After Corbu » politics

Not forever…just for now

Quixote — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:22:55 +0000

I thought this Ruffini health care retrospective began well, but what I don’t understand is once you admit to yourself that there are market failures that hurt people that government can ameliorate…where does that leave you? Patrick says: “On health care, I have no idea what our basic guiding principle is. Seriously, I don’t.” This sounds like an existential crisis, and I think I can help: it leaves you on the left.

The typical US economic policy divide is that Democrats want to use government to correct for failures while Republicans blame government intervention for the same. Now, it’s certainly possible for that dynamic to change, and for the next right to be a European-style conservative party that embraces social investment & regulation while emphasizing free market methods of execution. But that would require a much different Republican party, and more importantly requires that you first create the social investment and regulation.

Which is to say, if you want to expand the social safety net, all things being equal, you’re on the left in contemporary American politics. Maybe, now that HCR has passed, or in a few more years after Obama’s ‘socialism’ has marched farther forward, you’ll find yourself on the right. But advocating expanding government from the right means you’ve divorced yourself from political reality.

Also refute the premise

Quixote — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:51:26 +0000

SEK:

“Let me get this straight,” the liberals respond. “You want us to throw batting-practice fastballs, off a regulation mound, to batters holding rocket launchers while we’re in the field; but when we come to the plate, you expect us to hit doctored balls thrown off a spiked Little League mound with wooden bats, or you’re gonna call us hypocrites?”

“Pretty much.

I enjoyed this metaphor tremendously, but it’s also important to note that what Obama did today is substantively different than Bush’s signing statements. Obama’s order details how the existing anti-abortion provisions of the heath care legislation will be enforced, whereas Bush’s statements would typically indicate provisions that he planned on ignoring as unconstitutional per his administration’s warped view of their national security powers.

The former reflects a correct view of the executive’s roll in enforcing laws, while the latter is an immoral power grab.

We got a real Horatio Alger story here

Quixote — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:55:44 +0000

It’s good to know that after failing at everything else in your life you can covert to conservatism and become wealthy and famous peddling righteous indignation at invented victimizations. The right-wing blogosphere is like a giant performance art piece critiquing American Meritocracy.

Hacking No Child Left Behind

Quixote — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:35:08 +0000

It’s hard to describe how awesome it is to see that my former high school district is manipulating No Child Left Behind in such innovative ways. I’m almost proud.

Basically, NCLB school evaluation in Califnornia is based on the percent of 10th graders who pass the HS Exit Exam. It doesn’t matter if the student passes the test in a later grade; the 10th grade rate is the key statistic. The Kern High School District has therefore taken an ‘assume a can-opener’ approach to this challenge and eliminated sophomores. Or at least the low-performing ones.

Here’s how it works:

The Man: We have decided that you have ‘failed’ your freshman year by not earning enough units to be advanced.

You: Fuck me.

The Man: Hey! Language, please.

You: Sorry. That sucks.

The Man: Yes, well, so do your grades. Now you will redo your freshman year and make up the classes you failed so you can rejoin your class.

You: Hmph. What if I fail again? Do I stay a freshman?

The Man: No.

You: Oh. Do I become a sophomore?

The Man: No.

You: Ok…well what?

The Man: You’ll be a junior.

You: Even if I fail? Again?

The Man: Of course. We don’t want to hold you back, we just want to give you more time to succeed.

You: Wait, wait, wait. So you’re saying you’re going to keep me locked in hear for 5 years now?!

The Man: Don’t be ridiculous. If you can’t graduate in 4 years, then there’s nothing we can do to help you.

You: So how is that ‘more time to succeed?’

The Man: Well, it’s more time to prepare for the exit exam, which you won’t take until you’re a sophomore, or in your case, a junior.

You: I’m never going to take that fucking test.

The Man: We know sport. And it’s ok.

You: What?

The Man: Well, I shouldn’t tell you this, but let’s be honest. You’re not going to pass the exit exam. I mean, you might, eventually, but certainly not next year. Not as a sophomore. And we can’t have that. If our sophomore pass rate dives, it’s means lost funds, lost promotions, worse education for all you kids. And that wouldn’t be fair, would it? It’d be better for all of us if you just skipped next years test. I trust you’re agreeable?

You: Maybe. IF I take your test, what if I fail junior year?

