The Free Thinker

Stupid conservative "arguments"

2012-01-22T23:30:00.000-08:00

The guy at this conservative site http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/watch-and-youll-never-have-talk-liberal-again#disqus_thread makes a mocking video of some of liberalism' silly talking points. It's pretty funny. I could make a countervideo, though,with stupid conservative "arguments"
1. Government spending doesn't create jobs, except for military spending.
2. If we lower taxes on the rich, we'll bring in more money!
3. The average American doesn't realize what a profound thinker Michele Bachmann is because of the lies of the sexist liberal media.
4. Government spending is bankrupting us; the government needs to stop spending so much on foreign aid and Planned Parenthood. But don't touch my Medicare or I'll scream "rationing"!
5. Once Obama is replaced by a Republican, we can all breathe easy. The economy will flourish like it did under George W.
6. The problem with our banking and health care systems is that we have any regulations at all.
7. NPR and PBS and CNN are incredibly biased; Fox News tells us the truth.
8. Obama's a socialist (repeat at least four times a day).
9. Atheists are bad, except for Ayn Rand and Christopher Hitchens--after all she hated the government and he supported the Iraq war.
10. Keith Olbermann's an obnoxious ideologue; Mark Levin and Michael Savage are just telling it like it is.
11. Paul Krugman's not a real economist, but Peter Schiff and Art Laffer and anyone from the Cato Institute are. Real economists always support tax cuts and deregulation.
12. The 2008 collapse was all the fault of Barney Frank! No one else!
13. The EPA's attempts to regulate carbon emissions is one step away from Nazism.
14. A fertilized egg is a person because there's a small chance it could develop into one someday.

Responses at the site to my 14 points were not very friendly, I have to say. The word idiot was one of the kindest.

The payroll tax and Social Security

2012-01-05T12:07:00.000-08:00

Critics of the recently passed payroll tax decrease have denounced it as a threat to Social Security. Their argument is simple: payroll tax cuts lower the money in the "Trust fund" which allegedly covers only Social Security payments. Therefore, the lower payroll taxes will reduce the amount of money available to pay Social Security debts. This argument is incorrect, as it is based on a a misunderstanding of how Social Security payments are funded. The alleged "trust fund" is not some magical entity that pays Social Security benefits; the alleged fund is simply a part of the U.S. treasury. The only relevant issue is whether the national government has the money to pay Social Security benefits. The tax cut is no better or worse for Social Security recipients than the Bush tax cuts of last decade. Don't believe me? Former budget director Maurice Stans explained it succintly (1975):

"Social Security payments rest upon the general credit of the Government of
the United States, upon its taxing power, and not upon any
accumulations in a trust fund."

In my view, the payroll tax cut is a bad idea, but not because it takes money directly out of a Social Security "trust fund." The problem with the cut reduces government revenue in a time when there is a huge debt. That's the objection opponents of the cut should be making.

On a side note: it is not meaningful or logical to describe Social Security as "bankrupt." That concept has no coherent meaning when describing a government program. A government program may be wasteful or inefficient, but it can't be bankrupt. The U.S. government has the authority to reduce benefits at any time, raise taxes, or increase the money supply in order to keep making payments.

Defenders of Tim Tebow are missing the point | ViewsHound

2011-12-21T08:48:00.000-08:00

Defenders of Tim Tebow are missing the point | ViewsHound

My new article on Viewshound

2011-12-18T04:16:00.000-08:00

Not everything can or should be compromised:

http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/12/18/we-may-not-be-able-to-work-together-no-offense-int

My criticism of 99%? movement on viewshound

2011-12-04T00:12:00.001-08:00

Feel free to comment (you must have a FB account to log in): http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/12/2/why-you-shouldnt-support-the-99-movement

My new article on Viewshound

2011-12-04T00:10:00.001-08:00

Five government programs I think should be abolished:

http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/11/29/five-federal-programs-we-dont-need?utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=achievement&utm_source=Facebook

He's not quite ready for the Hall of Fame

2011-12-03T09:47:00.000-08:00

A huge fan of Tim Tebow's excellence makes this supposed devastating great point--From the WSJ.com (subscription required):

Yes, Tim Tebow beat the Miami Dolphins, the Oakland Raiders, the Kansas City Chiefs, the New York Jets and the Chargers of San Diego.

Call me cynical, but none of these teams are going to make anyone forget the 1985 Bears, the 1989 Niners, the 70s Steelers, et al. I watch the Chargers every week; their crappiness has a lot more to do with their loss to the Broncos than anything Tebow did.

My new Viewshound article

2011-11-19T03:31:00.000-08:00

My attack on ideological extremism: http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/11/19/fundamentalisms-of-the-left-and-right?utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=achievement&utm_source=Facebook

Obama is not anti-Israel

2011-11-17T09:41:00.000-08:00

The conventional wisdom is wrong again: the President is a friend of Israel. My letter to the local paper:

Phil Epstein's letter (Nov. 8), "Not sure we can survive four more years of Obama," repeats the common charge that President Obama is anti-Israeli. Mr. Epstein urges no Jews to vote for a man who, he claims, "has thrown us under the bus."
I completely disagree with him. Unlike Mr. Epstein, I will list actual examples that support my view. To take just three:
1. He has funded a missile defense system that protects Israel,
2. He opposed Palestinian membership in the United Nations, and
3. He helped free six soldiers who were trapped in the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.
All three of these actions were publicly praised by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Another Israeli who doesn't see this alleged anti-Israeli bias is Ehud Barak (former Prime Minister, current defense minister). In an August interview with Fox News, August he said "I can hardly remember a better period of support, American support and cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us (Israel) than what we have right now."
In an ironic end to his letter, Mr. Epstein urges the reader to "think" before voting. Finally, we agree.
Jack Davis
Vista

Link: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/letters-nct-nov/article_fd0e5745-b8f8-5565-9313-1eb000f7e3b2.html#ixzz1dzAP7D9M

Times, Nov.17:

Phil Epstein's letter (Nov. 8), "Not sure we can survive four more years of Obama," repeats the common charge that President Obama is anti-Israeli. Mr. Epstein urges no Jews to vote for a man who, he claims, "has thrown us under the bus."
I completely disagree with him. Unlike Mr. Epstein, I will list actual examples that support my view. To take just three:
1. He has funded a missile defense system that protects Israel,
2. He opposed Palestinian membership in the United Nations, and
3. He helped free six soldiers who were trapped in the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.
All three of these actions were publicly praised by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Another Israeli who doesn't see this alleged anti-Israeli bias is Ehud Barak (former Prime Minister, current defense minister). In an August interview with Fox News, August he said "I can hardly remember a better period of support, American support and cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us (Israel) than what we have right now."
In an ironic end to his letter, Mr. Epstein urges the reader to "think" before voting. Finally, we agree.
Jack Davis
Vista

(What I did not mention due to lack of space was that the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, charged Fox "News" with taking P.M. Netanyahu out of context.)
This is the clip: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105200032

My post @ Viewshound

2011-11-12T10:25:00.000-08:00

I look @ my crystal ball and make a few predictions:
http://www.viewshound.com/humor/2011/11/12/surprising-events-that-will-happen-in-the-world-be?utm_campaign=achievement&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ViewsHound

My article @ Viewshound

2011-11-09T20:40:00.000-08:00

http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/11/7/why-the-tea-party-movement-is-utterly-incoherent

No Republicans allowed on campus

2011-11-06T08:59:00.000-08:00

A number of Harvard students, apparently members of the 99% movement, have called for a boycott of the introductory economics class. Their grievance is that the class is taught by a Greg Mankiw, a former Bush and now Romney adviser. Apparently, even the small number of Republican academics is too large. Let's not mince words: This walkout is a ideological attack on academic freedom. This protestors are sending a message to college administrators: no Republicans/conservatives should be allowed to teach college classes.

While I am not a Harvard student--you have to do better than a 3.0 in high school--I have taken economics classes that used Mankiw's textbook and feel qualified to comment. Mankiw's personal political beliefs are irrelevant; the only question is whether they have distorted the economics lessons in the book. I see no evidence of his personal biases in the textbook. It's absurd to argue Mankiw can't teach his class because of his Republican politics; should we disqualify every professor who has taken a political stance from teaching a class?

The protesters won't be satisfied until Harvard and every other university has a sign on campus: No Republicans allowed!

The Harvard crimson has a good op-ed on this controversy.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed are kings

2011-10-30T04:08:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney would be the one-eyed man. Two quotes from this Steven Chapman column sum it up:

A Democratic insider told National Journal, "He can talk and chew gum at the same time, which puts him way ahead of the other candidates."

One anonymous GOP bigwig added, "Republicans are beginning to realize that this is a choice between Romney and the unelectable."

When it is not a strawman

2011-10-25T04:46:00.000-07:00

For those who have never heard of this logical fallacy, a straw man is a criticism of an argument other than the actual one you're responding to. A Wikipedia entry explains it more formally: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.^[1]
E.g. I say Obama hasn't been a great president--you then counter by saying "Well he's not the worst ever."
A reader should always be on the lookout for this kind of dishonest, fallacious reasoning.

On the other hand, it is as equally dishonest to claim that an argument is a strawman when it is not one. This article on global warming is an example of this. Recently, physicist Richard Muller and a team of scientists showed conclusively that the earth was warming and wrote an op-ed about his team's findings. The author of this article, James Delingpole, claims that global warming skeptics accept the fact that the planet is warming, and that Muller is making a straw man argument. But Delingpole is wrong: Mueller is not making a straw man argument.

Many skeptics do claim the earth is cooling. As I pointed out in the comments beneath the article (moddem 38 is my screen name), a Google search for "global cooling" has 5 million + hits. (Try it now, if you don't believe me). Delingpole either hasn't followed the debate very closely, or (more likely) he's being dishonest. Being as Delingpole is a conservative ideologue with no expertise in the subject--one of his books is named "365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy,"-- there's every reason to see his argument as a deliberate falsehood.

Heed the 99 Percent - Rich Lowry - National Review Online

2011-10-17T23:49:00.000-07:00

This was one of the most thoughtful columns on the OWS movement, i.e. the writer agrees with me. (I am not immune to the confirmation bias:)

Lowry argues persuasively that the movement's anger is justified, but directed at the wrong target. More importantly, the author's position is the same as mine.

Heed the 99 Percent - Rich Lowry - National Review Online

Germans?

2011-10-14T04:23:00.000-07:00

The title comes from this this clip I like from Animal House. On a more serious note, a poster (jeff1947) @ The Los Angeles Times website makes a great argument against the health care law: (The entire post is long, so I've just quoted a part of it). The whole post can be seen on this page at the Times' website.

I spent my entire working career in Germany. If we wanted real health care reform, we would have adopted policies that work in countries such as Germany. If we wanted health care reform, we would have addressed the realities of why costs in this country are so much higher than in the rest of the industrial world and we did not. (Emphasis added).

By coincidence, I just finished reading a terrific book on worldwide health care systems, The Healing of America by T.R. Reid, and it comes to the same conclusion as the poster. Reid points out a number of advantages German health care has over American health care system (go to p.67). Germany provides health care more generous health benefits at a much lower cost (11% of GDP v.17%). Every citizen can choose between over 200 plans and there are, unlike Canada, no long waiting lists. Jeff1947 in 2012!

No one really cares what the Constitution says | ViewsHound

2011-10-14T03:26:00.000-07:00

Link to my article on Viewshound: No one really cares what the Constitution says | ViewsHound

Taxes and who pays them

2011-10-13T00:22:00.000-07:00

This article from Slate.com discusses the conservative charge that 47% of Americans don't pay any income taxes. Liberals immediately counter that there are other taxes such as payroll and sales taxes that hit the poor harder. Who's right? As usual in politics,there's some truth (and falsehoods) on both sides.

It is not true that 47% of the population pays no taxes; conservatives who argue this aren't considering the entire tax picture. But liberals are wrong when they say that the tax code is biased in favor of the rich, Warren Buffett notwithstanding. (Google logical fallacies-argument from authority). Even adjusting for payroll taxes, the rich pay a far higher % of their income than the poor/middle class. This chart from the centrist Tax Policy Center breaks the tax burden down by quintiles. The bottom 60% pay a much lower tax rate than the top 20%. The tax rate goes up as income goes up at every level.

On a side note, the author states: "In short, it is not that they are not paying their taxes. It is that the country’s tax structure lets them off the hook." I don't see a distinction here. Here comes a sports analogy (sorry,couldn't resist): It's not that I don't play for the Chargers, it's just that their strength and athletic requirements keeps me off the team.

But why stop there?

2011-10-06T00:20:00.000-07:00

Former assistant Treasury secretary Fred Bergsten presents several innovative ideas for reducing the trade deficit in this New York Times op-ed. However, I found this statement very curious: "First, the United States must, in effect, weaken the dollar by 10 to 20 percent. This step alone would produce one million to three million jobs."

Assuming this statement is true, it naturally leads to the following questions: If a 10-20% reduction in the dollar's value creates 1-3 million jobs--it should follow that devaluing of the dollar by 50% would create 5-15 million jobs. And why stop there? A 90% devaluing of the dollar should create between 9-27 million jobs. And 99%--well I think the point is made.

If you think that my question is absurd, please tell me why. It seems like a logical progression of the jobs/devaluation ratio.

Addendum: I contacted an economist to ask if this was true; the person requested I ask the author personally. I was not able to find Mr.Bergsten's email address so this question may never be resolved. Sorry to leave you in suspense...

