Politicians Behaving Badly

Sen. Jim Bunning has ended his grandstanding, and President Obama has signed the jobless benefits provision that Bunning was holding up.

The question remains, WTF was Bunning doing? Apparently Bunning was ticked off at other Republicans because they weren’t supporting his re-election.

According to some rightie bloggers, Senator Bunning’s Lexington office got a couple of bomb threats. They are attributing these threats to lefties, which of course is absurd. Bunning’s stunt was great news for us, politically. It’s the people whose unemployment benefits were on hold who may have felt otherwise.

Meanwhile, Rep. Charlie Rangel just announced he is stepping down from his post as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, but only temporarily. Rangel is being investigated for a number of ethics violations, and he says he is relinquishing his chair only as long as investigations are ongoing. I say that if even some of the accusations against him turn out to be true — as I suspect they will — at the very least he should lose the chair permanently.

James O’Keefe = Fraud

Scott Shifrel writes in the New York Daily News:

Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.

While the video by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.

“They edited the tape to meet their agenda,” said the source.

Big surprise, not. Of course, this won’t make any dents in wingnut opinions of ACORN.

The Cost of Doing Nothing

One of the biggest frustrations of the way the health care reform “debate” is played out in media is that Republicans have been able to frighten people with the claim of rising premium rates and rising taxes as a result of the Dem program. The reality is that the Dem program, flawed as it is, is a lot more cost-effective than the current mess of a “system.” And there are lots of reasons why an incremental approach won’t work.

Good explanation: Reed Abelson, “The Cost of Doing Nothing on Health Care.” See also Steve Benen.

And then there’s the GOP approach to controlling health care cost, so well summarized as “die faster.”

Deranged and Confused

Somewhere, I read that stress can be measured as the distance between your expectations and your reality. I thought of this when I read the “manifesto” left behind by Joe Stack, the fellow who flew a plane into an Austin IRS building. My impression is of a man who expected something else entirely from his life than what he got, and he was stressed, and angry, about it.

Stack had issues with taxes going back to the early 1980s. He refers to particular parts of the tax code that were changed then, but he doesn’t make clear what was bad about them. Then in 1994 he and his wife did not file tax returns. The reason for this is murky, but my suspicion is that he came to believe he did not have to pay taxes. About that time there was a small movement of anti-government extremists who, through creative reading of the tax codes, had come to the conclusion that there was no law that actually compelled anyone to pay taxes. These people were active on the old USENET newsgroups, which is how I came in contact with them. Note that several of these same people believed the U.S. had been under martial law since the Civil War, and this was somehow connected to American flags with gold fringe around them.

Apparently Stack’s wife divorced him and filed for bankruptcy to get out from under her tax debt, but Stack seems to have stubbornly refused to acknowledge he had done anything wrong. And it appears this act of defiance wrecked the rest of his life. He had considerable financial problems, but he also owned a couple of small planes, which suggests he was far from destitute. Lots of people are worse off, in other words.

The diatribe Stack left behind doesn’t fit neatly into any one ideological cubbyhole. He was angry with government, politicians of both parties, corporations, unions, health insurance companies, the Catholic church and organized religion generally. We can only guess if the “tea party” movement had any impact on him. My impression is that he had been on a self-destructive course for a great many years.

However, it appears some current anti-government extremists are claiming Stack as a martyr to their cause. Frank Rich writes about this in his column today. Although whatever it is that passes for “leadership” among the tea partiers has not publicly embraced Stack, apparently Facebook and many right-wing sites are bursting with praise for him.

On the other hand, the crew at Free Republic is certain he was a leftie. See, for example, Joe Stack’s “manifesto” ends by bashing Capitalism and quoting Marx! (Comment: “This guy sound like a ‘right-wing extremist’ to you? He sounds more like Obama or one of his many revolutionary-left associates!”) (Note: Stack appears to have been mocking Marx more than approving of him, but again, Stack’s political beliefs seem to have been all over the map. Stack’s real beef with capitalism may have been that he failed at it.)

However, I suspect Rich is right about a connection between the Clinton-era right-wing fringe obsessed with black helicopters, citizen militias, Ruby Ridge, and the destruction of David Koresh’s compound in Waco and the current right-wing fringe who are rallying around “tea parties” and threatening secession.

And I think it’s also true that the Republican Party has little control over the tea partiers. Rich writes,

The distinction between the Tea Party movement and the official G.O.P. is real, and we ignore it at our peril. While Washington is fixated on the natterings of Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Michael Steele and the presumed 2012 Republican presidential front-runner, Mitt Romney, these and the other leaders of the Party of No are anathema or irrelevant to most Tea Partiers. Indeed, McConnell, Romney and company may prove largely irrelevant to the overall political dynamic taking hold in America right now. The old G.O.P. guard has no discernible national constituency beyond the scattered, often impotent remnants of aging country club Republicanism. The passion on the right has migrated almost entirely to the Tea Party’s counterconservatism.

I was also struck by this:

A co-sponsor of CPAC was the John Birch Society, another far-right organization that has re-emerged after years of hibernation. Its views, which William F. Buckley Jr. decried in the 1960s as an “idiotic” and “irrational” threat to true conservatism, remain unchanged. At the conference’s conclusion, a presidential straw poll was won by Congressman Paul, ending a three-year Romney winning streak. No less an establishment conservative observer than the Wall Street Journal editorialist Dorothy Rabinowitz describes Paul’s followers as “conspiracy theorists, anti-government zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged.”

