Comments on: Obama powers to re-election despite weak economy

By: CD Brooks

CD Brooks — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:18:53 +0000

Rlw895, you are far too refined to say it but I will. The man and his counterparts are hypocritical snakes that would throw you under the proverbial bus in a heartbeat. This latest move is an obvious yet pathetic attempt at some alleged redemption without one iota of integrity. No Sir, I would not trust these people as far as I could spit. I truly believe we are headed towards a better future the right wing media circus notwithstanding.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:44:56 +0000

CD: And a PS on “flip-flopping.” The pejorative was invented to make George W. Bush’s “resoluteness” look virtuous. Certainly there is a place for “flip-flopping” to be a criticism, such as when a person changes positions for no reason other than to appeal to a particular audience or to empathize with the last person who communicated with him. But changing positions based on “evolution,” implying the absorption of new information and reflection is far more virtuous than stubbornly sticking to a position. GWB somewhere in his life learned the lesson that, for him, it was better to be stubborn and call it resoluteness (which sounds better) than it was to change positions and have to explain yourself. The substitution of the word “flip-flopping” when “wisdom” more aptly applies is one of the gifts of the Bush/Cheney years that just keeps on giving. We have to end it. So, no, I don’t think “flip-flopping” applies to what Hannity is doing. It’s better to analyze it with more intelligence and “nuance” (another word Bush/Cheney tried to steal from us) and banish “flip-flopping,” which as you point out, is overused.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:29:55 +0000

Tom: I don’t see where they are limited to the “legislation’s author’s assumptions.” Certainly they take the legislation as written, but it just as clearly appears they can and do consult independent sources of information and expertise to do their work. I agree they don’t speculate on future congressional action, but they do provide a range of outcomes depending on such future action, I believe. It’s like, what do we expect? It seems to me they do exactly what we would do to get the best nonpartisan answers they can, which is why legislative authors work really hard to craft their bills to get a favorable CBO analysis. As Ezra Klein said, that’s not gaming the system, that’s good governance. And if the CBO is forcing that kind of reflection before bills are passed, it seems to me it is doing exactly what it was supposed to do when, in 1974, congress passed the legislation creating it. It was part of the flurry of post-Watergate reforms trying to give the legislative branch more influence relative to the executive branch. Which might explain why a stong-executive egoist like Gingrich (and Cheney), wouldn’t care much for the CBO.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:39:36 +0000

CD: Ah, I see. On immigration reform. He’s basically accepting Obama’s position. But it’s a bit cynical not to admit that. What Hannity recognizes is demographic reality. Some Republican pundits think the Republicans should grant amnesty, thinking that would guarantee them the Hispanic vote for 2016 and beyond. That’s either sarcastic or cynical, and I’d have to be convinced Hannity’s “evolution” does not have its basis in that “win at all costs, to heck with the national interest” crowd. It’s similar to “our first priority is to make Obama a one-term president, no matter what it does to the country.” Scorched earth. You can just see the wealthy financers of the Republican Party not caring, because they have so much money the will survive the scorching, or at least they think they will. You can see the same people now shifting gears to “win 2016 at all costs.” Notice how Hannity does not suggest getting together with the Democrats on the issue, even now that he agrees in substance. He’s simply trying to co-opt the issue—take it away from the Democrats. That kind of “race” for the Hispanic vote can’t be good. Rather than such political gamesmanship, we need both parties to come together on this issue and close it out for a generation or more. Hannity seems to want the close-out, but can’t quite come up with the word “bipartisan.” And until he does, I will continue not to think very highly of him. (“Compromise” isn’t even needed here because both sides agree in substance. So he doesn’t have to use that word.) What I want to become part of a bipartisan package is a constitutional amendment that takes birthright citizenship out of the Constitution. The right package would make that go down easy, but both sides would have to agree not to whip one or the other with it. It’s the right thing to do, and highly popular among liberals and conservatives alike, but the politics is stopping it. This may be our last window of opportunity to do it. Birthright citizenship would still exist, but it would be defined by statute—and subject to revision over time as the national interest requires—and not constitutional law.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:11:52 +0000

Tom: But you see the point Joe was making. Passions on both sides have to be overcome. Who are the adults in the room? I naturally think Obama is one, but hasn’t been given a chance. I’m hopeful that now that the “one-term president” has his second term. Things will be different. CD’s citing of Hannity’s evolution is an example, but I say more on that below.

By: CD Brooks

CD Brooks — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:11:26 +0000

Good morning rlw895! Hannity has joined the ever-resistant GOP in deciding the road to citizenship is a good thing. GOOGLE Hannity evolves for the story on his reversal. I believe “flip-flopping” has been over used of late but I suppose it’s the best definition of what’s happening in politics.