How soon they forget their own position

2011-09-24T07:42:00.000-07:00

One thing seems to be missing from the discussion of the Solyandra scandal:

Conservatives who blast the Obama administration conveniently forget an argument they've repeatedly used in the past. The argument, which was invoked to oppose campaign finance reform, is this: Campaign contributions do not cause bad policy decisions. E.G. The NRA's money did not cause politicians to vote on the NRA's side; the NRA is giving money to the politicians because they agree with the NRA's stance. So how can they logically and honestly argue that Solyandra's donations influenced Obama's decisions? Cognitive dissonance? Perhaps, but I would argue it is more of a case of partisanship hackery-- only liberals/ Democrats are corrupted by campaign funding, because, well, they're on the other side.

A conservative writer, Jane Chastain, makes an indisputable point in this excellent article:

Can we really be surprised to discover that Solyndra executives were big contributors to Obama's presidential campaign or that one of Solyndra's major investors was Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, a bundler of campaign cash?

"You give me tons of campaign cash and I will give you government money for your pet project no matter how big or how shaky." That's how Washington works. We the taxpayers are the poor saps left holding the bag for these bad "investments."

Unfair Overgeneralization

2011-09-18T23:25:00.000-07:00

The debate over Ron Paul's answer to Wolf Blitzer continues. Paul Krugman , as he usually does, harshly criticizes conservatives in his New York Times column. He lays it on the line here:

So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care? The answer, based on recent history, is a resounding “Yeah!”

While I disagree with the standard libertarian/conservative position on health care--deregulation will solve everything--Krugman is overstating his case here. To say that "people on the right" would let the uninsured die is a harsh and gross overgeneralization. Granted, some of Ron Paul's supporters, a few that were in the audience, probably take this position. They do not represent mainstream conservative views. As anyone who follows the primaries knows, Paul will not win or even come close to winning the Republican nomination. The probable winner of the Republican nomination is Mitt Romney. He approved a health care law similar--as Krugman himself points out in this column-- to the national health care law passed by a Democratic Congress. It's hard to honestly argue that Romney would allow people without insurance to die.

Unless you're a partisan New York Times columnist, of course.

Jon Stewart's plan for American renewal

2011-09-13T03:23:00.000-07:00

One of Jon Stewart's best rants ever. He has a great quote around 3:25: "Our greatest resource is campaign-driven drivel." Sadly, that's true.

Study shows the very obvious

2011-09-04T07:32:00.000-07:00

Alan Krueger of Princeton has been named President Obama's new head of the Council of Economic Advisers. This article from Business Week discusses some of his previous academic reseach:

People often form opinions about the economy based on their feelings, not knowledge or experience, Krueger and a colleague wrote in a 1994 paper. Often, those opinions are against their self-interest.

Really? This conclusion would be a surprise to, well nobody. The (obvious) fact is that people often form views on every subject based on feelings not facts. People's opinion on science, religion, sports, etc... are based often, if not primarily on feelings. (Just listen to Rick Perry talk about evolution or climate change). This concept should be obvious to anyone with even a little common sense--even if they've never seen this groundbreaking study.

Some years ago a study from Harvard showed an almost equally obvious conclusion: sports fans drink more than non-sports fans! Talk show host Jim Rome made the following snarky, but accurate, comment:
Harvard! That's good. I would hate for a study of this magnitude to have been done by a lesser institution. Just replace Harvard with Princeton in the rant, and you have my exact opinion of Professor Kreuger's study.

One more amusing triviality from this article: it mentions Krueger is a data-driven researcher. Is there such a thing as a researcher not driven by data? Isn't that inherent in the position of researcher? What else would the researcher be driven by,if not data?

Jon Stewart defends Michele Bachman (sort of)

2011-08-29T00:40:00.000-07:00

Great clip where Jon Stewart rips Newsweek's cover of Bachmann.

By the way, the issue contains the article I criticized a few posts ago.

They really are radical

2011-08-28T07:57:00.000-07:00

Normally, I'm skeptical of people on the left who call their opponents radicals or reactionaries. That's somewhat of a vague charge, and like the frequent accusation of "socialism" by the right, often isn't backed up with much evidence. But it is fair to call two recent statements by politicians on the right, if not reactionary, then at least way out of the mainstream. Ron Paul here makes an extreme and foolish statement:

After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

"We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," Paul said. "I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district. (emphasis added)

Another less dramatic, but equally foolish statement was made recently by Florida Senator Marcio Rubio. Discussing the origins of Social Security in a recent speech, he made the following claim:

"For those who met misfortune, that wasn't our obligation to take care of them, that was the government's job. And as government crowded out the institutions in our society that did these things traditionally, it weakened our people in a way that undermined our ability to maintain our prosperity.

The article later contradicts Rubio's claim with a few facts (the website is Politifact.com, the writer's name is not mentioned):

According to the Social Security Administration, only about 15 percent of the labor force had any type of pension plan in 1932, and only about 5 percent of laborers actually received retirement benefits.

While this statement has gotten little media attention, it is a view of the role of government every bit as misguided and extreme as Paul's. Reactionary? That's in the eye of the beholder, but it is certainly a view that the vast majority of Americans would not accept. I'll be charitable and call it naive libertarian nostalgia. The past was just not the paradise the Tea Party seems to think it was.

Media bias continued

2011-08-21T23:08:00.000-07:00

In this very critical article on Michelle Bachmann writer Lois Romano makes what she thinks is a damning charge:

At a time of population growth, increasing health-care costs, swelling ranks of retirees, and a sharp and prolonged economic slump—all of which point to the need for increases in federal spending just to meet government’s existing obligations—Bachmann and her Tea Party allies demand that Washington spend less. (Emphasis added) The horror! Less spending when we have a huge debt!

Romano goes on to complain that "they don’t just demand that spending increase less from year to year than previously planned; they actually insist the federal government spend less." (emphasis added) Wow, what a bunch of crazies! When they say spending cuts, they actually mean spending cuts!

I should emphasize I am not endorsing Bachmann, who has made several false claims in the last few months, see Politifact.com here for more details. I am also annoyed by the Tea Party's frequent vague calls for "limited government," without specifying exactly what they would cut. Anyone can say they're for limited government; it's an empty slogan much like,say, change we can believe in.

Bachmann's flaws, however, do not justify Romano's hatchet job on her. The media should not label candidates extreme; that's advocacy not journalism. The voters can punish "extremists" at the ballot box.

Funny, intentionally or not

2011-08-21T22:00:00.000-07:00

This editorial from the North County Times on California's recent redistricting is well worth reading. It strongly criticize the Republicans' opposition to the new boundaries made by an independent panel--a panel whose creation they earlier demanded. I especially liked the second sentence here:

Of course, circulating a petition is no guarantee that enough voters will sign it to qualify it for the ballot. The Republicans' campaign to convince the voters that they never should have listened to the Republicans in the first place may well backfire.
(emphasis is mine).

Funny and accurate. The NC Times is a right-leaning paper, so their criticism of the Republicans is more credible (at least to me)than most news sources, which tend to be biased against the Republicans. While we're on the subject, the news media, with a few exceptions, lean left. Surprisingly, many liberals/leftists deny this, which I find either delusional or dishonest. Even Noam Chomsky!--I assume anyone reading this knows who he is--says the media is fairly liberal. My next post will give a perfect example of this bias. Stay tuned...

Heads I win, tails you lose

2011-08-15T09:22:00.000-07:00

Economist Robert Reich makes a devastating argument in Salon.com today. Attacking the Republicans' court challenge to the individual mandate, he rightly points out:

The Republican strategy should now be clear: Privatize anything that might otherwise be a public program financed by tax dollars. Then argue in the courts that any mandatory purchase of it is unconstitutional because it exceeds the government's authority. And rally the public against the requirement.

(Me):The Republicans can't lose under this scenario. Medicare for All--no that's a government takeover-can't have that. A cynic could point out that they're hypocritical by not trying to repeal Medicare right now, but let's skip over that for a moment. Also, we can't have a national health plan through private insurance--that's unacceptable as it is (conveniently) unconstitutional. Perfect arrangement for Republicans--no health care reform of any kind can be passed.

Another great point by Reich:

Remember this next time you hear Republican candidates touting Paul Ryan's plan for turning Medicare into vouchers for seniors to buy private health insurance.

Me: That is the mandatory purchase of a private product, isn't it? There is no coercion here after all--they do have the option of not redeeming the voucher and not getting health care coverage! This "choice" reminds me of a similar situation in the novel Catch-22 (p.457):

"Their alternative--there was an alternative, of course, since Milo detested coercion and was a vocal champion of freedom of choice,--they could starve."

Mitt was basically right

2011-08-14T21:16:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney has taken a lot of heat for his recent comment that "corporations are people." This statement has obscured a valid point he made right afterwards--taxes on corporations do not just hurt corporate bottom lines. The high corporate tax rates in this country are causing corporations to go offshore, which has caused more unemployment, at a time when we need businesses to hire more people.

It would be great if taxing corporations was an easy answer to our economic woes. Alas, the truth is a bit more complex. (By coincidence, 60 minutes had a special on this subject today, it's worth checking out). The next time you hear someone complain about jobs moving overseas, ask them if we should lower the corporate tax rate. If they say no, they're not being serious.

Don't believe me? Allow me to quote the distinguished economist Laurence Kotlikoff in this Business Week column:

Next, consider cutting the corporate tax rate, which will lead to new investment, jobs, and higher wages. This isn’t a trickle-down fantasy. Just look at Ireland’s amazing growth after cutting its corporate rate.

Unlike our personal income tax, the rich can avoid our corporate tax by investing abroad. With a higher corporate tax, capital leaves and wages (the cost of labor) fall until capital is again indifferent between staying and going. With a lower corporate tax, the opposite occurs.
Raise the corporate tax and take-home wages fall; lower it and take-home wages rise. Sounds like the corporate tax hits workers like a payroll tax.

Our very possible future president might be right after all.

My new religion

2011-08-08T09:15:00.000-07:00

I've decided to change religions. Formerly, I called myself a nonbeliever (I don't like the word atheist). I have decided to become a Possibilian. A decision of this magnitude requires an explanation, so I'll try to explain it briefly.

This religion was recently created by a brilliant neuroscientist named David Eagleman. He explains it brilliantly in this lecture. He argues persuasively (at least to me) that people should embrace uncertainity and humility on the question of whether there is a supernatural creator. The universe is too mysterious to commit to a definite answer. At first, I assumed he was simply calling for agnosticism, but Eagleman doesn't like that word. He argues agnosticism is an inadequate way of thinking. To him, it means being uncertain only about one's own religion, while dismissing with certainity the claims of other religions.

This is a great one sentence summary of what it means to be a Possibilian:

In my opinion, our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion.

So who wants to join the Church of Possibilianism?

Birth control and a free lunch.

2011-08-03T04:27:00.000-07:00

A few quick takes:

1. The phony debt ceiling "crisis" led to an equally phony budget deal. It is smoke and mirrors.

2. A balanced budget amendment is political grandstanding. It will never become law, and wouldn't help the economy if it did. Congress wants to balance the budget, pass a budget that has no deficit. It's as easy as that.

3. There is, regrettably, no free lunch. Forcing insurers to cover birth control at no cost will lead to higher premiums and higher costs for other procedures.

4.My hometown baseball team (Padres)may have the worst offense ever. I normally don't discuss sports here, but this rant leads naturally to a concept in economics not widely understood, opportunity cost. I could have done much better things during all that timeI spent watching this awful team. What I did not do during all these hours is the opportunity cost. (If you already know this, don't accuse me of stating the obvious--I had to justify bringing up this topic).

5. A payroll tax cut for employers is the best idea for reducing unemployment. This post by a prominent economist goes into more detail.

What is a Moderate?

2011-07-30T22:26:00.000-07:00

In this thoughtful article E.J. Dionne attempts to define moderation. I'll quote just a few sentences:

Moderation in politics is about balance. It means believing in a vibrant and innovative private sector and a government substantial enough to do what the private sector doesn't and to enforce sensible rules for economic competition. It means incentives for success, help for those making their way up, and security for the sick, the aging, the poor, the unlucky.

I agree with these sentiments; the following statement is my explanation of what I consider honest moderation:

It's not about taking a middle position b/w two extremes; it's a recognition that good ideas can come from the right, left, or the middle. It's about not taking a party line and taking each issue on a case-by-case basis. And it's also about avoiding mindless cliches, such as "Reality has a liberal bias." Reality has no ideological or partisan bias--with all due respect to the funny but wrong Stephen Colbert.

To clarify a little: I define moderation not as centrism, which Dionne rightly explains in the article:"It measures where everyone else stands on some political spectrum at a given moment and then frantically adjusts." Centrists often commit the fallacy of the golden mean-- a false argument that two extremes are always wrong, and the truth therefore must lie in the middle. (See this Wikipedia entry for a more detailed analysis.)

To use a contemporary political example: as a moderate I do not believe the truth lies between,say, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter. What is more likely is that Coulter is right on some issues and Maddow on some others. Perhaps on some issues they could both be wrong. Being a true moderate--at least as I define it--requires an open mind and an ability to evaluate issues on a case-by-case basis. It is a combination of right and left ideas, not a constant compromise between the two sides.

I'll just run through a few issues and describe briefly my stance:

1. National health insurance--left of center. I would take Medicare for All with some adjustments or a strictly regulated private system. Nothing short of 100% coverage is acceptable.
2. Taxes--right of center. The tax code is so progressive it's unfair--and it's worse than most people realize. Being a tax preparer, I have seen low-income families walk out with thousands of dollars from the EITC. I also firmly believe that as marginal rates get very high, tax avoidance leads to diminishing revenue increases.
3. Abortion--not sure if this right, center, or left--I would ban them in the 3rd trimester only. There's a great article by Gregg Easterbrook on the subject that persuaded me to adopt this point of view.
4. Affirmative action--right. Morally unfair to non-minorities; possibly unconstitutional as well.

