Krugman

Yep . . . it's a priority:

Let’s talk about the magnitude of the looming health care disaster.

Just about all economic forecasts, including those of the Obama administration’s own economists, say that we’re in for a prolonged period of very high unemployment. And high unemployment means a sharp rise in the number of Americans without health insurance.

After the economy slumped at the beginning of this decade, five million people joined the ranks of the uninsured — and that was with the unemployment rate peaking at only 6.3 percent. This time the Obama administration says that even with its stimulus plan, unemployment will reach 8 percent, and that it will stay above 6 percent until 2012. Many independent forecasts are even more pessimistic.

Why, then, aren’t we hearing more about ensuring health care access?

Now, it’s possible that those of us who care about this issue are reading too much into the administration’s silence. But let me address three arguments that I suspect Mr. Obama is hearing against moving on health care, and explain why they’re wrong.

First, some people are arguing that a major expansion of health care access would just be too expensive right now, given the vast sums we’re about to spend trying to rescue the economy.

But research sponsored by the Commonwealth Fund shows that achieving universal coverage with a plan similar to Mr. Obama’s campaign proposals would add “only” about $104 billion to federal spending in 2010 — not a small sum, of course, but not large compared with, say, the tax cuts in the Obama stimulus plan.

It’s true that the cost of universal health care will be a continuing expense, reaching far into the future. But that has always been true, and Mr. Obama has always claimed that his health care plan was affordable. The temporary expenses of his stimulus plan shouldn’t change that calculation.

Second, some people in Mr. Obama’s circle may be arguing that health care reform isn’t a priority right now, in the face of economic crisis.

But helping families purchase health insurance as part of a universal coverage plan would be at least as effective a way of boosting the economy as the tax breaks that make up roughly a third of the stimulus plan — and it would have the added benefit of directly helping families get through the crisis, ending one of the major sources of Americans’ current anxiety.

Finally — and this is, I suspect, the real reason for the administration’s health care silence — there’s the political argument that this is a bad time to be pushing fundamental health care reform, because the nation’s attention is focused on the economic crisis. But if history is any guide, this argument is precisely wrong.

[...] One more thing. There’s a populist rage building in this country, as Americans see bankers getting huge bailouts while ordinary citizens suffer.

I agree with administration officials who argue that these financial bailouts are necessary (though I have problems with the specifics). But I also agree with Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who argues that — as a matter of political necessity as well as social justice — aid to bankers has to be linked to a strengthening of the social safety net, so that Americans can see that the government is ready to help everyone, not just the rich and powerful.

The bottom line, then, is that this is no time to let campaign promises of guaranteed health care be quietly forgotten. It is, instead, a time to put the push for universal care front and center. Health care now!

Just my opinion

Promise me we won't go to a nightclub 

I really think that it's obscene  

What kind of people go to meet people  

In a place you can't be heard or seen  

- The Be Good Tanyas

Yes, the Damage can be undone . . .

. . . but, my oh my, how hard it's looking:

During his eight years in office – fat ones, for the most part, from a fiscal point of view – President George W. Bush moved the budget balance from surplus to structural deficit. Demographic and other pressures will worsen the position over the next decade or two. Now comes a fiscal expansion that will be only partly counter-cyclical: some of the new president’s spending will not reverse automatically as the economy recovers. A structural deficit of the sort taking shape is unsustainable and will be corrected one way or the other – if not by a timely change in policy, then by a new and potentially even worse financial calamity.

So, Happy Inauguration Day!  Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow we have a hell of a mess to clean up . . .

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5665f224-e568-11dd-afe4-0000779fd2ac.html

 

And, as twilight fades to black for the glory that has been the Cheney/Bush years . . .

. . . we need to send a big Shout! out to the man who made it all possible . . .

