• Direct spending – The government can buy things (e.g. planes, trains, and automobiles), thus providing jobs to the manufacturers. It can build things (bridges, roads, schools). Or it can just straight up hire people and give them work to do (ie census workers, regulators, etc.)
• Handouts – The government can give away money to people who need it, who can then use it to buy things (which will provide work for people.) Said handouts can also be given to businesses, often in the form of grants or subsidies or incentives.
• Tax cuts – The government can cut taxes from people, who will then hopefully turn around and spend it. They can also cut taxes for businesses and corporations, who will also then hopefully turn around and invest/spend it. If people/businesses just end up pocketing the money, the tax cut will not have an effect.
• Cutting the interest rate – By cutting the interest rate, people and businesses will have less incentive to store their money, since letting it sit no longer garners them free cash.
• Increasing the inflation target – By increasing the inflation target, people and businesses will have more incentive to spend their money, as it will just lose value over time. If you knew $10 would be worth $5 after a year, wouldn’t you spend it sooner rather than later?
• Weakening the dollar – By making a foreign note worth more US dollars (say 1 euro buys 2 dollars as opposed to only 1 dollar), US goods that are priced in dollars are cheaper when purchased in foreign countries (a $100 stereo costs only 50 euros instead of 100). This makes US exports more attractive.
• Loosening regulations/labor restrictions – Companies will only expand when the potential future profits associated with expansion exceed the potential future profits associated with using their money for something else. Loosening regulations lowers that threshold by making it cheaper/easier to undergo business expansion.

It’s long been obvious that Obama’s political standing would decline as a result of the poor economy and the passage of time. Similarly, substantial Democratic losses in the House were always likely given the large number of seats the party had to defend in a midterm election in which it controls the presidency. The continued weakness of the economy subsequently appears to have enhanced the Republican advantage, helping to produce tomorrow’s pro-GOP wave.

Instead of focusing on these structural factors, journalists and other political figures have constructed a staggering number of ad hoc claims about messaging, tactics, etc. to “explain” what has happened to Obama and the Democrats:

-Obama’s message is not populist, thematic, simple, and/or comprehensive enough;
-Obama failed to “connect” with voters (in part because he often uses a Teleprompter);
…

Otherwise, get some entertainment out of it with his handy buzzword bingo card!

End Update

Egads, it’s Election Day already! (hmm…I never did get around to writing about politics, huh?)

Do your civic duty and vote!

That is all.

The guest speaker was The Honorable Tevi Troy, Ph.D. (American Civ), former Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services (2007-2009) and a current Hudson Institute Senior Fellow. Frankly, I was not impressed by his speech, since it read like boilerplate Republican screed: Replace and repeal Obamacare. With what? With medical malpractice reform, health savings accounts + high deductible health plans, and allowing for the selling of insurance across state lines.

This is the question I asked Dr. Troy and Joel Pollak. (edited for clarity)

Hello, my name is Harold, and I am a graduate student at ***. First, I’d like to thank both of you Joel and Dr. Troy for having this event and talking to us about health care reform and how it can be improved. Dr. Troy, I think your mother is wise: it will be very hard to pull $500 billion dollars in savings from Medicare, as President Obama has proposed to do, without cutting services in some manner. Let’s use this number as the minimum amount of inefficiency in the healthcare system. [ed. Currently healthcare expenditures are 17% of GDP or $2.5T of $15T. Second highest OECD expenditure is ~12% of GDP or $1.8T] A recent Harvard study calculated that medical malpractices costs our system $55B or approximately 10% of this $500B. Do you think that health savings accounts and cross-state purchases will drive the savings of the other 90% or $445B? I think both of these ideas have some merit, but I also don’t know if they will be enough.

