U.S. Politics 21

[mcbigski]

The US has vast amounts of oil currently easily economically accessible at the $80 to $90 per bbl price range. (Like 200+ years worth of current consumption.) Therefore, if oil spikes above $120/bbl or so start shorting it, unless you believe that the current administration is so anti growth that it would still be able to hobble production at those prices.

I don't understand why everyone's so worried about Social Security. The program is fine. It pays for itself through 2032, I believe, and after that can be made solvent by a small tax increase. Also, SS costs won't keep rising forever; someday the boomers are going to die and expenditures will drop. I just don't understand this insistence that SS is somehow in crisis.

I'd be more worried about Medicare, because health care costs are rising with no end in sight. That's a tiger we have to tame, assuming we can find the honest political will to do so, and not a bunch of program reductions under the rubric of "free market solutions."

Medicare is a bigger worry, but SS also needs reigning in. The 2032 projection assumes that the IOUs to the treasury get paid back with interest, which is a lot different from saying that current payroll taxes are going to be able to cover ongoing expenses. There will be a large portion of the costs that need to come from general revenue. I think Obama is being blatantly cynical when he says that entitlements don't need to be cut because he knows that the Republicans are principled enough to bring those cuts to the table first. Obviously so far both sides are still playing chicken on the issue but who really honestly thinks that Obama will blink before Paul Ryan there?

[TrackerNeil]

I think Obama is being blatantly cynical when he says that entitlements don't need to be cut because he knows that the Republicans are principled enough to bring those cuts to the table first. Obviously so far both sides are still playing chicken on the issue but who really honestly thinks that Obama will blink before Paul Ryan there?

Perhaps I am behind the times, but last I heard Republicans said that cuts to Medicare and Social Security, along with cuts to defense spending, were off the table. So if the GOP is bringing those cuts to the table...well, they're playing it very close to the vest.

[mcbigski]

Perhaps I am behind the times, but last I heard Republicans said that cuts to Medicare and Social Security, along with cuts to defense spending, were off the table. So if the GOP is bringing those cuts to the table...well, they're playing it very close to the vest.

The point I was trying to make with my 'playng chicken' analogy was that both sides were being cynical, but I fully expect the smaller government party to blink first. Whether or not the populace at large agrees with that blinking will be the signature electoral issue of the next several cycles.

[Shryke]

SS barely needs touching. Medicare/Medicaid on the other hand are fucked by rising health care prices.

I like Krugman's way of putting it:

What would a serious approach to our fiscal problems involve? I can summarize it in seven words: health care, health care, health care, revenue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman

Notice that I said “health care,” not “entitlements.” People in Washington often talk as if there were a program called Socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid, then focus on things like raising the retirement age. But that’s more anti-Willie Suttonism. Long-run projections suggest that spending on the major entitlement programs will rise sharply over the decades ahead, but the great bulk of that rise will come from the health insurance programs, not Social Security.

So anyone who is really serious about the budget should be focusing mainly on health care.And by focusing, I don’t mean writing down a number and expecting someone else to make that number happen — a dodge known in the trade as a “magic asterisk.” I mean getting behind specific actions to rein in costs.

What would real action on health look like? Well, it might include things like giving an independent commission the power to ensure that Medicare only pays for procedures with real medical value; rewarding health care providers for delivering quality care rather than simply paying a fixed sum for every procedure; limiting the tax deductibility of private insurance plans; and so on.

And what do these things have in common? They’re all in last year’s health reform bill.

Now, even if we manage to rein in health costs, we’ll still have a long-run deficit problem — a fundamental gap between the government’s spending and the amount it collects in taxes. So what should be done?

This brings me to the seventh word of my summary of the real fiscal issues: if you’re serious about the deficit, you should be willing to consider closing at least part of this gap with higher taxes. True, higher taxes aren’t popular, but neither are cuts in government programs.

As an interesting addendum to this, something else Krugman posted recently I was reading:

Nice little graph here

But if we’re talking about fiscal issues, you have to bear the arithmetic in mind. We’re not living in the 1950s, when defense was half the federal budget. Even a drastic cut in military spending wouldn’t release enough money to offset more than a small fraction of the projected rise in health care costs.

So by all means, let’s try to crack down on the massive waste that goes on in matters military. But doing so would be of only modest help on the larger budget problem.

Basically, defense spending well certainly wasteful and worth cutting to help make up the shortfall, isn't as huge an issue as you'd think.

[TrackerNeil]

The point I was trying to make with my 'playng chicken' analogy was that both sides were being cynical, but I fully expect the smaller government party to blink first. Whether or not the populace at large agrees with that blinking will be the signature electoral issue of the next several cycles.