To honor this great jurist and his incredible contribution in giving us the Cheney/Bush legacy, here is a link to one of my fave speeches of all time, given in 2002 in Chicago:

http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty

You need to link through the Pew website to get to the speech and then scroll down a bit in the speech itself for the money quote (it's one among many, actually), but I re-print it here in case you'd rather not bother with all of that -- it really is priceless:

It seems to me that the reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should be not resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible, and a principal way of combating it, in my view, is constant public reminder that – in the words of one of the Supreme Court’s religion cases in the days when we understood the religion clauses better than I think we now do – "we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being".

Got that?  "People of faith" (who, presumably, count for more than people whose faith do not measure up to Justice Scalia's standards, as I assume he, or the Pope perhaps, might choose to define them) must "combat . . . as effectively as possible" democracy's "tendency to obscure the divine authority behind government".  Got it?

This, from a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice.  I had to read it a few times before I could believe what the good Justice was actually saying - not implying - but literally saying.  

I don't recollect many examples of guardians of the republic using the word "combating" and "democracy" in the same sentence, unless they were referring to combating somebody else in defense of democracy.  I don't know about you but I'm having a really hard time imagining any circumstances under which citizens would justifiably "combat" their own democratic form of government.  Remember: Justice Scalia is issuing a call to arms not to combat corruption in government, or a particular political party he doesn't like, or even the government itself: he is stating clearly and unequivocally that there is something inherent in our form of government - a democracy - which is inimical to something else that he believes is more important: the "divine authority behind government".  

This isn't just about semantics: don't all Americans have a pressing interest in understanding exactly how Justice Scalia proposes to combat an inherent "tendency" of democracy without combating democracy itself?  

There are other equally outrageous statements in this particular speech that betray a quite candidly unapologetic contempt for democracy -- mostly as a justification for the death penalty, of all things.  You gotta hand it to him: you could never accuse Justice Scalia of trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.  The statements in his Chicago speech and myriad other statements (see posts further below) have been practically screaming at us for years just what he thinks of the sanctity (triviality) of the vote and the importance (irrelevance) of the Establishment clause, not to mention the Great Mistake that was the Enlightenment.   Bush vs Gore should not have come as a surprise. 

The Obama cavalry arrived in the nick of time -- with people so focused on the economy, the wars and the various other Cheney/Bush-set brush fires and lapses requiring immediate attention, I'm not too sure they are aware of what a bullet we've dodged in the Supreme Court.  Now Justice Stevens can retire with some semblance of peace of mind.

Uh . . . duh . . .

From Josh Marshall: 

"No U.S. president can justify a policy that fails to achieve its intended results by pointing to the purity and rectitude of his intentions," - Paul Wolfowitz, "Statesmanship in the New Century," in Kagan, R. and Kristol, W, eds.

I guess what's notable is seeing Paul Wolfowitz saying something sensible, in a book edited by Robert Kagan and William "the bloody" Kristol, no less . . .  doesn't quite make up for the mess they've made . . . but every little, I guess.

Digby Roolz

. . . drumroll please: here she is.

Here's the text of the speech.

Judy's Lament

Imagine, poor Judy could have avoided "these very difficult times" if she and her like-minded counterparts throughout the main steam media had just done their jobs instead of acting as stenographers for the White House. Too much to ask for, I guess.

Nothing we didn't already know

Not surprised, just sad.

Just stop it . . .

An excellent article by Kevin Bales, president of Free the Slaves. What will it take to get the world's governments to focus sufficiently on contemporary slavery? How can 27 million people still remain enslaved in today's world. How can this be?

Well, it happens and, as Mr. Bales points out, it often happens right under your nose. That slavery came to church in suburban Fort Worth is an extreme yet highly ironic reminder of how comfortable westerners may be unwitting accomplices to this horror even in cases where we think we're helping.

What I don't follow entirely is Mr. Bales' resigned acceptance of the opacity of the supply chain of goods that make there ways to rich countries. Taking up Mr. Bales' example of cocoa, I would guess that slave-owning suppliers could always under-bid legitimate suppliers. I would guess it's safe to assume the law of supply and demand is encouraging slavery. Mr. Bales suggests that boycotting certain goods such as cocoa is akin to killing the patient in order to stop the disease: this is because legitimate (often family-owned businesses) would be wiped out along with the illegitimate. The only way to attack slavery, therefore, is through relentless enforcement, which means spending money. In addition, industries should be relentlessly pressured at the public policy level to step up to their responsibility to aid in this enforcement. Not sure how well big business would take to this idea. Not sure I give a damn.

