Short: Iowa pre-pre-preview

There was a conservative dinner in Iowa that garnered some major guests. Mike Lee seems to learned from experience that he can't bring down Obamacare in the current configuration of government. So, instead of doubling down on that failed strategy, he's working on new ideas. They seem fuzzy to me right now, but at least he's in the correct sphere--one that looks at reality rather than denying it. He's also thinking strategically:

"The senator from Utah noted that there is a gaping hole in the middle of the Republican Party today, and offered a solution on how to fill it."

I'm so glad to hear someone say this. Mike Lee is going to be worth watching. I hope he had bridge that gaping hole.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is basically a cheerleader with no brain for policy. Rah, rah! I've got no tolerance for an empty-headed politician, so I wish Palin was over already. She's an idiot, and she's steadfastly remaining one. Enough already!

Come on, you're not serious.

Image: dailymail.co.uk

Hat tip to Bob Costa. The only twitter I follow.

Christie is a big target

One day after his reelection by a 60-38% margin, lots of conservatives are sniping at Christie. Christie isn't a doctrinaire conservative, much less a Tea Party patriot who lives and dies by principle. But the targeting is surprisingly aggressive.

Tea Party Critique

Here's a line that you can say about any politician (just substitute a name): "Christie is only out for Christie." Christie isn't a strict GOP partisan, so that makes him "self-serving." Do the people who criticize Christie for that also criticize Ted Cruz or Jim DeMint for behaving the same way--not supporting all their fellow Republicans? No, I don't think they are tarred the same way.

Yet I'm pretty sure this is the inside meme about Christie among the Tea Party. It leaked nationally when Rand Paul said Christie was all "gimme, gimme, gimme" over Sandy disaster aid. Now I'm seeing it again in the comments sections of conservative sites.

This idea that Christie is a self-promoting politician is a convenient ad hominem attack that allows people to dismiss him. There will always be plenty of evidence to support this charge. I don't know how whether the charge will resonate with others--Christie seemed to have put his state first when Sandy hit rather than toeing the party line. Ironically, the same incident is used as evidence that he puts himself first. Good luck finding the objective truth in that argument.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio is reminding his party not to get too excited about Christie: "...some of these races don't apply to future races." So Rubio demonstrates again that's he's the biggest weasel lining up for the 2016 presidential primary. (Or is that just a different flavor of ad hominem attack that's hard to refute.)

GOP Establishment View

Establishment Republicans, often denoted as GOPe, aren't trumpeting Christie as much as the Tea Party is trying to tear him down. Michael Barone sees lessons for both the GOP and Dems in these elections. Provocation, especially on social issues, leads to losses. Dems can't count on the minority vote because Christie won 51% of Hispanics in New Jersey.

One of the HotAir writers wants the readers to see that Christie has a winning formula. However, the commenters mostly push back. Rich Lowry of National Review (quasi-establishment) sees some potential in Christie, but also some problems:

"...he offers a different kind of politics that can potentially unlock the presidency after a period of national futility for his party...
What Clinton had that Christie evidently lacks is a well-thought-out approach to his party’s predicament ...
Christie’s potential is in matching that Everyman appeal with substance. He could set out to make himself a Republican by and for the middle class in a substantive and stylistic departure for the contemporary party. -- Rich Lowry writing in Politico

Who Can Win vs. I Don't Care

The huge difference is how these groups see Christie is that one group (GOPe) sees Christie as a presidential contender who will bring in a lot a votes and won't be just a marginal winner. They are concerned with the mechanics of putting together enough votes to resist the Dems' demographic advantage.

The Tea Party group doesn't talk about demographics at all. They don't worry whether they can carry enough swing states. They are so sure a Tea Party candidate will win that they don't question it at all. To me, that's amazing--that you could be so sure that you wouldn't consider the electability of your nominee. Of course they've been burned on electability before. McCain was the most electable in 2008, though really he had only a ghost of a chance. Maybe they should have gone for the most conservative candidate that year, which was ... Romney. They definitely got burned in 2012. The Tea Party is pledging not to get burned in 2016. Well, we'll see. I'm not convinced that the Tea Party is the majority in the GOP, but perhaps we'll find out in 2016.

I know it's still too early to predict the 2016 primary race, but everyone is talking about it. Funny, the 2008 election didn't start in 2005, but the 2016 election started quite early in 2013. I chalk that up to the cold war in the GOP, which is getting hotter all the time.