Well, if we're talking cuts to Social Security, you'd better believe Republicans will blink first; in fact, so far they're shown little or no interest in even broaching the topic of cutting that sacred program. Fact is, Social Security is a massively popular program that works very well, and as such it Republicans have already pledged not to touch it. They're not playing chicken in that regard; they've already declared defeat. (Not that they say it that way, of course.)

All this talk of the debt is, in my view, a bunch of nonsense. Nobody really cares about the national debt, least of all Republicans who have added to it just about every time they've been able. Hell, on the heels of the 2010 victory that made them legends in their own minds, congressional Republicans voted to increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. (This after campaigning against government spending less than six weeks previously.) They didn't care about deficit spending when they controlled the government from 2001 - 2006, they didn't care in 2010 when the Democrats were in charge, and they don't care now. Nobody does.

[Shryke]

Also, some holy-fuck-military-bullshit here:

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is ordering an investigation into charges that an army unit trained in psychological operations was improperly told to manipulate American senators to get more money and troops for the war.

A senator allegedly targeted said Thursday that he's confident there will be a review of the facts, but played down the idea that he was manipulated.

The staff of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, head of the effort to train Afghan security forces, ordered the information operations unit to compile profiles, voting records and other information on visiting lawmakers to leverage in a campaign to get more assistance, said a story Thursday on Rolling Stone's website. It says the campaign also improperly targeted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and others.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_us/us_pentagon_general_investigated

Will they give a shit more this time then the last time this happened with those media correspondents?

[ThinkerX]

The US has vast amounts of oil currently easily economically accessible at the $80 to $90 per bbl price range. (Like 200+ years worth of current consumption.) Therefore, if oil spikes above $120/bbl or so start shorting it, unless you believe that the current administration is so anti growth that it would still be able to hobble production at those prices

Flat out wrong.

Ask yourself this: if domestic reserves are so plentiful, then why was BP engaging in a hugely expensive drilling project in the middle of a hurricane zone (Deepwater Horizen, Gulf of Mexico). The easy to access oil is very nearly gone.

[MinDonner]

Justice department instructed to stop defending DOMA.

Explain this to an ignorant furriner - actual good thing or meaningless gesture?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

Justice department instructed to stop defending DOMA.

Explain this to an ignorant furriner - actual good thing or meaningless gesture?

Well, it means that those who are challenging DOMA in the Courts will have a much easier time as they will not be dealing with briefs from the Justice Department defending the law.

However, it sets up an interesting precedent. Suppose Obama loses in 2012. Then the ACA is up before the Supreme's under the new (hypothetical) Romney Justice Department. Could then President Romney, without consequence, instruct his Justice Department to just ignore the challenges to the ACA before the Supremes and lower Federal Courts?

I'd like to see DOMA go the way of the dodo. I think is violates the full faith and credit clause quite blatently. However, does the President of the U.S. have the authority to decide which properly passed laws they will enforce and defend or is that a ministerial duty that the President must exercise without personal preference? I'm not sure what the answer is to that question.

[Tempra]

Min,

Well, it means that those who are challenging DOMA in the Courts will have a much easier time as they will not be dealing with briefs from the Justice Department defending the law.

However, it sets up an interesting precedent. Suppose Obama loses in 2012. Then the ACA is up before the Supreme's under the new (hypothetical) Romney Justice Department. Could then President Romney, without consequence, instruct his Justice Department to just ignore the challenges to the ACA before the Supremes and lower Federal Courts?

I'd like to see DOMA go the way of the dodo. I think is violates the full faith and credit clause quite blatently. However, does the President of the U.S. have the authority to decide which properly passed laws they will enforce and defend or is that a ministerial duty that the President must exercise without personal preference? I'm not sure what the answer is to that question.

It is a very interesting question. As an executive agency, the DOJ is clearly under Obama's sway. However, as it is charged with defending the Constitutionality of the laws of the United States, there is a gray area where the DOJ overlaps with the legislative branch. Should the President be able to order the DOJ to not defend the laws of the United States? It seems like there is some problems with the system of checks and balances if the President can order the DOJ to not defend the laws of the United States. I don't think this is unprecedented by any means, but certainly and odd quirk of the system.

Anyways, someone will be hired at the taxpayers expense to defend the law. Doubtful that the brief will be as good as it would have been if it was prepared by the wunderkinds in the SG's office, but it probably won't make that much of a difference in the end.

[MinDonner]

Hm. Doesn't appear to actually be setting a precedent though (memorandum from 1994 discussing similar cases from 1926, 1952, 1860...)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

Hm. Doesn't appear to actually be setting a precedent though (memorandum from 1994 discussing similar cases from 1926, 1952, 1860...)

