^{John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi schooled by George Washington Plunkitt}

In a recent feature story on 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft detailed how many in Congress use their privileged access to information on pending legislation, investigations and regulations to line their own pockets. Much of the piece was based on research of Hoover Institute fellow Peter Schweizer from his book “Throw Them All Out”. Among the surprising revelations in the book – Congress is exempt from prosecution for the same kind of insider trading that would send the rest of us to jail.

Coincidentally, über-lobbyist and felon Jack Abramoff was saying much the same thing to anyone who would listen while promoting his new book “Capitol Punishment”. CNBC has been covering the story for a while and offers a succinct summary in the video linked here (I would have embedded it, but my Donk permissions don’t allow).

Abramoff asserts the practice is widespread and growing. Schweizer connects the dots between the increasing entanglement of the federal government in the private economy and the consequential exponential increase in opportunity for our congressional leadership and their staff to partake in the profitable practice of insider trading. Both Abramoff and Schweizer name names.

Kroft focused primarily on the specific examples of our most recent Speakers of the House. He reported John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi participated in investment activity that, at best, created the appearance of conflict of interest. Some have criticized Kroft and 60 minutes for focusing on two of the weaker examples cited by Schweizer, presumably because of their leadership roles. But even these examples are illuminating. More interesting than the exposure of the trading activity itself, was the response from their respective offices. While we already knew that they did nothing illegal, predictably both offices also emphatically denied they did anything wrong.

Kroft described purchases of Visa stock by Nancy Pelosi and her husband while she controlled the timing of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies. Her spokesman:

Current Speaker John Boehner purchased health care stocks when he was aware that the “public option” was about to be dropped from Obamacare. His spokesman:

Note that neither the response of Boehner or Pelosi directly addressed the question of whether their profitable trades benefited from insider knowledge. In both cases they defend their consistent record on the policy issue (credit card consumer protection for Pelosi, opposition to the public option for Boehner), and take umbrage at the mere suggestion that their positions on these issues might be influenced by personal financial gain. Fine and good, but that is not the point. The issue at question is whether they used insider information not generally available to the public to make trades that benefited themselves.

When sorting through these fine gradations in the taxonomy of congressional graft, it is useful to have a guide. There is no better guide or greater authority on the subject than George Washington Plunkitt, who literally wrote the book on political graft.

At the turn of century, George Washington Plunkitt was a Senator in New York, and considered one of the most corrupt members of possibly the most corrupt political machine in our history – New York’s Tammany Hall. He is famous for (among other things) writing his own epitaph – “He Seen His Opportunities and He Took ‘Em.”

Yet – George Washington Plunkitt was not without a moral compass. He made a clear distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. This distinction was a moral line in the sand that even he would not cross. Moreover he forthrightly defended this distinction in a series of public speeches, which were later compiled into a book: “Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics, Delivered by Ex-Senator George Washington Plunkitt, the Tammany Philosopher, from his Rostrum—the New York County Courthouse Bootblack Stand.”

We’ve have had occasion to consult this valuable reference before, when in 2006 we explored the Speaker of the House Denny Hastert’s land deals and came to the conclusion that they perfectly fit Plunkitt’s definition of “Dishonest Graft”. The Speaker of the House of the United States of America in 2006, the man who was third in line for succession to the presidency of the United States, was engaged in activity that would not meet the moral standards of one of the most corrupt 1906 political participants of the most corrupt political organization in the history of the United States.

That was then, this is now.

Good news. Our last two Speakers are no longer participating in “Dishonest Graft”. They are simply engaging in good old, perfectly acceptable, “grab your opportunities where you see ‘em “Honest Graft”. GW Plunkitt explains in Chapter 7:

There you go. Plunkitt’s criteria for honest graft is: Do nothing illegal (monkey with the penal code); serve your party’s interest (the organization); and serve your constituent’s interest (New York City and the US). If you do those things, and you happen to learn about money making opportunities along the way, no problem. You are entitled to that money. Go for it!

With Plunkitt’s criteria in mind, now go back and reread Boehner and Pelosi’s dismissive brush-off of the 60 Minute charges. Nothing illegal. Good for the party. Good for the country. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Of course, there are always a few spoil-sports who don’t appreciate the moral certitude of Plunkitt’s Razor. These misguided souls continue to introduce The Stock Act every year, where it gets no co-signers, is never brought to the floor, and goes nowhere. Reporter Eamon Javers of CNBC is on the case:

This one bears watching. It looks like Representative Slaughter’s bill might even get some action in the Senate. No one has a better nose for political opportunism than Sarah Palin. Palin jumping on the bandwagon may indicate this issue will have legs. Maybe even – dare I say it? – bipartisan support.

It could happen.

^{X-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.}

With each passing day, Gabrielle Giffords’ chances for making a recovery get better and better.

National Journal shares the details…

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has been “holding her own” as she fights to recover from being shot through the head on Saturday, said Michael Lemole, chief of neurosurgery at University Medical Center in Tucson, Ariz.

Lemole appeared on a number of morning shows today to provide updates on Giffords’s condition. She remains in critical condition after undergoing surgery to try to contain damage from a bullet that passed through the left side of her brain, which controls speech, among other things. Doctors are keeping her in a medically induced coma but bring her out every few hours to check on her condition.

“We also had CT scans this morning that show the swelling is not getting any worse,” Lemole told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re still not out of the woods. Typically, the swelling can go through a period of evolution of three days or more. But every day we get farther out, we’re more and more encouraged.”

Definitely not out of the woods yet, but please keep sending good thoughts her way.

The motives of the coward who shot a bunch of people (including Dem Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords) down in Arizona earlier today are not known, but I think we can all agree that campaign literature like this certainly doesn’t help…

Yes, I’m talking about Sarah Palin. This was the tweet announcing the ridiculous image above…

This type of stuff is completely irresponsible. Especially when followed up with this from Giffords’ opponent Jesse Kelly…

Both of these images have been taken off of their respective websites, but h/t to FDL for rounding them up.

The last report is that Giffords is in surgery, but 5 are dead.

One additional piece of info…

In March, hours after Giffords voted in favor of health care reform, the front door of Giffords’ Tucson office was shattered, also a side glass panel.

More as it develops…

Early in July, we took note of a CNBC panel discussion worrying about a Double Dip and Ron Insana offering an explanation for a stock market rally in the midst of unrelenting bad economic news.

On that day the Dow closed up 276 points at just over 10,000, and since then added another 10%+ (trading at 11,126 as I write this). As I have said before, I do not believe there is any case to be made for a statistical correlation between market direction and political parties in power that will stand up to rigorous mathematical scrutiny over the long term.

However, in the short term, if investors believe that divided government is good for markets, then that expectation can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. That may be what we are seeing in the market now in anticipation of the November results. This expectation of divided government is gaining momentum and the meme is getting traction in the MSM. Two recent examples:

USA TODAY: Voters may sway stocks with possible policy changes

“Forget price-to-earnings ratios. Buy-and-sell decisions on Wall Street are increasingly being driven by power and politics and what voters will do at the polls…

Even though Obama and Democrats swept the polls in the 2008 election, investors would prefer a split Congress, as a balance of power on Capitol Hill makes it less likely that the Democrats will be successful in passing what Wall Street perceives as an investor-unfriendly, growth-challenged agenda.

“A dramatic change in the composition of the House and Senate could significantly alter the legislative strategy for all political leaders, including President Obama,” says Jason Pride, director of investment strategy at Glenmede.

Historically, divided government has been bullish for stocks because it results in what Wall Street refers to as legislative gridlock. And in the words of many Wall Street analysts and economists: Gridlock is good.“

Heh. Where have I heard that before?

