American Politics: the Lost Generation

[DanteGabriel]

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on "fear" of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how "ego-driven" wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and "tchochkes."

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.

In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party's donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!"

Manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC -- Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms -- but rarely is it practiced in such cartoonish terms.

One page, headed "The Evil Empire," pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html

None of this is surprising, of course. But it's refreshing to see the cocktail party stenographers at Politico pretending to be journalists from time to time. And the longer article does have some interesting notes on GOP marketing methodology. I wouldn't mind seeing a similar expose of Democratic marketing techniques. I hope it's at least less puerile than Joker-Obama cartoons.

[Mad Monkey]

I don't understand why comparing Harry Reid to Scooby Doo would be an insult. Scooby was the (deeply flawed, but still) protagonist, wasn't he? It would be more in line if they had made Barack Obama as Harvey Two-Face and Rep. Pelosi as Catwoman instead.

Oh, and I hate political caricatures. Liberal blogs tried as hard as they could, but I could never see how Mr. Bush resembled a monkey significantly more than your average Homo sapiens

[Annelise]

FLOW,

Bah, I lost my reply in the transfer. :angry: The long and short is all I really look for is agreement that's a problem that needs to be addressed ASAP and some ideas how to address it. Disagreement on solutions helps keep us* honest, if nothing else.

I personally think we've been too obsessed with the role of government on this particular issue, to our detriment. It has (IMO) unnecessarily forced us to reduce our options. Not just single payer, but other models.

*Non-politicians.

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

Obviously, the First Rule still applies for physicians. But I don't think reality breaks down so conveniently that we have physicians doing things that are of no benefit whatsoever. It's a continuum, where the cost/benefit ratio drops the further along you go. Is it "unethical" for a doctor to prescribe something that will improve the patient's health/quality of life, regardless of cost? There are a ton of judgment calls in there that vary from patient to patient, and I think coming up with hard and fast rules that are going to be the "right" solution in every situation is almost impossible.

My point is that it is a difficult issue without an easy answer.

Emphasis mine.

I agree it's not easy. I don't know, and have trouble believing that sufficient thought has been paid to every important facet, but I think there is a point at which hand-wringing, however well-intentioned, simply gets in the way of making positive changes. Rather than fussing that the answer isn't easy, maybe we could pretend for a while that we don't think it's impossible and say, "Then we'd better get started."

[TerraPrime]

Re: FLoW

1. Why would private insurance companies offer the same deals to individual policy holders as they do to companies that purchase group plans, where the risks are more spread out?

2. Balanced Budget Amendment? Price of tea leaves in China?

The stuff you proposed makes even less sense than stuff like private health savings accounts.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Re: FLoW

1. Why would private insurance companies offer the same deals to individual policy holders as they do to companies that purchase group plans, where the risks are more spread out?

In most cases, they wouldn't. But for those whose employer doesn't offer insurance at all, it would help. Some onsurers also recognize a form of grouping for those who are employed by such employers, which helps spread risk.

2. Balanced Budget Amendment? Price of tea leaves in China?

Sorry if this seemed random. It was directed to cost control of entitlements, not private insurance.

The stuff you proposed makes even less sense than stuff like private health savings accounts.

Actually, I intended the first reform to include HSA's. Sorry if my wording didn't make that clear. I'd add some tort reform in there as well.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

Emphasis mine.

I agree it's not easy. I don't know, and have trouble believing that sufficient thought has been paid to every important facet, but I think there is a point at which hand-wringing, however well-intentioned, simply gets in the way of making positive changes. Rather than fussing that the answer isn't easy, maybe we could pretend for a while that we don't think it's impossible and say, "Then we'd better get started."

We have 50 states capable of doing a great deal of reform on their own. A lot of those are "blue" states that presumably would endorse more "progressive" solutions, like single payer. Other than Massachusetts, though, there seems to be a general reluctance to do that. Why do you think that is?

Why not have the feds do some reforms to the tax code, like expanding HAS's, to give states more flexibility to address these issues on their own, like Mass. did? And basically punt the issue to them? You avoid federal gridlock issues, and the country wouldn't have all its eggs in one basket if things didn't work out as advertised.

[TerraPrime]

In most cases, they wouldn't. But for those whose employer doesn't offer insurance at all, it would help. Some onsurers also recognize a form of grouping for those who are employed by such employers, which helps spread risk.

That's a very small, relatively speaking, demographic, isn't it? How is that going to affect the cost structure for the majority of the people?

Sorry if this seemed random. It was directed to cost control of entitlements, not private insurance.

I am still not seeing the relevance between a Balanced Budget Amendment and controlling of health care cost. Can you be more explicit?