Any questions or comments--post them here or e-mail me @jackdav38@gmail.com

Common but flawed argument

2011-07-23T14:00:00.000-07:00

Many on the left argue that dramatically raising tax rates on the rich will not hurt the economy. The argument is: tax rates were much higher in the 1950s and the economy did just fine. If a marginal rate of as high as 91% did not lead to economic problems then, a large tax increase now is nothing to worry about.

This is a common argument and it certainly sounds plausible, but the truth is a bit more complex. Proponents of this theory make a logical error--the confusion of correlation with causation. The fact that the economy did well during a time of very high taxes does not prove a cause and effect relationship. The economy may well have prospered despite the high rates. There may have been other factors involved that fool us into this belief.

Tyler Cowen, an prominent economist, takes this position. He argues in a recent book ,The Great Stagnation, that there are vast differences between the economy of the 1950s and today's economy. (It's an e-book and I could not link,regrettably). He explains that the high tax rates and unionization of the 1950s did not destroy the economy because of high economic growth during that time. Those same policies, if enacted today, would lead to disaster. I'll quote briefly from the book:

"We can’t just wave the policy wand and re-create the crucial features of that earlier world—namely rapid economic growth—by passing laws." He (Paul Krugman, liberal economist) is putting the cart before the horse and asking for some burdensome policies precisely when they would be toughest to bear."

So the next time you're in an argument about historicaltax rates, explain that the 1950s worked out despite the high taxes, not because of them. Refer them to Cowen's book, selling for only $3.99--or to this blog, of course. I don't have his credentials, but it's totally free here.

Great idea but will never happen

2011-07-21T00:48:00.000-07:00

A new bipartisan debt-reducing plan offered by the bipartisan "Gang of Six" summarized in this article is an economist's dream. The tax code will be simplified, rates lowered, and tax expenditures (also known as loopholes)greatly reduced. I would vote for this in a second. Regrettably, it has no chance of becoming law.

Why? There are a few reasons, but the main one is is a psychological principle known as loss aversion. Not losing a benefit is more significant to most people than gaining a new benefit. The plan offers lower rates but removes current tax exemptions, e.g. the mortgage interest,charitable, and employer health care deductions. The average American will think "Those jerks in Washington are raising my taxes", as he angrily considers the loss of those deductions. The fact that he may have lower taxes in the future because of the rate reductions is not as important to him. A good summary of loss aversion can be read here.

Most trivial story ever

2011-07-17T23:39:00.001-07:00

From the "not sure why this is news" file:

The story is about mold (really).

This is not the Onion, sadly enough,it is NPR. And yes, the title actually is As Number Of Foreclosed Homes Grows, So Does Mold. I don't see a Pulitzer Prize for the reporter on this "news" story.

Where's the Comic Book Guy when you need him? (Obnoxious character from the Simpsons, as I hope you know).If ever there was a story worthy of sarcasm, this is it.

Trivial but annoying

2011-07-17T07:52:00.000-07:00

This may seem trivial, but it annoys me. I beg pundits and columnists throughout the land: Please stop referring to the health care bill as "Obamacare," or the bill in Massachusetts as "Romneycare". Medicare and Medicaid are not called "Johnsoncare." Nor is the prescription drug program called "Bushcare."

If we do, let's be consistent, though. How about these labels?:

1. The EITC ought to be renamed the REITC--R as in Reagan, who signed it into law.

2. The stimulus bill should be called OARIA (Obama American Recovery and Investment Act).

3. The ADA should be renamed BADA--B for G Bush Sr., who signed it into law.

4. The Department of Education and The Department of Energy should not be referred to as the DOE, but as CDOE (as in Jimmy Carter).

Whose at fault? No dispute.

2011-07-14T09:11:00.000-07:00

Readers of this blog know I'm almost always nonpartisan. While I call myself a moderate Democrat when asked about my political views, that label doesn't mean as much as people think. I'm not a fan of either political party. But that does not mean in every dispute each side is equally to blame. In the budget dispute, the Republicans are clearly in the wrong.

The moderate Tax and Policy Center sums it up well here:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), who covets (John)Boehner’s job, insists that not only must no new revenues be included in any fiscal agreement, there is, in fact, nothing to talk about as long as taxes are in the picture. As one GOP freshman congressman told The Washington Post, “Cantor’s just being very clear that we’re not going to get drawn into any negotiation.” Heaven forbid that politicians should negotiate. (Their line, but I love it.)

So if one side is willing to compromise and the other one isn't, how can they both be equally at fault?

Check it at the door?

2011-07-13T23:00:00.000-07:00

In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, the writer strongly criticizes a state legislator, Tim Donnelly, for bigotry and religious fundamentalism. The writer's complaint is that Rep. Donnelly opposes any mention of homosexual contributions to society in California textbooks. The writer, Peter Johnson, makes this argument (emphasis added):

As an American, I am deeply offended that Donnelly seeks to inject religious beliefs into a political issue that should not be guided by his faith. American history is replete with examples of attempts to suppress the contributions of minorities who do not fit into the skewed version promulgated by white males.

Donnelly was elected to represent all of his constituents, not just those who agree with his religious beliefs. The next time he speaks on an issue pertinent to our pluralistic society, he should check his religion at the door.

Mr.Johnson may have reached the right conclusion, but his argument is unconvincing. It is perfectly legitimate for a lawmaker to base his decisions on religious beliefs. The fact a belief has a religious origin does not give it special privileges, but neither does it, per se, ban it from public discussion. I will quote one fairly well-known progressive, speaking a few years ago:

Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King -- the majority of the great reformers in American history -- were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.

The speaker? Barack Obama, 2006. He was right and Mr.Johnson is wrong.

Undermining your case?

2011-07-04T01:12:00.000-07:00

In the recent issue of Commentary (a moderately conservative, pro-Israeli magazine) James Tobin writes a alarmist article entitled "Can Israel Survive This Presidency." However, in his criticism of our anti-Israeli president (his opinion,not mine) he makes a number of qualfiers which undermine his case. (No link available, subscribers only access). I'll quote some the less-than critical accusation:

Obama's Department of Defense has maintained and even strengthed the level of security cooperation between the two countries. The Iron Dome missile-defense system Israel is currently deploying on its border with Gaza, while it started under George Bush, Obama has placed no obstacles in its path, which he might have done.. (Emphasis added). Obama has also not stinted on any related security projects between the two countries.

How does Tobin reconcile these facts with his assertion that Obama is anti-Israeli? He argues that this apparent contradiction can be explained by the "value of the strategic alliance," which continues in spite of the (alleged) hostility of Obama. He explains that Obama's acceptance of the alliance only exists because of political reasons.

But wait--Tobin doesn't actually know this; in fact he's almost certainly wrong. For most voters, Israel is way down on their list of priorities. Obama ran on a platform in 2008 that called for a similar arrangement on the Middle East, which was very similar to the peace plan he is (trying) to implement now. He won 80% of the Jewish vote anyway. Tobin's theory is backed up by little or no evidence. He simply is making an attempt (feeble in my opinion) to support his theory.

In other words, Obama's support of Israel is simply politics; his measured criticism of Israel is due to his (supposed)left-wing political views. This is an unfair and unfalsifiable conclusion. Every presidential act is viewed through this prism. A priori Tobin believes the president dislikes Israel; any contradictory evidence to this claim is dismissed. This is not a very convincing argument, to put it politely.

Poor argument by a supposed "expert"

2011-07-03T18:38:00.000-07:00

A psychotherapist named Anne Rettenberg makes some dubious assertions on her blog at Psychology Today, makes some very unconvincing statements. This is her case against online dating: (My comments are in italics)

Of the dozens of online dating stories I've heard, most have been negative. I've only known a few happy couples who met on dating websites or through personal ads. (Not statistically meaningful).

But why has something that seemed like such a good idea when it was first invented proved so often to be a disappointment, or worse? Doesn't a dating website allow you to preview possible mates through photos and profiles, cutting down on the possibility of mismatches? (No definition of "so often" is given here. Does this phrase mean 50%, 80%, 30%?)

To my knowledge (assertion without evidence), there has been little scientific research done on online dating, so what I'm going to say is based on observation and basic theories of human behavior. (In plain English, as her "knowledge", i.e. wild guess, says there is no research, the reader should trust her conclusions. S0 don't bother looking for any research;the therapist says there is (she thinks) none. (One wonders how hard she's looked for research that might undermine her conclusion).

Her response to my criticism: I would never generalize from one client's situation. (OK, that's literally true. She's generalizing from dozens of clients. My mistake. Please forgive me).

Letter to editor, June 28

2011-06-28T14:30:00.001-07:00

I'm lazy, so I'm just going to reproduce it:

Day after day, utterly irrelevant discussions occur on this Community Voices page. Examples of these include: What does the Bible really mean? (Who cares?) Is the Bible true? Is evolution true? Are the Democrats morally superior to the Republicans? (It's about even). Did some Congressman send some dirty texts to someone?
None of these discussions have the slightest relevance to America's future. Maybe North County Times readers ---- and the rest of the country as well ---- should focus more on, say, the high unemployment rate, or the national debt, or the changes in our health care system that will result from the new health care law. Or dealing with the new terrorist leader, Ayman al-Zawahari, or what to do about the millions of unauthorized immigrants in America. Or ---- well, I think the point is made.

I don't understand this argument

2011-06-27T23:44:00.000-07:00

I saw this paragraph from a letter in the local paper today; it's a common argument against national health insurance: "Common sense tells us 30 million people cannot be added to health care without more doctors, nurses and hospitals, so he should be careful what he wishes for."

Note I said "common," not logical, reasonable, or sensible. A few questions need to be raised:

1. Didn't conservatives argue that the health care law was unnecessary because the uninsured were uninsured by choice? So why would these slackers suddenly start seeing doctors now?

2. Aren't those 30 million uninsured really covered anyway, being as they have access to the emergency room? I remember George Bush saying: We have national health insurance--you just go to the emergency room. So we're not really adding anyone to the insurance rolls.

3. To take the reductio ad absurdem of this argument: why not increase of the number of uninsured? If we increased the uninsured total to 100 million, we could really avoid rationing. More health care resources for the rest of us!

4. Nothing more:I think the point is made.

Law of unintended consequences strikes again

2011-06-26T06:45:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Senate in June refused to repeal a rule capping debit card fees, primarily due to the efforts of Richard Durbin (D-IL). There were numerous, though regrettably not enough, opponents worried about the consequences of this action. An article from the Los Angeles Times discussed the skepticism of an opponent of the cap, liberal Democrat Jon Tester (Montana):

Tester proposed delaying the regulations to study the effect on smaller financial institutions and credit unions, particularly those in Montana, where he is up for reelection next year. Smaller institutions fear they will be unable to recoup the costs of handling transactions or that their cards will be shunned by retailers.

Tester was right. As any economist could have predicted, the law of unintended consequences (I will refer to it as the LOUC) will soon cause debit cards to become much more expensive, as this Los Angeles Times article correctly points out here. I'll quote parts of two paragraphs:

Starting next month, merchants will pay just 12 cents for debit processing, unless bank lobbyists persuade the Federal Reserve to tack on a surcharge for fraud prevention.

The bottom line is that banks stand to lose more than $10 billion a year in merchant fees and more than $6 billion in overdraft fees. They'll be looking to make it up somewhere — and it's likely to be from the mainstream debit card users, not just the sloppy ones.

What exactly is the law of unintended consequences? The excellent website Econolog explains it well in this article. This historical anecdote was my favorite example:

In 1692 the English philosopher John Locke, a forerunner of modern economists, urged the defeat of a parliamentary bill designed to cut the maximum permissible rate of interest from 6 percent to 4 percent. Locke argued that instead of benefiting borrowers, as intended, it would hurt them. (Emphasis added). People would find ways to circumvent the law, with the costs of circumvention borne by borrowers. To the extent the law was obeyed, Locke concluded, the chief results would be less available credit and a redistribution of income away from “widows, orphans and all those who have their estates in money.”

To sum it up: Good intentions in legislation often lead to bad results. Price caps, as much as anything, almost always cause more problems than they solve. I wish more legislators would understand how the LOUC works. Are you listening, Richard Durbin?

Succinct analysis

2011-06-20T22:42:00.000-07:00

Larry King was on Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz's CNN show, and he made some harsh but accurate criticisms of Fox and MSNBC:

KURTZ: You say that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity at Fox don't have to dangerous.

KING: Well, their guests are -- they're props for their -- Fox is a forum. It's a forum for the Republican Party. MSNBC is a forum for the Democratic Party.

That's what they are. And denying that is silly. I think Roger Ailes is kind of a genius.

KURTZ: You're not saying that some journalists at those networks don't try to be fair, but certainly in the nighttime shows.

KING: They're not journalists. They're hosts of shows.

KURTZ: They get ratings, as you know --

KING: Yes.

KURTZ: -- having competed against them.

KING: That's what they do. But it's such a small box in the world.

King is 100% on the mark here. Any commentary I could make here would be superfluous.

A "rebuttal" to my previous post

2011-06-09T07:06:00.000-07:00

A letter writer responds to my previous blog post with a number of ridiculous arguments:

Then the writer (yours truly)goes on to resurrect the same leftist Saul Alinsky scare tactics always brought up when a real American wants to see Social Security and Medicare rescued from the inevitable train wreck.
Every honest person knows we cannot sustain the massive payouts in these programs without meaningful reform, but Democrats prefer playing on the fears of the dependent rather than making proposals of their own. It's so much more effective and rewarding come election time.

