Institutional Racism

May 15th, 2015

In the previous post, I made the claim that institutional racism in the form of asymmetrical law enforcement and judicial bias were two of the three motivating factors driving the current demonstrations and violence in black communities across the country.

I suspect that some might dispute the claims of asymmetrical law enforcement or judicial bias, but the numbers here are undeniable. Blacks have many more encounters with police than whites on a per capita basis. They get arrested way more than whites. They are incarcerated at a much higher rate for the same crimes. They receive longer sentences for the same convictions. Ferguson was just one example of collusion between city government, law enforcement, and the judiciary to extort money from the black community for petty infractions. That’s institutional racism.

Another aspect of institutional racism created the ghettos where the vast majority of the black population live. These communities not only have substandard housing, but also no jobs and a very low percentage of home ownership.

Home ownership is the middle class wealth engine. Blacks don’t have access to that engine because they don’t have access to the middle class jobs that can support home ownership. They also don’t have access to that engine because, until the 70’s, they were not able to get mortgages for houses in middle class neighborhoods. Federal Housing policies prohibited it. That’s institutional racism.

Ned Resnikoff dug into the history in an MSNBC piece.

Disparities in homeownership are a major driver of the racial wealth gap, according to a recent study from Brandeis University. According to the authors of the report, “redlining [a form of discrimination in banking or insurance practices], discriminatory mortgage-lending practices, lack of access to credit, and lower incomes have blocked the homeownership path for African-Americans while creating and reinforcing communities segregated by race.”

For those of you unfamiliar with redlining, banks had different policies for different parts of the city. Those policies effectively priced black consumers out of white neighborhoods by charging blacks more to purchase a home in those neighborhoods than they would charge a comparable white customer.

This practice began in 1934 with the National Housing Act which established the FHA and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. This later agency created “residential security maps” which assessed the risk of real estate investments in different parts of major cities. Black neighborhoods were designated high risk and denied funding. This dramatically reduced both home ownership in black neighborhoods as well as commercial investment.

Speculators stepped into the void left by banks, often with the support of local government.

When selling on contract, the speculator offered the home to a black purchaser for a relatively low down payment – often several hundred dollars would suffice. For bringing the home within the reach of a black purchaser, however, the speculator extracted a considerable price. In the Commission on Human Relations study, the percentage increase in the cost of the home from the speculator’s purchase price to that of the black consumer ranged from a minimum of 35% to 115%; the average increase was 73%.

The next step toward the ghettos that we know today was block busting.

After the riots of the 60’s, whites began to leave inner city neighborhoods for the “safety” of the white suburbs. They took their businesses, jobs, and purchasing power with them. Speculators accelerated that white flight through various tactics intended to convince white home owners that black families were moving into their neighborhood. Realtors and speculators were able to purchase the houses at deep discounts and then convert them to multi-family dwellings that generated significantly more income for their owners.

As neighborhoods transformed from predominantly owner occupied low density to predominantly renter-occupied high density, property values declined. Property tax revenues which are based on property values and which fund local schools also declined. As jobs and purchasing power left neighborhoods, the small business services associated with that purchasing power also left. Neighborhoods that once were vital and sustainable, deteriorated. Whites associated this decline with black pathology. It was in fact a logical result of intuitional racism.

During the 60’s public housing projects were also placed in these same segregated economically depressed neighborhoods as a compromise with conservatives who opposed them completely. These projects were doomed from the start because they also failed to address the fundamental issue of jobs. Instead they simply concentrated all of the pathologies associates with poverty in a smaller geographic area. Gangs, violence, and drug use all became associated with the black family experience rather than the underlying economic conditions that were in fact the root of that behavior.

When you wall-off a whole community from access to the wealth building tools of employment, access to capital, and home ownership – they are unable leave their impoverished areas. Their poverty has a whole set of pathologies that accompany it. This cultural dysfunction and deep generational poverty defines life in the prison that our policies built. Conservative Republican leaders starting with Nixon turned this into a political strategy. Nixon was content to simply play on the same fears of whites that made the block busters wealthy. Reagan was the one who expanded the meme that blacks were dangerous. He convinced angry white voters that the blacks imprisoned in the ghettos that institutional racism created are themselves responsible for the conditions under which our government’s policies have forced them to live.

O brother, where art thou?

Pathology Versus Economics

May 8th, 2015

Responses to racial unrest, most recently in Baltimore, aren’t surprising given what we know about conservatives and liberals. Conservatives focus on rioters calling them thugs and feign surprise at the violence. Liberals on the other hand point to asymmetrical law enforcement in white and black neighborhoods and question why cops are killing so many unarmed poor kids.

Here’s a little history to try to figure out what is going on.

This country was founded on slavery. The slave trade in North America grew right along with European colonization. It was written into our founding documents right along with inalienable rights. The United States fought a civil war to force an end to slavery in southern states. That ended two hundred years of institutionalized and constitutional slavery.

A war weary country, however, failed to eradicate institutional racism. Whites successfully regained the political and economic power that they lost briefly during reconstruction. They exercised that power with impunity for another 100 years until the civil rights movement began to win a series of Supreme Court victories. The pinnacle of that movement was the voting rights legislation passed during the Johnson administration.

Coincident with that legislation was widespread racial unrest. During that period of time there were two seminal studies on poverty and racism.

The Moynihan Report in 1965 blamed the violence on poverty. They blamed poverty on pathological and cultural deficiencies in black families. This report shifted the onus from institutions and policies to families. It coined the term “benign neglect” in recommending that government had done pretty much all that it could to. Rights had risen as far as the study’s authors felt they could. Fixing families required an attitude adjustment by government and blacks. Government had to stop trying to supplement poor incomes. Instead government should encourage poor black families to fix themselves.

