I am not favorably impressed by Paul Krugman's latest Op-Ed
Basically I think he doesn't recognise the genius of Barack Obama's fiscal proposals. It is almost odd as he presents the facts needed to make the argument that Barack Obama has found the antidote to Bush's poision pill and then refuses to make the inference which to me sounds obvious.
Roughly Krugman has two objections
1) Obama is not increasing the income tax enough and is using some of the increase in taxes on families making over $250,000 per year to pay $500 per individual $1,000 per family (to families which make up to $70,000 IIRC). This leaves too little money to pay for health care reform
2) Obama is proposing increasing the payroll tax on individuals who make over $250,000. This is not needed for Social Security so it shouldn't be done.
In other setting Krugman has objected that claims that a policy strengthens social security are tricks as we can't trust politicians with the trust fund which they treat just as if it were the general fund.
The three criticisms add up to exactly zero. Krugman complains that, under Obama's proposals there will be too little money in the general fund, too much money in the trust fund and, besides, there is, in practice no difference between the two.
I think that, given the facts, and, in particular the facts as presented by Krugman, it is obvious that Obama plans to use the payroll tax increase to pay for health care reform.
If Krugman is right that it is not needed for social security this is fine. If the social security system is really in crisis, the Obama would be making a mistake.
The thing which is actually weird is that Krugman suggests that Obama is too unwilling to break with Bush and his evidence is the two proposals to
take more money from people with individual wage and salary income over $250,000 year and to give a phased out sum to lower income households and individuals.
I don't see how anyone can perceive that pair of policies as Bushlike.
To me it seems clear that Obama is using the Republican's tricks against them (without by the way repeating their lies and misleading claims). the way to increase taxes without getting people angry is to say the increase is in FICA and will go to the trust fund (it worked for Reagan who is a famous tax cutter in spite of signing the largest tax increase in history into law). Then treat the trust fund as if it is the general fund.
This is an antidote to the poison pill. I think it is the only available antidote.
I don't see how anyone who is as smart as Krugman can fail to see what Obama is doing and why.
update: Over at economists view I wrote the above (and more) in a comment thread.
Bruce Webb criticized my reasoning.
Bruce Webb says...
"Paul Krugman's argument here is utter nonsense. He argues that Obama is too similar to Bush because, compared to Krugman, he wants to increase taxes on extremely rich people -- people whose individual wage and salary income is over $250,000 a year "
Waldman, "extremely rich people" do not draw most of their income from wages and salary to begin with, instead they draw it on returns on capital, returns which are not subject to FICA. To the extent we really see the extent of Obama's plan it looks to sock a particular small band of upper income wage workers, which as far as I can see would be the professional class, while giving the investor class a free pass. I don't see what is 'progressive' about handing the bill for universal health coverage to doctors and lawyers while giving hedge fund managers a free pass. The whole thing is loopy, it is not Krugman's argument that is "nonsense".
Not to mention that increasing the flow of tax through the Trust Fund simply provides a backdoor source of cheap borrowing for the General Fund with the additional benefit of masking General Fund deficits via the Unified Budget. Under Social Security's current financial system boosting the flow of funds does nothing for longterm solvency absent other changes in overall finance which don't seem to be on the table.
If we really want progressive taxation we need to do it on the income tax side and extend it to all income. Why would we focus on wages and not total income to start with?
I replied to Bruce Webb
We disagree about the definition of extremely rich. I consider anyone with income over $250,000 a year extremely rich. People with wage and salary income over $250,000 a year have total income over $250,000 a year. If they have zero capital income and no one else in their family has any income at all and the family is *still* in the top 2% of the income distribution. I call that "very rich".
I would have listed explanation 5 if I didn't think that Krugman is too smart to make such a mistake. Someone (not Krugman) might say that Obama is making a mess taking from the middle class (the payroll tax increase) and giving to the middle class (the income tax cuts). This pseudo-argument is based on the approximation that people in families which make under $ 70,000 are the same set of people as people who make over 250,000 not counting capital income all by themselves (the middle class) *and* on the additional assumption that a proportional tax and a poll tax are both "not progressive" and so about the same.
I don't consider people whose total family income is in the top 1% middle class. You are criticizing Obama because, although he is only taxing the very rich, among the very rich the burden isn't on the very richestest.
Also, by the way, you are either vastly overstating your claim of fact or using most to mean over 50%. As shown by a Piketty and Saez (warning huge spreadsheet http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/) 37% of the income of the richest 0.01 % of US tax units was wage and salary income in 2005. That is greater than the share of their income which is capital income (25.9%). It is almost exactly equal to the share of entrepreneurial income (37.1%). Entrepreneurial income. Much of entrepreneurial income is subject to FICA (clearly less of it will be once lawyers redefine to avoid the new payroll tax on the rich).
I don't at the moment see capital gains of the richest 0.01% so I will move down to the richest 0.1 %. Wage and salary income is about one third of their total income plus capital gains. Wage Salary and business income is about two thirds of their total income plus capital gains. Depending on FICA treatment of business income (and how it will change as they avoid paying FICA) the tax base for the increase in FICA is either one third or two thirds of the total income plus capital gains of the richest 0.1%. It is just not all all true that super duper ultra rich people wouldn't pay super duper immense amounts more given the FICA increase.
Now I can't say how avoidance will be attempted and prevented, but your objection to my objection to Krugman was stated in the present indicative, that is not what would be true in the future if the Obama plan were implemented but what is true now. You are right only if the actual distribution of business income into FICA and non FICA paying is extreme *and* means any fraction over 0.5.
Like the "middle class" equivocation a common gross error in thought (I am not speculating if anyone in that thread made that error) is the "most" equivocation. People sometimes argue that "most" is true of something using the over 0.5 definition then draw inferences from the "roughly 100%" re-definition. The implicit argument is that if 51% of something is x, then it is an OK approximation to assume that 100% of something is x in further calculations. Stated this way, it seems to be a crazy thing to do. It is a crazy thing to do. It is also done extremely frequently.
I keep going on and on
Robert Waldmann says...
More generally, I am not saying that Obama's proposal is perfect as policy (some compromises must be made to uhm you know win elections not to mention get bills through congress). I too would like a tax on personal income over 250,000 even more than extending FICA to FICA taxable income over 250,000.
I am certainly not saying that Obama will be able to make the USA a perfect place (guy who talked about health care mammoth). I am just saying that Krugman's criticisms of Obama's proposal cancel out, add up to nothing and refute each other.
Consider Krugman's implicit counter-proposal. Disclaimer: I do not say that Krugman is making this counter-proposal or that he would, just that a mechanical application of corrections corresponding to his criticisms would be as follows.
Criticism 1) eliminating Bush's cuts for families making over 250,000 a year is not enough of an income tax increase.
mechanically responding one would take more from families making less than $250,000.
Criticism 2) The Obama tax cut is not affordable
mechanically responding would be like imposing a tax increase compared to Obama's proposal which ismore regressive than a poll tax (because the tax cut phases out as income increases).
Criticism 3) extending FICA to individual FICA taxable income over $250,000 is a bad idea
Mechanically responding would mean taking less from families whose total income summed over all income recipients and over labor and capital income is over $250,000 (unless the other spouse has a loss making small business which manages to get total income under $250,000 that is except for a very very few families).
Thus Krugman says that Obama is trapped by Bush and makes criticisms such that, if one mechanically corrected Obama's alleged mistakes, one would liberate oneself from Bushism by taxing people who make less than $250,000 more and by taxing people who make more than $250,000 less.
This argument is simple arithmetic. It should not be controversial.
Monday, June 16, 2008
DDT thoughts
I promised on crooked timber that I would post this, so to keep my word I will even though it is silly. It is my ddtophilic reading of the DDT wiki.
My point was to have been that, once a chemical gets a bad rep, there is no way for it to be cleared, as it is impossible to prove a negative. The practice is, and should be, that any significant correlation is reported and taken seriously. Of course with many groups checking many correlations each, there will be lots of correlations which are significant at the 5% level. Then for most purposes, the tentative results are forgotten if they are not reproduced. This is fine for most purposes, but if the correlation is in a test for toxicity there is always new tentative evidence of new possible tocicities so a suspect chemical is never ever cleared.
In the case of DDT, there appears to be a fairly robust dangerous effect on reproductino and development because it is similar to estrogen. I don't have a real opinion on that one (time will tell). I wrote my comment in haste when I thought it was just the tentative correlation of the decade.
On toxicity
My reading of the WIKI is that it is about what one would expect for a benign chemical.
The list of suspected problems caused by DDT is long and alarming, but each seems to be supported by one or two studies. In the case of extensive follow up (breast cancer) meta analysis strongly suggested an effect very close to zero.
There are effects of huge doses reported in animals. More importantly there are reports of statistically significant epidemiological correlations. However, there isn't any particular alleged problem which is confirmed by meta-analysis of many studies.
If there were no true effect, I would expect a large number of initial reports of significant correlations due to publication bias and multiple tests statistics calculated in each study. My sense (if the wiki is complete) is that every decade there is a new discovered very bad effect (from one or two studies) then non confirmation.
