Archive for July, 2009

Something for Nothing

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

The big news today was Obama’s slide in the polls. According to Pew, the President’s job approval has gone from 61% expressing approval in June to 54% today. That is a significant slide but given that Obama won the election with 53% of the vote, he is likely shedding voters who were never solid supporters.

Obama’s troubles getting health care through the sausage-making of Congress is likely to blame, largely because the discourse in the media has been about the cost of a plan that would cover everyone and how to pay for it.

For the past 30 years, the middle class has been told that we can have all the government services we need with low taxes. This is the so called “Two Santa Claus Theory” promoted by Republicans as a way to sell supply side economics—promise people what they want but always with low taxes.

So I imagine some people are shocked that expanding health care will cost money.

Another poll to be released soon by CBS/NY Times reports:

“Most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy… Yet at the same time, most oppose some proposed solution for decreasing it.”

“Fifty-six percent of respondents said that they were not willing to pay more in taxes in order to reduce the deficit, and nearly as many said they were not willing for the government to provide fewer services in areas such as health care, education and defense spending.”

No one who is interested in solving problems could maintain public support when the public is so clueless.

As Dday writes at Hullabaloo:

America elected a Democrat because they didn’t like George Bush. But they didn’t elect a liberal ideology, even if they may agree with it on many points, because a liberal ideology wasn’t on offer. Nobody in the Democratic Party has pushed back against the Two Santa Claus theory, or offered up a competing theory of their own, in the thirty-plus years since it was invented. Obama spent the first few months, when he had a honeymoon and his approval ratings were high, assuring everyone that 95% of Americans will see a tax cut, that he was pragmatic and will only go with “what works,” and so on. And so when you get to an issue like health care, which does have moral overtones, which does speak to the fundamental rights of a society to ensure care for their sick and bleeding, there’s no ideological foundation to fall back upon, no belief that America is worth paying for and those who use the commons to a disproportionate degree need to give a little bit to maintain the societal fabric. […]

Nobody has fought the dominant wisdom, inside the Beltway and even in the country, and stated plainly that conservatives have lied to the country about economic issues for 30-plus years. The epic collapse of the economy under the Bush Administration provided an opportunity that nobody took.

Unless and until we start challenging conservative ideology and not conservative candidates, we will always have trouble making major changes because the public has swallowed a notion of government that makes no logical or coherent sense.

Well said.

There But for Fortune Go You or I

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

The moral case for health care reform usually cites the number of Americans who are uninsured (nearly 50 million) which contributes to poor health, threatens their financial security, and drains public health resources when they need emergency medicine.

Unfortunately, people who have health insurance don’t seem to be moved by this argument, as is evident by the opposition to meaningful reform in Washington.

But people with health care ought to consider these stunning statistics via MSN Money:

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illnesses, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

People who filed for bankruptcy were “for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their homes, and three-fifths had gone to college.”

The authors, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School, Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University, conclude:

“For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse,” said lead author Himmelstein. “Unless you’re Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.”

Insurance companies make money by denying you health care and they can do so after you get sick or injured. These companies are the folks the Blue Dog Democrats and Senate “centrists” are trying protect. Only moral corruption explains their allegiance.

This is why strict regulation of the insurance industry and a public option to provide competition is necessary.

A Constitutional Convention for California?

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

As everyone knows, California politics is dysfunctional, undermined by an initiative process that imposes incompatible demands on government. For instance, Proposition 13 destroyed the tax base and required supermajorities to pass tax increases; but Proposition 98 mandates that California devote 40% of its general fund to the schools.

Thus, there is a clear mandate for lower taxes which anti-government conservatives are only too happy to support; and a clear mandate for more services which government- friendly liberals are too happy to support.

One solution that is being discussed intensively is the possibility of a constitutional convention that would re-write the state constitution, change the initiative process, and set up a more rational process for making budgeting decisions.

A lot of the discussion regarding the constitutional convention has to do with how it would be set up and initiated. It is useful to think about this but we are not paying sufficient attention to the political dynamics involved.

Why think that the same forces that have created an incoherent governing process would be able to write a rational constitution? It is not as if the people who want lower taxes or more services will not be delegates.

I suspect that liberals are enthusiastic about this because they think there are more of the “more services” folks than the “lower taxes” folks. But I would like to see some evidence of that. My sense is that most Californians want both lower taxes and more services—that is why we are in this mess.

At any constitutional convention the interest groups that support “lower taxes” and those that support “more services” will be well-represented. Thus, the very same incoherence that we find in our present constitution will be well represented at any future constitutional convention. The resulting constitution will be just as incoherent.

Or a more frightening scenario may come to pass. There is good chance that the “lower taxes” folks will be better organized and better funded—they usually are. They may write into the constitution provisions that will make public goods as rare as California condors.

I am very nervous about a constitutional convention.