Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Wise words from Ed Kilgore

He knows his Southern politicians:

I know, I know, it’s widely thought to be incontrovertible that logic, pressure from providers, and the sheer idiocy of states with stingy Medicaid programs turning down a massive redistribution of resources in their favor, will all convince Republican governors to go along with the Medicaid expansion after they kick and scream for the benefit of “the base.” Perhaps that’s true, and that the rhetoric is the latter-day equivalent of the “massive resistance” southern lawmakers pledged to wage against the federally-imposed demise of Jim Crow.

But as the civil rights precedent showed, the competitive pressure of demagoguery is sometimes a lot more powerful than the “business logic” of going along with a more rational course of action. Now that Scott and Jindal have thrown down the gauntlet, can Nikki Haley or Scott Walker or Rick Perry or Sam Brownback be far behind?

This is of more than academic interest since the design of ACA really does depend on Medicaid expansion. In states where Medicaid fails to cover those under the federal poverty line, there are potentially millions of people who will not qualify for the subsidies available to higher-income families participating in the health exchanges.

As I’ve said from the beginning, the moral heart of the ACA is the medicaid expansion (and the banning denial of pre-existing conditions.) This was the big payoff for liberals in this thing. The rest is an experiment in using “markets” to make it “more affordable” for middle class people in the private insurance market. (Like me.)Hopefully the subsidies and exchanges will work and many people will be better off. Certainly they’ll have better preventive coverage and no lifetime limits, so that’s something.

But expanding Medicaid to cover more than 10 million people, mostly working poor, who cannot afford to buy health insurance at all was the real liberal accomplishment of the Act, although some of us predicted from the beginning that it would also be the most vulnerable. (Hell, even the Obama administration has been willing to cut existing Medicaid, so it’s hard to see how this won’t be on the chopping block going forward.)

In any case, this is the one piece of the ACA that truly offends the right wingers. It actually is government paid health care, after all. I think Kilgore is right and that it’s not a given that these governors will accede to the federal law on this without a long drawn out battle.

As I said on the morning of the decision, there will be those who follow in the footsteps of their forebears: “no health care now, no health care tomorrow, no health care forevuh!” States’ rights were invented for people like this.

.

Will We Fall For It Again?

by tristero

Times reporter Michael M. Grynbaum has it exactly right:

Confronting a high-profile attack on its fizzy products, the American soft-drink industry is beginning an aggressive campaign to fight New York City’s proposed restrictions on large servings of sugary drinks.

Hoping for a debate about freedom, not fatness…

The beverage association would not disclose its budget for the New York campaign, but Eliot Hoff, a spokesman for the coalition, said it was “prepared to utilize whatever resources are necessary.” [emphasis added]

In short, Big Food will seek to change the subject, specifically by transforming a difficult yet nevertheless quite tractable problem – the obesity epidemic – into sophomore dormitory bullshit.

Now we can master-debate “freedom of choice” all we want, but that truly serious question still remains: What are we going to do about obesity? A ban on big sodas isn’t my first choice – a tax on soda would be a more sensible start – but it’s better than nothing.

To change the subject from a complex, unavoidable social problem that must be confronted into a seemingly more serious, but actually frivolous, debate about a Big American Idea is a typical tactic of the right and large corporations. It prevents careful thought about progress and change by appealing to that old American desire to think grandly about the ultimate purposes of our country. But the con will only work if we allow it to.

We shouldn’t.

The great media war and the survival of the press

by David Atkins

Lenny Alcivar, Romney campaign spokesman, gives a hint as to the Romney campaign’s media strategy:

When this election is over, one of the lessons that will be learned by the mainstream media is that they no longer have a toe-hold on how Americans receive their news. Never before – in a way that has taken Democrats off stride – have we seen the confluence of an aggressive online community, led by Breitbart, and an aggressive campaign team not willing to cede an inch of ground to Democrats. This combination has created a new political reality. We no longer allow the mainstream media to define the political realities in America. The rise of Breitbart, Drudge and others, combined with an aggressive Romney campaign is a powerful tool in the arsenal of the conservative movement.

If I talk to Breitbart about an issue, thousands more will hear our message than if we give a quote to one of the hill rags.

That’s a fascinating counterpoint to this:

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They’ve explained that they don’t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.

As any reader of progressive blogs knows well, the traditional media is not at all liberal. But it doesn’t have to be anymore. Even Fox News isn’t far enough right for many Republicans. We’ve reached a new low when Drudge and Breitbart become the key mouthpieces for the Republican presidential nominee.

