justice

Last week, President Bush said that the United States does not torture. Given the significant evidence to the contrary, this was an interesting position to take. I give him enough credit that I don’t think he’s too stupid to understand what he’s saying. Unfortunately, that reflects poorly upon him, because I can come up with no other explanation than the notion that President Bush lied. Perhaps he doesn’t think he’s lying, but only in a “depends on the definition of ‘is'” manner. That makes US national security adviser Stephen Hadley’s admission clarification troubling. Consider:

“The president has said that we are going to do whatever we do in accordance with the law,” the national security adviser said. “But… you see the dilemma. What happens if on September 7th of 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there’s going to be a devastating attack on the United States?”

He insisted that it was “a difficult dilemma to know what to do in that circumstance to both discharge our responsibility to protect the American people from terrorist attack and follow the president’s guidance of staying within the confines of law.”

This administration hasn’t found it difficult to decide what to do. The president’s guidance, based on a memo redefining torture, attempts to deny habeas corpus to detainees, and refusal to offer any information on where we house prisoners, make it very clear that any treatment short of death is acceptable. In the cases where death occurs, there’s plausible deniability because we’ll blame it on a few renegade soldiers. I don’t see the confusion here and I think Mr. Hadley’s statement confirms that the president doesn’t, either.

More importantly, Mr. Hadley’s September 7th dilemma is crap. We knew something was in the works before then, but failed to act through government bureaucracy and ineptitude. Our security officials missed the link, whether it was ignoring FBI memos warning of suspicious activity or presidential avoidance in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The intelligence gathering system worked as designed. Somehow, Mr. Hadley and everyone involved with this administration seems to forget that. That they do and that their immediate, unapologetic response is to beat the shit out of captives, whether convicted of a crime against the United States or not says a lot about President Bush’s leadership and adherence to American ideals.

The proper response isn’t even hard. Senator John McCain introduced an amendment legally binding the United States to existing policy on prisoner treatment, which President Bush explained was already our method. The amendment passed the Senate overwhelmingly, but it’s stuck in the House due to Vice President Cheney’s insistence that the CIA be exempted. Why do they need to be exempted? The question aswers itself.

I’ve stated before that “enhanced interrogation techniques” torture is not only immoral, it’s also stupid policy. So consider Sen. McCain’s argument against torture:

“I hold no brief for the terrorists,” he said. “But it’s not about them. It’s about us. This battle we’re in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be.” [emphasis mine]

Aside from the most fervent anti-American hack, no one denies that the terrorists we face are scum. I knew that immediately on the morning of September 11, 2001. Like a million of my fellow citizens, I fled Washington, D.C. that day, fearful of what else might be on its way. On September 13th, I went back to work. In those two days, and in the following days and weeks, I witnessed what every person in America witnessed in our collective response to the unthinkable. We’re not scum. We’re better than those who murdered so many of our citizens and those who wish to murder again. We behaved in a way consistent with our ideals then. We didn’t need memos, we didn’t need guidance. We just did. We should again. The only unknown is whether or not the Bush administration will rejoin the rest of us before tarnishing our great country any further.

From no textbook I remember

I had difficulty tracing backwards from this entry at TPM Cafe, so I couldn’t read the discussion preceding this entry. However, this entry provides enough information for me to know that the discussion is ridiculous. With economics so poorly misinformed, I’ll bother to offer only the obvious rebuttals. This is more interesting just to understand how some economic thinking can be accepted by so many, while still being so wrong. Consider these progressive economic solutions:

1. Raise the minimum wage. This is a proven winner for working Americans, especially women. Senator Kennedy has just introduced the Minimum Wage Act of 2005, to increase the minimum wage to $7.25. Let’s get behind it, shall we?

A proven winner? Politically, maybe, but not economically.

2. Support the right of workers to form a union. The AFL-CIO has a proposal for an Employee Free Choice Act. Check it out at http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/ I’m for it. …

I’ve never much cared for unions, although I understand the (foolish) reasons some people like them. Rather than a discourse here, I like how Kip at A Stitch in Haste describes unions as “a Twentieth-Century solution to a Nineteenth-Century problem and have little if any role in the Twenty-First Century.” That’s about right.

