Hating Government

Check out this video, especially beginning at approximately 35 seconds, featuring this astonishing statement:

If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government.



This was not from some right-wing fanatic disrupting a town hall meeting hosted by Senator Arlen Specter (D.-Pa.), Representative Lloyd Doggett (D.-Tx.), or House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.). This right-wing fanatic is Arthur Laffer.

Yes, the Arthur Laffer, whose theories arguably are responsible for some of the biggest damage done to the economy of this country the past thirty years, as the Laffer Curve became the intellectual underpinning of supply side economics. In "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijaacked by Crackpot Economics," Jonathan Chait noted it all started innocuously 35 years ago:

The cult in question generally traces its political origins to a meeting in Washington in late 1974 between Arthur Laffer, an economic consultant, Jude Wanniski, an editorial page writer for the Wall Street Journal, and Dick Cheney,then chief of staff to President Ford.

Soon afterward, Wanniski introduced Irving Kristol to Jack Kemp, who converted Ronald Reagan to an ideology whose

core principle is that economic performance hinges almost entirely on how much incentive investors and entrepreneurs have to attain more wealth and this incentive in turn hinges almost entirely on their tax rate. Therefore, cutting taxes- especially those of the rich, who carry out the decisive entrepreneurial role in the economy- is always a good idea.

And continuously cutting taxes gave us a war in Iraq paid for by borrowed money, back when Republicns like Dick Cheney argued "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Until recently- when the need for health care reform awakened in the GOP a convenient distaste for deficits- supply siders would argue "either that tax cuts will produce enough growth to wipe out deficits or that deficits simply don't matter."

Arthur Laffer is the man who gave birth to the free lunch- cut taxes and keep spending- which fueled the Reagan and Bush 43 tax cuts, ballooning the deficit and helping exacerbate the gap betweeen rich and poor. Arthur Laffer now implies a) the Post Office (really, the U.S. Postal Service) is undependable; and b) Medicare and Medicaid are not government programs.

Could it be that the Arthur Laffer, a conservative economist, is not aware that the mail does get delivered on time? Or that Medicare and Medicaid are government programs?

Virtually impossible. Thirty-some years ago Arthur Laffer realized his theory made no sense, and he now realizes that the incomparably popular Medicare is a government program- a popular, efficient government health program. So it's necessary that Laffer, and the rest of the denizens of the despicably dishonest right, spread the fiction that Medicare is a private program.

It's possible to argue that Medicare is popular and run by the government and simultaneously to oppose health reform which includes a public option. But that requires some explanation and reasoning, two things that the conservative mob, either bereft of an interest in detail or suffering from a deficit in attention, has now almost entirely relinquished.

Rush Looking Down On The People Who Look Up To Him

While he routinely misinforms, misleads, distorts, manipulates, and occasionally lies, Rush Limbaugh is never at a loss to hold his audience of "dittoheads" in contempt. Rush was at his best Friday when, as his website has it, he whined:

Now, if you've heard since last night the program's suspended, and the news has been all over the place. Now you hear that it's not suspended. What do you do? More than likely you wait to find out what the truth is. In the meantime, if you have any sense yourself, you realize you're dealing with a bunch of frigging idiots. And then you realize it's the same bunch of frigging idiots that wants to administer your medical treatment. Not just your insurance, your medical treatment. And then you'll realize it's the same bunch of frigging idiots that claims global warming is being caused by you and that you gotta pay even more taxes to be punished for that. And then you gotta realize that these are the same frigging idiots that say they're going to rebuild the economy with "green jobs" in this new environmental technology sector, but you haven't seen an ad for one of those jobs 'cause not one of them has been created.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Christina Romer, Debbie Stabenow, Sander Levin, they are all frigging idiots. This whole thing, this whole administration, is no more than a Charlie Foxtrot -- and if you don't know what a Charlie Foxtrot is, ask your nearest military person and they will tell you what a Charlie Foxtrot is.

Presumably, Rush could have come up with some evidence of his claims about government health care and the human origin of climate change. Or maybe not. But five instances of "frigging idiots" in eleven sentences. Respect for opponents, Limbaugh style. Intelligent monologue, Limbaugh style. Contempt for audience, Limbaugh style.