A couple weeks ago, in the face of yet another bad jobs report, the market rally continued, prompting an interesting segment on the Larry Kudlow Report. A panel including Steve Moore (who worked for Dick Armey in ’95) and David Goodfriend (who worked for Bill Clinton in ’95) discussed whether the market’s continuing strength was attributable to an anticipation of the return of Divided Government:

The most interesting exchange is between Goodfriend and Moore (around the 5:30 mark) arguing whether Republicans or Democrats could take credit for the prosperity and relative financial sanity that prevailed during the Clinton/Gingrich divided government. I am happy to give credit to both, and to the benefits that accrue when divided government keeps the worst impulses of both parties at bay.

Lest anyone think that Republican Kudlow is being disingenuous and flogging self-serving Republican spin when he asserts that the investor class prefers divided government – let me reprise one of my first YouTube efforts. This from from four years ago, shortly before the 2006 mid-terms. Here we see the selfsame Kudlow noting a rally, wondering if the markets are anticipating the Democrats taking the majority and restoring divided government, prompting what he then called the Pelosi Bull Market:

In any case, If you have been fully invested since the Insana piece ran in July – so far, so good (Past performance is not a guarantee of future results).

x-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall”

As noted here before, Taiwanese animation is the future of news. This week, Republican Senate hopeful Christine O’Donnell gets the animation treatment and is explained to the domestic China/Taiwan audience by the Taiwan NMA News Network:

This begs the question asked by Chris Cillizza: Why does Christine O’Donnell get so much coverage and attention from the media and Democrats?:

“Tonight’s Delaware Senate debate between marketing consultant Christine O’Donnell (R) and New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D) will be carried live on CNN and co-moderated by the network’s lead anchor Wolf Blitzer. Judging from that treatment, a casual viewer might conclude that the race for Vice President Joe Biden’s old seat is among the most competitive in the country. That, of course, would be wrong. Way wrong…

it is important to keep O’Donnell in context. She is a decided long shot to even come close to being competitive in Delaware, and there are at least 15 Senate races that are closer, according to public polling, at the moment. Covering her is one thing. Covering her as though her race will decide the fate of the Senate is quite another.”

Christine O’Donnell is a clown of a Senate candidate who is going to lose by a large margin to a Democratic opponent in a Democratic state for the seat vacated by Democratic Vice President Joe Biden (to whom she already lost before). The Senate contest does not even make Nate Silver’s top 10 list of Senate Seats vulnerable to switching parties. Her debate performance was laughable and did not help.

We know why NMA selected her for this treatment. It is because watching our media, NMA determined she must be a big story. The real question – Why is she such a big story here? Why is she getting so much new and old media attention that she pops up on the NMA meme radarscope?

Dave Weigel takes a crack at explaining this phenomena:

Which reminds me of an old joke (modified to suit our purpose here):

A despondent Democrat was crawling about on the sidewalk under a lamppost at night.

A Police Officer came up to him and inquired, “What are you doing?”

The depressed Democrat replied, “I’m looking for my car keys of hope.”

The Officer looked around in the lamplight, then asked the Dem, “I don’t see any car keys. Are you sure you lost them here?”

The Democrat replied, “No, I lost them over there”, and pointed to an area of the sidewalk deep in shadow.

The policeman then asked, “Well, if you lost them over there, why are you looking over here?”

The despondent Democrat looked at him and said, “Because the light is better over here.”

x-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.

What better day and time to update our “10 in 10″ election prognostications? Last we checked in – Nate Silver (our polling analyst of choice) showed that 9 of the 10 seats most likely to change parties were all held by Democrats and he was forecasting a net 6-7 seat Republican gain in the Senate. One month later…

… with less than a month to go – 10 of the top 10 seats most likely to change parties are all held by Democrats and Nate is forecasting an 8-9 seat gain by the GOP. So – despite the nomination of a GOP clown candidate in Delaware (virtually guaranteeing a Democratic victory in that state) the odds of a GOP Senate takeover continue to improve.

Nate still gives the Republicans less than a 1 in 4 chance of retaking the Senate majority outright. But then he is basing his odds purely on the November 2nd mid-term results. As I have maintained throughout, the GOP need only take 8 or 9 more seats to make changing parties an attractive proposition to Lieberman and/or Nelson, and eight or nine seats look likely now.

