The Debt Ceiling is a pretty complicated problem.  Yeah, yeah – it probably doesn’t seem that complicated to you.  Most everyone thinks the debt ceiling is a simple problem with a simple solution.

Democrats think the solution is to raise the debt ceiling now and worry about the deficit later.  They will, by and large, acknowledge that the debt is a problem in the long term, but they will insist that, in the short term, the most important thing to do is to raise the debt ceiling and continue deficit spending to stimulate the weak economy.

Establishment Republicans think the solution is to raise the debt ceiling to avoid default and to simultaneously cut spending significantly.  They will, by and large, acknowledge that reducing government spending may have some negative impacts on economic growth, but will insist that the most important thing to do is get the deficit and by extension the debt under control.

The Tea Party think the solution is to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, claiming that such a scenario would still permit the US to pay entitlements but would force by necessity major cuts in discretionary spending.

The problem is not so much that there are three competing positions, but that each group thinks the other two are acting in bad faith.

To the Democrats, the Establishment Republicans are trying to increase their election opportunities by slowing economic growth until 2012 and are either wagging or being wagged by the extreme Tea Party wing that’s hell-bent on cutting off its nose to spite the financial health of the union.  And of course, it’s all because they hate Obama.  And they’re probably all racist too.

To the Establishment Republicans, the Democrats are trying to continue the same reckless spending in order to keep its constituent special interest groups happy, and are more concerned about re-election in 2012 than the long-term fiscal well-being of the country.  Obama’s just trying to get re-elected, is over his head when it comes to economic policy, and the entire lot of them just think the Republicans are a bunch of racist hicks.  Meanwhile, the Tea Party is overplaying its hand, trying to co-opt the entire party at the expense of actually getting helpful policy concessions.  Oh, and they actually are the racist hicks that the Democrats accuse the Establishment Republicans of being.

And of course, to the Tea Party, the Democrats and the Republicans are merely two sides of the same big-government coin, more interested in continuing spending and perpetuating their hold on power rather than actually rooting out the problem.  Both sides revere the same economists who failed to warn us about the subprime mortgage market, neither side respects the will of the people, and they’re all a bunch of Beltway-ingrained fat cats that think that the other 90% of the country is a bunch of racist hicks.

I think it would be helpful for the political process and the fiscal health of the nation if we all assumed that everyone was arguing and negotiating in good faith, rather than in bad.

Given that I consider the Nobel Peace Prize (past recipients include: Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, and Yasser Arafat*) and hosting the Olympics (past recipients include: Beijing ‘08, Moscow ‘80, Berlin ‘36) to be dubious ‘honors’, I really can’t get particularly worked up over Obama winning the former and losing the latter.

*The Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work [1] for fraternity between nations, [2] for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and [3] for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.  Given that I sincerely do not consider the latter two goals on the list admirable,I cannot take the ‘award’ too seriously.

A specter is haunting America: the specter of profit. We have become fearful that somewhere, somehow, an evil corporation has found a way to make lots of money.

- Yale Law Prof. Stephen Carter in today’s Washington Post.

Read the whole thing.

As members of Congress discuss a tax on cosmetic surgery to pay for the healthcare bill, the blawgosphere covers the pressing question raised by Glenn Reynolds – whether this taxation of medical procedures could be extended to abortion.

Paul Caron suggests that a tax on abortion specifically (although not generally) would be seen as infringing on the constitutional rights of women:

In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a Minnesota use tax on the cost of paper and ink products violated a newspaper’s First Amendment rights. Although the precise contours of this doctrine are much debated, a tax singling out the exercise of the constitutional right of abortion would likely face special scrutiny. But a general tax on elective cosmetic surgery that also reached elective abortions may be permissible under the Minneapolis Star doctrine.

Jonathan Adler agrees, citing Casey specifically, but suggests that there might be quite a few SCOTUS Justices who disagree with its standards:

Of course, this assumes that Casey would govern the case, but I think that is a fair assumption. While at least two, and perhaps as many as four, justices believe the “undue burden” test is too restrictive on states, Justice Kennedy was part of the Casey decision that established this test and has shown no indication he is willing to abandon it.

To the pro-life movement, a tax on abortion would be the ultimate “Sin Tax”, but this entire debate seems to me to only illuminate the problems with Roe v Wade. The decision in Roe was based on a constitutional right to privacy – and this suggests that abortion can no more be taxed than gay sex (ie: Lawrence v Texas). On the other hand, there’s no inherent reason why an abortion – a trivial medical procedure in the parlance of Pro-Choicers – is any more constitutionally guaranteed than a botox-injection, tummy-tuck, or tonsilectomy.