The Man: Nothing! It would be unfortunate for you, but rest assured it won’t affect me, and I won’t be on your case. No one will look at that statistic!

You: You guys are gangster. I feel suddenly full of school pride.

The Man: Um, thank you. See you at freshman orientation.

The electoral vanguard will not be uninsured

Quixote — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:02:13 +0000

I know that chicken little can be a useful role to play, and I want to see the health care debate pushed left as much as the next blogger, but I also feel bound to abide by certain numbers. The collective blow-up over Baucus’s bill (see TPM, Pandagon, NMMNB, & LGM), while completely justified on the merits — the bill sucks — is completely off base regarding the electoral impact.

Assuming Democrats do pass a bill where “the poor, the unemployed, the working class are forced to pay large sums they don’t have to insurance companies for “junk insurance” with high deductibles” (aimai) or “the problem of the uninsured [is solved] by passing a law forcing them to buy health insurance which, by definition, most a) cannot afford or b) are gambling they won’t need because they’re young and healthy” (TPM), how potentially damaging is the offended constituency? This is a crude question and obviously the morality of a policy has nothing to do with political power. But I’m tired of the ambiguous boogie man of electoral backlash. Let’s quantify:

My chart of voting behavior for insured vs. uninsured people per US HHS Overview of the Uninsured in the United States, KaiserEDU Public Opinion: Health Care and the 2008 Election, and Gallup 2009 Detailed Political ideology.

Uninsured, politically moderate, likely voters (UPMLV). That’s my definition of the demographic who will be directly adversely affected if Democrats pair individual mandates with low levels of government subsidy. At most, that means 4% of voters. 4% isn’t nothing. Plenty of elections have been decided by less. Given current patterns, it’s 2/3 of the 6% swing Republicans potentially need to retake the House, and if Republicans did win 26 seats, that would be a big deal.

However, that number assumes a group so outraged as to produce a 100-0 split. It assumes no subsidies reach the UPMLV to dull the anger. It assumes that the uninsured are moderate at the same rate as the general population, when they likely skew liberal. I don’t feel comfortable trying to quantify these factors, since the combined margins of error become an order of magnitude greater than the size of the population we’re talking about, which of course is the larger point: we’re debating the electoral importance of Microtrends-sized group. Outside of politicians still being scammed by Mark Penn, I think we can agree that this is not going to be a winning argument for better health care reform.

What’s most noteworthy about this whole reform process is that universal/expanded access to insurance is the core of all the health care reform bills, even Baucus’s lame one. Democratic politicians have largely ignored the fact that there’s no real political margin among swing voters in reducing the uninsured. This actually says something pretty positive about the bulk of the Democratic political class.

A few notes about chart methodology:

“% who voted in 2002″ is from KaiserEDU and refers to the percent of uninsured and insured people, respectively, who self-reported having voted in the 2002 midterm congressional elections. I could not locate 2006 data, and in general it is a tragedy that every 2006 & 2008 exit poll didn’t record respondents health insurance status. For shame, pollsters, for shame.
“% of 2002 voters” numbers are determined using the following equation: [ "% of total insured population" x "% insured who voted in 2002" ] / [("% of total insured population" x "% insured who voted in 2002" ) + ("% of total uninsured population" x "% uninsured who voted in 2002" )]
Insured vs. uninsured as a percent of total population comes from the US HHS 2007 population survey, and given recent job losses the uninsured share is undoubtedly higher, likely meaning that uninsured voters will make up a higher percentage of the 2010 electorate.
Final set of bars overlays Gallup’s partisan identification data over the Insured/Uninsured bars for “% 2002 voters”. This is a bad assumption given the income, age, and race statistical disparity between insured and uninsured populations, but is methodologically conservative for estimating “uninsured likely swing voters.”

Sin Taxes for the Financial Industry

Quixote — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:35:07 +0000

I really wished Jeff Frankel blogged more since economists have established an (undeserved) reputation in the media as John Hodgman-style general experts, but the prominent ones who aren’t named Krugman skew decidedly right and reinforce the laissez faire conventional wisdom. That said, Frankel came through today with a post on the head of Britain’s financial regulatory agency coming out for transaction taxes in order to shrink the trading volume and raise funds.

