Politics

Arizona ballot proposition 101, the Medical Choice for Arizona amendment, says this: Be it enacted by the People of Arizona: 1. Article II, Section 36: Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be added as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor: ARTICLE II, SECTION 36. BECAUSE ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR HEALTH CARE, NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED THAT RESTRICTS A PERSON’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OR PRIVATE PLANS OF ANY TYPE. NO LAW SHALL INTERFERE WITH A PERSON’S OR ENTITY’S RIGHT TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL SERVICES, NOR SHALL ANY LAW IMPOSE A PENALTY OR FINE, OF ANY TYPE, FOR CHOOSING TO OBTAIN OR DECLINE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR FOR PARTICIPATION IN ANY PARTICULAR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OR PLAN. ...

The City of Phoenix’s “notes” newsletter for October 2008 (PDF), which comes with the water bill, features a story on the front page about its Glenrosa Service Center receiving the city’s first LEED Gold certification for its environmentally sound features, like being “build with wood from responsibly managed forests” and possessing “low energy and water use fixtures, non-toxic carpet and paint, energy-saving lighting sensors, native drought-resistant vegetation, dual-pane windows, an under-floor air distribution system and a heat-reflecting roof." Page two features an announcement that “The APS Fiesta of Light will kick off the city’s holiday activities this season with a long-time tradition–the APS Electric Light Parade.” This parade of “illuminated floats, marching bands, performance units [?] and helium balloons” has a theme of “Preserving a Family Holiday Tradition.” I wonder how many years of the Glenrosa Service Center’s energy savings will be expended this year in preserving that tradition. ...

This is no doubt not a representative cross-section of McCain and Palin supporters, but it’s a disturbingly ugly set of them. It’s fortunate that most of the worst comments are from the older generation–I hope that younger people are less likely to hold such views. McCain has shot down such remarks from supporters when they’ve been made in his presence, to his credit. (And yes, this is from Aljazeera.) UPDATE: Here are more bigoted McCain and Palin supporters in Johnstown, Pennsylvania: UPDATE (October 20, 2008): Sarah Palin says if she heard such bigoted comments she’d shut them down: “What we have heard through some mainstream media is that folks have hollered out some atrocious and unacceptable things like kill him,’ " Palin said, referring to a Washington Post story two weeks ago about angry supporters at a Palin rally in Florida. “If I ever were to hear that standing up there at the podium with the mike, I would call them out on that, and I would tell these people, no, that’s unacceptable."She goes on to break with McCain by supporting a U.S. Constitutional amendment to oppose gay marriage and claim that “Faith in God in general has been mocked through this campaign, and that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and choose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit." UPDATE (October 21, 2008): And here’s another video, from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (same link provided by Hume’s Ghost in the first comment), of McCain and Palin supporters entering Lehigh University (the school where intelligent design advocate Michael Behe is a professor): UPDATE (October 22, 2008): And be sure to check out this woman’s reasons for voting for McCain, at the Secular Web. UPDATE: And more videos of McCain supporters heckling early voters (most of whom were from an Obama rally) in West Virginia. UPDATE (April 10, 2026): Google seems to think that this calling out of bigoted and ignorant statements from 18 years ago itself constitutes “dangerous or derogatory content” in 2026, which is absurd. These videos are hosted on YouTube, Google’s platform, so if they have a problem with the content they should take down the videos. UPDATE (April 13, 2026): My request for a review was unsuccessful. Here’s the policy that Google claims is being violated by this 18-year-old blog post in 2026 (a time when the rhetoric has become far, far, worse, including from the president of the United States): “We do not allow content that:incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization.harasses, intimidates, or bullies an individual or group of individuals.threatens or advocates for harm to oneself or others.relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative, scientific consensus.exploits others through extortion."It is absolutely absurd to think that the content of this blog post does any of these things. ...

Jeffrey Goldberg explains why in The Atlantic. The check for whether you’re on the no-fly list is at the time of ticket purchase and check-in; there is no validation of your actual ticket against your ID at the TSA checkpoint (you can easily print and use a fake boarding pass at the TSA checkpoint); there is no check of ID when you board the plane. The checks for substances and items at the TSA checkpoint are easily subverted, with the restrictions on liquids probably the most absurd and pointless. We’re throwing away billions of taxpayer dollars per year on security theater. (Hat tip to John Lynch.) (Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.)

