The New Inflation Debate

So, apparently, the great econoratzi have been having a brand new discussion about inflation.  Paul Volker, whom I usually admire, wrote in an Op-Ed in the Times yesterday, damning the idea before it got out the gate.  Volker is roundly credited with getting rid of the 1970s staglfation brought on by slow growth and high unemployment.

Let's begin at the beginning.  Inflation is currently, and has been for over a decade, at incredible lows:
2001 = 2.83 Bush, G.W.
2002 = 1.59
2003 = 2.27
2004 = 2.68
2005 = 3.39
2006 = 3.24
2007 = 2.85
2008 = 3.85
2009 = -0.34 Obama
2010 = 1.64
Inflation, as tracked above, does not include what they call Headline inflation, which I've written about in the past.  It's a basic market basket of goods that does not include objects that have temporaral fluctuations due to external causes, such as drouts, pestilence, hurricanes, fires, real act of god type shit.  Of course there are other factors which influence those goods too, and demand from third and second world countries is now beginning to hit its stride.  So when NPR reported this morning that food prices have gone up nearly 4%--this is not the inflation that gets tracked by the Fed, or by most inflation tracking indexes.

Moving on.  We all know why inflation is bad, we've all seen the pictures from Weimar Germany, or Russia during the 80s and 90s, wheelbarrows of cash to go to the grocery store.  Governments have one basic way to control inflation, through their Central Bank.  The U.S. did not always have a central bank.  It's been a consistent war.  We had one, then we didn't have one, then we had it again. People don't like Central Banks for the same reason they hoard gold.  The Central Bank issues currency, and as such controls the value of said currency.  They can also withdraw currency, by retiring treasury bonds early, or by not issuing them at all.  This is the only thing the Fed can do really.  It controls interest rate by buying, selling, and creating new bonds.  Quantitative Easing, the Discount Window, other things the fed is known for, can both be folded into this concept.

Given that interest rates are so central to investing and money flow, it became apparent, fairly early on that the Fed can exercise enormous power on the economy.  This makes them an exceedingly cautious entity, which in turn makes those who watch it, desperately follow every inflection, nuance and word choice in their carefully worded statements.  Three years ago, in the heart of the crisis (though even before the crisis) the Fed lowered interest rates to almost zero in an effort to stimulate the economy.  With low interest rates, companies can borrow cheaply, goes the theory.  And with cheap money will go investment, new factories, jobs created, etc.  This has simply not worked out.  For starters, as I said, before the crisis, the free wheeling 2000sandsies the rate was at near zero lows already.  Why?  When the money keeps rolling in, you don't ask why.  Simply, the Fed was in Bed with Wall Street.  The Fed has for three years kicked the can down the road and kept interest rates at historic lows, on the premise that when growth comes, at least it will come cheaper.

Now, with Congress deadlocked, and the President unable to do much until the next election, people are looking again to the Fed for guidance.  Afterall, the Fed is controlled by 12 men, sometimes 16, and getting a quorum of 12 dudes, is a hell of a lot easier than getting nearly 600 of the most contentious, often ignorant, and certainly ignoble bastards to agree on anything is pure fantasy.  But what can the Fed do?  It's entire database of knowledge has shown that lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply is the only thing it can do to the economy.  And interest rates are already at zero.  The answer is two things:  1)  Go for another round of quantitative easing (i.e. inflation) or 2) raise interest rates.  They've done 1) with only marginal effect, and a ton of whining, including a death threat from Rick perry, and there is simply no substantive data on what would happen if they did 2) in the middle of a recession.

About three months ago, they chose a middle ground.  They threatened to raise interest rates, in two years.  As I said, so nervous about the Fed are we, that a mere threat to raise interest rates, immediately unleashed a firestorm of criticism.  From even the one dissenting Fed Director, the most conservative, the Federal Reserve of Minneappolis.  I don't know why Minnesota has a federal reserve bank, really I don't.  Not the most exciting state in the union.  Anyway, the purpose, as I understand it, of this threat, was to tell businesses--get on with it.  You're not going to have this great interest rate forever.  Interestingly, the take away of one economist on NPR this morning was to say, "oh great, things will be the same for the next two years, no need to rush."  That's a paraphrase of course.  I did not take this away at all.  If a company is planning a merger, or a to ramp up production, it will take at least six months, if not a full year of planning.  That said--it's all hay anyway, because the Fed really only said it might raise rates in two years.