Rush: Socialized Medicine, Socialized Care Policy, Social Security

Maybe this is the key to Rush Limbaugh's success: as he flits from issue to issue, Rush is a kind of whirling dervish of misinformation, confusing as he entertains.

Strategically, if irrationally, conflating the Car Allowance Rebate System with health care reform, Limbaugh Friday exhorted:

You could almost say they're the same plan. We're going to get rid of your old clunker car and we're going to get rid of your old clunker grandparents with Obama's health care. Cash for clunkers. Death for clunkers. Disastrous government programs that, it should be noted, were not inherited from George Bush, either. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, have the gall to call various groups of Americans "villains." These greedy compensates who are trying to jam socialized medicine down our throats, which is a law designed to deny health care to those who have paid in the longest.

That's where this is going to end up. It's going to end up like Social Security: The young are going to pay for the old, pure and simple. That's what's going to end up being. Our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents. What kind of person would design a program to deny care for those who raised us?

Trying "to get rid of your old clunker grandparents with Obama's health care," while a humorously contemptous means of referring to the elderly, has been debunked, here at thinkprogress.org. (Medicare now pays for an end-of-life consultation for an elderly patient if the doctor initiates the subject; the amendment proposed would extend payment by Medicare to the consultation if intitiated by the patient.) The myth that Democrats want to kill the elderly was created by the Republican right to kill health care reform, apparently the impetus for Rush's reference to "deny(ing) health care to those who have paid in the longest" and "design(ing) a program to deny care for those who raised us."

But if Rush really believed that the bill targeted elderly Americans for extermination, it's unlikely he'd protest it so vehemently. In the very same stream-of-consciousness rant, he complains of the 'cash for clunkers' program

That's where this is going to end up. It's going to end up like Social Security: The young are going to pay for the old, pure and simple. That's what's going to end up being.

This, apparently, is Rush's nightmare: the car program is going to end up like Social Security! The young are going to pay for the old, pure and simple! Social Security- the beginning of the end of civilization!

Never mind that the crash of housing prices has been a multi-billion- or is it trillion- dollar subsidy from the old to the young. (Housing prices drop, retired people sell their house for far less than earlier would have been expected, said house then bought by young people at a bargain price.) Rush says health care reform is going after the elderly- and worse yet, the automobile program is going to be like that awful Social Security, in which elderly people are financially aided by younger people (who later become the elderly who are helped by the young, as the social compact is continually reinforced).

Characteristically convoluted logic by El Rushbo, whose only complaint should be that it can't be patented.

Next Rush: Frigging, frigging, and more frigging

Rush: Cash For Clunkers= Tax Cut

There is nothing Rush Limbaugh, a paragon of disingenuousness, does better than trying to have it both ways. And so it was on Friday, while Rush was on his way to claiming "cash for clunkers is a public sector disaster. It turns out our cars aren't clunkers; the program is," he would contend

By the way, this billion dollars that they allocated has been the most stimulative thing they have done. And the reason is it's essentially a tax cut..... just imagine if just half, if just half of the stimulus bill had been returned to people in the form of tax cuts we would be on our way out of the recession....

You know, I'm tempted to say when I listen to Debbie Stabenow, "Just shut up! Just shut up, cut taxes for everybody. Cut taxes $4,500 for everybody has a chance to use their money or all kinds of things."

The Car Allowance Rebate System, Limbaugh (a multi-millionaire who never saw a Republican tax cut he didn't like) argues, is "essentially a tax cut." Let's see: as explained here, "the dealer will take your trade, apply the credit toward your purchase price, have your clunker destroyed, and get reimbursed by the government." And that would be a tax cut?

It's really not very complicated. Rebate program: go to a private dealer, buy a car you hadn't intended to buy, agree to pay for the car, and get a credit on the price. Tax cut: send the government less money than otherwise because the tax rate has declined; save most of the money.

A result of an automobile rebate program? Not surprisingly,

Manufacturers, who had cut back on production late last year and early this year, are accelerating production schedules to accommodate the rebate program.

