Paul Krugman on Healthcare

I haven't read Krugman in a while, but he's still quite good. His latest notes that the current health care bill will make significant strides in bringing down the cost of healthcare. Not exactly what Republicans are saying, but he seems convincing enough to me.

. . . the proposed health care reform links the expansion of coverage to serious cost-control measures for Medicare. Think of it as a grand bargain: coverage for (almost) everyone, tied to an effort to ensure that health care dollars are well spent.

Are we talking about real savings, or just window dressing? Well, the health care economists I respect are seriously impressed by the cost-control measures in the Senate bill, which include efforts to improve incentives for cost-effective care, the use of medical research to guide doctors toward treatments that actually work, and more. This is “the best effort anyone has made,” says Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Unfortunately he notes that the Republican party has made strenuous efforts to demonize this particular part of the plan, meaning that, if this bill fails, meaningful reform may have to wait another few decades at which point the situation will be a lot worse.

Investigating

Don't have a lot of time this morning, but wanted to point out Paul Krugman's latest, basically arguing that we should be investigating some of the criminal acts of the previous administration.

For example, would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere? Let’s be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy. Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job — which he’s supposed to do in any case — and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

I don’t know about you, but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth and enforcing the law even while it goes about its other business.

It's a good article and I largely agree.

Paulson vs. Dodd

As you know, Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, has called for Congress to give $700 billion to bailout financial institutions that have failed. They are debating it today, and probably for a day or so, I suppose. With $700 billion I think they probably out to debate it for a day or so.

Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee, has put together a counter proposal, which is finding a lot of support. Paul Krugman likes it, for example. And so does Ian Welsh at Firedoglake.

Bill Murchison over at Townhall is opposed even to the Paulson plan, and would presumably be horrified by the Dodd plan. He's opposed to government getting involved in economic issues at all.

The human craving to lay hands on a problem and twist it here and there is immutable. The political expression of that craving frequently has malign consequences.

OK, I'm not sure what humans Murchison is talking about here. I think humans like to solve problems not simply twist them here and there. If you see your economy going down in flames, well, you want to fix things so that the economy gets back on an even keel.

Rush Limbaugh had heard of the Dodd plan, and has a simple solution.

What we want is change. Change the chairman of the banking committees in Congress, get rid of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. They are a disgrace. They are lying about their roles in all of this. They shouldn't be anywhere near addressing this problem now. They should resign from their posts. And the Republicans ought to demand it day in and day out.

Nice. But then in Rush's world pretty much everything is the Democrats fault; presumably he'd like if it all Democratic public officials resigned.

Anyway should be an interesting week, economically speaking.

To Tell the Truth

I haven't had any Paul Krugman articles in a while, but today's definitely merits mention, as it brings together the themes of this week in a compelling package.

And what themes are those? McCain and Palin are running a deceptive campaign. A stupidly deceptive campaign. They are the sort of lies their partisan base, weaned on Limbaugh and Coulter, will believe whole heartedly. But for those with the sense to check them out, the truth can come out fairly quickly.

He concludes with these words which are devastatingly accurate.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

He's not wrong.

The Shape of Things to Come

Nina Mays clumsy article referenced earlier is just one of many signs that the Republicans don't intend to take it easy on Barack Obama. Paul Krugman over at the New York Times, who's not a Obama supporter, notes this trend and predicts it will continue.

. . . I know that both the Obama campaign and many reporters deny that he has received more favorable treatment than Hillary Clinton. But they’re kidding, right? Dana Milbank, the Washington Post national political reporter, told the truth back in December: “The press will savage her no matter what ... they really have the knives out for her, there’s no question about it ... Obama gets significantly better coverage.”

If Mr. Obama secures the nomination, the honeymoon will be over as he faces an opponent whom much of the press loves as much as it hates Mrs. Clinton. If Mrs. Clinton can do nothing right, Mr. McCain can do nothing wrong — even when he panders outrageously, he’s forgiven because he looks uncomfortable doing it. Honest.

Bob Somerby of the media-criticism site dailyhowler.com predicts that Mr. Obama will be “Dukakised”: “treated as an alien, unsettling presence.” That sounds all too plausible.

Daily Howler is a great site, and neither it nor Krugman are wrong. The right wing will have to do quite a little tap dance, both attacking Obama for being sort of like a Muslim and avoiding charges of bigotry (and if they get on other aspects of his race, it will be even worse). But they will attack the hell out of him; it's what they do.

The Mentality of Bush

Well we are going to rebuild New Orleans. President Bush said so. Hooray. But wait, maybe we should consider the words of Paul Krugman.

President Bush subscribes to a political philosophy that opposes government activism - that's why he has tried to downsize and privatize programs wherever he can. (He still hopes to privatize Social Security, F.D.R.'s biggest legacy.) So even his policy failures don't bother his strongest supporters: many conservatives view the inept response to Katrina as a vindication of their lack of faith in government, rather than as a reason to reconsider their faith in Mr. Bush.