Most surprising continues to be the race in Nevada. Sharron Angle is a terrible candidate. Harry Reid, as it turns out, is worse. “None of the Above” may be a spoiler.

The most disappointing potential race result for me is the one one that hits closest to home. Fiorina needs to make up some ground, and that will be tough in a state like California with less than 3 weeks remaining. But then… Scott Brown did what Scott Brown did in Massachusetts. Maybe there is just enough of that magic left over to surprise everyone on the left coast. Why wouldn’t California vote for a senator who throws down a shot of tequilla before delivering a stump speech? My last political contributions this season will go to Carly in California, and Kirk in Illinois. These are the seats that will make the difference.

I will make one change to my earlier prediction. Then I thought it unlikely that the GOP would take control of the House, invoking the “100 year Rule” and expecting the GOP to come up just short. My new, improved, and updated prediction is that the most likely scenario is that the GOP will go into 2011 with majority control of both the House and Senate. Nate and Charlie convinced me.

Apparently, Political tidal waves don’t care about 100 year rules, nor how deep a hole the GOP dug for itself in the last two cycles, nor how unconventional the candidates riding the wave may be.

It Looks like I’ll be changing teams again in November.

Suddenly I have a taste for a tall, icy glass of kool-aid.

Originally posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.

UPDATE: 10-14-10 Some links added and updated since original post

Regardless of what you think about the current health care legislation being debated on Capitol Hill, being able to read it before it goes to the floor for a vote is the right thing to do and I’m glad to see a Senator from Missouri calling for it.

But will the Dems listen?

From Politico:

As the health care reform bill moves to the Senate floor, a key bloc of moderate Senate Democrats and an independent called on Senate Majority Leader Reid to increase the process’ transparency.

Specifically, the senators called on Reid to post legislative text and CBO scores online 72 hours before the first floor vote. They asked that all amendments be posted before debate begins. And the amended bill and CBO score should be posted three days before a final Senate vote and before the Senate votes on a conference committee report.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman signed the letter.

“As their democratically-elected representatives in Washington, D.C., it is our duty to listen to their concerns and to provide them with the chance to respond to proposals that will impact their lives,” the senators wrote. “At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low, we can begin to rebuild the American people’s faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process.”

Simply put, this administration promised transparency and they should push the Congress to deliver…especially with legislation this contentious. Because it’ll expose anything truly controversial and save a lot of headaches in the long run.

Anybody disagree?

It’s pretty easy…the only people that voters like less than Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans.

Add in the facts that Republicans have no coherent plan, no definitive leadership and are allowing right wing pundits to organize and promote this Tea Party movement and you have a reality where Dems might actually pick up seats next year.

Personally I think it’ll be a wash, but let’s take a look at what the Independents in a recent Research 2000 poll had to say about Dems and Repubs.

• Nancy Pelosi
  22 Favorable, 71 Unfavorable
• Harry Reid
  27 Fav, 65 Un
• Mitch McConnell
  10 Fav, 73 Un
• John Boehner
  3 Fav, 70 Un
• Congressional Dems
  32 Fav, 65 Un
• Congressional Repubs
  9 Fav, 76 Un

And before you say this is just one poll…here’s another one from Gallup…

Last, and I think this fact sometimes gets lost in the shuffle, Americans remember who was at the helm when the train derailed. Also, it’s not like Dems are running Congress in some woefully inept manner. Are they bipartisan? For the most part, no. But, again, the only people voters think are less bipartisan than Congressional Dems are…you guessed it.

So to all of my fellow politicos who claim that Dems are in for historic defeats next year…you might want to pay less attention to the Tea Partiers and more attention to the swing voters.

This is a joint post of Justin Gardner (Donk Quixote) and Mike Wallach (Phanto), wherein they endeavor to tilt at windmills (with many apologies to Miguel de Cervantes):

“And no sooner did Donk Quixote see them that he said to his squire, “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Phanto, the hulking healthcare insurance giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to have healthcare for all, for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”

“What giants?” asked Phanto.

“Those you see over there,” replied the blogmaster. “With their long corporate arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length.”

