Decision Dilemma: In light of Obama's weak SOTU

I'm not sorry to admit that I didn't watch the State of the Union speech. I can't stand long speeches full of lies and never-to-be-kept promises. Last year's SOTU was a major disappointment, showing Obama was out of touch, so I dreaded this one.

I saved myself from an hour of distasteful labor, and figured I'd read the reviews afterward. So, what did I read:

• Andrew Sullivan said that there were too many tax deduction--(one for every color of initiative I suppose).
• A bunch of forgettable partisan stuff (which I've forgotten).
• Obama never mentioned the deficit, as though it doesn't exist.

My heart sinks. I want Obama to embrace Simpson-Bowles and dare Congress not to pass it. So with this air of disappointment (self-inflicted), I search through the transcript, looking for his proposals for deficit reduction. This is typical:

When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference - like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.

So deficit-reduction will be accomplished by raising taxes on the wealthy. The already-agreed $200 billion per year, out of a $3+ trillion dollar budget, is all the spending cuts that Obama envisions.

A Candidate with Scissors

I'm serious about reducing the deficit. I think we have only a limited time left to do it before our debt service eats up too much of our economy. I'd like the largest part of deficit reduction (maybe 80%) to come from spending cuts. Why? To give people more money that they can control directly. To reduce waste and low priority spending.

So I start wondering if I need to support Romney to get any spending cuts. If I remember correctly, he has some fairly definite plans to drop federal employment by attrition, hiring one person for every ten who leave. I wonder about the other consequences if Romney were to be elected. There's the Supreme Court, the question on whether he would curb the crazy overreach plans of the Republicans in Congress. I think he would.

I'm beginning to think I might vote for Romney, though I'm glad the vote is a long ways off. I'll get a better measure of his intentions based on whom he chooses for VP and how he campaigns for the general election. I remember how MikeR, an occasional commenter at the Atlantic, challenged readers to support whoever would effect the most deficit reduction, even if it was Michele Bachmann. I was never going to go as far as that crazy lady, but Romney meets the sanity test, so he's a possibility. I realize some of the risks, but I'll be considering Romney if that's what it takes to reduce the federal budget in this country.


Then I remember-- Romney will maintain the Bush tax cuts. Those ridiculous 15% tax rates on capital gains and dividends will carry on, probably without a sunset next time. No matter that the deficit is as high as it is. That decides it. Obama is more serious about cutting the deficit because he'll take a scissors to those tax cuts. It's not the only fiscal change we need, but it's a major chunk of it. I'm back to supporting Obama.

End of newt

"I'm perfectly happy to talk about this in an interview on some TV show, but this is a national debate..."--Gingrich

I'm so tired of  politicians being two-faced. We should definitely being holding them accountable for the shit they say and they do. Newt wouldn't be on that stage if Republicans hadn't given him a pass on all his lies and corruption and grandiosity just for the enjoyment of watching him spew sizzling insults at conservatives' favorite targets.

Republicans, are you sated yet? Ready to seriously look at candidates, and not just vent your pent-up feelings? Gringrich, who's been encouraged by his high standing in national polls and win in S. Carolina, says he's staying in the race. Who let the dogs out?

Is Newt this gross? Maybe.

How bad is Romneycare?

Someone needs to write an honest evaluation of the first health care system in this country that had an individual mandate, meaning you were required by law to have health insurance.

First, it's not the end of the world, or capitalism, nor has it turned Massachusetts into a socialist gulag, a place where the classes wage war, or where bureaucrats rule on every interaction with your doctor. For most people, the healthcare law has barely caused a blip.

Unlike most of my posts, this one won't discuss the financial impacts of Romneycare because I couldn't find clear sources for that information. I can't answer some important questions like how much it costs the state, and whether it has lowered or raised costs. I can report that it's pretty popular in Massachusetts, with 63% approval.

When it was first implemented, I heard complaints where I worked from people who were going without health insurance and now had to buy it. Maybe I should be more sympathetic or more libertarian, but I've been convinced by the economic argument behind the universal requirement. (Here's the capsule version: the pooling of risk doesn't work financially unless low-risk people are required to join the pool. So suck it up for the greater good. That's what we do with taxes.)

Now my 20-something daughter is benefiting from the program. She signed on to the health insurance exchange website, and figured out relatively easily which policy she wants. It's affordable, perhaps subsidized, and she didn't have the anxiety of being turned down. I'm glad she lives in a state that makes it this easy.

Some critics have decried that--what motivation will people have to get good jobs if there's subsidized health insurance? Probably nearly the same motivation as in the standard case (the paycheck, interesting work, self-sufficiency, being useful to society), but without the anxiety that a medical issue can send her into a modern version of the Minotaur's labyrinth.

So how bad is Romneycare? Well, I'm happy with it.

*****************************************************

I'm aware that arguments based on anecdotes aren't reliable. Arguments that ignore fiscal concerns are even worse. It would be good to be able to report the extra savings or expense due to Romneycare, but I couldn't find the statistics. Perhaps that's because it's incredibly hard to sort out the confounding factors, such as unpaid medical bills, higher state costs, costs offset by federal Medicaid payments, a sweetened deal for MA by Medicaid, and personal costs of insurance premiums or patient-paid medical bills. So I'm left with only the anecdotal evidence, which is decidedly pro-Romneycare.

Extras:

• Romney's concept vs signed law.
• Fast-rising demand and costs, then slowing down. 
• Libertarian Cato Institute informs me that I must be wrong--there's nothing good about Romneycare.
• CNN lists problems that arise from Romneycare being a good plan. Balanced article.
• The AMA critique which is a nice brief summary.
• The MA and Utah health exchanges. Try the MA health insurance exchange. The MA Affordability page.
• Conservative praise for Romneycare before it became poison. Note the dates.
• A 2012 site explaining why Romneycare is OK.

Massachusetts, not Taxachusetts

Salvaged from my draft bin, this is a straightforward defense of my adopted state.

Massachusetts is a good state. It doesn't deserve the nickname Taxachusetts.

I moved from New York to Massachusetts, and I can attest that I'm taxed less here. The state spends the money more wisely, with beautiful parks, reasonably good roads, and some money remitted back to towns and schools.

Back in 1980, Massachusetts passed a property tax cap, a conservative proposal that I feared at the time. But it has helped curb spending, weeding out some waste and ensuring that extra local spending is approved via referendum of the local voters.

The legislature has raised taxes in tough times to avoid slashing state and town budgets, then kept its promise and lowered them back. It hasn't been a one-way street, unlike with the 1970's Democratic Congress and the 2000's Republican Congress.

Right now, with the recession, we are in a higher tax mode. The state sales tax went from 5% to 6.25%. My New York friends can't remember taxes that low. The state has a rainy-day fund, as does my town.

With this sensible management, we won't have to sell our state house to balance the budget, as some states have (thank you, Daily Show). But maybe we'd sell Plymouth Rock, the sites of the first battle of the Revolutionary War, and the Old North Church first (except the church is probably owned by a diocese). No, we'd probably be boring and make some cuts, raise some fees, and get along. I just hate government that's too responsible. What could I write about?

Not For Sale

P.S. The state that sold its capitol building--Arizona. And they think they're patriots and we're a bunch of pansies. 

Short:Analysis of Romney's 2010 taxes

Not by me (chuckle). Instead, it's by Robert A. Green in the comments section of a Wall Street Journal blog. This is the same comments page where someone says:

"Half of the country... pay no taxes at all to the federal government..."

I hope everyone knows how I feel about that kind of ignorant, biased comment.

Back to the topic. The analyst talks about loopholes Mitt doesn't use, and ones that he might be using. The analysis is short and mostly clear to an aware layman like me, so do read it.

I hope this tax return issue remains on the front burner in the campaign because we need tax reform. But do I want the next Congress doing it? Good question.

I am so fed up... (Illogic Edition)

Begin rant...

I am so fed up with people who construct their arguments to support the opinion they already hold. That means I'm pissed at about, say, 90% of the people on the internet. Actually, it's less because most commenters don't bother to build an argument--they just blurt out their insult or canned talking point.

This comment really irked me today:

You could blame Romney's Free and Strong America PAC for much of the Tea Party's 2012 failings. The PAC contributed to many local level Tea Party victories in 2010, amplifying and distorting their voice. Now he cashes in, calling upon those elected officials' endorsements, and the Tea Party finds itself bamboozled, nationally.

You can blame Romney's deeper 2012 coffers for buying the lackluster support of all rank and file conservatives who won't consider any candidate without an Obama-like war chest.

Blame Romney's book for obfuscating his A list advisers' plans long before he was out to shake hands with 2011 Americans...

The four years Romney has spent fundraising and engineering disingenuously conservative policy are at the root of this sour primary. Strike at the root: blame Romney.

Analysis

Let's step back from the particulars of this argument, and characterize it.

This is a case of someone deciding it's all Romney's fault, and then finding a subset of facts that might, in a pinch, support that opinion.

• So there are mentions of specific facts: Romney's PAC, Romney's book, Romney's large campaign fund.

What isn't here are all the facts that don't support the argument:

• The other rich contributors
• The likely hypothesis that maybe Romney doesn't control the Tea Party
• The supposition that various Tea Party leaders make their own decisions and are personally responsible for them

Notice that you have to ignore all the facts and likely possibilities that don't support your argument.

To defeat such an argument, look for the facts that aren't there. Point out how they overwhelm the paltry facts that are there. And for good measure, call out a person who bases their opinions on a gerrymandered set of facts, as I did here:

XXX's argument is ludicrous. It is constructed with the sole purpose of bashing Romney, not gathering facts and trying to understand what is actually happening. In other words, it has nothing to do with seeking the truth.

/End rant

 More solid than his argument

 

Likeable Santorum

Family members who see this title aren't going to believe it. I've been a vocal opponent of Santorum because of his culture warrior stances against working women, non-nuclear families, gays, reproductive choice, and even the choice to have a small number of children or no children in your marriage.

I've seen in the debates that Santorum has learned to cool it with this kind of talk. Now, he'll love his son even if he's gay, he declares. I don't see sincerity in these statements because he's never come close to disavowing the intrusive policies he advocated as a senator.

So I'm flabbergasted to find myself liking some of Santorum's message. He wants to be a candidate for hard-working blue collar families "left behind by both parties." He says that the Dems just want to take care of them, which isn't what they want. They want opportunities to get good, respected work after completing a solid high school education.

Now, it's not as though Santorum has a realistic plan to make this happen against the tide of economic forces. But it's a contrast to the general Republican focus this past fall on mythical "job creators" whose taxes MUST NOT BE RAISED. It's also a contrast with Gingrich's message, also just after the South Carolina primary, where he spends most of the time bashing elites in this country and the "radicalism" of Obama.

Congratulations, Newt and Rick. Rick climbed up from lowest place in my estimation, and Newt rocketed himself down there. Is this what counts as progress in the GOP? Sigh.



Same day update: Santorum lets a questioner bash Obama as a Kenyan illegitimate tyrant, and then bravely ... agrees with her, in part. He never corrects her. He looks uncomfortable with his sin of omission, skipping a beat or two before he describes how Obama completely ignores the Constitution. Oh, the stream of lies from politicians' mouths!

Update 3/19/12. Santorum with equal cowardice stood by as a preacher told all non-Christians to leave the country. But he didn't clap, or presumably inhale either. Good job, Rick.