And to date the Bush administration, which has no stake in showing that good government is possible, has been averse to investigating itself. On the contrary, it has consistently stonewalled corruption investigations and punished its own investigators if they try to do their jobs.

Interesting. But it does seem to follow a pattern.

All This Time

I strongly urge you to all read Joe Conason's latest article, even though doing so requires you to watch a short ad at Salon (unless you are a member).

It's strong indictment of the Bush Administration for it's failures and it's betrayal of the American people.

And we can have no doubt now, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, that critical agencies of the United States government are staffed by patronage hacks unable to fulfill the most basic responsibilities of the modern state. The outstanding example, of course, is Michael D. Brown -- apparently known as "Brownie" to the admiring president -- the FEMA chief whose résumé contains nothing to recommend him to one of the most critical positions in government, although he had amply padded it with unearned honors and bogus titles. He claimed, for instance, to have worked as an assistant city manager, when he was actually a glorified intern. (The holder of a degree from an unaccredited law school, Brown's most significant lifetime work experience was as a "commissioner" for a horse show association, a position he departed involuntarily and left off his official biography.)

For four years, since the tragedy of September 11th, President Bush and his followers have been resolute in telling us how lucky we are to have him in charge, in these dangerous and trying times.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't feel all that lucky.

Incidentally you might also check out Paul Krugman's latest, in which he suggests that "Brownie" may not be an exception but an example of President Bush's hiring standards. It's always been clear that this president values loyalty and doesn't give a damn about any other qualities a person might have. So if you like how Michael Brown performed in the face of Hurricane Katrina just imagine how President Bush's other office holders are performing. Or instead of imagining, here's a quote.

Unfortunately, it's easy to find other agencies suffering from some version of the FEMA syndrome.

The first example won't surprise you: the Environmental Protection Agency, which has a key role to play in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, but which has seen a major exodus of experienced officials over the past few years. In particular, senior officials have left in protest over what they say is the Bush administration's unwillingness to enforce environmental law.

Maybe this is just me, but isn't there likely to be a lot of gunk floating around New Orleans? Isn't that sort of the Environmental Protection Agency's mandate, to clean up gunk? Hmmmmmm.

Still when you elect a President who doesn't believe in the power of Government to help people, I suppose it's no surprise that he appoints lunkheads to positions of power which, to him, are totally useless.

Does it Matter?

So we invaded Iraq to rid the world of Saddam's nuclear missiles. And now we can't find them. In Esquire, Paul Wolfowitz has apparently stated that justifying the war by the Weapons of Mass Destruction was settled on because "it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

We failed to definitively rid the world of Saddam. Iraq is in danger of falling into the same chaos as Afghanistan.

Does it matter? Do we care? Nope, not really. The war played well on TV and that's what counts. Paul Krugman comments, "So what's the problem? Wars fought to deal with imaginary threats have real consequences. Just as war critics feared, Al Qaeda has been strengthened by the war. Iraq is in chaos, with a rising death toll among American soldiers: "We have reports of skirmishes throughout the central region," a Pentagon official told The Los Angeles Times."

So I guess you just have to ask yourself, does it matter?

Paul Krugman on Taxes

So the first story involved Paul Wolfowitz, and this one involves Paul Krugman. Watch for an update on Ms. Pauls fishsticks later on in the day.

At any rate, Krugman has some sobering comments on the current tax cut mania in the Bush Administration.

Here's one way to look at the situation: Although you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric, federal taxes are already historically low as a share of G.D.P. Once the new round of cuts takes effect, federal taxes will be lower than their average during the Eisenhower administration. How, then, can the government pay for Medicare and Medicaid — which didn't exist in the 1950's — and Social Security, which will become far more expensive as the population ages? (Defense spending has fallen compared with the economy, but not that much, and it's on the rise again.)

The answer is that it can't. The government can borrow to make up the difference as long as investors remain in denial, unable to believe that the world's only superpower is turning into a banana republic. But at some point bond markets will balk — they won't lend money to a government, even that of the United States, if that government's debt is growing faster than its revenues and there is no plausible story about how the budget will eventually come under control.

At that point, either taxes will go up again, or programs that have become fundamental to the American way of life will be gutted. We can be sure that the right will do whatever it takes to preserve the Bush tax cuts — right now the administration is even skimping on homeland security to save a few dollars here and there. But balancing the books without tax increases will require deep cuts where the money is: that is, in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

The pain of these benefit cuts will fall on the middle class and the poor, while the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich. For example, the tax cut passed last week will raise the after-tax income of most people by less than 1 percent — not nearly enough to compensate them for the loss of benefits. But people with incomes over $1 million per year will, on average, see their after-tax income rise 4.4 percent.

Something to consider.

Tough Questions

Well, it turns out that we haven't found any WMD yet. And it also turns out that we don't care. The liberation of the Iraqi peoples is a noble goal in and of itself, and we should be satisfied with that. But, of course, one might ask if we are now required to rescue other peoples throughout the world. Paul Krugman, is one such "one" who asks, in his latest article.

