How Does the Affordable Care Act Work?
Because of socialism and death panels.
The United States of America isn’t a business and, as such, can’t be run like one
Atrios, stating the simple truth that being good at something doesn’t axiomatically make you good at something else, points to a Paul Krugman post regarding the ubiquitous sentiment that smart businessmen make good economic policymakers.
Leaving aside all the questions about what Mitt Romney did or didn’t do at Bain — and about his self-aggrandizing double standard — there’s an even broader question: why does anyone believe that success in business qualified someone to make economic policy?
For the fact is that running a business is nothing at all like making macro policy. The key point about macroeconomics is the pervasiveness of feedback loops due to the fact that workers are also consumers. No business sells a large fraction of its output to its own workers; even very small countries sell around two-thirds of their output to themselves, because that much is non-tradable services.
This makes a huge difference. A businessman can slash his workforce in half, produce about the same as before, and be considered a big success; an economy that does the same plunges into depression, and ends up not being able to sell its goods.
The answer to that question is probably rooted in the fact that [number far exceeding 90%] of people have never been privileged to a class on even rudimentary macroeconomics. (Also an explanation for why Ron Paul has so many followers when, literally, he has 19th century views on how the world operates.)
I’m not saying that is necessarily a fault of their own. Contrarily, this ever-present notion speaks to the continuing failures of American elites to be honest and forthright with the electorate.
That is, unless they actually believe this nonsense. That can’t be the case, though, right?
Right?…
The Following is Laced with Bitterness
Not really, more with annoyance and confusion.
The biggest problem facing my generation is a dysfunctional legislature handicapped by it’s own antiquated rules and procedures that serve no meaningful purpose in the America of 2011. It’s a problem an entire order higher than the rest; it stifles our ability to tackle any other major issue successfully.
That was the question asked by the editors of The Nation for their annual student writing contest: what is the biggest problem facing your generation. What were selected as the winning essays are nothing more than filler, subjects barely worthy of having 800 words devoted to them—except one regarding climate change, but as has been evident, and like I’ve said, I double-dog dare you to do anything meaningful about climate change in a de facto 60-vote Senate.
I don’t have much to say regarding the first place entry, a beautifully written retrospective on the Virginia Tech shooting. While it would be deserving of publication on it’s own merits and without the context of a writing contest, it doesn’t really address the question.
Answers from the other essays include apathy, evidenced by low turnout on election day. That’s definitely a problem, but the biggest? This is universal; every generation, when its members were ages 18-24, was lazy and apathetic toward politics. (Save for the kids that were newly allowed to vote immediately following the passage of the 26th amendment, but that’s totally different.) Another essay espoused the evils of mobile telephones, or technology, or rampant ADHD. Hard to tell what the point was or how on Earth that unknown point could possibly be classified as THE biggest problem facing our generation.
There was, for what is probably the 1,000th time in the past couple months, a condemnation of mixed-market capitalism. That there are currently millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans isn’t a refutation of our economic system as much as it is a refutation of our policymakers and the institutions they inhabit. We’re in what essentially is a textbook post-financial crisis/”balance sheet” recession. There are policies that could have had us out of it by now, but unfortunately…well, see step one.
There was one other essay, on the terrible state of American journalism, that was incredibly poignant. Some may recognize it as “The Cult of Balance”. James Fallows of the Atlantic and Paul Krugman of Princeton and the New York Times have been beating this horse for a long time. Climate Change, while existentially important, is obvious; it’s nice to see someone hit on a more subtle and nuanced topic.
I’m sticking to my guns, though. The political realities of today are incompatible with the political systems they must operate within. Is it really surprising, though, considering those systems were designed in the 1700s? Hardly.
There is an observable phenomenon here. It’s the inability to get an incredibly important point specifically related to congressional procedure across, regardless of effort; to be rendered mute by the popular discourse. It shall be christened henceforth as EKS, or Ezra Klein Syndrome, after its first victim (at least, the first victim I cared to notice). Read this interview he conducted with Matt Miller, who with many other equally as naive men and women have been crooning for a third party candidate to run for the presidency. It’s a stunning example of the cognitive dissonance that inundates the airwaves and broadsheets.