Christie looks like the best hope for the GOPe even if a midwestern governor like Mitch Daniels or Scott Walker jumps into the race. Daniels looks like an older establishment Republican (yawn) and Walker is nerdly and possesses less charisma than Jindal. The establishment likes to coalesce around a candidate early, but that may not happen because Christie isn't exactly the GOP mainstream. Yes, it is too early to say.

Image: ronpaulforums.com

Negotiating is tough work

Now that we've got ourselves a three-month postponement on the big fiscal questions for the federal government, what are we going to do? We could waste the time like we did all through the spring and summer. If I remember correctly, there weren't many proposals flying around--just the partisan, DOA budgets from each power center (the House, the Senate, the president).

No one went past their first offer, and those first offers were crap. It would be so easy to repeat that approach because it's the easiest approach. Each group stays within the safe confines of their respective bubbles where they are protected from attacks for not being ideologically pure enough.

It's dangerous to venture outside that bubble and make that first concession. The other side will try to pocket your concession and ask for more. That's a reason to stay rigidly with your first offer, which is probably what happened with the supercommittee. The two sides haven't changed much, so maybe that's exactly what will happen this time too.

Reasons To Do It

But maybe not. I heard a report on NPR (sorry, no link) about how the Republicans really want tax reform and entitlement reform. The Dems really want tax increases, which is a problem because it's no-go territory for the GOP. No matter how much the GOP wants tax reform, they probably won't give up tax increases for it unless it can be done in absolute secrecy, which means not at all.

Entitlement reform is more needed, so the GOP may well be willing to up more to get it. Unfortunately, there are huge obstacles to entitlement reform. The first is the unpopularity of cost containment. Nobody has been saying "enough" to healthcare for grandma for the past 40 years, and now it's practically enshrined. The second is that the Dems and the GOP don't agree on the structure for implementing cost containment. Dems want the decisions in the hands of the federal government. The GOP wants to palm off the hard decisions to anyone else--the states, individuals, and intermediaries like insurance companies.

These are such big differences that the conference committee can't bridge them. We might be some small agreements on entitlements, such as chained CPI and higher premiums for the wealthy, but there won't be a major deal. That seems to be what most reporters and pundits are predicting.

Nonetheless, these are important talks. . . because the two sides are finally talking. These are the first substantial talks in two fucking years--the first talks since the supercommittee failed. The whole of 2012 was devoted to campaigning. Most of 2013 was lost as the GOP warred internally over its strategy. So it's a big step for them just to be talking and more than they managed to do for two years.

Congrats to them, and many happy returns.

Image: reaganpluscats.com

Extras.

• A good summary from the Atlantic Wire.
• Who's on the committee. Strangely, it's heavily weighted with senators.
• Barro says sequestration won't go away.
• Barro quotes committee members.
• Why SS Medicare must be reformed but it won't happen.
• Bernstein notes that the GOP wants three wishes, and can't have them all. 
• There's no economic recovery. Maybe this is not connected, but maybe it is.

A redundant member of society (Takers)

I'm afraid that's what I am--a redundant member of society. If society is separated into 'makers' and 'takers,' I'm someone who ministers to the 'takers.' My career in healthcare has given me the opportunity to work with all sorts of 'takers' including: long-term nursing home residents, short-term Medicare rehab patients, residents (inmates) of locked psych units, seriously handicapped children, children from foster homes and wards of the state. It's been the rare occasion when I take care of someone who has a job.

So if we manage to rid our society of takers, I won't have a job. That's probably true for a fair number of people. Perhaps our takers provide employment for many people who are otherwise redundant. If we tried to shrink our society to only the productive people, we'd have a much smaller society, say 40% of the current size. When you get rid of the takers, you can probably get rid of 80% of the doctors, maybe 35% of the farmers, 40% of the teachers, 80% of the police, and 95% of the lawyers (ha, just exaggerating... maybe).

It's not that I advocate increasing the number of takers so that there are more social service jobs. I understand the budget implications of that, which is blowing an even larger hole in our state and federal budgets.

No, the reason I write this is to reflect on how many excess people we have in society. There are so many extra people and so much extra labor in this country and in the world. Industrial and computer automation has made many millions more redundant. If we are going to despise the 'takers' and respect only the 'makers,' we're going to hate much of humanity, and we should be working to reduce our numbers by a significant amount. 

I guess once all my 'taker' clients are gone, I'll be scheduled as redundant too unless I'm lucky enough to get a healthcare position ministering to the generally healthy. There will be so much competition for those positions I probably won't succeed. Oh well. 

It's not all that bleak. Maybe one of the makers will let me live on his crumbs and table scraps. I can always hope.

Image: usmanvakil-beggars.blogspot.com

The way they talk: Smart people on guns

I've wanted to make a series on real discussions that capture what people really think. It hasn't been easy to fit it in with everything else.

But you (my few readers) are lucky: Here is a great example of gun rights/gun control from two different perceptives.

GOP stands up to the Tea Party Part 2

So many thoughts. Not so many complete sentences.

GOP standing up to Tea Party. Orrin Hatch blasts Heritage. Corporate backers stick with Boehner, toy with the idea of backing establishment Republicans against Tea Partyers.

Tea Party not backing down. RedState doesn't want a house divided; it wants a house purged.

Tea Party is still behind its belief that Obamacare can be stopped/defunded/gutted. They pretend that this was the plan all along, to fight tooth and nail, close down government, do everything they can. But that's a story that only started over the summer.

In this article, RedState blames the GOP for not following through on defund promises, but all the early articles it refers to talk about broad fiscal goals, not Obamacare. I checked the RedState archives: Ben Carson, black neurologist hero of the Tea Party, had lots of complaints about Obama, not just Obamacare. In a February article, the focus was on governors refusing to set up exchanges. Search for "defund," "repeal," and "delay" in articles from that time and you'll see that it wasn't part of the vocabulary then.

Rush Limbaugh, another big voice (and big ego) for the Tea Party, isn't backing down either. He wants Ted Cruz and Mike Lee times 5 or 10 or 45 in the Senate. Per the Washington Times, the Tea Party is "poised for a major victory in the larger Obamacare War." Details absent, though.

Image: usnews.com

Extras. History of the shutdown per Politico. How the House voted on the measure to end the shutdown and raise the debt limit. How the Senate voted. Currently the Senate has about 10 senators with similar strategies to Ted Cruz/Mike Lee. After the 2014 election, who knows.

So many great images to choose from. Google image search: GOP stands up to tea party cartoon.

Another RedState article where they look at evidence but still somehow manage to draw the wrong conclusion--that is, the conclusion they want to draw.

The woes of healthcare.gov

Now that Congress isn't shutting down the government, the biggest news story is how badly the healthcare exchanges (online health care signup sites) are working. In particular, it's how bad the federal healthcare exchange is.

This website is reputed to have cost $600 million to develop (well, maybe not that much), and it's a disaster. It freezes, people can't get through the signup procedure after hours of toil, the determined folks wake up at 4:30am to sign up, etc.

Some have said that this shows how ridiculous it is for the federal government to be involved in healthcare. Well, that's nonsense for two clear reasons. 1)Government is already involved a lot of healthcare like Medicare, Medicaid, federal employee healthcare, VA healthcare, and Tricare, among others. 2)It's a computer system problem. Any problems with the political philosophy are completely separate.

And it is a whale of a computer system problem. Kathleen Sebelius, the cabinet secretary in charge of the program, deserves to lose her job. She should have been all over this program making sure it was on-track. Obviously she didn't do her job. Whoever she had in charge of supervising the program also deserves to lose his job. This is a major cock-up, and I don't accept excuses. As someone who has been involved with computer systems since 1976, I can tell you that more difficult programs than this have been successful completed.

Sebelius will probably get to keep her job because it's too damn hard for her replacement to go through confirmation hearings--which is a reflection of a different area of dysfunction in the government. I hope she will be firing others in the department she oversees. I doubt this will happen either because continued employment is the best bribe she can pay to prevent them from revealing the government mismanagement.

The dream team of system wizards who are now working on the site will probably do a decent job of fixing it. I've seen other crappy programs (cough, Microsoft Word, cough) fixed well enough. But this debacle will be a lasting reminder of the incompetence of part of the Obama administration... or if you prefer, of all of the Obama administration.

Image: walnutdust.blogspot.com

Extra. Some of the trouble was due to a decision to protect users from sticker shock:

Sebelius ... didn’t discuss her department’s now-criticized decision not to let online visitors shop around before creating accounts. Aides have said they wanted consumers to avoid experiencing “sticker shock” ... -- Dallas Morning News

Some (most?) policies cost so much that users need to be numbed by excessive bureaucratic form-filing before they see the cost. Not really--but it's best if they see the subsidized cost, not the true cost of the policy. That just shows they are moochers... unlike the rest of us who just don't know what healthcare really costs.