What is Charlie Rangel thinking?

On July 27, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized Charlie Rangel for his possible tax evasions. They listed a few of his questionable tax arrangements, then concluded with

All of this has previously appeared in print in one place or another, and we salute the reporters who did the leg work. We thought we’d summarize it now for readers who are confronted with the prospect of much higher tax bills, and who might like to know how a leading Democrat defines “moral” behavior when the taxes hit close to his homes.

On July 30, Representative Rangle replied in a letter to the editor. His first paragraph does absolutely nothing to respond to the charges. He also claims the ability to read the minds of the WSJ editorial board to understand their ulterior motive, which is to undermine health care reform. A classic ad-hominen attack.

Your July 27 editorial ("Morality and Charlie Rangel’s Taxes”) insulted me in an attempt to undermine my work on health-care reform legislation. But your slurs can’t change the fact that the Ways and Means Committee, which I chair, has already succeeded in negotiating and passing its portion of the health-care bill without a hint of the rancor you’ve resorted to in your mean-spirited editorial attack.

Whatever. I leave it to the reader to determine if the original WSJ editorial featured slurs, rancor, and was mean-spirited. But, as I noted, you see that Rangel provides no facts to dispute the charges. Anyway, what follows shortly thereafter is truly incomprehensible blathering.

Since when has it been the practice of a major daily newspaper like The Wall Street Journal to rely on the reporting of journalists “in one place or another” as the basis of a searing attack on the character of a public official?

Apparently, journalists are not supposed to rely on reporting of other journalists? And editorials are not allowed to attack public officials? What? What is Charlie Rangel thinking?

Health Care Reform

Some thoughts and links

1) Health Insurance should NOT be tied to a job. Note that this editorial was written by a Democrat and appeared in a conservative publication (the Wall Street Journal). I think both sides would agree with the article's subtitle that "One thing we can all agree on is that portable coverage is more secure." This also clarifies the true costs of insurance.

"No country achieves universal coverage without subsidization and compulsion, but U.S. politicians tie themselves and the health care system in knots by proposing reforms designed to conceal these realities. Politically, the most appealing plans are those that mislead people into thinking that someone else is paying for their insurance. Currently more than half of insured Americans obtain their coverage through employment, and workers have been led to believe that their employer bears most of the cost of their care — a belief that labor-market experts have concluded is invalid. When a firm pays $3,000 to $7,000 per worker per year for health care, it can get that money in only three ways: reducing potential wage increases, increasing prices for what the firm sells (which means lower real wages for workers everywhere), or lowering profits."

2) Administrative costs are only a small part of the problem. The Washington Post considers them here.

"For one thing, some administrative costs are not only necessary but beneficial. Following heart-attack or cancer patients to see which interventions work best is an administrative cost, but it's also invaluable if you want to improve care. Tracking the rate of heart attacks from drugs such as Avandia is key to ensuring safe pharmaceuticals."

They estimate that, if we could cut administrative costs in half (to the Canadian system's level), we would save about 5% off health care, or 124 Billion. A significant saving, certainly worth doing if it were possible, but not enough to cover growing expenses.

3) New technologies are are driving the growth in health care spending"

"Most real medical spending growth is accounted for by beneficial but costly new technology."

Kenneth Arrow, noted health care economist, agrees.

"The basic reason why health costs increased is that health care is a good thing! ... A lot of these technologies clearly reveal things that would not be revealed otherwise. There's no question about it. Diagnostics have improved. Technology has improved. You know, sending things through your blood stream to help in operations, instead of cutting you open. It's incredible. But these things are costly. ... But, nevertheless, preserving life is a good thing."

4) Crass or immoral as it may seem, we must put a value upon human life.

Some of these new technologies have limited "bang for the buck" and must be "rationed". Some are inappropriate due to age or other conditions. For example, the Kidney Cancer drug Sutent adds maybe half a year to the patient's life. The drug costs $54,000. Worth it? Maybe. But what if the drug cost a million dollars? Most would say not. The article gives several other examples of evaluating and limiting spending that isn't "worth it".

Conservatives have been the main users of the "rationing is bad" point to argue against reform. I think they are being inconsistent here. Conservatives have argued, in my opinion correctly, that economic factors should be used to evaluate expenses for regulations, e.g. consumer safety and environmental regulations. To be consistent, conservatives must also agree that economic factors should be used to evaluate expenses for health care. Which means "rationing".

Maureen Dowd hypocrisy

In a recent New York Times column, Maureen Dowd gets down on Sarah Palin for, among other things, being pretty:

Sarah seems happily oblivious that she benefited from Hollywood casting techniques. Just as movie directors have beautiful young actresses playing nuclear physicists and Harvard professors, knowing the fusion of sex appeal and a heavyweight profession will excite, the novelty of a beautiful former beauty queen and TV reporter cast in a powerful role that has featured dour, gray old men like Dick Cheney was thrilling. At first.

Now, look at the photo of Maureen Dowd that accompanies her column. Compare to a much less glamorous more current photo of her at her Wikipedia entry. Hmm, is somebody else exploiting her (past) good looks?