And the Bush tax cuts? According to an article written by Larry Beinhart on April 28, 2008- before the economy went into a tailspin-

Ordinary Americans found that their income was declining. From 2001 to 2007, median family income declined -- depending on where you get your figures from -- by somewhere between $500 and $1,000. Median individual income went down by at least $1,000.

The yearly average number of new private sector jobs created from 2001-2008 was just 369,000, not even keeping up with the growth in population. It should be compared to the average number of new private sector jobs created from '92 to 2,000: 1,760,000 per year.

The number of people in manufacturing jobs decreased by over 3 million.

And few industries have suffered in recent years as much as the domestic auto industry, and probably none with as devastating an impact on the American economy.

Fortunately, this program isn't a tax cut. Just something that will do its part to help wean us off foreign oil, stimulate the economy, and make the automobile industry a little more viable. And in so doing, annoy Rush Limbaugh.

Next Rush: Cash for Clunkers is similar to socialized medicine, bad for the elderly just like Social Security.

Rush: Health Care Reform To Be As Unsuccessful As Car Clunker Program

On Rush Limbaugh's website, it's called "Government Disasters: Cash for Clunkers, Obamacare for Suckers," and it was a twisted attempt on Friday to tie the "cash for clunkers" program in with health care reform.

You would think most rational conservatives, observing how successful the Car Allowance Rebate System, would not want to conflate this new auto program with the drive for what Rush terms "Obamacare." But then most conservatives aren't as brazen as the head of the Republican Party was on July 31:

And now we get the cash for clunkers, and care for suckers. Cash for clunkers. Health care for clunkers. You could almost say they're the same plan..... Cash for clunkers. Death for clunkers. Disastrous government programs that, it should be noted, were not inherited from George Bush, either. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, have the gall to call various groups of Americans "villains...." .

.... Cash for clunkers is a public sector disaster. It turns out our cars aren't clunkers; the program is. Just like Obamacare. You know, I warned everybody. I told you America could not afford Barack Obama. I said, "I hope he fails," because Obama's programs are designed to harm this country. You have to ask yourself a question: Why in the world suspend cash for clunkers after four days?

Perhaps, Rush, the program was suspended because it ran out of money. And it ran out of money because, far from "a public sector disaster," the effort has been a tremendous success. As the News-Star in Louisiana put it on Saturday,

For Toyota dealers in the five-state region — Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Oklahoma — customer traffic is up 47 percent and sales up 27 percent since the program kicked off last week, according to the company.

Up north, the Philadelphia Inquirer describes the reaction of a general sales manager of a Ford dealership in nearby Cherry Hill, New Jersey:

Rucci began requesting additional orders -- about 20 percent more than usual, he said -- six months ago with Ford Motor Co. in anticipation of the start of "Cash for Clunkers."

But even his expectations have been exceeded, he said.

To handle the extra customers, he has extended the workday for five managers and a sales staff of 17 by an average of four hours a day since the program began July 24.

Experts say demand generated by the clunkers program may have pushed U.S. auto sales to a 2009 high last month, possibly signaling a bottom in the car-buying market's worst slump since at least 1976.

An increase in demand, increase in sales, happy customers, dealership profits increased. It's enough to rile Limbaugh up. But wait- there is more, according to the owner of two Dodge dealerships in the Philadelphia, Pa. area:

"I really think it will jump-start the industry," he said. "We were looking at another six months of doldrums. . . . Now it's speeding up our recovery by six months. A lot of guys didn't have that six months in them."

Or as the general sales manager for a Toyota dealership in the area summarized

"It's been a fantastic program for the industry and for the customers taking advantage of it."

That man's name: Glenn Beck (not that Glenn Beck).

Rush gasped

Just expand the program. But they cancel it? Or suspend it? On the theory that they were overwhelmed? What the hell do they think is going to happen when they're the only people you can go to for health insurance?

He spoke too quickly. The House on Friday promptly voted an additional $2 billion for the program, with the Senate expected to act similarly this week. That is, the federal government has expanded the program, as Limbaugh argued it should. And if a public option for health care is adopted, perhaps this is "what is going to happen when the're the only people you can go for health insurance." Quick, decisive action to respond to the needs of the American people, apparently. (Of course, Rush made up the part about "the only people you can go to for health insurance- unless he knows of a plan to eliminate the private health insurance industry- be still, my beating heart.)