A number of points: 1. I have never read a single word that Saul Alinsky wrote, so I have no idea what the writer means by that.

2. I am in favor of reforming Medicare and Social Security. I have criticized both parties for demagoguing the issue. (See previous posts on this blog this month. blog).

3. The writer does not refute my point that programs like Medicaid are nothing like slavery. No one is forced to take money from the government. Kind of a major distinction...

4. I am not a Democrat.

5. Medicaid is far from an untouchable entitlement. Politicians constantly reduce Medicaid funding because of state and local debt. Our previous governor here (California) eliminated dental insurance from Medicaid a few years ago. The Democratic majority in the state legislature were unable or unwilling to stop him.

6. The writer assumes as a fact that that poor people are overwhelmingly liberal/Democratic. An economist,Bryan Caplan of George Mason, studied this belief in his excellent book The Myth of the Rational Voter. His conclusion is worth reading:

As income rises, you are more likely to vote conservative and Republican. But the effect is small, and shrinks further after controlling for race.(Emphasis added). A black millionaire is more likely to be a Democrat than a white janitor.

There is no point 7. If you haven't been convinced yet, nothing else I can say will change your mind.

My letter to local paper

2011-06-02T08:34:00.001-07:00

I feel uncreative today, so this is it:

Silly statement of the year
Halfway through the year, it's time for the most absurd statement of the year. It's hard to choose just one, but I'll go with a comment from Dan Ryan's letter of May 27. He said: "As for slavery, it's alive and well; liberals now use entitlement programs rather than chains."

In Mr. Ryan's right-wing universe, receiving Social Security checks and health insurance after retirement is comparable with forcibly working 18 hours a day on the plantation. Let's also not forget the plight of the "enslaved" poor who receive Medicaid. Most of these "slaves" don't feel a need for emancipation, as they would be destitute without their "chains."

I would like to ask Mr. Ryan: Does the 13th Amendment that abolishes slavery invalidate(s) Medicare and Social Security? If he sincerely believes those programs are slavery, shouldn't he contact a Republican attorney general to contest those programs in court?

Jack Davis
Carlsbad

It's not so simple, George

2011-06-01T02:16:00.000-07:00

In a recent column titled "Is Obama above the Law?", George Will is upset. He accuses the administration and its Congressional supporters of flagrantly violating The War Powers Act (passed in 1973). He has special contempt for the arguments of John McCain, who is quoted as saying:

No president,” says Sen. John McCain, “has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So I don’t feel bound by any deadline.” Will's sarcastic response: Oh? No law is actually a law if presidents and senators do not “recognize” it? Now, there is an interesting alternative to judicial review, and an indicator of how executive aggrandizement and legislative dereliction of duty degrade the rule of law.

Sounds like an open and shut case. The War Powers Act is being violated--Obama and his allies are shredding the constitution. However, before you call your Congressman and demand impeachment, read the rest of this post. The issue is not quite as simple as Will makes it out to be.

Will's implication is that the constitutionality of laws passed can only be determined by judicial review. That position is, while it has been accepted by most of the public, is historically dubious. American leaders, from Thomas Jefferson on, have argued that other branches of the government have as much right to declare a law unconstitutional.

A very interesting website, Arcaneknowledge.com, has an article on the subject well worth reading. This paragraph makes a key point:

Since an exclusive judicial right to determine the constitutionality of government acts cannot be derived from the Constitution itself, nor from the reasoning of Marbury, we should not hesitate to apply a similar duty of constitutional review to the other independent branches of government. The framers did not expect to resolve balance-of-power questions by giving the judiciary exclusive review powers, (emphasis added) as evidenced by their failure to explicitly ascribe such power, as well as their belief that the judiciary was, if anything, the weakest of the three branches, while the legislature was held in high esteem.

One quote from a fairly well respected American statesman backs up McCain's position:

"My construction of the Constitution is... that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214

Demagoguery is bipartisan

2011-05-26T18:57:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Party, for those of you who haven't been watching, is shamelessly demagoguing Medicare. If you doubt me, see this political ad. It shows Paul Ryan pushing an elderly woman off a cliff.

This is not just one fringe left-wing group's opinion, either. It's become a Democratic talking point. The message was summed up by a Democratic congressman on MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show: "We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of our seniors." To his credit, the guest host, Matt Miller, pointed out that while that is a great talking point, there is no way to reduce the debt without cutting spending on the elderly.

A Democratic partisan would object--and rightly so-- the Republicans weren't any better in the last few years. A number of Republicans, falsely, said the health care reform law called for "death panels" (Sarah Palin), "pulling the plug on Grandma" (Senator Charles Grassley), etc.. So do two wrongs make a right?

My answer is no. Let me use a sports analogy-not for the first or last time, of course. I play tennis and regrettably some players make bad line calls. Some of my friends retaliate with their own bad calls. I refuse to do that. That doesn't make me morally superior to them, it merely reflects a different view of justice. As I see it, retaliation ruins the game and reduces me to their level. The bad behavior of one group does not justify bad behavior by another.

I do not, therefore, believe the demagoguery of the Republicans justifies the same behavior as the Democrats. "They did it too," is the cry of a teenager who is caught doing something wrong. It should never be used to justify lies and distortions by politicans.

Obama and Constanza?

2011-05-25T08:35:00.000-07:00

Anyone who followed the great sitcom Seinfeld may remember George Costanza pitching a "show about nothing" to the NBC executives. President Obama is being accused of something similar: making a speech about nothing. The critic,Suleiman Al Osaimi, made the following biting criticism (referring to the speech last week on the Middle East):

What he says, however, is of little interest. When … you go back to the speech … you will soon realize that he has said nothing of consequence. They are mere words strung together in a nice way …every word is delivered smoothly and there is lot of clapping at the end, nothing else.”

Source: The New Republic, May 24.

I did not hear the speech, so I can't analyze the criticism. I just thought it was clever and I can rarely resist a TV or sports analogy.

My theory on the future of Tea Party

2011-05-16T18:07:00.000-07:00

This is my theory, or more accurately, educated guess about the future of the Tea Party and the antiwar left. First, we must assume an obvious fact--There are only two possible scenarios in the election. Either Obama wins reelection or a Republican candidate taking over the presidency.

Scenario 2 will mean the end of the Tea Party. They will be absorbed into the Republican party, as the Populists in the late 19th century/ early 20th century were ultimately preempted by William Jennings and the Democratic Party . In 2013 there will be no (supposed) anti-American leftist Democrat in the White House. Without Obama's presence, there is no longer much motivation for the Tea Party to continue to organize and protest. So, ironically, a Republican victory will end the movement as we know it.

A political pundit more sympathetic to their cause than me might argue that they would continue as a protest movement under a big spending Republican. The history of American politics in the 21st century says otherwise--there were no protests of No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription bill, or any other of the many big-government legislation passed during the Bush administration. The national debt did not bother them until January 2009. It is unlikely they will be much of a force in American politics after a Republican President takes over in 2013.

In Scenario 1, the Tea Party still has a reason to keep protesting, with a Democrat in office. So, ironically, the continued existence of the Tea Party is dependent on the reelection of a President they despise.

So, yes, the Tea Party is guilty of partisan bias. But, to be fair, there is just as much hypocrisy on the left. The antiwar left faces the exact opposite position. They've been fairly quiet during the wars and militarism of the Obama administration, not wanting to criticize a "progressive" (as they see it) Democrat. Obama's reelection will keep them on the sidelines for another 4 years. Their continued relevance is now dependent on the victory of the Republican candidate, a party that they despise.

I've quoted the brilliant scientist Neil Tyson before and will do so again: "There's hot air on both ends of the spectrum." That statment is basically all a novice needs to know about politics. The rest is a footnote.

No it wasn't the waterboarding that got OBL

2011-05-08T11:47:00.000-07:00

New spin from (certain) Republicans: waterboarding KSL repeatedly--which is not of course particularly harsh--broke him and got key information. Apart from being contradictory, this explanation isn't true. KSL gave false information while being waterboarding 183 times. I've always doubted the ability of "harsh interrogation"--some will call it torture, but labels aren't the main issue. At the conservative website Townhall.com, I posed the following mock scenario, around early 2002:

I'm captured and mistaken for a jihadist--maybe I'm reading the Koran or another book sympathetic to Islam--perhaps by Karen Armstrong or Reza Aslan. I am dunked under water a few times and forced to listen to very loud Brittney Spears music that I cannot stand. By the way, this scenario is not completely hypothetical--her music has reportedly been used in some interrogations!

The questioning begins:

Interrogator, which we'll assume is a man:"Are you the mastermind behind the horrific crime, Mr.Davis?"
Me: No, I'm a law-abiding citizen. I wasn't even alive when JFK was assassinated!"

Him:"No, Mr.Davis, that's not the crime we're referring to."

Me: "I can't take this abuse anymore. Sure, I confess to watching Keith Olbermann, but it was only once. I find him overly strident and partisan and haven't watched it since."
Him: "No, that's not the crime we're talking about, Mr. Davis.We mean 9-11. We believe you are a member of Al-Qaeda and you knew some of the conspirators. Your neighbor said you were reading jihadist literature."

Me: "Are you insane? First of all, my neighbor is an idiot who dislikes me and vice versa. Second, I'm not even Muslim, let alone any kind of jihadist. I don't speak any language other than English and a little Spanish. I've never even met any of the 9-11 terrorists. I was just walking through the bookstore and glanced briefly at Aslan's book. I saw him debate Sam Harris and was curious. I've never even met this bin Laten or whoever's in charge of this terror group. Al-Fida, is it?"

Him:"You're making this more difficult than it has to be. Fine, we'll keep up the dunking and we'll go through every song on Brittney's greatest CD, even louder than before!
Me: "Can we switch to Madonna or at least No Doubt? Even Colbie Caillat would be an improvement."

Him: "Unfortunately not. I like them better, too, but we find that Spears' music breaks prisoners much quicker. Caillat is more annoying than unbearable to most prisoners."

Me: "OK, OK, I did it. I was involved, in some way, I guess, whatever. Can we stop this? I'm really wet, can't breathe well, and my ears hurt. Do people actually pay to listen to this music?

Him (laughing a bit at my last remark):"I agree with you--Spears is pretty bad. My daughter seems to like her, though. I guess it's a young female thing. Anyway, now that you confessed we can stop this interrogation. I assume this confession will hold up in court, but I'm no lawyer. In any case, Cheney will be happy, we got the evidence he wanted!"

Me:(under my breath): Whatever.

The next day, predictably comes the spin from the right-wing pundits: Sean Hannity, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, John Yoo,et al. In unison they agree: The criminal mastermind behind 9-11 broke under harsh interrogation. This proves that waterboarding (which is not torture, they quickly add) does work! Thank God for George Bush! John McCain weakly protests, pointing out that he confessed falsely under duress during the Vietnam War, but no one listens to him.

All of these people urge caution to my would-be sympathizers: Don't listen to the whiny left-wing blogosphere, which is defending Mr. Davis. That's a clear sign of his guilt. No true patriot would have any association with websites like Think Progress and Daily Kos. Of course, he claims to have been coerced. Isn't that just what someone with a guilty conscience would say? And he may be technically correct that he isn't a Muslim, but who other than a jihadist would be reading Aslan or Armstrong? Plus he has a subscription to The Nation. You might well wear a tatoo saying I heart Al-Qaeda.

College aid for illegal immigrants?

2011-05-06T17:11:00.000-07:00

The California Assembly recently passed a bill providing for aid to California students who are illegal immigrants. The complete article is here. This bill doesn't seem either fair or constitutional to me. If the federal government wants to legalize illegal immigrants it can do so, but the state of California has no right to provide for the education of teenagers who are not legal residents. Until the federal government legalizes them, these students should not be eligible for any financial aid. The proposed law is not only legally dubious, it is morally unfair. Students applying for aid who are citizens or legal residents should not have to compete for scholarships with illegal immigrants.

.

There's another aspect to this story. As opponents of the bill point out (correctly), federal law does not allow illegal immigrants to work here. Many businesses proudly display their allegiance to the e-verify program, which (in theory, at least) prevents illegal immigrants from obtaining employment. The result may be that we are educating people who won't be allowed to work here! This doesn't make any sense.

For what's it worth, I have no objection to legalizing illegal immigrants presently here, but that needs to be done at the federal level. While these students remain illegal under federal law, the states have no right, morally or legally, to award any sort of financial assistance to them.

Take that back!

2011-05-05T12:37:00.000-07:00

This video is funny. Someone is slandering my name!

POLITICO: David Catanese: Essential intelligence from the campaign trail - NY-26: Corwin up on TV against Jack Davis

On a serious note, this video shows the bankruptcy of our electoral system. We have a two party monopoly in America. Any third party candidate ends up helping the party they like least--e.g. Ralph Nader in the 2000 election.

The politics of Osama's death

2011-05-02T18:14:00.001-07:00

I'm not a fan of the conservative magazine The National Review, but Andrew McCarthy (not the actor) makes an excellent historical analogy at their website The Corner (nationalreview.com/corner):

In terms of a presidential election cycle, bin Laden has been killed at a time roughly similar to the point in the ’92 cycle when President George H.W. Bush won the Gulf War. (I realize there are a couple of months’ difference, but that’s immaterial.) The victory gave Bush approval ratings that brushed 90 percent — i.e., significantly higher than President Obama’s are today. Just as now, it was unclear which member of the opposition party would run against Bush (unlike the case with Obama, Bush’s sky-rocketing polls actually convinced big-name Dems not to make the race). Bush seemed like a shoo-in — which Obama does not. But the election turned out to be about the economy . . . which was a dream economy compared to the one we’re in.