“Take care, sir,” cried Phanto. “Those over there are not giants but bureaucrats and political windbags. Those things that seem to be their arms are purses which, when they are filled with contributions, weigh heavily on the laws that control our lives.”

Those familiar with Justin and Mike from reading this blog, know that we are generally at odds, disagreeing more than we agree. Justin is a registered Democrat, and considers himself a liberal with independent leanings. Mike most recently registered as a Republican, but considers himself primarily a fiscal conservative, deficit hawk, and a libertarian leaning independent.

But lo and behold: We found common ground in the Health Care Reform debate.

If we were starting with a blank slate, we would support vastly different and incompatible health care systems. But we are not starting there. We have different objections to the existing system, but agree that the current system is in need of reform. We also agree that the reform most Americans want includes three critical criteria:

1. Universal coverage for all Americans
2. Insurance against financial ruin if struck with an illness.
3. The reform program be fiscally responsible, manageable and have understandable costs.

What currently existing bill hits all three?

Wyden-Bennett.

Yes, we both support (S-391) The Healthy Americans Act and agree it represents a good foundation on which to build rational Health Care reform.

Donk Quixote (JG):

“Wyden-Bennett has my support because it does away with the pre-existing condition clause, reigns in costs and has the potential to cover more Americans than the current legislation being proposed.”

Phanto (mw):

“Wyden-Bennett has my support because it meets the critical criteria for reform, does it better than HR 3200 and does it without increasing the deficit or requiring net new taxes. Wyden-Bennett has my support because it directly and honestly attacks the central problem of employer based health care insurance as the primary delivery vehicle for non-public health care in America. Wyden-Bennett has my support because it is not (yet) saddled with questionable deals for big pharma, big insurance, and payoffs for big union contributors.”

Saying we support Wyden-Bennett does not mean we have no reservations about this bill. Au contraire mon frère…

Donk Quixote:

“Wyden-Bennett feels like it’s the co-op idea only it takes EVERYBODY’s health coverage away who currently has it through their employer and makes them buy it again. Basically, no more tax breaks for health care. I’m in favor of the principle of that, especially if it could cut costs, but I do think that the radical restructuring of the system would be opposed by many more Americans because it’ll be seen as taking something away from them and would require a lot more work on their part. How do you think a plan that starts off with “First, you lose your insurance…” would play with Americans? Because you know that’s how it would be positioned. This could be a non-starter for many. And to that point, do you really think members of the right wing who kept on saying “Obama is going to raise your taxes!” would stay quiet and accept Wyden-Bennett?

Also, getting back to the co-op idea…does anybody really think creating a system that would dump EVERYBODY off of their insurance is more politically palatable than one that simply opens up options and provides subsidies for those w/o health insurance or those working for small businesses? Bipartisan or not, this bill represents a VERY radical reshaping of how we buy and sell health insurance in this country and such a seismic shift doesn’t seem politically feasible to me.

Phanto:

“I describe myself as a “libertarian-leaning independent”. There are elements of Wyden-Bennett that cannot be reconciled or rationalized with anything that resembles libertarian principles. This is where I have my greatest heartburn with this bill. Chief among them, this bill has mandated coverage. The bill does not work financially without mandated coverage. It works very well with it. It could be rationalized that individuals will have a much wider range of choices under Wyden-Bennett. But I won’t call that a libertarian argument, because individuals will not have the option to not participate.

The trade-off for this mandated coverage is that we get a fiscally sound health care system that covers everyone, that puts no one at risk of financial ruin from getting sick, and does it without raising the deficit or requiring net new taxes. I am willing to take that trade-off. This is why I describe myself as libertarian-leaning as opposed to libertarian or Libertarian. Once in a while, I feel compelled to lean another way.”

Are the politics of Wyden-Bennett within the “art of the possible”?
No idea. It feels like it should be. Universal coverage for all, catastrophic illness protection for all, no increase in the deficit and no net new taxes. What’s not to like?

