Repeated lies, start to be believed

"Obamacare is a massive government take-over of our healthcare system". Rick Santorum, GOP Presidential Candidate

"President Obama came into a bad economic recession, but his policies made it worse." Mitt Romney, GOP Presidential Candidate


"President Obama could lower the price of gas to $2.50 if he would open drilling of more public lands" Newt Gingrich, GOP Presidential Candidate

"The Democrats in the Senate have not passed a budget in more than 1000 days" Numerous Republican candidates and lawmakers


President Obama was not born in the US, and is a secret Muslim" Numerous Republican lawmakers and Conservative pundits


All of the above are demonstrably untrue. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't, but sadly it might. Depending on from whom you get your news, you might hear many of the statements above, and many more like them, spoken as if they are absolutely true. They are lies. However, the repetition of a lie does have the effect of making more and more people believe it is true. It is the duty of every citizen to hold our elected officials accountable when they tell these lies. If you hear something that is untrue, it is your duty to contact that representative (they all have websites and email addresses) and tell them that you don't appreciate them saying things that are demonstrably untrue - and point them to the facts.

The same is true for political pundits you may follow. While I believe that Rachel Maddow works hard to get her facts right, she often makes mistakes. It is her viewers duty to point it out. Here is a letter I wrote to Ms. Maddow pointing out such errors.

Rachel Maddow;


Dear Rachel, I am a long-time viewer of your show, and I applaud the obvious care you take in getting the facts right. However, I need to point out some problems with your show of late where it's quite obvious that a video clip you showed is being misunderstood. Recently you played a clip of Romney saying "how important Pennsylvania would be as a state he needed to win, and in winning he would be propelled to the Presidency". It's obvious from the clip that Mr Romney was speaking about the general election. Your commentary after the clip made it seem as if Mr Romney was not being truthful, because clearly he does not need to win the Pennsylvania Primary - which is true. Unfortunately, he was clearly not talking about the primary, he was referencing the coming General Election this Fall.


I tell you this, not because I support Mr Romney, I do not, but because these mistakes (especially when they are so obvious), undermine your credibility and might convince undecided voters that you are an unreliable source for election news. Please take care and keep up your wonderful work.


Fox news can take quotes of candidates out of context, another problem you occasionally stray into, but you do not need to do that to make the very good point that the GOP candidates are disingenuous. Please play the whole clip if the rest changes the context of the quote - and then comment on that. Your narrative is important, but not worth deception to make a stronger point. Democrats should be above that kind of thing. You do it rarely, but my teenage kids see it, do a quick Google search, find the full quote, and now they are not listening to you any longer - which is a shame.


Best Regards,
Dan Burgin

And now for something completely different

Amazing.

The President of the US: 2016

Is there any sense that the idiotic extremism of the Right in assailing women's rights is a winning strategy for the GOP? Clearly, so far, GOP strategists warnings that this is a losing battle, are being ignored by lawmakers and candidates.

Here's the proof. The endless discussions of the evils of contraception by so-called mainstream Presidential candidates like Rick Santorum (on contraception: "It's not okay"), and the fact that Romney has stated his support for a constitutional amendment to define life beginning at conception which would, by definition make the birth control pill illegal. In case you don't know, which let's admit Mr Romney clearly doesn't know, that the birth control pill actually allows a woman's eggs to be fertilized, but those fertilized eggs are not implanted in the uterus - so the fertilized eggs are removed during a woman's menses each month. Romney clearly doesn't understand that, or if he does, he's lying when he says he supports a woman's right to birth control. His quote above that he "...believes that life starts at conception, and birth control prevents conception" is clearly factually wrong. But let's be honest, clearly this whole moronic discussion we are having is terrible for the GOP - and I'm all for that no matter the topic.

So how is the GOP doing with women in swing states at present versus President Obama? While Obama and Romney split the vote of men, Obama has an overwhelming lead among women in swing states. This issue is killing the GOP, to which I stand and applaud. And Santorum? Fuhget about it, that's electoral landslide territory.