Biased as he may be, McCarthy is right. If the economy doesn't rebound by Nov.2012, this day will be mostly forgotten. This may be unfair, as this was a great victory for America, but the economy trumps everything else in politics. Every day Americans see the unemployment rates and high gas prices. Al-Qaeda simply isn't considered at the same level of importance to most of us. So, no, the Republicans don't need to give up and wait for 2016.

Obama tougher than Bush on illegal immigration

2011-04-23T09:53:00.000-07:00

The title is shocking, but I never say things for only for dramatic effect. The numbers back me up. Don't dismiss this on the grounds that it's opposite to conventional political stereotypes, i.e. Republicans are tougher on illegal immigration than Democrats, and therefore it could not possibly be true. As a lawyer might say, you would be assuming facts not in evidence. This Los Angeles Times article (April 21)makes a strong case for my counterintuitive statement: (The next two paragraphs are from the article, the remainder is my analysis). See the numbers at the bottom as well.

Agents on the U.S.-Mexico border these days have to deal with a more mundane occupational reality: the boredom of guarding a frontier where illegal crossings have dipped to record low levels.

From 2005 to 2010, apprehensions of immigrants dropped 95%, from 138,460 to 7,116. Vehicle drive-throughs fell from 2,700 to 21 during the same period. Farmers are now able to plant crops in once-trampled fields. And residents don't find immigrants hiding under their cars anymore.

To be fair, the reduction of illegal immigration isn't totally due to the stronger enforcement; the economy's weakness has also played a part. While I would concede that point, I would also argue that it cannot explain all or even most of the reduction. It would be an amazing coincidence if the increased border protection added the last few years had no effect on the reduction of illegal immigration.

When the border patrol's worst problem is boredom from nobody crossing, it's a sign that the Obama administration is doing a much better job than its predecessor on securing the borders.

Don't look for this article to be discussed on Fox News or MSNBC anytime soon, as that would contradict their party lines. Fox's party line is that Obama is a radical leftist, and these facts would weaken their (already thin) case. MSNBC's gimmick is that they're a liberal/leftist network supporting a progressive President and this story contradicts their party line.

This raises an interesting question: why isn't the Obama administration publicly pointing out this success to the public? It would be hard to argue that the President doesn't like to talk in public. My intution is that the administration thinks boasting about this achievement will turn off his left-wing base which (quite mistakenly) sees him as a leftist progressive who's on their side.

This article from The Christian Science Monitor confirms my argument with one key statistic: In 2009, the United States deported a record 387,790 people – a 5 percent increase over 2008.

Addendum: Roy Beck of Numbers USA,a group that favors lower immigration levels, was quoted recently as saying:Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, a group that favors reducing immigration into the United States, said it's true that the deportation rate, particularly deportation of convicted criminals, has been higher under Obama. (Source is Politifact.com, a non-partisan fact checking website). Beck backs my theory here:

"My sense is that Obama deserves credit, for all the complaints about him, that he has done maybe a little better than Bush on deportations," Beck said. "I think the main context, though, is that the amount of deportations under Bush was rather small."

True, a "little" better is not overwhelming praise; however it is still significant that a leading critic of immigration backs up my contention.

We have met the enemy and it is us

2011-04-13T18:10:00.000-07:00

I've seen numerous editorials,op-eds and letters criticizing the politicians for not taking the debt seriously. It's easy to bash politicians--I've certainly done so at this blog many times--but they're not the cause of the problem. It is the sacred "American people" who are at fault. (The politicians know this but don't dare say it, since it's harder to get reelected if you bash your constituents). The American public claims to want smaller government but opposes specific cuts in the programs that actually have led to the debt problems we have. Since the public is ignorant of the true size of various government programs, the politicians pander to them by making cuts in discretionary spending that are a miniscule part of the budget. Examples of the public ignorance are numerous, but let's focus on one: foreign aid. According to a November 2010 poll:

Just based on what you know, please tell me your hunch about what percentage of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. You can answer in fractions of percentage points as well as whole percentage points.
Mean.....................................................................27%
Median...................................................................25
In fiscal year 2009, bilateral foreign aid totaled $22.5 billion: 0.6 percent of federal outlays.

Link to source is here.

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, summed it up well on a talk show: The American people want to have their cake and eat it too. The next time you hear a politician defending spending cuts say we're doing what the people want, turn off the TV. The people don't want spending cuts, at least in areas that actually would affect the debt (e.g. Medicare, Social Security, military). As a previous post of mine said, there are large majorities against reductions in Medicare or Social Security. The national debt cannot be significantly reduced without cuts in these programs. Period.

If it were only that easy...

2011-04-04T13:03:00.000-07:00

According to this blog at Psychology Today's website it's easy to distinguish criminals from non-criminals. We just have to look at them! (This sounds like something out of the Onion, but it's a real scientific hypothesis at a scientific magazine's website.)

While Psychology Today is one of my favorite magazines, this blog post is absurd. First of all, the author, Satoshi Kanazawa, begins his post with a logical fallacy:

I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that virtually all "stereotypes" are empirically true. If they weren't true, they would not be stereotypes in the first place.

This is an obvious circular argument. He argues that stereotypes must be true or they wouldn't exist. How about the possibility that the stereotype is wrong? There have been many false stereotypes in history--e.g.women are dumber than men, etc..)That possibility is simply ignored. Kanazawa simply begs the question here by treating his conjecture as absolute fact.

Even putting that aside, the whole post's argument is nonsense. If it were actually true that we could tell criminals by their appearance, wouldn't juries,expert witnesses, trials and rules of evidence become obsolete? The judge could just look at the defendant and establish his guilt in a few seconds. "Well, Ms. Wilson, the evidence you killed your husband is overwhelming but you don't look like a criminal so you're free to go. Dismissed!" Yes, that sounds crazy, I grant you--but it follows from the premises of Kanazawa's argument.

I wish he was right. It would save a lot of money and time on lengthy trials. But he isn't.As they say, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

I don't think he grasps the concept here

2011-04-03T22:06:00.000-07:00

Violent protests over the burning of a Koran by a Florida preacher continued today. The death toll is now about 20. According to this New York Times article President Hamid Karzai was not pleased:

On Thursday, however, President Karzai made a speech and issued statements condemning the Koran burning and calling for the arrest of Mr. Jones for his actions. On Friday, that theme was picked up in mosques throughout Afghanistan.

I don't think President Karzai quite understands the concept of free speech. The thing is, Mr.Karzai, it's legal in America to burn the Koran—or any other book for that matter. What exactly should Mr.Jones be charged with? Blasphemy? A bad-looking mustache?

I also don't like President Obama's reaction to this incident; he was quoted as saying: “the desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry." The concept of a "holy" text is meaningless. Anyone can designate a book as holy. That doesn't give the book any special moral or legal status. It is no more "intolerant" to burn the Koran than it is to burn any other book.

Why the national debt isn't going anywhere soon

2011-03-28T18:40:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Newsweek.com for this article on the American people's ignorance. This is the key paragraph:

Poll after poll shows that voters have no clue what the budget actually looks like. A 2010 World Public Opinion survey found that Americans want to tackle deficits by cutting foreign aid from what they believe is the current level (27 percent of the budget) to a more prudent 13 percent. The real number is under 1 percent. A Jan. 25 CNN poll, meanwhile, discovered that even though 71 percent of voters want smaller government, vast majorities oppose cuts to Medicare (81 percent), Social Security (78 percent), and Medicaid (70 percent). Instead, they prefer to slash waste—a category that, in their fantasy world, seems to include 50 percent of spending, according to a 2009 Gallup poll.

So, yes, people claim to favor "limited government." All the Tea Party rallies I see on TV show Americans who claim to favor budget cuts. Don't believe them. It's a fraud. A prominent economist, Alan Blinder of Princeton, makes the devastating point that "the public wants smaller deficits, lower taxes and less spending in the abstract. But when it comes to specifics, it finds few spending cuts that it likes...." (emphasis added).

In other words, we have an electorate that wants it all. But we can't have it all. Economics is about trade-offs. If we want to keep taxes at their current rate, we must (at the least) cut military spending and reduce health care costs. It's easy to rip the politicians who are spending recklessly. They're not the cause of the problem; they're doing what the public really wants--protecting Medicare, Social Security, and military spending from the cuts that need to be made.

I highly suggest reading economist Bryan Caplan's book The Myth of The Rational Voter. He explains the current economic disaster eloquently, if bluntly--the population is ignorant and irrational . He won't win any elections, but what he says is the truth that America needs to hear.

My response to critics of my auto v. health care analogy

2011-03-27T19:27:00.000-07:00

A letter I wrote comparing auto insurance mandates to health insurance mandates has drawn several critical letters in the last few days. Craig Visant claims health insurance is not like car insurance, as it protects only you. That is just not true. When someone exercises their "right to be stupid" (his words)and not buy health insurance and gets sick, one unfortunate thing happens a lot--he ends up in the ER and gets his health care paid for at taxpayer expense. He becomes a free rider on the system. The right to be stupid must have some limits.

Alexandra Cloney complains that in a similar business model to the health insurance law, "drivers involved in an accident should not have to buy insurance until after they have an accident." The truth is exactly the opposite: the mandate requires you to carry insurance before you get sick. Ms.Cloney admonished me not to regurgitate political talking points. I wish she had followed her own good advice.

Robert Gladden makes a preposterous slippery-slope argument that if the mandate is not invalidated, someday we may have to buy rifles and ammunition. Aparently Mr.Gladden took Mr.Visant's endorsement of the right to be stupid a little too eagerly.

These are the letters I responded to:

Jack Davis' call for a "Republican lawyer" in the March 22 Community Voices section is a tired red herring that liberals trot out in a lame attempt to justify the unconstitutional implementation of Obamacare and the individual mandate by trying to equate it to the legal requirement to purchase vehicle insurance.

Mr. Davis' argument is invalid because it compares apples with oranges. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you choose to engage in the privilege of driving, you must obtain a license, register your vehicle and purchase insurance. Apparently, illegal aliens are exempt from these laws, but I digress.

The act of simply existing is not a privilege; it's one of our inalienable rights as human beings. Remember life, liberty and all that other good stuff? Someday, perhaps soon, Republicans will be back in charge of the country. If the individual mandate is ruled constitutional, that the government can force you to purchase a product for the "common good," will the liberals still defend that principle if a Republican president and Congress determine that every American must purchase a rifle and ammunition for the "common good"? By the precedent that Obama is attempting to establish, this would be completely legal.

Robert Gladden

Insurance differences

This letter is to help Jack Davis (March 22) understand the differences between the mandated purchase of national health insurance and automobile insurance.

A) Driving is a privilege — not a right. If you choose not to drive or own a car, the government does not force you, or fine you, if you do not have automobile insurance. State governments have the ability to suspend or revoke a habitual law-breaker's license and they are not violating his/her constitutional rights.

B) . Using the same "business model" and logic, drivers involved in an accident should not have to buy insurance until after they have an accident.

I hope this helps those who unthinkingly regurgitate political talking points.

Alexandra Cloney

We are free to be stupid

Re: Jack Davis' letter of March 22 about needing a Republican lawyer: Mr. Davis feels that if the Republicans think requiring all citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, then they should feel the same about auto insurance as well.

As usual, an obvious Democrat tries to compare apples and oranges. It is true that you are required by law to buy auto insurance if you wish to exercise the privilege of driving a car on the public highways. But, the insurance you must buy is to protect other people that you may injure, or property you may damage by your actions. Not to protect yourself or your property.

Health insurance, on the other hand, protects only you. It is reasonable to require you to take responsibility for protecting others from your actions, but in a free society, we are free to be as stupid as we want about protecting ourselves.

Craig Vansant

Vista

U.S. Senator steals my argument against health care law

2011-03-20T19:43:00.000-07:00

There have been a lot of false claims and bad arguments against the health insurance law in the year since it passed. There's been claims of death panels, rationing, jail time for people who don't have insurance, etc.. But don't jump yet to the conclusion that the health care law must therefore be a positive. There are legitimate problems with the law. In this The New York Times article on the many waivers being granted from the law an opponent of the law makes a devastating, if brief, argument against the law:

Administration officials, labor unions and consumer advocates plan to celebrate the first anniversary with a week of events highlighting benefits of the law to consumers. But Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, asked, “If the law is so good, why are so many waivers needed?" (emphasis added). That is a great objection; one that I had thought of as soon as the waivers drew media attention. Since Senator Enzi can get quoted in the Times, and I can't, I bear him no ill will for not acknowledging my contribution.

The rest of the article backs up Senator Enzi's (and my) argument pretty well. The administration doesn't seem to be standing by the law they said it was so great for this country. 94%(!) of the waivers requested have been granted. In Maine, the administration dropped a mandate that insurers must spend 80% or more of premiums on medical care, rather than CEO salaries or administrative costs. As the article states:

The Obama administration lowered the requirement to 65 percent for Maine, after finding “a reasonable likelihood” that the tougher standard would drive one big carrier out of the market for individuals, leaving thousands without insurance.

I guess the obvious question is: if that was going to happen, why not pass a more reasonable law in the first place?

On a slightly frivolous note, the article quotes Republican Senator Charles Grassley, referring to the 94% granted waiver number: "That strikes me as a very high percentage." Yes, Senator, you are right, it is a very high number. For example, (Warning, gratuitious sports analogy coming up)a baseball pitcher who retired 94% of the batters he faced would be the greatest pitcher who ever lived by far. In fact, there's a good chance he would never lose a game in his entire career.