As for the limited factual content of her column, Dowd writes:

Obama advisers say privately that the president truly respects the woman he ran against, and that they have a good relationship, so good it has even surprised Hillary. ... In a funny way, he’s the man of her dreams.

It will be interesting to see how Hillary fares as Secretary of State, both in accomplishments and longevity. I have no insider information about her relationship with President Obama. But when "advisers" "privately" say something, hold on to your your wallet, it's usually just as reliable as information from people who say "trust me".

Birther thoughts

I believe that President Obama is a natural born US citizen, and, frankly, don't care if he isn't. But the controversy around it seems almost deliberately planned to stir up conspiracy theories. Obama has released a copy of the certificate, but some conspiracy fans claim it is faked.

Without going into all the details, here the latest example of something sure to continue the controversy, a statement by Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino:

"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,"

This statement is pointless, cause, as the article notes, Fukino "issued a similar press release Oct. 31". What would convince the Birthers would be for somebody they respect, like Sean Hannity, to accompany Fukino to look at the original certificate.

"State law bars the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest."

If the constitutionality of the President of the United States isn't a tangible interest, what is?

Like I said, I think Obama is a natural born US citizen, and don't believe this conspiracy stuff. It's just fascinating to watch. And a bit fun - who doesn't like a good conspiracy theory? At this point, it seem like the left / progressives are enjoying this as much as the right-wing "birthers", cause it may paint conservatives as paranoid conspiracy freaks. And it may fire up the left.

So my conspiracy theory is that the democrats and the left are stirring this up. After all (tongue in cheek paranoid conspiracy fodder warning) Hawaii is a very democratic-leaning state, maybe somebody there is on on this? :-)


Added July 31: Hmm, maybe I'm right. DailyKos continues to push the Birther story.

Some job areas are growing during the recession

The Sunday New York Times Week in Review section had an article wondering When Will HELP Be WANTED. The overall thrust was that rehiring will be slow. Even in the recovery from this recession, job growth will be slow.

What I found interesting was the accompanying graphic, showing jobs lost or gained since December 2007. Attached is a scaled down version, with a few areas highlighted.

You will note that automotive and construction has been devastated, with 35% and 17% job losses. Manufacturing in general is down, with 14% losses. Retail is down 4.9%.

But government is doing just fine. State governments have lost less than 1% of jobs, and this excludes growth in education. And the federal government shows robust job growth of 6.5%.

If this job growth were largely due to the stimulus package, that would be a good thing (at least temporarily) to help stem the recession, though even then I'd prefer that the jobs created be largely in the private sector. However, since these figures date from 2007, they don't reflect the stimulus, they just reflect growth in government bureaucracy. The United States cannot remain competitive on the world stage if the only area of job growth is in government.

Classy Move by a Classy Baseball Player

In 2004, Seattle Mariners outfielder Ichiro Suzuki set a new record for hits in a season, breaking an 84 year old record set by St. Louis Browns 1B George Sisler. While visiting St. Louis for this year's All Star game, Ichiro paid his respects, laying flowers on Sisler's grave, and acknowledging the respect that Sisler's daughter showed by visiting Seattle to watch Ichiro break the record.

Some in baseball still respect and appreciate the past.

SIlly Huff Post Post

Art Brodsky rips the Washington Post for having a Sarah Palin editorial. Astute readers will find that nowhere in Art's post does he comment on anything that Palin wrote. He just rants. Apparently, he knows that she does not "care" about cap-and trade. Yet her state is a huge oil-producer that cares deeply about energy policies. Maybe they care the wrong way, but they, and she, certainly care. And this line floors me:

"She has no authority to write an article like this and the Post has no business running one."

To what "authority" does he refer? Maybe he should review the First Amendment. Nobody ever needs authority to write an editorial. As for the Post's business policies, whatever. Plenty of ex-politicians and ex-staffers, from both sides, work in the media and write editorials.

For all the left's claims that Palin is an ill-prepared idiot, she wrote something far more intellectually vigorous than Brodsky's big zero of easily refuted rubbish.

Sotomayor misses the point

O.K., I'm just reading what Yahoo news says, but here is her response to questioning about the "Wise Latina" remark.

"It was bad because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge,"


No. It was bad because she said that Latinas would reach better conclusions than a white male. I can't see how any sane person can question that our backgrounds may have some influence on a decision. Ideally judges are "above" that, but they are human. That's why judges have the option to recuse themselves. (And Sotomayor has been good at recusing herself in borderline cases, good for her). I am happy that her background may bring her to a slightly different view of the law. I object to her view that a specific race or ethnicity has a better view of the law.

Anyway, she will get confirmed and will likely make a good judge.

Is Pelosi off the hook? NOT

On Today's ED show on MSNBC, Ed Schultz frequently (and gleefully) made the point that Nancy Pelosi was vindicated in the issue of waterboarding. Daily Kos weighs in on a similar thread. However, the Daily Kos article includes a link to this article by one of their own bloggers, which indicates that whatever the CIA was lying about, it wasn't the waterboarding.

But the dates don't line up. In their letter, the lawmakers note that members of Congress were "misled" for "a number of years, from 2001 to this week." Pelosi, however, contended that the CIA lied to her about the use of harsh interrogation techniques during the fall of 2002.
...
Panetta "stopped the program the day after he was informed." Waterboarding was ended as a practice during the Bush years.
...
when Panetta told House Intelligence Committee members what it was that had been kept secret, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans."

I have to commend Sam Stein for the honesty in clarifying (actually, contradicting) an earlier post of his own, that did support Pelosi's account. There are other articles supporting Stein's work, such as by ABC.

The covert operation in question was counter-terrorism program. Intelligence officials said it had nothing to do with waterboarding or interrogation
...
"Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement," (contradicting Pelosi)

Obviously, the CIA should not lie to, mislead, or omit critical facts from Congress, especially it's oversight committee. And this matter should be investigated. But, so far, it appears that the CIA versus Pelosi dispute is still unsettled, no matter what the left may say.

Short thoughts on Sarah Palin

I'm not much of a fan of Sarah Palin's policies. However, I think that the left's and the media's (and some would ask if there is a difference) endless attacks on her and her children, and the largely frivolous and clearly political "ethics" charges, have been reprehensible. And have opened a door that should have been left closed.

So far, President Obama is popular and somewhat effective. He's been given a pass on the all too usual ethical lapses that affect all administrations, such as tax scofflaws, major campaign contributors as ambassadors, lobbyists, etc. Which is reasonable. Give him his "honeymoon" period. Let's try to fix up America.

What if in a few years the US economy remains slow, North Korea has attacked something, the Taliban is still blowing up Pakistan, his poll numbers are slipping, there is some scandal in the administration, and, God forbid, one of his daughters acts like a perfectly normal child and gets into trouble? All things that would be "normal" - you can imagine a West Wing episode.

But this time, the manure will hit the fan. The right will be waiting to avenge the treatment of Palin, and all hell will break loose. Obama's family will get smeared and dragged in the mud, to an extent far greater and far more viciously than in the past. It will be unfair to Obama and harmful to the country. It shouldn't happen. But, thanks to the left's vicious attacks on Palin, it will happen. They have sown the wind, and will reap the whirlwind, and we will all suffer.

Is there an Iraq tie in to the recent events in Iran?

Christopher Hitchins thinks so. Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, part of a group of prominent Iranian clerics challenging the legitimacy of the recent elections, has recently met with Iraq's moderate (and anti-Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei) Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani, and with his representatives in Qum. And Sayeed Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, has recently talked about the "the liberation of Iraq". Abbas Milani writes in New Republic about the theological dispute in Shiism between those who think the clergy should rule, and those who don't.

I'd also like to add that, in the past, many have said that the USA/Bush should not worry about, or should not be criticizing, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because he is not the power in Iran, Khamenei is. Recent events prove that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are in close alliance, and that the one largely speaks for the other.

Too big to compete?

The Wall Street Journal reports that big bonuses are back at Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS), in the form of 20 billion and 11 billion in bonuses respectively.  This irks me for two reasons.

Why aren't the stockholders complaining?  (Come to think of it, I'm a stockholder of MS)  Based on what I can find at Yahoo, that Morgan Stanley have revenue of 22.5B and revenue per share of $22, it appear that MS has about a billion shares of stock outstanding.  If this bonus were paid out to shareholders, that would be a dividend of $11 per share, which is huge relative to the current price of $26.  I'd make a lot of money, and if the share price rose to reflect the current P/E ratio of 16, the shares would roughly septuple in price, rising to near $175 a share, making me a ton more money.  Now, I'm sure this analysis is simplistic, somebody with an MBA correct it, and some bonus to retain good people is needed, but it seems clear that stockholders have little or no say over these bonuses.

The second reason is that this represents a lot of profit for these companies.  Microsoft made around 60 billion in 2008.  And Exxon made 45 billion.  So GS and MS are right up there with a monopoly and a record "windfall" profit from a huge multi-national corporation.

I'm not a socialist, I'm a free-market guy.  But apparently the free market has failed here, cause there is no competition.  Why are the companies using GS and MS to make investment deals paying so much?  If they were not getting gouged, maybe they'd have more capital to invest to create or retain jobs.  Where is the Walmart, the Dell, the E-Trade, the Amazon, the outsourcing to India, bringing higher efficiencies and lower prices?

In conclusion, not only are GS and MS too big to fail, they are too big to compete.  As effective monopolies, they either need strict regulation, or they need to be broken up.  In the meantime, maybe I'll rabble rouse amongst MS shareholders.

More on why the Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade bill is bad.

The right objects here. and here.

The left objects here. and here.

Here is a favorable summary from an environmental site.

Now, sometimes getting complaints from both sides shows that you did a good job.  But not in this case.

US House Pisses away half a Trillion Dollars

by giving away most of the carbon cap and trade permits.  As I wrote earlier, this is bad policy and costs us a lot of money.  It is opposed by both progressives and conservatives.