The Kerner Commission Report in 1968 took a much more scientific approach. It was based on extensive interviews of all those involved in rioting – young black men, shop owners, police, citizens, leaders, and elected officials. That report said the root cause of rioting was institutional racism. The solution to racial unrest was simple and obvious – social justice and economic redistribution. People rioted because they felt oppressed by the police, persecuted by the courts, and taken advantage of by the business community. Provide those same people good jobs, fair law enforcement, and color-blind courts; and everyone will happily live a peaceful law abiding life.

The riots of the 60’s also terrified white people. They fled the cities for the suburbs and took their jobs with them. Nixon and Lee Atwater invented the Southern Strategy in 1968. It played on white fears. Republicans successfully mined white backlash and rage right up until Obama’s election in 2008.

Reagan famously put another twist on the Moynihan report when he claimed that poverty itself was the result of dependence. He invented the specter of the welfare queen living large on the state. He based that characterization in a bi-racial con artist who was hardly a black stereotype. But the narrative was more powerful than the reality, and a whole series of reforms all the way through Clinton dismantled the social safety net for the poor that was part of the Great Society’s War on Poverty.

So what is the reality? Pathology or Economics.

As always the numbers give us some insight.

Let’s start at the same place that Reagan started, with the welfare queen. Everyone is familiar with this claim. Poor minority women bear lots of children so that they can live off government assistance rather than work. Let’s put aside for a moment the fact Clinton eliminated this sort of permanent assistance. There is a much simpler way to blow up this myth. If it were true, we should be able to see increases in the birth rates of poor black families during difficult economic times. We have just gone through the most difficult 8 years since the Great Depression. The birth rate in poor black families plummeted just like it did across the rest of the socio-economic spectrum. In other words, while there may be individuals who successfully defraud the government, aid to the poor does not create a pathological dependence which encourages women to, in effect, “live” off their children.

The great sociologist William Julius Wilson argued long ago that widely-decried social changes among blacks, like the decline of traditional families, were actually caused by the disappearance of well-paying jobs in inner cities. His argument contained an implicit prediction: if other racial groups were to face a similar loss of job opportunity, their behavior would change in similar ways.

If that’s true, we should be able to see the same social disruptions in white families over the past eight years. If you go look at the numbers, it’s there. Lagging wages — actually declining in real terms for half of working men — and work instability have been followed by sharp declines in marriage, rising births out of wedlock, and more across the racial spectrum.

As Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution writes: “Blacks have faced, and will continue to face, unique challenges. But when we look for the reasons why less skilled blacks are failing to marry and join the middle class, it is largely for the same reasons that marriage and a middle-class lifestyle is eluding a growing number of whites as well.”

The pathology of “bad choices” that conservatives have used to blame the poor for their condition is now being replicated in large segments of the poor white population. They have suffered the same economic displacement over the last eight years that blacks have experienced for generations. That includes shorter life spans, increased violence, broken families, increased drug abuse, less education, decreased home ownership, increased financial instability, and increased chronic illness.

Conservatives cluck about the failure of minority communities to adopt middle class values, but those values depend in large part on access to middle-class jobs. Those jobs are simply not available in poor communities and the poor can’t afford to move to where the good jobs are. Instead you have the spectacle of a Detroit man who spends all his non-working hours getting to and from his minimum wage suburban job.

Finally, you have Republican leaders like John Boehner suggesting that the riots in Baltimore are evidence of the “50 years of failed Democrat policies”. While it is clear that he is reaching back to the Great Society, half of those 50 years Republicans were in the White House. So if policies are to blame, that blame should be shared equally by Republicans and Democrats.

The numbers again come to our rescue here. In this case, Paul Krugman.

Federal spending on means-tested programs other than Medicaid has fluctuated between 1 and 2 percent of G.D.P. for decades, going up in recessions and down in recoveries. That’s not a lot of money — it’s far less than other advanced countries spend — and not all of it goes to families below the poverty line.

Despite this, measures that correct well-known flaws in the statistics show that we have made some real progress against poverty. And we would make a lot more progress if we were even a fraction as generous toward the needy as we imagine ourselves to be.

In other words, the problem was not too much money. They problem was not enough money, and perhaps money spend on the wrong things.

So where does this leave us?

The “pathology” that has been the mainstay of Republican pronouncements about race and poverty from Ronald Reagan through John Boehner are not supported by the facts. Instead of dependency, we have predictable effects from job loss, mass incarceration, and economic disruption.

Instead of a post racial society, we have the daily experience of young black men who are targeted by the police and persecuted by the justice system.

Instead of confronting the realities of the living conditions that we have forced the poor to endure, conservatives use the myth of pathology to absolve society from taking meaningful action. The myths of the welfare queen, Willie Horton, middle class values, and personal responsibility allow us to ignore the fact that we have effectively walled off poor communities from prosperity.

Baltimore is a good example. It spent $130M over the last 20 years in an attempt to transform one of its poorest neighborhoods. While well intentioned, 1000 new affordable houses, new schools, and new clinics did not attract the employers necessary to support the families in those new houses. Without jobs, the neighborhood eventually reverted back to the same despair, crime, and drug abuse that every other job-poor neighborhood displays. Just fixing housing, schools, and healthcare, regardless of how much money is spent, isn’t enough.

“Having a well-maintained home doesn’t get at the larger issues that prevent self-sufficiency,” said DeLuca, the Hopkins sociologist. “The labor market and drug markets really destabilized Sandtown.”

The problem is institutional racism reflected in over-zealous law enforcement and lack of opportunity in the only neighborhoods that poor black people can afford to live.

The solution is jobs.

The rest is just myth and the conservative pathology of confirmation bias born of moral fundamentalism.