I truly hope the GOP continues this war on women's rights. Empirically, it's a death march. And it could mean that this articulate woman could become the President in 2016.

What is, and is NOT a centrist.

Paul Krugman makes an excellent observation, one that just happens to be true (unlike some preposterous rants from the Right). It's a full-throated take-down of the Ryan Budget as the extreme, social darwinism, anti-New Deal piece of legislation that it clearly is. Krugman assails the media's current fascination with the "brave" Ryan budget, and the myth that Ryan himself is a centrist. He asks this question:

Well, ask yourself the following: What does it mean to be a centrist, anyway? 

It could mean supporting politicians who actually are relatively nonideological, who are willing, for example, to seek Democratic support for health reforms originally devised by Republicans, to support deficit-reduction plans that rely on both spending cuts and revenue increases. And by that standard, centrists should be lavishing praise on the leading politician who best fits that description — a fellow named Barack Obama.

This particular myth, driven hard by the GOP, and unfortunately echoed by the media who, after years of being attacked by Fox News as being "left wing" and "lame-stream", are so desperate to be seen as centrist that they jump at the chance to embrace a seemingly reasonable Paul Ryan, and his "brave" budget. Please. Mr Ryan is the veritable wolf hiding in sheep's clothing - unless you happen to be extremely wealthy, or one of those corporations that, as Mr Romney points out, "...are people my friend".

Time to be real. The GOP has driven off an ideological cliff, and we need to make sure they're not hanging onto the ledge. Dear, Republicans. It's time to fall, and past time for your party to throw off the tantrums of the Tea Party, and return to the actual center, rather than the center that's somewhere to the right of nowhere at present. It will be your demise if you continue this path. The best argument against democracy might be 5 minutes with the average voter, but sooner or later, even these average Joe's know a Wolf when it bites them, and steals their money.

Shared Delusions: a story of demise of a once great political party

In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, ever a partisan hack opinionator if ever one existed, has blasted the President for criticizing the Supreme Court's activism. It is one of a long string of clues since 2008 in a growing body of evidence that the GOP is headed toward political exile. The moronic war on birth control, abortion, and ultimately on the independence of women, the nomination of an unanchored flip-flopping candidate who can convince the low information GOP primary voters that he's a Conservative, then Etch-A-Sketch his way to the middle in the general election, and even this article from Mr Krauthammer are part and parcel of a theme.

Here is my response to Mr Krauthammer where this theme of political exile emerges:

Mr Krauthammer, please. You wrote, "Obamacare passed the Congress without a single vote from the opposition party — in contradistinction to Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, similarly grand legislation, all of which enjoyed substantial bipartisan support.". 

The extreme obstructionist nature of the GOP during Mr Obama's entire tenure, does not somehow denigrate the majority for lack of the minorities'  votes on any piece of legislation. What happened to respect for the electoral mandate Presidents win? The President chose, perhaps unwisely (we shall see), to spend the political capital he earned on this issue in his first term. It is not his fault that the disdain the nation felt (and still feels, left and right) about GW Bush administration caused this landslide. Respect the decision, and the majority vote. A deliberate strategy, so ineloquently phrased by Mr McConnell, to make the entire force of the GOP's efforts in a severe economic downturn, not to help the nation thru a crisis caused in large part by lax regulation under Mr. Bush, but instead to make Mr Obama, "a one-term President" is to blame for the lack of aisle crossing on this, and any other legislation since Mr Obama took office. If you don't recognize that the GOP should shoulder almost all of the blame for the great recession, and the nation's disgust at our Federal institutions, you are clearly deluding yourself. It's ok, it is a shared delusion among the most rabid partisans the nation has ever seen coming from your party. Elections matter, and the rightward lurch of your party, combined with 8 years of idiotic and destructive nonsense coming from Mr Bush is why your party will lose, yet again, in 2012. 

