Month: November 2013

Yesterday, I was in desperate need of a haircut and my favorite barber wasn’t open, so I had to resort to going to the local SuperCuts. When I walked in around 5pm, I noticed that the sign on the door said that the store was open until 9pm on Wednesdays. After waiting for about 10 minutes, a young black woman in her late-20’s or early 30’s said that she was ready to cut my hair.

As we made small talk, I learned that we both have three-year old sons. I also learned that she is a single mother who is engaged to get married (not to the father of her child) and that she had previously worked her way up to a management position at the Hair Cuttery across the road. She is also the manager of this store.

Not long after she began cutting my hair, her cell phone rang and she took the call. She was making arrangements to get her son picked up from day care. It turned out that her corporate overlords had originally promised that she could close the store at 6pm, because it was the eve of Thanksgiving. As a result, she had arranged with the day care facility that her son could stay a half-hour late, so she would have time to close the shop and drive over there by 6:30. But her corporate overlords reneged on their promise without any notice, and told her that she needed to stay open until 9pm.

Single black mothers take a lot of crap in our society, but this woman is taking care of her business. She’s doing everything anyone could ask of her. And this is how she is treated. I guess she is lucky that she could find someone to pick up her child or she would be out of a job. And, why? Because she took her bosses at their word.

So, remember stories like this today when you see people who have been forced to work on Thanksgiving. Some may want the hours, but many are doing it because they have no choice. The workers count for nothing in today’s corporate world.

I watched On the Road on one of the cable channels last night because I had writer’s block and couldn’t sleep. It was a pretty terrible movie, hardly distinguishable from dozens of stupid grifter/drifter movies also inspired by Jack Kerouac’s most iconic novel. It’s a weird thing that I haven’t actually read that book. I’ve read everything even passingly related to it. As a serious Grateful Dead fan, I knew about Neal Cassady/Dean Moriarty totally independently from reading Kerouac. I’ve read pretty much everything ever written about Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters. I always had the intention of reading On the Road, but somehow never got around to it.

Still, it seems that I’ve carried around a picture in my head about what the book is about. As soon as I was old enough, I packed up my blue 1982 Ford Escort and left New Jersey for Los Angeles by the southern route. Even before that, I toured the country following the Dead with my own band of Merry Pranksters. I have always understood the call of the road. Maybe I learned it from Bruce Springsteen, who grew up down the road from me in Freehold. Maybe it’s a New Jersey thing. There is a hardly a soul I grew up with who is still living in my hometown. We all had to get out while we were still young.

In any case, the movie version of the book wasn’t very flattering or romantic, and it certainly provided little that I would want to emulate. Both Kerouac and Cassady died grim, early deaths. Were they false prophets? Or did their lives really have the meaning so many have attributed to them?

So, it begins with the acceptance of two appeals masquerading as objections to the ACA health insurance mandate to include contraceptive coverage.

Hobby Lobby wants all the protections and advantages of being a corporation and also a church.  (The latter would be too big of a stretch if that ACA health insurance contraception mandate hadn’t included a religious exemption.  As if “conservative” religious folks shun contraception for themselves.)
This question was settled by the public.  Rush flipped out over the contraception mandate and lost sponsors.  And there is no Senator Akin and Senator Mourdock.  But that’s not good enough for the rightwing nutjobs that insist on further clogging up the courts for their right to impose their beliefs on others.  The legal and ethical arguments against Hobby Lobby have been adequately addressedThe ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
What’s left out is the economic consideration.  Health insurance companies may be too small for their actuaries to calculate and explain this in dollars and sense.  So, a small thought experiment is required.  

First imagine that this country is evenly split – 50/50 and regardless of age and gender –  between those that agree and disagree that health insurance should include contraception.  Then everyone could make a personal lifetime choice as to whether or not their health insurance included contraception.  Mandate that health insurers not mix these two pools of policyholders for determining premium prices.  All other things being equal, would the premiums be the same or would one cost more?

If the Hobby Lobby CEO were told that the price without contraception coverage was $3,500 and with contraception coverage $3,000, would his “religion” be important enough to pay an additional $500/employee/year?  Fat chance.  If he’s successful with the SCOTUS Catholic mafia, would he be satisfied that his employees’ health insurance costs the same as what other employers that include contraception pay?  Probably not.  He’s likely thinking that less coverage means less cost to him.

That’s simply not true for low cost, ordinary medical care.  Even for chronic conditions such as Type II diabetes that is as much related to lifestyle choices as unintended pregnancies.  The ACA gets this one thing right.  Contraception is cheap and cost effective.  

Beyond political lobbying by the AMA and health insurance companies that thwarted Teddy Kennedy’s national health care efforts during Nixon’s presidency, there was some evidence that the private sector was doing fine managing our health care system.  Aggregate (national) costs weren’t rising by all that much.  Well, duh!  Who could have predicted that the introduction of birth control pills and women gaining legal reproductive rights to family planning and access to affordable reproductive medical care would be a cost and social win-win?  Is it merely coincidental that when the religious nutcases began to succeed with their efforts to deprive women of the rights they had gained during the 1960s and 1970s and stop contraception research in its tracks that total medical care costs began to outpace aggregate inflation?  