Gimmicks and Tricks

March 29th, 2015

We do not rely on gimmicks or creative accounting tricks to balance our budget.

This statement is in the introduction of the Republicans 2015 House budget.

This document declares that the most important thing that the country can do is balance the budget.

If you are doing a double-take at this point, so was I. Balance the budget? What about the party that last month said that they should make the poor their top priority. Or the party that said six months ago that the most important thing was to defeat ISIS? Or the party that for the past five years has been trying to repeal Obamacare?

Nope, we are now dealing with the party that says balancing the budget is the most important thing.

So I guess it should be no surprise this Republican budget not only fails to balance, but also includes a spectacular set of gimmicks and creative accounting tricks.

Here’s my list.

Dynamic Scoring – this is the CBO rule change passed by Republicans in September. What this means is that the CBO must now include economic impacts when determining the cost of a particular bill. In the past, the CBO simply projected cost and revenue without any attempt to determine how a particular piece of legislation would affect the economic models that are already in place. Using this new scoring, the Republican budget “gains” an additional $147B in mystery money.

Overseas Contingent Operations – This is a $90B Defense slush fund to allow Republicans claim that they are still abiding by the Sequestration cuts when they really aren’t. To make matters worse, $20B of the $90B is supposed to be offset by future spending cuts which were unspecified.

Obamacare Repeal – Republicans propose to repeal all of the benefits of Obamacare and the taxes that pay for them. The budget assumes that this is a wash, but there are $1T in tax revenues that aren’t accounted for, and the last CBO scoring had Obamacare reducing the deficit.

Missing $500B – The budget claims to save $5.5T over 10 years, but the fine print suggests that Congress is only responsible to find $5T in savings.

Other Mandatory Programs – Republicans cut $1T from this category without specifying which programs were going to be cut and by how much.

Medicare and CHIP fix – This long overdue bi-partisan plan will cost $141B over the next 10 years. It was not included in the Republican budget.

What about the poor?
Those are the people both Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz said should be better represented by the Republican Party. This budget includes deep cuts to food stamps and Medicaid. Rough estimates are that this budget would double the number of Americans without health insurance and that’s before the additional promised $1T in cuts. The stark reality is that there isn’t that much left to cut unless you include Social Security and Medicare.

Spending on government programs other than Social Security and Medicare would fall to 7.2 percent of GDP in 2025 — 40 percent below the average of 12.2 percent of GDP over the past 40 years, and far below the previous post-World War II low (which was 9.4 percent of GDP in the late 1990s). In short, the federal government outside Social Security and Medicare would gradually become a shell of its former self.

Fiscal Responsibility?
During the financial crisis, Republicans pointed at the big deficits and big stimulus programs as irresponsible. In the context of deficits hitting 10% of GDP, the Tea Party took up the cry for a balanced budget.

Today the deficit is 2.7% of GDP, exactly where the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction committee suggested it should be by 2015. As long as the economy continues to grow at or near 3% a year, the debt as a percentage of GDP will go down without any additional government spending cuts.

If the Republicans were serious about reducing the debt and balancing the budget, they would not have resorted to smoke, mirrors, and bad math. Instead this is a political document intended to appease the radical right of the party. If they did succeed in passing it, it would never survive the President’s veto. If it did somehow make it into law, Republicans themselves would fail to implement the social program cuts contained in the budget. There are too many Republican senators up for re-election in blue states in 2016.

Instead this budget was best described by conservative Republican congressman Ken Buck.

I don’t know anybody who honestly believes we’re going to balance the budget in 10 years. It’s all hooey.

There you have it – another example of how seriously Republicans take their new responsibility to govern.

Jeb Bush’s Social Darwinism

March 14th, 2015

The effort by the state, by the government, ought to be to try to create catastrophic coverage, where there is relief for families in our country, where if you have a hardship that goes way beyond your means of paying for it, the government is there or an entity is there to help you deal with that. The rest of it ought to be shifted back where individuals are empowered to make more decisions themselves.

This is how assumptive 2016 Republican Presidential candidate, Jeb Bush, summarized his replacement for Obamacare.

While we don’t have all of the details, there is a lot to parse in this particular statement.

At first blush, the discussion of catastrophic coverage is at the heart of the Republican message.

Bush advocates replacing the ACA “with a model that is consumer-directed, where consumers, where patients, have more choices … where the subsidies, if there were to be subsidies, are state administered … where people have more customized types of insurance based on their needs; and it’s more consumer-directed so that they’re more engaged in their decision making, and they have more choices than what they have today.”

This was the same message the Romney presented when asked about healthcare for the poor during the 2012 campaign.

Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance. If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and — and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.

That is the healthcare system that we had. One where those who couldn’t afford insurance could receive the most expensive form of care our healthcare system had to offer. Those that attempted to pay those bills often ended up bankrupting themselves. Most of those bills were passed on to those with insurance through higher hospital costs.

Catastrophic Coverage
Catastrophic coverage as envisioned by Mr. Bush is just one step away from this model. The stated goals are to make insurance more affordable by introducing high deductibles and cost sharing. In the minds of conservatives, this makes people more thrifty healthcare consumers, since much of the cost of everyday care is coming out of their pockets. The reality is that high deductible plans in many cases are not much different from no coverage at all. They discourage people from seeking preventative care.

While high deductible plans may flow some additional dollars into the hands of hospitals for the expensive emergency room visits that will result from failure to employ preventative care, it will not mitigate the financial risk of those who have a medical emergency. That’s because, as this graph shows, fewer than half of those who are likely to purchase these plans have the money to pay the deductible if in fact they DO experience a medical emergency that their plan covers.

high deductible

Individual Customization
The second problem in Bush’s unraveling of Obamacare is wrapped in the clothing of “more customized types of insurance based on their needs”. This is another conservative hot botton. They have a philosophical problem with the way that insurance works. They feel that people should be free to purchase only the amount of insurance they feel they need without regard to the risks or costs. They don’t seem to have a problem with Banks requiring homeowners to insure their homes up to a particular standard in order to get a mortgage. But they do have a problem with the government setting minimum standards on the sorts of healthcare coverage insurance companies must offer. Bloomberg explains that government standards preserve large risk pools which effectively reduce the costs for everyone.

