The next time you hear a politician use the word "billion," casually, think about whether you want the politician spending your tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its releases.
a.. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
b.. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
c.. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the StoneAge.
d.. A billion days ago no-one walked on two feet on earth.
e.. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government spends it.
One of the reasons John and I are extremely proud of our new book, Over the Cliff: How Obama's Election Drove the American Right Insane, is that while we tried to make sure it was entertaining and amusing and insightful, we above all wanted it to be a resource for progressives in coping with the nonstop deluge of disinformation, lies, and smears that have been the stock in trade of movement conservatives in the past year and a half.
We especially conceived it as a resource for progressives who have to deal with friends, family members, and workmates who succumb to irrational siren song of movement conservatism and their nonstop shouting heads. We believe that, even after you're done reading it, you'll be able to turn to it over and over for information that puts their insanity in perspective.
This is embodied, we think, in official Over the Cliff website we've created for the book. Among other things, we'll post all the book-related information there, as well as posts reporting on continuing right-wing insanity.
But first and foremost, the site is the home of our complete documentation for the book. And as such, we think it will prove to be an incredibly useful resource for progressives.
Online documentation is an important innovation in itself, and one we readily embraced, rather then placing the Notes at the book's end -- because when the referenced material is also online, readers using online notes, unlike traditional notes, can click over and actually read the article in question themselves, to see if it is cited accurately.
We took this innovation a step further: Because so much of Over the Cliff is derived from video material, when you click on links to Crooks and Liars posts -- and there is a high percentage of them in our documentation -- you can actually watch them saying it. It provides a much richer and stronger context than the snippets we can provide in book form.
This is an exciting new chapter in the evolution of publishing, and we're proud to be in the forefront. Most of all, we're proud to have built such a resource for our fellow truth-tellers.
John Amato and David Neiwert have produced a book that should stay on shelves for 50 years—long enough to remind us that at least some people understood the strange and vile energies consuming the social contract at the beginning of the third millenium. As a record of what is happening to American conservatism in the year 2010, Over the Cliff is unmatched.
At their hugely popular website ‘Crooks and Liars,’ John Amato and David Neiwert have helped to expose the fact that there is no conservative party in America any more. They show that the right wingers are not conservatives, they are anarchists.
The only law the right wing believes in is the Law of the Jungle. No schools, no hospitals, no job programs, no nothing. Their idea of nirvana is Mogadishu. See it there, at ‘Crooks and Liars,’ and read it here.”
Only Alan Grayson can put something in perspective quite like that.
I saw President Obama talking to Katie Couric before the Super Bowl, and I didn't breathe for a few minutes as I took in what he was proposing. I guess they are spooked by the losses of the mythical independent voters in recent polling, but even if that's the case, it's a horrible idea from my perspective.
President Obama said Sunday that he would convene a half-day bipartisan health-care session at the White House to be televised live this month, a high-profile gambit that will allow Americans to watch as Democrats and Republicans try to break their political impasse.
Mr. Obama made the announcement in an interview on CBS during the Super Bowl pre-game show, capitalizing on a vast television audience. He set out a plan that would put Republicans on the spot to offer their own ideas on health care and show whether both sides are willing to work together.
“I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.
Mr. Obama challenged Republicans to attend the meeting with their plans for lowering the cost of health insurance and expanding coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Republican leaders said they welcomed the opportunity and called on Democrats to start the debate from scratch, which the president said he would not do.
I understand the strategy behind them doing this, but the country is too polarized at this point to really turn perceptions enough to make any difference.
This will accomplish nothing except to possibly empower Republican obstructionists even more. They will tell us what wonderful new ideas they have and that if only Obama opened up competition in all the states, it would solve all the problems in health care. Here's Crying Boehner's response:
"The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access. The House Republican alternative, which would lower premiums by up to 10 percent while increasing access for Americans without health insurance, would be a solid starting point. I look forward to discussing these issues with the Democratic Leadership and the President."
America didn't elect President Obama so that Republicans could rule the legislative process, but through the guidance of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, that's what's happening now. There is no way Republicans will sign on to anything at this point unless the president gives in to all of their demands.
Funny thing how Obama keeps reaching out to the other side instead of his own. I'd much rather have a liberal blogger meeting with President Obama instead of having to endure this.
Digby also adds a lot to this discussion and brings a really smart observation to the discussion. Much sharper than what you'd hear from the MSM.
It's fascinating, of course, because it's gossip and because some in the White House and others close to the administration have decided to try to dethrone these four. The courtiers are rebelling...read on
The article goes on to document how people like Health Secretary and former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius were kept off television -- along with others like Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Add to this others that Luce does not name -- including important voices like Paul Volcker and Austan Goolsbee on Obama's economic team, who saw their public voices choked off by a media-dominating Lawrencean Summers with support from Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel.
Watch the video - it's short, and it sums up why Krugman so often has a fresh perspective on issues, rather than an insular academic bent.
And speaking of, Krugman weighs in on the excise tax question in the healthcare reform bill, asking whether the tax-deductions for employer-provided health insurance should be limited:
The counter-arguments seem to run along three lines.
First, there’s the argument that many “Cadillac” plans aren’t really luxurious — they reflect genuinely high costs. That’s surely true. A flat dollar limit to tax deductibility has real problems. At the very least, the limit should reflect the same factors insurers will be allowed to take into account in setting premiums: age and region.
Second, there’s the argument that any reductions in premiums won’t be passed through into wages. I just don’t buy that. It’s true that the importance of changing premiums in past wage changes has been exaggerated by many people. But I’m enough of a card-carrying economist to believe that there’s a real tradeoff between benefits and wages.
Maybe it will help the plausibility of this case to notice that we’re not actually asking whether a fall in premiums would be passed on to workers. Even with the excise tax, premiums are likely to rise over time — just more slowly than they would have otherwise. So what we’re really asking is whether slowing the growth of premiums would reduce the squeeze rising health costs would otherwise have placed on wages. Surely the answer is yes.
He's right. When you put it that way, it's a lot more plausible.
The last argument is that this hurts unions which have traded off lower wages for better benefits. This would be a bigger issue than I think it is if the excise tax were going to kick in instantly. But it won’t, giving time to renegotiate those bargains. And bear in mind that this kind of renegotiation is exactly what the tax is supposed to accomplish.
A last general point: we really don’t know what it will take to rein in health costs, but that’s a reason to try every plausible idea that experts have proposed. Limiting tax deductibility is definitely one of those ideas.
Bottom line: the details of the excise tax should be fixed, but it’s on balance a good idea.
Via Ian Welsh, Dr. Peter Morici, a SUNY business professor, puts banker bonuses into perspective:
How much is $140 billion?
The U.S. economy grew at a $89 billion annualized rate in the third quarter. That was the first growth since the second quarter of 2008 and came to $22 billion in actual growth in the third quarter.
The bankers, after causing the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, are rewarded with six times the growth accomplished so far in the much heralded “economic recovery.”
Meanwhile, seven million families face foreclosure and 25 million Americans can’t find full time work.
None of that matters. Those Hollywood elites, like Will Ferrell, remind us who the true victims of health care reform are: the health insurance companies. Who will protect them?