To me this is the pattern that one would expect if an innocuous chemical were studied intensively.
Some points which make me suspect that DDTmight be totally inoccuous (remember "might" makes right)
1.In an early study, humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for about two years, and were then tracked for several years afterward. Although there was "suggestive evidence of adverse liver effects", no other adverse effects were observed.
^ CUETO C Jr, DURHAM WF, HAYES WJ Jr (1956). "The effect of known repeated oral doses of chlorophenothane (DDT) in man". J Am Med Assoc 162 (9): 890–7. PMID 13366680.
35 mg per day seems to me to be huge compared to exposure in actual use.
Breast cancer
Several studies have looked for associations between breast cancer and DDT exposure. Almost all studies have measured DDT or DDE blood levels at the time of breast cancer diagnosis or after. While individual studies have yielded conflicting results, taken as a whole, the studies of this design "do not support the hypothesis that exposure to DDT is an important risk factor for breast cancer."[57] These types of studies have been extensively reviewed:
* In 2007, the journal Cancer published a review of all of the epidemiological studies on breast cancer and DDT and DDE published between 2000 and 2006. The authors state that "Positive findings for well-controlled studies in the early 1990s of associations between breast cancer risk and the insecticide DDT, its breakdown product DDE, and PCBs prompted additional study. Snedeker reviewed studies of DDT/DDE and dieldrin, concluding that existing research strategies provided conflicting and mostly negative evidence…Updating the picture to 2006 provides…essentially unchanged conclusions for DDT/DDE…[I]n light of these findings, additional study of incident breast cancer in association with biological measures of DDE/DDT levels near the time of diagnosis is not a promising avenue."[58]
* similar conclusion based on meta-analysis deleted
* similar conclusion based on meta-analysis deleted
A new study in Environmental Health Perspectives found a strong association between exposure to the p,p-isomer of DDT early in life and breast cancer later in life.
Here there seems to have been a candidate consequence of DDT exposure which was extensively studied. The result is that the initial significant correlation seems to be one of the one in 20 expected due to chance (which would mean dozens in the literature if many studies are conducted and each separately tests for different possible toxicities).
Finally a new literature starts based on a new initial result.
There is also a literature on
I promised on crooked timber that I would post this, so to keep my word I will even though it is silly. It is my ddtophilic reading of the DDT wiki.
My point was to have been that, once a chemical gets a bad rep, there is no way for it to be cleared, as it is impossible to prove a negative. The practice is, and should be, that any significant correlation is reported and taken seriously. Of course with many groups checking many correlations each, there will be lots of correlations which are significant at the 5% level. Then for most purposes, the tentative results are forgotten if they are not reproduced. This is fine for most purposes, but if the correlation is in a test for toxicity there is always new tentative evidence of new possible tocicities so a suspect chemical is never ever cleared.
In the case of DDT, there appears to be a fairly robust dangerous effect on reproductino and development because it is similar to estrogen. I don't have a real opinion on that one (time will tell). I wrote my comment in haste when I thought it was just the tentative correlation of the decade.
On toxicity
My reading of the WIKI is that it is about what one would expect for a benign chemical.
The list of suspected problems caused by DDT is long and alarming, but each seems to be supported by one or two studies. In the case of extensive follow up (breast cancer) meta analysis strongly suggested an effect very close to zero.
There are effects of huge doses reported in animals. More importantly there are reports of statistically significant epidemiological correlations. However, there isn't any particular alleged problem which is confirmed by meta-analysis of many studies.
If there were no true effect, I would expect a large number of initial reports of significant correlations due to publication bias and multiple tests statistics calculated in each study. My sense (if the wiki is complete) is that every decade there is a new discovered very bad effect (from one or two studies) then non confirmation.
To me this is the pattern that one would expect if an innocuous chemical were studied intensively.
Some points which make me suspect that DDT
1.In an early study, humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for about two years, and were then tracked for several years afterward. Although there was "suggestive evidence of adverse liver effects", no other adverse effects were observed.
^ CUETO C Jr, DURHAM WF, HAYES WJ Jr (1956). "The effect of known repeated oral doses of chlorophenothane (DDT) in man". J Am Med Assoc 162 (9): 890–7. PMID 13366680.
35 mg per day seems to me to be huge compared to exposure in actual use.
Breast cancer
Several studies have looked for associations between breast cancer and DDT exposure. Almost all studies have measured DDT or DDE blood levels at the time of breast cancer diagnosis or after. While individual studies have yielded conflicting results, taken as a whole, the studies of this design "do not support the hypothesis that exposure to DDT is an important risk factor for breast cancer."[57] These types of studies have been extensively reviewed:
* In 2007, the journal Cancer published a review of all of the epidemiological studies on breast cancer and DDT and DDE published between 2000 and 2006. The authors state that "Positive findings for well-controlled studies in the early 1990s of associations between breast cancer risk and the insecticide DDT, its breakdown product DDE, and PCBs prompted additional study. Snedeker reviewed studies of DDT/DDE and dieldrin, concluding that existing research strategies provided conflicting and mostly negative evidence…Updating the picture to 2006 provides…essentially unchanged conclusions for DDT/DDE…[I]n light of these findings, additional study of incident breast cancer in association with biological measures of DDE/DDT levels near the time of diagnosis is not a promising avenue."[58]
* similar conclusion based on meta-analysis deleted
* similar conclusion based on meta-analysis deleted
A new study in Environmental Health Perspectives found a strong association between exposure to the p,p-isomer of DDT early in life and breast cancer later in life.
Here there seems to have been a candidate consequence of DDT exposure which was extensively studied. The result is that the initial significant correlation seems to be one of the one in 20 expected due to chance (which would mean dozens in the literature if many studies are conducted and each separately tests for different possible toxicities).
Finally a new literature starts based on a new initial result.
There is also a literature on
Sunday, June 15, 2008
HTML Mencken aka Retardo Montalban is dumping on Brad DeLong again.
I object in comments
You wrote "the neoliberal-wingnut consensus on economics and foreign policy " this implies that you believe 1) that there is a neoliberal-wingnut consensus on economics and 2) that there is a neloliberal-wingnut consensus on foreign policy.
Both opinions are totally false, but the second is clearly insane.
I don't know how you managed to get so confused about Brad DeLong who is neither clueless nor callous on class issues. He's the guy who told me that in 1992 a plurality of Americans supported "increased taxes on the rich to fund waste fraud and abuse" (It's a Clinton campaign internal stupid).
I personally got my often stated enthusiasm for class war http://tinyurl.com/6evnvb from Brad DeLong (that day).
I don't mean a shooting war, the rich have too much to lose to actually fight a class war with guns instead of money. I just mean that I think it would be an excellent idea to soak the rich.
I assume that you believe that no one who cares about US workers would be for free trade. Brad is for free trade and cares about US workers. However, Brad also cares about foreign workers. I think that it is a major rhetorical error to write "such people who regard their poorcountymen with only a bit more humanity than Trevelyan and Lord John Russell had for the Irish ."
Lord John Russell and Trevelyan were English (I'm not sure exactly which Tevelyan you have in mind but Wikipedia assures me that it is a Cornish surname). Thus theie indifference to the Irish had something to do with not caring about people of a different ethnicity and (really they would have admitted it to themselves) a whole different country. You when adding the word "countrymen" show that you are not indifferent to nationality. -- Not necessarily xenophobic, but put the interests of a US worker somewhat above that of a foreign worker. This is normal. The alternative is so far left that it is unmentionable in polite society. Brad DeLong is that far left (so am I).
He hasn't said it recently, but I personally have no doubt that he still believes that workers of all countries should unite (and work for free trade and progressive income taxation). I don't see how you got the idea that he agrees with wingnuts on anything.
update: HTML Mencken (the best nickname on the web) replies and is very civil and thoughtful (I think he was, quite correctly convinced that I am an actual personal friend of Brad's whose feeling were hurt).
#
I mean Fuck if I wanted civil discourse, I wouldn't have been readling sadly no !
However, if that's the way you want to debate, two can play that game.
I didn't explain my view on Russel and Trevelyan at all well. I wasn't saying that it was OK because they weren't Irish. I was, uhm, suggesting that uhm ... uhm ... (damn this civility business is a pain sometimes) while HTML is much further from Russell than most people are, he and Russell do have something in common which is that, like practically everyone, they believe that "Obviously, there is a hierarchy for responsible people to follow." If said responsible people are super powerful like say the President of the United States or Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that implies that there is a plain old hierarchy as some people (including HTML, Brade DeLong and me) rank high up on the hierarchy followed by the most powerful responsible people.
Now if you think that it is right and proper that the interests of different people are treated differently because of an accident of birth, well most people agree with you. I certainly don't. On that question I am on one side and Lord John, HTML and at least 99% of everyone who has ever lived are on the other.
I am a thoroughgoing opponent of hereditary privilege including national citizenship. HTML is not. To me, it does no good to argue that Nigerien people rank high in the responsibility of other Nigerien people who are mostly too poor to help.
