I don't often defend the scruples of Republican lawmakers, but I am going to throw my full (blog-powered) support behind Tom Coburn (R-OK) against the idiocy of Americans for Tax Reform and Grover Norquist.
The freshman Congressional class of 2011, plus 40 Republican Senators, signed Norquist's "taxpayer protection pledge" to oppose any effort to increase taxes on individuals or corporations, and if such move is necessary, to make sure that it includes a cent-for-cent cut in taxes. Tom Coburn, deficit-hawk extraordinaire and sitting member of the "Gang of Six," has decided that "increased revenues" (tax increases) were a necessary part in reducing the national debt without endangering the economic recovery.
Uh-Oh...
So, Norquist shot back and said that Coburn lied to the American people and his constituents in Oklahoma (North Texas) by violating his anti-tax pledge.
Cold...
Coburn responded by saying that his pledge to the Constitution and the American people trumps any "pledge from a special interest group that who claims to speak for all American conservatives when, in fact, they really don't."
That's gotta hurt....
This kind of back-and-forth shows promise. It also reinforces my Blue State leaning. When I ascribed to a slightly-left progressive ideology, I found it rewarding because it allowed me to understand all colors of the political spectrum, appreciate their perspective and possibly integrate some of their ideals. I was allowed to be politically fluid without feeling alienated because of the prevalence of one extreme or another.
The Norquist pledge represents a political litmus test - a toxic, divisive strategy that impedes progress. If a signatory deviates in any way, he/she is seen as a traitor to the American people and their constituents. When did conforming to a single ideology become the yard stick of political loyalty? More importantly, who gives a crap about what a single-issue, special interest group thinks? Norquist represents the worst of politics.
There is also something that Norquist is ignoring - the debt. Coburn and the rest of the Gang of Six (Chambliss-R, Crapo-R, Warner-D, Durbin-D, Conrad-D) have a clear understanding that any debt reduction strategy cannot endanger the recovery. This means a balance of spending cuts, entitlement reform and yes...increased revenues. Dick Durbin (D-IL) is a veteran Democrat, and he has admitted to seeing the light of compromise and integrating the ideas of the Republicans on the panel. At the same time, Coburn, Crapo and Chambliss are considering revenues and eliminating tax loopholes in the final debt reduction plan. This is a far-cry from the anti-tax Norquist and the unpopular medicare/medical/entitlement-tax break/screw the poor and elderly plan of Paul Ryan. This is compromise I can believe in.
For reference, Republicans who HAVE NOT signed the Norquist pledge are:
Richard Lugar (R-IN), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Thad Cochran (R-MS), John Barrasso (R-WY) and John Hoeven (R-ND).
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Stupidity of Los Angeles MTA
Please read this article.
OK.
There is a clear misunderstanding (or naivete) of the purpose and forces that affect bus ridership on the part of MTA. The article's premise is that bus ridership has been low due to the economic downturn. It goes on to describe how Art Leahy, head of MTA, has decided to cut bus service (he calls "inefficiency") by 4%. But, instead of bolstering his reason of "inefficiency" in the system, he cites low ridership as the reason for cutting bus lines.
Here is my issue:
1. MTA is completely naive to think that state-wide economic concerns are the reason for low bus ridership. I distinctly remember when a day pass was $3, a one-way was $1 and a month pass was less than $60. That was less than 10 years ago. This financial burden is the main driver of low bus ridership. This burden has been the result of high deficits within MTA due to inefficient use of funds, not the economic downturn of the last 3 years.
2. They make the assumption that using the bus amounts to a financial burden. It shouldn't be. Public transit should represent a cost effective, pollution lessening choice for those who cannot afford, or decide not to use, a car. When we link public transit to economic condition, we put a stigma on it that assumes those who cannot afford a car use public transit. And, because LA tacks economic status to car ownership, many (on the west side) look down on those who ride public transit, especially buses.
3. They want to make the bus system more efficient by cutting down bus lines and routes. If you want to make a system more efficient, try to expand the routes that buses go in order to make major transit hubs more accessible. They did it with the orange line in the SF Valley.
Sadly, I am not surprised. This comes from a city that loves the idea of public transit, but doesn't even want to consider funding it through rational means. This means a tax on gasoline. Detractors will complain that CA has the highest gas tax already. Well, the problem with that assumption is that gas taxes go to funding public transit. They do not. They fund roads and highways, of which many are in dismal condition. Our public transit is highly subsidized, and incredibly inefficient and badly planned. This point is emphasized every year when a new LA Times story comes out about inefficient use of funds or transit boondoggles that plague the taxpayer.
