The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Some inconvenient truths

Glenn Greenwald:

Last year, after I wrote critically about a well-known journalist who frequently appears on the TV and is considered “liberal,” he emailed me (after first asking me to agree that our conversation would be private) to warn that I should be more “careful” about attacking “allies” if I wanted to expand my platforms and get on television.  That’s how the culture works.  Those are the weapons which politicians — and journalists — use to try to punish those who criticize them and reward those who refrain from doing that.

This is the way the world works.  I haven’t seen that it’s limited to journalists and politicians though.

It’s not just about attacking “allies”, though.

A gaffe is when you tell a truth that isn’t socially acceptable.  There are a lot of those, including the truth about Obama, especially early in the year (he’s not a progressive, never has been and sells out liberal interests any time he can, and this has been clear for a long time.)

The truth about healthcare is that Obama and the Dem leadership just want to find a way to close the Medicare “D” loophole, and in exchange for being allowed to, they are offering a mandate.  This is taxation by another name (being forced to buy a product you wouldn’t otherwise buy is just a tax), and a regressive tax at that, but Americans don’t want to be taxed directly so they are taxed indirectly.

It is also a crass sell out of Millennials. Old folks will get their “no recissions” and “guaranteed issue”, while youngsters will be forced to buy insurance they can’t afford to use (while at the same time the combination of first time home prices and tuition loans already have them crushed and have priced the lower and lower and middle class almost completely out of post-secondary education.)

As for the fundraising to reward public option people in the House, folks forget that money is fungible.  Every dollar raised for them is a dollar more than party organs and fundraisers can, and will, spend on Blue Dogs.  Why?  Because most progressive Reps are not in swing districts, they don’t need a lot of money.

Another unpleasant truth is that the way the bailout is being paid for is simply another hidden tax.  Banks are allowed to keep their bad loans on the books, and not write them down.  They receive money at concessionary rates while they have increased the rates they lend out to consumers.  Those increased rates lead to the money that will be used, over a decade or so, to pay down the bad loans.  It’s done this way rather than just raising taxes, because Americans won’t pay taxes.  And because doing it this way is regressive, instead of having, say, significant increases in progressive taxation, so that the rich pay for their own bailout (which is what should have been included in the first stimulus bill.)

Finally, on stimulus, the only effective stimulus that Obama is going to be able to get through going forward is military stimulus, and that’s why the Afghan war is not going to end any time soon.  Obama had his chance to do it properly, at the beginning of his term, he chose to waste his capital on an ineffective tax cut and a dog’s breakfast of a stimulus bill which established no real direction for the economy, didn’t deal effectively with underlying economic weaknesses, and which failed to bail out the states properly.  From now on, stimulus must be run through the Pentagon, since Blue Dogs and Republicans can’t vote against military spending.

I may discuss these issues at greater length later.  Or I may not.  Who knows.  It’s pretty clear there’s little appetite for the truth, either at the elite level, at the blogging level, or at the popular level.  People want to be told comforting lies and contrary to the old saying about how in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is very, very unwelcome.  Getting things right, repeatedly, is exactly what most pundits avoid like the plague.  Virtually every major pundit has been wrong about the majority of important issues, the majority of the time.

I guess that’s what people want.

Previous

Whoever could have predicted Obama would sell even a nominal Public Option out?

Next

Restructuring America’s Military

64 Comments

  1. I may discuss these issues at greater length later. Or I may not. Who knows. It’s pretty clear there’s little appetite for the truth, either at the elite level, at the blogging level, or at the popular level. People want to be told comforting lies and contrary to the old saying about how in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is very, very unwelcome. Getting things right, repeatedly, is exactly what most pundits avoid like the plague. Virtually every major pundit has been wrong about the majority of important issues, the majority of the time.

    I guess that’s what people want.

    It’s just a “larger scale” version of global warming denialism. Political-economic-environmental-social crisis denialism.

  2. I came to the conclusion after last year’s primary that most of the people want to be fooled most of the time.

    The main core of the problem is the more than 40-year, multi billion-dollar campaign by rich, right-wing families to convince Americans that greed is good and gummint is bad. It has been so successful that much of the Democratic leadership bought right in.

    There is no consistent campaign to combat the disinformation and hatemongering. Shame on so-called liberals. Shame on so-called progressives.

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

  3. paul lukasiak

    As for the fundraising to reward public option people in the House, folks forget that money is fungible. Every dollar raised for them is a dollar more than party organs and fundraisers can, and will, spend on Blue Dogs. Why? Because most progressive Reps are not in swing districts, they don’t need a lot of money.

    now there’s a truth that will get you in trouble Ian — especially with your friends!

    I’ve always found that particular fund drive offensive — its as if we have to keep paying off the politicians we help get into office in the first place in order to get them to keep their promises. Sorry, but that isn’t how its supposed to work. You make promises, we support you based on those promises, and you fulfill those promises if you get elected. IF keeping those promises leads to you being credibly challenged in the next election, we’ve got your back. But don’t suggest to us that we need to show you pre-emptive gratitude because you’re doing the job you’re supposed to do.