So. Let's not let the beltway pundits and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal pull the wool over our eyes, yet again, with the old "consumers demand low prices" and "over-regulation" shell games. On this one, you can be sure the industries and their lobbyists would hammer at our obliging representatives in government. They will do so successfully unless there is a counterbalancing force -- which can only be at the grass-roots level -- which can keep the focus on the real issue: ending slavery.

Of course, there is a long way to go before we even get to the point of government action. Mr. Bales needs to be watched and encouraged -- who will join him in the cause?

The Wal-Mart defence just doesn't cut it, not on this one.

Digby Roolz . . .

. . . exactement, you crazy hippy.

I'm back . .

. . . life in the U.K. can be hard. Offline since June -- but it's sorted now.

Of bombs and balconies . . .

Many of my previous posts have, I admit, reflected a certain contempt for our news media, much of which I consider to be on the whole thoroughly compromised, unable or unwilling to perform the role for which it is so desperately needed.

However, there have been some heroes in this age of darkness, even in the news media -- some even in the White House press corps. Lord knows they have a hard slog. You couldn't pay me enough to listen, week after week, to the fables spun by Bush White House press spokesmen. I just think, my God, it must be depressing being subjected to Ari's or Scotty's or now Tony's ever more fantastically Orwellian flights of fancy, week after week after week. It must be soul crushing sometimes.

But it is in Iraq that examples of incomprehensible heroism among the newsmedia arise. Yes, these people must be possessed of an extraordinary ambition, but in many cases an ambition born of an earnestness about the elemental ingredient for an operational democracy: an informed electorate.

There are those who feel otherwise, of course. Such people seem to believe it is in the public's interest not to know, that truth is less important than maintaining order in the ranks, that patriotism trumps all other considerations, even if our leadership leads us all over a cliff. The lengths to which these people are willing to go to denigrate, demonize and disparage those who would seek to enlighten we, the people, have proven quite telling.

Zzzzzz. . . .

. . . . what was that? Oh, same old shit. Go back to spleep. . .

What ever happened to that Iranian offer to negotiate . . . ?

Oh, yeah, now I remember . . .

Based on the situation at the time

Well, strike me with a feather! The Economist edges towards mea culpa ville?
On reading the valedictory message of departing editor Bill Emmott and Lexington’s dangerous dance with balance and fairness (as opposed to fair and balanced?), I had to prick myself. Good thing I did: it really was just a dream.
Let’s first consider Mr. Emmott’s urge for self-examination. As I mentioned earlier, in a teaser previously published in the Financial Times, Mr. Emmott admitted his self-doubt about The Economist’s unflagging support of Dubya’s war to disarm Saddam, eliminate a terrorist safe haven and liberate the Iraqi people. Now, in his valeditory column this week, he appears to go further.
First Mr. Emmott admits The Economist essentially got it wrong in opposing NATO’s intervention in the Balkans:

. . . our cover headline was ‘Stumbling into war’. Things turned out much better than we expected.

My, isn't that refreshing! Lessons learned and all that, right? Not quite: Mr. Emmott isn't willing -- yet -- to concede making a similar misjudgment on Iraq. The Economist’s decision to support the invastion of Iraq, he writes, “was correct – based on the situation at that time, which is all it could have been based on.” Mr. Emmott goes on to explain:

The risk of leaving Saddam in power was too high, practically, legally and morally. It should be done only in exceptional circumstances, and backed by exceptional efforts. Iraq qualified on the former. George Bush let us - and America - down on the latter.

