Garbage In, Garbage Out



I do not come to bury Ruth Marcus.  I come to praise her.

Somewhat.  A few of the questions the Washington Post syndicated columnist recommends be posed to the two major presidential candidates tomorrow night are well-informed, probing, and worthy of answers for the American people.   Two others, however, reflect disturbing ignorance.

She critically prefaces one of her questions by stating

President Obama, you have been criticized for not supporting the recommendations of your own fiscal commission. Why didn't you? Do you regret that choice?

You have offered what you describe as $4 trillion in debt reduction over 10 years. Yet your $4 trillion is $2.3 trillion short of what the Simpson-Bowles commission said was essential.

It's not entirely, or even primarily, her fault, of course.   Dean Baker noticed that even the august, paper-of-record New York Times has referred to "the proposal by President Obama’s fiscal commission led by Erskine B. Bowles, the Clinton White House chief of staff, and former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a Republican."   It is common throughout the media to refer to the "Simpson-Bowles report" or, in shortened form, "Simpson-Bowles," as if the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform actually had issued a report.   The Commission by-laws, as Baker notes, read

The Commission shall vote on the approval of a final report containing a set of recommendations to achieve the objectives set forth in the Charter no later than December 1, 2010. The issuance of a final report of the Commission shall require the approval of not less than 14 of the 18 members of the Commission.

Baker notes, however, "there was no vote on anything by December 1, 2010 and there was never a report that received the approval of 14 of the 18 commission members. Therefore, there was no report of the commission. That's pretty simple, isn't it?"

Marcus unknowingly propagates another faulty premise when she asks

you promised in Charlotte to take “responsible steps” to strengthen Social Security. Yet in your acceptance speech four years ago you said that “now is the time ... to protect Social Security for future generations,” and then did nothing on Social Security during your first term. What do you plan to do if re-elected? Would you support Gov. Romney’s proposal to raise the retirement age to reflect increases in longevity? To lower the rate at which benefits grow for higher-income seniors?

Paul Krugman, recognizing that the increase in longevity cited by Marcus and so many others is well overstated, explains

Consider, in particular, the proposal to raise the Social Security retirement age, supposedly to reflect rising life expectancy. This is an idea Washington loves — but it’s also totally at odds with the reality of an America in which rising inequality is reflected not just in the quality of life but in its duration. For while average life expectancy has indeed risen, that increase is confined to the relatively well-off and well-educated — the very people who need Social Security least. Meanwhile, life expectancy is actually falling for a substantial part of the nation.

These less well-off and lesser-educated individuals are not likely to capture the imagination of most of the news media, generally relatively well-off and more highly educated.  There has been little attention paid, in fact, to the news reported on September 21 by The New York Times:

For generations of Americans, it was a given that children would live longer than their parents. But there is now mounting evidence that this enduring trend has reversed itself for the country’s least-educated whites, an increasingly troubled group whose life expectancy has fallen by four years since 1990.

Researchers have long documented that the most educated Americans were making the biggest gains in life expectancy, but now they say mortality data show that life spans for some of the least educated Americans are actually contracting. Four studies in recent years identified modest declines, but a new one that looks separately at Americans lacking a high school diploma found disturbingly sharp drops in life expectancy for whites in this group. Experts not involved in the new research said its findings were persuasive.

The reasons for the decline remain unclear, but researchers offered possible explanations, including a spike in prescription drug overdoses among young whites, higher rates of smoking among less educated white women, rising obesity, and a steady increase in the number of the least educated Americans who lack health insurance.

The steepest declines were for white women without a high school diploma, who lost five years of life between 1990 and 2008, said S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the lead investigator on the study, published last month in Health Affairs. By 2008, life expectancy for black women without a high school diploma had surpassed that of white women of the same education level, the study found.

Perhaps there would be consideration of this large, though declining, group of Americans if one of those awful cliches stereotyping voters would emerge.  We have had "soccer moms," "NASCAR dads," and "Walmart moms."
 
