Monday, December 07, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Catholic bishops' double standard - Nancy Keenan and Jon O'Brien - POLITICO.com
An excellent piece. The key quote: "The bishops have a long history of almost unlimited access to enormous quantities of federal funding. When it comes to funding for Catholic schools and hospitals or programs run by Catholic Charities, they accept federal funding with open arms. The bishops never question their own ability to lawfully manage funds from separate sources to ensure that tax dollars don’t finance religious practices."The Catholic bishops' double standard - Nancy Keenan and Jon O'Brien - POLITICO.com
Friday, November 06, 2009
U.S. Readies Jobless Aid and Help on Homes - NYTimes.com
The bill passed contains $2.4 billion for unemployment benefits -- and they still dont go into next year -- and over $10 billion each for business tax cuts and home buyers credits. U.S. Readies Jobless Aid and Help on Homes - NYTimes.com
Thursday, November 05, 2009
BBC NEWS | South Asia | UK 'must investigate Afghan raid'
great way to win friends and influence people. BBC NEWS | South Asia | UK 'must investigate Afghan raid'
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
A Pakistani Perspective on India-Pakistan relations, written for an Indian magazine: www.outlookindia.com | To Understand Pakistan, 1947 Is The Wrong Lens
The author identifies himself as a Pakistani living in the US who recently visited India. He argues that while Indians view the relationship of the two countries through the lens of the partition of British India innto India and Pakistan in 1947, the crucial event in India-Pakistan relations for Pakistanis is the 1971 war which led to the secession of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh. Key quote: "But what the Indian mind perceives as Pakistan’s ongoing divorce from reality is in fact Pakistan’s most fundamental political reality. The Pakistani establishment has internalised the memory of 1971. In all things, and at all times, it must account for India. Dismemberment has the requisite effect of focusing the mind on existential matters. Nothing can be taken for granted." www.outlookindia.com | To Understand Pakistan, 1947 Is The Wrong Lens
Friday, October 30, 2009
Nine Senate Democrats press Reid to expand public health insurance choice - TheHill.com
Reminding us that the AFL-CIO is part of the problem not just part of the solution. Nine Senate Democrats press Reid to expand public health insurance choice - TheHill.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Medicare for everyone - TheHill.com
What's in a name? E(verything). Medicare for everyone - TheHill.com
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Palin offers calm critique of Baucus bill - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
A surprisingly (even disturbingly) clear and cogent critique of the Senate Finance health care bill by Sarah Palin. It's all written in short, simple sentences most voters can understand but actually conveys a lot of crucial information. The fir...st half is one of the clearest explanations of the approach I've read. The specific criticisms are, mostly, spot on -- which means many Democrats will automatically dismiss them as fallacious just because she made them. The second half goes into standard Republican talking points and the alternative she proposes is the same old Republican bromide of vouchers (which would never come close to covering the cost of health insurance) and does not address whether she supports the insurance reforms per se -- which necessitate universal coverage to spread the cost -- because if she does really the only difference is mandates. All of this avoids discussion of the public option or better yet single payer which would be the real solution to the problems she identifies. But if she is the most cogent voice on the issue, the one who explains it in terms the ordinary person can understand (which she does do here), Democrats are in trouble. Palin offers calm critique of Baucus bill - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Uri Avnery on "The Two Israels"
The dean of Israel's peace movement writes on the role of archaelogy, the al Aqsa conflict, and the two faces of Israeli society. http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262387
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
AFSCME's Gerry McEntee takes on White House - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
McEntee has issued a letter threatening to oppose the health care bill if it is not seriously amended. More of these hardball tactics needed, please. AFSCME's Gerry McEntee takes on White House - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Friday, October 16, 2009
Do the Math, Chris Matthews
I sent the following letter to Hardball after hearing Chris Matthews argue, yet again, that the public option only had the support of thirty senators.
"You keep arguing that the public option has only thirty votes in the Senate and suggesting that advocates of the "public option" can't do the math because they have never really had to run for office.
Well, first, thirty is the number of people who signed a letter to Reid demanding a public option. Quite a few senators who are not on that list are on record supporting a public option, including Bingaman -- who told Ed Schultz that he had voted for it three times in committee (once in HELP, twice on amendments in Finance*) -- and Reid himself. It is ridiculous to assume that the only people who would vote for a public option in the Senate are those who signed a letter -- kind of like assuming the only people who support a bill are the co-sponsors. Since a number of elected Senators -- people who, unlike you, have faced the voters many times -- believe the public option has 52 or 53 votes in the Senate, where do you get YOUR math? [NOTE: This estimate was made again today by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who among other things comes from the "middle of the country," the region Chris keeps insisting liberals know nothing about.)
Second, when it comes to math, the most important math is the math of the health care bill. There is a very important objection to the bill -- that if forces people to buy insurance that they cannot afford, without making sure it is affordable. You brag repeatedly about your economics training yet consistently refuse to let the substance of this criticism be played out. Several pragmatic politicians (eg Anthony Weiner) and journalists (eg Margaret Carlson) have said on your show that they would support getting "half a loaf" but that this bill might be WORSE than nothing. Why don't you focus on the substance of the argument a bit instead of just the process?
Here are the objections in a nuthsell, that a former econ grad student should understand: 1. Ceteris paribus, the insurance reforms will raise insurers' costs and therefore raise average premiums; 2. the main countervailing measure in the bill, insurance exchanges, are designed to allow the individual and small business markets to access health insurance at the same rates as large groups so they would NOT, ceteris paribus, rates below those available to large groups; 3. most people participating in large insurance groups have most of their premium payed by their employer so that even now, those premiums would be unaffordable to individuals even if they could get access to them (as they can when they have COBRA); 4. the most generous subsidies in the bills would still require families with moderate incomes to pay around 12% of GROSS income in insurance premiums, which would amount to about 20% of take-home pay, and above that threshold of 400% below FPL there would be no real ceiling.
Maybe the math you need to look into is the math of an average family's budget. The liberals get it. You don't."