I suspect, without proof, that Brad agrees with me. If I had proof, I would keep it secret as I think Brad has a chance of a political appointment in a hypothetical Obama administration and not his placing Americans higher than others would disqualify him if it were known.
Now as to the idea that Brad is an economic libertarian well civility can be so challenging at times. I would just say that it is very hard to reconcile with the evidence.
Oh and, by the way, HTML was polite but he didn't support his claims about Brad's views with any quotations or links.
So lets check. Health care
"Sin taxes (and, perhaps, someday general revenues) pay for an army of barefoot doctors and nurses and mobile treatment vans roaming the country, knocking on doors, and providing preventive and other long-run lifestyle services for free: Let me examine your prostate. Mind if I check your refrigerator and tell you how to eat healthier? Have you exercised today? I'm a Pilates instructor, and we could do a session now? Are you up on your immunizations? Anybody here have a fever and need antibiotics? Come on out to the van and I'll clean your teeth." The idea is to make the preventive care cheaper-than-free, to insure that nothing with a high long-run benefit/cost ratio gets left undone because people would rather get a bigger check the next April to use to buy an HDTV"
That is a huge expansion of public sector employment and a mild invasion of privacy all put together. Based on the idea that people don't make the right choices about say how much to eat (Brad would know). That is way further from libertarian than the Obama plan, or the Clinton plan, or the Edwards plan, or the Clinton Clinton and Magaziner plan, or single payer. It is even further from libertarian than the UK health system where you have to go to a gp they don't bug you on their own. The inspiration is clearly Mao Tze Tung (hence the word "barefoot"). On health care, Brad says we should learn from the success of Maoist China.
I think this quote constitutes proof that Brad is not an economic libertarian.
OK how about trade unions. Libertarians hate them. Brad supports them (he outsourced to Klein) http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/02/ezra_klein_on_t.html
Tighter environmental regulation check http://tinyurl.com/5zzzts
this is silly as is the claim that Brad is an economic libertarian.
Politically, I think of people in the professions, some of them moving in and out of government, or otherwise involved in policy-making, who are very attuned to and conscientiously follow conventional liberal positions on cultural issues but are clueless — and often more than a little callous — when it comes to class issues. The shorthand here is “Brad DeLong.” I myself never use “latte-sipping elitist” but I have and do use “technocrat elitist,” in the exact same spirit I recognize in the former phrase, when describing such people who regard their poor countymen with only a bit more humanity than Trevelyan and Lord John Russell had for the Irish.
[snip]
the neoliberal-wingnut consensus on economics and foreign policy
I object in comments
You wrote "the neoliberal-wingnut consensus on economics and foreign policy " this implies that you believe 1) that there is a neoliberal-wingnut consensus on economics and 2) that there is a neloliberal-wingnut consensus on foreign policy.
Both opinions are totally false, but the second is clearly insane.
I don't know how you managed to get so confused about Brad DeLong who is neither clueless nor callous on class issues. He's the guy who told me that in 1992 a plurality of Americans supported "increased taxes on the rich to fund waste fraud and abuse" (It's a Clinton campaign internal stupid).
I personally got my often stated enthusiasm for class war http://tinyurl.com/6evnvb from Brad DeLong (that day).
I don't mean a shooting war, the rich have too much to lose to actually fight a class war with guns instead of money. I just mean that I think it would be an excellent idea to soak the rich.
I assume that you believe that no one who cares about US workers would be for free trade. Brad is for free trade and cares about US workers. However, Brad also cares about foreign workers. I think that it is a major rhetorical error to write "such people who regard their poor
Lord John Russell and Trevelyan were English (I'm not sure exactly which Tevelyan you have in mind but Wikipedia assures me that it is a Cornish surname). Thus theie indifference to the Irish had something to do with not caring about people of a different ethnicity and (really they would have admitted it to themselves) a whole different country. You when adding the word "countrymen" show that you are not indifferent to nationality. -- Not necessarily xenophobic, but put the interests of a US worker somewhat above that of a foreign worker. This is normal. The alternative is so far left that it is unmentionable in polite society. Brad DeLong is that far left (so am I).
He hasn't said it recently, but I personally have no doubt that he still believes that workers of all countries should unite (and work for free trade and progressive income taxation). I don't see how you got the idea that he agrees with wingnuts on anything.
update: HTML Mencken (the best nickname on the web) replies and is very civil and thoughtful (I think he was, quite correctly convinced that I am an actual personal friend of Brad's whose feeling were hurt).
#
HTML Mencken said,
June 15, 2008 at 9:50
Robert, stop. It’s nice that you’re so loyal to DeLong, but you know exactly what I’m talking about. Anyone can read a free trade thread over there and see exactly what I’m talking about.
And don’t be a pedant about how the leaders and economists of GB rationalized Irish misery. Yes, the Irish were a different ethnic group; however, this is irrelevant to the nationality issue because the English were responbile for them. This is rather different than if they had been blase’ about the plight of, let us say, Germans — Trevelyan and Russell were not German *citizens* or overlords, had no political responsibility to or for Germany. Which is not to say — to use DeLong’s favored fallacy of undistributed middle — that as humans, they should not have cared about the suffering of Germans or indeed the people of any other nation. But that is very different from *responsibility*. Obviously, there is a heirarchy for responsible people to follow. At any rate, the Irish misery was rationalized by these people as much if not more on the grounds of “economic law” (sound familiar?) as on grounds of racism.
Brad DeLong is that far left (so am I).
Economic libertarian is not synoymous with “that far left.”
I mean Fuck if I wanted civil discourse, I wouldn't have been readling sadly no !
However, if that's the way you want to debate, two can play that game.
I didn't explain my view on Russel and Trevelyan at all well. I wasn't saying that it was OK because they weren't Irish. I was, uhm, suggesting that uhm ... uhm ... (damn this civility business is a pain sometimes) while HTML is much further from Russell than most people are, he and Russell do have something in common which is that, like practically everyone, they believe that "Obviously, there is a hierarchy for responsible people to follow." If said responsible people are super powerful like say the President of the United States or Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that implies that there is a plain old hierarchy as some people (including HTML, Brade DeLong and me) rank high up on the hierarchy followed by the most powerful responsible people.
Now if you think that it is right and proper that the interests of different people are treated differently because of an accident of birth, well most people agree with you. I certainly don't. On that question I am on one side and Lord John, HTML and at least 99% of everyone who has ever lived are on the other.
I am a thoroughgoing opponent of hereditary privilege including national citizenship. HTML is not. To me, it does no good to argue that Nigerien people rank high in the responsibility of other Nigerien people who are mostly too poor to help.
I suspect, without proof, that Brad agrees with me. If I had proof, I would keep it secret as I think Brad has a chance of a political appointment in a hypothetical Obama administration and not his placing Americans higher than others would disqualify him if it were known.
Now as to the idea that Brad is an economic libertarian well civility can be so challenging at times. I would just say that it is very hard to reconcile with the evidence.
Oh and, by the way, HTML was polite but he didn't support his claims about Brad's views with any quotations or links.
So lets check. Health care
"Sin taxes (and, perhaps, someday general revenues) pay for an army of barefoot doctors and nurses and mobile treatment vans roaming the country, knocking on doors, and providing preventive and other long-run lifestyle services for free: Let me examine your prostate. Mind if I check your refrigerator and tell you how to eat healthier? Have you exercised today? I'm a Pilates instructor, and we could do a session now? Are you up on your immunizations? Anybody here have a fever and need antibiotics? Come on out to the van and I'll clean your teeth." The idea is to make the preventive care cheaper-than-free, to insure that nothing with a high long-run benefit/cost ratio gets left undone because people would rather get a bigger check the next April to use to buy an HDTV"
That is a huge expansion of public sector employment and a mild invasion of privacy all put together. Based on the idea that people don't make the right choices about say how much to eat (Brad would know). That is way further from libertarian than the Obama plan, or the Clinton plan, or the Edwards plan, or the Clinton Clinton and Magaziner plan, or single payer. It is even further from libertarian than the UK health system where you have to go to a gp they don't bug you on their own. The inspiration is clearly Mao Tze Tung (hence the word "barefoot"). On health care, Brad says we should learn from the success of Maoist China.
I think this quote constitutes proof that Brad is not an economic libertarian.
OK how about trade unions. Libertarians hate them. Brad supports them (he outsourced to Klein) http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/02/ezra_klein_on_t.html
Tighter environmental regulation check http://tinyurl.com/5zzzts
this is silly as is the claim that Brad is an economic libertarian.
John McCain Vs the Constitution
It is not surprising that John McCain disagrees with the Supreme court decision in Boumediene et al vs USA that found the suspension of habeus corpus in the the Military commissions act unconstitutional. He was one of the two principal authors of the act.
Senator McCain goes on to prove that he knows his radical new interpretations of the constitution as he explains what he thinks congress did when, according to him, acting within its constitutional authority
OK so according to McCain, congress found that a number of people were enemy combatants.