My apologies my friends, you wanted the NEW debate, and we've only just got here.  The new debate is that some (very few) economists have been suggesting that we actually let inflation rise.  The rationale is simple.  Low inflation is great for people who own debt, because most debt is locked in, mortgage rates, tuition loans, etc.  That means the debtee gets almost a real dollar for every dollar owed.  Add inflation and suddenly, the debtor has more money to pay the loan payments, which per agreement, remains the same.  This is an interesting thought--and for those following the European crisis, is the central problem that Europe faces--they're out of money.  If Greece was on the drachma, they could devalue their currency, and therefore avoid default.  It wouldn't look great, and it would cause massive inflation, but the inflation could be fixed, and it's still better than default.  And the bondholders would still get paid--to be sure, they'd be getting cents on the dollar--but again, still better than default.  And it's not permanent.  A ten-year bond could well rise in value after two years of an inflationary period.

Volker rang out yesterday with condemnation stating that inflation, is afterall, very hard to control.  And it could easily get built into the system.  Such that raising inflation to 3 or 4% wouldn't eventually do much, and we would be tempted to allow inflation to raise again.  Another economist on NPR this morning said much the same, that for rising inflation to accomplish its aim, it would have to go as high as 10-15%, which is indeed, a very dangerous level.  The highest inflation has been in 60+ years was in the last year of the Carter administration (when Volker was appointed) and that was a whopping 13.58%.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea, and the only point I wished to make about this whole thing is that it seems to me that interest rates being near zero, no longer has the stimulative effect that it's credited with.  The rate should get raised, and the rate should fluctuate naturally with the economy, so that it remains a valuable tool when necessary.

Tax Cuts: Apologists in Full Swing

So the first day was anger, and then we skipped two stages of grief and went right to acceptance?  The real tragedy here is that there was never any evidence on the other side of the debate.  The two main arguments for keeping the tax cuts were that they would hurt employment, and that it would decrease overall investment.

The first point was picked apart by Andrew Leonard at Salon yesterday, "that, at best, extending all the tax cuts would lower the U.S. unemployment rate by an additional 0.1 percent by the end of 2012" Add to that the fact that American's tax burden is the lowest its been in 60 years.  American's corporate tax burden is the lowest it's been in 60 years by A LOT.  See the gap between the middle blue hue and the darkest blue, see how it gradually disappears?

The second point is defrayed by the simple fact that corporations are getting the highest profits ever recorded (link to Department of Commerce press release), and are getting the largest pay checks ever reported, and it doesn't matter if 10% of the country is unemployed, because they're obviously the ones who deserve to be, because corporate income taxes are just 11% of 2010's Federal budget receipts, whereas individual and social insurance count for another 82%.  And with all of that money, the Fed still has to grease the wheels with quantitative easing because corporations are hoarding they dolla bills instead of spending them!

And now they're framing this as a New Stimulus bill (link to David Leonhardt's Op-Ed in the NYTimes.)  Right, good frame Democrats, it's not like the Stimulus plan is the most hated American program in the past decade when only 29% of the people think it accomplished anything.  How?  Well, because of the unemployment benefits for starters.  How else?  Because of the 2% cut in the payroll tax.  My prof spoke about this last night, and was completely mystified, couldn't think of any stimulative effect this was going to have.  And in fact, since the payroll tax pays into Social Security is more likely to reduce American's retirement funds than anything else.  My favorite line:  "In exchange, Republicans agreed to extend unemployment benefits, cut payroll taxes and business taxes, and extend a grab bag of tax credits for college tuition and other items." Oh, I'm sure Obama had to suck a couple to get the Republicans to agree to a cut in business taxes.  Puhleeease!

One last point.  I've soliloquised before on why I think tax cuts are the worst kind of stimulus.  I won't belabor the point.  Standard economic theory has proven that the multiplier is much higher for direct government spending than it is for tax cuts.  While stimulus was always a terrible a word, weak, pitiful, indirect, and bureaucratic, this only qualifies as a stimulus in the most threadbare sense of the term.

For the record, I'm told my vernacular is somewhat offensive here.  I have the highest esteem for the President, and there's no shame in "sucking a couple" of lollipops.

Also, I'd like to add a correction to yesterday's post.  I indicated that the expiry of the tax cuts would have an immediate effect come April.  I asked my tax professor about this.  He said that the effects would occur immediately, bringing higher government revenues to bear immediately.  Remember that pay-as-you-go means just that.  Tax Day is just when you find out what, how much, if anything, you may have overpaid.  Also, even if taxes were to go up, if the Republican Congress were to revisit the issue and get a bill passed, it could take effect more or less immediately, and at least all of us would be able to file an amended return.  No harm, no foul.