    Instead, we’ve got a couple of hundred thousand that could be used to support primary challenges against Blue Dogs (and against Republicans in fall 2010) sitting in the coffers of “safe seat” Democrats.

  4. dblhelix

    you tell a truth that isn’t socially acceptable.

    Have been bumping into that a lot lately.

    re: health care. Yes, Millenials are getting a rotten deal. Expect to see a rotten deal for Medicare come out of Senate Finance, unless they back off due to worrying about the elections. Don’t forget the retirement accts that got cleaned out. How about a compromise: Bad Deal All Around.

    As for the fundraising to reward public option people in the House, folks forget that money is fungible.

    That campaign is just embarrassing on so many levels. When the PO gambit fails, it will be somebody else’s fault (not Obama!). Blue Dogs, as usual, are protected. Busy bee work.

    Besides, what are progressives going to do if a few reps balk to vote to get the ‘sensible bipartisanship’ through? Storm Compton?

  5. Amen.

    “I guess that’s what people want.”

    We’ll see in 2010.

  6. Bolo

    While there may be little appetite for the truth in most areas, some of us (well, me and your other readers) would love to keep hearing it. Of course it’s up to you in the end, as it is your time to spend as you choose, but I’m very interested in continuing to read about this.

    Thanks.

  7. nihil obstet

    We live in a propaganda state. It’s also a complex society — people don’t begin to understand money, much less the concept of indirect taxation. The problems really took off when real wages started falling in the early 70s and people didn’t understand why. The propaganda was able shape the attitudes about power and money that today translate into “that’s what people want.”

    But remember before condemning the populace too much, three quarters of Americans want government to see that they can get health care. (Polls and wonks assume that they understand what a “public option” is, but I think the only reliable finding from polls that ask about specifics is, “Should the government do something?” and the answer is “yes.”) However, the probability is that whether a bill is passed or not, government will not see that Americans can get health care.

    And I think most Americans know it. When you know that the leaders of major institutions lie to you for their own benefit, I think it’s understandable to simply reject anything that doesn’t seem to be to your immediate benefit. And even in this case, the working class has continued to support Democrats, the supposedly more liberal party.

    We can all get very discouraged over the political scene and the apparent apathy of most of our fellow citizens. But to simply write off the “popular level” is to give up on democracy, and I have real problems with that.

  8. Ian Welsh

    Folks have voted for this over and over again. The most popular network is Fox. Etc…

    I believe in democracy, but I don’t fool myself that democracies can’t be gamed into self destruction.

    As a simple matter of pragmatism, I’m being forced to decide how much blogging I want to do for free. I can write for a couple a-list blogs if I want to, but I won’t be paid for it, and there is only so much free writing I’m still willing to do, especially as some of the things I really want to say are very unpalatable to many people. But if we only write the things that people want to hear, or that gatekeepers are willing to permit (to be clear, OL never suggested I couldn’t write anything I wanted to) I’m not much interested. I can write whatever I want here, of course, but the audience is not that large, though I’m very happy with the quality of the people who were kind enough to keep reading me at a blog I update more or less at whim (many days between posts at times).

    Some friends and I are considering starting a new group blog, but the hard calculus is that it can’t really support people who make blogging a large part of what they do every day. So, whether we will or not remains unclear because the core of us have been in this gig a long time, and when I can consistently increase circulation and get links when I write or edit an a-list blog (and I have done so at every blog I’ve written for, even OL got a traffic lift in just two weeks of my writing there), one wonders if this is a good place to be in.

    Now perhaps I should just assign it to the hobby category, like many folks do, and I’m considering that seriously. But if I do so, I suspect I may go the way of many others I’ve known who blogged hobbywise—after a while, even the really good ones drifted off to something else.

    I feel that people like myself and my friend Stirling (and some others) offer something that most a-list blogs are not offering today: a fundamental honesty that includes minimal spin or kabuki, a good track record, and an emphasis on explaining the bigger picture of why things are the way they are. But it’s unlikely that’s viable as any sort of living, no reasonable level of traffic + ads alone will make it viable.

    Anyway, just what’s going through my mind. No one owes me a living, and in fact it might be better for me if I turn away from blogging, just keeping my foot in enough to maintain a public profile (a couple pieces a week at C&L and OL, for example) and work on either nonfiction or fiction in other venues.

    But I can’t help but feel that too much of what is going on right now in the blogosphere is substandard pap that, like junk food, is bad for the people reading it.

  9. What’s becoming clear is that Obama traded away the public option early on to make a deal with the health care industry to continue funding Dems and not swing their weight to the GOP, similar to the deal he made with Wall Street.