Wouldn't That make the MCA a bill of attainder as in "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." ? Furthermore, the bill, according to McCain has the aggravating feature that congressmen were not even familiar with the facts concerning the people they were condemming including, for example, their names.
Obviously congress can, at most, establish procedures for deciding who is an enemy combatant and that is all the MCA presumed to do. Clearly it wasn't personally written by Senator McCain but rather by someone who has some idea what is written in the Constitution (Lindsey Graham maybe ?).
Although given the fact that the bill ignores "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." makes it unsuprising that McCain thinks that it ignores the next sentence in the constitution.
And who ever told John McCain that the ban on bills of attainder and the writ of habeus corpus are rights restricted to US citizens ? You will notice that the sentences from Article 1 section 9 do not include the word citizen. In fact the word does not appear in article 1 of the constitution. The restrictions in Article 1 describe things that congress may not do, at all, ever, to anyone, citizen or alien, pacifist or warrior.
Senator how about checking, when does the word "citizen" first appear in the body of the constitution ? Ah I see (just checked) article 4 section 2 which comes well after Article 1 Section 9.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." That is US states may not discriminate against citizens of other states (this was made more difficult by the 14th amendment). Notably Article 4 like the nth clause of the 14th amendment restricts state legislatures, in particular, it bans discrimination based on state citizenship (note citizenship rights certainly did not include the right to vote until the 15th amendment was ratified).
Unless I am much mistaken, the concept of US citizenship was introduced by the Alien act of 1800 and does not appear in the constitution or the bill of rights. If the founders had wished to introduce it, they could have done so along the lines of the 14th amendment (without the key bit which implies that African Americans are citizens) as in : The citizens of any state "are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." They did not do so, probably because the explicit declaration that citizens of each state were, from ratification on, a different type of citizens : citizens of the USA, was too radical.
I might be wrong about that, but the legal principle that the constitution provides rights to non citizens is extremely long established (not to mention the only possible good faith reading of the text). The conviction that it is a myth created by judicial activists that The Constitution establishes (or recognizes) rights of non-citizens as valid as the conviction that it is a myth that the founders mandated the separation of church and state -- something to be expected of McCains ex friends Hagee and Parsley but not of someone who swore to protect uphold and defend the constitution.
I propose a constitutional amendment.
28th Amendment
Before he or she enter on the Execution of his or her Office, each representative and each senator shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States which I swear (or affirm) under penalty of perjury reads as follows" and then read the constitution aloud. twice.
Notice that I didn't cut and paste the constitution into the oath, because my proposed amendment would make it an infinite loop.
It is not surprising that John McCain disagrees with the Supreme court decision in Boumediene et al vs USA that found the suspension of habeus corpus in the the Military commissions act unconstitutional. He was one of the two principal authors of the act.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday sharply denounced a Supreme Court decision that gave suspected terrorist detainees a right to seek their release in federal courts.
"I think it's one of the worst decisions in history," McCain said. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution."
Senator McCain goes on to prove that he knows his radical new interpretations of the constitution as he explains what he thinks congress did when, according to him, acting within its constitutional authority
on Friday, speaking to about 1,500 people at a town hall meeting in Pemberton, N.J., he attacked the decision, saying the law he helped write "made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, they are not citizens, they do not have the rights of citizens."
OK so according to McCain, congress found that a number of people were enemy combatants.
Wouldn't That make the MCA a bill of attainder as in "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." ? Furthermore, the bill, according to McCain has the aggravating feature that congressmen were not even familiar with the facts concerning the people they were condemming including, for example, their names.
Obviously congress can, at most, establish procedures for deciding who is an enemy combatant and that is all the MCA presumed to do. Clearly it wasn't personally written by Senator McCain but rather by someone who has some idea what is written in the Constitution (Lindsey Graham maybe ?).
Although given the fact that the bill ignores "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." makes it unsuprising that McCain thinks that it ignores the next sentence in the constitution.
And who ever told John McCain that the ban on bills of attainder and the writ of habeus corpus are rights restricted to US citizens ? You will notice that the sentences from Article 1 section 9 do not include the word citizen. In fact the word does not appear in article 1 of the constitution. The restrictions in Article 1 describe things that congress may not do, at all, ever, to anyone, citizen or alien, pacifist or warrior.
Senator how about checking, when does the word "citizen" first appear in the body of the constitution ? Ah I see (just checked) article 4 section 2 which comes well after Article 1 Section 9.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." That is US states may not discriminate against citizens of other states (this was made more difficult by the 14th amendment). Notably Article 4 like the nth clause of the 14th amendment restricts state legislatures, in particular, it bans discrimination based on state citizenship (note citizenship rights certainly did not include the right to vote until the 15th amendment was ratified).
Unless I am much mistaken, the concept of US citizenship was introduced by the Alien act of 1800 and does not appear in the constitution or the bill of rights. If the founders had wished to introduce it, they could have done so along the lines of the 14th amendment (without the key bit which implies that African Americans are citizens) as in : The citizens of any state "are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." They did not do so, probably because the explicit declaration that citizens of each state were, from ratification on, a different type of citizens : citizens of the USA, was too radical.
I might be wrong about that, but the legal principle that the constitution provides rights to non citizens is extremely long established (not to mention the only possible good faith reading of the text). The conviction that it is a myth created by judicial activists that The Constitution establishes (or recognizes) rights of non-citizens as valid as the conviction that it is a myth that the founders mandated the separation of church and state -- something to be expected of McCains ex friends Hagee and Parsley but not of someone who swore to protect uphold and defend the constitution.
I propose a constitutional amendment.
28th Amendment
Before he or she enter on the Execution of his or her Office, each representative and each senator shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States which I swear (or affirm) under penalty of perjury reads as follows" and then read the constitution aloud. twice.
Notice that I didn't cut and paste the constitution into the oath, because my proposed amendment would make it an infinite loop.
Friday, June 13, 2008
NASA and The New York Times gotta watch their language
On the latest Suttle Mission John Schwarz quotes and writes
I would suggest that Col. Virts might avoid using the word "impact," and that Schwartz should find some way to distract from Virts's unfortunate choice of words without suggesting that the crew will land on him.
That's gotta hurt.
On the latest Suttle Mission John Schwarz quotes and writes
“We’re confident that there’s no impact for entry,” said Col. Terry W. Virts, Jr., an astronaut serving as the point of contact on the ground for the crew.
I would suggest that Col. Virts might avoid using the word "impact," and that Schwartz should find some way to distract from Virts's unfortunate choice of words without suggesting that the crew will land on him.
That's gotta hurt.
Duncan Black is against the donut hole plan
Donuts
I suppose I'm in the against column when it comes to Obama's donut hole plan for Social security taxes.
[snip because I can detect no argument against Obama's plan]
So on balance I lean against, but it's not without merit.
...adding, I also oppose because I worry that any opening up of this door provides opportunity for mischief. A desire to win leads to bad Broderesque compromise with awful consequences.
I comment
To be against a policy proposal one should explain why it will make things worse. Obama's plan is not needed to save social security. However, it will reduce the overall deficit (the one that crowds out saving and investment) by taxing rich people.
You (Atrios) think that that is good policy. However, you think it is more important to say that social security is not in danger of collapse than to attempt to implement a policy which you would support if it had nothing to do with social security (as in extra payroll taxes paid to the general fund).
I stress that the "adding, I also" means that you oppose for some reason other than the last one you list, which is the only counter-argument that makes any sense at all.
And not much either. Opening the door on any change to the social security old age and disability program will only lead to bad Broderesque compromises if Democrats are stupid enough to tie exceedingly unpopular benefits cuts to the very popular increase in payroll taxes for the rich (60% without even the donut hole).
Nothing could be better for the Democratic party than a nice filibuster by Republicans trying to add benefit cuts or purely private and personal pension account possibilities.
Now the Democrats have a tendency to stupidly attempt to compromise with the Republicans, but your argument amounts to "that gang can't do anything right so it will end badly." It might be true, but following that logic would cause you to oppose it no matter what it is. This is, perhaps, the issue in which it will be most difficult for the Democrats to make a bad Broderesque compromise. that is not to say that it will be difficult enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that they won't manage.
Donuts
I suppose I'm in the against column when it comes to Obama's donut hole plan for Social security taxes.
[snip because I can detect no argument against Obama's plan]
So on balance I lean against, but it's not without merit.
...adding, I also oppose because I worry that any opening up of this door provides opportunity for mischief. A desire to win leads to bad Broderesque compromise with awful consequences.
I comment
To be against a policy proposal one should explain why it will make things worse. Obama's plan is not needed to save social security. However, it will reduce the overall deficit (the one that crowds out saving and investment) by taxing rich people.
You (Atrios) think that that is good policy. However, you think it is more important to say that social security is not in danger of collapse than to attempt to implement a policy which you would support if it had nothing to do with social security (as in extra payroll taxes paid to the general fund).
I stress that the "adding, I also" means that you oppose for some reason other than the last one you list, which is the only counter-argument that makes any sense at all.
And not much either. Opening the door on any change to the social security old age and disability program will only lead to bad Broderesque compromises if Democrats are stupid enough to tie exceedingly unpopular benefits cuts to the very popular increase in payroll taxes for the rich (60% without even the donut hole).
Nothing could be better for the Democratic party than a nice filibuster by Republicans trying to add benefit cuts or purely private and personal pension account possibilities.
Now the Democrats have a tendency to stupidly attempt to compromise with the Republicans, but your argument amounts to "that gang can't do anything right so it will end badly." It might be true, but following that logic would cause you to oppose it no matter what it is. This is, perhaps, the issue in which it will be most difficult for the Democrats to make a bad Broderesque compromise. that is not to say that it will be difficult enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that they won't manage.
Constitution Saved by the Warren Court -- Vincent Warren that is.
He is the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and he just e-mailed me to suggest that, if I liked Boumedienne et al v. Bush I might consider donating some money here.
I'm currently looking for my credit card (will update when I find it).
Update: Just found my credit card. Gave em some turkee (ok only $25).
He is the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and he just e-mailed me to suggest that, if I liked Boumedienne et al v. Bush I might consider donating some money here.
I'm currently looking for my credit card (will update when I find it).
Update: Just found my credit card. Gave em some turkee (ok only $25).
Thursday, June 12, 2008
David Kurtz notes that CNN actually presents US voters with some useful information.
Clear as a bell indeed.
For CNN it is outstanding.
Also see Mark Kleiman and Matt Yglesias
Now they never make it clear if the income levels are individual or family income. to the extent that there are hints, they appear to refer to individual income, but they make no sense as categories of individual income (they are way too high). In fact they make little sense as categories of family income.
I have to check with their source, which, of course, is easier to find from talking points memo (a click away). It is not promising as the bit quoted by Kurtz refers to "earners" that is individuals (except for joint capital income if it is called earnings even though the IRS calls it unearned income)and to "households". The reference to households makes no sense. Taxes are based on families not households. Unmarried couples living together (and sharing living expenses) are one household for the Census but two families for the IRS. Anything to do with taxes comes under the heading "single" "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately." Don't matter how committed you are, to the IRS, if you don't have that ring it don't mean a thing (which is right generous of them since the marriage penalty has been reduced but not eliminated).
In fact, the Tax Policy Center is definitely attempting to calculate the impact by household income. HoweverI'm not sure how they map the tax code to households (and I'm not planning to read their whole large *.pdf to find out).
Jerri Willis of CNN and the tax policy center itself in its summary were very sloppy sometimes suggesting that the income levels referred to individual income rather than household income.
OK this is bizarre. The Tax Policy Center claims to determine the effect of policy changes depending on household income, but they choose income levels based on quintile of the individual income distribution. I have no idea why (OK I know why but I don't want to say). Thus the effects are calculated for households whose income is in this that or the other quintile of the individual income distribution. Thus the fraction of households in the lower two quintiles is less than 40%.
Key quote footnote 2 to Table 1 "The cash income percentile classes used in this table are based on the income distribution for the entire population and contain equal number (sic) of people, not tax units. The breaks are (in 2008 dollars) 20% $18,918, 40% $37,595, 60% 66,354, 80% 111,645, 90% $ 160,972 95% $226,918, 99% 603,402 99.9% 2,871,682."
Now CNN doesn't even mention household which receive less than $38,000 a year, as if they don't exist. The poorest of the poor according to CNN make $38,000. In 2005 (last year available) 29.6% of US families (their word) had income under $35,000 per year. I would have guessed that new taxes will apply on 2010 income (the Tax Policy Center seems to assume they would apply on 2009 income that is be slightly retroactive). 2009 income will be higher in dollars than 2005 income at least due to inflation (and probably nothing else for lower income households). For some reason the Tax Policy Center attempts to forecast income distribution for 2009 (so reforms wo. Also the Tax Policy Center is somehow doing households which can include more than one family. According to my feeble effort to extrapolate and interpolate about 23% of households are too poor to matter to CNN.
Households with income in the lowest quintile of the individual income distribution would get an average tax cut of $567 from Obama and of $19 from McCain. Households in the second quintile of the individual income distribution would get an average tax cut of $892 from Obama and of $ 113 from McCain. It is clear that CNN decided that middle income households are the poor in order to ballance their report, since a complete report of the Tax Policy Center's analysis would be too helpful to Obama.
There is also a little bit of TV talking head distorted perspective as Gerri Willis describes "people" making $66,000 to $ 112,000 as "in the middle of the income distribution" before the correction "which is actually pretty rich in this country [or any other ndrjw]." People making that income are the second highest quintile of the individual income distribution. She means to say "households" which would be (very rhoughly) above the 56.5 percentile if they were families in 2005 going well up over the 78.2th percentile ($100,000). OK so correct for 3 years of income growth (mainly inflation) and households not families and I get something like 50th percentile to still well over the 70th*.
She also rounded Obama's proposed cut for such fairly rich people of $1,290 (put right on the screen by CNN) down to $ 1,200 to save two syllables (and if one must round one should round to the nearest hundred to $ 1,300).
Finally before noting that it is not true of the Obama plan, she says "you would expect the Democrats to raise taxes on lots of folks ..." OK Ms Willis when was the last time that taxes on lots of folks were raised under a Democratic President ? I believe that that was Lyndon Johnson's anti-inflation tax surcharge (and before that Roosevelt). You would expect the Democrats to raise taxes on lots of folks if you were deceived by Republican propaganda. Now it is true that Democrats in congress voted for a large broad tax increase when Bush sr was President and for a huge extremely broad tax increase when Ronald Reagan was President, but in the past 40 years the vast majority of people have not seen their taxes raised so long as a Democrat was in the White House. Even when reporting that the Republicans are attempting to trick people this time, Willis suggests that their very successful 40 year old campaign of deceit was not totally dishonest fraud.
Still utterly outstanding for the MSM and definitely worth the teeny tiny bit of attention I can get for it on top of the huge CNN and the medium sized TPM.
*update: corrected from 80th. Of course the 80th percentile of the individual income distribution is lower than the 80th percentile of the household income distribution. I was being silly. At that level, real incomes have grown a lot in the USA (although at a rate far below that of the super duper rich).
Clear as a bell indeed.
For CNN it is outstanding.
Also see Mark Kleiman and Matt Yglesias
Now they never make it clear if the income levels are individual or family income. to the extent that there are hints, they appear to refer to individual income, but they make no sense as categories of individual income (they are way too high). In fact they make little sense as categories of family income.
I have to check with their source, which, of course, is easier to find from talking points memo (a click away). It is not promising as the bit quoted by Kurtz refers to "earners" that is individuals (except for joint capital income if it is called earnings even though the IRS calls it unearned income)and to "households". The reference to households makes no sense. Taxes are based on families not households. Unmarried couples living together (and sharing living expenses) are one household for the Census but two families for the IRS. Anything to do with taxes comes under the heading "single" "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately." Don't matter how committed you are, to the IRS, if you don't have that ring it don't mean a thing (which is right generous of them since the marriage penalty has been reduced but not eliminated).
In fact, the Tax Policy Center is definitely attempting to calculate the impact by household income. HoweverI'm not sure how they map the tax code to households (and I'm not planning to read their whole large *.pdf to find out).
Jerri Willis of CNN and the tax policy center itself in its summary were very sloppy sometimes suggesting that the income levels referred to individual income rather than household income.
OK this is bizarre. The Tax Policy Center claims to determine the effect of policy changes depending on household income, but they choose income levels based on quintile of the individual income distribution. I have no idea why (OK I know why but I don't want to say). Thus the effects are calculated for households whose income is in this that or the other quintile of the individual income distribution. Thus the fraction of households in the lower two quintiles is less than 40%.
Key quote footnote 2 to Table 1 "The cash income percentile classes used in this table are based on the income distribution for the entire population and contain equal number (sic) of people, not tax units. The breaks are (in 2008 dollars) 20% $18,918, 40% $37,595, 60% 66,354, 80% 111,645, 90% $ 160,972 95% $226,918, 99% 603,402 99.9% 2,871,682."
Now CNN doesn't even mention household which receive less than $38,000 a year, as if they don't exist. The poorest of the poor according to CNN make $38,000. In 2005 (last year available) 29.6% of US families (their word) had income under $35,000 per year. I would have guessed that new taxes will apply on 2010 income (the Tax Policy Center seems to assume they would apply on 2009 income that is be slightly retroactive). 2009 income will be higher in dollars than 2005 income at least due to inflation (and probably nothing else for lower income households). For some reason the Tax Policy Center attempts to forecast income distribution for 2009 (so reforms wo. Also the Tax Policy Center is somehow doing households which can include more than one family. According to my feeble effort to extrapolate and interpolate about 23% of households are too poor to matter to CNN.
Households with income in the lowest quintile of the individual income distribution would get an average tax cut of $567 from Obama and of $19 from McCain. Households in the second quintile of the individual income distribution would get an average tax cut of $892 from Obama and of $ 113 from McCain. It is clear that CNN decided that middle income households are the poor in order to ballance their report, since a complete report of the Tax Policy Center's analysis would be too helpful to Obama.