Actually, I intended the first reform to include HSA's. Sorry if my wording didn't make that clear. I'd add some tort reform in there as well.

You know that tort reform will account for less than 1% of total health care cost, right? Not that it's not a worthwhile endeavor, if it's the right kind of tort reform (ask Raidne), but it's more a red herring than a substantial issue if the topic is controlling cost of health care for the U.S.

We have 50 states capable of doing a great deal of reform on their own. A lot of those are "blue" states that presumably would endorse more "progressive" solutions, like single payer. Other than Massachusetts, though, there seems to be a general reluctance to do that. Why do you think that is?

Because acting as one, or one of a few states, in a union, can actually be detrimental to the state. It's like if Illinois wants to start fining WalMart for suppressing local business, but Iowa doesn't. While it's the right thing to do and better for the long-run, the states that stick their necks out will suffer.

Why not have the feds do some reforms to the tax code, like expanding HAS's, to give states more flexibility to address these issues on their own, like Mass. did? And basically punt the issue to them? You avoid federal gridlock issues, and the country wouldn't have all its eggs in one basket if things didn't work out as advertised.

Health savings accounts seems, to be blunt, useless, in terms of controlling cost, or for that matter, much of anything else. People who are uninsured because they can't afford it will now have more tax credit for money that they don't have... woo-hoo?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's a very small, relatively speaking, demographic, isn't it?

As a percentage of the uninsured, I don't think it would be that small at all.

No way to know for sure. If you make HSA's more available, new insurance products will arise in response. That may include more innovative ways of grouping people for risk, different kinds of policies, perhaps focusing more on catastrophic coverage, etc. Some of those innovations could bleed over into employer-sponsored plans. We just don't know. That's kind of the point.

Yes, I can. But I don't think you're quite as ignorant on that as you pretend, so I won't bother.

No.

I don't agree, but its not really a relevant point because tort reform isn't restricted to one type of reform plan.

That makes no sense. This plan will supposedly cover lots of new people, reduce costs for people currently covered, reduce the future rate of increases, be a net benefit to the deficit, and make businesses more competitive. Based on the promises made by its supporters, wouldn't such a state-based program give a state a big competitive advantage?

Plus, you guys were discounting the result of the recent Senate race in Mass on the grounds they already had reformed and so wouldn't need the federal reform. Why haven't more blue states followed suit?

[Shryke]

Abortion: Worst Issue Ever

A dozen House of Representatives Democrats opposed to abortion are willing to kill President Barack Obama's healthcare reform plan unless it satisfies their demand for language barring the procedure, Representative Bart Stupak said on Thursday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6231W720100304

Less annoying news:

The Obama administration reasserted its commitment to banning proprietary trading by banks with draft legislative language on Wednesday, despite signs that Congress is unlikely to adopt such a rule.

In a scant five pages from the Treasury Department, the administration put a two-year phase-in on its "Volcker rule" to curb "prop trading" -- or buying and selling of investments on financiers' own books unrelated to customer needs.

The rule would apply to banks, with limits slapped on large, non-bank financial firms, as well. In addition, banks would be barred from sponsoring or investing in hedge funds and private equity funds, under the administration's language.

While key details were left up to regulators, the language showed the White House is determined to push ahead with a rule it first proposed in January, as the U.S. Senate inched its way toward acting on new financial reform legislation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62311A20100304

[The Progressive]

As a percentage of the uninsured, I don't think it would be that small at all.

It's really not that high a number, but not truly insignificant neither. According to a recent national survey: "Among adults up to 64 years old, 60.6 percent of those who were unemployed had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and 21.8 percent of those who had jobs had gone without insurance. Also, 32.9 percent of unemployed adults and 13.3 percent of employed adults in this age group had been without insurance for more than one year."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_93076.html

No way to know for sure. If you make HSA's more available, new insurance products will arise in response. That may include more innovative ways of grouping people for risk, different kinds of policies, perhaps focusing more on catastrophic coverage, etc. Some of those innovations could bleed over into employer-sponsored plans. We just don't know. That's kind of the point.

Wait, you vehemently argued that we shouldn't tinker with the health care system because of we just don't know how it would turn out and therefore we shouldn't do it .............. where did all that consistency against the unknowable future went?

I don't agree, but its not really a relevant point because tort reform isn't restricted to one type of reform plan.

The CBO estimated saving of 0.5% from tort reforms encompassed a very comprehensive list of actions and plans. It is a relevant point because the number don't support your argument.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

Yes, I can. But I don't think you're quite as ignorant on that as you pretend, so I won't bother.

You were asked a perfectly reasonable question and you suffer nothing by answering it plainly. If not for TP's benefit, then you might consider that your audience here is much wider than one man.

