Too tired, quite frankly, to write anything.

Share on Facebook

365.68 (3/9/10). The Colombian capitol building has been invaded by giants ants. It is an art project that has something to do with internal displacements.

The whole thing can be viewed here.

Share on Facebook

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8556065.stm

Share on Facebook

365.67 (3/8/10). I guess glass bricks are considered very ecumenical. Who knew?

Taken in Concourse E of the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Ariport.

Share on Facebook

This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that that is an awful lot in common between the Mass. program and the current health care package in the Congress.  Romney hopes to be the GOP nominee to face Obama in 2012, and yet the GOP base despises the current health care reform proposal.

Romney attempted to differentiate the plans in a variety of ways, but it boiled down to two basic points:  an argument based on federalism and one based on teaxation.

ROMNEY:   […]  Let me tell you, there’s a big difference between what we did and what President Obama is doing. What we did, I think, is the ultimate conservative plan. We said people have to take responsibility for getting insurance, if they can afford it, or paying their own way. No more free- riders. And we solved this at the state level — not a federal plan, but a state plan.

This is a federalist nation. States should be able to solve their own problems. We didn’t raise taxes. We did not at the same time cut Medicare and expect our seniors to have to pay for all this. We didn’t do what President Obama’s doing, which is putting controls on our system of premiums for private insurance companies.

Now, I think that Romney can get some cover with the base by making the federalism argument, but it is fairly thin cover, as with the same breath with his “ultimate conservative plan” with “people having to take responsibility for getting insurance” is  the foundation for universality in the Obama plan, i.e., an individual mandate that all citizens buy insurance, with penalties assessed is insurance is not purchased.  There are also subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage (again, like the plan in the Congress).

Again, the federalism argument with have some sway, insofar as he can argue that it is one thing for a state to behave this way (in terms of scope and power, etc.) and yet another for the federal government.  However, in terms of seriously vigorous intellectual argument, it strikes me as eliding the substantial similarities in the basic policy architecture of the two programs.

He may also have a fig leaf to use in regards to taxes, although the overall question of costs and funding are likely to remain a vulnerability.

None of this is an argument for or against the program, but highlights Romney’s political problems with the issue.

He also the following in that same answer:

And let me just tell you, I think our plan is working well. And perhaps the best thing I can say about it is that it is saving lives. It is the ultimate pro-life effort, if you will, because people who otherwise could have lost their lives are now able to get the kind of care that they deserve.

This is interesting to me for two reasons.  First, Romney clearly is trying to burnish his pro-life bona fides, which are his Achilles’ heel.  Second, it is an argument, which modification, that could be adopted by the Democrats.  Indeed, one could argue that Romney is getting perilously close (from a political POV) to arguing here that a)  lack of health care leads to premature death in the US and therefore, b) health care should be considered a right not a privilege.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

SEN. HATCH:  […] The fact of the matter is they’re going to abuse the reconciliation rules.  And let me tell you, the reconciliation rules have never been used for such sweeping social legislation like this.  This is one-sixth of the American economy.  It’s sweeping in, in effect.  There–and, and, and there have been three sweeping social bull–not sweeping, but social bills that have been approved through reconciliation.  One was, of course, the, the welfare reform. That had 78 positive votes, but–huge bipartisan vote.  Another one was the SCHIP bill, my bill with Senator Kennedy.  That had 85 votes.  The third one was college tuition, and that had, I think, something like 78 votes.  The fact of the matter is, is that it has never been done before, it’s never been used before. 

First, the “sweeping” references were amusing, insofar as watching it on TV Hatch clearly thought that it was a powerful word (It’s sweeping!  Sweeping, I say!).  Plus, it was especially amusing that he mistakenly used the term in opposition to his own argument, and had to correct himself (in the quote above).  And yes, I fully acknowledge that this is major legislation.  But then again, as I noted earlier this morning, the bill itself will not be passed via reconciliation, per se.

Second, while there is little doubt that the proposed legislation would increase the influence of the federal government over the nation’s health care system, it is not a government take-over.  We are hardly poised for single-payer system a la Canada or a British-style government run health service.  I can fully understand why there is objection to the bill and why opponents use hyperbole, but still.

Third, if one carefully reads the above, one finds that what Hatch is really objecting to is the lack of a super-majority, not reconciliation per se.

Share on Facebook

h/t:  Chris Lawrence.

Share on Facebook

The history is clear: While the use of reconciliation in this case — amending a bill that has already passed the Senate via cloture — is new, it is compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.

Of more significance (or usefulness) is the chart that accompanies the write-up, which “which lists 15 major reconciliation bills passed by Congress since the process was first used in 1980.”  Really, it is difficult to review the evidence and reach the conclusion that there is any chicanery to be associated with using the reconciliation process as is being proposed by the Democrats.

What needs to ultimately be understood here is that if (and it is still an “if”) health care reform is passed it will not be passed through an arcane, unfair or unprecedented process (as the current charges would have it).  Rather, the bill has already passed the Senate (with, I would note, a supermajority of 60 votes).  The bill would then need to be passed in the House.  Nothing arcane or unusual about that.   Reconciliation comes in as a means of making modifications to the bill (after the House vote) that are needed to induce the House vote in the first place.  Such changes would have to be linked to spending.

Really, regardless of one’s disposition towards the bill, the above facts are simply that, facts.  Any argument about the process that makes it sound underhanded is simply an attempt to try and block the bill in a disingenuous fashion.   Now, all’s fair in love and war and all that, but if one wishes to be intellectually honest regardless of desired outcomes, then one has to acquiesce to the facts.

The current discussion about the reconciliation process is an excellent example of how the discourse gets shaped by preferences about outcomes to the detriment of honest discussion.

The fundamental fact of the matter is that if health care reform passes it will be because, as the cliché goes, elections have consequences.  At the moment the party in favor of health care reform controls the Congress (comfortably, I might add) and the White House.  As such, it is not a surprise that they are attempting to push their agenda.  Now, it may be that Charlie Cook is right, and this health care debate is Obama’s Iraq War (i.e., a colossal mistake) and further it may also be true that the American people hate this bill.  If so, we have a fantastic remedy for the situation:  more elections (in November of this year again in 2012) wherein the voters can speak and rectify the situation if they so choose. 

Share on Facebook

1. In other words, think tanks associated (in a broad sense) with the left and right, respectively.

365.66 (3/7/10). A quickie so as to keep the Project going. Not a good day for photography. However, soon I will have a new source of inspiration.

Share on Facebook