In The Daily Beast: At best, Stone’s interpretation is educated conjecture. He takes plenty of liberties with the facts, a story-telling strategy he considers justified in order to get at larger truths in a 2-hour movie. As a result, the real-life complexities of the characters and events are left unexplored. … Overall, as should be expected from the high-caliber cast, the acting was fabulous. Brolin rightly deserves kudos for his portrayal of Bush. He has the swagger down, and does a decent job on Bush’s voice and gestures. The president’s eating habits were overdone, but not completely off the mark (you will know what I mean when you see the movie). … The most unflattering portrayal was that of Condi Rice, caricatured by Thandie Newton as a mere yes–woman, which is excessively denigrating but not entirely without basis. There are a number of inaccuracies in the movie, some grounded in Stone’s satirical impulse. (Maybe I was too close to the real-life situations to laugh at those moments.) ...

The Economist conducted a poll of 683 research associates of the National Bureau of Economic Research. 142 responded, of whom 46% self-identified as Democrats, 10% as Republicans, and 44% as neither. 80% of respondents, 71% of those who did not identify a political affiliation, and 46% of those who identified themselves as Republicans said that Obama has a better grasp of economics than McCain. (Only 23% of those who identified themselves as Republicans said that McCain had better understanding of economics.) 81% of respondents, 71% of the unaffiliated, and 31% of the Republicans said that Obama will pick a better team of economic advisors to run the country than McCain. The full results can be found at The Economist’s website. ...

The bailout bill has a few extra features: * Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems. * Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit. * Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. * Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration. * Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles. * Sec. 405. Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax. * Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa. * Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility. * Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit. * Sec. 503 Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.It also includes tax credits for solar and wind power, a requirement that health insurance companies cover mental health the same way they cover physical health (so look for some huge premium increases on your health insurance). And during all the bailout bill discussion, Congress quietly authorized another $612 billion defense authorization bill. (Via The Agitator.) ...

Radley Balko on Palin’s performance in the VP debate: Palin was rambling, didn’t answer the questions she was asked, and the folksy stuff felt contrived. I suppose Palin did okay in that she didn’t come off like the train wreck she was in her Katie Couric interview, but Jesus, is that the standard? Is the bar that low for vice president of the United States? That seems to be the way the conventional wisdom is playing out. Oddly, the Couric interview may have actually helped her, then. Palin seems to have crammed just enough so she could toss out key phrases here and there to give the veneer that she’s informed. But it’s pretty clear she was in way over her head for most of the debate. Pick her apart with follow-up questions, as Couric and Gibson did, and she falls to pieces. ...

The New York Times, September 11, 2003: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'" said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." The Washington Post, November 7, 2003: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said the administration's position is driven by concerns about the financial safety and soundness of the companies "to the exclusion of concern about housing." Committee members were ready to support legislation that would give the Treasury Department oversight of Fannie and Freddie, as the administration has sought, Frank said, not power over the companies' housing activities, which are regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Now he seems to have forgotten what he said back then, and the fact that he was encouraging the moral hazard created by the GSEs encouraging and buying up bad loans. UPDATE: A friend points out this post at the Big Picture blog by Barry Ritholtz arguing that the Community Reinvestment Act and GSEs had nothing to do with the housing bubble. While I think Ritholtz makes some excellent points that demonstrate there were other factors, he doesn't really address the GSE moral hazard issue and he makes this statement that seems to me to offer a striking disconnect from reality: "The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvestment Act ?" All of those cities have very large non-affluent minority populations. I'm most familiar with Phoenix, where the housing bubble was marked by expansion of housing into South Phoenix (where I live), Gilbert, Mesa, Queen Creek, Surprise, and other outlying areas around Phoenix which have very large Hispanic populations. Also see my comment below about mortgage broker telemarketing targeting low-income areas of town with minority majorities. He wants to place the blame on deregulation, but if you need to find a single cause, I think the Fed keeping interest rates too low is a better root cause. My own experience regarding telemarketing showed that there existed regulations that could have been applied to the sleazy telemarketers that simply weren't being enforced. When you have an enforcement problem, all the regulations in the world won't help, in fact adding more regulations is likely to increase the severity of your enforcement problem. UPDATE (November 21, 2011): Barry Ritholtz argues persuasively that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the housing bubble.  He also downplays the role for the GSEs, though I think they had a contributory role (which is also what the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded) to play in increasing the size of the bubble--they purchased half of the U.S. mortgage market by 2008, $5.1T in loans, including $90B-$175B/year in subprime and Alt-A between 2002 and 2006.  But the above analysis overlooks other important factors including the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the 2004 SEC decision to reduce capitalization requirements on investment banks, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which allowed credit default swaps with little regulatory oversight, and inaccurate credit ratings from the Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations.  Wikipedia's entry on "Subprime mortgage crisis" has a good referenced list. cowmix (2008-10-01): Jim.. This thread on ask.metafilter.com (which I started) is sort of on topic to your post here..http://ask.metafilter.com/103119/Did-FannieFreddie-cause-this-mess ...