Will Rush on Monday applaud the federal government's decision to expand the "cars for clunkers" program, as he advocated? Will he then acknowledge that reform of the health care industry will be as successful? Hmmm.... probably not.

Next Rush: "Cash for Clunkers" is no more than a tax cut, which I'm always in favor of, but not this program.

Politically Wise

Every day, there are sensible, even insightful, posts on dailykos. This, unfortunately, is not one of them.

The White House beerfest tonight between President Obama, Officer Crowley, and Professor Gates has been getting a lot of media attention, to be sure. It has also spawned what might be the stupidest criticism of Obama this year, and from a member of his own political party:

In a letter to Obama dated Wednesday, Massachusetts Rep. Richard Neal strongly urges the president not to drink Budweiser, now owned by a Belgian company. Nor should the White House consider serving Miller or Coors, Neal writes, both owned by a United Kingdom conglomerate.

Instead, the White House should serve the three men — all with ties to Massachusetts — the local favorite (Sam Adams), not only because of its popularity in the region but also because it remains the largest American-owned and brewed beer, Neal says.

Now, perhaps the genesis of this comes from the fact that Congressman Neal has his first Republican opponent since 1996, and thus felt that a good pander was in order to the hometown brew (although his district is actually to the southwest of the Boston metro area).

But, really, Congressman? Dinging the President for his choice of beer? The President has the fairly inspired idea to bring a simmering culture battle to a halt over a cold one, and you feel the need to pen a letter criticizing him for not patronizing a brewer in your home state? I know members of the House are supposed to have parochial interests, but this is one step beyond ridiculous.

I would fully expect some right-wing mouth-breather to go after Gates for his choices of Red Stripe or Beck's (beers from decadent, foreign lands like Jamaica and Germany are so thoroughly anti-American).

But actually taking the time to write a letter to the President to steer him away from Bud Light?

Was Wednesday that slow a day in the halls of Congress?

This is truly one of those beachfront property in Arizona items. Hey, I understand someone not understanding that this "simmering cultural battle" is a mere drop in the bucket compared to America's great sin of racial discrimination. Morevover, I realize a U.S. representative from Massachusetts (even if not facing a tough re-election battle) is less concerned with the origin of the alcoholic beverage served than with currying support of the electorate.

But to believe that Barack Obama's primary purpose in hosting yesterday's staged event was to strike a blow for racial comity? Give Obama credit- according to Sgt. Crowley in his post-drink press conference, the President allowed Gates and Crowley to do most of the talking. Nevertheless, recognizing the political value of the beerfest, the President situated Obama, Biden, Gates, Crowley counter-clockwise. Wisely, black-white-black-white; or if you prefer, white-black-white black. Not the best, however, if, the primary consideration was facilitation of conversation between the two principals (Gates and Obama). I'm not being critical here; in a similar situation, I would have done the same, and so would you have, and all Presidents with an IQ ranging at least into the high double digits.

But can we liberals not be such knaves? Any beer in the world available to him- to them; and our President chooses Bud (light)? Budweiser may be owned by a foreign company, but in the eyes of many Americans it is as American as Coke, Wal-Mart, or marrying your high school sweetheart (always referred to as "sweetheart," never as the less endearing "girlfriend"). And for a Hawaiian-born President under attack for being born in Kenya and bludgeoned for supporting a black professor from the Ivy League over a white police officer, the choice of beer and seating arrangements is strategically critical.

The United States continues to hemorrhage jobs in light mostly of the recession, but also because of outsourcing and offshoring. A Democratic politician recommends that the President of the United States be photographed hosting a party featuring regional beer(s) brewed in America? And that is supposed to be--- bad? Really, ideological considerations aside, it's not politically savvy to imply that only "right wing mouth breathers" are concerned that jobs should remain in the United States.

There once was a time that liberals consistently were in favor of jobs remaining here- and those who are pro-union, generally concerned with the shrinking of the middle class, still are. And for a party (Democratic) and a movement (liberalism/progressivism) periodically tarred with the accusation of being un- or anti- American? Display of products brewed in America by American companies (such as this one, from the D.C. area, and this one, from the Chicago area) could only have been productive. (And Coors, given the thumbs down by Rep. Neal- what a union record!)