3. Increase Social Security benefits. Social security benefits are wealth! Social Security wealth is distributed to every working American on a truly progressive formula. It is by far the best means the country has ever devised to build wealth and security for working Americans and their surviving spouses and children. The Social Security System should of course be protected. But if you want additional wealth creation for working Americans, why not use this channel? Why not, say, credit a modestly restored estate tax to an expanded benefit? …

According to my last projected benefit statement from Social Security, I’d classify Social Security as an opportunity to buy french fries once a week in retirement. Primarily that arises from redistributing wealth, which I think I’m supposed to acknowledge as “good.” Of course, who can forget that gays and lesbians don’t get the full benefits of the “built wealth” that everyone else gets. I guess it’s very Progressive to support a system that continues to exclude gay partners but not a system allowing private ownership of retirement funds to be bestowed opon the recipient’s desired heirs. But we must remember that Social Security creates wealth, but we don’t want it to create too much, because wealth crossing from livable wage territory in to rich territory is so bad that we must tax it progressively. Schizophrenic Economic Policy 101.

4. Universal health insurance. Anyone awake during the debate over the recent bankruptcy bill knows that health crises cause bankruptcy. Want a win-win for the wealth of working Americans? Let’s protect them all from this source of disaster. …

Since there are no specifics, I can only speculate that this means government-funded insurance instead of privately-funded insurance. Better to bankrupt America than individuals, maybe, but the flood insurance system works so well, let’s replicate it. Correct me if I’m wrong.

5. Protect home equity. How do working Americans build wealth in the real world? As we all know, they do it by buying a home. If they are prudent, patient and lucky [ed. note: Huh?], they then keep their debt below the appreciation in their equity. It’s a great system, and it works pretty well. Any thoughts on how to improve it? How about steps to expand it to millions of others, including many minorities, who do not own their homes? …

If they’re too poor to save any income, as the earlier parts of the entry state, how are they buying houses? My personal experience says they’re not. And do I need to point out the implications in the last argument about minorities?

Surprisingly, the comments are worse than that. Read it if you’re interested in a little mental punishment.

The sky isn’t falling. Even in Texas.

Even though a “traditional” marriage amendment passed in Texas yesterday, and a similar amendment is likely to pass in Virginia in 2006, I’m not distressed. I’m nowhere near last year’s level of frustration because the past twelve months showed that the “losses” in this debate are short-term. Freedom has always prevailed over legalized bigotry and it will again. Instead, I’m inclined to amuse myself with the tangential aspects of the debate. From DailyKos comes this statement:

An anti-gay marriage amendment in Texas passed easily (even though it may hilariously invalidate every marriage).

I hadn’t read the text of the amendment before reading that comment, so I looked it up. The ballot language was this:

“The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

No shocker there, of course, but it doesn’t match any remote idea of a controversial interpretation. I followed the link to the amendment’s text for the answer. Here it is:

SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Section 2 reads as nothing short of a concession that some legal rights must exist. The obvious question is why Texas won’t set aside the charade that they’ve saved marriage by denying gays and lesbians access to the same civil institution, while allegedly conferring the same legal abilities. But that’s more a head-shaker than anything else. The point of the DailyKos comment is Section 1 (b).

As always, I’m not an attorney, but I understand how the amendment’s wording could lead to a different interpretation from the meaning. The text is awful, but I don’t think this will lead to any nullification of marriage. It requires the reader to insert a bit of context to interpret it the way it’s meant, but it requires just as much to interpret it broadly. With the current judicial activism nonsense, I can’t imagine a Texas judge reading the broader meaning from the text. (How this isn’t legislative activism is an appropriate question.)

An opponent could make the argument that reading the intended meaning out of that text is judicial activism, as well, and I’m inclined to agree. However, I don’t believe that argument will stick, so it’d be an energy expense with little payoff beyond intellectual entertainment. I love those scenarios, but I’m a little strange.

As an aside, if I were a Kossack, I’d be more concerned that the election post carried the title “Weird. We Won. Onward to 2006!”. When your party wins an election, you shouldn’t be surprised. Especially when taking the Governor’s mansion in both elections means handing the keys from the current Democrat to the new Democrat. Being surprised implies acceptance of permanent minority status. That’s not really leadership-oriented thinking, no?

(Source: Balloon Juice)