Saturday, February 28, 2009

Today Obama slapped them in the face with a chain mail gauntlet...

Obama ended his electronic fireside chat with "...they are (the Evil Ones--my parenthesis) gearing up for a fight.  And so am I." 

Oh, my.  Could it be that honesty is the best policy?  And the bleeding heart,  Goody-two Shoes leftish persuasion is going to kick over the, um, you know, all across America? 

I call to mind the lines from Ginsberg's great Smoky the Bear Sutra that go (more or less) he's gonna

Drown their butts
Crush their butts, etc., etc.

I agree with what many regard as the hysterical left blogosphere that we should never assume that Obama is always going to do the right thing, and that it is wrong to assume he is playing some kind of 11th dimensional chess whenever he takes a position we don't like or have doubts about & that everything will be okay in the end...

Still, I wonder if he hasn't been playing 11th dimensional chess all along...

He has been insistent about this transparency and openess thing that it is so easy to be cynical about, but I wonder if by insisting on it and then naming the specific lobbies that are likely to oppose his agenda if he isn't playing a new kind of hardball that his opponents will have a tough time hitting against...

He's got 13 million folks on his e-mail list who are arguably at least center-leftish, astute and quite conscious politically--that's 13 million pairs of eyes who are watching him--and also watching out for him. 

I dunno.  Just a theory. 

R.


 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Somebody tell the Social Darwinians in the Republican party

I don't trust any metaphors drawn from biology and applied to human culture, but this is interesting.  (I suppose really it's more of a game theory observation--game theory also has its limitations, but still this is interesting)
 
Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213115127.htm
 
Come to think of it this reminds me of how Lincoln won the Republican nomination in 1860. 
 
There were two very strong contenders for the nomination and Lincoln was a distant third.  Each of the strong contenders were able to deny the nomination to the other without being able to prevail.  What Lincoln did was to go around the floor of the convention and get assurances from both factions that he would be the second choice if their guy was not able to prevail...and he did. 

R.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

A great speech by Obama

near perfect--but of course, I have a coupla quibbles.  I rather wish he hadn't use the bully pulpit to do rah rahs for charter schools & what is this thing about tax free universal savings accounts mentioned in the context of social security or health care refrom?--I'm not sure which context he was invoking...

Charter schools aren't necessarily private schools, but I do fear the charter school movement is a stalking horse for the forces that want to destroy public education. 

And I have no idea what he's talking about with the "tax-free universal savings accounts"

But it would be damned bizarre if he came out for everything I favor and against everything I dislike...


 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Slumdog Millionaire kids

story referenced here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/slumdog-millionaire-kids_n_169300.html on Huffington Post. 

I hope the kids are getting more out of being in the movie than a trip to the Oscars & Disneyland--preferably enough to get them and their families out of those slums. 

It is intolerable that anyone should have to live that way, but on the way to saving the world it is necessary to save individuals also. 

 
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Why "temporary?"

All the talking heads are talking about nationalization of the banks, but even those who think it is necessary agree that nationalization should be temporary.   But why should it be temporary?  "They" say, in effect, the government doesn't do it (run banks) good.  Really?  Why can't it?
 
E. Schumaker, of Small is Beautiful fame, wrote of his experiences on the British Coal Board, back when coal was to some extent nationalized, about how efficiency and creativity by government managers was sabotaged by political pressure from the private sector that kept raising the specter of "unfair competition" from the government.  Ha.
 
It may be that there are indeed good reasons for any such nationalization to be temporary, but in the current context a discussion about the specific merits and demerits of government ownership of the banks (or any other major feature of the economy), would be, to say the least, interesting.  Shopworn ideological generalities about "government inefficiency"--or the virtues of the "free market"--are worse than useless  They cut off real thought about the situation. 
 
On another note, there's a thing called "particpatory economics" referenced here:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
 
that I have been interested in off and on.  Economists Michel Albert and Robin Hahnel have outlined a practical vision of how to implement a form of democratic socialism.  I say "practical" advisedly.  It is practical in that it provides a specific, real world mechanism for implementing a socialist society.   The difficulty with the vision is there seems to be little room for what Trotskyists might call a "transitional program."  It seems to me it has to be implemented all at once for it to work.   They recognize this and there is a reference in the wikipedia entry to something called "paripolilty" that I have yet to check out. 
 
I would be curious to know what anybody thinks about Albert & Hahnel's ideas. 
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Sunday, February 22, 2009

I'm nervous (Update)

but less so than before...

dday on pessimist Digby's blog has weighed in on Obama's proposed budget and is not altogether unhappy.

Therefore, I am considerably relieved

 
Actual Responsibility

by dday

I'm going to get hammered over the head for this, but what the hell, here goes.

President Obama's budget has been leaked to major news organizations in time for the Sunday papers, and it seeks to close a yawning deficit over the long term through entirely unobjectionable means like ending unnecessary wars and ensuring that everyone pays their fair share for using the public commons. Also, importantly, he doesn't try to close the budget gap entirely, and he's offering an honest appraisal of the numbers instead of the stupid budget tricks that have defined the past decade.


Obama proposes to dramatically reduce those numbers by the end of his first term, cutting the deficit he inherited in half, said administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the budget has yet to be released. His budget plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion in 2013 -- still high in dollar terms, but a more manageable 3 percent of the overall economy.