People can talk all they want about how the passage of the PPACA was heated and controversial due to President Obama’s inability to sell it to the public, or because it wasn’t “bipartisan”. It’s all trash; Representatives and Senators are big boys and girls, and they hold the ultimate power in passing legislation. The truth is that the Senate has become a dysfunctional, paralyzed body wherein a dedicated and unflinching minority can halt EVERYTHING and relax in full confidence that no political harm will be done to them. Better yet, not only will such a minority continue to steamroll every rule and norm that has been established over the entire history of the chamber with no consequences, they will do so knowing that they’ll actually come out net positive thanks to the opaque and insipid nature of such tactics.
If only parliamentary procedure was sexy! Maybe then there would be some hope of doing something about it. Here’s to hoping that my generation has a moment of clarity and realizes our actual handicap. My losing entry for the contest follows, after the jump.
A Tale of Two Percentages
First, there was the 99%, a site dedicated to the people out there who are struggling with a myriad of problems and are asking/protesting simply for a deal that isn’t so rotten.
Then there was the 53%, created by Erick Erickson of Red State and CNN, signifying the lament of conservatives and the 53% of Americans who, cursed with the absolutely terrible luck of not being poor, fall into an income classification subject to the federal income tax.
And now comes the unbelievably sad yet still hilarious “No, you’re actually the 47%”, dedicated to refuting many of the self-proclaimed 53%’s claims that they are part of this elite group of taxpayers.
About the 53%, though… The thing most noticeable about the site isn’t necessarily the fact that many of the people posting misunderstood “people who pay federal income taxes” for “people who vote for conservative Republicans”, but rather how many bad cases of What’s The Matter With Kansas Syndrome there are on display. To summarize, the stories are primarily heartbreaking tales of hardship and illness and what-have-you that, for some reason, these people think they’ve overcome with nothing but hard work and perseverance. For example:
The person holding this sign has a father who works 72 hours a week of manual labor and is dying of thyroid cancer; she goes on to say that this is The American Dream.
Listen, I don’t know how bad things were in Croatia in 1971, and it’s a great thing that this family was able to come to America as immigrants and reap the benefits of a rich society and a well-maintained educational system, but working 72 hours of manual labor a week while dying of cancer is not The American Dream. That is sad and unfortunate. I’m not this man and I don’t know him, obviously, but I can say with a high level of confidence that most people who are dying would rather not go back to work. I’m perfectly alright with people like this man not working any longer and collecting assistance checks from the federal government.
Another:
Again, incredibly sad. This person lost the use of one of her arms and was unable to work until she learned a different trade, one that didn’t require two arms. But this is why we have a social safety net in the first place! So that when horrible things happen to people, they don’t lose one-hundred percent of their purchasing power. Why would this person ever want to vote for a candidate belonging to a party dedicated to dismantling the very welfare state that probably saved her life?
Another:
Her father is a public sector employee, her mother works at a nursing home in which there are probably many residents that are only able to afford being there because of Medicare, and she wants to be a public sector employee when she grows up. That doesn’t matter, though; people need to stop smokin’ dope and living off the dole.
There’s plenty more masochism and sadness on display in all the other entries. That aside, the tales of “the 53%” and “the 99%” are strikingly similar, with the only asymmetry being the endings of the letters; one side ends with “things suck, I’d enjoy some assistance” and the other ends with “things suck, but I’m fine with remaining miserable.” The point is: sure, life is hard and unfair, but it can be less hard and less unfair. All you have to do is stop voting against your best interests. Also, doing so doesn’t make you a weak or bad person, it makes you smart.
Sucker for Signs
Homerun! Some serious recruiting needs done, unfortunately.
Paul adds one caveat:
Small quibble: under current conditions, with a large debt overhang, the AD curve should be upward-sloping!
