The Commentariat -- Nov. 1, 2013
Jeremy Peters of the New York Times: "Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked the confirmation of two of President Obama's nominees, one to a powerful appeals court and another to a housing lending oversight post, setting up a confrontation with Democrats that could escalate into a larger fight over limiting the filibuster and restricting how far the minority party can go to thwart a president's agenda." ...
... Niels Lesniewski of Roll Call: "'I think it's worth considering it,' Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said of changing Senate rules on nominees after Republicans filibustered two nominees." CW: Biden is, of course, president of the Senate. ...
... John Stanton of BuzzFeed: "Senate Republicans Thursday successfully blocked the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt to head up the federal agencies overseeing the real estate industry, only the second time a sitting member of Congress has had a nomination blocked since before the Civil War." ...
... Susan Davis of USA Today: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., vowed to try again after Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., to head the agency that oversees mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a critical time for the industry. 'Republicans' unprecedented obstruction continued today with a step that we have not seen since the Civil War,' Reid said."
Mike Lillis of the Hill: "Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pushed back hard Wednesday against those hammering ObamaCare for forcing some patients out of their current insurance plans. The House minority leader said the number of patients who will have to change plans under the law is small, and they will ultimately benefit by moving into new plans with better coverage.... Pelosi said the sharp rise in medical costs, combined with the transient nature of the individual insurance market, would eventually have forced people out of their individual plans -- ObamaCare or not." ...
** Todd Purdum in Politico: "To the undisputed reasons for Obamacare's rocky rollout -- a balky website, muddied White House messaging and sudden sticker shock for individuals forced to buy more expensive health insurance -- add a less acknowledged cause: calculated sabotage by Republicans at every step." Purdum outlines many of the sabotage tactics.
... David Firestone of the New York Times: "The so-called cancellation letters waved around at [Wednesday's] hearing [on the ACA] were simply notices that policies would have to be upgraded or changed. Some of those old policies were so full of holes that they didn't include hospitalization, or maternity care, or coverage of other serious conditions. Republicans were apparently furious that government would dare intrude on an insurance company's freedom to offer a terrible product to desperate people.... In the face of absurd comments and analogies..., Ms. Sebelius never lost her cool in three-and-a-half hours of testimony, perhaps because she knows that once the computer problems and the bellowing die down, the country will be far better off." ...
... The "Daily Show" issues a correction:
... Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker interviewed "Jonathan Gruber, an M.I.T. economist and an architect of both Mitt Romney's health-care plan in Massachusetts and Obama's Affordable Care Act" about the "winners & losers" ObamaCare will create. CW: Gruber's assumptions about the "losers" so annoyed me that I wrote to him about it. ...
... Update: I wrote to Gruber:
From the Ryan Lizza piece...:
... three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.'s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. ...
Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. 'We have to as a society be able to accept that,' he said. 'Don't get me wrong, that's a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.
Wait a minute. These people are 'giving up' their junk policies, some of which don't even pay for hospitalization, to get -- and pay for -- more comprehensive policies. Some of these 'losers' will also get tax subsidies and/or Medicaid assistance. (Yes, there may be some real losers in those states that refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion, but they still can get the tax breaks, at least at this point.) Most of those among the 3 percent who don't get assistance can afford to pay for their own insurance -- so the rest of us don't have to cover their hospitalizations, maternity complications, etc., -- via higher premiums on our own policies -- when they get sick & can't afford to pay the resulting huge medical bills.
These people, for the most part, are 'losers' only if you mean by losers that they're financially-comfortable jerks complaining about having to pull their own weight. What's a shame is not that they have to pay more for better policies but that they are caterwauling about it.... Your characterization of the 3 percent as losers is misleading.
Gruber responds,
that is a good point. Really it comes down to whether these folks were in crappy policies that they misunderstood, or whether they were rationally buying very skinny coverage. If the latter they have some complaint, but to my mind it is pretty small relative to the gains to everyone else. ...