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes that the nation will continue to spend money on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is significantly lower than the nearly $190 billion the nation budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, primarily by making good on his promise to eliminate the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 for wealthy taxpayers, whom Obama defined during the campaign as those earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule for the 2011 tax year, when the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to more than 39 percent.

Obama also proposes to maintain the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million, instead of letting it expire next year. And he proposes "a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement" that would target tax havens and corporate loopholes, among other provisions, the official said.

Overall, tax collections under the plan would rise from about 16 percent of the economy this year to 19 percent in 2013, while federal spending would drop from about 26 percent of the economy, another post-war high, to 22 percent.

The other big elements of this would be to eliminate the hedge fund loophole, which would tax a hedge fund manager's income as income instead of capital gains, and to institute a cap-and-trade plan for carbon emissions, which would provide revenue to the federal government by selling carbon credits at auction. And while floating a deficit equal to about 3% of GDP in 2013, which would be remarkable given the investments being made, we would have a more efficient health care system that costs less and covers more people in return.


The budget also puts in place the building blocks of what administration officials say will be a broad restructuring of the U.S. health system, an effort aimed at covering some of the 46 million Americans who lack insurance while controlling costs and improving quality. Many lawmakers said they had expected a health care overhaul to be pushed off while Obama deals with the economic crisis, but administration officials stressed they intend to forge ahead with comprehensive reform.

"The budget will kick off or facilitate a focus on getting health care done this year," the senior official said, adding that the White House is planning a summit on health care. The event has been delayed by former senator Tom Daschle's decision to withdraw from consideration as health secretary because of tax problems, a move that left Obama without key member of his health team.

Administration officials and outside experts say the most likely path to revamping the health system is to begin with Medicare, the federal program for retirees and people with disabilities, and Medicaid, which serves the poor. Together, the two programs cover about 100 million people at a cost of $561 billion in 2007. Making policy changes in those programs -- such as rewarding physicians who computerize their medical records or paying doctors for results rather than procedures--could improve care while generating long-term savings, expert say. It also could prod private insurers to follow suit.

They are talking about reducing Medicare eligibility to age 55, and also getting rid of the grossly inefficient Medicare Advantage, which is essentially a $35 billion dollar payoff to private insurance companies.

I know people are worried about the fiscal responsibility summit. Words matter, and using the language of those who have been trying for 40 years and longer to gut the social safety net is problematic. However, I am more than willing to judge the Administration on what they do. This budget is a Democratic statement of priorities, which states pretty clearly that we need a more responsible and progressive tax system that makes sure corporations and the wealthy are paying their fair share. It strives for progress in health care and climate change and a winding down of commitments to foreign military adventures. And it ends blatant giveaways to industry.

There will be details that come out that I imagine I will not particularly like, and I'll certainly fight any off the books chicanery designed to prop up elites as well as any assaults on the social safety net in this time of economic peril. But the budget is a major document. And this one is, so far, a very respectable manifestation of liberal principles.
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

I feel nervous...

Half the lefty blogosphere is terrified that Obama's "entitlement reform" summit is going to lead/force him into gutting/cutting social security; the other half sez, oh well, it's just a ruse to get health care reform on the table...Well, I'm not terrified, but I am nervous.  

I know a few things.  Social security itself, that is, the system that makes payments to retirees and the disabled is actually in pretty good shape.  There's no need to do anything for about 40 years in that regard.  During the Reagan Administration the system was approaching financial straits, but Reagan capitulated and there was a tax hike that pretty well saved that part of the system.  There was a deal with the Devil in the details:  Social security taxes were capped for incomes somewhere in the 100's of thousands. 

When people talk about a crisis in social security funding what they are usually doing is conflating the financial difficulties of Medicaid and Medicare with social security. 

I have seen it reported by William Greider that Obama favors lifting the caps on social security taxes for the wealthy, and I think that would be a Good Thing. 

What would be a Bad Thing would be to introduce any form of privatization for the social security system.  The most benign form of privatization would be to invest a small percentage of social security taxes in securities, probably some kind of index fund,  in the hopes of supplementing income for the system.  I believe Clinton supported something along those lines at one point.  The trouble with the idea is that it is a stalking horse for eliminating the system altogether, i.e. eliminating taxes for social security altogether.  People don't need these kinds of accounts through social security.  They can already do it for themselves easily through 401(k)s, IRAs and the like.  In Good Times, one can see the appeal.   In These Times, not so much.   I have a tough time believing Obama will touch social security after seeing what happened to Bush when he hopped on that bandwagon, and especially given the current condition of most people's 401(k).

The quote below from a news story on Huffington Post below implies stuff I didn't know about.

"On Tuesday night, an address to a joint session of Congress will focus on the shared sacrifices needed to tame a national debt that is nearing $11 trillion, counting the $4.3 trillion in borrowed funds from Social Security. And on Thursday, Mr. Obama will unveil a budget blueprint that tips his hand on long-term tax, entitlement, energy and health-care policies.
 

I didn't know there was a dedicated social security fund.  I thought social security funding came out of general revenues inasmuch as social security taxes (I thought) go into general revenue.  I thought, well, maybe "funds borrowed from Social Security" is  just a way of referring to the aggregate of monies collected through social security taxes--but then it wouldn't make sense to speak of "borrowed funds" from Social Security unless there is a dedicated social security fund. 

I don't like that They have been "borrowing" from the Social Security fund and giving ammo for those who are crying wolf about the dire straits of Social Security.  Why aren't thse things clearer? (Or, why am I so ignorant?)

Full disclosure:  I received my first social security check this month.

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/