But unless "diner women" or some other hideous term trivializing this segment of the populace is popularized, it's hardly likely that many journalists will pay attention.   The elites might even find some solace in the statistics, for the racial disparity between relatively uneducated white women and black women has declined or apparently, reversed.  But the drop in life expectancy for white women without a high school diploma reflects yet another instance in which the American economy has left a lot of people behind, even if it's inconvenient to notice.





Share |

Engaging On The Court


Greg Sargent was right.     Tuesday, he wrote

Between the nixing of Obamacare, should it happen, and the Citizens United decision, which Obama strongly opposes, you’d think the President would respond by casting the Supreme Court as a leading villain. He could hammer the Court as another symbol of the way the GOP, beholden to special interests, has consistently frustrated reform and stacked the system against ordinary Americans.

But don’t expect Obama to launch a full-blown campaign against the Court....

So expect Obama to strike an important balancing act: He’ll refrain from directly attacking the Court, while.... 

Later that day, President Obama, while apparently trying to prod the Court in a responsible direction, instead incurred controversy by remarking

I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

While centrist columnist Ruth Marcus termed it merely "rather unsettling," another Washington Post columnist, righty Jennifer Rubin, labeled it a "judicial witch hunt" and "irresponsible," presumably to distinguish it from responsible witch hunting.    (She is a conservative Republican, after all; perhaps she does believe in responsible witch hunting.)     Senate Majority Leader McConnell termed it an "attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court" (which) "falls well beyond distasteful politics"      Rush Limbaugh found the comments "beneath the office of the presidency," a startling claim for someone who considers the President a "Halfrican" whose "entire economic program is reparations."

But in fact, Sargent's prediction has come to pass, if months before he expected.     Choosing to be, as The Washington Post would editorialize, "more careful in the details and tone of his critique," Obama the following day explained

And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress.  And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. 

Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there.  I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has.  As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies. 

The remarks were mild, though well summarized when Obama noted

It doesn’t make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly or the sick or those who are actively looking for work.  What makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell, or when entrepreneurs don’t have the financial security to take a chance and start a new business.  What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else.

Even the initial remark, however, was "pretty timid stuff, indeed," according to Sargent and "more of a nudge than an attack," according to Suprreme Court historian Jeff Shesol.       Better than this weak tea would have been the following, borrowed heavily from suggestions of Digby::

As Ronald Reagan said back in 1986, 'we’ve had too many examples in recent years of courts and judges legislating. They’re not interpreting what the law says. In too many instances they have been actually legislating by legal decree what they think the law should be.' I agree with Ronald Reagan that some judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people.





Share |

Debt Ceiling Strategy


It may have started a few months ago, but on November 4 the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan blogged

I think the key to Obama's long-term success is being Obama: the calm, restrained, sober, reasonable adult in the room, always focused on actual problems and their feasible solution.

Later that month, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote

After all, if children had the vote, their first instinct would not be to elect their parents or, for that matter, any grown-up - even if they know, deep down, that they need adult supervision. It will require intensive - let's be blunt, remedial - voter education about the necessary trade-offs. And this must, finally, be followed by presidential willingness to take the risk of laying out in detail what he believes those trade-offs should be, because the deficit commission isn't going to do it for him.

This past Sunday, John Heileman said on The Chris Matthews Show (transcript here)

....this comes back to President Obama because the Republicans are not serious about deficit reduction as Andrea said. Democrats are not enthusiastic about it for all the reasons that we know in terms of their weddedness to entitlement programs. The President is the only really serious adult in this conversation.

The idea of Barack Obama as singularly mature, the only adult in the room, may have played a role in the charge of Office of Economic Advisors chairman Austan Goolsbee on Sunday:

This is not a game. You know, the debt ceiling is not something to toy with. That`s the -- if we hit the debt ceiling, that`s the essentially defaulting on our obligations, which is totally unprecedented in American history. The impact on the economy would be catastrophic.

I don`t see why anybody is talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling. If we get to the point where you`ve damaged the full faith and credit of the United States, that would -- that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.