    The result is a massive rip-off of the middle class that is going to bite Dems hard when it hits the pocketbook. Most folks can be fooled by propaganda for awhile, but the pocketbook can’t be fooled in the long run. The Dems are hoping they can run this out beyond 2010 and 2012, but I judge the likelihood of that as fairly low.

  10. Ian, blogging is not only a great public service but it is also a way to further one’s reputation and career. However, to make a mark, publishing books is a requirement. Don”t get discouraged. Things are actually in the process of changing, and the market for progressive thinking is only going to grow. You are making valuable contributions, and I encourage you to continue.

    What the world needs is people who can translate complex concepts into more readily understandable language. The biggest problem in politics today is economic illiteracy. It is just not possible to relate to political issues without understanding the economic underpinnings. Moreover, people like you and Stirling Newberry are willing to go where others are not, and the world needs you more than ever. I have learned a lot from both of you, and I think you for taking the time to do it for free. I am an aging DFH, and I remember the Sixties, when people took care of each other. Now the web is the place that is happening first. So don’t throw in the towel just yet. The best times are ahead of us, although we’ll have to go through the fire of hell first.

    The Zeitgeist is shifting as we speak and fundamentalisms of the right are making their final stand before Armageddon. The world is on the way to a deep restructuring and the future will be determined by the models ready at hand when the old ways collapse of their own weight. But a new world will emerge from the ashes.

  11. Following up on what I just wrote:

    Shrugging off Ayn Rand? Time to change course at the nation’s biz schools

    Among the more compelling versions of this argument is Peter Navarro’s scathing Business Week article.  Navarro surveyed the top 50 business schools in 2008 and found most schools lack the three elements he considers key to graduating more than “quant jocks”: a sense of ethics and corporate social responsibility, a global perspective, and “soft skills” you don’t learn in lectures.  The Guardian also recently advocated for a much deeper curriculum in corporate social responsibility, ethics, and politics.

  12. just a reader

    a couple pieces a week at C&L and OL, for example

    i discovered you at The Agonist

    then followed you to Fire Dog Lake

    then to here at your own place

    haven’t seen you at Crooks&Liars ( C&L above i presume )

    and i have no idea what OL is – would you enlighten me please ?

    and i heartily second what BOLO wrote above

    thanks for all that you do and for the time / $$$ that you put into your writing – wish i had the $$$ to support but i am dead poor. i apologize.

  13. Jeff W

    I can write whatever I want here, of course, but the audience is not that large, though I’m very happy with the quality of the people who were kind enough to keep reading me at a blog I update more or less at whim (many days between posts at times).

    Well, first of all, Ian, if “too much of what is going on right now in the blogosphere is substandard pap” (it is) then you’re offering something, “unpalatable,” though it is, that people can’t get anywhere else. That’s valuable, in and of itself, even for a small audience (who will propagate it for you). But, also, your audience can snowball. (Glenn Greenwald started from nothing, I imagine.) Insightful quality writing—especially saying something that, once stated, seems irrefutably true (I’m thinking of your Cutting Through the Public Option BS post as an example)—is exceedingly rare, extremely valuable, and enormously attractive. People want to read stuff like that, even if they haven’t found you yet. Just my take.

  14. Ian Welsh

    Thanks Reader. OL = Open Left, I posted there a couple weeks a while back while a couple of the bloggers were getting married. http://www.openleft.com. I don’t post anything there I don’t also post here, but of course, different set of commenters.

  15. John B.

    Ian, I want to second what has been said above. There are many like myself who read and need the posts that you and a few others provide. I mean really need in a visceral way in order to remain connected and not fall into the trap of total apathy because of particular events and the times as it plays out in our country. I don’t comment much, but I find your site and a few others indespensable. I am ceratin that I am not alone in that regard.

  16. Valley Girl

    The truth about healthcare is that Obama and the Dem leadership just want to find a way to close the Medicare “D” loophole, and in exchange for being allowed to, they are offering a mandate.

    Ian, I know you know how much I like your work, but the above simply does not make sense to me- “just want to find”. I don’t buy it as the “raison d’etre” for (whatever). The whole mandate thing? From what I’ve read, I never saw that as related (closing loophole) to imposing a mandate- mandate= more $ to insurance company parasites. I just don’t “get” this part of your post. You seem to be linking the two as “cause and effect”. If so, I’d need a lot more data to buy that proposition. But, I’m also scratching my head wondering “what did he mean by THAT?”

  17. Valley Girl

    It’s pretty clear there’s little appetite for the truth, either at the elite level, at the blogging level, or at the popular level. People want to be told comforting lies and contrary to the old saying about how in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is very, very unwelcome. Getting things right, repeatedly, is exactly what most pundits avoid like the plague. Virtually every major pundit has been wrong about the majority of important issues, the majority of the time.

    I guess that’s what people want.

    Okay, I hope I figured out (above) how to do a “blockquote”.

    And, then, your long comment in the comments section…. which really is important in terms of where you may or may not go from here. I don’t want to say something that does not address the seriousness of the issue you have raised. So, I gotta think about what I might say next, or if indeed I have any practical ideas to offer.

    Nonetheless, I’m here because I searched you out!

  18. B Schram

    I perhaps do not represent the mainstream (PhD, Ivy League educated midwesterner), nonetheless I find your articles to be a real boon to my sanity. This is an odd comparison, but your insight and honesty have been a balm, much like “Get your war on” was for me in the post 9/11 insanity. For what it is worth, I recommend most of your stories to a host of friends, and we look forward to your new comments.

    I’m not sure wearing a clap-board sign would help, but I feel your messages are very important, and if there is anything I, as a humble reader, could do, please let me know.

  19. Ian Welsh

    VG,

    Medicare Part D is costing the government a lot of money.

    Medicare is currently drawing down the “trust fund”, which means that cash is having to flow into medicare, whereas before Medicare was used as a cash cow.

    So Obama wants to close down the worst of Medicare D, to save Medicare money.

    However, there is no way pharma and the insurers will let him do that, unless they get their money another way. Since the government doesn’t want to pay directly, and can’t increase taxation anyway, they will pay them off through taxation by another name—forcing people to buy insurance, and by promising Pharma no reimportation and no bargaining on prices. Which is why pharma is pushing the bill for over 100 million in ads.

    How do I know this? It’s Stirling’s thesis, not mine, and no one told him it either, but when you look at how they’ve gone about this, the pieces fit. Obama is willing to give up everything, including the public, option, he has bargained with insurance and pharma for his cost savings, and those savings are Medicare givebacks. The various bills have Medicare cutbacks in various forms. Medicare is what he’s trying to, not fix, but patch for a few years.

    Cost controls for citizens is not the point, cost control for the government is.

  20. Ian Welsh

    Thank you Doc Schram and John.

  21. Formerly T-Bear

    Mr. Ian
    Your writing has been nothing short of brilliant and your ability to inform is a gift precious few enjoy. Above tjfxh mentions economic illiteracy. When I last studied economics, there were six giants of the field, five British, one German, no American. There is no limit to the number of economic giants there might be, probably could add a Canadian to that list without much problem, the best the US has to show are a number of Nobel prizes purchased or of dubious academic provenience. The teaching of economics is essentially nonexistent at any level of education. This is a void your interests would exquisitely fill. In reading “Wealth of Nations”, Adam Smith collected his written notes of issues that interested him in the observation of economic activity of the age, your body of writing can serve to the same effect. Samah El-Shahat, Al Jazeera’s resident economist does much the same for that news-source, her latest: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/chinabuystheworld/2009/08/200983011449824699.html is noteworthy in its assessment of the failure of academic economic ideology throughout the world. The result of academic hubris and academic investment in irrational theory (hence my use of “Chicago School of Economic Phrenology” or “Harvard School of Business Eugenics” and the “London School of Economic Make Believe” belongs in the same category as well – how is that for iconoclasm?).
    This age calls for a restructuring of economic theory in a manner consistent with humankind’s ecological niche and a solution to the question of value based upon endeavour (labour). If the energy paths of a forrest can be mapped throughout all ecological systems involved, from sunlight to final products; so too all the input necessary to develop and produce capable work and the necessary return for that product may be ascertained. It is, after all is said and done, an hour’s labour that is foundation that all other value is measured, or so intimated Adam Smith. It would be gratifying to fulfill Adam Smith’s expectations after all these years.

  22. Valley Girl

    Ian!!! Thank you for your long response above (below is link to that comment of yours)
    https://www.ianwelsh.net/some-inconvenient-truths/#comment-1664

    You said “but when you look at how they’ve gone about this, the pieces fit”.

    !!! see !!! the pieces fit for you and Stirling. Because of your acumen and expertise. I can smell the stink of a lot of this, but this particular part of the whole mess is something that NEVER occurred to me! And, likely not to many others who don’t have your background and expertise.

    fwiw, my take is that a further exposition of this would be a great topic for another post. I’m trying to come up with an appropriate analogy/ metaphor- so, my “off the cuff” try will probably be stupid. “So, I’m a dog owner, and I don’t know anything about cats. But, I now have a cat. You have to explain to me that cats don’t like to walk on leashes.” Oh, never mind. 😉

  23. dude

    Ian, if you and Stirling reduce your blogging output, I think I would feel as though a fog rolled in. I have donated to blogs that I like. It’s irregular just like all my disposable income, but I do it. My enjoy your commentary, but I especially enjoy the comments of your readers because they are high calibre and a huge attraction to me. Agonist, Firedoglake, Emptywheel, TPM—- the quality of the readership shows and is a draw. You said you were thinking about linking up with talented bloggers (which I imagine to be like the FDL family of blogs on the masthead). I know nothing about how such things work, or even if they make a sensible business model; however, if anyone could build such a quality site with quality readers, I am sure you could do it. And yes, people do want it (IMHO).

  24. dude

    And could I ask a question that is a bit off the wall?

    There was a time when newspapers syndicated people we regard as models of wit and insight. I think of Mencken although I doubt most would consider him a “serious journalist” , possibly more of a satirist. The Op Ed regulars at the NYT are another example. Newspapers are dying and internet blogging sort-of replaces them (at least for me—the mix of online media from the giants and the commentary by a variety of commenters and bloggers at my favorite sites). Huffington Post tries (tried) to arrange a rotating schedule of guest bloggers, but emphasizes too many traditional pundits and entertainers to suit me; still it might not be a bad idea to have a rotating schedule of high calibre / regular guest bloggers to post in one place. Is this the sort of thing you and Stirling are thinking about?

  25. Ian Welsh

    The current idea is to have a few regulars, and have others who are guest bloggers, with varying levels of access. If someone’s both good, and fits the site (someone could be great but not a good fit) then we’d be happy to have them post.

    The way Huffpo does it they allow a large number of people posting rights, but then the editors decide if you make it onto one of the verticals (like politics, or business, or even the home page). If you get onto the home page or a vertical, lots of traffic, if you don’t, the article disappears without a trace. At one point Huffp was a pretty decent outlet for me and others, but they tend to put up bigger names now that they can get them, with some exceptions for very well established regulars.

  26. Ian Welsh

    And yes, commenters do add a ton, and while this blog’s traffic isn’t huge, the comenters add a great deal for those who take the time to read them.

  27. Steve

    Ian, I’ve followed your work since BOPNews where I found you and Sterling. Both of you helped me escape the massive propaganda network in both America and Canada. I would say that your comments have put me far ahead of the curve of my friends, and have served as a poster above commented, as a “balm” to my sanity. I would miss you terribly if you stopped writing.

  28. CoyoteCreek

    What “just a reader” said.

    I have only recently stumbled on to this site – and am sorting through a number of old ones that are moving right, left and in between.

    I can imagine my dream blog – Ian, Anglachel, Lambert, Stirling and Paul and, never to be forgotten, Arthur Silber. I would PAY for this dream.

    I cannot express my appreciation personally, but just know that all of you keep some of us sane.

  29. CoyoteCreek

    Sadly, “Dude”, some of whom you mention got CDS early and nasty last year and supported the bain of (my) existence. Obama makes my skin crawl. BUT, I would just not read the pablum that I would expect to spew forth from those writers.

    Nothing is perfect. Although some bloggers come very close….for me.

  30. dblhelix

    Cost controls for citizens is not the point, cost control for the government is.

    100% agreement, but there’s more to come on cost control for govt, unless they chicken out. They’ve been pushing hard to get Medicare financing out of the jurisdiction of Senate Finance and into the hands of an independent panel. They’ve specified a mandate of “reducing regional variation in outcomes for similar spending levels” which is to say, costs and treatment frequency are higher in areas w/a lot of poor seniors w/ multiple chronic conditions. In MA, they just decided to switch to “global payments,” another name for managed care, which, of course, failed in the 90s due to the lack of incentive to provide care. It just has a new name now.

    If fee-for-service is a cost problem, I worry about what happens when you swing the pendulum in the other direction. When the govt sets targets, there’s incredible pressure, and the poor/sick/elderly are actors of low/no political status.

  31. the poor/sick/elderly are actors of low/no political status.

    Really? Medicare is the third rail of US politics because seniors are really vigilant about protecting it. Add to this the massive boomer generation about to retire, who paid in all their working lives. This is going to be a huge generational issue, and it is going to be loud and ugly. You better believe that politicians will be paying attention.

    The real elephant in the room is the boomers. They have exaggerated the economics and politics of every stage of life they have passed through. Now that they are preparing to retire, they will be affect this area big time. They are going to be speaking with a very loud voice and carrying a huge stick.

  32. Katherine

    I also read you and Stirling on BOPNews and spent considerable time tracking you guys down when you disbanded the blog. Unlike many others, I do have some money to spare and would be delighted to contribute if there were a DONATE button or something similar.

  33. dblhelix

    tjfxh: Really?

    Yes, really. Most of Medicare’s spending is for chronic care, esp for one or more conditions. This is localized to areas w/ steep socioeconomic gradients. For example, if you want to “fix” Medicare’s spiraling costs, focusing on TX and Miami alone will take you a long way toward solving the problem.

    Instead, the Blue Dogs have been trying to negotiate getting reimbursement rates based on health outcomes instead of frequency. This was actually their condition for getting the House bill out of committee. If you look at a map of health outcomes vs areas of poverty, there is a strong correlation — where health care is mostly costly is the south, including TX and Appalachia stretching into PA’s coal country. Good health outcomes are in states like MN, IA, ND, where you have much flatter disparities in terms of race or wealth.