By: Tom Chalk

Tom Chalk — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:47:22 +0000

RLW: I read the CBO info on their website, plus some other interesting and informative documents and will email you a couple of those other links. Now. After reading CBO’s website explanation of how it does its work, I see a general corroboration of what I have been saying here. Remember, I have not accused CBO of doing anything wrong or underhanded. They are, in fact, providing a “best guess” scenario based on the legislation’s author’s assumptions, and they don’t attempt to forecast the future, should (for example) the legislation be tweaked or changed during the legislative process. I still say–pass the salt shaker.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:22:27 +0000

Tom: It’s hard to post links here for some reason, but I quickly found a CBO site that explains it’s history, authorities, and processes. Maybe that post will pop up later. The CBO site shows an emphasis on impartiality and transparency. I don’t see any indication of what you say, and if it were true, I think it would be more widely known. What’s the use of the CBO if it is simply to put a thin veil of legitimacy on bills that don’t have a leg to stand on? Its only value is its credibility. What is your source of information?

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:05:04 +0000

Tom: Here’s a link– http://www.cbo.gov/about/our-processes. At least the CBO says its processes are impartial and transparent, as required by law. Where are you getting your information?

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:00:06 +0000

Tom: Now we’re at a point where some fact-checking is in order. How does the CBO work? Neither of us knows for sure. I’m firing up Google.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:54:20 +0000

CD: Hannity repents? When? Where?

By: Tom Chalk

Tom Chalk — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:16:41 +0000

This is my layperson’s understanding of how the CBO works. Take the issue of the ACA. This legislation was drafted by the dems, almost totally without repub input. The projected fiscal impact as scored by the CBO was directly related to those fiscal assumptions built into the proposed legislation by the dems. The CBO has no choice in the matter, that is the rule they must play by. It is no stretch to assume that whoever drafts a piece of legislation, they will build in the best possible scenario in support of it. We already know that the first “cut” at projecting the ACA’s fiscal impact has been revised significantly in the past year. However, most of us will remember only those projections that accompanied the original release and those “rosy” claims (in this case) by the dems. This is further clouded by the bill’s proponents continuing to tout those erroneous numbers in public, even after deeper analysis and the passage of time would show otherwise.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 00:07:44 +0000

Tom: OK, I can buy that. But with the houses of congress spit, it would seem to me that the data CBO is directed to analyze would be either as close to true as congress can make it, or representing two more extreme positions.

By: Tom Chalk

Tom Chalk — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:56:02 +0000

CD and RLW: All I am saying is that the CBO, under their rules, must evaluate congressional programs using the often “tortured” fiscal assumptions presented to them by congress. We all know how that game is played, and it is played at every level of government. Nothing against the CBO. Sometimes even they will admit to arriving at conclusions subject to change if the underlying budget assumptions don’t materialize.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:42:50 +0000

Tom: Good conversation. Again, I’m no expert, and I haven’t gotten around to fact-checking (yet), but we might be playing the same semantics game (although legally significant) that the Supreme Court was “playing” (but of course, they don’t “play”) in the ACA case. What congress didn’t want to call a tax is, in fact a tax. The “penalty” for not complying with the “individual mandate” was interpreted by the Court as a “tax penalty.” That was significant because if only a penalty (Commerce power) and not a tax (Taxing power), the individual mandate was unconstitutional, according to the 5-4 majority opinion Chief Justice Roberts is widely credited with crafting. So it could be that over 10 years (why do they always use 10 years?), all the money the CBO figured would be collected in penalty payments suddenly became a tax increase without changing a dime of the amount. But that tax increase, applied to only those who refuse the individual mandate (not guys like you or me), needs to be offset by what the mandate required, buying health insurance so no one (or at least a lot fewer) people would be using emergency rooms as their insurer of last resort. That was killing us, because emergency rooms can’t turn anyone away and therefore have to take care of people for free if they can’t pay, and at the highest-expense site for health care we have. And naturally it’s NOT free, because all of us who do pay have to provide that uncollectable overhead in our health care system. So call it $500 billion in taxes, the point is, it presumably generates a lot more in savings. Now, it very well may be that the wealthy, who can afford to self-insure, will prefer to pay the penalty because it would cost them less that buying insurance. I think that’s true. People who aren’t rich enough to self-insure but can afford insurance will opt to buy insurance because even if the tax penalty is less, they would prefer to get something (insurance) if they have to pay anyway. People who aren’t rich enough to buy insurance, even from one of the competitive government-run exchanges, are presumably so poor they will qualify for government assistance. So it very well may be that a large part of the “new taxes” is paid by the wealthy—people who can self-insure. But they don’t have to pay more than anybody else, so it’s NOT redistributive. It’s m more like sales tax, which is generally considered one of the most regressive (non-redistributive) taxes we have. Long answer, but sometimes it takes one to unwind a sound bite. The sound-bite coiners depend on that.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:08:26 +0000

Tom: I was wondering about your “CBO bubble” remark. Seems like to have a discussion, we first have to agree on what sources of information are valid. So you think the CBO is not credible. Are there Republicans in congress complaining about that? I should think they would be raising the roof. If not, who is saying the CBO is not credible? The problem we’re having is some sources of information try to make you believe that every other source except them is biased and/or unreliable. It’s kind of like a conspiracy, so I suppose conspiracy theorists are particularly willing to believe. So who is credible for figuring out what programs cost if not the supposedly nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office? I know Gingrich wanted to eliminated the CBO, but I think it’s pretty widely accepted that was because he didn’t want to have a nonpartisan budget analysis of what he was proposing to do. Were any of the other candidates proposing to eliminate the CBO? I don’t think the Romney camp ever suggested that, and if it is as biased as you say, wouldn’t that have been a campaign issue, even a little one?

By: Tom Chalk

Tom Chalk — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:44:31 +0000

CD: It is hard to get a handle on this, because it is hard to take projections by the CBO seriously since they have to use the assumptions given to them by the politicians. Also, because various provisions of the ACA kick in at different intervals. So, I guess I will take a wait and see approach.

By: CD Brooks

CD Brooks — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:25:18 +0000

Good morning Mr. Chalk! I went through and cleared out four years of research but if memory serves, the ACA is designed to reduce costs for a rather substantial savings over a ten year priod?

By: Tom Chalk

Tom Chalk — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:16:01 +0000

RLW: Several sources including Gov. Romney himself, pointed out during the run-up to the election that the ACA would increase taxes by some $500 billion, and that these taxes will be paid largely by upper-income people.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:05:50 +0000

Tom: I would say ACA is a pretty weak form of “redistribution of wealth,” if at all. A single payer system would be more so. ACA is the form of universal health care that is the least redistributive. That’s why, until Obama embraces it, it was the “Republican plan.” Medicare is much more redistributive.

By: Joe Pikey

Joe Pikey — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:53:18 +0000

By: CD Brooks

CD Brooks — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:35:49 +0000

TC, So this is a bully issue now? I think even you would have to agree the best political analogy for that is McConnell and Boehner from their lofty perches. They sit up there, threatening the president and the world for that matter, with their arrogant and shifty misrepresentation of our country’s matters. I have dealt with bully’s TC, taught my son how to do so as well. Too bad those two scum bags haven’t been exposed to that justice yet.

By: CD Brooks

CD Brooks — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:28:49 +0000

TC, the man has said he favors it and within context, it makes perfect sense. What might you hope to gain from our denying something everyone knows?

By: Tom Chalk

Tom Chalk — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:16:33 +0000

I was thinking of the ACA as an example of redistribution of wealth on a scale which makes it stand out from other, less intrusive measures. I suppose you would say that things like this are necessary in order to counteract a concentration of wealth by some of us. And so it goes.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:49:50 +0000

Good points SJ. In the black-and-white world of the plutocrat’s political message, there is no distinguishing degrees of “redistribution of wealth,” and people are encouraged to think the worst of it, even when something very mild is proposed, such as letting the “Bush tax cuts” expire for income over $250,000 per year. I try to stay away from using the word “fair,” because that’s too subjective to be a standard. I’d rather talk about what is specifically proposed, whether it is doable, and what the consequences might be.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:25:03 +0000

Because people seem to define that term to suit their needs, I’ll have to ask you to define “redistribution of wealth.” But the way I define it (a progessive tax system), I say, yes, Obama favors that. But so did just about every president from the Progressive Era until Reagan. The concentration of wealth that threatens the sustainablity of our country took off under him, and we’re still in the hole he put us in, mostly because Bush-Cheney doubled down.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 06:50:36 +0000

StR: Don’t be scared. People stop reasoning when they are scared. Operatives like Karl Rove count on that. Taxes are almost always structured not only to raise revenue, but to advance a social policy. Not “socialist,” “social.” We get less of what is taxed and more of what is not taxed, so it does matter HOW we raise tax revenue as well as the amount. When I wrote about “social purposes” above, I was talking about stemming the concentration of wealth by having a progressive tax system. Then I added “other” social purposes such as encouraging family-owned small businesses and farms. There is no problem structuring taxes for those social purposes we can agree upon. Government is not new. Taxes to fund government are not new. And neither is inherently bad. What matters is who government serves and, again, how we raise tax revenue. Yes, we have a high respect for private property rights in this country, but that does not equate to no taxes. It can’t. And that’s not new either.

By: The SugarJar

The SugarJar — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 04:07:42 +0000

Yes, and that is what has happened to the middle class, Mr. Chalk. And the working poor. One segment of our population has gotten much much richer–off the labor (and cuts in what that labor earns) of the middle class and working poor. On the issue of redistribution, we differ, at minimum, on where we see bullying and greed, and what we believe “redistribution” means.

By: Tom Chalk

Tom Chalk — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:51:58 +0000

TSJ: Redistribution of wealth also occurs when the school-yard bully grabs you by the shirt and demands your lunch money under the threat of a punch in the belly or worse. As a second-grader in San Antonio, Texas, I observed this fiscal policy first hand, and can emphatically confirm that it works.

By: The SugarJar

The SugarJar — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:09:49 +0000

Redistribution of wealth. could mean murdering the wealthy in their homes and taking over their sugar plantations. Or it could mean the ultra-wealthy paying fair wages, benefits, etc., to their workers and still keeping a healthy profit for themselves–rather than keeping an obscene profit and cutting wages, benefits etc. People are ENTITLED to be paid fairly for their work.