Republicans are really saying that people should be free to avoid carrying insurance for problems they don’t expect to have (a bout of depression, maybe, or a stroke that requires rehabilitation) or don’t want to help pay for (pediatric and maternity care for men with no children, say). The former view shifts costs onto the unlucky; the latter shifts costs onto women and parents. Both undercut the purpose of insurance, which is pooling risk. Neither saves money. Yet in the abstract the argument sounds compelling. And it’s going mostly unchallenged.

Single Payor
What IS interesting in Bush’s plan is the suggestion that the government either directly or indirectly is the source, or underwriter of these catastrophic plans. This particular statement goes WAY further than Obamacare toward the single-payor socialism fears that birthed the Tea Party. Under Obamacare, the government does not issue insurance. The insurance comes from private companies. Those companies are regulated, but they ultimately get to set their own rates and determine in which markets they are going to participate and which populations they are going to target. The government only offers to subsidize the cost to purchase that insurance for those who don’t have the means to purchase that insurance on their own.

Obamacare is market-driven. The government works to make the insurance market in every state sufficiently lucrative that consumers in every state have choices. It has no mechanism to compel an insurance company to offer coverage in any particular state. Participation by insurance providers is entirely voluntary.

If the government is going to guarantee that every individual is able to purchase some form of catastrophic insurance at a rate that they can afford, who is going to provide that insurance? Who decides what that rate is? Who decides what the minimum coverage should be? How to do you handle the “free riders”, or does everyone get a minimum plan paid for by the government whether they like it or not? How does Bush plan to pay for all of this? A new tax?

That’s how Medicare works. One plan for everyone paid for by a payroll tax. We don’t require seniors to enroll in Medicare, but 85% of seniors do. Medicare doesn’t cover all expenses, but it does allow most seniors to retire without the worry of having to pay increased medical costs.

Jebcare is not a REAL plan. It is simply a set of talking points that allow Jeb Bush to appeal to the reptile brain of the Republican Party without actually working out any of the details.

Republicans DO NOT want to offer any kind of subsidized care for anyone. This isn’t an issue of cost or efficiency. Obamacare has already demonstrated that this approach saves money and improves health.

This is about philosophy. Republicans are social Darwinists who feel that poverty is the appropriate punishment for bad decisions made by people or their parents. Disease, in their minds, is just another motivation for making better decisions that should be preserved if we want to have a more responsible society. The rich are the vanguard for this righteous society. Their success is proof of their character.

Those of you who read the Bible, might recognize some similarity to the Pharisees. They felt that poverty and disease were punishments God meted out on the sinful. Jesus rejected that whole philosophy. Instead he reminded his disciples that His work (and the future work of all Christians) was to enlighten the world to a new way of thinking where love is the rule.

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. Matt 9:1-5

There is obviously a lot of work still to be done.

Reaction to Obamacare Good News

March 10th, 2015

The CBO came out with one of their periodic reports on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Here is the headline of the report.

The ten year projected cost for the ACA has gone DOWN 11%.

The first reason for that cost reduction is that the cost of insurance premiums is rising at a lower rate than what was originally projected. As a result, the cost to subsidize insurance for those who can’t afford to pay the full amount on their own is going down.

The second reason is fewer people overall are signing up for insurance that includes government subsidies (Medicaid or subsidized private insurance). That’s because companies are not canceling healthcare coverage for their employees at the rate originally projected by the CBO. That reduction is about 3M people.

The net is that by 2025, there will be more people with insurance than the CBO originally projected, which is also good news.

cbo graph
There is some controversy on why healthcare costs are growing more slowly. The administration suggests that it is the result of cost saving provisions of the ACA. Conservative sources suggest that it is the result of a weak economy and have been predicting a bounce back as economic growth heats up again. The CBO commented on this in their report.

such a bounce back seems less likely in light of the further slowing of spending growth observed in the most recent data.

BTW, this report only focuses on the cost side of the leger. The agency discontinued their analysis of the budget impact of this particular bill. Instead they pointed to their normal comprehensive deficit reporting as a source for those looking more detailed information. They did, however, provide this guidance when they made their announcement last summer.

the agencies have no reason to think that their initial assessment that the ACA would reduce budget deficits was incorrect.

What is also reliable are the conflations by conservative media sources who refuse to acknowledge that the law is actually working.

Here’s a sample.

Forbes (a long time ACA opponent) chooses the headline “CBO Downgrades Obamacare’s Enrollment And Subsidy Projections” for this same news. Rather than focus on the big news which is the cost savings and the fact the corporations are not laying off employees because of the law, they suggest that the law is failing to meet the original projects that the CBO put in place. Rather than admit that slowing growth in premium costs is a good thing, Forbes says “Obamacare’s premiums: Much higher than before, but lower than CBO projections”. Then they go on to quote their own statistics from a conservative think tank rather than the CBO in order to support that claim. They finish up the article with a suggestion of how much better things would be if a different plan were in place.

The Washington Times is always good for a laugh. Their headline reads, “Obamacare exchange customers set for significant premium spikes, CBO predicts”. They go on to cherry pick the CBO report in an effort to make their case. But the CBO did not predict a spike in premiums. They predicted that premiums would rise SLOWER than what they had previously predicted.