Bankers respond to incentives, but not merchants?

2011-03-19T14:03:00.000-07:00

Yes, The Wall Street Journal actually makes this argument in a recent editorial. (Regrettably, a subscription is required so I cannot link.)

The editorial complains that the Federal Reserve's recent cap of 12 cents on charges on retail sales will encourage banks to recoup those losses elsewhere. But it dismisses the claims of retailers that money they save in these transactions will be passed on to customers. The editorial sums it up in these two paragraphs:

Under current rules, every time a customer uses a debit card in a store, the issuing bank charges the merchant a small transaction fee, which represents a percentage of the sale. Under the new Fed rule, which will take effect in April unless Congress acts to stop it, that fee will be capped at 12 cents per transaction, reducing the charges by some $12 billion to $14 billion and in effect transferring the cost of debit cards from the merchants who pay the fees to the consumers who use them.

Merchants argue that if they don't have to pay as much per transaction, they will pass along the savings in lower prices. While that is doubtful, the loss of that revenue will force debit card issuers to raise fees elsewhere to compensate. (Emphasis added)

The argument seems to be: bankers will respond negatively to a cap on their fees, but retailers won't respond positively to lower costs. This doesn't make any sense. Is the Journal's argument the law of unintended consequnces will always lead to negative outcomes? That's a pretty grim future we have in store.

Some honesty from the right

2011-03-10T15:17:00.000-08:00

Talk show hosts like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage make a lot of money selling President Obama as a radical leftist. Dinesh D'Souza recently sold a book alleging Obama hates America because his father did. But some conservatives are more honest. Take the Wall Street Journal editorial page (please). They get right to the point in this editorial (March 8):

No one has done more to revive the reputation of Bush-era antiterror policies than the Obama Administration.

In the last few months the Obama administration has 1. extended the Bush tax cuts, 2hired the pro-business William Daley as chief of staff, and 3. changed their policies on Gitmo. Even if one believes (I don't) that the Obama administration was far left in their first year and a half, it is impossible to honestly maintain that position any longer.

More proof: former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently bragged (accurately)at a CPAC conference:

Looking at the administration’s many “reversals of their announced policies on national security issues — Guantánamo Bay, military commissions, indefinite detention, CIA drone strikes,” he said, it makes me wonder if Dick has had more influence on President Obama than the people that got him elected.(Emphasis added).

Case closed.

My favorite quote of all time

2011-03-02T11:30:00.000-08:00

And I never even heard of him! But this what I personally strive for as well:

I care much more about science and truth than about politics. I'd rather know the truth even if disagreeable. My ideal is to have no political preferences at all, because they impede one's willingness to accept the facts. (Not that I'm there yet.)

Roy Baumeister (Psychology professor at Florida State University).

My take on abortion

2011-03-02T11:24:00.000-08:00

Printed in the North County Times, March 1: (Sarcastic, but legitimate questions, at least as I see it)

Eva Kerckhove's letter (Feb. 21) has stirred up an interesting debate. She argued that abortion is not murder because the fetus cannot live independently of the mother. A number of hostile responses came in within a few days. Eva shouldn't apologize. She was right.

The fetus, while inside the mother's body, is a parasite completely dependent on her for survival. It makes no sense to say the fetus has a "right" to live inside a mother who does not want to carry it anymore. I would also add that people who say abortion is murder don't really follow that belief to its logical conclusion. If they did, one, they should demand a mother who aborts a fetus be tried for murder, and two, they should demand that churches have memorial services for aborted fetuses. At the very least, shouldn't these fetuses get an obituary in the newspaper?

Jack Davis

Carlsbad

Rumsfeld is right!

2011-02-13T14:52:00.000-08:00

For perhaps the first time ever, I can say that without irony. Here's the quote, from Maureen Dowd's column in The New York Times, Feb.13:

‎Rummy was still full of vinegar as he taunted President Obama for the conservatives.

Looking at the administration’s many “reversals of their announced policies on national security issues — Guantánamo Bay, military commissions, indefinite detention, CIA drone strikes,” he said, it makes me wonder if Dick has had more influence on President Obama than the people that got him elected.

Right-wing authors and bloggers (along with misguided liberal suporters of the President) claim his foreign policy is a radical break from the aggressive policies of George W. Bush. But Rumsfeld knows better. His former boss's policies are still in place. As Eliot Spitzer often says, this is continuity we can believe in.

Liberal+Ads+Oversell+Health+Care+Law

2011-02-11T15:49:00.000-08:00

From one of my favorite websites,the nonpartisan Factcheck.org: Liberal+Ads+Oversell+Health+Care+Law

Liberal voodoo economics

2011-02-10T16:43:00.001-08:00

Repeatedly, I hear that repealing the health care law will cost hundreds of bilions of dollars. Whatever one's opinions of the law (I have mixed feelings),I find this claim nonsensical. My name for it is leftist voodoo economics. As many of you know, voodoo economics has usually come from conservatives --namely, the argument that tax cuts will pay for themselves and even increase revenue. This untenable dogma has been denounced by the entire economic establishment, including many conservative economists.

This claim about the health care law is on the same level of dishonesty. There is no reasonable argument that, for example, allowing "adult children" to stay on their parents' insurance until 26 is going to save money. The alleged savings come from increasing taxes and projected Medicare reductions that are unlikely to ever happen. It is a fraud, pure and simple. One of my favorite economists, Greg Mankiw of Harvard, makes a tongue-in-cheek argument against this nonsense at his blog:

Give me $1 billion to cut the budget deficit
I have a plan to reduce the budget deficit. The essence of the plan is the federal government writing me a check for $1 billion. The plan will be financed by $3 billion of tax increases. According to my back-of-the envelope calculations, giving me that $1 billion will reduce the budget deficit by $2 billion.

Now, you may be tempted to say that giving me that $1 billion will not really reduce the budget deficit. Rather, you might say, it is the tax increases, which have nothing to do with my handout, that are reducing the budget deficit. But if you are tempted by that kind of sloppy thinking, you have not been following the debate over healthcare reform.

Healthcare reform, its advocates tell us, is fiscal reform. The healthcare reform bill passed last year increased government spending to cover the uninsured, but it also reduced the budget deficit by increasing various taxes as well. Because of this bill, the advocates say, the federal government is on a sounder fiscal footing. Repealing it, they say, would make the budget deficit worse.

(Me again): every projection from the government for the cost of health care programs has been grossly understated. For example, Medicare has exceeded its initial projected costs at least tenfold. Disclaimer: this post does not mean I am against health care reform. I have been for national health insurance for the last 20years. I am simply arguing for intellectual honesty. The fact that an idea is good or even necessary does not mean it is without significant costs.

For liberal readers who think I am exaggerating my case against the law out of some right-wing bias, consider this fairly recent analogy. Remember what Iraq war supporters' cost projections as the war began. First, many argued the oil revenues would pay for the war. Then politicians admitted it might cost $50 billion. A conservative economist named Lawrence Lindsey got in trouble for being pessimistic enough to say it might cost $200 billion. Lindsey wasn't quite pessimistic enough: the cost has reached $1 trillion and counting. Lesson: government cost estimates are almost always on the low side, whether a Republican or Democratic administration is in power.

Irony: just after publishing this post, I saw an op-ed from Wall Street Journal from Arthur Laffer, a famous advocate of voodoo economics. Just an interesting coincidence, I think.

Letter to NC Times

2011-01-25T01:44:00.000-08:00

Here I correct the misuse of the word "censorship" to describe a newspaper's decisions on what it will run, primarily known as editorial judgment or discretion. I then added two more points.

Censorship, term limits and another bad letter

Barbara Kuehnert (Jan. 19) wrote that "many writers want the paper to censor columns that do not agree with their point of view." The word "censor" is misplaced here; what many letter writers are calling for is better editorial judgment. The North County Times does not have the ability to censor columnists; if the NCT doesn't run a particular writer's column, it's still available in hundreds of newspapers and online.

There is a limited amount of space on the editorial page; if the paper runs George Will's column every Sunday, it may not have room for, say, Steven Chapman that day. (I personally wish the NCT would not run Will every Sunday and have a more diverse lineup, but that does not make me an advocate of censorship.)

A writer recently demanded term limits. We don't need them — remember, not so long ago, the 2010 election?

Harold Weber (Jan. 21) is now in the lead for worst letter of the year. It was worthless and offensive. What is the point of asking a ridiculous question like, "Are so-called conservatives callous or stupid or both?"

Jack Davis

Carlsbad

My facetious letter to Gail Collins

2011-01-21T11:50:00.001-08:00

It's Friday, so no serious post, just a little humor. This is my e-mail to New York Time columnist Gail Collins.

(See her column here, it's very witty).

Ms.Collins,

That's a great book idea, Everything Wrong is Joe Lieberman's Fault. However, there might be some competition in this area. Sean Hannity is coming out with Everything Wrong is Barack Obama's Fault, and Keith Olbermann is coming out with Everything Wrong is John Boehner's Fault. Jon Stewart is meanwhile coming out Everything Wrong is Everybody's Fault. Sarah Palin's is titled Everything Wrong is Everybody Else's Fault, but Especially the News Media (Except Fox).

Jack Davis
San Diego, CA

A very thin case for racism

2011-01-17T13:10:00.000-08:00

An op-ed in the LA Times makes a very weak argument for racism. The black author recalls a conversation with her son years ago:

"Oh, I just noticed the last couple of times I was on BART, I could feel I was making several white women nervous when I sat near them."

"How do you know that?"

"I could just tell."

"I'm sure it's your imagination," I insisted. But deep down, I knew. I knew something had shifted, both in how the world viewed my son and in how he viewed himself. He couldn't put his finger on it, but he knew something was up.

Well, sorry to be a cynic, but the statement "I could just tell" is really unconvincing. Translated into honest English: I have no evidence whatsover and i really don't know what I'm saying is based on reality, but I just feel racism coming from those people. It is purely intuition, and biased intuition at that—a completely unfalsifiable and unprovable position. Unless the kid has psychic powers, he doesn't actually know what he's saying is true.

Here's my intuition: this op-ed was an utter waste of valuable space in a major newspaper's Sunday editorial section.

Letter to editor on govt v. private compensation

2011-01-17T07:55:00.000-08:00

Government workers are not overpaid

Robert Smith (Jan.7), quoting a Wall Street Journal editorial, says it is unfair that government employees make twice as much as private sector employees. Assuming this number is correct, which is questionable, it still doesn't prove that federal employees are overpaid. The comparison cannot be made fairly without pointing out a few important differences between the two sides (my source is the site Factcheck.org, http://factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/):

1. Government employees are much more educated than private employees.

"The Office of Personnel Management (of The Bureau of Economic Analysis) reports that 44.3 percent of federal civilian workers held a bachelor's degree in 2008. That's more than double the percentage of private sector employees who have a bachelor's." They're also five years older on the average.

2. "In a 2007 report titled 'Characteristics and Pay of Federal Employees,' the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said '44 percent of federal workers were in management, professional, and related occupations, compared with 32 percent of private-sector workers,' citing the U.S. Census Bureau's 2005 Current Population Survey (see page 5)."

On a side note, I would advise people like Mr. Smith to take Wall Street Journal editorials with a grain of salt. The paper has a strong bias against the government (with an exception for the military).

Jack Davis

Carlsbad

.

I'm still waiting for specifics

2011-01-16T18:57:00.001-08:00

The Republicans keep saying they will cut spending. The problem is they have major trouble ever answering what specifically they will cut. Interviewed by Brian Williams recently, John Boehner could no name a single program to eliminate. Before you assume this was simply a case of Boehner freezing up before a hostile liberal interviewer, consider this: interviewed by libertarian John Stossel, the Republican congressman could come up with all of 3 cuts, totaling about 6 billion dollars.

On Stossel's show, the Congressman cam up with the mohair subsidy as an example of waste that could be cut (about $2 billion a year). I agree that that subsidy should be eliminated, there's no better example of a bad government program. However, it does raise another question. That subsidy has been around for many year. Shouldn't the Republicans have removed it when they controlled the legislature and executive branches from 2001-2006? Why should I believe them now?

Libertarian ideology leads to tragedy

2011-01-10T16:09:00.000-08:00

Right-wing ideology is responsible for the Arizona shootings. When I say this, I do not mean overheated rhetoric by politicans/pundits/talk show hosts. Overheated rhetoric has been a part of American political discourse since the 1780s. Sarah Palin isn't even remotely responsible for this madman's action. As this New York Times article by Gail Sheehy points out, an ultra-libertarian approach to gun control in Arizona has led to this tragedy. This paragraph sums up her case wonderfully:

But you do not hear much about the fact that Jared Loughner came to Giffords’s sweet gathering with a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to buy legally because the law restricting their sale expired in 2004 and Congress did not have the guts to face up to the National Rifle Association and extend it.

My prediction: the public won't learn anything from this murderous assault. On FOX /MSNBC/CNN there will be angry partisan Democratic pundits trying to blame Sarah Palin/ Michelle Bachmann/Rush Limbaugh for this action. Then Republicans will come back with examples of hysterical statements from liberal speakers. A lot of noise, but no enlightement. The real issue—severely mentally ill people getting dangerous weapons— won't get much publicity. If you doubt me, read Paul Krugman's column today (I'm not linking to it because a Nobel laureate should be able to think more clearly).

Also, I do not expect Arizona, or any other state for that matter, to revise its gun laws. I do,however, see the cliches are coming: "when guns are outlaws only outlaws will have guns," guns don't kill people, people kill people," etc..

The Constitution is dead! Long live the Constitution!