As if the US “baby bust” had no economic impact.

The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s and by 1999 was at 2 children. This means that an imaginary woman (defined in the introduction) who fast-forwarded through her life in the late 1950s would have been expected to have about four children, whereas an imaginary woman who fast-forwarded through her life in 1999 would have been expected to have only about two children in her lifetime.

Note, however, that the US fertility rate dropped to 1.8 during the 1975-79 period.  The peak period of choice.  When allowed to choose, almost all women are practical and responsible.  

At one time, Republicans balanced their hatred of poor women with lots of children by supporting Planned Parenthood, including access to safe and affordable abortion.  There wasn’t anything noble about those old Republicans.  Their position merely combined their eugenicist leanings with loathing for public social services.  It was nothing but self-centered pragmatism.  A pragmatism that melted away as soon as they discovered that religious wackos preferred that women be kept barefoot and pregnant.  And they take zero responsibility for what this has wrought.

In this area the ACA made the right step.  Not a big enough step nor the most cost effective step.  Timid rather than bold.  Federally funded Planned Parenthood coast-to-coast and free to patients for all reproductive health care services, including birth control pills and abortion, would have cost less, but as neo-liberals continuously remind we wooly-headed dreamers, that isn’t pragmatic.  

What is your favorite Thanksgiving side dish?

Whatever you might think about the administration’s policy towards Iran, the American people support it. And only one in five Americans want to go to war with Iran if the strategy doesn’t work.

Americans back a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin and are very wary of the United States resorting to military action against Tehran even if the historic diplomatic effort falls through, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.

The findings were rare good news in the polls for President Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have dropped in recent weeks because of the botched rollout of his signature healthcare reform law.

According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in Geneva last weekend, and 22 percent oppose it.

While indicating little trust among Americans toward Iranian intentions, the survey also underscored a strong desire to avoid new U.S. military entanglements after long, costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if the Iran deal fails, 49 percent want the United States to then increase sanctions and 31 percent think it should launch further diplomacy. But only 20 percent want U.S. military force to be used against Iran.

The survey’s results suggest that a U.S. public weary of war could help bolster Obama’s push to keep Congress from approving new sanctions that would complicate the next round of negotiations for a final agreement with Iran.

Obama was elected to pursue diplomatic approaches to our foreign policy challenges rather than resorting to war. That is what he has been doing.

The Washington Redskins need a new name. Got any ideas?

Of course, I am not certain, but I suspect that Bill Donahue is a less than effective advocate for the Catholic Church. He just seems to have a knack for making sure that everyone knows about every harsh criticism people make about the church, even when those criticisms are pretty much universally acknowledged as being valid. Who, after all, is actually denying the rampant child molestation problem that has been exposed within the priesthood? Only a few lunatics defend that behavior. Almost no one thinks that the church has done enough, now or historically, to protect children from priestly sexual predators. So, I don’t think it’s a good public relations move to attack everyone who has something negative to say about that situation, even if they say it with a degree of hostility.

.
Links added are mine – Oui.

The Middle East warmly welcomes Iran Deal, sees it as Step toward Denuclearizing Israel

(Informed Comment) – The  spokesman for the Jordanian government, Muhammad al-Mumini, said that the agreement was “a step in the right direction.” Jordan’s  King Abdullah II had long warned that a war with Iran would be a catastrophe for the whole Middle East, but a few years ago in the Bush era he was not always on the same page with his American and Saudi allies.

The Gulf Cooperation Council of oil monarchies was not as negative as the US media keeps reporting. The cabinet of the United Arab Emirates  praised the agreement and said it hoped it would lead to regional stability and an end to nuclear proliferation. Likewise, Qatar and Bahrain welcomed the development, and like Lebanon and Egypt said  they hoped it would lead to a nuclear free zone in the Middle East. We know Oman approves because it hosted the preparatory meetings between the US and Iran. Kuwait (a country of 3.2 million with a GDP of $173 bn) seems to dislike the agreement, since it appears to be silent on it. [Kuwait also welcomed Iran’s nuclear deal]

As for Saudi Arabia, which some pundits allege is so upset by the negotiations that it is ready to throw in with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, well, not so much.  The Saudi Minister of Culture, Dr. Abdul Aziz bin Muhyi’d-Din Khoja, said that the preparatory agreement could lead to a resolution of the Iran nuclear problem, assuming that that country acts in good faith. He was also glad that the agreement recognized the right of countries in the region to benefit from nuclear power. [UAE has already ordered four nuclear reactors]. Like Egypt and Lebanon,  Saudi Arabia also saw the understanding as a first step toward also removing Israeli nukes from the Middle East.

○ Japan signs nuclear technology deal with UAE, wants more oil

If you assume, as Alex Pareene does (and I think he is justified), that the Republicans would have eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees even if the Democrats didn’t do it, then there really was little to no reason for the Democrats to show restraint. However, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a reason to lament the change.

One thing that the filibuster accomplished, however imperfectly, is that it created a bias toward nominating moderate judges. The need to attract at least a small handful of support from senators across the aisle meant that bomb-throwers rarely were even considered for the federal bench. Of course, this created a perverse incentive for ambitious lawyers and judges to hide their true beliefs, lest their record block their career path.

Personally, I’d love to have openly progressive judges serving on the federal bench, but I’d trade that not to have openly conservative judges on the bench. On the whole, I’d like to see a less politicized judiciary, as I see partisan rulings as undermining people’s faith in impartial justice.

In practice, this is pretty unrealistic, and it became completely unworkable when the Republicans stopped objecting to judges for cause and just started opposing them all for no reason whatsoever.

People misunderstand the filibuster. It’s really just a rule for dealing with situations where unanimous consent cannot be achieved. We’ve gotten to the point where we can’t get unanimous consent from the Republicans for anything except maybe naming post offices.

A better way to urge moderation on the bench would be to change the rules so that a judicial nominee cannot get a vote on the Senate floor unless a majority of the Judiciary Committee approves them. Right now, a nominee can receive a confirmation vote even if the they have not been approved by the Judiciary Committee. The change would mean that a nominee would need the unanimous, or near-unanimous support of the president’s party in order to be confirmed. A nominee that was controversial enough, would be unable to get that level of support.

In any case, to reiterate, the filibuster is just a rule for dealing with a lack of unanimous consent. If the objection is budget-related, you can’t filibuster. If the objection relates to legislation or a Supreme Court nominee, you need 60 votes to overcome it. If the objection relates to a lower-level judicial nominee or an Executive Branch appointee, then it takes 50+1 votes to overcome it.

The number required in each case is somewhat arbitrary, although a simple-majority is the norm in all decision-making bodies. If there is a compelling reason to empower the minority, as with proposed amendments to the Constitution, then there still is a point at which that courtesy has been abused and the original wisdom of granting the concession succumbs to a different wisdom grounded in the need to get things done.

The only perfect solution would be for the legislature to resolve the country’s most contentious issues by amending the Constitution and putting them beyond the reach of either or the judiciary or the Congress. Until then, we’ll have both parties trying to legislate from the bench, and the Senate will continue its brawl over appointments. At least, now, with the changes in the rules, judges can be confirmed.

Let’s stipulate that Republican strategist and pundit John Feehery is engaging in a bit of hyperbole and alarmism here; I still think he makes an important point that the business community would be wise to heed.

If Sen. Harry Reid’s rule change on filibusters did anything, it sent a message to the business titans who support Senate Tea Party challengers to Republican incumbents to knock it off.

Regaining control of the Senate is now more important than ever.

Republican strategists have been putting all of their campaign eggs in the ObamaCare basket. The president’s healthcare law, the reasoning goes, will be so unpopular that it will drive base voters to the polls a year from now.

That’s a risky bet. As we found with the Iran deal over the weekend and with the passage of the nuclear option in the Senate last week, it is hard to keep the attention of the news media — and the voters — on any one issue.

I think ObamaCare will still prove to be unpopular in the next year, but Republicans have to construct a wider message going into the election year.

Checking President Obama’s unbridled power is a pretty powerful message.

And having control of the House is not just good enough in the era of the so-called Reid Rule.

When Reid (D-Nev.) got his Senate majority to lower the threshold on executive branch and judicial nominations from 60 votes to 50 votes (assuming the vice president could break any tie), he gave tremendous power to the president.

Obama can stack the court in his image and can put anti-business ideologues in places like the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Commerce and Agriculture departments. And those ideologues can spend the next three years writing regulations that will govern this country for a generation or more.

And those regulations will cost the business community trillions of dollars in compliance costs.

In my experience, industry groups do a very effective job of lobbying Congress and protecting their clients’ interests. It’s certainly more effective to talk to Senate Democrats about how various proposals might adversely affect your industry’s bottom line than it is to promote the anti-government nihilism of the Tea Party. Nihilism is very ineffective when it doesn’t prevail. The reason is simple. Believing in nothing and doing nothing precludes you from entering into negotiations, and if you enter into them despite your opposition to any compromise, no one will take you seriously or be willing to offer you any concessions.

To use Mr. Feehery’s example, the decision to oppose nominees without cause (which is a form of nihilism) led the Democrats to remove a choke point where lobbyists could influence regulatory rules. More and more regulations will be generated within the executive branch rather than as a result of congressional compromise.

Will it cost the business community trillions of dollars in compliance costs? Over what time frame?

I don’t know the answer to that, but it definitely looks like the portion of the business community that bet on the Tea Party made a major mistake.