Clearly there is a constituency on the left who will find nothing less than a Single Payer system to be acceptable. They will never accept this bill and are excluded from the pool of potential supporters. Clearly there is a constituency on the right who will find nothing less than a market based system with little or no government participation to be acceptable. They will never accept this bill and are excluded from the pool of potential supporters. But for the rest, for the wide range of liberals, conservatives and independents who would like to find some common ground and believe there is a need to reform our healthcare system – this presentation is for you:

(There is a four slide “Keep It Simple Stupid” version linked here and embedded at “Divided We Stand United We Fall”.)

Does Wyden-Bennett actually have bipartisan support?
Commenter Mike (not mw) kicked off an interesting discussion among the Donklephant commentariat, questioning whether there is sincere bipartisan support for this bill, or whether Republicans were simply using it for political cover. There is one way to find out. Get behind it, and if there is enough popular support, we will see what happens. Our guess, the compelling fiscal calculus – true reform with no net new taxes and no increase in the deficit – permits the inner fiscal conservative of many Republicans (and Blue Dog Dems) to overcome their other concerns.

Outside the halls of Congress, bipartisan support in the new and traditional media is visible, broad and deep:

• “[Wyden-Bennett] is probably a better approach than the consensus Democratic plan, which doesn’t have hard cost controls at all, and so doesn’t really explain how it’ll save enough money to be sustainable over the long haul.”
  - Ezra Klein
• “Now you might think that in these circumstances someone might take a second look at the ideas incorporated in the Wyden-Bennett plan, which already has a good C.B.O. score, bipartisan support and a recipe for fundamental reform”
  - David Brooks
• “The Senate’s smartest health-care wonk, Ron Wyden of Oregon, believes we should move away from job-based insurance. He has introduced a bill that would do this by converting the tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance into a tax credit and requiring individuals to use it to buy insurance. This would achieve universal coverage, apply meaningful cost controls, and—according to the Congressional Budget Office—pay for itself within a few years.”
  - Jacob Weisberg
• “The Wyden-Bennett bill is less expensive, covers just as many people and has actual bipartisan support. So far nine Democrats and five Republicans are sponsors, while no Republicans have backed the president’s plan yet.
  - Salt Lake Tribune
• “Despite being the darling of health policy bloggers and the first bill to be certified by the Congressional Budget Office as covering nearly everyone and fully paying for itself, the measure is being roundly ignored by those actually trying to put together a health overhaul measure on Capitol Hill and in the White House.”
  - NPR
• “A divorce of health care benefits from employment would increase social mobility, provide more individual investment in our health, and the reforms present in the Wyden-Bennett proposal would also ensure that people, regardless of pre-existing conditions or age, could still attain health benefits.”
  - E.D. Kain
• “Under the Wyden-Bennett system, health dollars would be controlled by the individual (a long-time conservative goal) and used within a restructured, heavily regulated, totally universal, insurance marketplace (a longtime liberal goal). Each state would create Health Help Agencies, who would provide easy access to insurance products, along with information, guidance, and advice on how to choose. Insurers would have to meet a minimum standard for comprehensiveness (equivalent to the standard Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan currently offered to members of Congress), and they could not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, occupation, genetic information, gender or age. Nor could they deny insurance to those who ask for it. In return, every American would have to buy health insurance, and there would be hefty subsidies for those further down the income ladder.”
  - American Prospect
• “The idea has a lot of appeal. It would give most people far greater choice than they have now, and they could take their benefits with them when they change jobs. It also provides generous subsidies for those who cannot afford to purchase health care on their own, and yet the Congressional Budget Office has said the proposal would be “revenue neutral,” which means it wouldn’t add to the deficit. It would include a minimum defined-benefits package, with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions.”
  - TIME

UPDATE: Simon complains in the comments that the right is underrepresented in this sampling. We strive to please and are adding two more quotes:

