RSS Feed MenuBruce Bartlett, as always, is a fascinating read, and we should all be thankful for both his service and his clarity of thought. He actually makes for a pretty good example of a modern day Mugwump, and thus he is an example of the sort of former Republican that we ought to want back in the fold.
I share one of his concerns, particularly about the party’s greater level of partisanship, and the changing face of conservative media. But understand; there is a perception among conservatives of a partisan edge to the Democrats’ victories in 2006 and 2008 that we did not see in the ’90s (even in Democratic years like 1998). The way many conservatives see it, the way to win is not by emulating the no-drama strategy of the Obama campaign, but rather the hard-nosed, foul-mouthed Chicago tactics of Rahm Emanuel circa 2005 and 2006. I don’t share that view, and here’s why: we can’t count on the media cover that Democrats get. We take maximum damage for our transgressions against taste and decorum. They don’t. Still, I understand the other side, and I try to heed the words of Reagan: they accept our agenda, not the other way around, and if you’re ever happy with everyone inside the party, then it’s probably too small to win.
One of Bruce Bartlett’s concerns I do not share, exactly, and that is over the Republican’s new emphasis on defending Medicare. I know that Medicare needs to be put on sounder fiscal footing, and that Medicare Part D did not do so, but I also know that there’s a huge wave of baby boomers, a large number of whom were the core of Republican support throughout the 80’s, who are going to need decent medical care, and lots of it. One of the nice things about Republicanism is that we have continually put forward ideas for modernizing Medicare, even when they were utterly rejected: Newt Gingrich’s far-too-soon plans in 1995, Medicare Advantage, Part D, and so forth. One of the weaknesses of Democrats is that they have not. I’m on the record in favor of ethical comparative effectiveness, but it’s not the piggy-bank that will fund universal coverage; it’s actually the very basis of how private insurance works, and it hasn’t shown much promise at controlling overall premium costs as new and better medical technology comes online and the population ages. Otherwise, the Democrats’ ideas for fixing Medicare basically amount to paying less money for everything and to everyone because we’re the government and we can. That, to me, is a path towards some severe inequalities in the provision of needed care over the next thirty years or so. Michael Steele’s op-ed on the GOP’s Seniors Health Care Bill of Rights wasn’t perfect, but I think we need to lay down our marker on how a system that isn’t going away will serve our once and future voters.
So I’m not an ex-Republican yet. I decided never again to say “I’m a conservative, not a Republican!” on the morning of November 8, 2006, and I haven’t looked back, so to a large extent Bruce Bartlett and I will have to agree to disagree. But on reaching out to former Republicans and minorities who will be aided by our agenda? I think there’s plenty of room for agreement.
Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Okay everyone. I know how SS and Medicare works. Current payers are funding the reciptients. As a Wall Streeter, I can tell you that it operates as a Ponzi scheme. But that was not the original intent of SS. I also know that people pay into the system less than what they will receive. Again, this is not the fault of the people. It is the fault of the administrators of the program, i.e. politicians. They needed to put in place a mechanism in place to adjust for longer life spans. Manage the money so that they would get higher returns instead of paying for the 100th Robert C. Byrd bridge in West Virginia.
balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Manage the money so that they would get higher returns instead of paying for the 100th Robert C. Byrd bridge in West Virginia.
Or, say, temporarily hide the effects of a large cut in marginal tax rates on the federal debt. Or finance a military budget that’s larger than the rest of the world combined. Or pay for some more wars.
That’s not to say that your comment about the Robert C Byrd bridge is wrong. It’s just that pork has been chump change in the whole Federal budgetary process. It’s the military, it’s the large entitlement programs, and increasingly it’s the interest payments to service the debt (which is a massive time bomb).
Personally, I loved the idea of a “lockbox” back in 2000. But others mocked it.
balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:17 pm
chekote: Just because politicians break the contract by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, it doesn’t make the program a socialist adventure.
No – it’s a socialist adventure because it is entirely managed by the Federal Government.
It becomes a socialist adventure from the moment the Federal Government takes money from your paycheck and decides that it will be used for a social insurance program to fund not only retirement … but disability benefits, survivor benefits, etc.
Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Balcon
This may shock you but I agree with you. That money should have not been spent on war or anything else other than to provide the benefits promised. Same with the Highway fund. The money should be spent on providing infrastructure. That’s the contract. Politicians stealing or mismanaging the money does not make said programs socialistic.
tim.or.tom // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“He actually makes for a pretty good example of a modern day Mugwump, and thus he is an example of the sort of former Republican that we ought to want back in the fold.”
Actually, he, you, and the other writers on this site are excellent examples of the kind of “Republican” who gave us the absolutely horrible candidate of John McCain and then tried to blame Sarah Palin for McCain’s loss. McCain picked Palin, his advisers picked Palin, the responsibility for Sarah Palin is on John McCain and the other “moderate” Republicans. She is a disaster (that could someday turn into a victory, who knows) for the party, unleashed by the very people who now attack her. You guys thought she would just sit around and be pretty and energize the base and be the perfect tool.