For all the faults of the traditional media, it does serve the key purpose of orienting a large portion of the public around a single set of facts. Often those “facts” are wrong, as in the runup to the invasion or Iraq, or the happy talk during the creation the housing bubble. But those dramatic press failures don’t negate the use value of a resource that appears as authoritative as it can be in establishing a baseline from which public policy can be made. When the left criticizes the press, it is usually less in the hope that it disappear completely, than in the hope that it actually report the news with the objectivity the actual facts demand, regardless of the natural partisan bias of those facts.

The right doesn’t care a whit about objectivity, of course. The right simply wants its partisan message blasted to as many people as possible, while forcing the traditional press to cover their “stories” because, well, people are talking about them.

Ultimately, members of the press need to realize that this is a fight for the very survival of their profession. Few politicians on the left–much less presidential campaigns–are willing to say that they intend to ignore the traditional press in favor of pushing out their message through some of the least reputable, most conspiracy-minded progressive blogs. This isn’t a “both sides do it” issue.

The American right is at war not just with basic morality and science, but with the very notion of journalism itself. They want a Supreme Court that resides in a bubble without the context of public opinion, and an electorate that gets its information straight from bloviating tinfoil hatters.

At some point the establishment press is going to have to call this out for what it is, even if it means losing the 25% of the Dittoheads who have gone far off the deep end. It’s not as if those folks are going to be paying subscribers or revenue generators, anyway.

.

Virtually Speaking with Joan McCarter and me, 6pm pdt, 9pm edt

by digby

Call in to speak with the host
(646) 200-3440

Joan McCarter (DailyKos) and Digby (Hullabaloo) SCOTUS the PPACA and Chris Hayes’ Twilight of the Elites Plus this week’s ridiculous moment from Culture of Truth.

.

Your guide to the ongoing discussion of health care

by digby

.

“We can’t afford it”

by digby

No kidding:

States across the country are revisiting three-strikes laws and other tough mandatory minimum sentencing laws, particularly for low-level drug crimes. Of the 24 states that passed three-strikes laws in the early 1990s, at least 16 have since modified them to give judges more discretion in sentencing or narrow the types of crimes that count as a “strike,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

At least 14 states in recent years also either eliminated mandatory minimum sentencing for low-level drug offenders, or gave judges more discretion to consider alternatives to incarceration, according to the NCSL.
[…]
The changes are part of a broader rethinking of many of the “tough on crime” sentencing policies that dominated the country for decades. Driven largely by the flagging economy, states have embraced a variety of reforms to rein in the cost of high prison populations, including diverting low-level drug offenders into treatment; reforming the parole system; and granting early release to certain inmates.

Harris, who prosecuted Larry Williams, concedes the sentence would have been far less harsh if Williams were tried today, in part because of the statewide debate about the cost of maintaining California’s prison system, one of the nation’s most crowded.

“No judge would do that now where the third strike is possession of stolen property,” he says. “We can’t afford it.”

People did try to point out that this was a huge waste of money at the time. But nobody listened — there was bloodlust in the air and whole lot of nonsense being bandied about regarding “super-predators” and the like (which turned out to be made-up) so we decided as a society to throw millions of people in jail even though it was hugely expensive, cruel and ineffective. (Of course that was a feature, not a bug. )

Sunday catch-up

by digby

Here are some good reads and analysis on the health care decision. The first, by Robert Frank, gives an excellent analysis of why the reforms happened the way they did. He explains the history of the employer based health care system and emphasizes the fact that because it is what already covers the majority of the population, there was just no feasible way to up-end it — it had to be built upon.

I have to agree that this was the most daunting obstacle to any kind of single payer. Too many people had health care they liked (or, at least, thought they liked.) Telling people to give something up so that other people could benefit (including themselves if they lost their jobs) is a heavy lift — especially for Americans who really don’t like the idea of helping other people. (If people need help and you don’t, it proves they don’t deserve it as much as you do, right?)

Anyway, it’s a good piece. It makes the important case that the success of this conservative, contraption depends upon how it evolves from this point. There are ways to make it better — maybe even evolve into a truly affordable universal program. I hope the health care policy wonks who care about universality and security aren’t just resting on their laurels and assuming this thing will work perfectly.

Another good read today is this analysis of the Supreme Court decision which shows what a petulant bunch of jackasses the conservative wing is. They had Roberts in the bag and when he changed his mind, they held their breath until they turned blue.