    The bottom line for healthy and wealthy boomers/seniors is not the issue b/c changing the payment mechanism will not have much of an impact for this group.

  34. Ed

    I would have preferred something like FDR’s one hundred days, but keep in mind that at this point in the Clinton presidency we were still bogged down with gays in the military. At this point in GW Bush’s presidency we were bogged down, with, what, the do not call list?

    Its probably a function that modern politicians just want to be in office, not to do anything with it, but it seems that modern administrations don’t get defined until one or two years in.

    While its looking like Obama is just going to be a one term caretaker between two quite reactionary Republican administrations, some caution is in order. At the moment it looks like we will get nothing or worse in terms of legislation and that the bailout has stopped the slide into Great Depression 2. But really no one will know for sure until another two to six months have passed. So there is a kind of unreal stasis in the political landscape.

    I don’t want Ian to stop blogging, but I actually think it would be a good idea for him to take a break. It doesn’t look like he will miss much for a couple of months. Of course there may be an election in Canada, and he might want to blog about that and take his mind off of US politics for awhile. There was also a fairly important election in Japan, that has attracted not much notice here.

  35. dblhelix

    tjfxh:

    The Senate Finance Committee recently suggested that one way to pay for health care overhaul would be to reduce geographic variations by cutting or capping Medicare payments in “areas where per-beneficiary spending is above a certain threshold, compared with the national average.”

    Members of Congress are seriously considering proposals to rein in the growth of health spending by taking tens of billions of dollars of Medicare money away from doctors and hospitals in high-cost areas and using it to help cover the uninsured or treat patients in lower-cost regions.

    Those proposals have alarmed lawmakers from higher-cost states like Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. But they have won tentative support among some lawmakers from Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington, who say their states have long been shortchanged by Medicare.

    The basis for this is the Dartmouth Atlas Study — funded by the ‘big three’ private insurers.

    Dr. Berenson, who was a Medicare official in the Clinton administration, said, “There remains too much uncertainty about the Dartmouth findings to ground public policy on them.”

    I happen to agree. A whole lot more research and consideration is required.

  36. Just chiming in to say that I also love your work and have come to rely on it a lot, so I’d miss it if you stopped… but I can certainly understand wanting to focus where you do the most good.

    The Medicare Part D idea is fascinating, though bizarre. It’s certainly a plausible thesis, but the question becomes: why? What’s the objective here? He papers over Medicare by taxing the poor, and in so doing alienates a third to half of his party and squanders months of his first term and enormous amounts of political capital. If big Pharma et al get their money either way, what’s this all for? Another shallow, meaningless tic in the ‘Win’ column?

    I’ve seen some speculation that this whole fight is a con game to keep the insurance lobby’s money in Dem hands for 2010… do you think the objective might simply be to completely entangle the corporate interests with Dem lobbyists and politicians? Make things so complicated and chaotic that the cash never stops flowing, while building up a network of influence peddlers?

  37. Ian Welsh

    Oh, I took what amounted to a break for a number of months already. It’s not burnout (I had that from about December to Feb).

  38. Re: Ian Welsh @

    I feel that people like myself and my friend Stirling (and some others) offer something that most a-list blogs are not offering today: a fundamental honesty that includes minimal spin or kabuki, a good track record, and an emphasis on explaining the bigger picture of why things are the way they are. But it’s unlikely that’s viable as any sort of living, no reasonable level of traffic + ads alone will make it viable.

    I really haven’t noticed anyone making a go of this on the left. A few on the right seem to have thanks to either grants or some form of external financing. Most people don’t seem to be willing to pay for online content.

    What you do, and I do on my better days, is break a subject down and explain it. While people may find that interesting to read, I don’t think many people find it necessary. My traffic certainly reflects that.

    Anyway, I hope you find a way to stay in this business (if you’ll pardon the misuse of that word). I’d miss you if you weren’t here.

  39. Formerly T-Bear:

    hence my use of “Chicago School of Economic Phrenology” or “Harvard School of Business Eugenics” …

    I think of it as the “Chicago Way” school of economics.

    Anyway, I’m not an economist, but it’s always struck me as a daft idea. There’s no such thing as a truly free market like they use to try explain basic economic theory. All markets are controlled, the only question is how much and by whom. The people I see and hear talking the Chicago Way talk never seem to acknowledge that.

  40. Now perhaps I should just assign it to the hobby category, like many folks do, and I’m considering that seriously. But if I do so, I suspect I may go the way of many others I’ve known who blogged hobbywise—after a while, even the really good ones drifted off to something else.

    As you know, I drifted off from blogging, particularly my own blog. But that was not only because I had real-life things to do, but also because I need dialogue to stimulate the bloggy juices, even to maintain a semi-part-time writing schedule. It became a paradox because you need to be a regular writer to get a regular readership, and I needed a regular readership to be a regular writer.