So I guess we should not be surprised that those who choose to live inside the right wing news bubble will continue to insist that the law, as Jeb Bush recently described it, is a “monstrosity”.

Jeb’s plan is replace Obamacare with government-backed catastrophic coverage for those who experience a medical crisis. For everything else, folks should just pay out of their pocket. The challenge, of course, is that the best medicine and cheapest care is the preventive care that is practiced in the primary care physician’s office. The most expensive and least effective care is that practiced in the Emergency Room as the result of a medical crisis.

We’ll dig into Jeb’s plan in another post.

The bottom line is that this is more good news for the country. The ACA is working even better than originally envisioned. The predicted avalanche of layoffs as corporations come under the ACA requirements regarding insurance did not happen. The “spikes” in premiums did not happen. Premiums are going up at the lowest rate in recent history. And finally, the predicted explosion in federal deficits as a result of the subsidies included in the bill hasn’t happened. The projected costs of the bill are going down because healthcare is becoming more efficient under ACA rules.

The real tragedy of our current partisan political environment is that we can’t even welcome good news anymore. All news goes through the filter of whether or not it is good for your particular political tribe with precious little thought about what might be good for the country.


March 8th, 2015

Ted Cruz is trying to position himself for a run at the 2016 Republican nomination for President.

He has already endeared himself to the Tea Party based on his government shutdown strategy.

As with many who need to retain their conservative bona fides while attempting to appeal to a broader audience, Ted has a problem. His actions and words are often at odds with one another.

In an attempt to distance himself from the last Republican who ran for President, Ted said this at a recent Koch Brothers event.

The central narrative of the last election, what the voters heard was, ‘We don’t have to worry about the 47%.’ I think Republicans are and should be the party of the 47%.’

Just as a reminder, the 47% reference here was Romney’s description of those dependent on the government and, as a result, unlikely to vote for him.

Here’s what Ted has done to help the 47% over the last couple of years.

Government Shutdown
This was an effort to defund Obamacare which provides insurance for a large percentage of the 47%. The government shutdown took a $24B bite out of the ecomony and , according to Mark Zandi from Moody’s, slowed the recovery that we are now experiencing by at least two quarters. It also furloughed thousands of federal employees without pay, though they were eventually paid. Federal contractors also furloughed thousands of employees without pay. They never received their lost pay. Small businesses suffered delays in payments and frozen SBA loans which caused them to lay off workers too.

He later defended his action saying:

As a result of that fight, millions of Americans rose up and demanded we stop the disaster that is Obamacare. Together, we elevated the national debate. And now, the misguided healthcare law is more unpopular than ever.

Immigration Reform
Ted also opposes any immigration reform that would provide a pathway to citizenship. He supports deportation of Dreamers.

Minimum Wage
He opposes any increase in the minimum wage.

Each of these positions makes life for the 47% worse. So it does call into question how he plans to become a champion of the poor and middle class.

Now he wants us to believe that he can provide a reasonable alternative to Obamacare. He remains convinced that “every last word of Obamacare must be repealed”. His alternative is designed to address the 7.5M that could lose coverage if the Supreme Court strikes down subsidies for those who have purchased insurance through the federal website.

The administration has done absolutely nothing to prepare for an upcoming Supreme Court decision that could leave millions of Americans unable to afford insurance thanks to this failed law.

Republicans must offer the American people alternatives that lower costs and break the status quo that favors big government and big health care business over hardworking Americans.

Before we dig into this just a couple of points about how insurance works.

Insurance companies make money by spreading the risk of a claim over a large population of insurance customers. The larger to pool of people unlikely to make a claim, the lower the rates for everyone in the pool. Obamacare works because it adds WAY more healthy people to the insurance pool than sick people.

This “pool” business model also introduces a bit of counter intuition with regard to competition. The bigger the pool, the lower the cost. That means that competition actually increases insurance company costs because the pool now has to be split among competitive companies. The number of insurance companies that any particular state can support depends on that state’s population. Increasing the number of choices for consumers (by allowing buying outside state boundaries) will actually reduce the number of in-state choices consumers have, particularly in smaller population states.

Here are the major points of Teddycare.

Allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines
His claim along with other Republicans is that increased competition would lead to lower premiums. This is disputed by experts. That’s because the cost of insurance is driven by the cost of healthcare, and not the marginal costs to operate their companies.

Eliminating state boundaries will return us to a world where healthy people can get very cheap insurance that they never use and ill people, if they can find insurance, won’t be able to afford it.

Insurance is regulated on a state by state basis rather than nationally. Allowing consumer to buy insurance from any state they choose will encourage at least some states to compete for that business by weakening their regulations. We’ve seen the same thing in credit cards where most companies are headquartered in Delaware or South Dakota where consumer protection laws are weak.

Repeal the individual mandate
Obamacare was able to implement requirements to insure everyone (healthy or sick) by requiring everyone (healthy or sick) to purchase insurance. This increases the pool of healthy people enough to actually offset the costs to offer the same plans to sick people. The result that we’ve seen is that the the rate of premium increases we saw before Obamacare have now slowed.

Eliminate the marketplaces
This reduces the ability for consumers to easily shop for plans on an apples to apples basis. Plans are complicated and even with the requirements that a marketplace impose, comparisons are still difficult. Remove the marketplace and very few consumers will be able to make informed decisions. They will instead have to return to insurance brokers who will help drive the cost of insurance up.

Remove the subsidies
Subsidies also widen the pool and make sure that care is being provided at the lowest cost location, a physician’s office rather than the highest cost location, the ER.

Eliminate protections against pre-existing conditions
Insurance companies will simply refuse to offer coverage to the very sick. The very sick will exhaust their own resources, declare bankruptcy and qualify for Medicaid. Tax payers foot the bill.

