The Ricketts paterfamilias, one Joe Ricketts, has this really great idea, see: spend ten million bucks plastering pictures of Negroes all over the country during the coming election season. See, one of the Negroes is, however illegitimately --isn't even an American, or a Christian--, the current President; and the other is a retired minister who is on record as saying the kind of intemperate things that people like Pat Robertson have said about America. The retired minister, see, was the secret mentor of the Muslim president; and if America only knew that, why, the Republicans would sweep the polity and restore fiscal sanity to our country, cutting off the lavish tax money giveaways to all those other Negroes, in the process.
Isn't ten million a lot to spend on this kind of foolishness?
Not when you're confidently expecting the City of Chicago to give you $150 million to outfit your fancy new toy, Wrigley Field.
I admit, it's not much of a sacrifice, electing to forego the exquisite experience of watching the Cubs flail about that storied ballpark. But, like one of their better players, who today announced his retirement, I will henceforth render the attention I give to Chicago sports in the direction of the South Side, where the announcers do not have to congratulate the left fielder on his determination, a decade into his career, to learn how to catch a fly ball.
I don't have an account at AmeriTrade --pace Sam Waterston-- that I can cancel. So I'll have to take at least part of my stand against gutter politics and criminally rich bigots by avoiding the Cubs, from now on.
Small loss. It's July, and the Cubs are safely in last place.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Treason!
Dr. Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani physician who set up a fake health clinic in Abbottabad, the operations of which eventually provided the CIA with strong clues concerning the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, was sentenced by a Pakistani court to 33 years in prison for treason.
As McClatchy newspapers writes, "The Afridi case illustrates the stark differences between the two countries on anti-terrorism issues. Afridi is regarded as a hero by American officials but as a traitor in Pakistan." The United States had been negotiating, prior to Afridi's conviction and sentencing, to have him released.
Q: How is this case different from that of Jonathan Pollard?
As McClatchy newspapers writes, "The Afridi case illustrates the stark differences between the two countries on anti-terrorism issues. Afridi is regarded as a hero by American officials but as a traitor in Pakistan." The United States had been negotiating, prior to Afridi's conviction and sentencing, to have him released.
Q: How is this case different from that of Jonathan Pollard?
Taxes and the Constitution
Response to an op-ed
piece in the NYT:
Richard Epstein argues that, in granting to Congress the
power to tax, the Constitution restricted the use of this power to what he
calls “public goods.” He defines public goods as benefits that must be given to
all citizens if they are given to any, and then makes a rhetorical leap:
“General welfare … is best read as covering only matters that advance the
welfare of the United States
as a whole.”
I suspect that Mr Epstein, confronted with a student’s
argument that some text is “best read” in one way and not in some other, would
ask why. And surely he owes his readers the same courtesy, particularly because
he goes on to assert that “the redistribution of income, or ‘transfer payments’
among citizens … doesn’t qualify for taxation …”
It would be instructive to learn how, for instance, the
transfer of payroll taxes collected in Chicago
to retirees in Florida ,
in the form of Social Security benefits, does qualify. Or how the expenditure
of federal funds to address the problems caused New Orleans by the Katrina hurricane is
permissible. And, of course, if the power to tax can be used “to pay the Debts”
of the government, does Epstein mean to suggest that the government may not
incur a debt, unless the related expenditure passes the test of benefiting the
United States as a whole? How is that test to be applied?
But more fundamentally, Epstein should tell us who gets to
decide what “advance(s) the welfare of the United States as a whole.” If providing our Congressional representatives and
their families health insurance coverage, at taxpayer expense, benefits the United States
as a whole, but providing the same benefit to other citizens does not, what is
the principle at work?
If we allow the recent trends to continue, until the polity
consists of one hundred fifty million citizens who have no income, and one
hundred fifty million who each have incomes of one million dollars, so that the
average income is a half million dollars, would Epstein argue, first, that the
welfare of the United States as a whole is undisturbed, and second, that the
power to tax cannot be used to take (by taxation), say, five per cent from the
top half and transfer it to the bottom half so as to keep half the population
from living and dying in the streets?
I think Epstein has labored too strenuously to produce an
argument that, ultimately, says the power to tax cannot be used for any purpose
that does not directly benefit each and every American. If we take him at his
word, most of the budget of the United
States is subject to the charge of being
unconstitutional. Maybe that is his point.
Friday, May 18, 2012
A Distant Hope
Fresh news on the Tenth Amendment: The Arizona Secretary of State has requested that the State of Hawaii "officially" confirm that it has the president's birth certificate.
The Secretary, one Ken Bennett, hastened to say that he himself was not a "birther;" he's just accommodating the request of a constituent. One presumes that the youth of Arizona are taught, in their English-only-at-all-costs public schools, that "constituent" and "whacko" are synonyms. If only I were a "constituent," I could request that Mr. Bennett apply to the Government of Mars that Sheriff Joe Arpaio was not, in fact, born in that jurisdiction. Lack of an appropriate response would presumably bar Mr. Arpaio from ballot access.
But please, please, Hawaii: don't respond. Let Arizona keep Obama off the ballot. Expose the crazies for who they are, and let the state go on record as refusing to put the President of the United States on its ballot for the 2012 election.
Is that too much to hope for?
The Secretary, one Ken Bennett, hastened to say that he himself was not a "birther;" he's just accommodating the request of a constituent. One presumes that the youth of Arizona are taught, in their English-only-at-all-costs public schools, that "constituent" and "whacko" are synonyms. If only I were a "constituent," I could request that Mr. Bennett apply to the Government of Mars that Sheriff Joe Arpaio was not, in fact, born in that jurisdiction. Lack of an appropriate response would presumably bar Mr. Arpaio from ballot access.
But please, please, Hawaii: don't respond. Let Arizona keep Obama off the ballot. Expose the crazies for who they are, and let the state go on record as refusing to put the President of the United States on its ballot for the 2012 election.
Is that too much to hope for?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
A Healthy Dose of Reality
Suddenly, the press, fresh from a near-consensus that the Supremes would find Obamacare constitutional, is abuzz with the news that Justice Kennedy frowned, or something. As Jeffrey Toobin writes, "All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong."
So be it. Having read a big chunk of the 2,000-plus pages of this law, I won't be able to muster much grief at its demise.
Besides, there is an obvious solution for the President, should he wish to avail himself of it. A couple of simple rules would suffice.
First, reduce Medicare support for hospitals providing charity care. Cover only palliative care --the relief of pain and the mitigation of damage that would prevent discharge of a patient: fix broken legs, provide antibiotics. No heart operations, no cancer treatment, no dialysis.
Second, allow insurers to impose a two-year waiting period on anyone applying for new coverage.
Both these rules would probably require nothing more than executive orders. And I can promise that the free market that everyone loves so much --the big insurance companies-- would be only too happy to abide by the two-year rule, given the requirement that they accept all comers.
Assuming the Supreme Court leaves the law intact, except for the hated individual mandate (not necessarily a safe assumption, given the ideological underpinnings and political motivations of this Court), the government could still provide subsidies for the low-income newly-insured.
Cutting the hospital subsidies for charity care would remove a major incentive for tax-exempt hospitals to retain their tax exemptions, with all those odious anti-inurement rules; so there may even be an upside to states and municipalities who could begin putting these huge organizations with their enormous physical plants onto the real estate tax rolls.
Now, many people, seeing the impossibility of enrolling later if they did not enroll now, would probably sign up for insurance; even healthy twenty-somethings who are sensible would do that. But inevitably lots of people would remain without coverage. It would take a few years of horror stories for the message to get across: no, we won't let you die in the street. You can die at home, with morphine, but not with Avastin, or dialysis, or a bypass operation that you cannot pay for yourself. So you might want to think about getting coverage before you need it --because by the time you need it, you won't be able to get it. And no more Emergency Room admission when you're feelin' poorly.
Sorry. It's a tough world. But it's the one you voted for.
Of course, an awful lot of people might flock to Massachusetts.
.
So be it. Having read a big chunk of the 2,000-plus pages of this law, I won't be able to muster much grief at its demise.
Besides, there is an obvious solution for the President, should he wish to avail himself of it. A couple of simple rules would suffice.
First, reduce Medicare support for hospitals providing charity care. Cover only palliative care --the relief of pain and the mitigation of damage that would prevent discharge of a patient: fix broken legs, provide antibiotics. No heart operations, no cancer treatment, no dialysis.
Second, allow insurers to impose a two-year waiting period on anyone applying for new coverage.
Both these rules would probably require nothing more than executive orders. And I can promise that the free market that everyone loves so much --the big insurance companies-- would be only too happy to abide by the two-year rule, given the requirement that they accept all comers.
Assuming the Supreme Court leaves the law intact, except for the hated individual mandate (not necessarily a safe assumption, given the ideological underpinnings and political motivations of this Court), the government could still provide subsidies for the low-income newly-insured.
Cutting the hospital subsidies for charity care would remove a major incentive for tax-exempt hospitals to retain their tax exemptions, with all those odious anti-inurement rules; so there may even be an upside to states and municipalities who could begin putting these huge organizations with their enormous physical plants onto the real estate tax rolls.
Now, many people, seeing the impossibility of enrolling later if they did not enroll now, would probably sign up for insurance; even healthy twenty-somethings who are sensible would do that. But inevitably lots of people would remain without coverage. It would take a few years of horror stories for the message to get across: no, we won't let you die in the street. You can die at home, with morphine, but not with Avastin, or dialysis, or a bypass operation that you cannot pay for yourself. So you might want to think about getting coverage before you need it --because by the time you need it, you won't be able to get it. And no more Emergency Room admission when you're feelin' poorly.
Sorry. It's a tough world. But it's the one you voted for.
Of course, an awful lot of people might flock to Massachusetts.
.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Am I Nuts?
Or is half the country? I mean, okay, let's assume you are dissatisfied with the direction Obama has taken things during the past 3 years. You don't think universal health care should be a concern of government. you think that the big banks should have been allowed to fail (that was a Bush thing, but never mind). You opposed the stimulus, even though roughly half of the dollars went to individuals in the form of tax cuts and rebates.
In short, let's assume you are a principled conservative: government ought to run the post office, the military, and maybe some ports and public safety; otherwise it should just get out of the way. Now, on the Republican side you have Romney the business guy, with a demonstrated ability to manage things (the Olympics), with success in governing one of the most liberal states in the union, and so on. An obviously intelligent, stable, reasonable man. Then you have Santorum, who famously compared gay marriage to marriage between a man and an orangutan (or whatever); who clearly opposes contraception, let alone abortion --nemmine the fact that he has fewer kids than one might expect from a good Catholic. And he's been at the public (and government-aligned nonprofit) trough for a long time, and his policy recommendations include bombing Iran.
Why is this a close choice? I'm not even going to talk about Gingrich, who I think even Republicans sense is dangerously unstable, self-aggrandizing, grandiose, and deluded. Why would you seriously entertain voting for Santorum? I mean, where's the substance? Even his own constituents tossed him out of the US Senate by an embarrassing margin. Is it really true that all we care about is how nice someone is?
Recall the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama primaries. Wasn't there some honest substance there, never mind who you favored? Didn't both of them come across as serious people? And can you really say as much about the Republican alternatives, this time?
Am I crazy? Or is a significant plurality of the American electorate?
Oh.
In short, let's assume you are a principled conservative: government ought to run the post office, the military, and maybe some ports and public safety; otherwise it should just get out of the way. Now, on the Republican side you have Romney the business guy, with a demonstrated ability to manage things (the Olympics), with success in governing one of the most liberal states in the union, and so on. An obviously intelligent, stable, reasonable man. Then you have Santorum, who famously compared gay marriage to marriage between a man and an orangutan (or whatever); who clearly opposes contraception, let alone abortion --nemmine the fact that he has fewer kids than one might expect from a good Catholic. And he's been at the public (and government-aligned nonprofit) trough for a long time, and his policy recommendations include bombing Iran.
Why is this a close choice? I'm not even going to talk about Gingrich, who I think even Republicans sense is dangerously unstable, self-aggrandizing, grandiose, and deluded. Why would you seriously entertain voting for Santorum? I mean, where's the substance? Even his own constituents tossed him out of the US Senate by an embarrassing margin. Is it really true that all we care about is how nice someone is?
Recall the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama primaries. Wasn't there some honest substance there, never mind who you favored? Didn't both of them come across as serious people? And can you really say as much about the Republican alternatives, this time?
Am I crazy? Or is a significant plurality of the American electorate?
Oh.
Monday, January 30, 2012
So Shall you Reap
The Republican establishment, it is everywhere reported, is upset at the prospect (which seems to be fading a bit) of a Gingrich nomination. Of course, he'd be a disaster; Obama would virtually be guaranteed a landslide if they were stupid enough to nominate Newt. but it's nice to see them squirm.
The Republican Party, for almost all of my adult life, has been the party of racism, of cynical manipulation of the basest fears and prejudices of the least-educated portions of our population, even as it has also curried favor with the wealthiest and most privileged. The Republican strategy of division has sold a lot of books --both in its promulgation and in analysis of it-- and done a huge amount of damage to our polity.
But they have only themselves to blame for Gingrich. What did they expect, when they stood silently by, or even actively encouraged, ceaseless ad hominem attacks on President Obama, from thinly-veiled racist comments and arguments to Senator DeMint's "You lie!" called out during the State of the Union address.
When the Republican Senate Minority Leader, at the start of Obama's term, announced in all sincerity that his primary legislative objective would be to see that Obama would be a one-term president, he was in effect saying, to hell with the duties of governing; we will be about naked political advantage, gained no matter the cost. And when the Republican establishment stands silently by when Obama is attacked as a racist, as one who hates his country and wants to subvert it?
Well, then, they deserve Gingrich and worse (of which they have seen, and continue to see, plenty in their own primaries). They are despicable people, and they get what they sought. Unfortunately, their comeuppance threatens to be the punishment of all of us.
The Republican Party, for almost all of my adult life, has been the party of racism, of cynical manipulation of the basest fears and prejudices of the least-educated portions of our population, even as it has also curried favor with the wealthiest and most privileged. The Republican strategy of division has sold a lot of books --both in its promulgation and in analysis of it-- and done a huge amount of damage to our polity.
But they have only themselves to blame for Gingrich. What did they expect, when they stood silently by, or even actively encouraged, ceaseless ad hominem attacks on President Obama, from thinly-veiled racist comments and arguments to Senator DeMint's "You lie!" called out during the State of the Union address.
When the Republican Senate Minority Leader, at the start of Obama's term, announced in all sincerity that his primary legislative objective would be to see that Obama would be a one-term president, he was in effect saying, to hell with the duties of governing; we will be about naked political advantage, gained no matter the cost. And when the Republican establishment stands silently by when Obama is attacked as a racist, as one who hates his country and wants to subvert it?
Well, then, they deserve Gingrich and worse (of which they have seen, and continue to see, plenty in their own primaries). They are despicable people, and they get what they sought. Unfortunately, their comeuppance threatens to be the punishment of all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)