Thoughts on Occupy Wall St. and Awesome Protest Signs
Since the 17th of September, the Occupy Wall St. protests have been on a slow trot from just out of the frame, into the periphery, and finally into full focus of the public eye. Along with the increased publicity has come, naturally, a dose of condescension from the media regarding what exactly these “loony lefties’” complaints are and what they want out of these protests. I don’t want to get hung up on crucifying the media over the early handling of the protests since it’s irrelevant but I find the blatant contradiction on display humorous. Consider the rise of the Tea Party and how members of the press were literally attaching their own narratives to it in order to give the movement more salience, regardless of what all the tri-corner hats were actually saying.
I’m in agreement with a significant bloc of other liberals, as well as the protestors themselves, in not wishing for an exact and proper formulation of demands which must be complied with in order to declare success. Palpable pressure has been seldom applied from the left in any cogent manifestation as of recently, and so it’s worth preserving and nurturing; a succinct set of demands and policy prescriptions could possibly only serve to splinter the body into factions. That’s the consensus I’ve been hearing, at least. That could be a mistaken view, though, as it seems so far that there is little disagreement over the important part: whom will be subjected to their energy and wrath. That’s the most consequential fact, not determining exact policies to get behind. While I think it’s silly to compare these protests to Tahrir Square, those Egyptians weren’t in the street drafting up a future constitution; they were just demanding that the status quo be abolished. Moreover, as Paul Krugman puts it, it’s not exactly the responsibility of the protesters to know exactly what to propose. That’s kind of the point of representative democracy.
That aside, if it’s a simple demand people want, I’m more than happy to oblige. I think almost everyone involved in these protests will agree that, prima facie, policymakers have an obligation to promote full employment. Insofar as the root cause of this movement is utterly shameful policy responses to current economic conditions, not to discredit the rightly felt notion that incredible malfeasance on the part of our Galtian Overlords has gone unpunished, it’s a perfectly direct and poignant request to want someone to actually do something about the millions of un- and underemployed in this country. Of course, many people in positions of power have been trying to resolve this problem. Unfortunately, we’re privileged with a legislative system on par in institutional design with something you’d find in a third world country, so nothing gets done.
In terms of what can be done, under current circumstances, political and otherwise, I must say that this sign really hits the nail on the head. Addressing unemployment at this stage in the game basically comes down to further easing by the Fed, and as such, a lot of ire should be directed at the Fed. Actions undertaken by Ben Bernanke and the FOMC, and more so the European Central Bank, have been negligent at best and pernicious at worst toward any economic recovery. They continue to twiddle their thumbs as the rest of the world burns. So, if we’re grasping for something with some relatively quick and tangible results, I’d recommend protesters start hollering outside the regional Fed banks.
But I mean c’mon! Look at that sign! It can’t be said with a straight face that these people don’t have a clue when someone out there is holding this sign.
A lot of people are hoping this movement continues, and I’m definitely one of them. It may very well become impossible for political leaders to give anything less than a substantive response. The movement certainly has legitimacy. Many have already acknowledged it and have sided with the good guys. Others have castigated it. Things will most likely come to a boiling point eventually; let’s just hope that it isn’t the 99% getting burned this time, like always.
[Top photo by Ozier Muhammad for the NYT]
Life Lessons, Political Economy 101, and Recent Happenings
I’ve tried to adopt a sort of doctrine since I started seriously following politics and policy and econ. and all that good stuff. That being that if the people who read the words I write don’t know things, it’s my fault. Since that’s an incredibly lofty and ridiculous burden to put on oneself and somehow expect anything other than disappointment, I should do the next best thing! The next best thing, of course, is to send the masses outward, unto all else worthy and capable of sating the collective thirst of ‘What’, ‘Why’, and ‘How’!