There is also a little bit of TV talking head distorted perspective as Gerri Willis describes "people" making $66,000 to $ 112,000 as "in the middle of the income distribution" before the correction "which is actually pretty rich in this country [or any other ndrjw]." People making that income are the second highest quintile of the individual income distribution. She means to say "households" which would be (very rhoughly) above the 56.5 percentile if they were families in 2005 going well up over the 78.2th percentile ($100,000). OK so correct for 3 years of income growth (mainly inflation) and households not families and I get something like 50th percentile to still well over the 70th*.
She also rounded Obama's proposed cut for such fairly rich people of $1,290 (put right on the screen by CNN) down to $ 1,200 to save two syllables (and if one must round one should round to the nearest hundred to $ 1,300).
Finally before noting that it is not true of the Obama plan, she says "you would expect the Democrats to raise taxes on lots of folks ..." OK Ms Willis when was the last time that taxes on lots of folks were raised under a Democratic President ? I believe that that was Lyndon Johnson's anti-inflation tax surcharge (and before that Roosevelt). You would expect the Democrats to raise taxes on lots of folks if you were deceived by Republican propaganda. Now it is true that Democrats in congress voted for a large broad tax increase when Bush sr was President and for a huge extremely broad tax increase when Ronald Reagan was President, but in the past 40 years the vast majority of people have not seen their taxes raised so long as a Democrat was in the White House. Even when reporting that the Republicans are attempting to trick people this time, Willis suggests that their very successful 40 year old campaign of deceit was not totally dishonest fraud.
Still utterly outstanding for the MSM and definitely worth the teeny tiny bit of attention I can get for it on top of the huge CNN and the medium sized TPM.
*update: corrected from 80th. Of course the 80th percentile of the individual income distribution is lower than the 80th percentile of the household income distribution. I was being silly. At that level, real incomes have grown a lot in the USA (although at a rate far below that of the super duper rich).
Women Fight for Right to Join al Qaeda
New frontiers in women's struggle for equality in the struggle for Sharia ...
So I wonder, do women martyrs get 72 virgins ? If so, what is the gender of their virgins ?
I'll go to the source
RJW: O prophet, some people claim that Allah the just the merciful is sexist, because virtuous Moslem men get 72 women in heaven. What about virtuous Moslem women ? Do they get 72 men in heaven.
M: No that would be in hell.
update: I blasphemously increased the number of virgins promised in heaven from 90 to 72. I wasn't trying to pull a fast one oh Just and Merciful One. I'm going to hell in any case.
(AP) Muslim extremist women are challenging al Qaeda's refusal to include - or at least acknowledge - women in its ranks,
New frontiers in women's struggle for equality in the struggle for Sharia ...
So I wonder, do women martyrs get 72 virgins ? If so, what is the gender of their virgins ?
I'll go to the source
RJW: O prophet, some people claim that Allah the just the merciful is sexist, because virtuous Moslem men get 72 women in heaven. What about virtuous Moslem women ? Do they get 72 men in heaven.
M: No that would be in hell.
update: I blasphemously increased the number of virgins promised in heaven from 90 to 72. I wasn't trying to pull a fast one oh Just and Merciful One. I'm going to hell in any case.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Seven Percent Solution
or
0.07 licensed to Bill
Matthew Yglesias notes that 7% of US residents describe their ethnicity as "American" and that they are concentrated roughly in Appalachia and more precisely in the counties where more than 65% of Democratic primary voters voted for Clinton.
Below is a map in which the areas with the highest concentration of un-hyphenated American Americans are red
Now the map of counties that Hillary Clinton has won by more than 65% -- the grey gaps are Kentucky and West Virginia which hadn't voted yet.
Basically Clinton Hammered Obama in areas with a lot of American-Americans unless they also had a whole lot of African Americans and also hammered him in upstate New York, Upper Michigan and the technically not in Mexico counties in Southern South Texas.
* Update: typo corrected. Thanks to Brendan Keefe.
Now I understand the Irish American John McCain's slogan "The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For" I guess he was told the election depends on 7 % of the vote by the guy who told him that cutting $ 28 billion a year in earmarks would balance hundreds of Billions* a year of tax cuts for the rich (Mark Penn probably).
Hmmm What is the ethnicity of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson and Taft ? Also would Eisenhower and the Roosevelts have admitted to being German American ? I'd say that in the 20th century the US had 2 Irish-American Presidents, 3 German-American Presidents and one or two English American Presidents (Wilson was one) and nine or ten hyphenless Presidents.
or
0.07 licensed to Bill
Matthew Yglesias notes that 7% of US residents describe their ethnicity as "American" and that they are concentrated roughly in Appalachia and more precisely in the counties where more than 65% of Democratic primary voters voted for Clinton.
Below is a map in which the areas with the highest concentration of un-hyphenated American Americans are red
Now the map of counties that Hillary Clinton has won by more than 65% -- the grey gaps are Kentucky and West Virginia which hadn't voted yet.
Basically Clinton Hammered Obama in areas with a lot of American-Americans unless they also had a whole lot of African Americans and also hammered him in upstate New York, Upper Michigan and the technically not in Mexico counties in Southern South Texas.
* Update: typo corrected. Thanks to Brendan Keefe.
Now I understand the Irish American John McCain's slogan "The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For" I guess he was told the election depends on 7 % of the vote by the guy who told him that cutting $ 28 billion a year in earmarks would balance hundreds of Billions* a year of tax cuts for the rich (Mark Penn probably).
Hmmm What is the ethnicity of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson and Taft ? Also would Eisenhower and the Roosevelts have admitted to being German American ? I'd say that in the 20th century the US had 2 Irish-American Presidents, 3 German-American Presidents and one or two English American Presidents (Wilson was one) and nine or ten hyphenless Presidents.
Andrew Northrup catches Fred Hiatt making an inaccurate quotation in the Washington Post
I clicked the links. He's right. My *s.
Deleting the clause noting that, uhm Bush lied, without ellipses is sleazy but not clearly falsification of a matter of indisputable fact. Changing a comma to a period is a misquotation. Hiatt chose to feebly attempt to hide the fact that his quotation from the report was deceptive by falsifying the text of the report.
I think that replacing a comma with a period, when one is deleting part of a sentence is an effort to use plain fraud to hide the fact that the sentence was mangled.
Ellipses then period is sleazy but not a firing offence, a comma then end quote is sleazy but not a firing offence. Replacing a comma with a period is, in this context, like replacing a word with another word.
I think that, if the Washington Post wants people to assume that factual claims in the post are accurate, then they have to fire Hiatt.
I admire Northrup's work effort and, still more, his ability to maintain his sense of humor while reading Hiatt. Hell I admire his ability to actually read Hiatt. I haven't managed to do that in years.
update: Good commenters too.
Grace Nearing Says:
June 9, 2008 at 10:39 pm
See so it all makes sense and is all about punctuation. To defend people who removed question marks and inserted explamation points, Hiatt removed commas and inserted periods.
I clicked the links. He's right. My *s.
Hiatt:
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.*”
The actual report (pg. 15):
(U) Conclusion 1: Statements by the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates,* but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.
Deleting the clause noting that, uhm Bush lied, without ellipses is sleazy but not clearly falsification of a matter of indisputable fact. Changing a comma to a period is a misquotation. Hiatt chose to feebly attempt to hide the fact that his quotation from the report was deceptive by falsifying the text of the report.
I think that replacing a comma with a period, when one is deleting part of a sentence is an effort to use plain fraud to hide the fact that the sentence was mangled.
Ellipses then period is sleazy but not a firing offence, a comma then end quote is sleazy but not a firing offence. Replacing a comma with a period is, in this context, like replacing a word with another word.
I think that, if the Washington Post wants people to assume that factual claims in the post are accurate, then they have to fire Hiatt.
I admire Northrup's work effort and, still more, his ability to maintain his sense of humor while reading Hiatt. Hell I admire his ability to actually read Hiatt. I haven't managed to do that in years.
update: Good commenters too.
Grace Nearing Says:
June 9, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I think Hans Blix (nonnative speaker of English, of course) had the most concise description of what was going on. In essence, where inspectors and intelligence analysts originally put questions marks, Bush and Cheney inserted exclamation points instead.
To this day, I haven’t heard a better or more succinct explanation.
See so it all makes sense and is all about punctuation. To defend people who removed question marks and inserted explamation points, Hiatt removed commas and inserted periods.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Fantapolitica Indeed
If the US election were decided by Italians, Barack Obama would win. He leads John McCain 70 % to 15 % in the latest Daily Telegraph poll of people who can't vote in the USA.
Also in very notable contrast to people in France, Germany, Russia and even the UK, many more Italians consider the USA a force for good (49%) than a force for evil (27%).
I live in Italy and, believe me, I have noticed.
If the US election were decided by Italians, Barack Obama would win. He leads John McCain 70 % to 15 % in the latest Daily Telegraph poll of people who can't vote in the USA.
Also in very notable contrast to people in France, Germany, Russia and even the UK, many more Italians consider the USA a force for good (49%) than a force for evil (27%).
