Author Archives: rakill23

Can Republicans Investigate Obamacare Without Making Fools of Themselves?

Mother Jones

The latest from Capitol Hill is a Republican push to investigate the Obamacare rollout and get to the bottom of what happened. Greg Sargent comments:

Interestingly, Republicans believe the new push will get the public to forget GOP excesses during the last battle — even though both revolve around the party’s central organizing point, i.e., the drive to destroy the Affordable Care Act before it’s too late. As the Washington Examiner’s David Drucker put it: “House GOP leaders are looking to revive their majority’s political strength by focusing on the nuts and bolts of legislating, a policy agenda centered on jobs and economic growth — and concerted oversight of Obamacare, a law still unpopular with many Americans.”

….Serious Congressional oversight would be absolutely welcome here. The question is, are House Republicans capable of supplying it? Obamacare’s problems are inexcusable, and there should be accountability for them. There are real and legitimate problems here that could be exposed.

But when it comes to supplying genuine oversight, previous House GOP probes — into Benghazi and the IRS scandal — devolved into circus stunts. Those investigations got knocked off kilter by lurid and fanciful charges that seemed directed at a hard right audience that remains firmly in the grip of the conservative closed information feedback loop.

Yep, that’s a good question, all right. I doubt it, because I doubt that Darrell Issa has learned his lesson from the events of the past year. I don’t really blame him for the IRS scandal going south, since that one really did look legit at first and it was a helluva juicy target. But his overreach on Benghazi likely ruined what could have been a decent investigation. I don’t think Republicans would ever have found a big-time smoking gun in Benghazi, but a more sober investigation might very well have done some damage, especially since Republicans basically had the press on their side. Instead, they went bananas, and the investigation became a joke.

Ditto for the recent government shutdown. Republicans overreached, and instead of winning a modest political victory that might have been popular with the public, they became the target of massive public anger.

There’s plenty of meat available in an investigation of the Obamacare rollout. But a good investigation will go slowly, taking pains not to drown officials in a blizzard of subpoenas while they’re in the middle of fighting a fire. A good investigation will also focus a lot of its effort on real issues of procurement and how the federal government handles IT projects. It won’t be just a fishing expedition for emails that might be embarrassing to Obama staffers.

There will almost certainly be plenty of the latter. There’s already evidence that political considerations contributed to Obamacare’s rollout problems. But those will get exposed in a serious investigation. Maybe it will take a little longer, but they’ll come.

Can Issa restrain his attack dog personality enough to understand that? Will the tea party caucus allow it? Or will the whole thing quickly devolve into a barrage of subpoenas that are so obviously politically motivated that no one takes them seriously anymore? We’ll see, but I’d put my money on the latter right now.

This article:

Can Republicans Investigate Obamacare Without Making Fools of Themselves?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Can Republicans Investigate Obamacare Without Making Fools of Themselves?

Can We Blame Obamacare’s Rollout Problems on a Kludgy Design?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Mike Konczal argues today that the biggest problems with the rollout of the Obamacare website aren’t really software issues at all. They’re mostly due to the nature of Obamacare itself:

The first has to do with means-testing the program….The second issue is that the means-testing is necessary to link individuals up with individual private insurers….A third issue, and a major reason this is freaking people out, is that the first two problems could introduce adverse selection….And the fourth and final issue is that the federal government has had to pick up so much slack from rebelling states that didn’t want to implement health care.

In other words, if we had a simpler, single-payer system, we could have avoided most of the rollout problems. “Smarter conservatives who are thinking several moves ahead,” writes Konczal, “understand that this failed rollout is a significant problem for conservatives. Because if all the problems are driven by means-testing, state-level decisions and privatization of social insurance, the fact that the core conservative plan for social insurance is focused like a laser beam on means-testing, block-granting and privatization is a rather large problem.”