It doesn’t say why Roberts changed his mind, but implies that he was reading all the stuff about the court losing legitimacy in the press. I’m not sure that we’ll ever know what it really was.

Finally, this segment by Chris Hayes on Roberts adhering to norms:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

.

Kevin Drum put together the list of the biggest tax increases in history:

Thank you Jesus. My prayers may have been heard!

by digby

This is the best news I’ve heard in a very long time. I know it hasn’t happened yet, but the mere fact that it might is so thrilling that I feel giddy:

Members of Congress from both parties are increasingly mulling the unthinkable: going home in December without acting to avoid the $4 trillion in tax hikes and deep spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans claim this is their preferred option, as it could rattle global financial markets badly and anger their constituents.

But as they circle each other in an ever-more partisan atmosphere they see little prospect for a settlement acceptable to both parties in the lame duck session of Congress after the November 6 election.

That is when they confront the wave of fiscal cliff decisions including how to handle expiration of temporary tax cuts that originated during the presidency of George W. Bush, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts and the need to raise the debt ceiling again.

Some members and partisan strategists are concluding that they might be better off doing nothing.

They would come back in January with a new Congress relatively flush with cash – at least on paper – from the impact of the tax hikes; hit reset and start over to structure a new series of tax cuts. Call them the “Obama tax cuts” or “Romney tax cuts,” depending on the victor in the November election.

The risk of shaking the markets is always there. But they could mitigate that by telegraphing to voters and Wall Street in advance that they definitely intend to write some new tax cuts into law. It could take a couple months, or maybe even all of 2013 and beyond, but they promise they will do it and they promise they will make the tax cuts retroactive to January 1, 2013.

The markets haven’t reached for the smelling salts yet and they won’t this time either. Bring it on.

And if the Democrats can’t beat the Republicans in a game of chicken in which they’re calling for massive tax cuts for the middle class, then they really are useless.

.

Dazed and confused by the betrayal of John Roberts

by digby

One unexpected upside of the health care decision is the fact that the Republicans are so shocked and unbalanced that they can’t think straight:

[T]he GOP leader in the U.S. Senate gave a surprising answer on “Fox News Sunday” when asked how Republicans would provide health care coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.

“That is not the issue,” Sen. Mitch McConnell said. “The question is how to go step by step to improve the American health care system. It is already the finest health care system in the world.”

“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace interrupted, “You don’t think 30 million uninsured is an issue?”

“We’re not going to turn the American health care system into a western European system,” McConnell said. “That’s exactly what is at the heart of Obamacare. They want to … have the federal government take over all American health care. The federal government can’t handle Medicare or Medicaid.”

I’m sure McConnell isn’t quite this stupid so he must be playing to Murrican throwbacks who think that Western Europe is some hellscape with starving urchins and people dying in the streets. The idea that our health care system is superior is a delusion that only egotistical provincial Americans would believe.

We do good medicine here. So do they. The difference is that there everyone has access to it. The only thing that can really explain the difference at this point is that Americans are selfish assholes who believe that people who aren’t “like them” (insured by their employers, on Medicare or filthy rich) have earned the right to stay alive if they get sick.

Meanwhile, we have Paul Ryan just talking straight-up gibberish:

ABCNews’ “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos asked Ryan about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s contested claim that health care reform simultaneously cuts $500 billion from Medicare, hikes taxes by $500 billion and adds trillions to the deficit over a 10-year stretch.

“By that accounting,” Stephanopoulos said, “your own budget, which Gov. Romney has endorsed, would also have $500 billion in Medicare cuts.”

“Well our budget keeps that money for Medicare to extend its solvency,” Ryan said. “What Obamacare does is it takes that money from Medicare to spend on Obamacare.”

Stephanopoulos was confused: “Congressman, correct me if I am wrong: I thought your Medicare savings were put toward deficit reduction, debt reduction.”

“Which extends the solvency of Medicare,” Ryan said. “What they do in Obamacare, they try to count this dollar twice. They claim that this helps Medicare solvency and, at the same time, they spend this money on creating Obamacare.

“The trustee report for Medicare, they say the same thing,” Ryan added. “You can’t count these dollars twice. In our budget we make sure all of these dollars from Medicare savings go toward extending the solvency of Medicare and don’t go toward spending new money on Obamacare.”

Uh huh. I guess he wants to destroy Medicare in order to save it?

Clearly they haven’t quite found their footing yet. But I have great faith they will eventually figure out just the right propaganda and misinformation to explain themselves to the villagers and fire up their troops. This is what they’re good at. It’s the only thing they’re good at.

.