I live in Italy and, believe me, I have noticed.
Monday, June 02, 2008
The Social Effects of Unexpected Income
When a bunch of dutch people with the same postal code (nearby residence) win the lottery, their neighbors are more likely to buy a car (presumably to keep up with the de Jongses
Mark Thoma explains and provides links.
Very kind of the Dutch republic to subsidize experimental economics.
When a bunch of dutch people with the same postal code (nearby residence) win the lottery, their neighbors are more likely to buy a car (presumably to keep up with the de Jongses
Mark Thoma explains and provides links.
Very kind of the Dutch republic to subsidize experimental economics.
Brad DeLong publishes his undergraduate thesis on the web.
I ask why he is publishing recent work instead of the really good stuff he wrote in High School.
What about the story you wrote when you were in high school about getting lost in the wilds of your parents' back yard (so realistic that I slipped into referring to it as if it were fact once) ?
That was excellent (although blog readers will be puzzled by the apparently respectful reference to the Washington Post Editorial board which wrote "it is a good thing that a youth can get lost in the woods in the middle of Washington DC" (in the story) and not "Opinions as to whether a youth can get lost in the woods in the middle of Washington DC differ. "
Ars lunga vita breve it's so hard for today's readers to understand the cultural context of the 70's when people wore bell bottoms to discos and Brad DeLong deeply respected the Washington Post.
I ask why he is publishing recent work instead of the really good stuff he wrote in High School.
What about the story you wrote when you were in high school about getting lost in the wilds of your parents' back yard (so realistic that I slipped into referring to it as if it were fact once) ?
That was excellent (although blog readers will be puzzled by the apparently respectful reference to the Washington Post Editorial board which wrote "it is a good thing that a youth can get lost in the woods in the middle of Washington DC" (in the story) and not "Opinions as to whether a youth can get lost in the woods in the middle of Washington DC differ. "
Ars lunga vita breve it's so hard for today's readers to understand the cultural context of the 70's when people wore bell bottoms to discos and Brad DeLong deeply respected the Washington Post.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Self Identified Republicans want Class War
US citizens strongly support the Democrats position on taxes. Self described Republicans agree with the Democrats message if they are not told that it is the Democrats message.
This amazing fact is on page 31 of this long *.pdf which Josh Kahn posted and discusses
The relevant excerpt from the *.pdf. A large part of the purpose of the poll was to see if people are just turned off by the word "Republican" or disagree with the Republican position on issues. The evidence is overwhelming that they disagree with the Republican position -- that residual support for Republicans is a matter of partisan loyalty and not support for their policy proposals.
I am interested in US public support for soaking the rich. This poll (like all polls I have seen) suggests that it is very very strong. The poll presents the message on the issue proposed by the parties and asks respondents to choose which is closer to their views.
The amazing thing (reported on the next page) is that if the parties are not named, so the choice is between the messages of "some people" and "other people", then self identified Republicans prefer the Democratic message to the Republican message by 52% to 38%.
To my eyes, this seems mainly to indicate that self declared Republicans prefer "limit the influence of lobbyists and repeal the
special interest tax breaks for oil companies and repeal President
Bush's tax breaks for those earning over two hundred thousand
dollars " to "ending the tens of billions
of dollars of our tax money that is squandered by Congress on useless
pork-barrel projects."
It might not have been a good move for the Republicans to admit that (at most) only tens of billions are involved (clearly many fewer dollars for the middle class are there than in repealing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over two hundred thousand dollars).
I'd say that this poll proves (again) that Americans (evidently including self identified Republicans) just can't wait to mount a counter-offensive in the class war.
It reminds me of the amazing polling event in 1992 when there was a focus group invited to push buttons marked agree disagree (or push neither) and self proclaimed Republicans pushed agree when Clinton said that under Reagan ande Bush Sr "only rich people have gotten tax cuts"
h/t Ezra Klein
US citizens strongly support the Democrats position on taxes. Self described Republicans agree with the Democrats message if they are not told that it is the Democrats message.
This amazing fact is on page 31 of this long *.pdf which Josh Kahn posted and discusses
The relevant excerpt from the *.pdf. A large part of the purpose of the poll was to see if people are just turned off by the word "Republican" or disagree with the Republican position on issues. The evidence is overwhelming that they disagree with the Republican position -- that residual support for Republicans is a matter of partisan loyalty and not support for their policy proposals.
I am interested in US public support for soaking the rich. This poll (like all polls I have seen) suggests that it is very very strong. The poll presents the message on the issue proposed by the parties and asks respondents to choose which is closer to their views.
Republicans/Some people say we must cut taxes on the middle class
and double the federal tax credit for dependents for every family in
America. We must permanently ban internet taxes and ban new cell
phone taxes. We must stop corporate welfare by removing the tax
loopholes that are costly and unfair. And, it is time to reduce the
pressure to raise taxes by once and for all ending the tens of billions
of dollars of our tax money that is squandered by Congress on useless
pork-barrel projects.
["Republicans" get 39% support
"Some people" get 34% support]
Democrats/Other people say with such financial pressure on
pressures on families, we need to focus completely on middle class tax
relief and making sure government works for them, not the special
interests. We should limit the influence of lobbyists and repeal the
special interest tax breaks for oil companies and repeal President
Bush's tax breaks for those earning over two hundred thousand
dollars so that we can really help the middle class. We should extend
tax credits for children, make college costs tax deductible and cut
taxes across the board for the middle class.
[Democrats get 54%
Other People get 56 %]
The amazing thing (reported on the next page) is that if the parties are not named, so the choice is between the messages of "some people" and "other people", then self identified Republicans prefer the Democratic message to the Republican message by 52% to 38%.
To my eyes, this seems mainly to indicate that self declared Republicans prefer "limit the influence of lobbyists and repeal the
special interest tax breaks for oil companies and repeal President
Bush's tax breaks for those earning over two hundred thousand
dollars " to "ending the tens of billions
of dollars of our tax money that is squandered by Congress on useless
pork-barrel projects."
It might not have been a good move for the Republicans to admit that (at most) only tens of billions are involved (clearly many fewer dollars for the middle class are there than in repealing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over two hundred thousand dollars).
I'd say that this poll proves (again) that Americans (evidently including self identified Republicans) just can't wait to mount a counter-offensive in the class war.
It reminds me of the amazing polling event in 1992 when there was a focus group invited to push buttons marked agree disagree (or push neither) and self proclaimed Republicans pushed agree when Clinton said that under Reagan ande Bush Sr "only rich people have gotten tax cuts"
h/t Ezra Klein
They Just don't make Sex Scandals like the used to
TPMuckraker reports Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons is getting divorced
Dawn Gibbons argues that he is doing so because he has a relationship with one Kathy Karrasch.
awwwwwwwww.
This is the governor featured on TPMuckraker arguing about why he grabbed a cocktail waitress in a parking lot (he said she slipped and was falling). I knew then that he was on the wrong path. Now -- gasp -- he is involved with filming a high school class play ?!?!?!
TPMuckraker reports Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons is getting divorced
Dawn Gibbons argues that he is doing so because he has a relationship with one Kathy Karrasch.
The Reno Gazette-Journal offers more details about the relationship.
Karrasch lives a few blocks away from the Gibbonses' Reno home. ... Jim Gibbons was seen having dinner with Karrasch and three other people May 10 at the Atlantis Sky Terrace Oyster and Sushi Bar. He also attended the Galena High School play on May 1 to see Karrasch's daughter perform.
Although he attended the play alone, he spent the second half standing with Karrasch in the back of the room while she filmed her daughter, according to video footage provided to the Reno Gazette-Journal.
Gibbons' spokesman Ben Kieckhefer said the governor attended the play at the invitation of an unnamed neighbor.
awwwwwwwww.
This is the governor featured on TPMuckraker arguing about why he grabbed a cocktail waitress in a parking lot (he said she slipped and was falling). I knew then that he was on the wrong path. Now -- gasp -- he is involved with filming a high school class play ?!?!?!
FactCheck Check
I haven't been keeping up with the Washington Post Fact Check, but this is too good to skip.
topay Michael Dobbs compared the McCain campaign to minitrue
Ouch ! that's gotta hurt.
I haven't been keeping up with the Washington Post Fact Check, but this is too good to skip.
topay Michael Dobbs compared the McCain campaign to minitrue
But verb tenses matter, particularly in the case of Iraq, where it is very difficult to predict what is going to happen next week, let alone next month. By the Scheunemann standard of linguistic analysis, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Bush administration's claim of "Mission Accomplished" back in May 2003. As we now know, a few things happened after that date to make the claim somewhat premature.
Taking a decision to do something and actually implementing it are two very different matters. To claim the contrary reminds me of the motto from the Ministry of Information in George Orwell's 1984: "He who controls the past controls the future; and he who controls the present controls the past."