I very much agree that a simpler, broader national health care program would be far better than Obamacare, which was designed primarily to (a) win centrist and conservative votes, and (b) not rock the boat of existing private health insurance too much. Add to that all the usual horse-trading that it took to get various interest groups on board (doctors, insurers, AARP, pharma, etc.) and you end up with a messy kludge. It may be a historic first step, one that will eventually lead to a better future, but for now it’s still a kludge.

Unfortunately, it’s not clear to me that you can blame the rollout problems on this. Take a look at the Netherlands, as Matt Steinglass does here. Their health care system is well thought of, and it’s remarkably similar to Obamacare: a public-private system that relies on private health insurers, public funding, and an individual mandate. As Steinglass points out, the Dutch system has some features that make it simpler than Obamacare, but it also has some features that make it more complex. But these are mostly nits. In the end, the Dutch system is really quite similar to Obamacare. And it works fine.

I’d submit that a big part of the reason for this is path dependence: the Dutch system is one that replaced an older single-payer system. In other words, they went in exactly the opposite direction from the one Konczal recommends. But it worked OK because the Dutch universally approved of national healthcare already and were universally covered by it. I assume that the details of the new system were contentious, but they were contentious primarily at a technocratic level. Nobody was fighting the basic idea of providing health care for all. That meant the new program could be rolled out on a reasonable schedule and without any big surprises or massive resistance.

Obamacare doesn’t have that luxury. It’s fighting not only technical issues, but also massive cultural and political resistance. This is what makes the rollout so hard.

If I had my way, we’d have a fairly simple, universal, single-payer health care system in the United States. It would work better; provide broader coverage; and probably be cheaper than what we have now. But countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands demonstrate that an Obamacare-like system can work reasonably well too. Konczal is certainly right to mock conservatives who don’t seem to understand that Obamacare is fundamentally a pretty conservative design for national health care—which means that if it fails, it will hardly be a failure of old-school liberalism—but I think he goes too far when he tries to blame the rollout problems on that design. There was never any realistic hope of wiping out the entire private insurance industry and instituting a single-payer system anyway, which makes this all a bit academic, but even if Obamacare is a second-best design, it’s still one that other countries have shown can be implemented effectively. I imagine that, over time, the same will be true here.

See original article: 

Can We Blame Obamacare’s Rollout Problems on a Kludgy Design?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Can We Blame Obamacare’s Rollout Problems on a Kludgy Design?

Fox News Discusses Possibility That Syria War Fulfills Biblical Prophecy

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

End times buffs have taken a special interest in the possibility of US military strikes in Syria. As I reported last week, popular evangelists and writers like Joel Rosenberg have spent much of the last five years talking up the possibility of a conflict that might fit the one outlined by Isaiah and Jeremiah in the Old Testament, in which Damascus is reduced to rubble. On Saturday, Rosenberg spoke about the Isaiah prophecy in Topeka, Kansas, at the invitation of Republican governor Sam Brownback. On Monday, he appeared on Fox News to elaborate on his views.

Rosenberg wasn’t ready to definitively say that an American war in Syria—which is looking less and less likely by the day—would necessarily match the description of the Old Testament. But it was definitely a possibility. “It’s impossible for us to know that yet, and I think it’s wrong for people who teach Bible prophecy to try to guess, in a sense, to try to say for certain that it’s going to happen now,” he told host Neil Cavuto. “But you have seven million Syrians are already on the run—two million have left the country; five million are internally displaced. The Jeremiah: 49 prophecy says that people will flee, but there’ll still be people in Damascus when the prophecy happens. So the bottom line is we don’t know.”

“Amazing,” said Cavuto, when it was all over. “It’s in there. It’s worth a read.”