2011-01-06T18:13:00.000-08:00

The Republicans took over Congress and immediately made the all-important decision to read the Constitution out loud. This is an utterly pointless gesture. Anyone who wants to read the Constitution can go to a bookstore, a library, or even the Internet at home. This decision is simple piety, a way to establish that we love this ancient document more than you leftist do. But something needs to be pointed out: this piety isn't sincere. The Republicans don't love the Constitution. If was it really holy, they wouldn't immediately be trying to make two major changes to it: 1. change the 14th Amendment to end "birthright citizenship," and 2. the Repeal Amendment which,as their website explains:
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."

Granted, the Repeal Amendment has almost no chance of passing. As for the 14th Amendment, it is possible, though unlikely, the Supreme Court will rule it does not allow birthright citizenship. But the political unlikelihood of these proposals doesn't change the fact that they are changes to a document ultra-conservatives usually treat as a holy document that must be followed to the letter.

I am not a Constitutional fundamentalist. The world is different radically than what it was in 1789. I personally think much of the Constitution is outdated and should be changed-- for example, I'd like for foreign born citizens to be allowed to run for President. I can take this position honestly and without hypocrisy, but a constitutional fundamentalist cannot. Either the Constitution is sacred and unchangable, or it isn't. The conservative movement is trying to have it both ways.

Voodoo economics I endorse

2010-12-31T20:00:00.000-08:00

Calm down. I'm not becoming a Laffer Curve devotee. From economist Richard Thaler:

By reducing deductions, lawmakers can cut tax rates but increase revenue. This is one type of voodoo economics that actually works.

Yes, this is a short post, but it is New Year's Eve. I'll do better next year.

My exchange on a climate change blog

2010-12-31T08:11:00.000-08:00

This blog, called The Intersection,written by Chris Mooney, deals with science, primarily climate change. His recent post is why people reject climate change despite overwhelming evidence. This is the entire post. I posted and then got a reply from someone who missed the point. I point out that climate denial is simply the confirmation bias at work; if you think it's real you'll find evidence for it, if you don't you'll find evidence against it. I got criticized by a poster who pointed out that expert opinion was in favor of climate change and that the evidence for it was of much better quality than that of the evidence against it. True, but irrelevant to my argument. My response:

Jon, your reply to me was well-reasoned but missed my point. By the way,if I left the impression I’m a climate denier, that was a miscommunication on my part. My argument was more about psychology than the truth of climate change. I agree it would be wonderful if people approached the subject the way you want them to do, with thoughtful analysis of the evidence, but they simply don’t. You’re appealing to rationality, but my argument is that reason/logic has little to do with how people approach this issue (and most other issues for that matter).

Arguments that climate scientists overwhelmingly accept g.w., while true, don’t matter to deniers. Psychologists know that people only value expert opinion if they agree with the expert’s point of view.( I heard a podcast from Psychology Today saying this, this isn’t a wild theory I just made up.) My family, for the most part, rejects climate change, and they don’t care about the opinion of climate scientists. They say those people are frauds out to get government grants (one family member actually said this to me a week ago, this isn’t a strawman argument).

My challenge to you is: send your links to all the climate deniers you know and tell me how many change their views. My prediction: you will get zero converts. As my favorite scientist, Scott Atran, said once: it doesn’t do much good when dealing with the basic fact of human irrationality to say that things ought to be rational and evidence-based.

Another tendentious op-ed from WSJ

2010-12-30T21:50:00.000-08:00

The Wall Street Journal has many positive attributes, but clear thinking on health care issues isn't one of them. Today they printed an op-ed warning of the dangers of government rationing: by David Rifkin and Elizabeth Foley. Both authors are lawyers; neither has any background in health care. This paragraph was typical of the conservative/libertarian argument that there is a meaningful distinction between good private rationing and bad public rationing.

There's an enormous difference between government-imposed rationing and treatment decisions in the private sector. When insurance companies deny coverage—for example, on grounds that treatment is "experimental" or not "medically necessary"—they do so based on contract language agreed to in advance by subscribers. If you don't like what a particular insurer offers, you're free to shop around. Moreover, you and your doctor have extensive rights to appeal the insurer's denial, and wealthy patients can pay for the care out of their own pockets.

I have to confess I don't follow the logic of the arguments here. Only a lawyer could argue that it's OK to deny care because of contract language in a health plan (which no one I know reads), but let's leave that aside for a moment. I love the "You're free to shop around," point--there's nothing insurance companies love more than paying for expensive medications for sick clients. And when people are really sick, there really isn't a lot of time for waiting on the company to respond to appeals. And don't conservatives generally argue (correctly, in my opinion) that our resources are not unlimited and we need to restrain spending? How can health care costs ever be managed if any time a 3rd party objects to a treatment it is considered "rationing" and evil? Should we provide unlimited health care to everyone? If we should do that, why not unlimited food and drinks? Is it not rationing to only pay a thousand or so a month for social security? I mean at a million dollars a month seniors could have anything they want. Senior poverty would be eliminated. (Actually, no, people could still scream about rationing, because even at a million dollars a month there's a few things people can't afford).

I've posted it before,but this column by libertarian Steve Chapman explains well why the cry of rationing and death panels is demagoguery. These two paragraphs sum it up well:

No matter how we "reform" health insurance, there will still be close calls, where it's not clear that a costly procedure will actually do any good. There will have to be someone, either in government or in the private sector, to decide which operations and treatments should be covered and which should not.

What left and right have in common is the delusion that when it comes to medicine, nothing succeeds like excess. But no health care measure can alter the fact that our resources are not unlimited. We may not want to hear it, but no matter what kind of insurance system you have, sometimes someone has to say "no."

We don't have unlmited resources! What a bizarre concept! Like me, this guy probably just hates old people.

Government run health care bad, private insurance good

2010-12-29T15:28:00.000-08:00

The Wall Street Journal editorial page trots out its familiar government is rationing care alarmist message: this is the link here.

Under highly centralized national health care, the government inevitably makes cost-minded judgments about what types of care are "best" for society at large, and the standardized treatments it prescribes inevitably steal life-saving options from individual patients. This is precisely why many liberals like former White House budget director Peter Orszag support government-run health care to control costs: Technocrats in government can then decide who gets Avastin for cancer, say, and who doesn't.

I'm not sure how the Journal editorial staff thinks private insurance works. Are they unaware that health insurance companies routinely deny care to save money? I fail to see the moral distinction between denial of care by government vs. the denial of care by the private sector. As the libertarian columnist Steven Chapman, no fan of the health care law, points out: Any time a third party pays for patients' care, that party will make the decisions in its interests, not in the patients' interests. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Our resources are limited, and unfortunately every patient cannot receive any treatment he wants. That is the cold truth, and all the hysteria over "death panels" and "rationing" doesn't change the reality of the situation.

I might also point out that the editorial's criticism of Orsazg seems inconsistent with the general conservative message of the last few years, i.e. liberals are fiscally irresponsible and are bankrupting us. Apparently, now liberals are too concerned with saving money! Some people are just never satisfied.

"Are the death panels back?"

2010-12-27T07:56:00.000-08:00

Update: I do not delete posts, but I need to apologize for my oversensationalism. The very conservative, pro-free market Wall Street Journal editorial page defended the change, which should convince people it's not a socialistic plot to kill seniors. The editorial can be read :)here.

See this New York Times article
When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

I don't think "death panels" is a very accurate description, the phrase is hyperbolic But this does raise some serious questions. Was Sarah Palin rightall the time?
No point here, just thought I share a very zealous fan of hers' post on her FB page:

Sarah! I absolutely love you! I'm watching your show and reading your America by heart book all at the same time! Im only 17 but I will definitely vote for you at the next election if you run. I hope so. Your an amazing influence to the country and your so down to Earth. Please message me. I'd love to talk to someone as amazing as you

Finally someone agrees with me!

2010-12-26T17:33:00.000-08:00

For years I have been proposing abolishing the charitable deduction in the income tax code, and I usually get stares that combine incredulity at my heartlessness with a pity for my foolishness. I mean, what kind of a human being is against charity? Well, economist Richard Thaler agrees with me. Fortunately for this post, The New York Times will actually publish his op-eds, so we can evaluate his argument See his column here. These two paragraphs explain it beautifully:

Consider this scenario: Having decided that charitable giving is a worthy cause, the government subsidizes charitable gifts from certain households, and for those chosen to be part of the plan, every dollar donated to a charity is increased by a specified percentage. To qualify, taxpayers must have a substantial home mortgage; the subsidy rate increases with taxable income. Low-income taxpayers receive no subsidy, but donations from qualified high-income taxpayers are subsidized by as much as 40 percent — or more.

You can deduct charitable contributions only if you itemize rather than take the standard deduction, and the most common way a household collects enough deductions to make itemizing worthwhile is to have a big mortgage(emphasis added).

In other words, the public, including renters, are subsidizing contributions made by homeowners, who generally have a lot more money. This isn't fair. His solution is right on the money: make it a refundable credit that anyone can take (refundable meaning you can receive money from the government if your deduction is large enough).

I would make a further point, at the risk of being accused of being anti-religous--many "charitable" contributions to churches and other religious institutions are nothing of the sort. Many churches use money to fund political campaigns, such as the Mormon Church funding Prop 8 (there's a video on this available at Amazon.com). Please don't misunderstand, churches have the First Amendment right to support causes they deem worthy. But they do not have the right to a government subsidy for their financial support of these causes.

My letter to a Tea Party leader

2010-12-23T13:29:00.001-08:00

The woman's name is Dana Loesch, she appeared on Parker & Spitzer and spouted off more of the usual cliches. This is my e-mail, not answered:

I rarely get the chance to talk to a Tea Partier, as they tend to get really annoyed at me when I question them. Maybe you're different. I hope you'll do me the favor of answering a few questions.

I was just wondering about the claim you made that tax reductions increase revenue. That leads to a few questions: 1.Who/whatis your source for this belief? 2.Why would we need to reduce spending at all then, couldn't we just slash tax rates to 1% and watch the revenue flow in? 3.Could you name a single economist at any American university who supports the notion that tax reductions at the current rates will bring in more revenue? 4.Aren't conservatives generally against the concept of a free lunch?

You said anything not authorized by Art I, Sec 8 should be terminated. Is this politically realistic, short of a armed libertarian invasion and occupation of Washington D.C.? (Yes, I know armed libertarianism is an oxymoron. I'm making a point here) Should I expect the repeal of Medicare and Social Security once John Boehner becomes speaker? How many members of Congress are going to remove all programs not authorized by Sections 8, and how many would get reelected if they did? (The answers: no, no, zero, zero).

You described big business as a "bogeyman." Do you deny business interests influence our politicians? Is simply removing government going to bring utopia to America? Are there any circumstances you would support regulation of corporations, or is that ipso facto an evil?

Many liberal friends of mine say the Tea Party is racist. I always disagree. Racism isn't the problem with the movement; oversimplification of the world is the problem. Slogans do not lead to effective government.

I'm shocked, shocked!

2010-12-21T12:20:00.001-08:00

Dog bites man story:

"Jarrod Massey (casino lobbyist) has admitted that he bribed members of the Alabama state Legislature in exchange for their votes in favor of electronic bingo gambling legislation," Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny Breuer said.

What kind of a world are we living in when casino lobbyists have such loose morals? If you can trust anyone, it should be a casino lobbyist. Other than maybe used car salesmen, I can't think of a more ethical group.

Climate follies deja vu

2010-12-16T22:03:00.000-08:00

Here we go again. Every winter we're subjected to another would-be climate Christopher Columbus saying the cold weather disproves climate change. This column by libertarian Doug Bandow is a typical, if tedious, take on this issue. The argument goes: It's real cold in ___, so (by some logic) global warming is a hoax.

I guess people like Bandow assume climate scientists should just find another job after every winter storm, as they're obviously wasting time and money. But here's what libertarians/conservatives miss: yes, there have been record lows even in a warming world. But--and this is huge, so pay attention--there have been far more record highs. A warming of a little over a degree is not going to eliminate cold weather.

I should point out, as to not be tendentious, that people who accept climate change as real often make silly statements as well. I've heard "the snowstorm proves global warming," which is not a good argument. Nor is every weather event on Earth tied into global warming; there is still a lively debate among scientists as to whether hurricanes have increased in frequency because of climate change, for instance.

I will use a sports analogy, as most deniers are men: if LeBron James goes 2 for 13 a few times, it doesn't make him a bad player. It's not statistically significant. Over the course of the season and his career, James will have a lot more good games than bad.

Maybe I should care, but I don't

2010-12-16T11:03:00.000-08:00

I feel guilty somehow for not caring about the following issues: abortion, the estate tax, DADT, The Dream Act, indicting Dick Cheney, etc... Maybe I should care. I just don't.

Activist judge invalidates individual mandate

2010-12-13T10:17:00.000-08:00

A federal judge, Henry Hudson, has has invalidated the individual mandate ,a major part of the health care law. See this article from The New York Times for more details. The article discusses the decision at some length:

In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.

The judge wrote that his survey of case law “yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, not withstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme.”

I don't agree with this decision. I see Hudson an activist judge who invalidated a law he disagreed with and found weak constitutional arguments to support his case. Now,I should I don't support the law on its merits; I don't think it was fair to require individuals to carry insurance without a public option. But a bad law--and this is a point a lot of people miss in this discussion--is not the same as an unconstitutional law. E.g. I oppose the death penalty, but don't think there's any evidence it's unconstitutional; I am generally pro-choice but think Roe v. Wade was constitutionally dubious. I just read a biography of William Brennan, a liberal activist judge who often made his own preferences part of the Constitution. This is what we're seeing here. Conservative judges can be judicial activists, too.

