Month: June 2012

Romney won’t have 60 votes in the Senate. But if he has 51, he can use the budget reconciliation process, which is filibuster-proof, to get rid of the law’s spending.

Ezra Klein reflects on President Romney’s potential chances and methods should he try repealing the ACA.
I’m not sure when, if ever, the DC Commentariat will get this through their heads: the next time the GOP holds the Presidency and a non-supermajority in the Senate, the filibuster will be eliminated approximately 30 seconds into the new Congress. Period, the end, carve it in stone.
Reconciliation won’t even be an issue with ACA repeal. It will be a simple majority vote, no filibusters allowed because there aren’t any allowed for any reason. Same with the functional elimination of Medicare, Social Security, and all the other Glibertarian wonders that await us under the Ryan budget plan when and if Romney wins. There’s simply no other way to get their preferred policies through, and the next time they have control of these levers of power they will get their policies through, no matter what it takes. Eliminating the filibuster will be among the more minor procedural changes and will be lost in the shuffle that heralds the end of the New Deal and basically all of the legislative 20th century.
Those are the stakes. Just when, exactly, will anyone in DC realize it? Sometime six to eight years after it all transpires, apparently. I’m assuming David Brooks already has an editorial in the can praising the end of filibusters. For Democrats, anyway.

Roberts Prevents Single Payer

Matt Yglesias makes a strong case re: the likely philosophical underpinnings of Roberts’ joining the more liberal members of the court to uphold the mandate. Namely that, in the absence of mandate, the Democrats would begin campaigning for Medicare for All. And they’d get it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but almost certainly within a millennium or two, and then for a long time.

But! I don’t think nearly that long of a game is needed, though. Presuming Roberts was never going to gut the whole bill, knocking out just the mandate within the political system as currently figured does nothing so well as guarantee the end of the private insurance system we all know and love within 5 or 10 years. This is because, without a mandate, healthy individuals would have powerful incentive not to buy insurance until they are sick. Since the ACA already prevents insurers from refusing coverage for any reason, you’d simply buy insurance on the day you started needing it. That is, to say the least, an unsustainable business model. Some even called for a “poison pill” in the original law designed to create this situation such that even a GOP government would be forced into extending Medicare to all the moment even their constituents could no longer afford insurance premiums.

Roberts knew all of this. He knew he likely couldn’t simply gut the law without adversely affecting the public’s opinion of the Supreme Court in general and the Roberts court in particular, knew he furthermore couldn’t simply kill the mandate without also killing private insurance (gridlock essentially ensured this outcome), and decided the least of these was simply keeping the mandate and letting Congress sort it out. Which, as it happens, was exactly the right decision by any reading of the Constitution and precedent that my not-a-lawyer eyes can detect. Huzzah for democracy.

Roberts Prevents Single Payer

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog.
Source: scotusblog.com

Five

Five years ago today, Lemkin began. Five posts after that, a pretty decent one about our collecive and idiotic relationship with the media was emitted. The one thousandth post was far less full of self regard than this one. Keep walking.
After fifteen hundred or so stellar posts to clip and save, we’ve traveled from Creed to Kubrick and back again. Frankly, I’m a fan of Sherroditus. Don’t know why, exactly, but will try to write more like that one in the coming five.
Also in store for loyal Lemkinites: the thrilling, youth-oriented reboot of four things, Ozmodiar, a floating green alien that only I can see, and wedding after wedding after wedding… Thanks for occasionally reading and commenting. That is all.

…we’re hearing an awful lot about those spoiled government employees with their flush pay packages and their godawful unions. The worst, of course, are the teachers’ unions. They are responsible for everything that’s gone wrong in America today. […]

Dallas’s incoming superintendent of schools–a government leader, right?– will enjoy a base salary of $300,000. His chief of staff will make $225,000. His chief of communications (i.e., press agent) will make $185,000. And his “chief of talent and innovation,” whatever that is (it’s a new position), will make $182,000.

All of these people make more money than the Dallas police chief, who makes do with about $175,000. Meanwhile, those greedy Dallas teachers, who are represented by the American Federation of Teachers, bump along with an average salary of about $56,000. That’s nearly 20 percent below the average household income in the U.S. ($67,530).

