Archive for category Politics
The Nobel What Prize?
Posted by The Marginalist in Politics on October 9th, 2009
Imagine my surprise this morning when I woke up and read USA Today.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs awoke President Obama with a phone call just before 6 a.m. to tell him he had won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Let’s take a look at the short history of this very peaceful President.
January 22nd: Same Rhetoric as Bush
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Changefest ‘09 – Obama’s Inaugural Speech | ||||
 |
||||
|
||||
February 18th: Obama approves Afghanistan troop increase
Another 5,000 troops will be deployed at a later date to support combat troops, bringing the total to 17,000 the Defense Department said. A senior administration official confirmed the total.
September 9th: Obama sends 1,000 more troops to Iraq
Though the Iraq War has long since become an after-thought amid Obama Administration claims that the “drawdown” in on track, the Pentagon is reporting today that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has approved a request to send about 1,000 additional troops to Iraq.
September 15th: Obama considers military strike in Iran
The U.S. should begin preparing crippling sanctions on Iran and publicly make clear that a military strike is possible should the Iranian government press ahead with its nuclear effort, a bipartisan policy group said.
Also September 15th: US Sends 3,000 Troops to Afghanistan (Along with 14,000 “trigger pullers”)
Top US defense officials say that roughly 3,000 additional troops, which are classified not as combat troops but rather “combat enablers,” will be deployed to Afghanistan in the coming days.
September 22nd: Obama Wants to Renew Patriot Act
The Obama administration promised Congress on Tuesday to negotiate stronger privacy protections for Americans under terrorism surveillance but insisted on retaining current authority to track suspects and obtain records.
Liberals on the House Judiciary Committee were left unsatisfied, clearly wanting the administration to go further and pledge to curb what they consider abuses of the Bush administration.
October 8th: Troops depressed and disillusioned
American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.
I mean, I thought the Chinese political dissidents on the 20th year anniversary of Tiananmen Square were gonna get the prize but, oh boy. Turns out you have to escalate wars to win the peace prize.
(To be cross-posted at YAL)
Numbers Lie: Denial of Claims
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie on October 7th, 2009
The President said this about a month ago:
More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.
Who, though, is the largest denier of medical claims in America?
I’m just sayin’.
Stephanopoulos Doesn’t Need a Dictionary
Posted by The Marginalist in Politics on September 21st, 2009
From Bonnie Kristian at Young Americans for Liberty:
There is one point on which the president may not be criticized: he is a skilled verbal gymnast and there is no denying it. Most recently, he has denied that the government taking more of our money as a penalty for not living up to our supposed “responsibility to get health insurance” would be a tax increase, despite the dictionary’s assertion to the contrary:
“I don’t think I’m making it up,” Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary’s definition of “tax”—”a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
Mr. Obama: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. . . .”
Riiight…because checking with the dictionary is always indicative of stretching the truth.
Very nice post, Bonnie. I wanna talk a little bit more about the individual mandate and taxes. Let’s take a look back at what Obama said during his campaign about tax increases at 1:20:
Now, let’s take a look at two different bills. The first one is the House bill, H.R. 3200. This is what the bill says about individuals who chose not to, or couldn’t afford to purchase health insurance:
Subpart A–Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of–
`(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
I’m not lying to you, I’m quoting the actual text of the bill. This part of the bill is found in a section that modifies the Internal Revenue Code. Stephanopoulos doesn’t even have to go to the dictionary to check whether or not this plan involves a tax, the word tax is literally written all over it. The tax is charged to any individual who does not purchase health insurance — regardless of his or her income.
Now, let’s look at the Baucus Bill. The text of the Baucus Bill is here (go to Page 32) and here (scroll down). What do you see?
Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.
Not only is it written there, it’s italicized and bolded in the PDF.
Clearly the individual mandate is a tax. And what does our President say…?
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
First Federalist Article: Fishy Statements
Posted by The Marginalist in Personal, Politics on September 9th, 2009
As I explained before, I’m writing for a paper called the Georgetown Federalist here in D.C. My first article — which will be after the jump — is a re-worked version of “My Email to the White House.” I like the new version much better, and it will appear on the front page of the Georgetown Federalist. I was inspired by Keith Hennessey’s article here, which mocked the direct contradiction of the President’s promises and Doug Elmendorf’s analysis of health care reform 
On a side note, I will be in San Antonio from November 6th to 8th, representing the Georgetown Federalist and taking part in the Collegiate Network’s Editors’ Conference. The Collegiate Network supports independent college newspapers.
A
s for other political trouble-making I’m doing here on campus, I’m part of a new group called Hoyas for Liberty, which combines Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty. Our first event was today, featuring a speech by Adam Kissel from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). More events involving YAL and the Cato Institute are in the works. Check us out here.
