Welcome!

This blog is dedicated to discussion of information and opinion on politics and economics. I encourage agreement, disagreement, and suggestions. Click on About this site above to find out more about me and the blog’s title.

A health care debate

My good friend Jody Tompson and I agree on football (we’re both Cowboys fans) and beer (we both like it), but not usually on politics. We started this debate on Facebook, with Jody’s post about wait times…

Jody waiting at the DMV….will the doctors’ offices be like this someday soon?

Ted

Now seriously, Jody, how long did you ever wait in a doctor’s office in New Zealand?

Jody

I never went to the doc in NZ. But Abby’s birth was botched and I know ppl who were on waiting lists to have urgent care conducted…like a hernia surgery.

Ted

Okay, we both know we’ll never agree on this! But here goes… I’ve been to the doc at least twice a year for 14 years and have never waited more than about 20 minutes. I can get an appointment the same day, no one asks about my insurance, and it costs 35-45 NZ dollars for a typical visit–about 25-35 US$. Most prescriptions cost $3. And NZ is far from the best example of universal health care, according to international studies. Unfortunately, doctors botch operations occasionally in every country. And of course, what’s rarely said in this debate is that having a public system doesn’t rule out also having private insurance, which we (and about 30% of NZers) have, and which takes care of the wait list problem for those who are worried about it (and costs me about 110 NZ$ per month for a family of 3–one fifth of what it costs me in 1996 in the US). No system is perfect, but the wait list issue is not really that hard to deal with. Ultimately the US pays more than any other country for health care and gets less than stellar health outcomes, especially if you happen to be poor in the richest country in the world. There’s got to be a better way. Your turn…

Jody

We can think of failures and successes in any system. And the waiting is often a symptom of the individual practice, not the whole system. I agree with your last sentence…there probably is a better way. For me, the main issue is this: it’s not the govt’s job to intervene here. It’s not the govt’s job, and the govt is not any good at these things. Schools? not so good. Post office? Nope. DMV? Hardly. Medicare? More fraudulent than ever.If I buy 6 new TVs and fancy cars and a house I can’t really afford…then can’t pay my mortgage, will you bail me out? The govt is insisting that you should.

And will you subsidize my medical care after I neglect my own health?

The better way is how Whole Foods Market is doing it now.

Ted

I liked the Whole Foods article. I’d be happy to see some of those ideas enacted. Some of them would certainly help, but they won’t solve the problem on their own.  It’s great what Whole Foods is doing. But do you think Walmart might follow suit? I doubt it.

The thrust of Mackey’s argument is pretty standard neo-liberal economics: cut taxes, deregulate, and trust the market to solve the problem. How’d that work out in the banking and finance sector? Or the energy sector (ask Enron’s stakeholders). The market already has more freedom to operate in health care in the US than it does anywhere else in the world and what are the results? Systematic practices to deny claims, deny coverage to those who need it most, the most per capita costs for health care in the world with mediocre results.

I understand your skepticism of government-run programs. But you and I both study organizations, so I hope you’re not going to argue that only government organizations are guilty of inefficiency and fraud. Dilbert wouldn’t be funny if that were true!

Ultimately you want to trust the private sector and not government.  But it doesn’t have to be an either-or choice. I like having the choice between the post office and the private alternatives and use them both. I’ve sent my daughter to both public and private schools and both have been excellent. (I went to only public schools and have few complaints). And, people in Medicare are more satisfied on the whole than those in private plans. The market has its place, but it’s not a panacea, as numerous studies comparing private and public sector service industries show.

Not the government’s job to intervene? When the biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical debt? When 15% of the population have no health care insurance? What’s the government’s job if not to address systemic problems like these?

To paraphrase Michelle Obama….

For the first time in what seems a very long time, I’m very proud of my country. This is not the time to gloat or criticise. It’s a great day. I hope even McCain’s supporters will appreciate that–if not now, then eventually. As a child of the South, the election of Barack Obama is especially gratifying for me to see. We’ve truly come a long way.

Spreading fear, ignorance, and racism: Response to a fellow redneck

Like everyone else in this election season, I’ve received lots of e-mails about the election, supporting one candidate or the other. Following is one I received recently. I usually read and delete messages along these lines, but this one prompted a response, mainly because it was from my hometown and from someone I know, which probably makes me think–and cringe–a bit more. Here’s the message I received:

If You Agree, Will You Send This To Your Paper’s Editor? Send it to everyone you know around the nation, please. I have submitted this to the Post & Courier

Regards,
Kyle
————————————————————————
I do not believe in spreading my wealth.  I do not believe that relatively wealthy people should pay higher taxes than people with less wealth as the Democratic party believes and apparently the Republican party as well.  We already live in a society that has changed dramatically in my lifetime due to higher and higher taxes.  If not already, we are on the very verge of becoming a socialist nation. Very clearly Obama stated that he wants to spread the wealth. To each according to his needs, and from each according to his abilities certainly defines “spreading the wealth.”   Scarier still, is that most American voters are not aware that “To each according to his needs….” was a communist policy and was first personally declared by Joseph Stalin. I believe that the requirements for a president of the United States, as specified in our Constitution should be followed. The DNC and RNC should certainly and precisely identify and declare that the simple requirements to be the president of United States have been met by their candidate. Barack Obama’s proof that he is a naturalized citizen of the United States is still outstanding. As some of you may know, a lawsuit in Pennsylvania (started by a lifelong Democrat and NAACP supporter) to discount Obama’s qualification to be a president of the United States, because he cannot prove that he is a naturalized citizen,  was ruled against by a federal judge this past Saturday. Of course, the DNC lobbied heavily to have the lawsuit thrown out. I suspect Obama was born in Indonesia or Kenya, and not Hawaii. Where is the rage by the RNC to have this charade exposed?  Where is your rage?  Contact your representatives now. I do not believe that any political party should endorse any candidate who spent two decades  listening to and agreeing with his pastor who damned America. I do not believe that anyone should support a presidential candidate, whose wife openly declared that she was not proud of America (until her husband became a presidential candidate). The allowances, perks backbreaking efforts, etc. of the American people and the United States government to help blacks in this country over the last 40 years that surely helped the Obama’s amass their one- half million income per year, is another subject for discussion.  I do not believe that an unborn child should be killed if “my daughter makes a mistake” as explained by Obama. I do not believe that a person should be elected to be president of the United States after his own vice presidential pick earlier declared that he was not qualified to be a president, as stated by Joe Biden (his vice presidential pick). I do not believe that a person should be elected to be our president who refuses to produce documents regarding his past, who has basically zero executive experience, who has had and has ties with people who have backgrounds of national terrorism, who initially refused to wear or an American flag on his lapel, is a Marxist, whose national and foreign policies were conceived on the campaign trail and whose presidential candidacy is supported by Iran.  People, if you are considering voting for Barack Obama because of his race (half black and half white) or his “change” mantra, please reconsider. You may not believe this now, but our democracy, what’s left of it, is at stake.

———————————————————————

My response:

Hi Kyle,

When my brother forwarded this message to me, I was going to just file it away, since I’ve read most of what you said in one form or another, looked into the issues you raise, and made up my mind. But since I just figured out that we actually know each other, and your message contains a number of common attacks on Obama, I thought I would write back.

You ask in your message “Where is your rage?” I’ve tried as best I can not to let rage rule my views on this election process, although that’s been difficult. However, the source of my anger is different from yours. Mine comes from the spread of misinformation, fear-mongering, and racism on the part of many, a process to which I believe you contribute in your message. It’s a process that has become a popular tool in politics, and is mostly responsible for giving us the worst presidency in our lifetime and a country that is in tatters at the moment. If I thought that Obama would actually make things worse, I might be more sympathetic to your message. But I have a hard time believing that’s possible.

I think you’re entitled to your opinion, and even though I support Obama enthusiastically, there are some legitimate concerns raised in your message. Like you, many people will disagree with Obama’s stance on Roe v. Wade and he certainly has less experience than McCain.  However, I think that most of the other points you raise are seriously misguided. Just to addess the most egregious:

• First, a bit of history: “To each according to his needs….” was not “first personally declared by Joseph Stalin”. It was popularized by Karl Marx (who borrowed it from someone even earlier) and then adopted by the Soviet communist leaders Lenin and Stalin.

• You imply that Obama has endorsed the Marx quote and you later call him a Marxist.  I seriously doubt he’s ever endorsed that statement, but if so I’d be interested to know your source. If you mean that his “spreading the wealth” comment suggests that he supports Marxism, that’s a pretty big leap. I know his comment has been used by the McCain campaign to suggest that Obama endorses socialism, but if you read the whole conversation in which he used that phrase, he was simply arguing for progressive taxation. To call Obama a Marxist is either not to understand Marxism, or just to be name-calling and fear-mongering. He would not be getting the endorsement of so many conservative newspapers and Republicans if they thought for a moment that he’s a Marxist.
• You obviously don’t agree with progressive taxation, and that’s fine. But we’ve had progressive taxation in the US for 150 years. The only difference has been a matter of degree. Even under Reagan, Nixon, Bush and every other conservative president, we’ve had progressive taxation.
• You say  that society “has changed dramatically in my lifetime due to higher and higher taxes. Since you’re focusing on the presidential race, I assume you’re mostly interested in Federal taxes. I don’t know how old you are or what your income is, but if you just consider the income tax rates for the wealthiest citizens–those that Obama wants to raise–if you’re older than 20, then taxes have certainly not increased in your lifetime. In my lifetime (I was born in ‘55), the top tax rate has gone from 91% to its present 35%. So, just the opposite of what you claim has happened. In fact, income inequality is at its highest point since the 1920s. I hardly think we’re on the road to socialism.
• Regarding the lawsuit in Pennsylvania challenging Obama’s citizenship, the guy who filed the suit, Philip Berg, is a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Don’t believe me? He’s also got a<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-NZ X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–> <!–[endif]–> court case against Bush and Cheney saying that they were co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks. Maybe he’s right about that, too, but as much as I distrust the two of them, I doubt this is a credible claim. And Obama does not refuse to turn over his birth certificate. If he did, he would not be eligible to run for president. This is one of the many smear attempts that is making the rounds. His birth certificate is published on his Fight the Smears website. It’s been authenticated not only by Factcheck.org, as Mr. Berg says, but also by  Politifact, a non-partisan service of the St. Petersburg Times. It’s also possible that the so-called “liberal media” is ignoring the story. But 46 newspapers that supported Bush in 2004 are now endorsing Obama and can hardly be considered liberal.
• You mention that “presidential candidacy is supported by Iran”. I’m sure if you asked the KKK or any white supremacist group, they’d support McCain, but that’s not McCain’s fault, is it? I don’t think we can hold candidates accountable for who supports them, but for who and what they support. And here’s a news flash: If the rest of the world got to vote in the election–including Iran, but also including every English-speaking country–it wouldn’t be a close race.
• Now, we come to the really nasty stuff. Do you seriously think the Obamas get “their one- half million income per year” because of some affirmative action program? Let’s put aside that whatever fortune the Obamas have pales in comparison to the McCains. If you take even the smallest amount of time to investigate Obama’s biography–rather than relying on racist stereotypes–you will know that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School along with being president and editor of the Harvard Law Review. I think it’s fair to say that he succeeded on his own merits. Compare that to Bush and McCain, who got into their respective universities and were helped in their careers because of rich and/or powerful fathers, and performed somewhere between average and pitiful at university: McCain graduated 894 out of a class of 899 and Bush was a C student.
• Finally, your comment that “if you are considering voting for Barack Obama because of his race” placed, as it is, at the end of your message, is very telling. Race is obviously very much in your thoughts. I don’t doubt that there are many people who will vote for Obama because of his race–and many others, like you, who will vote against him because of race.

There’s lots of negative stuff I could say about McCain in response, but that’s an issue for another blog post. I’ll just end where you did, Kyle: Our democracy is at stake.  But in my mind, the biggest threats are not those you articulate. Rather, they’re fear, hate, ignorance, and racism that lead to hysterical rants and an inability to engage in informed and civil discussion about differences. Whoever wins, I hope that we can find a way to have that sort of discussion.

Guilt by association…or perhaps praise?

With the non-stop attacks on Obama’s association with Ayers and ACORN by McCain/Palin and the right wing pundits, accompanied by charges that he’s un-American, unpatriotic, and maybe a foreigner after all, you’d think Obama must be a scary guy. No sane, well-informed and patriotic person or institution wouldn’t support someone like that, would they?

Well, as it turns out, Obama’s “associations” are pretty impressive. Yesterday came the news that Colin Powell endorsed him. However, despite an eloquent, detailed, and rational explanation as to why he supports Obama, Powell’s endorsement was dismissed as purely racial by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan. But Powell is just the latest in a long line of endorsements, many of whom even conservatives would have a hard time dismissing:

• Christoper Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley, who many people consider the father of modern conservatism, saying in his endorsement that Obama has, “a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect” and “the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader.”
• Lilibet Hagel, wife of Republican senator Chuck Hagel, endorsed him last week, calling Obama “smart, dedicated, steady, and wise” and said of Obama and Biden that “They are good, decent people who always put their country first.”
• Warren Buffett, the “sage of Omaha” and the worlds’ richest man.
• Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google.
• And many other conservatives, who aren’t so well known.

Then there are the endorsements by major newspapers. If Obama was all those horrible things that the wingnuts have claimed, surely the newspapers would investigate these accusations and expose them, right? Well, apparently not, since he leads McCain in newspaper endorsements by a 3-1 margin. But of course, some will say that’s meaningless because of the “liberal media” bias. Well how about this: 26 newspapers that supported Bush over Kerry have endorsed Obama, including the Chicago Tribune, which has never supported a Democrat in its 160 year history. Only 4 that supported Kerry have switched parties to support McCain.

Now, John McCain has some important supporters, too, of course. But few people are trying to make an issue out of his associations, even though they certainly could, with G. Gordon Liddy and Charles Keating being at least 2 highly questionable associations, not to mention Sarah Palin’s association with the Alaskan Indepence Party–an anti-American organisation if there ever was one.

The Ayers and ACORN accusations are pure desperation. Let’s move on.

When nothing else is working, try fear

Things have not been going John McCain’s way recently, so perhaps it’s no surprise that his campaign’s new strategy seems to be “All Ayers, all ACORN, all the time.” Fear is a powerful persuasive weapon, and if they can simply paint Obama as unpatriotic, un-American, unlike “us”, he looks dangerous. Be afraid, they seem to be saying. Be very afraid.

So, Sarah Palin accuses him of “palling around with terrorists”. In the last two days the McCain campaign has used a “robo-call” to scare people into thinking that Obama has terrorist leanings. Fox Noise has focused on little other than Ayers and ACORN in the last week.

Can you really look at these two tickets and think that Obama-Biden is more dangerous than McCain-Palin? Neutral parties have investigated the Ayers and ACORN matters and have concluded they’re non-issues (see also here and here and here). On the other hand, the seething anger McCain has demonstrated in the debates, the impulsive and bizarre choices he has made and Sarah Palin’s idiocy seem much more scary to me.

Fortunately, there are many notable, sensible people and institutions out there that are having none of these scare tactics. It’s noteworthy that many conservatives are supporting him (and here and here and here).  The Chicago Tribune, a conservative publication that has never endorsed a Democrat in its long, proud history, has just endorsed Obama, dealing with the fear-mongering by saying,

Many Americans say they’re uneasy about Obama. He’s pretty new to them. We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

Won’t get fooled again–or will we?

We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

–Pete Townshend, The Who

For some reason, seeing and hearing the hate-filled lunatics at the recent McCain-Palin rallies, seething with anger directed at Obama, makes me think of Pete’s wonderful lyrics. After 8 years of Bush-Cheney, is it possible that some people will get fooled again?

Try as I might, I really can’t understand all the anxiety and animosity at the McCain rallies. It’s not like even conservatives think that things are going swimmingly now. Most of the people who voted for Bush now think he’s been a disaster, as recent approval ratings show. So, what are these angry mobs raging about?

One of them vented his rage at the prospects of “socialists” taking over the country. Yes, well we can’t have that, can we, since the free market ideologues are doing such a wonderful job of bringing peace and prosperity! More seriously, people who love to toss out the “socialist” label any time liberals want to implement programs that are intended to reduce inequality or help the poor really need to go back and study their Economics 101 textbooks–and perhaps read the Obama-Biden platform. If these yo-yos do understand enough about socialism to recognise that the Wall Street bailout is the closest thing we’ve had to the government owning the means of production, well, their own president was the chief sponsor of that one.

Another poor, gullible soul at the rallies fretted that Obama is really an “Arab” and going to do horrible things to the country, reflecting all sorts of misinformation and prejudice.

And then, there are the rants of “terrorist”, “treason”, and even “kill him” that have caused so much stir this week.

McCain and his campaign people want to play innocent on all this, but they’ve stoked this hatred, especially since they announced (stupidly) that they were focusing solely on negative campaigning in the remaining weeks until the election. They’ve painted Obama as dangerous, unpatriotic, and “palling around with terrorists”.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss…

Fortunately, most haven’t fallen for it. In fact, there’s been a backlash, and Obama’s fundraising has surged as supporters responded to the attacks.

But clearly, some people have taken the bait. They’re willing to be fooled again. As Pete said later in the song,

I know that the hypnotized never lie. Do ya?

Why are “elites” overwhelmingly liberal?

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, recently commissioned his own survey of over 500 economists, drawn from members of the American Economic Association. Despite Adams’ day job (creating Dilbert cartoons), it’s a legitimate survey, conducted by a respected research firm. The results are interesting, and Adams’ writing about the survey (also here), as expected, is pretty funny.

The results are interesting –the majority favor Obama on 11 of 13 issues–but the part I want to focus on are the demographics of the sample: A random sample turned out to be 48% Democrats, 17% Republicans, with the rest being independent or “other”. You can look at this at least two ways. One is, “What do you expect from a bunch of pointy-headed academics? More evidence of a bias by the arrogant elites in college classrooms.” That’s what we’d hear from the Limbaughs, O’Reillys and Hannitys of the world–if they were to acknowledge this survey (which they won’t).

The word elite is mostly a dirty word today, a label attached by conservatives to dismiss both wealthy Hollywood types as well as the highly educated. But it also has other meanings including, in the political arena, the best and the brightest. As Maureen Dowd said recently, “Elite is a good word, it means well above average.” All other things being equal, I’d want an elite–say, a Harvard-educated lawyer–rather than Joe Six Pack–say, someone who graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval academy–running the country.

Which brings me back to the survey sample, and the second way you might interpret those demographics. So, the majority of American economists are Democrats. As it turns out, the same is generally true for business, science, and law professors. And outside of those faculties, the percentages who lean leftward are even more striking. A recent survey found that 81% of humanities and 75% of social science profs describe themselves as liberal. Another found that that at elite law schools, faculty who made political contributions overwhelmingly gave to Democrats. This is nothing new, of course. It’s been documented since at least the 1950s that academics tend to be more liberal than the public at large, although a comprehensive recent study shows that the largest group in most fields of study are moderates, not radical lefties.

Academics aren’t the only elites who park on the left. Surveys consistently find that the majority of US journalists are registered Democrats. Similarly, in Australia and in New Zealand, more journalists are left-leaning than right-leaning.

Now, usually when such surveys are discussed in the press, the tenor of the discussion is that something insidious is afoot. The fear is that there’s an “extreme partisan bias” that is bent on brainwashing students and the public. Frankly, it drives conservatives crazy, and many of the surveys that have demonstrated this trend have been commissioned by right-wing think tanks with an agenda of getting rid of all those old lefty profs or dismissing those pinko journos. I’m old enough to remember a book in the late 70s called Harvard Hates America that railed against the liberal intelligentsia. And as the title of that book suggests, the right wing equates being liberal with being unpatriotic.

But while it is reasonable to discuss the lack of viewpoint diversity and its consequences–the usual focus–perhaps we might question why it is that the majority of ”elites” are consistently liberal and Democrat. Here are some of the reasons typically offered:

1. Discrimination in hiring and promotion. In other words, there are just as many good, conservative candidates out there, but we’re just not hiring or promoting them. While some have claimed to have evidence of such a trend, it’s pretty flimsy. And certainly in my professional experience — 25 years in academia – I just don’t see it happening. Frankly, in the institutions where I’ve worked, if we think you’re going to be a great teacher and publish like a fiend, you’ll get the job or the promotion.
2. Birds of a feather. Liberals are attracted to the profession because they know they’ll work with like-minded people. I suspect there’s some merit to this argument, although it’s probably a minor consideration in most people’s career planning.
3. Unwelcoming climate. In other words, people whose views don’t fit in with the majority are driven away from these professions. They feel uncomfortable and leave–or never show up because they choose different careers. I suspect this also happens occasionally, but most academics actually like an argument. Plus, note that for this explanation to hold water, it requires assuming that the status quo was already liberal.
4. Academics–and to a lesser degree journalists–are idealists. That is, they don’t live in the “real world” so it’s easy for them to support a liberal agenda. Well, I think we’re guilty as charged on being more idealistic than the average person. And to me, that’s the way it should be. Higher education and journalism ought to challenge us to reach higher. And so should our political leaders. I don’t accept idealism as a fault. And as for the “real world” bit, I don’t know about everyone else, but my world is pretty real. I pay bills and taxes, raise a family, run a consulting business on the side, am on the boards of two charities, and work 50+ hours a week at my “day job.”

Now, consider a couple of explanations you won’t see in the mainstream press or the right wing blogs when discussing these survey results.

1. The values of academia and journalism simply align better with a liberal worldview. Tolerance, openness to diverse opinion, critical thinking, and challenging authority are fundamental to academic work as well as journalism. For example, the university’s role as the “critic and conscience of society” is enshrined into law here in New Zealand. Considering and respecting diverse views, gathering and critically examining the evidence, and then articulating a reasoned argument is what we’re trained to do. Those practices just don’t sit very comfortably with the socially conservative mindset that adheres to dogma, rejects inconvenient science, and is intolerant of people who are different.
2. Academics and journalists are better informed than the general public. This may sound arrogant and elitist (rather than just elite), and that’s not my intent. But it’s just possible that academics and journalists make better, more informed choices than the general public. Isn’t it interesting that the the majority of people whose life work is studying economics, science, business, and law consistently support Democrats and hold liberal/progressive ideologies? And that this trend is more extreme at the best schools?

Academics and journalists are in general far more engaged in political issues than the general public. They read, write, and talk more about politics than the average person. They have more complex views. (Right wingers may be disappointed, but most of us have no interest in pursuing a strict Marxist-socialist agenda).

Let me say it bluntly: People who, as a group, have studied the evidence most closely — and are trained to do so — overwhelmingly side with liberal-progressives.

Now, I’m not saying academics and journalists are smarter than everyone else and their opinions should be somehow elevated. I’ve known lots of academics that I wouldn’t trust to change a tire. And, as a believer in democracy, I strongly support every citizen’s right to his or her own opinion and vote, (although I often have conversations with people that make me wistfully sympathize with Churchill’s well-known quote, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”). What I am saying is that the fact that most academics and journalists lean a bit left can be interpreted in more than one way–and not necessarily as a problem.

Most people just aren’t that engaged with political issues. Maybe the next time you hear about media bias and liberal academics, you might think more deeply about why journalists and professors think and vote as they do.

Bush’s unpopularity: What have we learned?

A recent poll by Time magazine found Bush’s approval ratings at 23%–the lowest ever recorded for a president since they’ve been conducting these polls. Even worse is the NY Times/CBS poll, with 22% approval ratings. Given that he got close to 50% of the popular vote in 2004, that means that more than half the people who voted for him–not to mention all the rest of us–think he’s done a poor job.

And yet, the polls for the current election remain close. So, many people who voted for Bush now think that was a mistake, but they are still going to vote for McCain-Palin.

Why is that? Since their policy positions are quite close on most issues, it must be that these people think that Bush himself is the problem, not the policies he’s endorsed. And yet, the reasons most Bush voters have now abandoned him are the twin disasters of the Iraq war and the current state of the economy. Other than arguing earlier than Bush for the surge, McCain has supported Bush on Iraq, including all the initial arguments about why we should invade, how easy it was going to be, and how we’d be greeted as liberators.

On the economy, he’s been a staunch advocate of deregulation, which most critics blame for the current meltdown on Wall Street–not to mention all those claims about the economy being fundamentally strong only days before the shit hit the fan.

So the former Bush supporters who are now Bush detractors but McCain lovers clearly think the problem is with Bush the man, not Bush’s policies. This in itself is consistent with the blame-it-on-the-individual mentality that accompanies their ideology. For example, note the right wing pundits are primarily blaming Wall Street’s woes on a few greedy executives, not on a systemic failure (See O’Reilly’s daily rants for a specific example of this).

Don’t you think there might be a deeper problem than just Bush himself?

Postpone the debates? There’s a pattern emerging

Postpone the debates…then decide he’ll attend after all…

Appear to want to help settle the financial bailout and then lead a revolt…

Cancel the first night of the Republican convention…

Appoint someone totally unprepared for the role (as seen on 2 of her 3 total interviews!)…

Say “We’re all Georgians now”…

Suggest firing the head of the SEC…

Does anyone see a pattern here? McCain likes to tout his maverick reputation and his supporters suggest that all the actions above are examples of “bold leadership.” I’m clearly biased, but they look to me to be a string of hot-headed over-reactions–erratic, reckless, maybe desperate. Maybe there’s a connection here to his lifelong love of gambling. There’s no question that McCain will be decisive as president. The question is whether his quick, simplistic and extreme gambles will do much more harm than good.

Will “tax and spend” Democrats ruin the economy? Hardly!

The financial crisis that’s been in the news this week should make us all reflect a bit on economic philosophies.

Conservatives love to deride liberals for their “outdated” thinking about the economy. We hear about failed “socialist” policies. They rave about how “tax and spend” Democrats are going to ruin the economy. They say we’re more interested in income distribution than economic growth.

You’d think with all that rhetoric the Republicans must have a much better record on the economy, right? Well…no, not exactly. Not at all, actually.

Perhaps not surprisingly, over the past 60 years, income inequality–the divide between rich and poor–has increased under Republican presidents and decreased under Democrats. According to Princeton economist Larry Bartels, “income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats”.

However, what’s more surprising, given the loud and persistent conservative argument that their low tax, low regulation policies are better for economic growth, is that on average, the economy has grown significantly more under Democrats over the past 60 years–a 1.14 percentage annual difference, in fact. That doesn’t sound like much, but it adds up to 9.33 percent more income per person over two terms of a presidency.

Just in case you think there’s some clever statistical manipulation going on there, and that “tax and spend Democrats” couldn’t possibly produce better economic results, consider another comparison: award-winning economist Jeffrey Sachs’ analysis of Nordic economies. We all know that these countries have relatively high taxes and social spending. And the high social spending pays off: Compared to the US, inequality and poverty are lower, life expectancy is higher, savings rates are higher, leisure time is greater. Income on average is slightly higher in the US than most of these countries (Norway’s is higher than the US, but the others are not), but they are still very high and their averages are not distorted by the incomes of the very wealthy. Importantly, these economies are absolutely not based on state socialism. They are market-based, focussed on being internationally competitive (with among the highest per capita R&D spending in the world), and open to international trade.

Granted, there are lots of factors that enter into the comparisons above. But the evidence is powerful enough to refute the simplistic ideology that says higher taxes and social spending will result in a weaker economy. The comparisons above show that it’s possible to invest in social services and actually have more income–and a better standard of living for everyone.

Are you serious? McCain sees banking industry as good model for health care

This is unbelievable. The following is a post from the blog of the economist Paul Krugman. If you haven’t read his book, The Conscience of a Liberal, you should. Or read his regular column in the New York Times.

OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

“Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”

So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!

“Working the refs”–and the so-called liberal media

In sports, it’s a tried and true principle that you can influence the referees by complaining frequently and loudly about the other team’s offenses. Even the strongest and most independent referee can’t help but watch a bit more carefully if he continually hears that a player is fouling or cheating or somehow overstepping the rules. Similarly, the Republicans and their right-wing surrogates on talk radio and Faux News love to deride the “liberal media” and complain that their candidates can’t get a fair shake from the press.

If a label is used often enough, by enough people, we often start to believe there’s something to it. So it is with “liberal media.” Granted there are some media outlets that deserve the label. Check outs ome of the websites in my links, plus Air America, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow (heroes all!) and the editorial page of the New York Times. But after that, it starts to become a matter of what we see is in the eye of the beholder.

What’s the evidence for and against a liberal media and a media bias against McCain-Palin? Two forms of evidence should prove the case: frequency of coverage and how positive or negative that coverage is.

It’s true that Obama received more coverage than McCain–until Sarah Palin arrived on the scene. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that, since she was nominated two weeks ago, Sarah Palin has dominated media coverage.   She received more coverage at the Republican convention than Obama did for the Democratic convention. And this past week, “campaign storylines revolving around Palin accounted for 50%” of the campaign coverage. By contrast, Joe Biden can’t buy a news story, getting only 5% of the campaign coverage.

Now, that’s to some degree understandable. Palin is new, she’s a surprise, she’s female, she has clear and extreme positions, and whether you like her or not–and I certainly do not as a potential veep–she’s articulate and attractive. So, she’s newsworthy. In the same way, the media has covered Obama more than McCain. He’s young, African-American, attractive, and articulate. By contrast, McCain and Biden as more “traditional” candidates (read: old white guys) who aren’t terribly articulate or dynamic, just aren’t very newsy. Regardless, it’s hard to argue just on amount of coverage that there’s a liberal bias.

But of course, not all media coverage is positive. And if the media were truly liberal, we’d expect not only more coverage of Obama than McCain, but expect them to say nicer things about him. However, a recent study at George Mason University found that, since the primaries ended,

on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.

Not surprisingly, the same study found that:

Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with 79% negative comments (v. 21% positive), compared to 61% negative comments (v. 39% positive) for McCain.

Hmmm. Where’s the liberal media bias? More frequent coverage and more positive coverage for the Republicans. But of course, the facts haven’t stopped the right wingers from continuing to cry foul. The McCain campaign complained to MSNBC about Olbermann co-anchoring the convention coverage. And working the refs did the job: Olbermann and his co-anchor were removed as anchors for the upcoming debates.

So, given all this, why don’t the Democrats complain about Fox’s coverage, given their usual line-up of wingnut hosts, plus commentators that include an even more absurdly right wing group such as Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, and Newt Gingrich. Do you suppose just repeatedly mouthing “fair and balanced” and “liberal bias” is all they need to do?

Working the refs–not a bad strategy, if you can get away with it. And for the most part, the right wingers do.

Update: See this Washington Post article with the same genreal claim I’ve made here and McCain’s most recent attempts to work the refs.

What does the rest of the world think…and do they matter?

One of the benefits of living outside the US is that I get to sample what the rest of the world thinks about the US political scene–and the US more generally. Okay, granted New Zealand is only one small country, but I do travel to Australia a lot and Europe and Asia occasionally. And I find that NZ is a reasonably good barometer of how most of the Western world outside the US is thinking.

If the rest of the world got to decide the US election, it wouldn’t be close. A BBC poll of 22 countries found that Obama is preferred by a 4 to 1 margin over McCain. Four to one! That’s about what I’d expect given my conversations with people in New Zealand and in my travels. Our largest Sunday newspaper here in NZ just published an editorial yesterday strongly favoring Obama. And the huge crowds of cheering supporters on Obama’s recent trip to Europe also suggests his popularity abroad.

Why do you suppose that is? Granted, it probably has as much to do with George Bush as it does John McCain. Bush is generally seen as making America into a dangerous bully rather than a principled leader for freedom and justice.

For example, far more people in recent years see the US as having a negative influence on the world than a positive one, according to another BBC poll. They dislike the current administration’s handling of Iraq, Guantanamo, Iran, and climate change. And it’s worth noting that the world had mostly a positive view of the US in the 1990s, under Clinton. I suspect that most people see McCain–as a consistently strong supporter of the Iraq war, economic policies that are likely to create even greater inequality, and a generally belligerent foreign policy–as continuing Bush’s path.

The next question is, does it matter what the rest of the world thinks? Isn’t Europe a bunch of lefty wimps, as regularly stated on the Faux News Network? Can’t we just do what we want anyway, as the remaining superpower, and ignore them? The answers ought to be obvious. The huge potential challenges ahead of us–proliferation of nuclear weapons, the growing strength of China, climate change, etc.–will require international cooperation.

The world’s opinion does matter. We, not the rest of the world, have to choose our leaders. But one factor ought to be how likely those leaders are to improve America’s currently tarnished image in the world.

McCain’s tactics: A pig without lipstick

It’s sad to see that John McCain has allowed the Karl Rove proteges now running his election to sink to such depths. McCain was once a politician who most people believed could transcend the gutter politics that were used against him by Rove and Bush in 2000. Has it really come to this? ‘Fraid so.

As mentioned in my earlier post, even Fox news has called him out for lying about Obama’s tax plans. This week, however, we’ve seen a couple of new lows. First, there was the phony outrage about Obama’s use of the phrase “lipstick on a pig”–a phrase used by McCain himself at least three times during the primaries, but which his camp interpreted when Obama used it as referring to Sarah Palin. So, the smear-mongerers in his campaign put out an ad that–according to ABC–”falsely accused Obama of calling Palin … a pig.” The ad also used an excerpt of Katie Couric denouncing sexism in politics–which CBS insisted be removed, since she was referring to Hillary’s campaign when she said it, not to this incident. 

But the prize for most disgusting tactic was the McCain ad accusing Obama of supporting legislation to give “comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.” This is a new low. As every credible source has reported, the ad is simply false in multiple ways. The legislation they were referring to was not comprehensive sex education, it was intended to help kids protect themselves from sexual abuse. And Planned Parenthood is so infuriated at this low blow, they took out their own ad in response.

I think we’ve seen the real pig now–the McCain campaign tactics. Let’s hope you can see past the lipstick.

Even Fox News says McCain is lying about taxes!

When Faux News says a Republican is lying, you know he’s got a problem. Maybe even die-hard conservatives will listen.  Fox’s Major Garrett says there is “mounting evidence that McCain’s TV commercials assailing Obama’s tax policy contain serious distortions, if not out-right lies.” Read the whole post here.

Every independent analysis says that Obama’s tax plan will give larger cuts than McCain’s to lower and moderate income families, whereas McCain’s will (no surprise) give the big cuts to the wealthiest Americans. Here’s one example.

My view is that given the deficit that Bush has created–after Clinton handing him the biggest surplus in history–we can’t afford any tax cut. But apparently to win elections these days, you’ve got to play the game of “Mine’s bigger” when it comes to tax cuts. At least Obama’s is targeted appropriately.

The Sarah Palin hypocrisy

Who better than John Stewart to call out the wingnuts on their hypocrisy? Better be careful what you say in the age of YouTube! Check it out…

Top 10 Reasons NOT to vote for McCain

The choice in this year’s election seems pretty obvious to me, but for some reason the polls suggest it’s going to be very close. So, why not McCain? Here are 10 good reasons.

1. We don’t need another dumb ass in the White House. Isn’t 8 disastrous years of one intellectually challenged president enough? Just like his brother-in-arms George, McCain jokes about his poor record as a student. In fact, he’s got Georgie beat on this one. He was 5^th from the bottom of a class of 800 at the Naval Academy.

   Now, of course we shouldn’t choose a president just based on academic records, but intelligence ought to be at least a starting point for the job. A simple mind leads to simplistic solutions. By contrast, Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. Hmmm. For a real eye-opener, see McCain flip flop on gay marriage—within 11 minutes!

2. The world is watching. Can we re-build the goodwill lost by 8 years of cowboy diplomacy? Will we continue on a unilateral path that has caused us to be seen by many as the problem rather than the solution to the world’s problems? The neo-con mindset that infuses McCain’s thinking—just like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld—sees the answer to the world’s problems as being almost completely addressed by military means and black and white distinctions: You’re either with us or against us, good versus evil.
3. Seriously, an old, dull white guy is the best we can do? Of course I don’t think race and age should be the primary basis for any decision. But after 232 years of white male presidents, maybe a bit of diversity is not a bad thing. This is an historic opportunity, and an opportunity for healing the wounds of the past. I doubt if this argument holds any merit for my redneck brethren, so at least consider the inspiration factor. The McCain campaign likes to poke fun at Obama’s soaring rhetoric. That’s only because McCain is so painfully boring and pathetically inept in his speeches.
4. He’s caved in to the wingnuts. Maverick schmaverick. I used to think McCain was one of the few Republicans I’d consider voting for. Calling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance”, focusing on campaign finance reform, and opposing offshore drilling made him command respect even from Democrats. All that went out the window when the primaries got heated. Now, he’s assumed the mantle of Flip Flopper in Chief, having switched his position on those issues, plus Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, and immigration reform, among other things. What about all that integrity he supposedly has? Appointing Sarah P is another concession to the right wing extremists.
5. We can’t wait another four years for a serious health care plan. McCain’s solution is the typical Republican plan: lower taxes and “open markets” to increase competition. News flash: Lowering taxes doesn’t really help someone for whom the cost of health care is greater than their income. And Republicans’ success in keeping the U.S. minimum wage among the lowest in the developed world means the amount the poorest people are saving from those tax breaks won’t pay for health care.
6. Are pre-emptive invasions of other nations and holding prisoners without trial really the way we want to demonstrate leadership in the world? McCain doesn’t think the Guantanamo detainees should have a right to trial, as the Supreme Court ruled. He also enthusiastically supported the Iraq invasion and thinks that somehow “winning” (as opposed to helping the Iraqis to stabilize) should be the focus of our efforts in Iraq. As Bill Clinton said in his excellent speech at the Democratic convention a few days ago: “People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”
7. He’s old, apparently senile, and certainly gaffe-prone. Did you see Lieberman have to gently whisper in his ear that the Iranians were training extremist Shiites, not Al-Quaeda (who are mostly Sunnis), as McCain had just pronounced at a press conference? Did you hear that he recently referred three times to a country that hasn’t existed since 1993— Czechoslovakia?  All that supposed foreign policy experience doesn’t seem to do you much good if you can’t get the basic facts right. And don’t think he’s gonna get any help from Sarah P. She doesn’t even know what the Bush doctrine is and thinks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government agencies!
8. The rich will keep getting richer, but what about everyone else? Income inequality is the highest its been since the 1920s. The Republicans since Reagan have successfully gutted most of the policies put in place from the 40s to the 60s that helped share the prosperity of America’s productivity boom. As you’ve probably heard, middle class incomes have been flat, in spite of substantial increases in GDP. McCain wants to extend Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy (after initially opposing them—yet another flip-flop/cave-in), privatize social security, and he’s voted against raising the minimum wage 19 times.
9. Drill here, drill now is a good slogan but a dangerously short-sighted energy policy. Okay, gas prices are high—although still cheaper than anyplace else in the world. If you can manage to see beyond the next few weeks, there’s a rather more significant set of energy-related worries. It’s called climate change and anyone who looks into the facts (that doesn’t include Sarah Palin, obviously) will recognize that it’s happening and the chances are extremely high that it’s man-made—and that there’s probably still time to make some changes to avoid the most catastrophic effects. Even if you don’t accept that climate change is man-made, there are many good reasons to get serious about alternative energy sources.
10. A couple more right wing supreme court judges will set us back 50 years. Make no mistake: a McCain win means Roe vs Wade will be overturned. Whatever we personally think about abortion rights, abortions are going to happen. The question is, will they be safe and legal or will we make women criminals and relegate them to back alley hacks. Plus the right wing judges will continue to upset the checks and balances in our system by giving more power to the executive branch.