This rather lame bit of sophistry reminds me of something Josh Marshall recently wrote about an inescapable consideration as we ponder the latest chasm (Iran) yawning before us:

When I look back on my own thinking about Iraq (in 2002) and the thinking of a lot of other sensible people, the biggest mistake was considering the issue in the abstract without taking into account who was really driving the car, i.e., who was president and who would make the key decisions.
Not that I didn't think about it on some level, of course. Most of what I wrote at the time suggested that the Bush White House would screw things up. But I considered that a secondary issue whereas in fact it was the primary issue. The fact that President Bush and his advisors wanted war and shaped their actions to achieve that goal was the issue. Everything else was secondary.
Folks like me, who thought that threatening war (and being willing to follow through on the threat) made sense, assuming a good-faith commander-in-chief at the helm, were just wasting their time and making a major miscalculation.
And that is one thing I fear in the current debate [over what to do about Iran].

Read the rest of Josh’s article – it’s a strong tonic and tastes awful. But, oh so necessary.
One shouldn't dwell over-long on the bitter irony of The Economist's conversion in favour of moral wars in the post-Clinton era, this sudden over-compensation in favour of wars which happen to coincide with Republican administrations. Guess they skipped that bit about the Council of Nicea in their moral philosophy classes at Oxford.
As for Lexington, well, although I suppose I should be grateful for this week’s column (“The rebirth of outrage”) in which Lexington finally, amazingly, acknowledges the existence of the Falafel King, Hannity, Scarface and Lou (“celebrate our sameness”) Dobbs. Unfortunately, the wheels come off yet again as Lexington assaults us with patently ridiculous comparisons suggesting the attainment of some sort of delicate equilibrium in the cosmic outrage balance between “leftists” and “rightists”:

Ironically, both sides of the divide feel marginalized. Leftists feel excluded because the Republicans control every branch of government. Rightists feel left out because the left dominates so much of the cultural world – especially the movie business and the universities . . .

Note how the business world, the military and especially all our thoroughly compromised friends in the news media are left out of this particular equation.
Ah, yes: after briefly acknowledging Bob Dole’s plea for the inexplicably missing “outrage” during those halcyon days when principle triumphed over politics in the feverish pursuit of Bill Clinton in 1996, Lexington pronounces, “[t]oday the mood is sourer”. Only since 2000, evidently, has outrage been truly “reborn”.
Outrageous.

Our greatest jurist . . .

. . . truly a genius.

Teensy tip of the iceberg

In the great "jaded" vs. "complicit" debate, I vote for the latter.

Unhinged

He's really on a bender these days.

Scalia again

He's a genius, they tells me . . .

As Atrios points out, I love how Scalia orders the press around.

Yeah, yeah

Not bad . . .

. . . but it's the second comment that strikes the right chord. Here it is reprinted in its entirety:

Too little, too late (so far) (#84727)
by Peter K. Clarke on March 27, 2006 at 3:33 AM

This analysis is solid, as far as it goes, but is deficient in several crucial respects which, even in a short piece such as this cry out for mention.

First of all, the extremism of the Bush administration has been blatantly obvious ever since 9-11-01, when it trumpeted the conscious, crudely self-serving and supremely asinine decision to focus not on the clearly revealed challenges for airline safety, building codes, information, education, and dysfunctional foreign policies, but to instead pretend that the whole problem was basically a military one. So, the first matter not properly addressed by the authors is why has the Bushies "power grab" not been a central issue in America politics for the last 5 1/2 years?

Secondly, the motives behind the supposed determination "to restore the authority of the presidency" are untouched in this essay.

Thirdly, other than a vague call for the "public" to "wake up", there is no proposed solution for concerned readers to grasp as a vision or to rally around, and no action plan for how to proceed as practical matter.

Taken together, these three deficiencies all but eviscerate this article, turning what could have been a warning bell into a wind chime. Look no further than the comment of J. Callahan above for an indication of how easily flabbiness can be turned into mincemeat.