*Bingaman also said clearly he would vote for it again if it came up on the Senate floor but he did not sign the letter because he did not need to communicate with Reid by letter.
"You keep arguing that the public option has only thirty votes in the Senate and suggesting that advocates of the "public option" can't do the math because they have never really had to run for office.
Well, first, thirty is the number of people who signed a letter to Reid demanding a public option. Quite a few senators who are not on that list are on record supporting a public option, including Bingaman -- who told Ed Schultz that he had voted for it three times in committee (once in HELP, twice on amendments in Finance*) -- and Reid himself. It is ridiculous to assume that the only people who would vote for a public option in the Senate are those who signed a letter -- kind of like assuming the only people who support a bill are the co-sponsors. Since a number of elected Senators -- people who, unlike you, have faced the voters many times -- believe the public option has 52 or 53 votes in the Senate, where do you get YOUR math? [NOTE: This estimate was made again today by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who among other things comes from the "middle of the country," the region Chris keeps insisting liberals know nothing about.)
Second, when it comes to math, the most important math is the math of the health care bill. There is a very important objection to the bill -- that if forces people to buy insurance that they cannot afford, without making sure it is affordable. You brag repeatedly about your economics training yet consistently refuse to let the substance of this criticism be played out. Several pragmatic politicians (eg Anthony Weiner) and journalists (eg Margaret Carlson) have said on your show that they would support getting "half a loaf" but that this bill might be WORSE than nothing. Why don't you focus on the substance of the argument a bit instead of just the process?
Here are the objections in a nuthsell, that a former econ grad student should understand: 1. Ceteris paribus, the insurance reforms will raise insurers' costs and therefore raise average premiums; 2. the main countervailing measure in the bill, insurance exchanges, are designed to allow the individual and small business markets to access health insurance at the same rates as large groups so they would NOT, ceteris paribus, rates below those available to large groups; 3. most people participating in large insurance groups have most of their premium payed by their employer so that even now, those premiums would be unaffordable to individuals even if they could get access to them (as they can when they have COBRA); 4. the most generous subsidies in the bills would still require families with moderate incomes to pay around 12% of GROSS income in insurance premiums, which would amount to about 20% of take-home pay, and above that threshold of 400% below FPL there would be no real ceiling.
Maybe the math you need to look into is the math of an average family's budget. The liberals get it. You don't."
*Bingaman also said clearly he would vote for it again if it came up on the Senate floor but he did not sign the letter because he did not need to communicate with Reid by letter.
Dem officials set stage for corporate-backed health care campaign - Ben Smith and Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com
Is this corporatism American style -- no pun intended? Dem officials set stage for corporate-backed health care campaign - Ben Smith and Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Thursday, October 15, 2009
More Reasons to Question the Afghan War | Stephen M. Walt
An "offhsore balancing strategy" for Afghanistan? Is this any different from "counterterrorism"? It is recommended by Stephen Walt (next post) which is a reason to take it seriously. More Reasons to Question the Afghan War | Stephen M. Walt
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
The Safe Haven Myth | Foreign Policy
This piece calls for looking beyond the "counter=insurgency/counter-terrorism" dichotomy.The Safe Haven Myth | Foreign Policy
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
India snookered again?: US, Iran and India.
This piece describes the Indian government's recent efforts to distance itself from Iran and the potentially disastrous consequences of it. More Manmohan madness? The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : India must catch up with U.S.-Iran thaw
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
India's America Problem and (Liberal) America's India Problem
A very perceptive piece about the peculiar contradictions of American liberal internationalists' views of India by a leading Indian scholar who studied and taught in leading American universities. Biden is an extreme example of this. The liberal paradox
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
India-China Border Games Continue
Note that this comes just shortly after the Chinese ambassador to India wrote about the wonderful improvement in ties between the two. BBC NEWS | South Asia | China ire over India border visit
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Rahm: Finance health bill no more important than other bills - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
I wonder if he means it. Of course he also says there is not much difference among them. Rahm: Finance health bill no more important than other bills - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
The Wyden Factor
Interesting inside baseball about the Senate Finance Committee vote on healthcare that may have real consequences. My favorite line: "it's always easier to bargain with a dealmaker than a policy wonk." Go policy wonks. But the real bottom line: there was a "colloquy" -- scripted dialogue for the record -- between Baucus and Wyden which might mean more choices in the final bill in the form of a modified expansion of the exchange beyond the uninsured -- Wyden's pet issue. Ezra Klein - How the Senate Finance Committee Got Ron Wyden's Vote
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
A truly delusional "middle path" for Afghanistan
The best part of this is the opening sentence below. It also has a nice thumbnail description of counterinsurgency: "The principle of counterinsurgency is to focus much more on protecting
the population than on chasing and killing terrorist-insur...gents. The
theory is that if NATO and Afghan forces can provide security (and thus
facilitate the supply of basic services), the Afghan people will shift
their loyalty to their government and thus dry up the Taliban's base of
support." The problem is the purported "middle course" it is reporting on and, implicitly recommending: limiting counterinsurgency to a few major cities. The problem is made obvious by the name its proponents give it: an "enclave strategy." Enclaves are isolated outposts surrounded by hostile territory and are inherently vulnerable. And how would an "enclave" win over the population? The idea is that the enclave would have a "demonstration effect" -- ie show Afghans the virtues of the American way of life. But if the idea is to abandon the countryside, then who is going to maintain order in those areas, where the Taliban recruits? The Taliban, of course! And why would a Pushtun living in a village controlled by the Taliban care about how good life was in an American outpost in Kabul? Obama can solve the Afghanistan mess without sending a lot more troops or leaving the country entirely. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine
Shared via AddThis
the population than on chasing and killing terrorist-insur...gents. The
theory is that if NATO and Afghan forces can provide security (and thus
facilitate the supply of basic services), the Afghan people will shift
their loyalty to their government and thus dry up the Taliban's base of
support." The problem is the purported "middle course" it is reporting on and, implicitly recommending: limiting counterinsurgency to a few major cities. The problem is made obvious by the name its proponents give it: an "enclave strategy." Enclaves are isolated outposts surrounded by hostile territory and are inherently vulnerable. And how would an "enclave" win over the population? The idea is that the enclave would have a "demonstration effect" -- ie show Afghans the virtues of the American way of life. But if the idea is to abandon the countryside, then who is going to maintain order in those areas, where the Taliban recruits? The Taliban, of course! And why would a Pushtun living in a village controlled by the Taliban care about how good life was in an American outpost in Kabul? Obama can solve the Afghanistan mess without sending a lot more troops or leaving the country entirely. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine
Shared via AddThis
Monday, October 12, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : The exit debate
India's stimulus spending and fiscal deficit. The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : The ?exit? debate
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Obama Wanted a Petraeus. Buyer Beware. - washingtonpost.com
An interesting piece that outlines Petraeus' career and McChrystal's and where they diverge. Obama Wanted a Petraeus. Buyer Beware. - washingtonpost.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Anti-nuke Obama won't allow India to expand weapons program - US - World - The Times of India
The headline maybe more sensationalist than the story deserves. As they report, the certification is required under the US-India nuclear deal. But the wording can be read different ways. Anti-nuke Obama won't allow India to expand weapons program - US - World - The Times of India
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
What Bush Wrought - The Conversation Blog - NYTimes.com
David Brooks sums up the Afghan war brilliantly in this piece:
"When we first invaded the country, it seemed like this gigantic victory for high-tech warfare. We had a few special forces types sneaking around the country pointing lasers at targets and then F-18s would blow them up. That seemed to vindicate the Donald Rumsfeld high-tech war doctrine, which in turn shaped the way we fought in Afghanistan and Iraq for years to come.
"The success of the surge in Iraq made politicians think the same strategy could work in Afghanistan.
"I don't recall anybody, Democrat or Republican, questioning that strategy five years ago. I don't recall anybody saying we needed a classic COIN strategy of lots of boots on the ground.
"Then two things happened. Iraq went to pieces, which reminded military strategists of COIN doctrine. The success of the surge made that doctrine mainstream in military circles.
"As the election approached, Democrats needed to find a war they could support so they could be against Iraq without being called doves. They were willing to send soldiers and Marines into harm’s way so long as it would help them get elected in November 2008.
"After the election and the success of the surge in Iraq, many military people decided it was time to implement the COIN doctrine in Afghanistan. At the same time many Democrats decided they no longer needed to be for that war, since the election had been won and their Congressional majorities had been secured.
"So here we are today, with some Democrats now supporting the light footprint approach that Donald Rumsfeld had championed when this whole thing started. If this isn’t an absurd turn of events, I don’t know what is.
"The reality remains, though, that the light footprint approach didn't work under Bush and it wouldn't work under Obama. It would lead to a Taliban reconquest...."
What he doesn't really address is the question of whether that matters enough to engage in a long war.
What Bush Wrought - The Conversation Blog - NYTimes.com
Shared via AddThis
"When we first invaded the country, it seemed like this gigantic victory for high-tech warfare. We had a few special forces types sneaking around the country pointing lasers at targets and then F-18s would blow them up. That seemed to vindicate the Donald Rumsfeld high-tech war doctrine, which in turn shaped the way we fought in Afghanistan and Iraq for years to come.
"The success of the surge in Iraq made politicians think the same strategy could work in Afghanistan.
"I don't recall anybody, Democrat or Republican, questioning that strategy five years ago. I don't recall anybody saying we needed a classic COIN strategy of lots of boots on the ground.
"Then two things happened. Iraq went to pieces, which reminded military strategists of COIN doctrine. The success of the surge made that doctrine mainstream in military circles.
"As the election approached, Democrats needed to find a war they could support so they could be against Iraq without being called doves. They were willing to send soldiers and Marines into harm’s way so long as it would help them get elected in November 2008.
"After the election and the success of the surge in Iraq, many military people decided it was time to implement the COIN doctrine in Afghanistan. At the same time many Democrats decided they no longer needed to be for that war, since the election had been won and their Congressional majorities had been secured.
"So here we are today, with some Democrats now supporting the light footprint approach that Donald Rumsfeld had championed when this whole thing started. If this isn’t an absurd turn of events, I don’t know what is.
"The reality remains, though, that the light footprint approach didn't work under Bush and it wouldn't work under Obama. It would lead to a Taliban reconquest...."
What he doesn't really address is the question of whether that matters enough to engage in a long war.