This is all very corny and terrible, yes? Absolutely, but it is nonetheless solid. It should, however, be expanded further so as to include close friends and general acquaintances. If we know things that others don’t, but should, we have failed them and ourselves. Solid. And it should be adopted. By you, the reader, even. Even if we’re constantly failing, which is somewhat inevitable, it still creates a mindset that puts a premium on incisive, factual information and the rigorous pursuit thereof. Perhaps more importantly, it emphasizes improvement of communicative faculties.
Ahem. So you find yourself in a situation wherein you’re talking to someone inadequately informed on current American political and economic circumstances. Step one: aux armes, citoyens! Standard disclaimer: Words, not fists. Step two through infinity: try not to yell.
All that said, I’ve been meaning to curate a few links over the past couple weeks that sum up the state of play right now in Washington but have been putting it off due to being busy since school is back in session. Here we are though, now.
1. The president released a legislative proposal that includes much needed expansionary fiscal stimulus. Not only would such a measure help goose the economy at a time when there are global fears of a double-dip recession, but it would also accomplish a lot of plain old good things such as fund improvements to our transportation and education infrastructure. Here’s why Congress is not going to pass that proposal, which is called The American Jobs Act.
House Republicans may pass bits and pieces of President Barack Obama’s jobs plan, but behind the scenes, some Republicans are becoming worried about giving Obama any victories — even on issues the GOP has supported in the past.
And despite public declarations about finding common ground with Obama, some Republicans are privately grumbling that their leaders are being too accommodating with the president.
“Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?” said one senior House Republican aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter freely.
If things continue to suck, the president loses. If the president appears unable to garner any sort of legislative compromise, even if it is of no fault of his own due to CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN, the president loses. QED. No one really thinks Republicans don’t know this, that they haven’t been operating under this strategy for the past three years, right?
Matt Yglesias continues:
Public policy is not a zero-sum competition between “Republican ideas” and “Democratic ideas,” but electoral competition is a zero-sum battle for office. In a paradigm where the passage of major legislation counts as a “win” for President Obama then anyone who wants to see President Obama go down to defeat, then no major legislation can pass on a bipartisan basis. This is exactly the problem the White House had in trying to overcome GOP filibusters during the 111th Congress and the main problem they face in trying to reach bipartisan accords with the Republican-led House of Representatives in the 112th Congress. This is the fundamental reality of American politics today, but far too few people put it at the center of their accounts of what’s happening.
Indeed. As a small anecdote on the matter, in an American politics class that I’m currently taking, my professor laid forth a question regarding the aggravating false-truism of the bully pulpit: “Has President Obama been doing a good job of bridging the differences between the two sides?” My ears were met with some resounding No’s, and like a giant, naive idiot, I was shocked. That’s the game being played, though. The median voter gets probably 75% of their political news from Dancing with the Stars. Don’t forget that 100% only equals five minutes a day, too.
2. A recently retired Republican congressional staffer penned up an essay that is simultaneously the most scathing and frightening thing ever, and cathartic, in the sense that this absolutely needs talked about more, regarding America’s unique brand of institutional dysfunction. My general inclination is to say that it’s increasingly being discussed, but this could be because I’m operating in a closed circuit.
Let’s ponder:
The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is collegiality and good faith. During periods of political consensus, for instance, the World War II and early post-war eras, the Senate was a “high functioning” institution: filibusters were rare and the body was legislatively productive. Now, one can no more picture the current Senate producing the original Medicare Act than the old Supreme Soviet having legislated the Bill of Rights.
Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.
This collegiality and good faith is usually described by various political pundits as rules and norms. It’s these rules and norms that have totally broken down over the past few years. “Over the past few years” is slightly misleading, I’ll admit; an exact date can’t be picked out as the day when everything went to hell in Congress. It also can’t and won’t be said that Democrats weren’t guilty of this too when they were in the minority, because they were. Despite that, however, the extent to which Republicans have abused standard operating procedures is without precedent. The American political system is incompatible with modern political realities. No one foresees these realities changing, it’s just not in the evolutionary cards. “Civility” and bipartisan harmony, or what the call for such behavior Paul Krugman aptly calls the centrist cop-out, isn’t ever going to happen; by way of this shattering of institutional rules and norms, it can’t happen. That leaves only the option of the institutions themselves being changed.
