There are a million snarky things I could say about this, and many of them are being said around the blogosphere. I have a feeling, though, that I’d regret it once the full story comes out. Because there has to be something else here — thinking about this decision and watching the video, I can only wonder what the rest of the story is. Palin is throwing away her political career; there has to be something serious at the bottom of it.
Here’s the video of Palin’s speech. She’s clearly flustered here; I can’t even begin to keep up. What’s going on?
We know that Republicans want Obama to fail. They’ve made that pretty clear. Which makes me wonder: Does that sentiment extend to the economy? Would they be happy to see the economic recovery fail and have us plunge into a depression? It would probably do a lot for their party’s electability, but is it possible that they could be so cynical?
I was disturbed by the glee with which Republicans attacked this month’s poor jobs report. Did they really think the economy was going to be fixed overnight? Shouldn’t they be working with Obama to improve the economy, rather than reveling in its continued weakness?
Yes, June was another bad month for the economy; in fact, by some measures it was worse than May. That’s yet another sign that our economy is fragile — it is indeed the worst economy we’ve had since the Great Depression, and the fix will not be quick nor easy. The June jobs report mostly confirmed what the administration and economists have been telling us: We shouldn’t really expect the recovery to begin in earnest until next year, and then slowly at that.
June’s poor jobs report confirmed something else for us: Just as liberal economists Paul Krugman and Christina Romer have said, it’s far too early to give up on Federal efforts to restore the economy, lest the economy slip into a depression. Yet Republicans have been ever more vocal in calling for fiscal restraint, despite the fact that they themselves had none during the Bush years. Do they really believe the message they’re pushing right now, or are they just hoping Obama will cave in and reduce spending prematurely? That would give them months of bad job reports to gloat over. Once again, I hope they’re not really that cynical, but I’m not sure anymore.
Wow, that’s a lot better. After some bad numbers early on, the revised health reform bill would provide near-universal coverage for a much lower cost:
The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.
By contrast, an earlier, incomplete proposal carried a price tag of roughly $1 trillion and would have left millions uninsured, CBO analysts said in mid-June.
The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans [emphasis added].
You would think Republicans would want to support the less-costly measure, given their insistence that the Obama administration has been spending too much. But this isn’t about what’s the most cost-effective, or what’s best for Americans. This is about defending the status quo for the benefit of health insurance companies. Newt Gingrich, for example, says the health insurance companies are doing a great job:
The media keeps reporting that health reform is losing momentum, but I just don’t see it. Granted, it’s probably not going to be done by August, but this is major, major legislation — getting it done within Obama’s first year would be an impressive feat by any standard. Now there’s even more momentum behind reform: Retail juggernaut Walmart is adding their voice in support of health care reform.
Here’s an excerpt from a letter sent to President Obama by Walmart, the SEIU, and the Center for American Progress:
We believe now is the time for action on this vital issue. We commend the leadership of elected officials who are committed to enactment of reform, and we appreciate the commitment to inclusion and transparency which has been present thus far.
We are entering a critical time during which all of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will have to make a choice on whether to support the legislation. This choice will require employers to consider the trade off of agreeing to a coverage mandate and additional taxes versus the promise of reduced health care cost increases.
Given Walmart’s history of providing poor benefits to its employees, is their support for reform really whole-hearted? Probably not. I take this letter as a sign that Walmart recognizes the broad support health reform has in America right now.Walmart has two choices: it can either be involved in policy negotiations, or have a policy imposed on it. Americans support universal health care, and it looks like employer-based health care will be the primary mechanism to deliver it. The result is that Walmart is facing a mandate to cover its employees whether it gets involved in the debate or not.
Quite frankly, though, I don’t really care about Walmart’s motives here. I’m sure that, given their choice, they’d much rather continue with the current model where many of their employees are covered by Medicaid because of their low wages and benefits. But the fact of the matter is that reform is coming, and Walmart knows it. By adding their voice to the chorus calling for health reform, Walmart is contributing that much more momentum toward getting reform implemented this year.
The Democrats now have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate! In theory, at least. What are the chances of them actually overcoming a filibuster? I’m going to guess that they’re pretty slim.