 

I also have two concerns about these proposed mechanisms. With cross-state-border purchases, how will you prevent the race to the bottom, or the under regulation that you see in credit cards? If you propose national regulation, how is that different from a national exchange, which was so widely villified? For the HSA’s, how much is it estimated that a family of 4 needs to save in an HSA, and what is the median income for a family of 4? I ask this not behalf of you or I, who are healthy and have our finances in good enough shape that we can put away money in an HSA, but on behalf of those who can’t. [40% quintile for household is $39K (avg size 2.5), HSA's have a maximum contribution limit of [$2900 (sin), $5800 (fam)]

Pretty reasonable, non-gotcha questions, right? I don’t remember who answered which part of the question, or their exact words, but I will try to reproduce the general message behind their answers as best I can.

• On whether HSA’s and cross-state purchases will produce enough savings: Dodged. Tevi said that he never said we needed to save $500 billion in the overall healthcare system, just that’s what Obama wanted to do in Medicare. Then he said that these are just the beginning reforms. Joel explained further that his overarching philosophy is that there should be lots of experimentation at the state level and then the savings produced by these experiments would eventually be adopted across the nation, but they wouldn’t be enacted or mandated by the government. He also mentioned health IT innovations for improving care
• On how to prevent the race-to-the-bottom: [Notice how all your credit cards are mailed from CT, DE, and SD? That's because they have the most lax credit card laws.] Confused. Tevi said that the race-to-the-bottom will be prevented by state regulations. Each state will be able to set their own regulations. But won’t allowing cross-state purchases allow consumers and insurance companies to bypass said state regulations? Or is he envisioning something along the lines of how California sets its own emissions requirements. I think there might also be some very unexpected ramifications if a state unilaterally sets stronger regulations than its neighbors. (entire corporations, not just insurance companies, moving to states with less restrictive insurance regulations to lessen insurance payments for their employees.)
• On how what an individual’s estimated HSA expenditure is: Dodged. I was told that they recommended expanding the maximum contribution to $5000 or even $10000, but they didn’t have any numbers of what the average, non-chronic diseased household is expected to spend on medical expenditures each year. I was given a long answer on the theory of why HSA’s work, and some evidence that HSA’s do reduce medical expenditures, but nothing implying that said medical expenditures would be reduced enough for those in the lower-middle-class and the poor.

On the whole, it was a confusing evening. I walked away impressed by Joel Pollak’s brain but not the conclusions it drew. He is very smart and very articulate. It’s clear that he follows the contours of the nuances of the complicated problems the US faces. He obviously cares about people, and he does seem to want to improve governance and transparency (though I fear that he will not be able to stand up to the Republican party discipline machine if he makes it to Washington), but on a number of issues, he takes positions that read like standard Republican talking points. To be fair, he holds a few nuanced positions that I see wisdom in, even if I don’t agree with them, but on this topic, health care reform, my quest to hear new ideas based on solid logic and research ended in disappointment. The fact that he was so obviously smart made the fact that I was hearing standard-issue rhetoric all the more frustrating. Seriously: if you’re healthcare reform plank rests on only 3 major elements, you better be able to present evidence that those 3 elements will in fact produce the majority of the savings that are needed.

More reflections and reaction from the event to come later. Also, look forward to more political/economic musings. I was going to try to refrain from espousing my political views on this blog, but after the fiasco that was this most recent congress, I think that it is vitally important that we elect “adults” to this congress, Republican or Democrat.

Finally, I do ask these questions hoping for answers, and am not just trying to score points. I will try to be as balanced as possible, critiquing both sides as they deserve. To my libertarian/conservative friends, or anyone who is more versed in economics/healthcare, please respond. Are HSA’s the magic bullet? How can we prevent a race to the bottom? How will these policies impact the poor? What other ideas do you have?

Meanwhile, the State of the Union was the big political news of the week. It was good (and definitely quelled the general panic in the liberal blog-o-sphere after the MA elections), but I’d say that this Q&A session with the GOP is _infinitely_ more compelling. Granted, its not exactly a fair setting, since Obama always has the last word, but perhaps the Republicans (and the Democrats) will finally learn their lesson: don’t bring talking points to a law professor fight.