Oops.
We neither need nor want people like you, or Bruce Bartlett, or David Frum in the party. Judging by the polls, doing exactly the opposite of everything the “New Majority” says has been working more than well enough to justify continuing that strategy.
barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:32 am (#19) –
“Hey – Bill is back in arrogant ass mode again! Welcome back, AA Bill.”
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
Well… I cop to the “arrogant” part.
As for the “ass” part…
Hmm… you’re the one who seems most at home with the Party of the Jackass.
(*WINK*) (*CHUCKLE*)
Balc. Seriously. I understand why you hate getting called on your ignorance… but think about it… isn’t it BEST that you learn here – in an anonymous online forum – than to later be humiliated in “real life” in live debate…???
You should be THANKING me…!
(*GRIN*) (*SHRUG*)
Re: Djnichol66 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:33 am (#20) –
“By the logic in the article you quote, health insurance isn’t insurance at all.”
YES! Absolutely frigg’n correct! Gold star!
(*SMILE*)
Yep… our current system of mainly “bumper to bumper” private insurance is a far cry from the original ideal of “insurance.”
(Hey… bet you didn’t expect THAT response from me!) (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
(*WINK*)
Re: Oldgal // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:32 pm (#25) –
“If Medicare is not insurance because everyone dies, what then is life insurance?”
(*SNORT*)
If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it…
(*CHUCKLE*)
Oldgal. Seriously. I trust that you’re bright enough to answer your own question. Heck… you’re the one always advising others to google their own info!
(*SMILE*) (*WINK*)
(Hey… how old ARE you, anyway…??? Just curious…)
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:42 pm (#26)
“The contract…”
(*SIGH*)
Chekote. THERE IS NO CONTRACT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
* Again… Balc and others… I know that I come across as an arrogant son of a bitch… but seriously… I’ve forgotten more political/social/economic/historical “trivia” than most of you folks will ever know.
(*SHRUG*)
It’s not a brag; it’s a fact. (*SHRUG*)
(OK… ya got me… it’s BOTH a brag and a fact.) (*WINK*)
BILL
(*SHRUG*)
barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:49 pm (#27) –
“Okay everyone. I know how SS and Medicare works.”
(*SMILE*) Referring back to your claim concerning “a contract” and my subsequent efforts to educate you by referring you to “Nestor…” (*SHRUG*) No you don’t, Chekote.
(*SMILE*)
(Oh, com’on… don’t get mad! I’m just trying to have a bit of fun. And seriously… you can’t deny I’m educating you!)
“…the original intent of SS.”
Chekote. SERIOUSLY. The “original intent” of SS was that recipients would DIE within a year or so of retirement and thus no matter what the Ponzi scheme would always run smoothly.
I’m NOT joking about this.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:19 pm (#30)
Chekote. Because I like you… (*SMILE*)… basically because I think you have the right instincts and all that is missing is the knowledge… (*GRIN*)… let me explain to you the fallacy of the “lock box” theory.
OK. Take the highway fund. In theory it’s supposed to go to… er… funding highway construction and repairs, right?
If there’s an excess that excess goes to…
(*SHRUG*)
Chekote. I left the sentence hanging for a reason.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_%28United_States%29
Anyway… let’s segway into Social Security and “pay as you go.”
Let’s say that the federal government LITERALLY “saved” excess Social Security contributions. I’m talking literally piling up $100 bills in Ft. Knox or somewhere.
Imagine a United States government which didn’t (and which hadn’t) ever run deficits.
Imagine a United States government with no debt. NO DEBT!
Well… I suppose then government COULD (have) stockpiled “excess revenues” – perhaps converted them to gold. (*SHRUG*)
OR… in this fantasy world of no deficits and no debt I suppose the government could (have) INVESTED the money… billions and billions and billions (trillions?) of dollars.
“Invested” where though?
Certainly not domestically! I mean… think about it for even a moment and you’ll immediately see the problem with that scenario. Namely, in short order the federal government would have bought up much of the private sector! (*GRIN*) Given enough time and enough “excess” Social Security “contributions” and they would have bought the whole (privately owned) country up!
(*CHUCKLE*)
We couldn’t have that – could we? I mean even if we slow down a bit and don’t go to the logical extreme of government “investing” ALL of the entire HISTORY’S worth of Social Security “excess contributions,” at the very least such governmental actions would by necessity act as a skew to free markets – you see that, right?