    When you, Kevin, and I were blogging at Tilting at Windmills, I was able to keep up the pace, but when it came time for me to hold the fort briefly alone, I found it very hard to do. As I recall. It’s become a bit far away now, sadly, especially since the archives are down.

    Since then I’ve stuck to Canadian discussion boards and dropping comments around the US blogosphere. It’s been really hard to find a bloggy place for myself, especially since (as you know) I have an inner rhetorical Molotov-cocktail thrower that sometimes itches to get out. And a tendency to question to motivation behind skepticism even if I may share it at times, or go even further.

  41. And your spamulator is very picky 🙂

  42. Ian Welsh

    Cujo,

    oh there are people making a living off it. Not a good living, but a living.

    Mandos, your comment has been released from the spamulator. A slightly overactive spamulator is a lot better than an underactive one.

  43. MO Blue

    Seems to me if the only thing Obama and the Dem leadership wanted to do is close the Medicare “D” loophole that they could have done this a lot easier by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Also, this piece of crap legislation will be paid for by billions of dollars in cuts to the Medicare budget. Doesn’t seem like a real good deal for seniors either.

    This so called health insurance reform will generate billions for the insurance industry and will continue to generate millions to fill the Democrats campaign coffers. Accepting that aspect of the deal might be better than pitting generations against one another.

  44. dbhelix, I agree with the substance of your comments but your initial comment that seniors are not a powerful political force still I dispute. The problem here is that seniors hear that Medicare is going to “cut” in health reform, and even if they are aware of the rationale they don’t trust it. Moreover, most seniors are wonks, and they just hear the possibility of cutting Medicare or shifting funds, and they react loudly and predictably.

    The Dem leadership tends to be too wonky and both Clinton and Obama are wonks. This is good for policy but terrible for politics. Things like this are sinking the possibility of real health care reform in this administration. The first rule of politics is KISS, and this is anything but simple. The problem is that when that happens, people simplify anyway, and that’s what seniors are doing now. Seniors overwhelmingly oppose reform because they already have Medicare and don’t want politicians messing with it.

  45. Ooops. Above should read “Most seniors aren’t wonks.”

  46. jbaspen

    Ian, I’m older than you, or most of this “Ian Welsh” community. At least my long term memory is still pretty much intact. Your writing has the power & force of a young Christopher Hitchens, the one that so eloquently defended the wronged and powerless – before he yielded to the “Commentary Crowd”, for whatever his reasons. That’s why I keep returning.

    Use this blessed gift of yours. and great things will happen, often in asymmetrical & surprising ways.

  47. Kirsten

    I want the truth! You should keep writing it!

  48. >>there is only so much free writing I’m still willing to do

    Yet Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly make millions of dollars a year.

    That one comparison alone shows the firm commitment of the right wing to spread their poison, and the total lack of commitment from the so-called left to spread sanity.

    Oh, and I’m a senior citizen who’s fairly wonkish. Don’t go making generalizations you can’t back up, tjfxh.

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

  49. jo6pac

    It’s pretty clear there’s little appetite for the truth, either at the elite level, at the blogging level, or at the popular level.

    What ever, write when you can/feel like it. I will drop to ad the truth here and the other 100 sites I check when there’s time. It important that all voice of reason are out there for that care to listen to. In the world of $ I miss LB but still read many others. You would be missed by many but hopefully the voice of reason still is some were. to hard to make corrections.
    jo6pac
    Everything is on schedule, please move along.

  50. I listened to brief snippets of NPR today. The first was one about campaign finance reform an some case in front of the Supreme Court. One astroturfy lady was being interviewed, and she argued that Virginia and California are both states without limits on corporate involvement in state elections, but they are really very different states, and that means that corporate involvement in electoral politics has no real effect, and therefore there is no need for campaign finance reform. In fact, it is a pernicious perversion of free speech (cue link to my Freeze Peach/Danish cartoons post from TAW…).

    A caller phoned in and in his own folksy way agreed with her, and all too soon it became likely to me that he was also astroturf—UAW astroturf, this time, but the UAW is also opposed to campaign finance reform.

    Later I heard a couple of interviews on health care reform. One was, bless his heart, Ezra Klein. Now I really am blessing his heart, because he pointed out how odd it was that bipartisanship is so important that *any* Republican must be recruited to pass *anything*, when the Democratic Party itself is so clearly on the line when it comes to health care reform. Olympia Snowe, in this case. (I love her name, it is so evocative.) Anyway, no kidding, about the odd part.

    But he was followed by an AEI fellow who thought that Obama/Biden/Emanuel’s strategy on health care reform was brilliant. He then proceeded to explain to us exactly how progressive Democrats in the House would be brought to heel even to vote for a bill that didn’t contain a smidgen of a public option. It was very plausible.

    So now you know: the AEI approves of Obama’s strategy.

  51. Ian Welsh

    Yup, and neocons approve of his military/foreign policy, except where he says nasty things to Israel.

    And David Brooks loves him. And so on.