Admittedly, there were only three beers and one near-beer involved in yesterday evening's affair. Still, in an event that is so fraught with symbolism that a presumably serious blogger can seriously refer to it as "a fairly inspired idea to bring a simmering culture battle to a halt," surely there was room for appearance of a product(s) originating in the United States of America.

Think that emphasis in this blog or in the mainstream media on this gathering is unhelpful? Or that Barack Obama is unaware of the political value of the guys getting together for a cold one (in the summer, outdoors in the District of Columbia?)? Your concern should be allayed. Republican Party head Rush Limbaugh began his daily period of invective today by decrying emphasis on what happened yesterday, and promptly segued into his routine denunciation of the evils of providing health care for American citizens. If the hyper-partisan Limbaugh is disturbed at the attention given to last night's gathering on the White House lawn, Barack Obama surely saw the advantage to the display of male testosterone.

Of Popularity

The beginning of the end, hopefully.

No, not the Gates-Crowley-Obama affair, though maybe that also. I'm speaking of a myth discovered, embraced and coveted by the mainstream media.

It started with a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey pertaining to attitudes toward President Obama and his policies and released April 28, 2009, which found

More than eight in 10, 81%, said they personally like the president on the eve of his 100th day in the Oval Office. Of those respondents, 51% said they like him and his policies, while 31% said they like him personally while disapproving of his policies.

Just 12% said they don’t like Obama or his policies, and only 3% said they don’t like him but approve of his policies.

I didn't notice this at the time, but Susan Davis and her editor failed miserably in this article. She writes "of those respondents" (i.e., the 81%), 51% like Obama and his policies. That would be 51% of 81%, or 41.31%. Then she writes 31% like him but not his policies; presumably, that would be 31% of the 81%, or 25.11%.

Davis writes also "12% said they don't like Obama or his policies, and only 3% said they don't like him but approve of his policies." That would be a total of 81-82%.

For those who doubt that is what Davis meant, feel free to assume she meant that 51% of all respondents like Obama and his policies, 31% liked him but not his policies, 12% didn't like Obama or his policies, and only 3% liked Obama's policies but not him. That's how it was generally reported, conveniently.

The traditional media lapped it up. Obama was himself much more popular than his policies, they (it?) exulted. America just adored our cool, new president, but were skeptical of liberalism, they cooed.

As someone situated between the 81%/41% and the 3% (closer to the latter), I had my doubts. Sure, the President was a little more popular than his policies, I understood. Still, it defied reason that somehow tens of millions of Americans liked a chief executive while eschewing his policies. Plus, opposition to the policies of the first black President was, I figured, in part a proxy for opposition to the individual himself, so difficult for some poll respondents to concede to a survey taker, or in some cases even to oneself.

Shoot (for you NRA supporters) forward three months, and what do we have? From another Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll:

In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42% called it a bad idea while 36% said it was a good idea.

But

....the poll showed strong support among respondents for ideas common to all of the pieces of health-care legislation being considered by Congress.

When given several details of the proposal, 56% said they favored the plan compared with 38% who oppose it.

The description given to poll respondents didn't include a public-insurance plan, which divides the public, nor specifics about what income levels might be taxed to fund the plan.

Reporting on a New York Times/CBS News poll taken approximately a month earlier, the Times had noted

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Sentiment shifted somewhat over the following five weeks. Still, the Christian Science Monitor observed on July 20 that "the polls are saying," in part

Some 42 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama’s healthcare plan is a bad idea, up from 32 percent in June, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Thursday. Thirty-six percent call it a good idea....

For all their wariness of big government, Americans generally support the idea of a “public plan” offered by the government alongside private insurers, according to a poll conducted for the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington.

Summary: Though skeptical, poll respondents generally support major health care reform, even a public option, surely a "liberal" change to the present system. Yet, call it Obama's plan, and opposition rises.

It's going to be nearly impossible to convince the mainstream media, with their preconceived notions and class preferences of sympathy for corporate America, to acknowledge what's going on. But the citizens of this country are not as enamored of Barack Obama the man or of the fee-based, profit-driven health insurance industry as the Fourth Estate believe, or would like to believe.