Jump to original:  

Fox News Discusses Possibility That Syria War Fulfills Biblical Prophecy

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Fox News Discusses Possibility That Syria War Fulfills Biblical Prophecy

School Buses & Idling: Toxic Air in the Making

See original article here:  

School Buses & Idling: Toxic Air in the Making

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on School Buses & Idling: Toxic Air in the Making

Immigration Reform: Dead or Alive?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When Congress reconvenes in September, the immigration debate will pick up where it left off—that is, at a complete impasse. There is still broad, bipartisan support for comprehensive reform, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has refused to allow the bill passed by the Senate earlier this summer to come up for debate; instead, members of his caucus are pursuing piecemeal legislation that focuses primarily on border security. Meanwhile, the clock is running out. With a debt ceiling showdown looming this fall and the midterm elections fast approaching after that, it’s unclear whether the congressional calendar will allow enough time for any immigration legislation to advance before the current session of Congress expires.

Immigration reform advocates are publicly optimistic, but there’s plenty of cynicism among political observers. Last week, Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall declared reform dead and its proponents in denial that House Republicans will change their tune. Reformers should “forget the heroic measures to revive it,” he argued, and “get about telling the public who killed it and holding them accountable for their actions” in the midterm elections.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has repeatedly said nothing will happen unless Boehner allows a vote on a broad path to citizenship for most of the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. Reform advocates are looking to October, when the bipartisan Gang of Seven plans to unveil its long-delayed comprehensive reform bill in House. The introduction of the bill will force House members to go on the record supporting or opposing the comprehensive, Senate-style reform bill and may eventually lead Boehner to bow to pressure on a path to citizenship.

“There’s this sort of beltway conventional wisdom that we’re dead, but we’re optimistic,” says Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, who responded to Marshall’s cynical take with an open letter touting the resolve of the immigration reform movement. “The Republicans have to do something or risk going out of business as a viable national party.”

Daniel Garza, a former Bush White House official who heads the Libre Initiative, an immigration reform group that approaches the topic from free-market perspective, doesn’t see a path to citizenship as an all-or-nothing proposition. “At minimum, what we want is legality,” he says. As a possible compromise with Democrats, some House Republicans have suggested a path to legalization that would allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country, but would not lead to citizenship. “We feel that at minimum, that provides certainty to the folks who are coming here unauthorized that they won’t be deported tomorrow, and we think that is significant enough to get behind what they’re going to be proposing in the House.”

“Republicans are for immigration reform, they’re just not for what the Democrats are proposing,” says Garza, who believes a path to citizenship will be limited to the something like the KIDS Act, which would only affect individuals brought to the country illegally when they were children. “Democrats have defined immigration reform as a path to citizenship,” he adds, but while “publicly they won’t tell you they would settle for legalization, I think secretly they would.”

Sharry dismisses that as “wishful thinking,” arguing that giving undocumented immigrants the ability to become permanent residents but not citizens would relegate them to a “permanent underclass.” This is a proposition, he says, Democrats will reject out of hand.

Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, is more cautious. “I think it’s a big assumption on both sides to say that under no circumstances would Democrats support, in the 11th hour, a program that didn’t include a direct path to citizenship,” she says. “But it’s also hard to imagine there would be much of a political win for Republicans if they’re supporting a second-class citizenship.”

For now, it’s a waiting game. “Republicans are going to have to make some really tough decisions, but ultimately they realize the demographic cliff they’re falling off of is only getting higher and their fall is only getter harder,” Kelley says.

Read this article: 

Immigration Reform: Dead or Alive?

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Immigration Reform: Dead or Alive?

PHOTOS: Meet Groundswell’s Major Players

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A cadre of conservative activists, journalists, and aides has been meeting privately to coordinate messaging in a fight against progressives and the GOP establishment, according to documents obtained by Mother Jones. Groundswell’s participants include DC power players like Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, along with journalists from Breitbart News, the Washington Examiner, and the National Review. Meet some of them below.

jQuery(function($)
$(‘#slideshow’).slideshow(‘0AswaDV9q95oZdGVLXzlfYkJmalVEczNtTGhzZTBqcEE’);
);

View this article – 

PHOTOS: Meet Groundswell’s Major Players

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on PHOTOS: Meet Groundswell’s Major Players