    Why not? Obama is keeping the Bush constitutional architecture and most important programs largely in place. Hell, he isn’t even cleaning out the bureaucracy, but is leaving their moles in place.

    Obama is just Bush done “nice”.

  52. By the way, the justification for “bipartisanship” is that without it, the reelection chances of someone named “Blanche Lincoln” (what is this, a knock-off of Gone With the Wind?) would be imperilled. The people of r-Kansas, you see, arrived in drably-coloured starships hundreds of hears ago from the Neutral Planet (I wish there were more of this episode on YouTube).

    You see, large numbers of them may have a denied surgery claim, but by golly, they will have balance.

  53. Jeff W

    I listened to brief snippets of NPR today. The first was one about campaign finance reform an some case in front of the Supreme Court.

    That’s not just “some case,” Mandos, if my guess is correct. That case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—which, as a NY Times editorial says, might “dismantl[e] the longstanding ban on corporate spending in elections for president and Congress. If those restrictions are overturned, it would be a disaster for democracy” [emphasis added]. Thom Hartmann, the progressive radio talk host, has been warning about it for months.

    If you think the country is broken now, this Supreme Court case has the potential of smashing it to smithereens. It’s very scary stuff.

    Oral argument is set for 9 September.

  54. Ian Welsh

    Lovely clip, Mandos, I may have to use in the future.

  55. craz3z

    Ian,

    I found you and Sterling at The Agonist. You two are the only bloggers that can explain complicated things in a way I understand and who I trust to tell me the truth no matter how much it hurts. I kind of panicked when you disappeared there for awhile.

    I never expected Barack Obama to be the second coming of Paul Wellstone, but I’ve been wondering lately what an Ian Welsh post would sound like if the GOP had won the White House in the last election, and it saddens me that the answer could be “Not much different”. Different methods, same results? (With the exception of GM and Chrysler – and the jury is still out on that.) I guess it could be worse – but the opportunity is/was there to make it a lot better.

  56. Valley Girl

    Obama is just Bush done “nice”.

    Yep, totally agree. I was trying to come up with something to add, like “style without substance”, but that sounds way too mild.

    The only pithy comment that comes to mind is too rude to post. I’ll email it to you, Ian.

    I am reminded of my feelings about the Iraq invasion- I knew from the get go it would be bad, a really bad idea. I just didn’t know how bad it would be.

    I knew from the get go that “Obama” was not trustworthy (I mean during primaries) I just didn’t know how untrustworthy/ bad he would turn out to be.

    Sigh.

  57. Ian Welsh

    craz3z,

    Thanks for the kind words.

    Obama’s been fairly good on Palestine, too, though we’ll see if that’s just talk. But yes, one of the reasons I’m down on Obama is because so much of what he’s doing, especially in economics, is not significantly different from Paulson/Bush.

  58. Valley Girl

    Hi Ian- just to pile on with the love- but at this point there are very few blogs I check religiously. Uh, regularly. Always worth my time to read your words, and also the comment section here. It’s a “twofer”. Some blogs have dropped off my reading list (ones I used to check frequently, like, uh, a few years back), in part because I got tired of wading through inane comments. So…. Ian, your thoughtful writing seems also to invite read-worthy comments. Kudos.

  59. scruff

    Ian,

    I don’t comment much (ok, at all) because I still just barely understand the topics you so easily tackle, and can’t really go beyond your analysis and offer much original thought of my own (yet). My old fallback when I couldn’t grasp what was going on was my mentor, Oldman. With him gone, I have turned to the only other economic/politics bloggers I’ve found who have the same kind of honesty and brilliance – who just happen to be the bloggers he chose to work with at BOPnews – you and Stirling, and I read you two at every opportunity.

    I don’t know how the logistics of blogging will work out for you in the future, but I do want to thank you for what you have done for my own insight and understanding of the world. I’ve always been happy to read your unpleasant truths.

  60. Ian Welsh

    Thanks Scruff. I still miss Oldman. It was a huge blow when he died, on so many levels.

  61. Hey Ian, don’t give up unless it stops being fun entirely. There’s a certain satisfaction to be had in being a B-lister the A-listers read but won’t link to. At Newshoggers, we’ve been told by a couple of A-listers that we’re their early warning system – they read us to find out what they’ll be blogging about 3 to 6 months from now. That doesn’t lead to links, nor traffic, right now – but it’s still something that keeps us writing, keeps us trying to be ahead of the curve. Your blog is like that, only more so. We read you because we want the inside straight on what we’ll be writing about tomorrow that the A-list won’t even get to for months. Courage, mon ami.

    Warmest Regards, Steve

  62. nice post, Ian.

    snort, it’s like bloggy-radi-lefty Old Home night, at this blog. so funny to see so many from so many places here lauding you. of course you deserve it, but i’m just giggling a tad at our self selection. it’s amusing.

  63. scruff

    Ian,
    You are so right.
    Best wishes,

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén