U.S. Politics: Wile E. Coyote edition

[Shryke]

Oh come ON. You don't think there's all this coverage about Grover Norquist because polls show that Americans resent the idea that some guy that nobody elected controlls our elected representatives? Do you think McCain stood up and announced that he was breaking with Norquist? Or is that the logical interpretation that someone put on it?

John McCain wouldn't even address this question when asked directly on Fox News today, yet this is the story that's been reported for the last couple of days.

Don't you think it's naive to think that only Republicans care about framing the issue? Don't you think it's worth wondering if Obama is just way, way better at framing the issue and controlling the narrative and working the media cycle than they are? And now I'm back to agreeing with Bale again.

I have no idea wtf you are on about here Raidne.

The Democrats aren't throwing any serious proposals out there right now because they don't need to. They are shooting down certain issue ("X is not on the table" and so on), but other then that they are content to sit back and wait while the pressure mounts. And because of that, it's not clear what might constitute whatever bargain the GOP ends up forced in to.

Norquist is making the press because the GOP is showing signs of publicly breaking because the Democrats are giving them no choice. It's a result of the barrel they have them over. They've either got to get blamed for a full repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts (and thus raise taxes) or cut a deal involving raising taxes.

Whatever else you read into my post isn't there. I swear this is more lawyer crap. Scot has a habit of doing the same.

[Shryke]

Also, good primer on the "Fiscal Cliff" situation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/27/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fiscal-cliff-in-one-faq/?hpid=z2#onesentence

With graphs and everything.

[Guest Raidne]

I'm saying that *everyone* rushes out there to frame the issue. Obama's starting up a PR tour where he's scheduled to meet up with various CEOs, no doubt to fish for some tasty quotable material from business leaders on how imperative it is that a deal be reached, etc. Everyone is playing the game of trying to set the stage as favorably for their side as they can. The ONLY people throwing out anything specific are, by and large, a few major Senate Republicans, and I'm honestly not sure whose team they're playing on, in a world where Chris Christie has reaped historic approval ratings for looking like such a moderate, a stance that every last one of these particular Republicans could feasibly take as someone tries to grab the mantle as the leader of the moderate wing of the party, along with the chance to shape the future of the party more broadly.

[DaveRoid]

In honor of the impending fiscal cliff. Talk amongst yourselves.

we going over the cliff. Very very likely from what I have seen so far.

[Guest Raidne]

That's a fantastic article Shryke - thanks!

It must be tempting for the Dems to want to go a little over the cliff, knowing that the data shows the public will blame it on the Republicans, but can any real political gain be made so far out from any election anyway?

[The Iceman of the North]

The elephant in the single payer argument is the assumption that government would actually put more downward pressure on costs than private industry.

Come on, this is basic economic theory. Like a monopoly on the supplier side will bring prices up, a monopoly on the demand side will bring the price down (as long as there's no corruption). It's not that a question of government vs. private industry, but one big customer vs. several small customers.

[Guest Raidne]

Come on, this is basic economic theory. Like a monopoly on the supplier side will bring prices up, a monopoly on the demand side will bring the price down (as long as there's no corruption). It's not that a question of government vs. private industry, but one big customer vs. several small customers.

I hear you, and believe me, I want this to be true - but it's not the monopoly thing that I have an issue with, it's what Thinker X said upthread. Wal-Mart, as a functional monopoly on the demand side vis a vis its relationship to its vendors (called a monospony, apparently - had a thread on that awhile back) absolutely brings prices WAY down, to the point where they famously nearly drove Vlasic out of business. They now demand that you, as a vendor, not have more than X percent of your business with Wal-Mart, in full acknowledgement, apparently, that they do this.

Medicare is operating in a similar way right now because Congress hasn't made changes to the fee schedule since...whatever I said earlier in the thread. 2008? 2009? As a result, payments haven't kept up with cost increases, inflation, etc., and doctors, allegedly, are losing money if they are participating providers, I guess under the theory that they'll do financially better over the long run to just wait for an increase to put them back in the black for their Medicare patients vs. the cost of losing them and whatever other beneficial treatment if they switch to a non-participating status or opt out of treating Medicare patients altogether. So for right now, it seems to work like you predict - Medicare is to health care providers like Wal-Mart is to their vendors and suppliers.

But, note that all depends on what's in a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President. Were the government the only insurer, I imagine we'd see even more lobbying by hospitals, the AMA, etc., than we already see now, if such a thing is possible, and the only thing standing between the taxpayer and industry's appetite for cash would be the integrity of your elected officials.

Under public choice theory, this does not bode well. On the one hand, you have a select group of well-funded, well-informed, very knowledgeable individuals and entities who want something very, very badly, and on the other you've got a diffuse group of not-so-well informed citizens who are much less interested in a financial burden that is spread out amongst all citizens, as well as detached from the actual services provided as the cost is incurred in the form of tax payments, who can't even have full access to the pricing schedule because the nomenclature used is the proprietary information of the AMA.

I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just saying, given all of that, I have some serious concerns.

[The Iceman of the North]

But, note that all depends on what's in a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President. Were the government the only insurer, I imagine we'd see even more lobbying by hospitals, the AMA, etc., than we already see now, if such a thing is possible, and the only thing standing between the taxpayer and industry's appetite for cash would be the integrity of your elected officials.