In general, the article says a lot about what we are willing to do or say in the name of "economic downturn." Somehow, the inefficient ticket system, the irregularity of schedules, the wrong use of gas taxes, the squandering of funds, the inadequate planning and the general "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" attitude of so-called "green transit" opportunistic, west-side, pedestrian politicians don't do the system wrong. Its all about the economy. Somehow, I think there are other forces at work...
OK.
There is a clear misunderstanding (or naivete) of the purpose and forces that affect bus ridership on the part of MTA. The article's premise is that bus ridership has been low due to the economic downturn. It goes on to describe how Art Leahy, head of MTA, has decided to cut bus service (he calls "inefficiency") by 4%. But, instead of bolstering his reason of "inefficiency" in the system, he cites low ridership as the reason for cutting bus lines.
Here is my issue:
1. MTA is completely naive to think that state-wide economic concerns are the reason for low bus ridership. I distinctly remember when a day pass was $3, a one-way was $1 and a month pass was less than $60. That was less than 10 years ago. This financial burden is the main driver of low bus ridership. This burden has been the result of high deficits within MTA due to inefficient use of funds, not the economic downturn of the last 3 years.
2. They make the assumption that using the bus amounts to a financial burden. It shouldn't be. Public transit should represent a cost effective, pollution lessening choice for those who cannot afford, or decide not to use, a car. When we link public transit to economic condition, we put a stigma on it that assumes those who cannot afford a car use public transit. And, because LA tacks economic status to car ownership, many (on the west side) look down on those who ride public transit, especially buses.
3. They want to make the bus system more efficient by cutting down bus lines and routes. If you want to make a system more efficient, try to expand the routes that buses go in order to make major transit hubs more accessible. They did it with the orange line in the SF Valley.
Sadly, I am not surprised. This comes from a city that loves the idea of public transit, but doesn't even want to consider funding it through rational means. This means a tax on gasoline. Detractors will complain that CA has the highest gas tax already. Well, the problem with that assumption is that gas taxes go to funding public transit. They do not. They fund roads and highways, of which many are in dismal condition. Our public transit is highly subsidized, and incredibly inefficient and badly planned. This point is emphasized every year when a new LA Times story comes out about inefficient use of funds or transit boondoggles that plague the taxpayer.
In general, the article says a lot about what we are willing to do or say in the name of "economic downturn." Somehow, the inefficient ticket system, the irregularity of schedules, the wrong use of gas taxes, the squandering of funds, the inadequate planning and the general "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" attitude of so-called "green transit" opportunistic, west-side, pedestrian politicians don't do the system wrong. Its all about the economy. Somehow, I think there are other forces at work...
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Realities of the Ryan Budget: Medicare/Medicaid
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), golden-boy accountant of the Republican party, released his spending plan for the budget last week. It set out to slash $5.9 trillion over the next decade. In a previous blog post, I railed against nonsense budgets, targeting Rand Paul's (R-KY) proposed cut of $200 billion over the fiscal year. Not only was this unreasonable, it would have led to unprecedented job loss and economic instability.
Ryan's plan, while not as ridiculous as Paul's, is as unrealistic. The plan is 60 pages long, and purports to drive down the deficit and reign in the high cost of entitlements, healthcare and government spending, in general. While it provides no specific claims, it does put the burden of spending reductions on the poor and elderly. Here are the limitations of Ryan's entitlement strategies:
- Government will provide subsidies instead of footing the entire cost - it would allow current seniors to keep their plan, but give the next generation of retirees subsidies to help them "shop around" for the best cost with private insurers. These subsidies would rise with the cost of inflation.
Reality 1: Insurance markets are vastly different than basic commodity markets. While competition in the market drives down cost, insurance markets will use the Walmart Model (my characterization) in pricing. Walmart was the first major multinational to force suppliers to compete for their business and make big concessions to be able to have their product on Walmart shelves. Walmart had the power to choose the best bargain for itself, as opposed to suppliers shopping around. This plan will create a glut of private insurers, and hospitals will look for the highest payout to doctors (most are private, after all). Thus, the cost will increase - increase faster than inflation. And, if the subsidies only increase with inflation, there will be higher costs to seniors and the poor.