Eliminate parents’ ability to carry their kids on their insurance until age 26
Kids who age out of their parents’ plans will simply not purchase insurance. Rates go up because the pool is less healthy

Allow insurance companies to cap lifetime benefits
For the first time in our history, bankruptcies because of medical costs went down in this country because of Obamacare. This will cause them to go back up again.

Ted Cruz isn’t offering an alternative to Obamacare. He is simply returning us to the insurance system that existed before Obamacare. This was the system that was failing the 47% and threatening to bankrupt the country with out of control increases in healthcare costs. This was the system that left many people one serious illness or accident away from financial ruin. This was the system where the most vulnerable in our society had the least protection. This was the system where tax payers where forced to carry the burden for 30M uninsured.

I doubt that this will ever be introduced as a piece of legislation because it then can be scored by the CBO. That will reveal it as the fraud that it really is.

That does seem about right for the party that wants to “lower costs” for “hardworking Americans”. That’s really the code word here. We’re not talking about the 47% anymore. We’re talking about the 85% who have insurance and have been brainwashed into believing that extending care to another 27M people must be costing them something.

That’s what Teddycare is all about, fear mongering and Big Lies. One thing you CAN say about Ted Cruz, he is consistent.

More Paul Ryan Hypocricy

March 5th, 2015

The Affordable Care Act is before the Supreme Court again.

The reason is that a particular part of the law was written in an ambiguous way. An opponent to the ACA found this ambiguity about a year after the healthcare law actually rolled out, or almost four years after the law was actually published.

This ambiguity involved federal subsidies promised to those who purchase through through the state exchanges. The law also allows states the option of setting up their own exchange or using This particular set of language, however, says that federal subsidies for those who can’t afford to pay the full cost of healthcare coverage will flow to those who purchased their insurance through a state exchange. It makes no mention of subsidizing those who purchased their insurance through the federal exchange. When the law was written, the expectation of the authors was that every state would set up their own exchange. Most republican states, however, opted for the federal government to run their exchange.

The result is a law suit suggesting that those who are implementing the law have overstepped the provisions of the law by providing federal insurance subsidies to everyone who qualifies even if they purchased their insurance through the federal website.

This raises the real possibility that if the Supreme Court upholds the literal interpretation of this law, millions of people will lose the government subsidies they require to be able to afford purchasing insurance.

So what happens to them?

Fortunately the Republicans in the person of Paul Ryan, have offered to come to their rescue.

House Republicans have formed a working group to propose a way out for the affected states if the court rules against the administration.

This statement is particularly interesting because it is not the first time that Republicans in general, and Paul Ryan in particular have promised to develop something to replace Obamacare. So far, however, they have only formally proposed one alternative in 2009. When that was scored by the CBO, it cost $30B more than Obamacare and covered less than 10% of the population covered by Obamacare. In the five years since, the House has voted to repeal Obamacare 67 times without any serious alternative.

That didn’t stop Paul Ryan and the Republican party from claiming that they were working on an alternative in part to reassure those who were concerned that they would be left with nothing if the Republicans were successful. Here’s what he said January 20, 2011 in the lead up to the 2012 campaign.

We will hold hearings in Washington and around the country. We will invite affected individuals and job creators to share their stories and solutions. We will look to the Constitution and common sense to guide legislation.

Replacing this law is a policy and a moral imperative. We reject the premise that the only way to improve access to quality coverage is to dramatically expand the federal government’s reach into our lives. On the contrary, we are dedicated to solving the underlying problems in health care by prioritizing affordability, improving transparency, and creating a true, functioning marketplace for health insurance.

No hearings were ever held.

Ryan then spent a year campaigning on the subject with Mitt Romney promising to “repeal and replace Obamacare.”

They talked a lot about the repeal. They never provided any details on the “replace”.

In the meantime, Philip Klein of the right wing Washington Examiner rag has made a career out of proposing alternatives to Obamacare. He wrote an entire book on the subject that was published earlier this year.

Why haven’t they provided their own alternative? Because there isn’t another alternative that is cheaper and free of the same political tradeoffs that are present in Obamacare. Any plan that Republicans might choose to present will either cover fewer people, cost the government more money, and/or cost policy holders more money.

Republicans decided five years ago that they did not have to engage in a debate about the best healthcare policy for this country. They only had to regularly lie about how terrible it is and that a vote for them was a vote for Obamacare repeal.

While that, and gerrymandering, may be sufficient to keep House Republicans in power, it will not be enough to win them the White House, and may not be enough for them to keep their slim majority in the Senate.

But House Republicans don’t seem to care about much about governing anyway, so it is unlikely that we will see much change in this particular deception.

Over the next several months we’re likely to see some additional promises from Republicans with an eye on 2016. We’ll review each of those proposals as they are presented to see how they measure up. Ted Cruz’s Teddycare is the first in that series.

No One Is Satisfied With This Recovery

March 1st, 2015

Republicans blamed slow economic growth on Obama in 2014. They won an election on that claim. They also trumpeted their mandate to reverse the policies that they said were preventing stronger economic growth. Then a strange thing happened. The public realized that things weren’t nearly as bad as Republicans claimed. Obama’s popularity rebounded and Republicans were left flat footed. If Obama’s policies were in fact controlling economic growth, the strong fourth quarter economic growth meant that Obama DID know what he was doing.

Republicans could no longer deny the reality that the economy was growing. Nor could they prevent Obama and Democrats from taking the credit, since they had successfully convinced voters that they deserved the blame.

The rest of this post looks at the first of several pivots in messaging that Republicans are attempting.