Yesterday on The Rachel Maddow Show (transcript here), guest host Chris Hayes maintained that the GOP is bluffing and played a tape of House Republican leader John Boehner, in mid- November prior to the tax debate, conceding

If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I`ll vote for them. If the only option I have is to vote for those at $250,000 and below, of course, I`m going to do that.

Boehner at the time added "We have to have a discussion with our newest members that involves more of a plan…The United States must pay its bills."

Former Bush 43 speechwriter David Frum told Hayes that Goolsbee was sowing fear and contended that he instead should have said

We look forward to working with the new majority of the House of Representatives to put us on the long-term path to fiscal stability. The United States will meet its obligations.

That would have been, as the father of Frum's former boss would have put it, "prudent." But it wouldn't have drawn attention to President Obama's standing as The Only Adult In The Room. Goolsbee was dramatizing the peril of refusing to raise the debt ceiling, as Frum noted on his blog, to "depict Republicans as fiscal madmen." But he aim was not, as Frum maintained, because the Administration may have "political plans that would profit from causing people to worry."

If the White House wants to depict Republicans as "fiscal madmen" (which, apparently, Boehner isn't and a few are), it is probably not aimed at attaining some policy objective which would offend Frum or other conservative Republicans. Goolsbee struck a note of panic and thereby showed the GOP his hand, which would suggest the possibility of doing almost anything to prevent the fiscal catastrophe he believes would ensue with failure to raise the debt ceiling. It thus softens up the President's own party, giving liberals an incentive to accept whatever deal Obama negotiates with the GOP. That could be a cut in spending, in Social Security or elsewhere, that would not jeopardize health care reform, Obama's baby and signature accomplishment. but one which would depict the President as serious about addressing the budget deficit.

Machiavellian? Surely. But this is a Democratic Administration which opposed tax breaks for the wealthy; heard John Boehner admit in October that if tax cuts were extended only for middle incomes, he'd vote for it; then celebrated a "compromise" that forced the GOP to accept tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the Administration is inflaming concerns both to demonstrate that the President is the one adult seriously addressing a grave problem and to achieve a center-right economic objective?

Share|

Crossing The Line

Sam Stein writes that The Huffington Post has obtained several internal e-mail messages from the McCain presidential campaign which cast serious doubt on the "accuracy" of Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue." Among the instances he describes is this:

In one email thread, dated October 14, 2008, Palin says she is "not thrilled" with the idea of going on Saturday Night Live as a way of marginalizing the show's unflattering impersonations of her.

"Not after seeing clips of what they've been playing re: my family," Palin writes to campaign manager Steve Schmidt, as well as top strategists Rick Davis; and Nicolle Wallace. "I had no idea how gross 'celebrities' on that show and in other celebrity venues could get when it comes to family and other aspects of my life that have nothing to do with seeking the vp slot. These folks are whack - didn't know it was as bad as it is... what's the upside in giving them any celebrity venue a ratings boost? That's Todd's input also," she concludes, in reference to her husband.

Schmidt would respond minutes later, telling Palin that, "if you don't want to do it you should not," while adding that a guest appearance would "get an enormous amount of" attention and help her "to fly above all this."

"The american people will see someone who can laugh at themselves which has alwauys [sic] been a trait they admire," he adds.

Palin would ultimately make a guest appearance on Saturday Night Live days later. But in her upcoming book she describes the deliberations about whether or not to go on the show much differently than the emails suggest. In "Going Rogue", the vice presidential candidate writes that "from the beginning, I liked the idea that John and I might appear on the show."

But it's not only The Quitting Governor. Washington Post syndicated cloumnist Ruth Marcus was shocked, shocked! at the “misrepresentations and distortions” articulated by several members of the Repub caucus during the recent floor debate on the health care bill. Marcus notes ("Health Scare Tactics," November 11) these departures from objective reality:

- "Let's remember the Pelosi plan for jobs: an $800 billion stimulus plan that caused unemployment to go from 8.5 percent to over 10 percent." (Jack Kingston, Georgia)

-“If you're a Medicare Advantage enrollee . . . the Congressional Budget Office says that 80 percent of them are going to lose their Medicare Advantage.” (John Boehner, Minority Leader, Ohio).

-"The bill raises taxes for just about everyone." (Brett Guthrie, Kentucky).

-"This bill, on Page 733, empowers the Washington bureaucracy to deny lifesaving patient care if it costs too much." (Tom Price, Georgia)

-"This bill, on Page 94, will make it illegal for any American to obtain health care not approved by Washington." (Tom Price, Georgia)

-"Americans could face five years in jail if they don't comply with the bill's demands to buy approved health insurance." (Dave Camp, Michigan)

- "I offered two amendments to try to improve this bill -- one to require members of Congress to enroll in the public option like we're going to require all of you to do." (Buck Mckeon, California)

-"The president's own economic advisers have said that this bill will kill 5.5 million jobs." (Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida)

Of course, notwithstanding Marcus' generosity, six of these eight claims are not mere "misrepresentations or distortions" but lies. Presumably, Camp if someone is not to have bought insurance, and is prosecuted, and is fined, and refuses to pay the fine, and then threatens the life of a court employee, he/she would be incarcerated. And given that someone now without health insurance would have a choice of plans, what does "approved" mean?

McKeon may have introduced a bill which would require members of Congress to enroll in the public option and may actually, in some flight into fantasy, believe that such an amendment would improve the bill. Still, no one as the bill is written, as any bill is written, as any bill would be written in this session of Congress, requires anyone to enroll in a public plan.

And these are the ones which are not demonstrably, inarguably, fabrications. (Marcus may believe Kingston's statement is merely among "extraneous claims about alleged Democratic excesses," but anyone who believes an $800 billion stimulus plan actually would decrease employment by more than 1.5% is, well.... no one would.)

Other than right-wing ideology, these House Republicans may not have much in common with the former Alaska governor. But it's telling that, in the case of the major policy initiative of the Obama administration and of one of the two leading candidates for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, exaggeration, distortion, manipulation, and deception apparently have given way to lying.

Setting Aside Principle

At first glance, it almost makes sense.

Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, in a column entitled "A Tail Wags The Dog on Health Reform," argues on June 28 that "advocates are wrong in elevating the public plan to litmus-test importance." She contends, plausibly, "there is too little focus on making certain that the overall regulator structure (the dog) is strict enough and transparent enough to prevent private insurers from gaming the system...."

Marcus declares she is "ambivalent on the merits of including a public plan in the exchange.... to which those without employer-provided health insurance would go to obtain coverage." But she disingenuously concludes

to work, the public plan has to be able to set prices and, at least at the outset, require providers to participate if they want to remain eligible to accept Medicare patients. Does anyone think that is what's likely to emerge from Congress? If not, is this really where all the energy of those who want to ensure effective reform should be spent?

The implication is that oh, if only, Congress would be reasonable and accept a public plan- but it won't, so darn it, wouldn't it be great if Democrats adopted a different strategy to achieve desired reform?

This alleged ambivalence about a public plan and interest in reform of a system dominated by the health insurance industry would be more credible if we did not learn, in her column of 3/27/09 carried by the Dallas Morning News, that she is opposed to a public plan; to an individual mandate; to cost containment (see "piece #4"); and to anything which would risk offending Repub lawmakers.

As it usually does from neo-liberals, it comes down to this: Democrats would be so unreasonable to cleave to principle (and to a public plan, popular with the public) because it would be antithetical to the principle of post-partisanship. Warning against the reconciliation process, by which Democrats would achieve reform with a mere 51 votes, Marcus concludes in March "wielding the stick would be the end of bipartisanship as we never got a chance to know it."

Per capita spending is greater in this country than in any other affluent nation. With the U.S. economy in recession, there are nearly 50 million Americans uninsured, health care spending is over 17% of gross domestic product, and more Americans are losing their homes every year by foreclosure due to health care costs. And while Repblicans are opposed to any health care reform that doesn't further enrich the insurance industry at the expense of the public, some journalists have become positively feverish over the possiblity that a mythical, unprecedented bipartisanship may not be given the opportunity to block reform of a system disgraceful by the standards of the civilized world.