-
sponsorship
Monday, August 3, 2009
Rep. Lynn Woolsey still seems to be threatening 60 liberal votes to sink the House health care bill unless it has a "robust public option" with "rates based on Medicare rates." Nobody believes her, which is why people at a recent Pelosi press conference were laughing at her. .... House liberals would be lucky, at this point, to get the Blue Dog deal, inferior though it may be. ... Isn't there some introductory Welcome to Congress course where they tell you that threatening something you obviously won't deliver is a way to lose respect and power? But Woolsey has been there a long time. ... 11:16 P.M.
___________________________
Want a Grant? Get a "Partner": John Rosenberg reads the House Energy & Commerce health bill and finds that there is a whole lot of "coordination of diversity and cultural competency programs" going on. He sees future funding streams for leftish community organizers in the bill's requirement that when it comes to cultural competency program coordination,
the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:
(1) Addressing, or partnering with an entity with experience addressing, the cultural and linguistic competency needs of the population to be served through the grant or contract.... [E.A.]
That's in the version of the bill that Rep. Woolsey says she won't vote for because it's not liberal enough. Where are the Blue Dogs when you need them? ... P.S.: Was the big, program-establishing New Deal and Medicare legislation festooned with these little Dem interest group time bombs? If not, that may be why it got passed.** ...
** Admittedly, it was a big liberal time bomb in the New Deal legislation, allowing cash payments to children in families with an "absent" breadwinner, that eventually produced the welfare explosion of the 1960s. ...
Preexisting Meshugas: Frum notes the University of Chicago Chicago School of Professional Psychology** has a
“Center for Latino Mental Health,” based on the proposition that American Hispanics have “unique” mental health needs.
Kind of undermines the social-egalitarian everyone-in-the-same-waiting room rationale for universal health care, doesn't it? Though I suspect the Center for Jewish Neuroses will be heavily utilized. ...
**--Sentence corrected 8/6. [Thks to reader J.S.] ... 11:03 P.M.
___________________________
A Sunday NYT "Week in Review" piece ridicules the famous Dem think tank Third Way for predicting a "crime wave" due in part to "the lengthening shadow of illegal immigration"--when, in reality, illegal immigration receded and crime ... went ... down. ... Hmmm. ... Maybe broken immigration laws are a bit like broken windows, a contagious sign of disorder. Just a thought! ... P.S.: The Times piece also does not discuss the reduced-lead theory, which would seem to roughly fit the trend of permanent lower crime, no? ... 11:03 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
E.J. Dionne on Obama's budget:
The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth.
Hmm. Does Dionne think Obama's budget will "reverse a three-decade long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth"? As opposed to making the trend slightly less inegalitarian than it would otherwise be? I'd like to see the calculation.
A "reverse" in the decades-long inequality trend would be an impressive feat for what is only a rise of 4.6% in the top tax rate (from 35% to 39.6 percent) plus a modest rise in the capital gains rate and some reduced deductions. Isn't it more likely that whether inequality rises will still depend on trends in before-tax incomes--i.e. the underlying economy--which tend to swamp modest shifts in how those incomes are taxed? And if economic health returns, why would we expect the rich to stop getting as rich, before taxes, as they've been getting?
Maybe Obama's biggest feat of salesmanship** will have been convincing starry-eyed Money Liberals like Dionne that he's grandly reversing the inequality trend, when he's really doing something much more modest and realistic (e.g., funding some important new benefits by raising some taxes on top earners). ...
**--Obama's helped here, of course, by the alarmist right, which also has an interest in exaggerating the distributive impact of his budget. ... 2:17 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Grovel-Ready: As predicted by Heather Mac Donald, newly appointed U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand seems to have knuckled under to New York Democratic party orthodoxy on a variety of immigration issues. In particular, she appears to have endorsed the worst-of-both-worlds DREAM Act--offering 25% of "comprehensive" amnesty for illegal immigrants with 0% of "comprehensive" enforcement. ... P.S.: Kausfiles always recommends the tried-and-true Paul Kirk formulation when recanting heretical beliefs that offend powerful Dem lobbies. In 1985, Kirk, then chaiman of the D.N.C., suggested the concept of "means testing" Social Security. Within hours he had eaten his words, issuing a statement: "I was wrong. Our party ... is unalterably opposed to any cuts in Social Security benefits. I should not have mentioned the subject of means test." ... 12:36 P.M.
___________________________
Mickey's Assignment Desk: Wherein lies the greatness of Tom Daschle? Just asking! ... P.S. He's always seemed to me the model of the modern Senate Majority Leader--i.e., the 50+ prima donnas that make up a majority don't want a strong leader who might crowd their games, so they wind up with a Daschle, an amiable man who will not challenge them. ...12:11 P.M.
___________________________
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?