Another analysis of the budget deal

2010-12-11T17:33:00.000-08:00

Thoughts on the budget deal from one of my favorite economists, Greg Mankiw. He actually thinks Obama got more from the deal than the Republicans did.

And you mean what exactly?

2010-12-05T19:11:00.000-08:00

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.] ” Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, 1964.

With no disrespect to the late Justice Stewart, "I know it when I see it" is a pretty weak argument. Recent economic comments from both liberals and conservatives are on this same pseudo-intellectual level. Liberals constantly blast tax cuts for the "rich." What income level makes one "rich" is never defined. I eagerly await for a numerical threshold where one becomes rich. Of course, since living costs are not equal across the country, there may have to be thousands of income levels, varying from county to county.

But let's not be tendentious--conservatives are equally guilty of vagueness to in this argument. I constantly hear "socialism" and "Marxism" invoked to describe Democratic politicians. I eagerly await a definition of these terms, but suspect there isn't going to be one. It's much easier to simply resort to labels than to make a coherent argument.

Labels don't matter sometimes

2010-11-28T15:28:00.000-08:00

Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul has recently called Fed chairman Ben Bernanke a socialist. A letter writer to The Los Angeles Times objects , saying Bernanke is a fascist, not a socialist. I would argue that this disagreement is irrelevant. These words, along with the term racist, have become so overused as to be meaningless. I notice that there is never a definition given to them when they are used—forcing me to the conclusion that the people using them have no actual idea what they mean. My proposal: a moratorium on these emotionally charged words. Let's discuss the issues on their merits, not on whether they fit some dubious label.

My health care 101 lecture to a conservative letter writer

2010-11-26T08:00:00.000-08:00

I respond to another of the tired and tedious "Obama's health care is socialism " conservative letters. The writer had compared Obama's health care plan with that of Britain's.
My response:

Valerie Wanket's letter on Nov. 18 said the recent health care law would mirror Britain's system if not repealed. This is a typical, but misguided, conservative analysis of the health care bill. Actually, the two systems have almost nothing in common.

The recent law passed in America provides for an expansion of private insurance through subsidies and an individual mandate requiring Americans to carry private health insurance. It is very different than the British system, which provides universal coverage through government control of doctors, drug companies and hospitals. There is no role for private insurance companies in this system. Such a system has almost no chance of becoming law in America, for good or bad, due to the influence of the insurance and drug companies in our political campaigns.

Ms. Wanket and her fellow conservative letter writers can breathe easy — American health insurance companies are doing fine, even after the passage of the supposedly socialistic "Obamacare." Aetna said its third-quarter net income jumped 53 percent over the same period last year, to $497.6 million. See "Health insurers sit pretty at their customers' expense," by David Lazarus, Nov. 9, www.latimes.com, for more good news for the insurance industry. (I personally don't understand why conservatives and libertarians are so concerned about their welfare, but I'll leave that question for another time).

Jack Davis

Her paragraph that I objected to:

If the health care bill is not repealed, it will mirror the United Kingdom's health care and all of its problems. Be assured President Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid will not have the same care. When Obama said in one of his speeches that he preferred a single-payer plan, was Ms. Landis listening?

Are we on the road to socialism? My two cents

2010-11-25T09:25:00.000-08:00

That's a frequent question asked by Tea Party members, many of whom are family members. I can give them some comfort in this answer: absolutely not. See page 5 from The Wall Street Journal, November 24: Company Profits Rise to Record Annual Rate. Not long ago, The Los Angeles Times reported that health insurance companies are making more money now than ever before. Let's also not forget that the Supreme Court not too long ago allowed unlimited corporate expenditures on political campaigns. If President Obama wants to turn America into a socialist country (which I do not believe) he's failing pretty miserably.

In fact, I would argue the opposite: America is moving to the right (granted nowhere as far as some Tea Party members would like). The recently created bipartisan debt commission is calling for tax reform that would simplify the tax code and lower the top rate to 23%. Whatever one thinks of this proposal (I favor it with some misgivings), this is probably not what Karl Marx had in mind when he wrote the Communist Manifesto. The Federal Reserve is getting heat from conservatives and even a few liberals on their recent QE actions. (I'm too lazy to explain in any more detail). Ben Bernanke and the Fed will be questioned like never before when Ron Paul becomes a subcommittee chairman. It's hard to see how America is on the verge of socialism, let alone Communism.

You can't do this, but I understand the sentiment

2010-11-20T09:22:00.001-08:00

A quote from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) caught my attention:

There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye." It would be a big favor to political discourse, to our ability to do our work here in Congress and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.

I know, The First Amendment, free speech, blah, blah,blah. No, the FCC can't and shouldn't ban FOX and MSNBC. But I can sympathize with Rockefeller's thinking. Those channels add nothing of value to American political discourse. They exist simply because of the psychological principle called the confirmation bias. That says that people value information that agrees with their preconceived notions of the world much more than information from another side. For example, liberals watch Keith Olbermann because he agrees with them on every issue; conservatives like Sean Hannity because he agrees with them on every issue.

This principle came up in a recent conversation. A conservative family member who loves FOX tried to convince me she watchs it because she wants the truth. My response: "No you don't. No one watches Sean Hannity for the truth. You watch it because it reflects your view of the world." Political ideologues, like all fundamentalists, don't really want to know the truth. As Jack Nicholson says in a great scene from the movie A Few Good Men: You can't handle the truth!

Yes, the President's intelligent, so what?

2010-11-15T10:12:00.000-08:00

Some defenders of President Obama have pointed out he's an intelligent man. I start out my response by agreeing with them. He taught law at Harvard. It's tough to do that if you're a moron. Then I end on a less favorable note with two words: so what? Intelligence, like other positive personality traits (e.g. patience, humility, open-mindedness),is valuable if you can turn it into positive results. If you can't —and I think it's fair to say that Obama's intelligence has not really led to positive results that the country can see— then it's not all that important. No one cares today how smart Lincoln or FDR were. All we need to know to evaluate their presidencies is that they led the country to military victory over a determined, foe and saved the country. Right now, people are not getting employed and the national debt is skyrocketing. The President is not succeeding (for the most part), so who cares how smart he is?

My (rare)defense of Fox News

2010-11-14T10:36:00.000-08:00

Every five years or so, I feel obligated to defend Fox News. I'm not sure why. Don't expect it too often! But Rachel Maddow made such an inaccurate statement in her interview of Jon Stewart, I feel obliged to speak up. She said "Fox never criticized George Bush." That's manifestly untrue. On Fox, Bush was criticized for his support of "amnesty" for illegal aliens, for his attempted nomination of the unquailifed Harriet Miers, and even (less often) on his conduct of the Iraq war.

On a slightly related note, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank made a good point on Howard Kurtz's show today. He said that it's ok for MSNBC and Fox to have a partisan or ideological agenda, but that they should come clean about it. I agree 100%. It drives me crazy that those networks continue to pretend to be objective. They're not. Disclosure is always a good thing in politics.

Where Jon Stewart goes wrong

2010-11-12T14:08:00.000-08:00

Jon Stewart's interview Thursday night with liberal talk show host Rachel Maddow of MSNBC went on a little too long, but there was some interesting dialogue. As I see it, Stewart made two main arguments:

1. There is as much unfairness and irresponsibility on the left as on the right, and

2. The real division in the country is not between left and right but between sense and nonsense, or extremism and moderation.

Point No.1 is hard to prove either way. It's almost impossible to quantify irresponsible behavior. I'll remain undecided on that point and focus on argument No.2, which I think is (mostly) wrong.

Stewart says early in the interview that left/right disputes are really irrelevant, and blames this division of the 24 hour media cycle. He's a thoughtful,intelligent man but I think he's way off here. There's a lot of things about the media that I don't like, but they did not create ideological divisions among the American population. There are issues such as health care, abortion, affirmative action, etc.. that liberals and conservatives sincerely disagree on. Those divisions would continue even if CNN, FOX, and MSNBC went off the air tomorrow. Stewart would like to ignore these disagreements and call for a restoration of "sanity" or "moderation." To be sure, Stewart has a legitimate point when he says we should not demonize people who disagree with us, and he's certainly right that there's been a lot of overheated rhetoric on both sides on the political spectrum.

However, there remains a huge problem with his argument. His call for "sanity" or "moderation" really doesn't mean anything coherent. It's meaningless, feel-good rhetoric. Who's running for office in 2012 on a platform of insanity.I'm curious, John: What is the "sane" position on health care? What is the "sane" position on climate change? For most Americans, it's the position we personally hold. Sanity and moderation are in the eyes of the beholder. Many of you may remember the platform of Steve Forbes for President in 1996? He was for "hope, growth, and opportunity!" Of course—who could be against hope and growth? Stewart's movement is at the same level of discourse. Empty slogans make for poor arguments.

Leftist originalism—a bad idea

2010-11-11T10:13:00.001-08:00

"The Constitution belongs to the living"—Thomas Jefferson

This Los Angeles Times editorial doesn't make much sense to me. While the editors admit that Anwar Awlaki is actively supporting the jihad and targeting Aerican civilians, they nonetheless claim his constitutional rights under the 4th and 5th Amendment must be protected. This argument is nonsensical and dangerous; it is what I call liberal originalism. Allow me to explain.

Originalism is a common, but silly, approach to constitutional law by judges like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. It assumes that we can know exactly how constitutional provisions drawn up hundreds of years ago apply to current situations. It's a religion of conservatives and libertarians,basically substituting the Constitution for the Bible as a holy and unerrant book of knowledge. It is a rigid doctrine that does not allow for changing times or circumstances. The famous Brown case in 1954 desegregating schools would not be acceptable under strict originalism, to take just one example. For a more complete critique of originalism I suggest reading The Living Constitution by David Strauss.

Originalism has always been the prevailing dogma of the right wing. However, left-wing groups such as the ACLU are jumping on the originalist bandwagon, and their reasoning is every bit as flimsy. They are insisting that we should follow the 4th and 5th Amendments to the letter of the law. They make no acknowledgement that circumstances in the world are radically different than they were in 1789. It seems absurd, and dangerous, that the government of the United States needs a warrant from a judge to kill someone who is actively engaged in war against America. The Times acknowledged that he waging war against America; I'll quote some of the editorial:

Awlaki is believed to be an increasingly important leader of the organization Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and is said to have played an "operational" role in several terrorist plots, including the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Detroit last year.

Given that Awlaki is a member of a terrorist organization that knows no national boundaries, the argument that we need to respect his rights because "he's out of a war zone" makes no sense at all. Terrorists can launch plots from anywhere in the world; the concept of war zone in this context doesn't have any coherent meaning. There is no reason that American citizenship should protect Awlaki. His guilt is beyond question. War is not a matter for judges. Let's bury left-wing originalism with right-wing originalism in the same grave. We can replace it with my favorite philosophy—common sense.

Dana Milbank says the grass is green!

2010-11-05T19:56:00.000-07:00

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank is on to a newsworthy story(in his mind, at least). In this article he discusses how watching 18 hours of Fox News' election coverage led him to a startling conclusion: Fox News is biased toward the Republicans! What a scoop. You learn something new every day. This is a pretty well known fact among the thinking public wers for about 15 years. (The most blatant example ever was from 2007; a message on the bottom of the screen read: Are Democrats legislating defeat in Iraq?) Even the right-wing magazine The New American (published by the John Birch Society) called Fox an propaganda arm of the Republican party, and that was back in 2003! Does Mr.Milbank actually think he's on to something original here?

From one biased network to another: Keith Olbermann got suspended for making campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. I don't see why. He's not a journalist by any definition of the word. He's extremely and consistently partisan (and to his credit doesn't pretend otherwise), so what is MSNBC upset about? I personally am more upset by the phony pretense of objectivity by MSNBC and Fox than I am about the biases of their hosts.

Creative accounting

2010-10-09T17:08:00.000-07:00

"It's not a lie if you believe it"—George Costanza in Seinfeld.

In the past I've heard the phrase "creative accounting," usually used to describe crooked corporate practices. Now the government of my state of California is getting very creative. This article makes the point well:

Two-thirds of the budget solutions expected to be signed soon by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are based on one-time or temporary money ---- some of which may never materialize. The article later quotes a California Congressman as saying " It's full of false assumptions and failed gimmicks."

Wishful thinking or outright dishonesty? I'm going with the latter.

She's a maniac,maniac

2010-10-09T16:55:00.000-07:00

New York Times columnist Gail Collins addresses the question of which state has the worst election here. I agree with her conclusion—the "winner" is Nevada. To slightly oversimplify the issue, it's a hack v. a lunatic.

I especially liked these two paragraphs:

Angle did make an appearance last week at a rally of Tea Party supporters in Mesquite, where she responded to a question about “Muslims wanting to take over the United States” by decrying the fact that Dearborn, Mich., and Frankford, Tex., were governed under Islamic law, called Sharia. Which, of course, they are not.

The Associated Press, which reported on this event, noted that while Dearborn does at least have “a thriving Muslim community,” it was not clear why Angle picked on Frankford, Tex., which did not seem to have many Muslims, and also went out of existence around 1975. (emphasis added).

If I lived in Nevada, I would reluctantly vote for Reid, although I wouldn't blame anyone who voted for a third party.

Thomas Friedman is so right

2010-10-03T22:19:00.000-07:00

I rarely say this, but Thomas Friedman has a terrific column in The New York Times Sunday. One line especially is right on target:

“We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country.”—Larry Diamond, political scientist.

That's Political Science 101; the rest is prologue.