It's time you and your GOP cohorts took a good long look in the mirror, and realize that moving ever rightward, and criticizing a Democratic President who operates somewhere only ever so slightly to the left of Ronald Reagan, is a recipe for disaster and will relegate your party once again to 40 years of exile in the minority. Open your eyes sir.

Will the GOP cast off the extremism of the right wing in time to save the party? Let's hope so. In a two-party system, strength on both sides is required for balance and stability to happen and for our nation to be strong.

Lesser evils, ideological compromise, and the healthcare individual mandate

I am no constitutional lawyer, but that aside I have a few things I would like to point out about the current SCOTUS debate on the Healthcare Individual Mandate. First, we progressives must set aside the demonstrably hideous hypocrisy, rampant intellectual dishonesty, and disgusting manipulation of a minimally educated, myth-intoxicated voter base that passes as statesmanship in the GOP in increasing measure with each passing election. (see what I did there?) 

Essentially there are two positions on constitutionality with regard to the commerce clause and the individual mandate. Rather than defend that constitutionally, legally, and honoring prior legal precedent (which I cannot), I'll just focus on the argument logically and from the position that recognizes the fact which the high court has encountered many thousands of times - there are no ideologically pure decisions. All things require nuance, compromise, and choosing between two (or more) less than ideal choices. Such is life.

First, I think the mandate will be ruled unconstitutional. I think the common good, and easy logic that our society is greatly improved when all citizens have healthcare and that all are required to pay for it, is going to be found distasteful to the conservative majority on the court. I think political ideology is at play, in equal measure at least, to constitutionality. I think the current majority on the court hold the view (which I disagree with) that freedom is defined as the right of individuals to be as free as possible, with little regard paid to the potential consequences on the society writ large. While I find this view unsophisticated, even somewhat barbaric, it is not without some merit as a test of reason, especially when weighing exceptions. And exceptions are unavoidable. The downsides to society of this "freedom at any cost" ideology are easy to see, and for a subset of Americans with their unbending fervor for all corner cases of freedom; ignoring all consequences of this "freedom" is demonstrably harmful. 

Examples are many, but here is one.

Unlimited access to as many guns as any individual might want, is dangerous. Allowing anyone to carry these firearms (often legally concealed) wherever they choose (including schools and even some state legislatures) is just nuts. Further passing laws like the new GOP favorite, "Stand Your Ground" that allows individuals to shoot anywhere they are legally allowed to be as long as they assert that they "felt threatened", means Trayvon Martin will not be the last innocent shot dead. I could go on, but you get the point. Freedom is something we need to be nuanced about, or we are so "free" we devolve into any number of possible dystopian societal outcomes. I believe the hypothetical freedom not to participate in the obvious benefits of healthcare and therefore refuse to bear the cost of that healthcare, is what this argument is about.

When pondering the position of those that think it possible that the mandate is constitutional, they tend to argue that healthcare markets are unique in one way. In no other market can those who refuse to buy something, pass the cost of that decision onto others who do, when all invariably use the product of that market (I'll get back to the "invariably" question in a moment). Those who choose not to buy a flat screen TV cannot force the market to give them a flat screen TV for free, simply because their team makes it to the Super Bowl and they want one - or feel they need one. There are unlimited similar market examples one could use - and not one is analogous to the healthcare market. I believe this feature of the healthcare market is unique and could be the lone exception wherein the government can mandate participation by all, or tax penalty for non-compliance. 

Simply said: If a society chooses to medically treat the uninsured, the lesser of two evils; force payment or allow deadbeats, is to force payment.

To the argument against constitutionality being made as to the fact, and I agree it's a fact, that the government created this problem by earlier mandating that the uninsured be treated, I challenge the argument that the decision to treat the uninsured is somehow flawed. It has, for sure, the unfortunate side effect on cost to the insured, however logic was invoked in the decision to treat the uninsured as well. Would we really like to live in a society that allows those with easily treated maladies to simply be turned away to infect others or to simply die? I have been to India and watched people laying in their own bodily fluids, swarmed by flies on a public train platform. I don't think it's workable to suggest that we simply reverse our decision to treat the uninsured as the best path - despite the Darwinian attraction that may hold for some. But given that the decision to treat the uninsured is a reality (in my view) of living in a civilized society, we do introduce the need to solve the problem of cost created by that decision (in my view a necessary and humane outcome) .

This is indeed a tiered decision, where we are forced to face choosing the lesser of two evils. If one chooses to treat the uninsured, we must deal with the cost in some way or we treat the insured unjustly. This causes us to find, as we must and have in many, many questions of constitutionality, that the good and just outcome may be to grant an exception to some constitutional clause for this unique circumstance alone. These interpretations and exceptions are why the high court exists after all. The court can also stipulate that this is indeed an exception, and does not necessarily imply (as some would like us to believe) that the government immediately has broad new powers to force the buying of other things. Even so, these future hypothetical transgressions by the government are subject to constitutional scrutiny, should they ever occur.

And finally, to those who challenge the assertion by the Obama administration that everyone will eventually require healthcare, I offer this challenge. It is hard to imagine many such examples of people who do not require (or decline) to use healthcare services. I can think of three:

• One can imagine a person making the (deranged?) choice to simply never be treated for any malady - which might be called mental illness and require forced treatment (but I digress). The likelihood of need for this treatment within this hypothetical persons lifetime is virtually certain. Also, even if we say that people are free to never ask for medical care and therefore should not be required to have health insurance, choosing not to treat an infected person puts the entire society (or at least the nearby society) in much greater danger of infection. Even if one stands on the purity of the ideology of allowing people to make that choice, I would guess the number of individuals to make such a choice (refuse all medical care throughout life) would be so small as to be inconsequential. But I am a progressive, after all, and therefore willing to allow some exceptions even if they offend this hypothetical (and likely deranged or possibly non-existent) person, for the common good - I assert this compromise is reasonable and the only just outcome - but clearly not satisfying to all parties - as is the very nature of compromise
• It is also possible to imagine that very wealthy people might simply choose to pay for their own treatment out-of-pocket. Surely they are not the problem in question. Also, infringing on their freedom by requiring them to purchase health insurance, is also not a heinous outcome, given the real problems of freeloaders who make a conscious choice to take advantage of the mandate to treat the uninsured. As in all things, nuance is required, freedom is not a universal right in all cases, especially corner cases, and in some circumstances, we must interpret our laws to find the least harmful middle ground
• Finally, one can imagine someone choosing never to use healthcare. We have such people, they're called Christian Scientists. I would be happy to make the decision to allow such people (Christian Scientist or otherwise) to eschew any treatment, but I would say a single transgression within their lifetime, should force that individual out of the exception for life and subject them to the "buy insurance or be taxed" majority case

In the end, we only have so many choices. We can accept a free-market solution like the Individual Mandate of the GOP think tank, The Heritage Foundation, most in the GOP for the past 20 years, including Gov. Romney, or we can choose Medicare for all, a single-payer system surely more irksome to the ideologically conservative among us. Making no choice, as Mr Romney and Senate minority leader McConnell have asserted recently, is surely not an option. One must choose, and choosing is not ideologically pure. One must, in the end, get over that. After all, it is one of the very essences of being alive.

The new and "improved" Ryan budget

What I share below on the new Ryan budget is as clearly stated as is possible in my view regarding the box GOP fiscal orthodoxy has wrought. Fortunately for all of us with already high incomes, this will range from mostly meaningless to our bottom lines to hugely and positively impactful.  If you are, like me, someone with few deductions already, and a high income, these lower rates will be quite beneficial, as they are not offsetting any large tax deductions for me, other than the mortgage interest exemptions. So I guess I should be happy, but... 