Will they be able to overcome a filibuster on climate-change legislation? They’ll have to convince Arlen Specter (D-PA) to vote with the Democratic caucus. How about a filibuster on a national security bill? They’ll have to struggle for Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) vote. They’d better make sure their proposals aren’t too liberal, or they’ll lose Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) vote.
The point is, 60 Democrats (counting independents who caucus as Democrats) are still not going to be enough in many cases. The Democratic party is simply too fractious — and Harry Reid is too weak a leader to whip them into line. Of course, every vote counts, and Franken’s vote will help Democrats get more bills through Congress. But on the most important legislation — cap and trade, for instance — the Senate is still likely to be a black hole.
Fair’s fair, and there’s one campaign promise Barack Obama has definitely not followed through on — his pledge to make government more open and accountable.
Since the Reagan era, conservatives have put forward the truism that the free market is the solution to everything — that the market is a benevolent force that always does good. They still make that claim, but it’s a little harder to swallow right now. The housing crisis we’ve still struggling to recover from, for instance, was caused by a market failure.
A classic example of a market failure is pollution. Pollution is an negative externality — a negative result of the manufacturing process that is borne by society at large, not just by the manufacturer. Although manufacturers produce pollution, they aren’t the only ones to pay for it. Manufacturers actually have an incentive to pollute if they can make their products more cheaply, because they don’t bear the costs of higher pollution. The solution is simple: The market needs to be tweaked so manufacturers pay the cost of pollution. Once the costs are passed along to manufacturers, they suddenly have an incentive to minimize the costsimposed on the public.
Cap and trade is a popular method for dealing with the problem of externalities. The advantage of this method is that it still allows the market to function — it simply turns pollution from an externality into a natural component of the free market. We’ve used cap and trade before in the United States, in fact, to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions which lead to acid rain. The Environmental Defense Fund has some charts that show just how well cap and trade has worked for SO2 emissions, such as the chart to the right.
Market failures can weaken our economy; they can also cost the public billions of dollars in the case of externalities like pollution. Right now, Americans are working to remake our economy in the wake of a major recession; we’re moving towards a green economy in which the United States once again manufactures things. It only makes sense that one component of that change should be reducing the externalities in our market and bringing the costs of carbon pollution into the marketplace.
I have often talked about the need to build a new foundation for economic growth so that we do not return to the endless cycle of bubble and bust that led us to this recession. Clean energy and the jobs it creates will be absolutely critical to this new foundation.
Cap and trade will play a major part in building a green economy. In my mind, there can be no doubt that we need a new foundation for our economy; we can’t have real economic growth based on nothing but housing appreciation. Given the immense impact global climate change could have on our way of life, doesn’t it make sense to build a green economy which could simultaneously help to save the planet?
One focus of the Obama administration’s economic efforts has been getting America to make things again. One of the reasons our economy fell so hard in this recession is that, since the tech bubble, the economy was based on nothing but housing appreciation. No economy can have real growth like that for long. To really get our economy moving again, America actually needs to produce something of value — and green technology has the potential for explosive growth.
The cap-and-trade bill which passed the House yesterday is one step toward making that a reality. The underlying goal of the bill — combating global warming — is obviously important in its own right. It’s astonishing to me that many conservatives call it a “hoax,” but global warming has the potential to be absolutely devastating to our country and the world. In addition to fighting global warming, though, cap-and-trade will also encourage the invention and manufacture of new green technologies as American companies seek to reduce their carbon emissions.
Yes, there will be costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the net cost will be approximately $175 per household per year. The EPA estimates the bill will decrease household consumption by approximately $80 - $110 per household. Of course, this doesn’t even consider the long-term benefits of reducing climate change. If we don’t get a handle on climate change quickly, the costs will be far greater.
For the reduction in greenhouse gases the new policy will achieve, the costs are well worth it. As an added bonus, cap-and-trade will create new markets for green technology, moving us closer to a green economy. A green economy, in turn, is an economy in which America once again produces things and creates value — meaning we no longer need to lurch from one speculative bubble to the next.
Good for Keith Ellison, my Representative in CD5. Ellison, a member of the progressive caucus, says he will “not be dissuaded” from opposing any attempt at health reform that leaves out a public plan.
Ellison also says his ideal plan would be a single-payer plan. Let’s not forget that the public plan is a compromise between single-payer and a more market-based system. Just that plan represents an enormous concession, and the loss of significant savings. Let’s not water health reform down any further.