Rather than insult the intelligence of the voter, Republicans are claiming that Obama’s “recovery” is tepid and has not benefited the middle class or the poor. Thus the statement by Mike Camp, recently retired Republican congress person from Michigan that “No one is satisfied with this recovery.” The fact is that the wealthy are just fine with this recovery because times have rarely been better for them. But now Republicans claim to have finally found religion and are shocked at how poorly everyone else has been doing.

The remarkable hypocrisy in this statement is that until this pivot occurred, Republicans condemned the very concept of income inequality as class warfare. Now Republicans at every level have decided that the concentration of wealth in the top 1% of wage earners is not only a problem, but evidence of failed Democratic policies.

The reality is that concentration of wealth at the top was the deliberate construction of Republican tax cutting plans that started with Reagan. This is the first step to prosperity described in various terms as Supply Side Economics, trickle-down economics, and supporting the job creators. The idea was that if those at the top got to keep more of “their” money. They would invest more of that money back into the economy. The resulting growth would more than offset any loss in tax revenue.

The problem is that it never happened. What happened instead is that these tax policies made the problem worse. The wealthy invested their money in electing more Republicans, government spending and tax revenues went down, unemployment went up, employers were able to freeze the wages of workers because of increased competition for scarce jobs, republican controlled states reduced the power of unions, and businesses were able to find a new normal where profits increased because of reduced costs even though top line sales were flat.

The middle class was squeezed out of the consumer economy and any significant participation in corporate profits. Instead we had a wealth-based economy where demand was driven by the stock market.

The GOP, however, doesn’t seem embarrassed by their hypocrisy. Those who predicted doom and gloom if taxes were raised on the “job creators” are now saying, “Sure, unemployment is down and growth is up, but it doesn’t really count if only ‘job creators’ are enjoying the real prosperity.”

One of the key actors in this theater of the absurd is Paul Ryan. He has been one of the most vocal defenders of the Republican notion that lower taxes and lower government spending would unleash pent up demand and power a golden era of economic growth. He is now accusing the Obama administration of practicing the very economic policies Ryan advocated in 2012 and blaming Obama for the outcome.

The Obamanomics that we’re practicing now have exacerbated inequality…They’ve exacerbated stagnation. They’re made things worse. The wealthy are doing really well. They’re practicing trickle down economics now.

This is the same guy who advocated sweeping budget reform that would have dramatically reduced government spending for the poor, converting Medicare into a voucher program, and privatized social security.

The Republicans are clearly trying to run away from their past history, blame the President for doing what they were proposing, while failing to propose what they would have done differently.

Here are a few examples.

  • Obamacare is working. It is a great benefit to the uninsured and under insured. It has slowed the overall growth of healthcare costs, and loosened the grip that corporations have on their workers because of the lack of affordable healthcare alternatives. Republicans continue to promise to repeal this law without offering any viable alternative.
  • Stimulus and the Fed. These are the two forces which prevented the great recession from becoming the great depression. Republicans opposed both but offered no viable plan on what they would have done differently.
  • Financial and auto industry bailouts. Both very successful. Both opposed by Republicans. Their claim is that we should have “let it burn”, putting more people of work, further depressing wages, but providing both industries an opportunity to rebuild.
  • Minimum wage. Obama supports it. Republicans oppose it.
  • Infrastructure investments. Obama supports it. Republicans oppose it.
  • Immigration reform. Obama supports it. Republicans oppose it.
  • College Finance Reform. Obama supports it. Republicans oppose it.
  • Summary
    Republicans don’t really have any new ideas. There isn’t some big bold plan to boost the income or opportunity for the poor and the middle class. The reason why is that the only viable way to make dramatic changes is to increase government spending for the middle class and the poor financed by increased taxes on the wealthy. Since this party is backed by the wealthy, there is precious little else of substance that they CAN do. So what Republican are really going to try to do is suggest that their smaller government, smaller taxes, weaker unions, and stronger corporations policy IS in fact also middle class friendly. How? By giving everyone a chance to become wealthy, since those are the only people for whom the current system is working.

    Dear President Lincoln

    February 27th, 2015

    In honor of President’s Day, here’s an open letter to two of the Presidents generally regarded as the two best Presidents in history.

    The challenge we face in this partisan political environment is to resist the temptation to rewrite history to serve a particular political position.

    Some examples of that are David Baron and Wall Builders. He claims that the founding fathers intended to create a Christian Nation.

    And Andrew Napolitano’s ridiculous claims about Lincoln and slavery.

    Dear President Lincoln, thank you for your vision, courage, and sacrifice. You knew that slavery had to be abolished for the country to move forward. You asserted the federal government’s right to impose its will on those states that refused to comply. You had the courage to issue an executive order called the Emancipation Proclamation because Congress and states refused to act.

    A lot of people were angry with your willingness to go to war over this issue. Some formed a new political movement called the Copperheads. They called you an emperor destroying American values with despotic and arbitrary unconstitutional actions. They held large rallies calling for you and your Republican party’s impeachment. The Copperheads ran candidates opposing your policies and won majorities in state legislatures including Illinois.

    Important news outlets supported the Copperheads. The La Crosse Democrat called you a “Fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism” and a “worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero … The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer … And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.”

    Thank you President Washington for religious freedom. You held good citizens to the moral standard of one country rather than one religion. Honoring liberty and supporting country requires respect for ALL religious beliefs and the right for all to practice in peace. “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” 1790 Letter from President Washington to a Rhode Island Hebrew congregation. Your letter embracing a group of citizens who didn’t share your views of Jesus Christ was a wonderful example of your expectations.

    The real tragedy today are those citizens who attempt to rewrite history to fit a particular political/religious narrative rather than honor it in all of its messy complexity.

    As far as God’s politics, Lincoln said, “I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right, but it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.

    Republican Economic Predictions

    February 8th, 2015

    Two strange things happened on the way to the 2016 Presidential election.