Here is the article.
Numbers Lie/You’re Effing Kidding Me, NYT Ed.
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie, You're effing kidding me on August 30th, 2009
I saw this editorial in the New York Times today.
Those who fear that a trillion-dollar reform will add to the nation’s deficit burden should remember that these changes are intended to be deficit-neutral over the next decade.
Before why I explain why “deficit-neutral over the next decade” doesn’t actually mean that much, I want to say that I am extremely disappointed in the Times for publishing this extremely shoddy editorial. It’s ridiculously pathetic. I want to focus on that one sentence for this post — click for more. Read the rest of this entry »
Open Letter to Whole Foods Boycotters
Posted by The Marginalist in Politics on August 16th, 2009
Dear Whole Foods boycotters,
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey recently voiced his opinions on health care in this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Personally, I found his article rather prescient and considered it to be a fairly apt summary of the type of health care reform that most free-market economists like me would support. I did not agree with every last detail of his plan, but as with every other piece on health care, I digested his thoughts and went on with my life.
Obviously some of you did not react the same way as I did. Judging by the comments on Mackey’s full post at his blog and what I’m hearing from the internet, a good number of people are advocating a boycott of Whole Foods in response to Mackey’s recent article.
Now, I never shop at Whole Foods and Mackey’s article is not going to change that. I would also never stop listening to Bruce Springsteen or U2 simply because they have publicly advocated political beliefs that I have strong disagreements with. But, I fully recognize your right to choose to engage or disengage in business with someone for whatever reason you please.
However, before you choose to boycott Whole Foods, I would appreciate that you ask yourself a few questions:
- If you boycott Whole Foods because of Mackey’s political views, are you prepared to seek out every single company you do business with and ensure that the CEOs of those companies supports your idea of health care reform? Will you divest from each and every company whose CEO does not agree with you on this issue?
- If you only oppose Whole Foods because Mackey took the time to make public his opinions, may I ask what is so terrible about people acting on their political beliefs, even if they disagree with you?
- If you want Mackey to be removed as the CEO of Whole Foods because of his political beliefs and activities, do you think that political beliefs are legitimate criteria for hiring and firing? Should we hire or fire based on a person’s political activities? Would it be acceptable for me to fire a liberal or progressive because of his or her political activities?
- If the CEO of your company came out against universal health care, would you support a boycott of your own company? Even if the company was forced to lay people off as a result?
- Is boycotting companies whose CEOs disagree with you part of Obama’s plan to, as he said, “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long”? Or do the words “partisanship,” “pettiness,” and “immaturity” mean something else?
- Let’s say the organization of this boycott is successful to the point that some stores are forced to close. Now that all of the employees have lost their income and health benefits, is that an acceptable cost to punish Mackey for voicing political beliefs you don’t agree with? What would you say to those employees and their families?
I respectfully await your response.
Preston Mui
Numbers Lie: Bill O’Reilly is an Idiot
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie on August 11th, 2009
Hat tip to… Paul Krugman, actually.
The President’s July 17th Healthcare Reform Speech: My Response
Posted by The Marginalist in Politics on July 18th, 2009
Yesterday, July 17th, President Obama gave a press conference on health reform, probably in response to the recent CBO report that pointed out that health care reform would cost over $1 trillion in the next ten years. Moderate Democrats are getting antsy about the immense cost and how to pay for it, worried that a rise in taxes will threaten their political careers in 2010.
I only have the CNBC footage, not the text of his remarks, so these are my own ad verbatim transcriptions of key parts of his speech I want to talk about. I hope I’ve copied his remarks as close as I could to what they really are. Any bold emphasis is added by me. Here we go: Read the rest of this entry »
Numbers Lie, #I-Lost-Count-Already: Health Care (again)
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie on July 7th, 2009
After the public uproar over a health insurance plan that was going to cost as $1 trillion (or $2 trillion or $4 trillion, but who’s counting?), the Democrats have put forth a new bill that claims to cost “only” $600 billion dollars over the next ten years.
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.
Don’t let the lower numbers fool you. What the government has done here is not lowered the costs, but shifted the costs. To poor people, actually. How did they do it?
Numbers Lie, Health Care Edition: $4 Trillion
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie on June 24th, 2009
Hat tip to John Goodman: The Kennedy Bill, if it covers all Americans, will cost about $4 Trillion.
Steve Parente and colleagues at Health Systems Innovations have scored the entire bill and come up with a ten-year cost of $4 trillion, including $460 billion in new spending in 2010 alone. This estimate assumes the mandates and coverage expansions will actually work and 99% of the population will be covered.