McCain’s economic advisors: Doug Holtz-Eakin source Holtz-Eakin is a formerly respected academic and government economist who has been reduced to making distortionary arguments to paper over the massive deficit black hole McCain’s tax cuts would create. Arthur Laffer source Laffer is the originator of the Laffer curve, the fringe view that claims government revenue increases when tax rates are lowered. There is zero empirical evidence this is true at current tax rates. McCain has repeatedly said that he believes this foolishness, but Holtz-Eakin has said (also repeatedly) that McCain does not. Phil Gramm source Gramm is a lobbyist who was vice president of one of the investment houses most heavily implicated in the mortage industry scandal. As a senator he pushed for the banking deregulation that contributed to the current crisis. See more here. Kevin Hassett source Hassett has been widely ridiculed for writing the book Dow 36000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market in 1999, predicting that the Dow would hit 36,000 within five years, if not sooner. Donald Luskin source Luskin has been repeatedly named the Stupidest Man Alive by Brad Delong. See here for an example. I can attest based on my own interaction with him a few years back that in addition to being not the sharpest tack in the box, he is also an extremely unpleasant person. Nancy Pfotenhauer source Pfotenhauer is a pure distilled product of Koch Industries, an oil company which funds much of the right wing message machine. See here for details. Carly Fiorina source Fiorina was spectacularly fired from her previous job as CEO of HP. According to the Times, … Republicans say Ms. Fiorina is using the McCain campaign to rebuild her image after her explosive tenure at Hewlett-Packard. They also say it is hard to see why a woman widely criticized for mismanaging one of Silicon Valley’s legendary companies is advising and representing a candidate who acknowledged last year that he did not understand the economy as well as he should. Regarding Fiorina, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the senior associate dean for executive programs at the Yale School of Management, says “What a blind spot this is in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality in this way. You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned C.E.O. to be your standard-bearer.”Obama’s economic advisors: Jason Furman (director of economy policy) source bio Austan Goolsbee (senior economic policy advisor), University of Chicago tax policy expert source Wikipedia website Karen Kornbluh (policy director) source bio Wikipedia David Cutler, Harvard health policy expert source Wikipedia website Jeff Liebman, Harvard welfare expert source Wikipedia website Michael Froman, Citigroup executive source bio Daniel Tarullo, Georgetown law professor source bio David Romer, Berkeley macroeconomist source website Christina Romer, Berkeley economic historian source website Richard Thaler, University of Chicago behavioral finance expert source Wikipedia Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio Alan Blinder, former Vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve source Wikipedia bio website Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute labor economist source bio James Galbraith, University of Texas macroeconomist source Wikipedia website Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1979-1987 source Wikipedia Laura Tyson, Berkeley international economist, Bill Clinton economic adviser source Wikipedia Robert Reich, Berkeley public policy professor, former Secretary of Labor source Wikipedia weblog Peter Henry, Stanford international economist source website Gene Sperling, former White House economic adviser source WikipediaMy comment on the Laffer curve–Laffer’s basic point is obviously correct, that there are points at which raising taxes further would cause revenues to decline and points where lowering taxes further would cause revenues to increase (most obviously at a 100% tax rate), but to the best of my knowledge he never did any empirical or mathematical work to show what the Laffer curve actually looks like and what factors play into it. If you don’t know the shape of the curve or where we currently fall on it, you don’t know without testing that raising taxes will reduce revenue or lowering taxes will increase revenue. Factcheck.org looks at the actual effects of some U.S. tax cuts in this regard. I do think that we can speculate that reducing U.S. corporate taxes (currently the highest in the OECD with the exception of Japan) could increase corporate tax revenue, given Ireland’s experience with just that happening. Multinational companies will do their best to book their profits in the countries with the lowest corporate tax rates, thus increasing the tax revenue in those countries. Of course, there are other factors, such as regulatory environment, cost of labor, risk of litigation, etc. ...