Ouch ! that's gotta hurt.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Rep. Jerry Moran gets a Brain
Scout Finch notes
I deleted two senators but kept Todd Tiahrt because the "time with his family" is so excellent. Mainly, I just love this photo
Scout Finch notes
President Bush is on the fundraising trail for unrepentent Republicans, with an appearance today in Bucyrus, Kansas - just south of Kansas City. He is raising cash for the Kansas GOP and State Rep. Nick Jordan, who is challenging Democratic Rep. Dennis Moore in KS-03. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Bush appearance is who isn't there. The KC Star notes who is absent and their list of * cough * previous commitments:
[snip]
Rep. Jerry Moran, a Republican who represents western Kansas, will be at another event in the state, while Wichita-area Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt plans to spend time with his family, spokeswomen for the lawmakers said.
I deleted two senators but kept Todd Tiahrt because the "time with his family" is so excellent. Mainly, I just love this photo
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Samefacts Bug Wapo Disgrace
Comments over at the reality based community (Mark Kleiman mayor founder chairman and chief poobah) seem to be on the fritz again.
Kleiman notes the gross pro McCain bias of recent campaign coverage.
I wanted to add an extreme example.
First I discuss the front page of www.washingtonpost.com without clicking through to the article. The question is what impression will be left with people who don't click through. Also I am angry enough to be not at all eager to read the article (I wouldn't read it if I weren't posting about the headline)
The front page of www.washingtonpost.com addresses the question of whether a lobbyist is working for the Obama campaign. On the front page, there is no mention of the fact that many lobbyists are working for the McCain campaign. I think this is gross bias.
Now, a case can be made, that it is not news that lobbyists work for McCain (although as Kleiman notes,it is impossible to make the case that the news that Gramm was a registered lobbyists for UBS when he advised McCain on the banknig crisis is not news). Also that McCain never said he wouldn't rely on lobbyists to guide his campaign.
And finally, there is a dispute about whether a Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod is a lobbyist, because he isn't. He is an astroturfer (something different and not a registered lobbyist which means he has organized mass participation campaigns for clients other than Barack Obama including issue campaigns as well as electoral campaigns. I mean the [relatively serious (phrase added after I read the article)] case is that one of the leaders of Obama's campaign is a campaigner. Since it is possible to argue that Axelrod is sortof something like a lobbyist and it is impossible to doubt that the registered lobbyists who work for McCain are lobbyists, the McCain campaign can make newspapers spend as much ink on one non lobbyist as many lobbyists.
Now I'll click the link and read the story (my comment was on the placement on www.washingtonpost.com)
Oh. My. God. The front page of www.washingtonpost.com article is about "The co-director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign in Puerto Rico ... Francisco J. PavÃa"
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me. The article is about the Obama campaign in a free associated state which is not represented in the general election.
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum goes on to write
This is absolutely utterly false. The McCain campaign is totally shameless and so they are trying to argue that McCain has repudiated lobbyists. Many of them are lobbyists temporarily on leave from lobbying (one was lobbying from the back of the straight talk express). McCain is quite obviously not trying to outdo anyone in the repudiation of lobbyists (he might be trying to outdo all previous major party candidates in his reliance on lobbyists). He is, claiming to be independent of special interests because he is lying.
Now I guess "repudiate" is an ambiguous word as a repudiation is a statement (it would have been even more clearly false to write "have been trying to outdo each other in their exclusion of lobbyists from their campaigns" but a repudiation is directed at the repudiated not wink wink nudge nudge at the rubes who don't know the facts because journalists like Birnbaum have chosen to hide them.
Birnbaum quotes "Obama has criticized McCain for enlisting 'some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington' to run his presidential campaign." in pure he says she says format. He does not note in his own voice that Obama's claim is accurate, thus it is presented as an accusation which might or might not be true. Worse he notes McCain's firing of 5 lobbyists which might lead the ignorant reader to assume that the accusation is no longer valid. An interest in simple accuracy would have required Birnbaum to note that the five didn't include the campaign manager and the chief strategist so Obama's criticism remains valid.
There is another case
I am dumbstruck again. This time by the utter awesomeness of the Obama movement. Working as a get out the vote volunteer is a very very humble task and not a path to massive influence. Mercado is a lobbyist and thus a member of a profession not noted for public spirit or contempt for money. He was willing to give up money to work getting out the vote. This is huge.
After all, I'm glad I read the article. It is clearly an article criticizing Obama required for ballance. The fact that I find a smear piece inspiring because it shows that the Obama movement is an even more extraordinary and powerful explosion of public spirit and solidarity than I imagined is the strongest conceivable proof that something amazing is happening in the USA.
Comments over at the reality based community (Mark Kleiman mayor founder chairman and chief poobah) seem to be on the fritz again.
Kleiman notes the gross pro McCain bias of recent campaign coverage.
It's not that the press actually bought the silly Republican spin that Obama is "gaffe-prone;" but they let the RNC catch them up in the argument, distracting them from the Gramm story, which should have been devastating to McCain.
I wanted to add an extreme example.
First I discuss the front page of www.washingtonpost.com without clicking through to the article. The question is what impression will be left with people who don't click through. Also I am angry enough to be not at all eager to read the article (I wouldn't read it if I weren't posting about the headline)
The front page of www.washingtonpost.com addresses the question of whether a lobbyist is working for the Obama campaign. On the front page, there is no mention of the fact that many lobbyists are working for the McCain campaign. I think this is gross bias.
Obama's Lobbying Contradiction
High-profile staffer appears counter to campaign's rules, which forbid lobbyists from joining staff.
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | 6:55 p.m. ET
* The Trail Florida Voter's Lawsuit Dismissed
* McCain's Rebuke May Have Angered Evangelicals
* For McCain, a Switch on Telecom Immunity?
Treaty Bans Cluster Bombs
Now, a case can be made, that it is not news that lobbyists work for McCain (although as Kleiman notes,it is impossible to make the case that the news that Gramm was a registered lobbyists for UBS when he advised McCain on the banknig crisis is not news). Also that McCain never said he wouldn't rely on lobbyists to guide his campaign.
And finally, there is a dispute about whether a Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod is a lobbyist, because he isn't. He is an astroturfer (something different and not a registered lobbyist which means he has organized mass participation campaigns for clients other than Barack Obama including issue campaigns as well as electoral campaigns. I mean the [relatively serious (phrase added after I read the article)] case is that one of the leaders of Obama's campaign is a campaigner. Since it is possible to argue that Axelrod is sortof something like a lobbyist and it is impossible to doubt that the registered lobbyists who work for McCain are lobbyists, the McCain campaign can make newspapers spend as much ink on one non lobbyist as many lobbyists.
Now I'll click the link and read the story (my comment was on the placement on www.washingtonpost.com)
Oh. My. God. The front page of www.washingtonpost.com article is about "The co-director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign in Puerto Rico ... Francisco J. PavÃa"
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me. The article is about the Obama campaign in a free associated state which is not represented in the general election.
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum goes on to write
Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, have been trying to outdo each other in their repudiation of lobbyists and the "special interests" they represent.
This is absolutely utterly false. The McCain campaign is totally shameless and so they are trying to argue that McCain has repudiated lobbyists. Many of them are lobbyists temporarily on leave from lobbying (one was lobbying from the back of the straight talk express). McCain is quite obviously not trying to outdo anyone in the repudiation of lobbyists (he might be trying to outdo all previous major party candidates in his reliance on lobbyists). He is, claiming to be independent of special interests because he is lying.
Now I guess "repudiate" is an ambiguous word as a repudiation is a statement (it would have been even more clearly false to write "have been trying to outdo each other in their exclusion of lobbyists from their campaigns" but a repudiation is directed at the repudiated not wink wink nudge nudge at the rubes who don't know the facts because journalists like Birnbaum have chosen to hide them.
Birnbaum quotes "Obama has criticized McCain for enlisting 'some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington' to run his presidential campaign." in pure he says she says format. He does not note in his own voice that Obama's claim is accurate, thus it is presented as an accusation which might or might not be true. Worse he notes McCain's firing of 5 lobbyists which might lead the ignorant reader to assume that the accusation is no longer valid. An interest in simple accuracy would have required Birnbaum to note that the five didn't include the campaign manager and the chief strategist so Obama's criticism remains valid.
There is another case
Moses Mercado, a lobbyist for Ogilvy Government Relations in Washington, said in an interview that he was told by the Obama campaign that he must take an unpaid leave from his firm before working as a get-out-the-vote volunteer earlier this year.
"It was pretty clear," Mercado said. "It was so clear that I made sure I wrote a letter to our office manager saying that on these days I'm taking a leave of absence."
I am dumbstruck again. This time by the utter awesomeness of the Obama movement. Working as a get out the vote volunteer is a very very humble task and not a path to massive influence. Mercado is a lobbyist and thus a member of a profession not noted for public spirit or contempt for money. He was willing to give up money to work getting out the vote. This is huge.
After all, I'm glad I read the article. It is clearly an article criticizing Obama required for ballance. The fact that I find a smear piece inspiring because it shows that the Obama movement is an even more extraordinary and powerful explosion of public spirit and solidarity than I imagined is the strongest conceivable proof that something amazing is happening in the USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)