... Ed Kilgore makes pretty much the same point I made to Gruber: "The bottom line is that the 'losers' are people with really bad individual insurance policies that expose them to ruinous out-of-pocket costs.... But these 'victims' do get to buy much better insurance without fear of being disqualified for pre-existing conditions, and if their incomes are below 400% of the federal policy level, they qualify for tax credits to help pay for it." ...
... Turns out bloggers were much taken with Lizza's piece; economist Justins Wolfers even created a pie chart reflecting Gruber's numbers. ...
... Josh Barro of Business Insider claims -- accurately, I think -- that Gruber's analysis is even worse than I realized. Barro asserts that Gruber's "numbers are garbage," & explains why. CW: How could this happen? Gruber is the expert's expert on the ACA & RomneyCare. AND he's an MIT professor. So the tendency is to defer to him. The Villagers simply accept an argument from authority -- which is no argument at all. Paul Krugman wrote an excellent blogpost a few weeks back (I think I linked it then) or "experts" v. "just bloggers" that applies here. ...
... Joshua Holland of Moyers & Co. debunks the latest ObamaCare horror claim, this one by conservative "intellectual" Avik Roy. ...
... Henry Aaron, in the New York Daily News, has a good piece that explains those policy cancellations to the somewhat dimwitted: "Obamacare is removing insurance products from the market that are bad for your health." You could send it to your somewhat dimwitted friends. ...
... AND a reminder from Josh Barro: "The American health care system sucks."
Philip Rucker of the Washington Post: "In recent stump speeches and policy remarks, Bill and Hillary Clinton have offered sharp criticisms of the partisan gridlock paralyzing Washington, signaling a potential 2016 campaign theme if Hillary Clinton chooses to run for president. The Clintons' critiques in recent days have been explicitly aimed at congressional Republicans, who helped spur a 16-day government shutdown and potential debt default in October. But their remarks also seem to contain an implicit rebuke of President Obama's failure to change Washington as he pledged when first running for the White House." CW: Right. Because Obama should have been able to turn sludge into honey. ...
... Jonathan Martin of the New York Times: "President Obama's top aides secretly considered replacing Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. with Hillary Rodham Clinton on the 2012 ticket, undertaking extensive focus-group sessions and polling in late 2011 when Mr. Obama's re-election outlook appeared uncertain.... The idea of replacing Mr. Biden with Mrs. Clinton had long been rumored, but the journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, in their new book, 'Double Down,' provide a detailed description of the effort inside the senior circle of Obama advisers. It was pushed by the chief of staff at the time, William M. Daley...." ...
... Sean Sullivan & Philip Rucker of the Washington Post outline a few more revelations from the Halperin-Heilemann book.
** Paul Krugman: "Republican hostility toward the poor and unfortunate has now reached such a fever pitch that the party doesn't really stand for anything else -- and only willfully blind observers can fail to see that reality." ...
... War on Poor People, Ctd. Alex Rogers of Time: "Just as Congress sits down in a new bipartisan conference committee to the hard work of funding the future of the food stamp program, benefits are set to drop Friday as stimulus spending dating from the 2009 recession expires. The cut of $5 billion for fiscal year 2014 equals 21 fewer meals a month for a family of four, or 16 fewer meals for a family of three, according to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.... The decline in benefits is unlikely to be reversed anytime soon. In fact, Congress is preparing to impost [sic.] further cuts in the coming years."
Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker has some thoughts on "What did the President know & when did he know it"?
They could well be spying on the president, for all I know. He has a cell phone, and, in fact, my guess is that they have collected data on the president's phone. -- Sen. Rand Paul (RTP-Ky.), on the NSA
Here is one instance where Rick Hertzberg & I more-or-less agree with Li'l Randy (tho neither of us assumes the NSA is listening in to the President's calls). But do read on. We ain't with Sen. Conspiracy Theories on much. -- Constant Weader ...
... CW: The Plagiarist. Aah, I was wrong. I said Rand Paul learned everything he knows about science from science fiction movies. Forget the movies. Li'l Randy doesn't have time to go to the movies. Turns out he learned everything he knows about anything from copying -- verbatim -- Wikipedia movie synopses. Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed elaborates. Thanks to contributor Tommy Bones for the lead. Sorry I missed it earlier. ...
Well, we, we borrowed the plot lines from 'Gattaca,' a movie, and I gave credit to the people who wrote the movie. I think they're arguing about whether things are properly footnoted. And there are technicalities to this. But nothing I said was not given attribution to where it came from.... The rest of it is making a mountain out of a molehill from people I think basically who are political enemies and have an ax to grind. -- Rand Paul responding to a Rachel Maddow segment in which she outed him for plagiarism
This is something that high school students know not to do. And you are presenting yourself as potential candidate for president. -- Rachel Maddow, responding to Rand Paul
The speeches do appear on Paul's website, without footnotes. -- Andrew Kaczynski ...
If I didn't care so much about our country, I would hope he would get the Republican nomination for president, because that would mean the end of the Republican Party. -- Give-'em-Hell Harry (Reid, that is), on Ted Cruz
... The Essential Cruz. David Korn of Mother Jones: Ted Cruz's father Rafael Cruz, "speaking to the North Texas Tea Party on behalf of his son ... [while Ted] was then running for Senate, called President Barack Obama an 'outright Marxist' who 'seeks to destroy all concept of God,' and he urged the crowd to send Obama 'back to Kenya.' ... It's appropriate to take Rafael Cruz into account when evaluating his son the senator. Ted Cruz ... has often deployed his father as a political asset. He routinely cites his Cuban-born father, who emigrated from the island nation in 1957, when he discusses immigration and justifies his opposition to the bipartisan reform bill that passed in the Senate. (Ted Cruz hails his father as a symbol of the 'American dream' ....) Moreover, Ted Cruz campaigns with his father.... Rafael Cruz regularly speaks to tea party and Republican groups in Texas as a surrogate for his son...." ...
... ** "Sins of the Father." Ed Kilgore has an excellent take on Corn's report.
Brad Plumer of the Washington Post: A Brookings Institution study finds that the "Cash for Clunkers" program of 2009 wasn't a very efficient stimulus.
Senate Race
Charles Pierce is thrilled that some crazy teabaggers will or may primary Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). Pierce is particularly happy about the potential candidacy of "historian" David Barton, whose "life's work is dedicated to proving that the Founders were as god-nutty as he is."
Local News
Joseph Goldstein of the New York Times: "A federal appeals court on Thursday halted a sweeping set of changes to the New York Police Department's practice of stopping and frisking people on the street, and, in strikingly personal terms, criticized the trial judge's conduct and removed her from the case. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, 'ran afoul' of the judiciary's code of conduct by compromising the 'appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.' The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed nearly six years ago." ...
... Scheindlin's removal outrages Jeff Toobin.
News Ledes
CBS News: "A gunman walked into Terminal 3 at Los Angeles International Airport Friday morning, pulled an assault rifle out of a bag and opened fire, killing a Transportation Security Administration officer at a security checkpoint and wounding three other TSA officers, authorities and law enforcement sources said. U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed to CBS News correspondent Bob Orr that the suspect has been identified as Paul Ciancia, 23, of Pennsville, N.J. Officials said he also spent some time in the Los Angeles area. A preliminary review of government terror databases and watchlists found no connections to Ciancia, and he does not have a significant police record, Orr reports."
... The Los Angeles Times story is here.
Washington Post: "A U.S. drone strike killed the chief of the Pakistani Taliban on Friday, local intelligence officials said, in an attack that could cripple the group but undermine an effort by Pakistan’s government to engage militants in peace talks. If verified, the death of Hakimullah Mehsud would be a victory for U.S. officials who have spent years hunting down a leader implicated in a 2009 attack that killed seven Americans at a CIA outpost in eastern Afghanistan. But the drone strike also threatened to add to strains between the United States and Pakistan, whose new prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, had announced earlier in the day that his government would begin talks aimed at reaching a negotiated settlement with the group."
New York Times: "An international scientific panel has found that climate change will pose sharp risks to the world's food supply in coming decades, potentially reducing output and sending prices higher in a period when global food demand is expected to soar."