But, hey… here’s what we COULD have done and probably SHOULD have done:
Social Security “excess” contributions should have either been turned into gold and other precious metals, etc. (yeah… I’m serious… but again… we’re working off a “lock box” scenario here – the one Balc brought up) and “stored” across the nation… OR… we could have created a separate “U.S. Government Foreign Investments” Entity which would have for the past 74 years been buying up FOREIGN properties and assets…
* THINK PRESENT DAY CHINA’S FOREIGN “INVESTMENT” POLICIES! (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)
Anyway… seriously… bottom line… there is no lock box. There never was a lock box. When you think about it, the very concept of a lock box challenges credibility.
BILL
Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Chekote. THERE IS NO CONTRACT.
I was using the word figuratively. Look people were promised certain benefits once they paid into the system. This is not socialism. Everybody pays a set rate.
midcon // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:56 pm
You know, Medicare may be socialism, or not socialism, or some other ism. But that really is not germane to the issue. Medicare exists – should it? If it should, does it need to be improved, modified, etc?. Is Medicare a valid insurance model for providing coverage for medical care for those of advanced age?
Personally, I believe that Medicare (or some equivalent) is as necessary as government provided insurance is necessary for the entire population of citizens and legal residents. There should be no distinction based on age because a citizen is a citizen. I don’t care how old they are. Consequently, I see no point in a program that is established especially for class of citizen vs another. If one can get coverage in a government program then everyone should be able to OR no one should be able to.
Again I will suggest that health care insurance must be considered in terms of the society’s obligation to it’s citizens. While health care insurance does have direct impact on the individual, it’s status as insurance requires an assessment of the risks by individuals and families and a determination whether they are willing to accept those risks. And society must determine if it can tolerate the individual risks or must require coverage for everyone except those who demonstrate the financial wherewithwal to not become a burden upon society in the event of accident, illness, etc.
While health care insurance is much more important than auto insurance, it is similar it must be based in part on individual risk acceptance (the likelihood of occurence and consequence if it does occur) balanced with society’s tolerance for individual risk acceptance. I don’t care is someone’s auto insurance has a collision provision as long as I (society) are covered if that person run’s into me. We have to balance individual rights with the societal needs and one governing factor in that analysis is the impact upon society of an individual exercising their rights. Of course thrown into the equation needs to be society’s obligations to all it’s citizens.
The discussion of whather a something is socialistic, socialism, or whatever, is useless. Thank God I haven’t been around to have to read such stuff. The tendency to devolve into debating labels continues to hold sway here with the scoring of points the only outcome.
barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:43 pm (#36)
“…people were promised…”
(*HEADACHE*)
(Well… you know what they say… “You can lead a horse to water…”)
Chekote. Dear, sweet Chekote. Well-intentioned, well-meaning, sensitive Chekote. I deal in facts. I deal in reality. You should too.
(*SHRUG*)
Did you even bother to read the Supreme Court decision I provided the link regarding?
(*SIGH*)
Anyway…
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
BILL
MFarmer // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“Personally, I believe that Medicare (or some equivalent) is as necessary as government provided insurance is necessary for the entire population of citizens and legal residents.”
It’s the “some equivalent” that’s important here, and i wouldn’t say “equivalent” but better option. The way Medicare is set up, and the fact that it’s controlled by government, has led to a situation where it’s no longer sustainable. With the baby boomers retiring, it can’t last.
It needs to be phased out as young people start joining a different system set up in the market — a health savings and retirement plan which is started at 18-20, or even before, so that money is saved, invested, and the interest over the years will be enough to have safe and comfortable golden years.
This needs to be done separately from poverty issues. I have ideas on that, too, but for the majority of people who will be working all their lives, a private health savings and retirement plan would be much better than breaking the government — we will be forced to something at some point — why not start now.
People much smarter than I am would have to work out the details, but I have no doubt it can be done.
midcon // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Just to clarify, I intended to say that if one believes that government provided insurance is necessary at all, it should apply to all and not just a specified segment of the population. Currently, we have Medicare and if there is a better model – especially one that does not originate with the government or employers, I am all for pursuing that. Of course the government must establish a framework that ensures affordability, competition, service, and quality standards.
EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Frum has been all over the place. Lots of paychecks coming his way I presume. The media is eating him up….or rather supporting the attacks on Conservatives and Conservatism, and giving Frum a megaphone to do so.
I mean really, Bill Moyers Jorno?
Pathetic.
31 August 09 (am) « blueollie // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:08 pm
[...] will the GOP come back? Will being the “Angry Party” work? (note the whining about the media [...]
Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Chekote. Dear, sweet Chekote. Well-intentioned, well-meaning, sensitive Chekote. I deal in facts. I deal in reality. You should too.
I deal with reality. Why are people told that SS and Medicare taxes are taken out their paychecks? Because they will get benefits when they get old. You must have never had to deal with 941 paperwork in your life.
barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:18 pm (#43) –
“Why are people told…”
Ahh, Chekote… precious Chekote… (*SMILE*)
Why do birds suddenly appear… every time… you are near…?
FURTHERMORE…
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?!
And on that note…
(*WINK*)
BILL