What Bush Wrought - The Conversation Blog - NYTimes.com
Shared via AddThis
Tax the sick: Obama?s new plan - The Hill's Pundits Blog
As I noted in a comment on the blog, the one problem with this piece's argument is that the deduction is currently available only to those who itemize which for most middle class people is only true if they own a house. Not universal among the income range they describe and getting less so. Tax the sick: Obama?s new plan - The Hill's Pundits Blog
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Obama Tells Lawmakers He Won?t Slash Troops in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
As predicted Obama tries to split the difference -- no he won't reduce troops. But no he probably won't increase them either. And the Biden option? That apparently involves keeping 68,000 troops there will increasing the no. of drone strikes in Paksistan. So what will those troops be doing? Redeploying to protect cities -- with insufficient troops -- or stay deployed in fortresses or isolated outposts. And are they going to follow through on McChrystal's intention to start taking more care with Afghan lives? Can they -- without enough troops? Obama Tells Lawmakers He Won?t Slash Troops in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Rahm shows his pragmatic ways in deal with prescription drug manufacturers - TheHill.com
This details the past positions of Obama and Emanuel and current opposition to the deals with the pharmaceutical industry. Rahm shows his pragmatic ways in deal with prescription drug manufacturers - TheHill.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Monday, October 05, 2009
Bobby Jindal Offers "Some Republican Ideas for Health Care Reform"
Most of these ideas are in the bills in one way or another, except tort reform. What is missing is any attempt to guarantee either coverage or affordability - there isn't even anything in there about regulating the premiums insurers can charge different groups (ie no modified community rating). I seriously doubt this approach will be sufficient. But at least he is sticking his neck out and saying what he's for. Bobby Jindal - Some Republican Ideas for Health Care Reform - washingtonpost.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Another commentator who has no idea what McChrystal said
The strange thing about this piece is that it shows no sign of having even the most rudimentary understanding of what McChrystal is arguing. According to this piece, which focuses exclusively on McChrystal's request for troops, all McChrystal is... doing is expressing standard military tunnel vision. But McChrystal's analysis of Afghanistan and the strategy he recommends are a radical departure from conventional military thinking in the United States, very much aimed at responding to the changing environment the country is facing. He says that the US has alienated the Afghan population by focusing more on killing Taliban and protecting themselves than on the safety of the Afghan civilians. McChrystal says American soldiers should not treat their own lives as more valuable than those of the Afghans and should take greater risks in order to save Afghan lives. He wants to use more troops in order to live closer to the population and protect them from the Taliban. You might disagree with the strategy. The American people might not support a strategy that risks American lives MORE. The military, which is used to arguing for overwhelming force to kill the enemy is deeply divided over the request precisely because they don't like the strategy and it departs from their normal way of operating. I don't Drucker would say about any of this but I do suspect that he would think the author should first acquaint himself with the issue before writing about it.Steven G. Brant: Why Obama Must Follow Drucker's (Not McChrystal's) Advice
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Sunday, October 04, 2009
The Hindu : News / National : India, US hope to clinch agreement on reprocessing n-fuel
This piece illustrates the fact that the India-US nuclear deal was, for India, more a way of opening up nuclear trade with other countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Groups than with the U.S. While the U.S. and India are still negotiating how to implement the agreement, India has signed agreements with Russia, France and Kazakhstan and Russia is already building a reactor. The Hindu : News / National : India, US hope to clinch agreement on reprocessing n-fuel
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, October 03, 2009
House leaders prepare to wrestle with question of taxes to pay for healthcare - TheHill.com
Note that the Blue Dogs want to limit the cost of the plan entirely to savings from Medicare -- but presumably, unlike Republicans, would keep the individual mandate. House leaders prepare to wrestle with question of taxes to pay for healthcare - TheHill.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
My letter on Obama's Health Care Plan
To The Editor: I am writing to explain why, although I supported Obama in the primaries and the general, am in imminent danger of losing health insurance myself and passionately support universal healthcare, I cannot support the President's approach. While President Obama has eloquently articulated all the reasons that we need health reform -- the tragedy of the uninsured, the rising rate of medical bankruptcy, the denial of care to the insured and the burden of healthcare on employers and on job creation, among others -- his solutions would do little to alleviate most of the problems he identifies and might make some worse. In embracing individual mandates he has increasingly adopted a line of argument that makes those without health care the scapegoats of health reform. In insisting on a $900 billion price tag he has ensured that subsidies will be too low to make individual mandates affordable. And in rejecting any measures that would challenge the current employer-based system he has ens ured that health care reform will not do anything about the dampening effect health insurance costs have on employment. All in all it appears, as Sen. Rockefeller intimated in the Senate Finance Committee, that his efforts are aimed more at claiming victory than in achieving any specific outcome. In conclusion, let me note that while this letter is stimulated by an outreach effort from Obama's Organizing For America network, it has NOT followed the script they provided because I disagree with the script. I am unemployed political science professor living in Los Angeles and I get to follow this issue pretty closely these days. Their claims don't hold water. Arun Swamy |
Civilian control of the military and the Afghanistan debate
This piece makes a lot of valid and important points about the need for civilian control over military decisions and the dangers of Republican obsession with deferring to the military, but misses the mark, I think, in applying this to the current Afg...hanistan debate. Civilian control means civilian authorities have the responsibility to decide what is worth fighting for -- war is ultimately an extension of politics by other means. But it should not mean that domestic political considerations make it impossible to hear the military commander's technical assessment of the ground situation because it is inconvenient. McChrystal's analysis is not simply a call for escalation as the author of this piece suggests -- though he is probably right that Republican support for more troops is. The McChrystal report is, instead, a remarkable moment in American history, a recognition if US troops occupy another country they have a responsibility for the lives and safety of the people of the country they are occupying and that NOT recognizing this (allowing a lot of civilian "collateral damage") is self-defeating as well as wrong. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the US should either invest in a strategy that puts the Afghan people first or leave; NOT pursue a "counter-terrorism" strategy of the type being pushed by Biden because that would simply result in more and more collateral damage and political backlash. Either accepting the strategy OR leaving is consistent with civilian control in the right sense of the term. Letting domestic politics lead us to the "counter-terrorism" option is an example of politics interfering in military decisions for the wrong reasons...Read More
Who are "the deciders"? | SalonWho are "the deciders"? | Salon
Shared via AddThis
Who are "the deciders"? | SalonWho are "the deciders"? | Salon
Shared via AddThis
President: Health reform hand-in-hand with lowering the unemployment rate - TheHill.com
A strange claim since even if the reforms would have the effect he claims, which is doubtful, this wouldn't happen until 2013. Is he expecting to wait until then for unemployment to go down? President: Health reform hand-in-hand with lowering the unemployment rate - TheHill.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Key Senator Says He Will Alter Health Proposal - NYTimes.com
Baucus says he will make subsidies more generous adding $28 bn to the ten yr cost of his bill. Doesnt seem like it will be enough. He plans to bring down the maximum premium paid by the highest income group eligible for subsidy (400% of FPL) to 12% o...f gross income. This is on par with other bills. Notably, though, even that level would be higher than other Senators are calling for (incl Snowe and Bingaman, members of the Gang of Six) and would, in fact be rather high especially since they are all talking about plans taht would only cover 70% of medical costs.Key Senator Says He Will Alter Health Proposal - NYTimes.com
Shared via AddThis
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Democrats squabble over who will pay health care bill - Patrick O'Connor and Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com
The most important point that this piece makes is that it is OBAMA's insistence on a $900 bn price cap that is going to make premiums unaffordable for the uninsured. Democrats squabble over who will pay health care bill - Patrick O'Connor and Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Obama's attempts to broker Middle East peace are doomed to fail�for now. - By Shmuel Rosner - Slate Magazine
This piece includes the brilliantly perceptive line, applicable to so much else. "Obama—and now that we know him better, it is less of a surprise—was reaching for the stars and reaped no more than a handful of air." As is the follow-up: "Yes we can" ran into "no we won't." .... "Not until they have better reasons to do what Obama wants them to do. "
Obama's attempts to broker Middle East peace are doomed to fail -- for now. - By Shmuel Rosner - Slate Magazine
Shared via AddThis
Obama's attempts to broker Middle East peace are doomed to fail -- for now. - By Shmuel Rosner - Slate Magazine
Shared via AddThis
Friday, September 18, 2009
Subsidies in Baucus Health Reform Plan Would Fall Short of What Is Needed for Many People to Afford Health Care  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
This clearly lays out the amounts different groups would pay under subsidies proposed in the three bills. Subsidies in Baucus Health Reform Plan Would Fall Short of What Is Needed for Many People to Afford Health Care  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, September 12, 2009
President risks fight with left over health insurance tax proposal - TheHill.com
This piece details some of the funding proposals in Baucus' bill that are upsetting liberal Democrats. the key one being the proposal to tax high end health plans. In this case, I have to say I'm a little more sympathetic to the 'moderate' position than usual, because it seems to me to be a reasonable way to raise revenue and remove the effective discrimination against people who have to buy their own health insurance plans but can't deduct the premiums unless all their medical expenses exceed 7% of income.
President risks fight with left over health insurance tax proposal - TheHill.com
Shared via AddThis
President risks fight with left over health insurance tax proposal - TheHill.com
Shared via AddThis
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : U.S. exit from Afghanistan to bring gains
This piece is by India's leading hawkish security scholar and is, surprisingly, opposed to Obama's mission in Afghanistan, which one might have thought Indian hawks would support as the target of the US in Afghanistan is also an adversary of India's. He argues that the US strategy is ill conceived as its stated target, Al Qaeda, does not require a substantial troop presence to fight anymore while the Taleban would require a much larger one. He suggests also that if the US pulled out it might take a "broader" (ie less "soft on Pakistan") view of international terrorism.
The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : U.S. exit from Afghanistan to bring gains
Shared via AddThis
The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : U.S. exit from Afghanistan to bring gains
Shared via AddThis
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Obama's health care speech to Congress
Bottom line: great on rhetoric, but the substance was far less and far less appealing to progressives than it appeared.
First, the overarching structure of the speech: It was basically divided into three parts: making the case for health care reform; spelling out the plan; putting the political spin on the plan. On the first and third he did great. But he always does well on the first, and there was nothing new here. There were moments of brilliance on the third -- time when he subtly but unmistakably took it to the Republicans, rallying his own party while appearing to hold out the prospect of negotiation. All exactly what I would have wanted. But what about the middle section, the crucial spelling out of the plan? Here, not so much.
Again there were three parts, as he laid it out -- insurance reforms for those currently with insurance; measures to cover those without insurance; and costs. Again, as with previous addresses, on the first of these he was really strong -- gave explicit guarantees that from day one of signing the bill it would be illegal for insurance companies to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, drop people who fall sick while on insurance, or impose lifetime caps on benefits. All ironclad guarantees, immediately available, to improve the product for people who are already mostly satisfied with their coverage. What did he NOT mention? That all of these mandates on insurance companies would inevitably, ceteris paribus (or "all other things being equal") as the economists like to say, raise costs.
SO that brings us to point no. 2 -- covering people without insurance. How does he propose to do that. Well for the first time he has explicitly embraced the thing he ran against in the primaries and that all the bills contain -- a mandate on individuals to buy insurance. He also, it should be noted, mandates on employers to provide insurance, something the "moderate" Senate Finance Bill leaves out, probably the only really noteworthy point of the whole plan, if he sticks to it.
But, as he himself points out, putting mandates on individuals to buy insurance is unreasonable on the face of it since most people without insurance right now can't afford to buy it. How does he say he will make it affordable? In the speech he mentions insurance exchanges which are a mechanism to give individuals access to plans at rates comparable to large groups. But those large group plans are already too expensive for most people, at least those with families to buy on their own that is without the employer kicking in most of it. (Family plans at most group -- ie employer provided rates cost over $1000 a month as people discover when they have to pay the whole insurance if they want COBRA. Obama knows this, which is why he passed a generous COBRA subsidy in the stimulus package which is the only reason my family has insurance right now.) If nothing else changed, insurance exchanges still wouldn't make insurance affordable for most people. Then add the cost of the insurance reforms mentioned above (which no one seems to factor in -- except Congresswoman Maxine Waters tonight on The Ed Show) and the matter would be worse. Making insurance mandatory and increasing the size of the pool might help defray costs -- though if young people were given very low rates or cheap insurance to buy it probably wouldn't. And we still don't know how does one make mandates affordable?
The answer of course is subsidies. But Obama didn't even mention this in his speech -- which means he did not make a political case for them -- much less commit himself to any level of subsidies which is a very serious matter since there is a large gap between the (much less generous) proposal Baucus is circulating in the Senate Finance Committee and those agreed to in the House. And the reason for the gap? This -- subsidies -- is the main driver of the cost of the bill, which makes it really odd that he NEVER mentions them.
Neither, for that matter, did Obama now or ever before in any of his other appearances define or give any hint of what level of insurance he would consider "affordable" premiums (definitions in the bills go up to about 13% of pretax income). He did, though, mention a public option. Defended it, but chastised those who were wedded to it, but gave a ringing endorsement of providing SOME "choice" to people who cannot find "affordable" insurance. Hooray. The only thing of any significance there is the tone. The substance was meaningless.
But none of this may matter because none of these measures to expand coverage comes into being for four years. (Except mandates? unclear from David Axelrod's answer to Keith Olberman's question.) Four years during which the cost of insurance premiums will go up because of the reforms enacted immediately. Four years duing with the deficit will, predictably go up and during which the Republicans will have two election cycles to demagogue their way back into power to repeal or defer the subsidies and everything else. Which makes it significant that Obama went considerably further along the road to defining people without insurance as the "welfare queens" of health reform, ie as freeriders who are irresponsibly imposing costs on everyone else, a path predicted by my last post.
And why are they pushing it down the road four years? Because, as one of Keith Olberman's guests pointed out, this reduces the projected cost of the bill. Note, though, that it only reduces it over the ten year period that the law requires Congress project a bill's cost for. That means, the 900 billion dollar or trillion dollars over ten years is really the SIX year cost beginning in 2013. This is budgeting by smoke and mirrors.
Which brings us to the last item in Obama's "plan." How to pay for it? Two things need to be noted at the outset: first, Obama embraced a total price tag ($900 billion over ten years) that is closer to the Senate Finance Committee's number which makes it unlikely he will push for more generous subsidies. (And again, remember, that number is actually over six years.) Second the one line he drew in the sand is that not only should this be "deficit-neutral" (as scored by CBO, something he has said before, too) but if cost savings he proposes do not materialize the difference should be made up with spending cuts not taxes on the middle class. (This he has NOT said before.) This makes it very important that, even more than before, he insists most of the bill can be paid for through greater efficiencies. This is highly dubious, as I will argue at a future point, but more importantly it is something most people are already skeptical of. That means he has not really moved the debate in this area forward. Additionally he has embraced the Senate Finance Committee's just released plan to impose surcharges on insurers and pharmaceutical companies based on market share, which did not look like they would raise much money. All of this makes it much more likely that by the time it actually comes time to kick in the insurance exchanges and subsidies that subsidies will be trimmed even further.
So, bottom line, again: Obama is using the promise of health care for all to propose a bill which would primarily reform insurance for those with insurance but in ways that even most of those will only feel in higher premiums while settting up those without insurance to become the scapegoats of the plan, bearing the burden of costs they already cannot afford. Why? Probably because of a cynical calculation that by the time people figure this out he will have been reelected. Most likely outcome -- failure of the health care bill as people start to realize the problems and chip away at it. Or am I being optimistic? (And I support universal healthcare and supported the guy through primaries and elections. Geez.)
First, the overarching structure of the speech: It was basically divided into three parts: making the case for health care reform; spelling out the plan; putting the political spin on the plan. On the first and third he did great. But he always does well on the first, and there was nothing new here. There were moments of brilliance on the third -- time when he subtly but unmistakably took it to the Republicans, rallying his own party while appearing to hold out the prospect of negotiation. All exactly what I would have wanted. But what about the middle section, the crucial spelling out of the plan? Here, not so much.
Again there were three parts, as he laid it out -- insurance reforms for those currently with insurance; measures to cover those without insurance; and costs. Again, as with previous addresses, on the first of these he was really strong -- gave explicit guarantees that from day one of signing the bill it would be illegal for insurance companies to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, drop people who fall sick while on insurance, or impose lifetime caps on benefits. All ironclad guarantees, immediately available, to improve the product for people who are already mostly satisfied with their coverage. What did he NOT mention? That all of these mandates on insurance companies would inevitably, ceteris paribus (or "all other things being equal") as the economists like to say, raise costs.
SO that brings us to point no. 2 -- covering people without insurance. How does he propose to do that. Well for the first time he has explicitly embraced the thing he ran against in the primaries and that all the bills contain -- a mandate on individuals to buy insurance. He also, it should be noted, mandates on employers to provide insurance, something the "moderate" Senate Finance Bill leaves out, probably the only really noteworthy point of the whole plan, if he sticks to it.
But, as he himself points out, putting mandates on individuals to buy insurance is unreasonable on the face of it since most people without insurance right now can't afford to buy it. How does he say he will make it affordable? In the speech he mentions insurance exchanges which are a mechanism to give individuals access to plans at rates comparable to large groups. But those large group plans are already too expensive for most people, at least those with families to buy on their own that is without the employer kicking in most of it. (Family plans at most group -- ie employer provided rates cost over $1000 a month as people discover when they have to pay the whole insurance if they want COBRA. Obama knows this, which is why he passed a generous COBRA subsidy in the stimulus package which is the only reason my family has insurance right now.) If nothing else changed, insurance exchanges still wouldn't make insurance affordable for most people. Then add the cost of the insurance reforms mentioned above (which no one seems to factor in -- except Congresswoman Maxine Waters tonight on The Ed Show) and the matter would be worse. Making insurance mandatory and increasing the size of the pool might help defray costs -- though if young people were given very low rates or cheap insurance to buy it probably wouldn't. And we still don't know how does one make mandates affordable?
The answer of course is subsidies. But Obama didn't even mention this in his speech -- which means he did not make a political case for them -- much less commit himself to any level of subsidies which is a very serious matter since there is a large gap between the (much less generous) proposal Baucus is circulating in the Senate Finance Committee and those agreed to in the House. And the reason for the gap? This -- subsidies -- is the main driver of the cost of the bill, which makes it really odd that he NEVER mentions them.
Neither, for that matter, did Obama now or ever before in any of his other appearances define or give any hint of what level of insurance he would consider "affordable" premiums (definitions in the bills go up to about 13% of pretax income). He did, though, mention a public option. Defended it, but chastised those who were wedded to it, but gave a ringing endorsement of providing SOME "choice" to people who cannot find "affordable" insurance. Hooray. The only thing of any significance there is the tone. The substance was meaningless.
But none of this may matter because none of these measures to expand coverage comes into being for four years. (Except mandates? unclear from David Axelrod's answer to Keith Olberman's question.) Four years during which the cost of insurance premiums will go up because of the reforms enacted immediately. Four years duing with the deficit will, predictably go up and during which the Republicans will have two election cycles to demagogue their way back into power to repeal or defer the subsidies and everything else. Which makes it significant that Obama went considerably further along the road to defining people without insurance as the "welfare queens" of health reform, ie as freeriders who are irresponsibly imposing costs on everyone else, a path predicted by my last post.
And why are they pushing it down the road four years? Because, as one of Keith Olberman's guests pointed out, this reduces the projected cost of the bill. Note, though, that it only reduces it over the ten year period that the law requires Congress project a bill's cost for. That means, the 900 billion dollar or trillion dollars over ten years is really the SIX year cost beginning in 2013. This is budgeting by smoke and mirrors.
Which brings us to the last item in Obama's "plan." How to pay for it? Two things need to be noted at the outset: first, Obama embraced a total price tag ($900 billion over ten years) that is closer to the Senate Finance Committee's number which makes it unlikely he will push for more generous subsidies. (And again, remember, that number is actually over six years.) Second the one line he drew in the sand is that not only should this be "deficit-neutral" (as scored by CBO, something he has said before, too) but if cost savings he proposes do not materialize the difference should be made up with spending cuts not taxes on the middle class. (This he has NOT said before.) This makes it very important that, even more than before, he insists most of the bill can be paid for through greater efficiencies. This is highly dubious, as I will argue at a future point, but more importantly it is something most people are already skeptical of. That means he has not really moved the debate in this area forward. Additionally he has embraced the Senate Finance Committee's just released plan to impose surcharges on insurers and pharmaceutical companies based on market share, which did not look like they would raise much money. All of this makes it much more likely that by the time it actually comes time to kick in the insurance exchanges and subsidies that subsidies will be trimmed even further.
So, bottom line, again: Obama is using the promise of health care for all to propose a bill which would primarily reform insurance for those with insurance but in ways that even most of those will only feel in higher premiums while settting up those without insurance to become the scapegoats of the plan, bearing the burden of costs they already cannot afford. Why? Probably because of a cynical calculation that by the time people figure this out he will have been reelected. Most likely outcome -- failure of the health care bill as people start to realize the problems and chip away at it. Or am I being optimistic? (And I support universal healthcare and supported the guy through primaries and elections. Geez.)
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Scapegoating and Cost Savings in the Health Care Debate: Obama’s Welfare Queens?
Arun Swamy
Broad, ‘populist’ political appeals often require identifying some scapegoats who are robbing the people and whose machinations, if defeated, will painlessly provide the people with what they want. To some extent, this is a necessary aspect of getting things done, as it helps to focus political energies. But there are times when claims about the malfeasance of the scapegoat group become so caricatured, or the scapegoats chosen are so politically powerless that the practice becomes truly toxic.
The nadir of this practice in the US in my adult life was Reagan's invented “welfare queen” anecdotes. The claim that there were women living on so many fraudulent welfare checks that they could drive up in Cadillacs to collect them had many consequences, not least speaking to white resentment of the apparently disproportionate gains reaped by blacks under Johnson’s Great Society program. Reagan’s main purpose in making the claim, though, was to demonstrate that it was possible to dramatically cut social spending without causing harm.
Scapegoat images like that of the “welfare queen” frequently accompany the argument that great savings are to be had from the elimination of "waste, fraud and abuse" in government spending. In view of the central role President Obama has assigned to cost savings in his effort to pay for health care reform, it is not surprising that he has resorted to a number of similar demons in his efforts to ensure that the public believes reform can be achieved at relatively low cost.
To Obama’s credit, his preferred demons, like the insurance industry, are relatively politically powerful.
However, increasingly, as different aspects of health care reform come under attack, Obama has resorted to a number of villains whose actions are held to increase medical costs astronomically in ways that are easily enough detectable that they can be eliminated. These include the doctor who removes tonsils needlessly just to make a buck; everyone who eats unhealthy food, exercises too little (and presumably smokes?); and slowly, people who don't buy health insurance. Each of these images makes a legitimate point but in ways that might backfire politically, by undermining public confidence in his cost-cutting measures, raising anxieties about their possible consequences and eroding support for subsidies.
It has become a centerpiece of Obama's proposals to insist that huge savings are possible in the health care system by promoting "best practices," eliminating “unnecessary tests” or replacing "fee for service" payment with "paying for outcomes." The claims are supported by the experiences of research institutes like the Mayo Clinic and several studies, of which the most popular is one which compared two communities in the Southwest with vastly different Medicare costs, concluding that the difference lay simply in the greed of the doctors in the high cost community. However, to focus on this last explanation, as the infamous “tonsil” example does, flies in the face of the experience of many patients and raises legitimate concerns over whether the cost savings will be attained or, if they are, whether they will come at the cost of legitimate diagnostic testing in an uncertain science.
Even more elusive is the idea of obtaining savings by promoting wellness. It is a truism bordering on a tautology to argue that, if a huge portion of health care costs is due to preventable diseases like lung cancer and diabetes, then lifestyle changes that prevent obesity or reduce smoking rates would bring down costs. That does not make this approach easy or even feasible. It would be perfectly sensible to tax sugar as well as tobacco, as one House Committee suggested. And it is certainly sensible to promote healthier lifestyles. But to make bringing down the cost curve dependent on actually getting people to stop smoking, eat less fattening foods and exercise more is simply not credible as the innumerable failed diets, exercise plans and smoking cessation programs attest.
So it is no wonder then that increasingly the weight of insurance reform is going to be put on the uninsured. This is a paradox. Surely uninsured people are the victims of the current situation and the intended beneficiaries of reform, one thought. Well they are, but they are also the scapegoats.
The most obvious way in which the uninsured have become scapegoats is through oft-repeated claim that we are all paying for them anyway through the cost of unreimbursed emergency room visits. I recognize that this is intended as a backhanded selling point for universal insurance -- like Earl Long's famous demand that white nurses should not have to attend to black patients, a demand intended to make it possible to hire black nurses. But it is an odd argument, as it opens the door to the counter-suggestion, "why not just repeal the law that requires emergency rooms to accept everyone."
But there is also the argument, embodied in the proposal to mandate individuals to buy insurance, that it is the fault of the uninsured that insurance premiums for the insured are going up. This argument is usually made in terms of requiring young people who “think they are invulnerable” to contribute to the cost of health insurance they will need later. But the more that young people are used as representative of the uninsured -- as Obama did in his recent Organizing for America forum -- the more easily individual mandates will come to be seen as a painless solution requiring little in the way of subsidies. This would put those older people and families of moderate income who have been forced out of the group health insurance market in jeopardy as more of the public accept the proposition, put forward by several Republicans that a "household" making $75,000 a year can easily afford health insurance even though at current GROUP rates a family of three or four at this income would pay nearly 20% of gross income for health insurance if they had to pay the full premium.