. . . why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS — called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true — we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.

For those who would like more information on the Ivory Coast situation, here it is.

Tax Day

Well here in the United States, it's Tax Day. Many people across the United States are upset at the amount of money they have to give the government in return for such services as liberating the people of Iraq or being able to eat a hot dog in relative safety. Rest assured, Congress is working quickly to cut programs and benefits in order to provide tax cuts for those who desire them.

One area that Congress has decided, in its wisdom, to cut is Veterans Benefits. Paul Krugman, who I like more and more with each article he writes, puts it this way; "As the war began, members of the House of Representatives gave speech after speech praising our soldiers, and passed a resolution declaring their support for the troops. Then they voted to slash veterans' benefits.

Some of us have long predicted that the drive to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy would lead to a fiscal dance of the seven veils. One at a time, the pretenses would be dropped — the pretense that big tax cuts wouldn't preclude new programs like prescription-drug insurance, the pretense that the budget would remain in surplus, the pretense that spending could be cut painlessly by eliminating waste and fraud, the pretense that spending cuts wouldn't hurt the middle class.

There are still several veils to remove before the true face of "compassionate conservatism" is revealed, but we're getting there."

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) received a letter from one of his constituents that perhaps puts it even better.

To:
Rep. Jim Kolbe

April 14, 2003

Sir, I have been reading many articles that suggest that the upcoming budget proposed by this administration will, aside from providing tax relief for the upper class, also cut veterans benefits. As an unemployed disabled veteran who depends on the services from the VA just to survive I am deeply troubled by what I am hearing. Today Pres. Bush was lauding the accomplishments of the military and the sacrifices made. If this budget is implemented and VA services are cut, is that the support and gratitude the President was talking about?

Tucson , AZ

Something to consider in the middle of complaining about Taxes.

On the Positive Side

I liked this article by Paul Krugman on Senator Kerry's comments from last week.

In 1944, millions of Americans were engaged in desperate battles across the world. Nonetheless, a normal presidential election was held, and the opposition didn't pull its punches: Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate, campaigned on the theme that Franklin Roosevelt was a "tired old man." As far as I've been able to ascertain, the Roosevelt administration didn't accuse Dewey of hurting morale by questioning the president's competence. After all, democracy — including the right to criticize — was what we were fighting for.

It's not a slur on the courage of our troops, or a belittling of the risks they face, to say that our current war is a mere skirmish by comparison. Yet self-styled patriots are trying to impose constraints on political speech never contemplated during World War II, accusing anyone who criticizes the president of undermining the war effort.

Along the same lines, why does the right have so little faith in our armed forces? Do they genuinely believe that any criticism of the President is going to make them lose heart? Aren't our soldiers made of sterner stuff? I believe they are.

In Which Brandy Asks Herself "Have I switched to the 'anti-war' group?"

The story so far, Brandy wrote several well-written and passionate articles in support of the upcoming invasion of Iraq. As we join her she is considering her position.

"So as I have said MANY times, I long for a reason to be against this war...I have now found 2 reasons to, in the very least, be supportive of waiting quite a bit longer/ possibly being AGAINST attacking Iraq. The first of my -oh, I shall stop and contenplate on this for awhile is from: US Senator Robert Byrd's comments on the Senate floor,

Feb. 12, 2003
WE STAND PASSIVELY MUTE
"This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter."

I know this has been stated before...the whole "but Iraq hasn't done anything yet" ideaology...but Byrd has stated it in a way that makes me think...in America one is not jailed for 'thinking' of doing a crime, that until a crime is committed the individual can not be held -even IF everything points to him being a criminal...not sure if I'm making any sense...but the whole Minority Report thing. Now then, this isn't to say that this reason ALONE would work -if one could go back in time would they assassinate Hitler BEFORE he did anything? And Saddam is by no means innocent...but this certainly has made me stop and think.

The second reason I think we should wait is in what Pres. Bush had to say last night....I mean what the F was that all about?

He clearly stated that he does NOT have a completed plan on dealing with post-war Iraq...now then I love this country, but we suck at establishing foriegn governments, as a matter of fact I can't think of a single success story...maybe Germany? I can NOT support Bush if he has not planned this ALL the way through...this really scares me. This is a REAL reason to be anti-war."

I will say that although I thought Bush's speech was a bit too pat, particularly in relation to some of Paul Krugman's articles on the recent failure to initially budget money for Afganastan. But there is a success story in our history, namely Japan. The Japanese economy was devestated by the war. General MacArthur essentially rebuilt the country, making it a strong and productive democracy in the far east. At the time it was believed by many that the Oriental mind was incapable of understanding and practicing democracy.

Make me a Commentator!!!'s Military correspondent Justin commented that he felt that MacArthur's success was more a reflection on the nature of the Japanese people, rather than the US. The Japanese people's acceptance of a stratified and highly organized society let them accept MacCarther's commadns in a way that perhaps the people of Iraq might not.