So you foresee a "single payer" system where it the Congress that is the "single payer", and not the bureaucracy?

[Guest Raidne]

I'm honestly too crunched for time to look this up, but I was going off the system as it is now. Currently, some fine-tuning is done by the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS), but any major changes are enacted by Congress. I think I first read all of this in the Wiki page on Medicare if you want to look into it.

To change this - and make it so the agency - in the case of a single-payer system, HHS - fully determined what rates would be paid to physicians you'd have to (1) pass an enabling statute granting the agency this power and (2) fight a possible non-delegation doctrine challenge before the Supreme Court. I imagine they'd argue that it would be something like letting the IRS set our income tax rates. Lastly, while Congress might be vulnerable to promises of campaign cash (or, conversely, piles of cash going toward negative campaign ads in one's home district should they not vote as desired), agencies are subject to what is called "agency capture," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) and it is not an easily avoidable problem even when the President doesn't treat it as a staffing mandate instead of a cause for concern, as Bush did, because it's often the case that the people with the relevant expertise have ties to industry.

[Fez]

Is anyone even talking about a return to pre-Bush estate, capital gains, and dividend tax rates? Is this even on the table?

Part of the fiscal cliff is that the capital gains tax is going up, from 15% to 20%, which is the old Clinton-era rate. Additionally, regardless of whether that goes through or is canceled as part of a deal, there is also a new 3.8% investment income tax that is being enacted under the ACA starting on January 1.

ETA: Note that the new tax is only on people whose AGI is $250,000 or greater.

[The Iceman of the North]

I'm honestly too crunched for time to look this up, but I was going off the system as it is now. Currently, some fine-tuning is done by the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS), but any major changes are enacted by Congress. I think I first read all of this in the Wiki page on Medicare if you want to look into it.

Does this apply to all government purchases? So if someone at, for instance EPA, needs to buy a new office chair, they need approval from Congress?

[Fez]

Does this apply to all government purchases? So if someone at, for instance EPA, needs to buy a new office chair, they need approval from Congress?

Stuff like that get covers by the GSA schedules. I'm think it would be pretty easy actually to put a single payer system in place under the schedules as well. Although Congress would need to approve any major changes.

[The Progressive]

We passed a spending bill that also cut taxes. It was a bad deal for everyone.

I don't think so. It is only a bad deal if you already drank too much of the conservative cool-aid about OMGTHEDEFICIT!

[The Progressive]

we going over the cliff. Very very likely from what I have seen so far.

Would you care to make a friendly wager on that?

[Fragile Bird]

I bet you Yanks go over the cliff too. The Democrats can say keep your hands off our stuff, we campaigned on increasing taxes on the rich, and the Republicans can bluster until red in the face and say, Look, it's their fault not ours! Do you think the Republicans have the upper hand in this argument?

By over the cliff, btw, I mean no resolution before the end of December. Resolution in January or February.

[The Progressive]

I think that if a vote come up in the House right now, the Repubs will cave and give the Dems enough votes to approve whatever the Senate proposed.

[awesome possum]

I don't think it really matters whether we go over the cliff or not, because at the bottom of the cliff is a nice bed of bouncy houses to send us right back up. Meaning, within days or a week or two of all the cuts expiring, the Dems will be introducing a new bill that reenacts all the cuts for all but the top 2%. And Republicans will vote for it, unless they really are determined on wiping themselves out.

It's all just political theater that the cable "news" channels need to prop up. The election was pretty high stakes and everyone (or at least mostly everyone) is drained and tired of politics. So in order to grab attention they need to make this seem as dangerous and OMGFISCALCLIFFOMG as possible.

Republicans have no leverage. They will cave one way or another.

[Frog Eater]

I don't think it really matters whether we go over the cliff or not, because at the bottom of the cliff is a nice bed of bouncy houses to send us right back up. Meaning, within days or a week or two of all the cuts expiring, the Dems will be introducing a new bill that reenacts all the cuts for all but the top 2%. And Republicans will vote for it, unless they really are determined on wiping themselves out.

It's all just political theater that the cable "news" channels need to prop up. The election was pretty high stakes and everyone (or at least mostly everyone) is drained and tired of politics. So in order to grab attention they need to make this seem as dangerous and OMGFISCALCLIFFOMG as possible.

Republicans have no leverage. They will cave one way or another.

The Republicans do have some leverage. A second recession would crush Obama's second term, would erase any "political capital" he might have earned and might generate some Republican momentum they can carry into the next election cycle.

[TrackerNeil]

The Republicans do have some leverage. A second recession would crush Obama's second term, would erase any "political capital" he might have earned and might generate some Republican momentum they can carry into the next election cycle.

Not according to this poll, in which a plurality of Americans say Republicans will be to blame for just such a turn of events. That's not the kind of momentum a political party wants going into an election.

[awesome possum]

The Republicans do have some leverage. A second recession would crush Obama's second term, would erase any "political capital" he might have earned and might generate some Republican momentum they can carry into the next election cycle.

As TN pointed out above, Americans are on to the Republicans game now and aren't letting them off the hook anymore.

And the way it would be framed would be, despite attempts from Fox otherwise, "Republicans vote against tax cuts for 98% of Americans." And I am absolutely certain that is a hammer with which even the DNC would be able to use to nail the Republicans to the wall for the next two years.