Take the second deficiency: motive. There is no consistent evidence that G.W. Bush seeks or has sought any fundamental change in the American system of government except inadvertently. He gives no indication of wanting to establish a 1000 Year Texas Reich, abolish motherhood, or ban apple pie. Despite what seems at times like obtuse stubbornness and instinctive vindictiveness, he does not appear to be operating with anything like an "Enemies List" nor is he the standard bearer of any consistent principled ideology. He is not, in other words, Hitler, Mussolini, or even Nixon, Reagan, or Goldwater. He was for a "humble" foreign policy in 2000, a pre-emptive Pax American in 2003, and now claims to be pursuing “transformative diplomacy” in 2006. These radical shifts have little to do with any strategic vision, or pratical foreign policy considerations, but correlate very closely with wanting to get elected in 2000 and 2004 and now wanting to salvage some vestige of a "historical legacy" from a disaster-laden presidency.

What Bush has been saying, instigating and promulgating does indeed amount to dangerous behavior injurious to America’s future: trashing the principle of multilateral agreements on weapons proliferation, international justice, and global climate change, wasting enormous amounts of money on an Iraqi boondoggle that has had no purpose other than to give him a "re"-election platform in 2004, sending America's finances recklessly on an accelerating one-way course towards national bankruptcy, laying waste to the principle of an independent, non-partisan civil service, in addition to the abuses of power stemming from the moronicly-mislabelled "war on terror" stressed in the piece here.

But, the real danger to the Republic is that of some future, truly power-hungry and much more clever successor, steamrolling a new tyranny down the paths blazed by the current bumbling tenderfoot scout.

Such risks are amplified by the kind of mistakes made by the authors here, in the aforementioned first and third deficiencies of the article (failure to examine the time delay in any serious challenge to the Bush administration's power grabs and the failure to indicate any practical approach for resisting and reversing those mistakes and abuses). The two deficiencies are linked: a key reason why there has been far to little effective opposition to the most egregious and reckless misdeeds of the Cheney-Bush administration lies with the lack of articulated, tangible, and effective alternatives. There is more to America than the Federalists, the Constitution, the three branches of government, and the "public." We also have political parties, a press, a university system, private companies, non profit organizations, etc. etc.. THERE is where the most serious slumbering, sleepwalking and negligence has resided and still lies.

Bottom line: The "war on terror" was a foolish croc from the start. It was never, and could never truly be, more than a metaphorical war, like the "war on cancer", the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs". The authors rightly note this, but don't draw the critical inferences. Other countries have worse problems with terrorism than America but they haven't usually waged "war" on it, let alone used a terrorist attack from one set of scoundrels, to launch a half-assed attempt at regime change in a different wholly unrelated country run a by a separate group of scoundrels. Except, arguably in 1914, but a C average History major might have forgotten Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

Is that any reason why the rest of us have to fall asleep at our desks as well?

This Orwellian bull about a "war on terrorism" stank from day 1. Where were the Democrats? Cowering in spineless acquiescence. Where were the Republicans? Gazing at their navels, happy to see every conservative principle slaughtered in a rah-rah, our-team-winning crusade for childishly myopic self-centeredness. Where were the self-proclaimed Christians? Busy worshipping the false idol of Ignorance. Where was the New York Times? Regurgitating the propaganda fed to it. Where were the intellectuals? Trying to give new spins to arcane and obsolete social theories. Where were the university students? Blissfully ignorant and apathetic.
Where was the "progressive" and "antiwar" "Left"? Rejoicing in deliberately ineffective irrelevance. Which of these ever raised a whimper about the lazy lemming-like 40% of voters who couldn't bother to take a few minutes in November 2004 to vote?

How can one expect the "public" to "wake up" when those who ought to be waking them are as comatose, cowardly, and stupidly negligent as far too many have been for far too long?

P.S. to the kneejerk Rovians of HNN: Before trying to stuff words in others' mouths, please be aware I am not saying (nor have I ever maintained) that there is no legitimate purpose to the use of American military power. It was used multilaterally, and legitimately, and was effective in achieveing its STATED purposes in Kosovo and Afghanistan, for example.