Transaction taxes are of course a pet policy of mine (a better economy via better systems design!), and they have a lot of potential to raise government funds while creating positive secondary effects, in the same vein as other proposed ‘sin taxes’ such as on soda or pollution. While it may be hard to quantify the behavioural impacts of these taxes, what matters from a policy-making perspective is that, regardless of size, the impacts are positive.

I have yet to see anyone argue that transaction taxes could shrink the time-horizon of investors or increase market volatility. The debate, when it occurs (which is rare, since opponents do not seem willing to engage the issue), is over the significance of the impacts. But of course the impacts aren’t the primary reason to enact the policy; you pass it to raise money for something useful. Something like health care or supertrains or robot gladiators. Any behavioral impacts are gravy.

I really wish that public anger over the bailouts and bonuses to the financial industry could be harnessed into passing a transaction tax — it would certainly be a more productive use of the anger than the abortive attempt to pass special bonus taxes.

On Pacifism As Pathology

Quixote — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:05:34 +0000

a softer world 470 by e horne and j comeau

I’m in a ‘social justice book club’ because I’m some sort of nerdy hippie and we’re reading Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill, a book I found very persuasive in my younger, harder years. Predictably, I’m less impressed by the book upon re-reading. I’m not exactly sure what the profile of a psychological disorder should look like, but Churchill’s attempt to create one for the disorder of pacifism comes across as superficial even to a non-expert. And then there’s the part where he argues that the actual, intentional goal of white American ‘radical’ leaders is to export as much of the physical suffering required to achieve social change to people of color worldwide and then use their continued position of strength to shape the emerging anarcho-syndicalist (or whatever) world order in a way that somehow continues to benefit said white radical leaders.

So the logical setup of the book is: This belief is wrong. Therefore, people that believe this are (a) suffering a psychological disorder, or (b) evil geniuses. These latter parts that attempt to divine the motivations of pacifists are a ridiculous overreach. But the original premise is solid!

There is a much better book, hidden within the self-indulgent speculation of this one, that only explains why pacifism is problematic and justifies the thesis with detailed historical arguments about the process of the South African revolution or changing effectiveness of Indian resistance movements pre- and post-war. The book largely avoids engaging with the historical facts necessary to make a case for the centrality of violence to political change, satisfying itself with compelling, but unsubstantiated assertions: ‘Gandhi only succeeded because of the diminished power of post-WWII Britain’; ‘King only succeeded due to the emergence of more militant black resistance groups”.

I’m predisposed to agree with those arguments, but one has to actually make the case. Martialing those facts is hard and boring, but it’s how you convince people; slick theoretical leaps appeal to the choir only, if even them.

So that better book is what I actually want to read, and I hope that some aspiring revolutionary will take the time to make it their dissertation so I can.

Paging Max Baucus

Quixote — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:16:20 +0000

Well Put Clive:

The current [homeowner mortgage] deduction costs nearly $80 billion a year in forgone federal revenues. It is available only to the minority of households—typically affluent— that itemize their taxes. Households at the margin of choosing between renting and owning are not, for the most part, itemizers. The deduction has no effect on their choice, and thus does almost nothing to promote homeownership. What it does promote, studies show, is spending on housing—that is, people who would have been owners anyway pay more for their houses. Prices are higher than they would otherwise have been, and mortgages are bigger. As many owners have learned abruptly, this can worsen economic insecurity.

$800 billion over ten years is a lot less than I thought the mortagage deduction was costing, but it’s still nearly enough to fund a certain government program that’s getting a lot of attention lately. Combine it with a ‘sin tax’ based on overlarge home square footages (which have negative environmental and land use externalities) and we’d be talking real money…

(via Matt Zeitlin)

Orszagatron Comics Released!

Quixote — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:23:14 +0000

Superhero webmaster Ethical Werewolf releases Captain Ineffective poking fun at the health care process generally and Max Baucus specifically. I’m all for that, but hope future comics will do more to feature android-Orszag fighting evil with…graphs? Charts? Really sharp graphs?

Jesus Saves, I Spend

Quixote — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:01:45 +0000

So basically Obama decided to nationalize an up and coming Creationist theme park company just because a good Christian man was trying to steer clear of evil loan sharks taxes. Neil thinks that’s going to be a problem, but I have to ask: don’t Creationists deserve a public option too?