When Ross Douthat spoke at Yale last year, I asked him a pointed question on abortion, to which he responded that the problem with abortion in America is the Roe decision, because it puts abortion on a constitutionally-protected pedestal so that nothing can touch it.  Policies to limit abortions (say, to the first trimester, as is the law in some European countries) or discourage abortion (through taxation, counseling, or incentives) are perfectly legal in every other developed country in the world; only in the United States is abortion afforded special status as a fundamental right, and it is for that reason it is nearly impossible to implement policies to bring down abortion rates in America.

EDIT: Eugene Volokh extends this discussion to gun rights.

Obama at his healthcare conference:

Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.

Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference…

Those greedy ENT specialists have responded:

We, too, are in favor of evidence-based medicine that supports quality patient care. President Obama’s statement highlights the complexity of medical decisions like this. However, the AAO-HNS is disappointed by the President’s portrayal of the decision making processes by the physicians who perform these surgeries.

Ann Coulter:

If politicians and employers had guaranteed us “free” food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the “food crisis” in America, and you’d be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

According to Drudge:

RASMUSSEN 2012 poll released at 10:30AM ET

Obama 45% Romney 45%
Obama 48% Palin 42%

UPDATE:

When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin.

Men prefer the Republican over Obama whether it’s Romney or Palin, while women like the president better in both match-ups. Palin continues to fare more poorly among women than her male rivals.

(This is in large part derived from my thoughts during an email discussion with the CLIMBfolk – primarily Jeff and Andrew)

I remember reading a story a while ago lamenting how a woman with some terminal illness (might have been lung cancer) couldn’t get reasonable health insurance.  I was astounded by how ridiculous it was to think that anyone would insure someone who was guaranteed to rack up medical costs.  Now, the problem in this particular case was that she had been forced to quit her job and she had health insurance from her job.  This obviously causes a problem, because now she’s uninsured and has what amounts to a previous medical condition which precludes her from getting insurance going forwards.

The solution, then, is to decouple health insurance from employers.  Make it so people can retain their health insurance even if they lose their jobs.  It’s well-established in economics that benefits come out of wages rather than profits; you decouple the two, wages will go up so employees can afford private health insurance.  If the government should do anything at all, it’s that they should disincentivize employer-provided health insurance.  It was FDR who got the ball rolling on this entire mess – back in 1942 he freezed wage increases at companies, but allowed benefits packages.  He also didn’t tax employee benefit packages.  So employers offered benefit packages instead of wages and they gradually became standard.

To repeat: employer-provided health insurance is bad for workers, because when they lose their job, they lose their insurance.  When they lose their job due to medical reasons, they’re screwed.  The ability to keep your health insurance should be independent of your health – that is precisely the point of insurance to begin with.  Instead, employer-provided health insurance screws you over when you truly need it.  It might have been fine for an era in which the treatment for severe illness was basically a coffin.  Now, it’s not.

To decouple employers and health insurance, all you have to do is tax employer-provided benefits, decrease the payroll tax, and you’re all set.   What will happen over time is that employers will start paying employees more and giving them less health benefits.  Then, these employees can go buy private plans which are not only better in terms of customization (because if you’re healthy, you don’t subsidize the unhealthy), but are also portable.

(Of course, this is what McCain was trying to do and he got killed for trying to ‘tax benefits’)

I haven’t really posted anything in a few weeks due to lack of internet, but I’m posting this from Gabor’s wireless card.

So, we have the Iranian election.  On the one hand we have Ahmadinejad, who plays as a populist demagogue, and on the other hand we have Mousavi who campaigned as a reformer despite having a long history within the Iranian governmental apparatus.  It’s pretty clear this election was stolen.  It remains to be seen what actually comes of this Green Revolution which is taking place on the streets of Tehran and the Twittersphere.  But I’m appalled by President Obama’s conduct in this entire affair.

I appreciate that American support could harm rather than help Mousavi within the anti-American elements of Iranian politics.  But Mousavi’s anti-American credentials are impeccable.  He helped overthrow the Shah.  He was a top adviser to Khatami, who – while a moderate reformer – was certainly not any sort of American puppet.  There is little risk to people thinking him an American proxy for the Middle East; certainly, students and shopkeepers flooding Tehran with protest will not imagine this to be some sort of American plot.

The belief that American support is some kind of albatross around the neck of reformers is patently ridiculous.  This belief stems from the same soft bigotry which has lead Realists to proclaim that some sorts of people can’t really have democracy.  The Iraqis didn’t have a vibrant middle class and were too ethnically divided.  The Iranians are too religious and too faithful to their Supreme Leader.  Look at what the stupid Venezuelans did by electing that madman Chavez.

The belief that cultural differences make it impossible for people to share in the common values of self-determination and popular sovereignty is laughably old.  In another time, this same logic was used to justify slavery and segregation in this country.  (It’s still used by people who eschew the notion of the melting pot in favor of a single homogenized set of values – as they continue to forget that democracy is great because people overcome their diversity.  E pluribus unum – out of many, one – can’t function without the pluribus)

The argument made by President Obama’s supporters suggests that were he to simply say “I join my counterparts in France and the Czech Republic in condemning the stolen electoin, violence against protesters, and usurpation of the popular will by the Iranian government”, the Iranian people would be simpleminded enough and stupid enough to immediately hate whatever Obama endorsed.  This raises two questions.  First, wouldn’t this ludicrous notion suggest that – in direct contradiction to Obama’s campaign suggestions – diplomacy would be completely ineffective with the Iranian people since their hatred of the US is strong enough to make them reject a candidate they’ve rallied, protested, and died in support of?  Second, didn’t the US elect Obama specifically so this wouldn’t happen?  That Obama would be able to stand up and say “I have a Muslim middle name – I feel your pain”? (or something to that effect).

Nor does stating our opinion infringe on the sovereignty of Iran.  First, a mere statement cannot infringe on a country’s sovereignty.  We have an opinion on literally everything else that Iran does, but on the issue of elections, we are silent?  It’s absurd.  Second, American principles state that sovereignty rests with the people.  The first revolution in Iran was borne of similar predilections.  This new revolution is the will of the people in opposition to a governmental tyranny that they cannot tolerate.  Supporting the Green Revolution means supporting Iranian sovereignty in the most proper sense of the word.

The ironic thing is that George W Bush would have – as President – immediately spoken out in favor of the Green Revolution.  Obama’s support – which could have far greater an impact than Bush’s – is not as forthcoming, mainly because he does not believe in the neoconservative principle of spreading Democracy.  But Obama – with his image as a change agent and reformer – could have a great effect on the Iranian political process by stating clearly and firmly the US’s support of the Green Revolution.  Remember, after September 11th, we were consoled by the sympathies not only of France and Britain, but also of Cuba and Libya.  We appreciate all support in our times of need.

Instead, he does nothing, promises to negotiate with Ahmadinejad if he succeeds in stealing the election, and looks weak on the world stage.  Obama has never indicated that he cares about the freedom of the Iranian people – George W Bush made it a regular talking point.  Obama wants – for better or for worse – to focus on domestic issues.  He wishes that this issue would just go away; it would be easier for him at a time that he’s making a big push on health care.  He just wants to work out a deal with the simplistic and despotic Ahmadinejad on the nuclear energy – it would be easier than dealing with a cagey, well-educated, and highly popular veteran politician in charge of Iran.  Many things would be easier than having to address what has the potential to either be the next Tienanmen Square or the next Velvet Revolution.

No, it is not easy to support the Green Revolution.  But it is the right thing to do.

title widely attributed to an Iranian twitter user

Ross Douthat criticizes Dan Brown’s writing as theologically dangerous:

In the Brownian worldview, all religions — even Roman Catholicism — have the potential to be wonderful, so long as we can get over the idea that any one of them might be particularly true. It’s a message perfectly tailored for 21st-century America, where the most important religious trend is neither swelling unbelief nor rising fundamentalism, but the emergence of a generalized “religiousness” detached from the claims of any specific faith tradition.

But Dan Brown peddles in modernity, not in theology.  Religions, to Brown, are not wonderful because they’re spiritual.  I doubt he’d like Echart Tolle and Deepak Chopra any more than John Paul II.  Instead, Brown think religions are wonderful because they can unite people for other purposes.  The idea is not to unite the world behind a spirituality that can enhance their lives, but rather to unite the world behind any banner that can create political change towards a international governance.  Dan Brown is, ultimately, hoping to mix church and state to this end.