[TrackerNeil]

FLoW,

You were asked a perfectly reasonable question and you suffer nothing by answering it plainly. If not for TP's benefit, then you might consider that your audience here is much wider than one man.

Word. TP is not ignorant, or if he is than so am I. I'd like to hear your answer.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

You were asked a perfectly reasonable question and you suffer nothing by answering it plainly. If not for TP's benefit, then you might consider that your audience here is much wider than one man.

I'm pretty heavily outnumbered in this thread, so responding to every point or question raised by everyone is impossible. I try to hit the ones I think are the most legit/honest/fair. Especially today, when I'm on a blackberry.

I do not think a guy as intelligent as TP truly has no idea how a balanced budget requirement might restrain growth in entitlement spending. He might disagree with it being good policy, but that's not what he said. Professing ignorance of how it could restrain spending smacks of gamesmanship, and I'm not inclined to waste my time encouraging that shit when I already have a hard time keeping up.

But I'll tell you what. To avoid this issue, I'll answer this question and then just add him to my "ignore" list when I get access to my computer.

To belabor the obvious, a federal balanced budget amendment would forbid expenditures that exceed revenues. For example, this next year, that would mean that a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit gap would have to be eliminated by some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts.

Given the size of the projected deficits, and the percentage of the budget comprised by entitlements, I think it highly unlikely that the mandatory elimination of that deficit gap could be accomplished without reductions in entitlement spending, including Medicare.

[The Marquis de Leech]

To belabor the obvious, a federal balanced budget amendment would forbid expenditures that exceed revenues. For example, this next year, that would mean that a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit gap would have to be eliminated by some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts.

Cutting spending in this economic environment would be utterly suicidal.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Cutting spending in this economic environment would be utterly suicidal.

Just out of curiosity, would you say the same about raising taxes?

[Galactus]

Just out of curiosity, would you say the same about raising taxes?

Depends on the scale, but yes.

I could see a demand to balance the budget over a reasonably long time (say, 30 years) but anything less than that is pretty much suicidial. Even the EU's budgetary restrictions aren't that stringent. And they're causing enough trouble as-is.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Depends on the scale, but yes.

I could see a demand to balance the budget over a reasonably long time (say, 30 years) but anything less than that is pretty much suicidial. Even the EU's budgetary restrictions aren't that stringent. And they're causing enough trouble as-is.

I agree that you couldn't/shouldn't impose something like that overnight,and would have to phase it in over a period of years, although I'd suggest far fewer than 30.

I used the 1.2 trillion point above to illustrate why any professed ignorance as to how a balanced budget requirement would likely limit entitlement spending is disingenuous.

I should add that I don't agree that cuts in government spending would be suicidal, even now. But 1.2 trillion right now would be.

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

I'm pretty heavily outnumbered in this thread, so responding to every point or question raised by everyone is impossible. I try to hit the ones I think are the most legit/honest/fair. Especially today, when I'm on a blackberry.

I quite understand the difficulty.

I do not agree, however, that TP was being disingenuous. Without getting into the specifics of this case, I can say that for my own part connections are sometimes considered implicit by my opponent, but I see too many ways to make connection. By asking the connection to be made explicit, I have sometimes incurred exasperation on the part of my opponent, but typically they have provided the explanation with considerable grace, and more importantly: there is at that time zero confusion what is meant.

To do otherwise, to say, "Clearly, it should be (x)," without elaborating why it's clear, often, is to put your opponent at deliberate disadvantage. They have to guess on what grounds you think it's "clear". Works out great for you. They could guess wrong, they could get some details wrong which you consider salient, and then the conversation derails into making corrections. All you have to do at each wrong guess is say, "I never said that," and of course, you're right, because to start with you hadn't said anything. It's valid, but it's not at all nice.

Conversely, I suppose, a person could hold everything up with pedantics, but that is not typical of TP's style.

Of course -- do what you want. Just seems to me like the wrong issue.

[Galactus]

I agree that you couldn't/shouldn't impose something like that overnight,and would have to phase it in over a period of years, although I'd suggest far fewer than 30.

I used the 1.2 trillion point above to illustrate why any professed ignorance as to how a balanced budget requirement would likely limit entitlement spending is disingenuous.

I should add that I don't agree that cuts in government spending would be suicidal, even now. But 1.2 trillion right now would be.

I'm not asking for a long period of time to implement the amendment, I'm asking for a reasonable period of time to balance the budget over. A year is simply to short a time. The government would be too vulnerable to sudden increases in expenditures. (Like if say, the russians would invade, there'd be some kind of natural disaster, any of any other number of unforeseen consequences)

I should just directly note that any kind of balanced budget amendment would completely cripple the US' government's ability to wage war, both offensively, and, to a great extent, defensively as well.