• “The plans favored by Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy or President Barack Obama rely on a “public option” in which government insurance would supposedly “compete” with private insurers, a move many see as leading to a single-payer system. By contrast, the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act relies on the private insurance market while imposing a series of regulations to squeeze savings from the private sector… The idea, Mr. Wyden says, is to harness the Democratic desire to get everyone covered to the Republican interest in markets and consumer choice. “Everything I’ve been up to with this coalition is designed to make reconciliation irrelevant,” he explains, referring to a political maneuver whereby Democrats might try to force through health reform on a bare majority of 51 votes rather than the filibuster-proof 60 votes normally required. ‘People can’t be tricked into fixing health care.”
  - WSJ
• “Republicans should embrace universal healthcare by supporting the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act. There is no another viable way to get rid of the tax-free treatment of employer-provided healthcare benefits that is severely distorting the healthcare market. Once you throw in on top of that greater benefits than those currently offered for families and individuals, consumer choice among competing healthcare plans, portability of health insurance, and (adding in the inevitable under-estimate of total cost) a price tag that costs a trillion dollars less in the next decade than any Democratic plan, you end up with the best bill in either chamber.”
  - Tom Church

It should also be pointed out that, unsurprisingly, there is bi-partisan opposition to this bill. :END UPDATE

In the end, tilting at windmills can be an exercise in futility, but oddly, we still feel pretty good about it.

With that, Donk Quixote and Phanto ride into the sunset.

Cue “Man of La Mancha”

This is my quest, to follow that star …
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far …
To fight for the right, without question or pause …
To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause …

And I know if I’ll only be true, to this glorious quest,
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm,
when I’m laid to my rest …
And the world will be better for this:
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
To reach … the unreachable star …

“…the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low.

Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats. A new Gallup poll that shows Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents should provide little solace to Democrats. In the same poll, Congressional approval among independents is at 22 percent, with 31 percent approving overall, and 62 percent disapproving.”

This is consistent with my expectations for 2010. There is no realistic likelihood of the GOP regaining a majority in either the House or Senate, but they are certain to cut into the Democratic majorities. This is also consistent with history, as the party out of power will usually pick up seats in the midterm election of a first term President (GWB being a notable exception).

If I was a betting man, I’d put the over/under at a net 12 seat gain for the GOP in the House of Representatives. Looks like Charlie Cook is setting the early line at 20 seats. This is surprising, as it is comparable to the Democratic Party gains in 2008 when they had everything going in their favor.

Charlie also notes that this sentiment in the electorate may effect our congresscritters behavior when they return from recess.

We’ll see how it develops… Cheers.

In my last post I detailed some of the roadblocks that have kept the Democratic leadership in Washington from finding a way to pass a major health care reform bill with a public option. They’ve whittled the cost of the bill down a few hundred billion dollars by negotiating concessions from drug companies and hospitals, as well as settling on a provision that would have employers pay a fee for each employee they do not already cover. The two main proposals to fill the budgetary gap have stalled, and are possibly dead in the water. So what other options are there?

Past the constant calls for saving money by eliminating wasteful spending, which never seem to materialize into actual legislation, we need to find new forms of income to pay for this bill. They seem to be failing at convincing enough senators to support taxing benefits and the more affluent, so what else is left?

For the most part, we pay for our governmental services through income taxes (both individual and corporate), property taxes and consumption taxes. Property taxes are used for other things and rightfully shouldn’t be on the table here. The two proposals that were trotted out for discussion by the Democratic leadership were both taxes on types of income. What remains are consumption taxes.

In a way, consumption taxes are the most fair. For instance it makes perfect sense to tax gasoline and tires to pay for roads, as those driving on those roads need those things to do so. So doesn’t it make sense to tax those behaviors that create high health care costs? The American people seem to think so.

Kaiser Family Foundation poll

A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, from back in April, found that reforming health care is one of the public’s highest priorities, that a majority of Democrats and Independents believe that we need reform now and that a majority support taxing unhealthy behaviors as an acceptable way to pay for some of these reforms. When asked it they would support raising taxes on “items that are thought to be unhealthy, such as soda, alcohol, junk food and cigarettes,” 61% approved (39% strongly favoring, with 22% somewhat favoring the idea). I’m a huge fan of proposals that kill two (or more) birds with one stone, and I think this is a textbook example of such.

