Progressive

Obama’s health care proposal increases taxes on middle class

Tue, 02/23/2010 - 1:02pm | posted by Jason Pye

As you probably know, President Barack Obama released his health care proposal yesterday (you can read it here), outlining what he sees as “reform,” in attempt to bridge the divide between the House and Senate versions of the bill:

The White House today unveiled President Obama’s health care overhaul bill, which it says will expand health insurance to 31 million more Americans and reduce the federal budget deficit by $100 billion in the next 10 years.

The White House also released the changes Obama wants to see in the Senate Democratic health care bill. Even before its release, the White House’s plan had already met with fierce Republican resistance.
[…]
Administration officials call the health care bill a “starting point” point for Thursday’s televised, bipartisan discussions on health care overhaul.

“I think it’s a starting point in as much… as Republicans come to Thursday’s meeting with constructive proposals that they’re willing to discuss,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today.

Obama made sure to pander to his constituencies, such as labors unions, and while the Cornhusker Kickback is gone, other vote buying provisions, such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Medicaid provision for Florida, are still included in the proposal.

Smoke Up to Save the Children

Fri, 04/10/2009 - 6:21am | posted by Matt Wittlief

Earlier this year, Congress passed H.R. 2 - the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 or CHIPRA (an expansion of S-CHIP). It was signed into law by Obama on February 4 after sailing through both the House (on January 14) and the Senate (on the 29th). According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on January 13 which analyzed the bill as it was submitted by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the legislation will add an average of $6.4B per year (yes, only ten digits!) to the federal budget. This will be offset by excise tax increases on tobacco products.

Is NPR Worth the Cost?

Tue, 01/13/2009 - 7:07am | posted by Michael Orion Powell

Throughout the country, every large town over 100,000 people seems to have a common element: a local branch of National Public Radio. In all, the partially publicly funded organization has 797 public radio stations that it syndicates to.

Public broadcasting has a place in Western society. Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia all boast creative and new publicly backed media enterprises. In the United Kingdom, the BBC provides all sorts of great programming, from adaptations of Jane Austen novels to modern day radio drama. Unlike its counterparts, however, it’s questionable whether NPR is providing much groundbreaking or innovative.

National Journal releases vote rankings for Members of Congress

Mon, 03/01/2010 - 4:11pm | posted by Jason Pye

The National Journal issued its annual vote rankings for Members of Congress last week. The rankings determine who are the most conservative and liberal members of both the House and Senate.

The ratings are odd for libertarians since we do not fit on the left/right, liberal/conservative polticial spectrum. If you wanted to simplify it for the great unwashed you could say we are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. However, that doesn’t fully explain libertarianism. So, take these rankings for what you want since there is no ranking on constitutional fidelity.

Some interesting things I found in the rankings is that Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, is the 38th most liberal member of that chamber. Rep. Ron Paul is ranked at the 140th most conservative member in the House. The most liberal Republican in the Senate is Olympia Snowe. The most liberal Republican in the House is Mike Castle. The most conservative Democrat in the Senate is Evan Bayh, while Bobby Bright is the most conservative Democrat in the House.

Ten Most Liberal House Members

Elections, And Why The American Economy Will Collapse

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:33pm | posted by Peter Quinones

I know what you’re thinking: man that Pete is a positive guy. I like to describe myself as realistic, with a bit of fatalism throw in. Either way, I find it hard to look at the economic landscape and have any hope. It is especially dreadful when politicians have to get re-
elected, AND said politicians consult certain “economists”.

Economists have for years looked at what is happening in a society and sought to come up with solutions as to how an economic crisis can be “fixed”. The problem is, like in all fields, you have good economists, and you have the not so good (The latter seem to be the ones that always find their way onto the public payroll).

In extremely broad terms economists can be split into two categories:

1. The “good” economist traces what a policy can do not only in the present, but
in the future; AND what it does for not only one segment of society,
but the whole.

2. The “bad” economist does the exact opposite; they examine only what
will fix the present issue and usually concentrate on only one segment of
the population.

If you are a student of American history your eyes should be opening as to which economist is most often chosen by our elected officials. The real question is “why”?

Well, why wouldn’t a politician pick economist #2?

GOP and libertarians: Part 2 of 2

Mon, 07/20/2009 - 12:19pm | posted by Jason Pye

While driving to Atlanta on Thursday evening, I caught part of an interview with Newt Gingrich on The Sean Hannity Show. Gingrich was speaking against ObamaCare, and rightfully so (to get an idea of what he said, you can read a transcript from Hannity’s television show later that night). The president’s so-called health care “reform” proposal will crowd out private health insurance and eventually lead to a takeover of the insurance industry. As Brett Bittner wrote yesterday, we need to work together to “flatline ObamaCare.” There is no disagreement there.

Are the Republicans Going Libertarian?

Fri, 04/24/2009 - 11:29am | posted by Michael Orion Powell

That is the question asked by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight. Besides noting the obvious anti-tax and anti-big government rhetoric, Silver notes a few subtle shifts in policy:

— Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them. Reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court decision was surprisingly muted in conservative circles. Meanwhile, at least one prominent Republican presidential candidate, Utah’s John Huntsman, has come out in favor of civil unions (although not gay marriage itself).

Nationalization, By Any Other Name

Mon, 03/02/2009 - 7:58am | posted by Katy Delay

The word “nationalization” has put fear and trembling into the American marketplace, and understandably so. It rings of socialism, of the European model, of the Third-Way progressive compromise. It’s the death knell of the American form of free-market capitalism that is the foundational pillar beneath our symbolic hegemony over the rest of the world.

Apparently our current administration and its Congress don’t believe this for a minute, because they haven’t yet caught onto the fact that the word needs more than just denial; it needs replacement.

Fair Weather Patriots

Wed, 02/18/2009 - 12:43pm | posted by Michael Orion Powell

Patrick J. Deneen at the American Conservative magazine has an article on the resurgent patriotism among the American Left, a quality largely absent on their side since the Vietnam war:

Obama to China

Tue, 02/03/2009 - 12:42pm | posted by Michael Orion Powell

George W. Bush’s administration started off badly on Sino-American relations with the 2001 spy-plane crisis (often eclipsed in the collective mind by the major incident that occurred in Manhattan and Washington DC seven months later). I agree with Evan Osnos’ piece in the New Yorker, in which he argues that Obama should make a diplomatic visit to China as soon as possible: