The right would like you to know that the passage of the health care bill signaled the End Of Freedom and the Beginning Of Armageddon. It’s time to revolt against Obama, destroy Democrats, take back the country, rise up, slit the throat of fascism and blow up some buildings… legally and peacefully, of course!
I have a question — for both the conservatives and the lefties who read “Alas” — which I think might enhance our post-election discussion in eight or nine months. What are your expectations for how many seats Democrats will lose (or gain) in November? Not just your predictions, but also what levels will make you feel that each party has exceeded expectations (i.e., “won”)?
Nate Silver has a table which might help with thinking about this:
Add on top of that the lousy economic situation, which is always bad for the incumbent party. My feeling is that if the Democrats can keep it down to losing about average for a midterm election, they’ll have done extremely well — as Silver says, they’ll have “won” the election cycle.
My expectation is, all else held equal, Democrats will lose around 30-40 seats in the House, and 4-6 in the Senate. If Democrats end up losing 60-70 in the House and 8-10 in the Senate, I’d call that an enormous, stunning loss, beyond what I’d expect.
Rob and Ron, both of you have (iirc) suggested that passage of the Affordable Care Act will lead to enormous losses for Democrats in November, beyond what we’d normally expect in a mid-term election with a lousy economy. (Robert even bet $100 that Republicans would have a two-third majority in the House after the election — which means Democrats losing 111 seats.) Could you put those expectations in numbers, please?
Not just Ron and Rob, but everyone. How well do Republicans have to do so that we can say they did much better than we’d normally expect, given the circumstances? And at what levels would you say that Democrats actually “won” under the circumstances?
This post on Open Left has lots of tables and stuff showing that over 50% of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist Muslim who “wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government,” blah blah blah. But the page on Harris Interactive says that this is an online poll.
“Online poll,” if you rearrange the letters, spells “complete bullshit.” Is there any argument for taking a poll like this seriously?
If you watched Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show last night, you probably caught this segment, Richard Engel’s sunny assessment of Iraqi election results.
In Maddow’s words, the Allawi victory could be a “recipe for more stability” as it draws in a diverse coalition of Sunni, Shiite, Kurd and secular interests. Engel adds that “it is much more American leaning” due to Allawi’s past work with the C.I.A. Allawi is “Washington-leaning” while Maliki is “Iran-leaning” — which, in Corporate NewSpeak means “good for U.S.” and “we win.” Or as Engel concluded, “potentially the best news for U.S. troops who are looking to leave.”
This made me scratch my head. How is a close election result rejected by the candidate who holds real political power in a country under military occupation and experiencing almost daily violence possibly a “game changer”?
The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss arrives as a diametrically opposed set of concerns.
If it does get ugly, Allawi will be at a disadvantage. Unlike Maliki, who controls the security and intelligence forces — nicely funded by the American taxpayer, thank you very much — and unlike the Kurds, the Sadrists, and the Badr Brigade of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which maintain militias, Allawi has none. The former resistance has disarmed, and the Sons of Iraq (Awakening, or sahwa) are badly disorganized.
Allawi’s path to power involves a deal with the Kurds, who won 50-odd seats, but that won’t be easy to get, since the Kurds are fiercely opposed to some of Allawi’s more Arab nationalist allies, especially in Mosul. And Allawi will have to peel off some elements of the INA, probably the Sadrists, but they are strongly anti-Baathist and they’ve shifted to a great degree into the Iranian camp since 2007, so a deal with them, too, would be difficult for Allawi. (Sadr, who lives in Iran, won the majority of seats in the INA bloc, a massive defeat for ISCI.)
Iran will move mountains — and assassins — to stop Allawi. Tehran will put a lot of pressure on Maliki, the INA, and the Kurds to block Allawi and to reform the pro-Iranian bloc that has ruled Iran since 2005-2006. On the other hand, if politics and power conspire to deny Allawi what he has won, expect the Sunnis to move into armed opposition to the re-established powers-that-be.
Engel and Dreyfuss are both aware of the complexities of the ethnic and regional rivalries that make Iraq a difficult and unstable place to analyze; yet I don’t get why Engel comes away so giddy about the prospects. Is it simply a matter of proximity to the corporate news sun? Engel orbits closer to its glowing warmth, where American power is ever threatened yet always triumphant, while Dreyfuss hovers around Pluto, a cold place lacking access to the centers of Washington decision-making. However, I suspect Dreyfuss is closer to the truth: regardless of American prospects for leaving, Iraq’s political troubles are far from over.
UPDATE: Here’s a good sign that Dreyfuss may be closer to truth, if not Corporate NewsTruth — Malaki has deployed security forces against candidates who may have won on the Allawi ticket. (via)
The government’s action, coupled with appeals by Maliki’s bloc for the votes to be thrown out in these cases, appeared to be a long shot maneuver to strip Allawi of his margin of victory. In the end, Iraq’s high court will have to settle this and other disputes and certify the final results, a process that could take another two weeks
One of the fugitive candidates said security forces had staged two raids on his home this week, including one Saturday morning. “I’m confused as to how I can make it to parliament to be sworn in when I can’t even go home,” said Raad Dahlaki, the chairman of the Baqouba City Council. McClatchy reached him by telephone at an undisclosed location.
“Will I be stripped of my right to fill the seat I won through hard work? Will I be able to keep the promises I made to people, to improve their lives? I have no clue why there are all these attempts to arrest me,” he said.
| Originally published at mooreroom |
This Bloomberg poll report is making the liberal rounds, but it is irresistible:
At the same time, 70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party, which organized protests this week against President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, want a federal government that fosters job creation.
They also look to the government to rein in Wall Street, with almost half saying the government should do something about executive bonuses. Supporters are also conflicted over whether private-enterprise elements should be introduced into government programs like Social Security and Medicare.