The entire piece is utterly compelling and should be read in full. As a heads-up, I’ll have much more to say on the topic shortly. Also, past writing here and here, for the adventurous.
James Fallows, over at The Atlantic, has been giving the piece its due, talking about these implications at length. Here’s an email one of his readers sent him that he rightly thought was worthy of further comment. Quoting it in its entirety:
Like Mike Lofgren, I am a retired Congressional staffer who worked for a House Member from 1985 until January of this year. Unlike Lofgren, I did not retire voluntarily; my boss, a moderate Democrat, lost his race for re-election last November. I found myself agreeing with virtually everything in Mike’s article and immediately forwarded it to a bunch of my friends, some of whom remain working on the Hill.
Privately, many of us who have worked in Congress since before the Clinton Administration have been complaining about the loss of the respect for the institution by the Members who were elected to serve their constituents through the institution. I don’t think people realize how fragile democracy really is. The 2012 campaign is currently looking to be the final nail in the coffin unless people start to understand what is going on.
One thing that especially resonated with me about Mike’s piece is the importance of “low information” voters. The mainstream media absolutely fails to understand how little attention average Americans really pay to what goes on in all forms of government. During our 2008 race, our pollster taught me (hard to believe it took me 24 years to learn this) that the average voter spends only 5 minutes thinking about for whom to vote for Congress. All the millions of dollars of TV ads, all the thousands of robo-calls and door-knocks, and it all comes down to having a message that will stick in the voters’ minds during the 5 minutes before they walk into the voting booth.
The media likes to call this group “independents,” which implies that they think so long and deeply about issues that they refuse to be constrained by the philosophy of either party. There may be a couple of people out there who fit that definition, but those are not the persuadable voters campaigns are trying to capture. Every campaign is trying to develop its candidate into an easy-to-remember slogan that makes him or her more appealing than the other guy. Actually, because negative campaigning is so effective, they are more often trying to portray the opponent as more objectionable (“I guess I’ll vote for the crook because at least he won’t slash my Medicare”).
I’m writing because now that I have been out of the Beltway Bubble, I have gained a little more perspective on how real people see the work of Washington, and I am scared that they are close to revolt. The debt ceiling debate in particular had me screaming at the TV on more than one occasion because both sides botched it so badly. I would like to hope that news outlets like yours could play a positive role in helping to educate people. But I’m feeling pretty pessimistic at the moment.
3. This video was making the rounds yesterday and is simply hilarious. The only lesson to be learned is that sociopathic clown-people like this actually exist and don’t ever forget that.
4. (BONUS) For Ohioans, meet your new congressional districts.
And…that should do it, for now. Have a swell Tuesday.
Is There a Hand to Take Hold of the Scene?
In lieu of another addition to the already countless, standard and grim analyses of the recently released BLS report on employment, which are, truth be told, the verbal equivalent of a gut-wrenching sigh, here’s a song by Okkervil River that aptly describes my disposition toward the matter.
I’m almost certain that the past few years have been a scary movie in which the protagonist keeps going through that door. Except, in our case, the movie is being written, directed, filmed, and screened simultaneously by a large, unified bloc of people who don’t really care if the horror ends until sometime after 2012.
We need expansionary fiscal and monetary policy. The ARRA, also known as the stimulus, was an example of expansionary fiscal policy. However, the overall price tag was too small, not to mention the magnitude of the crisis was wildly underrated/unknown at the time of its debate and subsequent passage. Contrary to popular belief, though, and in light of these shortcomings, it performed as well as was expected by those familiar with Keynesian economic theory. We’re not going to get any more of the fiscal part of the equation mentioned above; here’s hoping the Fed gives us something on the monetary side later this month.
The album art even eerily resembles the global economy right now!