Being a teacher is back-breakingly difficult work. It is also extremely important work. Being the press agent or innovation chief for the school superintendent is, by comparison, fairly easy, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the hours are much shorter. It’s also fairly trivial. Being superintendent or the superintendent’s chief of staff is important work, but there’s no chance it’s as difficult as being a teacher, and I hesitate to say that it’s as important. The boss always makes more, and I guess we can’t begrudge him that. But for the boss to make more than six times more than the average teacher is freaking outrageous.

Timothy Noah making a point that is as cogent as it is (apparently) unutterable on the national stage. You want to energize the great unwashed? This is your platform. It combines the necessary economic narrative with the need for better education in this country, and the universal desire for one’s children to “do better” than Mom and Dad ever did. Use it within these next several months in which teachers are still considered people of consequence. The GOP is doing everything it can to reverse that notion. Wonder why.

If you try to imagine the Republican consensus after a potential losing election, it will look like this. It will recognize that its harsh partisan rhetoric turned off voters, and will urgently want to woo Latinos, while holding on to as much as possible of the party’s domestic policy agenda. And oh, by the way, the party will be casting about for somebody to lead it.

Jonathan Chait, getting almost everything completely wrong. In the wake of a 2012 Presidential defeat, the GOP will immediately declare that the loss was really due to voter fraud, white voter intimidation, “massive” negative spending by The Democrat and Unions, and a generalized malaise caused by Romney not having been “conservative enough.” The only answer: go more conservative. This is quite consistently how they react to all electoral setbacks; a pattern they’ve been following for these past two decades or more. Narrow electoral victories for the GOP are massive mandates; losses are the result stolen elections or otherwise non-binding outcomes that were exacerbated by a lack of true-believer conservatives in whatever positions were at stake. Why suddenly stop now? What has changed? What possible political or strategic upside do they see in “playing along”? Why would they even know how to legislate from compromise and whatever passes for centrism? Seriously, I’m asking; they who hold these offices and will (largely) hold them post-2012 have likely never worked in this way in their careers. But somewhere around lunchtime on January 20, 2013 they are suddenly getting their opposing number on the horn to talk real business? Seriously, we are meant to believe this, Jonathan (and, for that matter, Obama)?

A loss at the top of the ticket in 2012 will not be a moment for reflection, or a “centrist move” that’s been likened to the fever breaking. It will, instead, be an occasion to take it even further right. Impeachments will become a daily affair. Nothing will move. Default will be used as the default hostage for everything. And etc… Basically just like it is now, but about 100x worse. Based on recent and not-so-recent history, nothing could possibly be more clear to everyone outside the DC commentariat: if Obama wins, we will be counting our lucky stars that gridlock happens to result in long-term positive policy outcomes over the next 9 months or so. Because nothing else will be happening other than weekly or even daily Constitutional Crises.

But, as I said, Chait does get one thing right: they’ll be looking for a leader. And but also it won’t be Jeb Bush. Think more along the lines of Bachmann but even more crazy. That’s who will emerge. Basically whatever lunatic gets the most play out of the most popular impeachment movement. Maybe that’s Santorum, but I suspect he will seem rather retrograde and far too Liberal to play in 2016. We may look back at him wistfully by then as the far-right GOP candidate who was pretty palatable by comparison. Because one of them is going to win sooner or later.

The first solution [for the Great Depression] that occurred to statesmen was to propose tightening of belts, acceptance of hardship, resort to patience. Few can believe that suffering, especially by others, is in vain. Anything that is disagreeable must surely have beneficial economic effects.
[…]
People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared with that of the rich.

John Kenneth Galbraith, The Age of Uncertainty. Yep.
Source: tinyrevolution.com

jasencomstock:

Supposedly this is a compelling cartoon that shows how ‘crazy’ those public sector unions are.

Indeed, but the failure here is in getting the message into the head of Joe Private Sector that he’s the one getting the raw deal and the answer to that is most definitely not making sure that everyone has all benefits stripped from their job too.
The GOP and their media enablers have spent over two decades convincing him that, in fact, he shouldn’t be getting any benefits and neither should anybody else, regardless of whatever contracts those parties have entered into. Unless and until Unions and The Democrat figure out that it will require a similarly sustained, unyielding, and focused message to undo any of that, nothing will change. And, assuming the staus quo prevails or worsens, sooner or later, everyone will end up losing pensions, health care, weekends, limited hours, paid vacations, and anything else they can pry from a working populace all too eager to hand over anything and everything for a simulacrum of a chance at actual advancement. You know, lotteries and such.

But, man, think of the efficiencies our Galtian overlords will have achieved. That will be something to see.