They sound like conservative Democrats to me. Granted, it’s a hodge-podge of talking points grabbed from the airwaves, where the think tank flack with the dumbest-downed argument wins, regardless of merits. Fostering job creation is a no-brainer in a None Dare Call It Depression — that it receives so little discussion in corporate news media or on Capitol Hill may be what has prompted some (not all) to view the year-long push for health care/insurance reform with confusion, frustration and anger. Assurances that health care reform will create jobs have been lost on this crowd, certainly amid the fear-mongering, racism and disinformation that has dominated media discourse on this (non-)debate. Blue doggers share in this hodge podge, albeit for more politically cynical reasons: they tend to be well financed by the health insurance lobby. However, job creation is an easy sell, at least in districts that feel the economic pain.
Right, so: Jobs, jobs, jobs — these are what the people want, regardless of their teabagger affiliation. Signing over billions of dollars to Wall Street bailouts also disgusts people, again regardless of teabagger affiliation (ROTBA.) If you wanna cool the populist heat, promote job creation in both the public and private sectors, then pass meaningful financial reform with a strong consumer protection bureau. Show the people (ROTBA) that the government is fighting for them and their interests; and, lo, a segment of the confused populace will view more kindly social necessities like universal health care — not counting, of course, the racist militia morons who exist ROTBA, anyway.
| Originally published at mooreroom |
Of the various ONOZ!1 raised by lay (non-)economists, Charles Krauthammer booga-boogaz the VAT threat. Let me shorter: The high cost of Obamacare (sic) will force the U.S. government to levy a Value-Added Tax regime, turning us into German Diaper Babies or Vichy French Mimes or something.
Well, I am certainly a lay (non-)economist, so naturally I went to the Wiki-well. I’ll shorter that, too: Every time value is added to a product or service, a tax is collected by the producer and paid to the government, which returns an equivalent deduction; the tax is ultimately levied on the end-consumer.
Value added tax (VAT) avoids the cascade effect of sales tax by taxing only the value added at each stage of production. For this reason, throughout the world, VAT has been gaining favour over traditional sales taxes. In principle, VAT applies to all provisions of goods and services. VAT is assessed and collected on the value of goods or services that have been provided every time there is a transaction (sale/purchase). The seller charges VAT to the buyer, and the seller pays this VAT to the government. If, however, the purchaser is not an end user, but the goods or services purchased are costs to its business, the tax it has paid for such purchases can be deducted from the tax it charges to its customers. The government only receives the difference, in other words, it is paid tax on the gross margin of each transaction, by each participant in the sales chain.
The NYTimes ran a fuller, accessible article on the economics and politics of VAT a few months ago that is worth reading. A few libertarian and conservative economists have voiced support of VAT, including Greg Mankiw (inviting a dissenting response from a writer at Reason):
From a strictly economic standpoint, a VAT is great. It is essentially a flat consumption tax, like the so-called FairTax, but implemented in a way to reduce compliance problems. Because it is collected in stages along the chain of production, rather than all at the retail level, tax evasion is more difficult.
Again, I am no economist, but I am having a hard time seeing the problem with this strategy. It seems progressive, as most of the tax burden will fall upon higher income consumers who tend to buy higher valued goods. (Liberals argue it is regressive because the poor have fewer savings and spend a larger percentage of their income on consumer goods they need, like, say, food and clothing.) It is harder to evade taxes. It lacks the cascade effect of the sales tax.
The Reason reasons for opposition seem to be a) VAT didn’t stop the Greek economic collapse (which was caused by the world-wide economic crisis, credit default swaps, and, yes, debt); b) VAT revenue cannot be counted on to aim at deficit reduction (but wouldn’t more revenue for necessary social programs offset federal borrowing?); c) even if we could aim VAT revenue at deficit reduction, we can’t raise enough money to offset CBO projects of deficit increases; d) VAT on top of our current tax system could encourage an “underground economy” and a rise in homemakers (???); e) go read the rest yourself.
Combine VAT with a more progressive income tax scheme, as European countries tend to do, and we might have the makings of a more sustainable and equitable society. Of course, we still have to cut spending. I say we start with our worldwide military adventurism and turn defense into just that, defense. This suggestion goes totally against the grain of Krauthammer et al’s way of thinking, of course.
| Originally published at mooreroom |
An alert reader points out another example of a Louis Maltby-type signature. I think these examples show that Louis is going places!
Anyone with even a tiny math and science background will tell you that the metric system kicks the shit out of our current system, which is a bastard cousin of the long-gone British Imperial system. Dumb America’s stubborn refusal to adopt it is almost as embarrassing as their opposition to health insurance reform.
I know the French invented metric units, but come on! With the metric system, it would be very easy for even the dumbest American to upsize their Frito Pie recipe for a big-ass tea bag party.
Look at this map of countries that use the metric system:
Only the United States, Burma, and Liberia aren’t on board. Antarctica is also gray, but only scientists are down there, and I’m sure they aren’t using pounds and ounces to weigh penguin shit.
Although I’m a big advocate for the metric system, beer and burgers should be measured in pints and pounds for all eternity. I’m in favor of progress, but some things shouldn’t be fucked with.
UPDATE: Over on the BFW Facebook page, Garth pointed out this song from Atom and His Package:
Support BFW and buy stuff!
Rush Limbaugh promised to move to Costa Rica if health care reform passed. (No word if he’ll be smuggling in his Viagra like on his previous South American sex tour vacation) So there’s a fundraising drive to send him on his way. The best part? If Limbaugh refuses, then Planned Parenthood gets a few thousand bucks.
So, basically, give what you can, folks. There’s no way to lose here.