A week after a high-profile uproar with comedian David Letterman over the late-night host’s joke about her daughter, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is again sharply responding to the appearance of her children in the public sphere.
…
“Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother’s love for a special needs child,” Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapelton said in a statement provided to CNN. “The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling.”
The latest “outrage,” seen above, has absolutely nothing to do with Trig Palin. The blogger responsible for the photo superimposed the face of a conservative Alaska talk-show host Eddie Burke over Trig’s face, by way of saying that Burke is far too close to Palin. Does she really not understand that? Does she really believe this photo is a “malicious desecration?” Or is this just her way of staying in the media for yet another week?
You know, I feel terrible for Trig Palin. He is going to grow up as his mother’s favorite political tool, being trotted out to inspire the base, and thrown out in front of her as a shield against any political attack.
Sonia Sotomayor, evil commie activist judge, wants to take away your guns because she hates Jesus, America, and the flag. Or, at least, that’s what Republicans say based on a single decision Sotomayor joined:
This year, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that held the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states. At a news conference Wednesday, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other senators said they were concerned about the decision and pledged to grill Sotomayor about it at her confirmation hearings, which begin July 13.
The panel’s reasoning, Sessions said, “would eviscerate the 2nd Amendment in many parts of the country.”
Republicans shouldn’t press this one too far, though, unless guns are important enough for them to admit they’re hypocrites when it comes to judicial philosophy. After all, Sotomayor was ruling in exactly the way conservatives typically advocate:
Democrats and gun control groups argue, however, that Sotomayor and the other members of the panel were following a restrained approach to the case by declining to rule on an issue the Supreme Court has yet to take up.
in an opinion a few weeks ago, in a Chicago gun-control case, a panel of conservative appellate judges said Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had gotten it right.
I’m sure Sessions and Co. would say it was different. The conservative justices were protecting freedom. Sotomayor and her judicial-activist buddies were running an end-run around the constitution to further their goal of destroying real Americans.
[Democrats] will use the budget reconciliation process, which would eliminate the Republicans’ ability to filibuster, to pass health care legislation. However, they will hold off on reconciliation until October 15. That gives them nearly six months to put together a bill that can garner Republican support. Ultimately, Democrats are sending a clear signal that if Republicans won’t participate in crafting a bill they can support, the Democrats will pass health reform on their own.
A couple of months ago, the Democrats were ready to push health care reform through the system without Republican support if necessary. Now, the discussion has focused almost entirely on how the Dems will water down the health care bill to gain Republican support. I hope the Democrats will realize that there must be a limit on the concessions made to Republicans.
I’m glad the Democrats want to build consensus on health care reform. But there need to be limits. The Republicans’ ideas should be heard, but the Democrats need to set certain minimum expectations for health reform. If Republicans aren’t willing to accept a plan with a robust public option, then their votes simply aren’t worth it. Sen. Charles Grassley yesterday said that any sort of public option would be a dealbreaker for Republicans. If that’s true, we have nothing to talk about. They can wait until October and deal with a bill that takes none of their ideas into consideration.
That was Rep. Mike Castle, R-DE (for now). He’s been considering a run for Joe Biden’s Senate seat. Is he considering whether we wants to run at all, or is he trying to decide whether to run as a Republican or Democrat?
In the House, according to data from the Washington Post, Castle has the 27th-lowest percentage of voting with his own party. He voted with the Republicans 86.9 percent of the time, which seems pretty high, but keep in mind that the vast majority of Representatives voted with their own party over 90 percent of the time.
I don’t know if I’d particularly welcome the switch. Delaware did send Joe Biden to the Senate, so I’m sure we could get a more progressive Senator than Castle. Still, it’s always enjoyable to watch the massive exodus from the GOP.
Cap and trade is a popular method for dealing with the problem of externalities. The advantage of this method is that it still allows the market to function — it simply turns pollution from an externality into a natural component of the free market. We’ve used cap and trade before in the United States, in fact, to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions which lead to acid rain. The 
A week after a high-profile uproar with comedian David Letterman over the late-night host’s joke about her daughter, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is again sharply responding to the appearance of her children in the public sphere.
People Are Shouting
RSS