    • The economy got better
    • President Obama’s popularity rebounded

    Both of these things proved yet again that Republican predictions leading up to 2014 were wrong.

    Let’s review them just to make sure that we have a good list, then we can discuss how Republicans are attempting to pivot away from the messages they used to win the 2014 midterm elections.

    Price of gas
    Mike Lee predicted $6.60/gallon gas if Obama was re-elected. Newt Gingrich predicted $10/gallon gas. Mitch McConnell piled on blaming “burdensome” regulations restricting drilling and failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline

    When it comes to the rising cost of gas at the pump, it’s my view that the administration’s policies are actually designed to bring about higher gas prices,” McConnell declared, asserting that the “burdensome” regulations restrictions on drilling and the recent rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada are to blame for high prices.

    Instead we have $2.00/gallon gas with no change in Obama’s policies including a likely veto of the Keystone XL pipeline. That reduction in price is the result of the collapse of the OPEC cartel. That cartel is collapsing because of Obama’s (and Bush’s) policies to expand our energy exports.

    Romney predicted that re-electing Obama would result in continued high unemployment.

    If this president’s re-elected you’re going to see chronic high unemployment continue for another four years or longer. You’re going to see low wage growth, if any growth at all. And of course there’ll always be this fiscal calamity at our doorstep.

    Instead the official unemployment rate is under 6%. More of the long term unemployed are rejoining the workforce. Companies are finally being forced to compete for new hires and wages are once again going up.

    “Employment growth is astonishingly strong,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “With every indicator we follow screaming that payrolls will be very strong for the foreseeable future, wage pressures will intensify.”

    All this while the supposed job killing Obamacare healthcare plan is expanding and taxes on the wealthy have gone up.

    Stock market crash
    In addition to McConnell (in the quote above) predicting a financial collapse, a whole host of other conservative pundits piled on.

    Charles Bilderman, the author of the “Intelligent Investing” column at Forbes, wrote that the “market selloff after Obama’s re-election [was] no accident,” predicting “stocks are dropping with no bottom in sight.” Bilderman said that the policies the Obama administration would pursue in his second term would “crash stocks.”

    On Bloomberg TV, investor Marc Faber predicted that, because of Obama’s reelection, the stock market would drop at least 20%. According to Faber, “Republicans understand the problem of excessive debt better than Mr. Obama who basically doesn’t care about piling up debt.” Faber joked that investors seeking to protect their assets should “buy themselves a machine gun.”

    Instead the market is up over 35% since Obama’s re-election.

    Economic collapse
    Rush Limbaugh painted a picture of economic apocalypse in a second Obama term. I’m grateful to Newsmax for still posting these quotes to support this prediction.

    “If Obama’s re-elected, it will happen. There’s no if about this. And it’s gonna be ugly. It’s gonna be gut-wrenching, but it will happen. The country’s economy is going to collapse if Obama is re-elected. I don’t know how long: a year and a half, two years, three years.”

    “California is going to declare bankruptcy, and you know what Obama will do? He’ll go to states like Texas or Arizona, Florida to bail them out. That’s what he’ll do, and that’s gonna precipitate this stuff. California is showing where we’re headed in every which way,”

    “We’re on an unsustainable course. You simply can’t pay people who aren’t working. You just can’t. You cannot pay them anything, much less full-fledged incomes, lifetime healthcare and lifetime pensions. You can’t do it. Even if you wanted to, even if that was your definition of fairness and equality, you can’t do it. The money isn’t there.”

    “I don’t want any of this, but I know mathematics, and I know economics. I know history. I know socialism, statism, Marxism, I know where it goes. I know what happens at the end of it.”

    Funniest thing. The economy didn’t collapse. In fact we have seen the strongest economic growth in this country in a decade. What happened? Middle class consumers returned to the market buoyed by a rising stock market, improving job prospects, lower gas prices, and rising wages. They ignored all of the conservative doomsday politicians and pundits. They ignored the creeping Marxism and socialism that was sapping their competitive spirit. Instead they went out and bought new cars and the auto industry set new employment records.

    Oh and California? That socialist state that can’t afford to support it’s safety net where high costs of living are driving out business. They are projecting a record surplus of $4B. They still have long term pension issues to deal with, but they now have the funds to actually address the problem.

    The state that IS in trouble is Kansas. The reason they are in trouble is because Sam Brownback actually implemented the aggressive plan of cutting taxes and spending that Congressional Republicans have been proposing for years. The result was an economic collapse which cut tax revenues even deeper. The state spent $379M in rainy day funds, cut $278M in spending, and will have to cut another $435M to balance the budget this year. That means cuts to both highway and education funding.

    Sounds eerily similar to the predictions that Bush made when he proposed his trickle down version of this same supply side economic voodoo. Pretty much the same thing happened too. The promised economic growth didn’t occur. Instead unemployment went up, middle class workers lost their bargaining power, wages stagnated, CEO’s kept all of the profits, deficits ballooned, and ultimately the economy collapsed.

    How did Brownback get re-elected? He claimed that his plan was working, it just needed more time to take hold. Facing a revolt in his own party, however, Brownback finally blinked and agreed to raise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. Pretty much what Bush I had to do to deal with the deficits that Reagan left.

    Republicans are facing a similar dilemma.

    They can’t continue to deny the reality that the economy is growing. Nor could they prevent Obama and Democrats from taking the credit, since they had successfully convinced 2014 voters that they deserved the blame. By shifting the blame, they also abdicated any claim that anything that they did over the past six years contributed to the recovery.

    Instead they have decided to recast themselves as defenders of the middle class by claiming that there are still too many people out of work, and that they have a better idea.

    We’ll pick up that curious piece of logical gymnastics in the next post entitled, “Nobody is happy about this recovery”.