To fund a health care program, it makes much more sense to tax behaviors that lead to health problems than it does to tax income in general. By doing so we can, in one fell swoop, put more of the costs of the system in the hands of those who are causing the most problems, lower the consumption of these products AND help pay for universal health care. We already have taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and items deemed luxuries like jewelry, hotel stays and amusement parks. So why not extend similar taxes to the most unhealthy ‘food’ items in the market? (I put food in quotes because one could argue that high fat and sugar content items like pop, potato chips and many fast food items can hardly be described as food)

First on the cutting block is alcohol, with 68% of respondents strongly or somewhat favoring raising taxes on it to help pay for health care reform. Smoking is more demonized in our country, but alcohol related health costs actually outweigh those related to smoking. The Marin Institute lists several alcohol related health care costs, among them $175.9 billion on alcohol related problems, also saying that they bring about “$184.6 billion dollars per year in health care, business and criminal justice costs, and cause more than 100,000 deaths.” This being the case, I see it as nothing but reasonable to levy a higher tax on alcohol, possibly in relation to which forms of it result in the worst outcomes, that is equal to the cost to society it incurs.

Still with a few hundred billion dollars to go, we come to tobacco. I was a bit surprised that a higher cigarette tax was supported by fewer than the increased alcohol tax, but this may be because tobacco products are already taxed at a high rate. Florida alone loses $20 billion dollars when you compare the taxes it collects to the money it pays out, amounting to nearly $7,000 per smoker. A study released by the CDC in 2002 showed that “For each of the approximately 22 billion packs sold in the U.S. in 1999, $3.45 was spent on medical care attributable to smoking, and $3.73 in productivity losses were incurred, for a total cost of $7.18 per pack.” These numbers are sure to have risen since then, and with somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 billion packs of cigarettes sold in the US last year, it seems more than fair to tack on at least another few dollars per pack.

Whether or not this fills the gap entirely, we also should look at taxing the most unhealthy food items. A study at University of Victoria (British Colombia) found that all income groups would benefit, although more so near the top of the economic spectrum, from a tax on junk foods that sent money towards health care programs. I would suggest that this disparity would be less pronounced in the US, where many people near the bottom of the economic spectrum have much more to gain from such an arrangement, given that it will help pay for health insurance that many of them currently do not have.

Put all of these together, and you might piece together enough to get over the hump. At the very least we could make it easier to pass one of the income tax ideas by lowering the amounts they’d have to raise through it.

One might argue that this would cause people to consume less of these products, thereby reducing the income from the levies. My response would be that we should then increase the taxes to keep up with the costs. This would hopefully create a cycle where more people would consume less, making the purchase of such products even more expensive, driving more out and lowering costs to treat those people over the long run. Herein lies the killing two birds with one stone situation.

One might also argue that this is a regressive tax. In effect it will be that way, at least at first. It is the lower end of the spectrum that spends a larger amount of their overall income on food. They also tend to eat less healthy foods. However, nobody forces them to choose to purchase these particular food items. Nobody should force them to quit, but if they want to continue to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, the rest of society should not be forced to subsidize it.

If people want to smoke, drink or eat themselves to death, then they can make a down payment on the hundreds of thousands of dollars the government will pay to take care of many of them during the last months of their lives. If we can save some of them from that fate by enacting the proposals mentioned above, thats even better.

2008 Senator Lindsey Graham seems to disagree with 2009 Lindsey Graham.

This is Mike Fritz and David Murdock from ANP.

Senator Lindsey Graham was a passionate critic of the Bush Justice attorneys during this past summer’s Armed Services Committee hearings on interrogation.

Lately, however, Graham seems to have had second thoughts on the matter. At a recent Judiciary subcommittee hearing investigating the torture memos, Graham mounted a feisty defense of Jay Bybee, John Yoo and the lawyers who provided legal cover for detainee abuse.

This performance sent producer Mike Fritz back to the ANP archives to confirm that this was indeed the same Lindsey Graham we remembered from the summer, and sure enough, it was. As this video reveals, same guy – different message.

Click to view the whole story at Huffington Post.