Interesting that the truthers have migrated to the Right. They used to be associated only with the Left.

Anyway — recent polling suggests that the tea partiers are disproportionately white, but have average income and education. I remember reading recently that they tended to be middle aged or older, but I can’t find a reference to that now.

What does this tell us? The “tea partiers” on the whole are not the most oppressed and downtrodden among us, just the most pissed off. They’ve got more distance between their expectations and their reality than most of the rest of us.

What are their expectations? What are they pissed off about, really? Because for all their screaming about taxes, most of ’em are not paying more taxes now than they were last year or five years ago. Certainly racism is a factor in much of their animosity to President Obama, but that’s far from the whole story.

According to the “Tea Party Patriots” website, their core values are “Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, Free Markets.” On the surface, not the stuff of angry mobs.

But I don’t think you have to be a psychologist to understand that the anger is being fueled by something else entirely, some horrific chasm between their expectations and their reality. Essentially, you’ve got a lump of middle-class white people who have hit mid-life or older, and their lives haven’t worked out the way they expected. In that way, at least, Joe Stack was one of them. And hey, folks, join the club.

The problem is that when they look for the cause of their problems, they see black helicopters and Big Gubmint, whereas the rest of us see financial sector oligarchy and disaster capitalism. I think I’ve used this analogy before, but they make me think of panicked horses who run back into the burning barn. We laugh at their weird conspiracy theories, but the truth is that the real “conspiracy” is so much bigger and so much scarier than what they imagine.

Why We’re Better

An evolutionary psychologist at the the London School of Economics and Political Science crunched a whole lot of data from a large U.S. sample and found that people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. Also, high-IQ men were also more likely to be sexually exclusive than lower IQ men, but the same correlation was not found in women.

“The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points,” the article says. It would be interesting to me if the same correlations are to be found in other populations, as the U.S. seems to have an abnormally high proportion of, um, cognitively challenged religious conservatives.

Is It Television?

I’m told the health care summit turned out to be mostly political theater, as expected. Sometimes I wonder if mass media itself is part of the problem. If politics were an ecosystem, it would seem the introduction of mass media into the environment has given us a species of politicians who can’t do anything else but political theater.

There has always been plenty of corruption and bamboozling in Washington, but in generations past the corrupt bamboozlers were capable of running a government and passing legislation that made a real difference in people’s lives. Now I look at people like John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and wonder, what the hell do you do, exactly? Because it seems their only real function is going through the motions for the cameras; they aren’t real senators, but just play the role on TeeVee.

The question is, is this new species the wave of the future, or have congressional Republicans (and some conservative Democrats) marched into an evolutionary cul de sac, too over-specialized to adapt to changing conditions? And I do think the way to defeat them is not to attack them individually and directly, but to change the conditions that sustain them. Maybe I’ll address that some other time.

At Slate, Timothy Noah has an interesting observation — the ruling class doesn’t fear the peasants enough.

Starting late in the 19th century and ending late in the 20th, a hugely important engine of social progress was fear on the part of the nation’s leaders that economic inequality, if it were allowed to become too severe, would lead to class warfare and maybe the radical overthrow of the U.S. government. That’s why Andrew Carnegie founded his libraries; it’s why the states ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, creating the modern progressive income tax; it’s why Franklin Roosevelt created the New Deal (“The failure of Republican leaders to solve our troubles,” Roosevelt said when he accepted the Democratic nomination in 1932, “may degenerate into unreasoning radicalism”); it’s why Harvard President James Bryant Conant moved Harvard to a merit-based system of admissions subsequently adopted by other universities; and it’s why every Republican president from Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan pursued domestic economic and social policies only somewhat less liberal than those favored by Democrats.

Of course, it was Reagan who stopped that trend, and beginning in the 1980s income inequality has grown.

But instead of fearing radicalism fueled by income inequality, today’s “conservatives” thrive on it. Instead of dealing with the issues that are causing people to be angry, conservatives just fan the flames to make people more angry, hoping to harness that anger into political power. And it’s worked for them pretty well, so far. But is it sustainable, or will it all flame back into their faces someday?

See also: Paul Krugman, “
Afflicting the Afflicted.”

The Big Lie: Insurance Premium Costs

In case anyone is interested, here is the CBO analysis everyone is claiming says premium costs will go up or go down. You can see for yourself who is lying and who isn’t. Or, who is maybe not lying but instead is reporting the numbers in a way that seems to favor the lie.

For example, The Note claims the CBO analysis says “The net effect of those three factors: Premiums would be 10 to 13 percent higher for the average policyholders.”

This is deceptive The 10 to 13 percent figure applies only to non-group policies. Since the overwhelming majority of people are in group plans, the “average policyholder” is in a group policy. The same analysis shows group policy costs to remain about the same, give or take one percentage point.

Someone not reading carefully, such as Jammie Wearing Fool, might easily take away from the Note that the cost of most people’s insurance policy’s will go up. Not so.

Further, the increase for non-group policy costs comes from the assumption that people will choose to purchase more comprehensive policies. As Ezra explains,

CBO expects prices in the individual market to rise by 10 or 12 percent, an expectation driven entirely by predictions that individuals will purchase policies that are much more comprehensive, and thus somewhat more expensive, then the insurance they can afford now. … as the CBO explains on page five, part of the increase in the type of insurance being purchased is the result of “people’s decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to the structure of subsidies.” In other words, the change is driven by the subsidies, not offset by them.

However, if you keep the non-group policy you already have, the premium cost should go down.