The Ryan (and Romney) economic orthodoxy, quadruples down on supply side economic theory. If they are right, we will explode with growth, if they are wrong (and almost surely the evidence supports the conclusion that they are dangerously wrong), we will slowly continue to shrink GDP, push more and more income upward to the already wealthy, and slowly the middle-class will disappear completely - dividing us into two classes; the wealthy and the not. And given the fervor to repeal the Affordable Care Act, those who fall into this "not wealthy" crevasse will likely not take care of themselves, and will flood hospitals for normal care, costing us billions in insurance premium increases in our free market healthcare system (shouldn't the GOP call that increase a hidden "Tax"?) - so we will pay for that anyway - or we can "just say no" and let people die I suppose.

So what the new and "improved" Ryan budget means for the vast majority of poorer Americans is pretty harsh - and by association - this outcome is the largest impact (a largely intellectual impact) on us in the top 5%. It begs the question, what kind of country do we want to be? But more importantly, if we sap the buying power of 60% to 70% of Americans (the hump in the income bell curve), can our free market economy really ever prosper again? After all free markets require a large base of consumers with at least some disposable income each month. It's a serious question with important implications.

This analysis from the great Ezra Klein:

I don't think Paul Ryan intended to write a budget that concentrated its cuts on the poorest Americans. Similarly, I don't think Mitt Romney intended to write a budget that concentrated its cuts on the poorest Americans. But there's a reason their budgets turned out so similar: The Republican Party has settled on four overlapping fiscal commitments that leave them with few other choices.The Republican plans we've seen share a few basic premises. First, taxes are too high, and must be cut. Second, defense spending is too low, and should be raised. Third, major changes to entitlement programs should be passed now, but they shouldn't affect the current generation of retirees. That would all be fine, except for the fourth premise, which is that short-term deficits are a serious threat to the country and they need to be swiftly cut.


The first three budget premises means that taxes and defense will contribute more to the deficit, and Medicare and Social Security aren't available for quick savings. That leaves programs for the poor as the only major programs available to bear cuts. But now cuts to those programs have to pay for the deficit reduction, the increased defense spending, and the tax cuts. That means the cuts to those programs have to be really, really, really deep. The authors have no other choice.


In Ryan's plan, for instance, revenues are approximately $2 trillion below the levels in Obama's budget, spending on defense is about $200 billion higher, Social Security is unchanged, and Medicare is about $200 billion lower. So that's approximately $2 trillion in lost revenues that need to be made up -- and then Ryan reaches for more than $3 trillion in deficit reduction atop that.


So the cuts to programs that mainly help the poor are correspondingly deep. The $1.5 trillion the Affordable Care Act was going to spend on subsidizing health insurance for low-income Americans is gone. But then Medicaid and other non-Medicare health programs take an $800 billion cut on top of that. Education and worker training loses $200 billion. Income security loses $800 billion. These are huge cuts.


And that's just in the first 10 years. As time goes on, the scheduled cuts become much deeper in programs for the poor than in programs for the rich. Medicaid, for instance, is only allowed to grow at the rate of inflation, while Medicare can grow at GDP+0.5 percent, which is substantially higher. Food stamps also see their growth capped at a low rate, while Social Security is left untouched. And while Ryan does take aim at tax breaks that he says benefits the wealthy, he intends to close them and use the proceeds to fund a tax cut.


As I said at the top; I don't take this as evidence that Paul Ryan wants to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. I take it as evidence that, given the set of commitments Republicans have made to their base, he didn't really have a choice. It was the only way to make his numbers work.


But that doesn't make the end result any different: Ryan's budget asks for enormous sacrifice from, say, disabled Medicaid beneficiaries even as it appears to provide enormous tax benefits to wealthier Americans. The same is true for Romney's budget, and, in even more exaggerated ways, for the fiscal promises made by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. The Republican Party has backed itself into a fiscal strategy in which this kind of concentrated sacrifice on the part of the poor is the only possible path forward.