And why is this happening? As all the tough but simple smart options are avoided -- a broadbased tax, expanding Medicare, even taxing employer health benefits -- because they don't play well with those who still have employer based healthcare, the only politically viable health reform will be one that provides improved plans to those with health care, at the cost of not merely excluding, but driving up the costs of those without. So what better way to justify this than to have demonized them? I do not believe this is Obama’s intention, although it is what “moderates” in his party like Joe Lieberman suggest. But it may be where his strategy is, inadvertently, leading us.
Broad, ‘populist’ political appeals often require identifying some scapegoats who are robbing the people and whose machinations, if defeated, will painlessly provide the people with what they want. To some extent, this is a necessary aspect of getting things done, as it helps to focus political energies. But there are times when claims about the malfeasance of the scapegoat group become so caricatured, or the scapegoats chosen are so politically powerless that the practice becomes truly toxic.
The nadir of this practice in the US in my adult life was Reagan's invented “welfare queen” anecdotes. The claim that there were women living on so many fraudulent welfare checks that they could drive up in Cadillacs to collect them had many consequences, not least speaking to white resentment of the apparently disproportionate gains reaped by blacks under Johnson’s Great Society program. Reagan’s main purpose in making the claim, though, was to demonstrate that it was possible to dramatically cut social spending without causing harm.
Scapegoat images like that of the “welfare queen” frequently accompany the argument that great savings are to be had from the elimination of "waste, fraud and abuse" in government spending. In view of the central role President Obama has assigned to cost savings in his effort to pay for health care reform, it is not surprising that he has resorted to a number of similar demons in his efforts to ensure that the public believes reform can be achieved at relatively low cost.
To Obama’s credit, his preferred demons, like the insurance industry, are relatively politically powerful.
However, increasingly, as different aspects of health care reform come under attack, Obama has resorted to a number of villains whose actions are held to increase medical costs astronomically in ways that are easily enough detectable that they can be eliminated. These include the doctor who removes tonsils needlessly just to make a buck; everyone who eats unhealthy food, exercises too little (and presumably smokes?); and slowly, people who don't buy health insurance. Each of these images makes a legitimate point but in ways that might backfire politically, by undermining public confidence in his cost-cutting measures, raising anxieties about their possible consequences and eroding support for subsidies.
It has become a centerpiece of Obama's proposals to insist that huge savings are possible in the health care system by promoting "best practices," eliminating “unnecessary tests” or replacing "fee for service" payment with "paying for outcomes." The claims are supported by the experiences of research institutes like the Mayo Clinic and several studies, of which the most popular is one which compared two communities in the Southwest with vastly different Medicare costs, concluding that the difference lay simply in the greed of the doctors in the high cost community. However, to focus on this last explanation, as the infamous “tonsil” example does, flies in the face of the experience of many patients and raises legitimate concerns over whether the cost savings will be attained or, if they are, whether they will come at the cost of legitimate diagnostic testing in an uncertain science.
Even more elusive is the idea of obtaining savings by promoting wellness. It is a truism bordering on a tautology to argue that, if a huge portion of health care costs is due to preventable diseases like lung cancer and diabetes, then lifestyle changes that prevent obesity or reduce smoking rates would bring down costs. That does not make this approach easy or even feasible. It would be perfectly sensible to tax sugar as well as tobacco, as one House Committee suggested. And it is certainly sensible to promote healthier lifestyles. But to make bringing down the cost curve dependent on actually getting people to stop smoking, eat less fattening foods and exercise more is simply not credible as the innumerable failed diets, exercise plans and smoking cessation programs attest.
So it is no wonder then that increasingly the weight of insurance reform is going to be put on the uninsured. This is a paradox. Surely uninsured people are the victims of the current situation and the intended beneficiaries of reform, one thought. Well they are, but they are also the scapegoats.
The most obvious way in which the uninsured have become scapegoats is through oft-repeated claim that we are all paying for them anyway through the cost of unreimbursed emergency room visits. I recognize that this is intended as a backhanded selling point for universal insurance -- like Earl Long's famous demand that white nurses should not have to attend to black patients, a demand intended to make it possible to hire black nurses. But it is an odd argument, as it opens the door to the counter-suggestion, "why not just repeal the law that requires emergency rooms to accept everyone."
But there is also the argument, embodied in the proposal to mandate individuals to buy insurance, that it is the fault of the uninsured that insurance premiums for the insured are going up. This argument is usually made in terms of requiring young people who “think they are invulnerable” to contribute to the cost of health insurance they will need later. But the more that young people are used as representative of the uninsured -- as Obama did in his recent Organizing for America forum -- the more easily individual mandates will come to be seen as a painless solution requiring little in the way of subsidies. This would put those older people and families of moderate income who have been forced out of the group health insurance market in jeopardy as more of the public accept the proposition, put forward by several Republicans that a "household" making $75,000 a year can easily afford health insurance even though at current GROUP rates a family of three or four at this income would pay nearly 20% of gross income for health insurance if they had to pay the full premium.
And why is this happening? As all the tough but simple smart options are avoided -- a broadbased tax, expanding Medicare, even taxing employer health benefits -- because they don't play well with those who still have employer based healthcare, the only politically viable health reform will be one that provides improved plans to those with health care, at the cost of not merely excluding, but driving up the costs of those without. So what better way to justify this than to have demonized them? I do not believe this is Obama’s intention, although it is what “moderates” in his party like Joe Lieberman suggest. But it may be where his strategy is, inadvertently, leading us.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Wives of the G-20 Leaders
So what is wrong with this picture? Twenty leaders, eighteen 'wives'. Why? Two female leaders whose spouses did not attend. (Actually neither did Sarkozy's wife so Im curious how it still adds up to eighteen).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