Reality 2: Having competition does not necessarily mean better care. If private insurers compete to get the most efficient system, with the biggest payout it means the quality of care will suffer. If will be a "race to the bottom." This is also a limitation of allowing people to shop across state lines.
-The plan turns federal money that funds Medicaid into block grants for states. This will allow for more flexibility and efficiency in how the money is spent, as opposed to the "one-size-fits-all" government approach.
Reality: It does not outline any enforcement, oversight or measurement as to gauge how efficient a state is using the block grants. If he thinks the federal government is inefficient with money, he surely assumes the states are much better.
-Social Security - "force policymakers to come to the table and enact common sense reforms"
Reality: This statement translates to "I'm not going to touch Social Security" The Bowles-Simpson Panel explicitly stated that any debt reduction cannot come without reform to Social Security. And, since Ryan leaves that up to "policymakers" and "congressional leaders," it won't get done.
Paul Ryan, like Rand Paul, is doing the country a great service by pointing out that we have to reign in on our increasing national debt. But, none of their plans should be taken seriously. We cannot punch $1 trillion in debt out of existence with simple solutions like "reduce waste, fraud and abuse" or "enact common send reforms." Like Michael Kinsley pointed out, Ryan mine as well put "there shall be a balanced budget" and saved us the paper.
We also cannot count ourselves as the most prosperous and free nation while putting a huge burden on those who are the least prosperous and free. Cutting taxes while increasing the cost of entitlements only creates economical inequality. Ryan should take a page out of the playbook of his colleague Mitch Daniels, Republican governor of Indiana:
"We must display a heart for every American, and a special passion for those still on the first rung of life's ladder. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some."
Ryan's plan, while not as ridiculous as Paul's, is as unrealistic. The plan is 60 pages long, and purports to drive down the deficit and reign in the high cost of entitlements, healthcare and government spending, in general. While it provides no specific claims, it does put the burden of spending reductions on the poor and elderly. Here are the limitations of Ryan's entitlement strategies:
- Government will provide subsidies instead of footing the entire cost - it would allow current seniors to keep their plan, but give the next generation of retirees subsidies to help them "shop around" for the best cost with private insurers. These subsidies would rise with the cost of inflation.
Reality 1: Insurance markets are vastly different than basic commodity markets. While competition in the market drives down cost, insurance markets will use the Walmart Model (my characterization) in pricing. Walmart was the first major multinational to force suppliers to compete for their business and make big concessions to be able to have their product on Walmart shelves. Walmart had the power to choose the best bargain for itself, as opposed to suppliers shopping around. This plan will create a glut of private insurers, and hospitals will look for the highest payout to doctors (most are private, after all). Thus, the cost will increase - increase faster than inflation. And, if the subsidies only increase with inflation, there will be higher costs to seniors and the poor.
Reality 2: Having competition does not necessarily mean better care. If private insurers compete to get the most efficient system, with the biggest payout it means the quality of care will suffer. If will be a "race to the bottom." This is also a limitation of allowing people to shop across state lines.
-The plan turns federal money that funds Medicaid into block grants for states. This will allow for more flexibility and efficiency in how the money is spent, as opposed to the "one-size-fits-all" government approach.
Reality: It does not outline any enforcement, oversight or measurement as to gauge how efficient a state is using the block grants. If he thinks the federal government is inefficient with money, he surely assumes the states are much better.
-Social Security - "force policymakers to come to the table and enact common sense reforms"
Reality: This statement translates to "I'm not going to touch Social Security" The Bowles-Simpson Panel explicitly stated that any debt reduction cannot come without reform to Social Security. And, since Ryan leaves that up to "policymakers" and "congressional leaders," it won't get done.
Paul Ryan, like Rand Paul, is doing the country a great service by pointing out that we have to reign in on our increasing national debt. But, none of their plans should be taken seriously. We cannot punch $1 trillion in debt out of existence with simple solutions like "reduce waste, fraud and abuse" or "enact common send reforms." Like Michael Kinsley pointed out, Ryan mine as well put "there shall be a balanced budget" and saved us the paper.
We also cannot count ourselves as the most prosperous and free nation while putting a huge burden on those who are the least prosperous and free. Cutting taxes while increasing the cost of entitlements only creates economical inequality. Ryan should take a page out of the playbook of his colleague Mitch Daniels, Republican governor of Indiana:
"We must display a heart for every American, and a special passion for those still on the first rung of life's ladder. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)