Isn't this the "signing Statements" debate all over again?

[TrackerNeil]

However, does the President of the U.S. have the authority to decide which properly passed laws they will enforce and defend or is that a ministerial duty that the President must exercise without personal preference? I'm not sure what the answer is to that question.

You know, ten years ago I might have given this question some serious thought. During that time, however, the president was allowed the power to detain people indefinitely and without access to evidence or counsel, and to authorize torture. Torture. Given that background, as far as DOMA is concerned, I say, faster pussycat! Kill! Kill!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Ummmm... Those were laws granting the president additional expressly discretionary powers. This is the opposite. The Executive branch refusing to defend a non-discretionary law.

[Slick Mongoose]

Excuse my ignorance...

That doesn't really leave a whole lot. There is a fair sized field in the Chukchi Sea here in the frozen north, but the current administration went way out of their way to throw up moronic bureaucratic roadblocks to stop drilling there, at least for now. Even if the go ahead were granted *now* it would still be most of the rest of this decade before oil from that field started reaching the market.

Wouldn't that be really difficult? The Chukchi sea may be normally ice-free in the summer these days but it still ices over every winter. How would they do it?

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

Ummmm... Those were laws granting the president additional expressly discretionary powers. This is the opposite. The Executive branch refusing to defend a non-discretionary law.

Oh, I see the distinction; I just don't think it matters much. Once the president has the power to torture someone and then throw him in a hole for the rest of his life, the refusal to defend a bigoted law in court is a real yawner.

Besides, I'm sure House Republicans will step up and find a way to defend DOMA. Stunts and shutdowns, baby. Stunts and shutdowns.

[Swordfish]

Min,

Well, it means that those who are challenging DOMA in the Courts will have a much easier time as they will not be dealing with briefs from the Justice Department defending the law.

However, it sets up an interesting precedent. Suppose Obama loses in 2012. Then the ACA is up before the Supreme's under the new (hypothetical) Romney Justice Department. Could then President Romney, without consequence, instruct his Justice Department to just ignore the challenges to the ACA before the Supremes and lower Federal Courts?

I'd like to see DOMA go the way of the dodo. I think is violates the full faith and credit clause quite blatently. However, does the President of the U.S. have the authority to decide which properly passed laws they will enforce and defend or is that a ministerial duty that the President must exercise without personal preference? I'm not sure what the answer is to that question.

yeah. As much as I don't like DOMA, I'm not sure i'm ok with the president just deciding which laws are going to be defended.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Min

As far as I can tell, all this does is that it signals to the opponents of DOMA that the government (well, at least the Dept. of Justice) will not fight the case. That means that we need to get a federal court to hear the case. But don't expect no opposition. I don't know the details, but other parties can join to defend the law by filing or some such, so no doubt the conservatives will come out in droves to do just that.

Re: Tempra

Anyways, someone will be hired at the taxpayers expense to defend the law. Doubtful that the brief will be as good as it would have been if it was prepared by the wunderkinds in the SG's office, but it probably won't make that much of a difference in the end.

I think the government can choose not to defend the law if/when it's challenged in court. Is there a Constitutional obligation for the executive branch to defend all federal laws? Even ones that you regard as bad in a retrospective sense?

[Altherion]

I think the government can choose not to defend the law if/when it's challenged in court. Is there a Constitutional obligation for the executive branch to defend all federal laws? Even ones that you regard as bad in a retrospective sense?

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Of course, there is a difference between enforcing laws and defending them in court so you probably want to wait for the lawyers to chime in, but I would be pretty surprised if the executive branch could pick and choose which laws it defends - that seems to me to be very open to abuse.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Re: Min

As far as I can tell, all this does is that it signals to the opponents of DOMA that the government (well, at least the Dept. of Justice) will not fight the case. That means that we need to get a federal court to hear the case. But don't expect no opposition. I don't know the details, but other parties can join to defend the law by filing or some such, so no doubt the conservatives will come out in droves to do just that.

Re: Tempra

I think the government can choose not to defend the law if/when it's challenged in court. Is there a Constitutional obligation for the executive branch to defend all federal laws? Even ones that you regard as bad in a retrospective sense?

I'm leaning in sort of your direction, TP. As long as the government maintains a presence in the case and doesn't simply withdraw, I personally don't have much of a problem with the government not spending the time and effort to draft briefs defending a law they believe to be wrong. As you say, there will be plenty of amici on a case like this. And I really wonder if a GOP administration faced with defending the ACA in Court would fight very hard either.

I may be a right wing nutbag, but I try not to be THAT hypocritical.