It’s 90 minutes, so make yourself some hot chocolate, grab a blanket, make yourself comfortable, and turn on your brain. Q&A starts at 19:00, though the opening remarks are worth a listen too. (Video) (Transcript)

And in case you missed it, the State of the Union Address (Video) (Transcript)

Frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you would think that this thing was a Bolshevik plot. That’s how you presented it. I’m thinking to myself, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist — no, look. I’m just saying. I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans — it is similar to what many republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So, all I’m saying is, we’ve got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I’m not suggesting that we’re going to agree on everything, whether it’s on health care, energy or what have you. But if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

Mainstream media is going nuts over the election of Scott Brown over Martha Coakley and what that means for health care reform and Obama’s agenda and blah blah blah. While I’ll agree that this probably doesn’t bode well for having Congress accomplish anything important in the foreseeable future, they seem to be missing the point:

Why has “government” become an arena for our two political parties to posture and preen and strut and vie for power instead of a place where, y’know, actual governing takes place.

*ahem* They seem to be missing the point as well as contributing to the problem.

Read this: 177 out of 631 political appointments still unconfirmed

(for comparison, Bush II had 70 unconfirmed appointees after 1 year)

Ugh, the fact that political parties(y) and special interests are playing games with our government sickens me.

What kind of games? I’ve already showed you that the filibuster game has experienced a dramatic increase in popularity lately, so let’s look at another game. A game called “let’s not appoint government officials and then blame government for not working”

It might have been useful, perhaps to have a someone in charge of the TSA in the aftermath of the Christmas terrorist attempt. Having someone in a position like that might have even helped to say, thwart the attack. (Ok, probably not, but let me stand on my soapbox here.) What? You say that there is a position like that? And that someone highly qualified has been appointed? And that a vote on his nomination has been put off for 4 months?!?! (Southers has since withdrawn his nomination)

You would figure that in this terrible economy it might be important to have a full complement of assistant secretaries at the Treasury Department. Clearly, not everyone thinks that, since 4 out of 10 are still awaiting confirmation. (Though, to be fair, Obama, what took you so long to nominate them?)

You might also think that maintaining strong diplomatic relationships with Brazil, only the largest economy in South America, the 8th largest country in the world, and one of the the four fast-growing BRIC countries, would be well-advised. Unless, of course, you were an American Congressman and decided to ice the nominee for over seven months.

I’ll be upfront and say that I can’t comment on the quality of the nominees. There could very well be a legitimate concerns (I’m looking at you, Harriet Myers.) However, don’t pull crap like this and expect me to give you the benefit of the doubt in the future.

The most absurd hold of 2009, perhaps, was on Miriam Sapiro, whom the Obama administration appointed to become a U.S. trade representative. Sen. Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, held up the respected Internet policy specialist’s nomination over — really — candy-flavored cigarettes. Big Tobacco, with Bunning on its side, wanted the Obama administration to lobby against Canada’s banning of flavored cigarettes like cloves, which are particularly popular among underage smokers. According to the New York Times, Bunning lifted the hold only when Democrats agreed to put a Republican, Michael Khouri, on the Federal Maritime Commission. (In the end, Bunning didn’t even attend the vote that confirmed Sapiro.)

Ok. I’ll step off the soapbox now.

Partial list of held appointments below the cut.

The full list @ whitehouse.gov
This post brought to you by Foreign Policy Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias

Below, a sample of those relevant to U.S. security and foreign policy.

David Adelman, ambassador to Singapore

Brooke Anderson, ambassador-rank representative to the United Nations

Mari Carmen Aponte, ambassador to El Salvador

George Apostolakis, commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Alan Douglas Bersin, commissioner of U.S. customs at the Department of Homeland Security

Sandford Blitz, federal co-chair of the Northern Border Regional Commission

Donald E. Booth, ambassador to Ethiopia

Rafael Borras, undersecretary for management at the Department of Homeland Security

Charles Collyns, assistant secretary for international finance at the Treasury Department

Erin Conaton, undersecretary of the Air Force

Donald Lloyd Cook, deputy administrator for defense programs at the Department of Energy

Philip Coyle, associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Scott DeLisi, ambassador to Nepal

Eileen Donahoe, representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council

Philip Goldberg, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department

Elizabeth Harman, assistant administrator for grants programs at FEMA

Eric Hirschhorn, undersecretary of commerce for export administration at the Department of Commerce

Michael Huerta, deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

Dawn Johnsen, assistant attorney general at the Office of Legal Counsel

Walter Jones, U.S. executive director of the African Development Bank

Allan Katz, ambassador to Portugal

Ian Kelly, U.S. representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Frank Kendall, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology

Laura Kennedy, U.S. representative to the Conference on Disarmament

Betty Eileen King, U.S. permanent representative at the United Nations in Geneva

Suresh Kumar, assistant secretary of commerce and director general of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service

Marisa Lago, assistant secretary of the Treasury for international markets and development

Nicole Lamb-Hale, assistant secretary for manufacturing and services at the International Trade Administration

Elizabeth Littlefield, president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation

William Magwood, commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Warren Fletcher Miller Jr., director of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Mary John Miller, assistant secretary of the Treasury for financial markets

David Warden Mills, assistant secretary of Commerce for export enforcement

Malcom Ross O’Neill, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, technology, and logistics

Paul Luis Oostburg Sanz, general counsel of the Navy

Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, assistant secretary of the Navy for installations and environment

Michael Ward Punke, U.S. deputy trade representative to Geneva

Douglas Alan Rediker, U.S. alternate executive director for the International Monetary Fund

Jessie Hill Roberson, member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Mark Rosekind, member of the National Transportation Safety Board

Juan Francisco Sanchez, undersecretary for international trade at the Department of Commerce

Islam Ahmaed Siddiqui, chief agricultural negotiator of the Office of the United States Trade Representative

Ian Hoddy Solomon, U.S. executive director for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development at the World Bank

Erroll Gregory Southers, assistant secretary of homeland security and administrator of the Transportation Security Administration

Clifford Lee Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness

Judith Ann Stock, assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs

Harry Thomas, ambassador to the Republic of the Philippines

Benjamin Burgess Tucker, deputy director at the Office for National Drug Control Policy

Caryn Anne Wagner, undersecretary of Homeland Security for intelligence and analysis

Solomon Brown Watson IV, general counsel of the Army

Beatrice Wilkinson Welters, ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago

Bisa Williams, ambassador to the Republic of Niger

• First and foremost, I am a follower of Christ.
• I am Chinese-American. More American than Chinese, though hopefully it will even out over time (unlikely.)
• I believe in the power of reason and strength of the irrational.
• I am idealistic regarding people (sing.) and cynical regarding populations, structures, and corporations.
• I am solution agnostic.
• The free market does not always know best. Nor does the government. Nor do the people.
• Nothing is as simple as it appears.
• The best is often the worst enemy of the better.
• Goals should be ideal, implementation pragmatic, and expectations realistic.
• Just because the ideal is unattainable doesn’t mean that the attempt shouldn’t be made.
• Just because something is worthwhile doesn’t mean that the cost should be paid.
• Equal opportunity leads to unequal outcomes leads to unequal opportunity.
• Both/and, not either/or. The trick lies in the balance.
• I am neither liberal nor conservative nor independent.
• I strive to seek truth. I wish to act boldly. I hope to live humbly. I struggle to be spirit led.
• I know little. I am learning.
• I am a work in progress
• I am a sinner.
• I am saved (by grace)

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. … And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” ~Revelations 21:1-4

Poor Rep. John Dingell…

(Full disclosure:  Both ThinkProgress and MediaMatters are both liberal think tanks and blogs)

Mashup footage of 11/7/09 floor proceedings of Democratic Women’s Caucus.

…at least they aren’t breaking out in fisticuffs? Tango. It takes two, natch?

It was to my surprise (and delight) when I found his new video series on time.com That Makes Me Think Of…: News served up stream-of-consciousness style with a dash of humor, a pinch of weird facial expressions, and a refreshing glass of appreciation for complexity.

Additional Videos at time.com