AEI op-ed in NYTimes: Looks like Women are Equal, Break Out the Champagne

So the American Enterprise Institute published a truly bizarre op-ed in the New York Times today by Christina Hoff Sommers.  Apparently, women's pay is completely equal, and the Pay Check Fairness Act is unduly onerous on American Business, and will crush the spirit of free enterprise.  Of course, those guys at the AEI ain't dummies, they got a woman to write it.  No woman would ever act against the best interests of her sex, so clearly, she must be unbiased.  Oh wait, it's the AEI.  I provided the link to Sommers wikipedia page, nevermind that it quotes ridiculous sources like Reason magazine, it does quote the Washington Post book review of her book The War Against Boys. Her reviewer ended his critique with "[the] book is a work of neither dispassionate social science nor reflective scholarship; it is a conservative polemic."

As usual, the prominent spector of a litigious society looms large in this article.  The AEI purports to defend American business from increased sexual discrimination litigation.  If the AEI spent half as much time promoting behaviors that would decrease the need for discrimination litigation as it does defending unethical business practices (businesses who pay it's wage in donations btw,) it might actually manage to do some good on both fronts.

The whole point of her letter, that there is no need for the act because the pay discrepancy has nothing to do with women being less competent, is defended by Sommers completely unsupported statement that "It overlooks mountains of research showing that discrimination plays little role in pay disparities between men and women."  Not a single link to these mountains of research.  I mean, not even one?  No wait, Sommers does post to another bastion of equal rights, the Wall Street Journal, in the form of a new survey of census data run by Reach Advisors.  That survey caused quite a buzz, but Salon called up the analyst for clarification and there are some important "buts..."  I won't bore you with them, Salon's Tracy Clark Florey, did an excellent job of it. To quote Florey's summation "The fact that ladies these days are getting their learn on like never before, and that this gap is most notable in communities with "knowledge-based" job markets that prize higher education, sends a clear message of how we can help young men to catch up."

Sommers' next point remarks on a quote from a BLS report, “may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”  In the end, Sommers' point is that women seem to work in the social services, and in education and entertainment, and less in the sciences.  She explains that it is flawed reasoning to have this bill signed now when the debate is ongoing, and that "Under the bill, it’s not enough for an employer to guard against intentional discrimination; it also has to police potentially discriminatory assumptions behind market-driven wage disparities that have nothing to do with sexism."  Well, duh!

The point of the act is that it's a tune-up of an act that is already on the books, the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  To fix some of the things that the original act, after thirty seven years, hasn't quite gotten right.  They're not wrong, the trope that math is for boys, reading and art is for girls is still widely upheld, in sciences, but also the financial services industry.  How many girl quants are there out there?  And why?  Is it sexual dimorphism that women aren't equipped with the brains to do math?  To conduct scientific research?  Women and men make their career choices fairly early on, as in, what sort of groups and activities they belong to from the earliest of ages.  And those choices inform their career trajectories for their entire lives.  If misconceptions about what "women are good at" still abound, then the point of the act is completely defendable.

Sommer's last paragraph was what really galled:  "The Paycheck Fairness bill would set women against men, empower trial lawyers and activists, perpetuate falsehoods about the status of women in the workplace and create havoc in a precarious job market. It is 1970s-style gender-war feminism for a society that should be celebrating its success in substantially, if not yet completely, overcoming sex-based workplace discrimination." 

Umm, set women against men?  Really?  Are they going to commence armed hostilities?  Will women start packing heat when they come into the office?  I'm sorry Sommers, I don't get it.  Empower trial lawyers and activists?  Wow, well that's your mission statement right there, I guess the other three hundred words of your letter were just icing on the cake.  Trial lawyers are already empowered, and the deck is stacked on defense, settlements have gone down, and been winnowed away for decades from that 1970s gonzo-style feminism that so galled Sommers.  And what, on earth is wrong with empowering activisim?  Oh wait, you mean liberal activism, so say so lady.  Perpetuate falsehoods?  Now wait a darn minute.  All of the works you cited effectively stated that there was still a wage disparity, just that they had reversed in some instances, and that they were harder to ascertain.  Not that the wage disparity was a falsehood.  That's just blatant spin.  Havoc in a precarious work environment?  Funny that on the one hand, some of her friends at the AEI  want to get rid of unfair labor practices like affirmative action, when male blacks are the single largest unemployed bracket, but on the other hand, it makes affirmative action seem like a swell idea to counter all this rampant feminism going on here. 

It comes down to this:  I find it hard to have an honest discussion with a paid conservative thinktank, who historically aren't interested in equal rights so much as a misperceived notion of the bottom line.  When the only argument against is higher operating costs due to increased litigation, well, I'm sorry, I just don't bite.

1 in 7 Americans lives in Poverty--But they're probably just slackers

So, front page of the New York Times, declaims, Poverty Rate Rose Sharply in 2009.  Not a surprise, really, but it's good that the Times picked up on the story.  I mean, probably not good for the midterms, but hopefully the news will serve to rejigger the Democratic Party to leave behind the spector of the deficit, and think about getting Americans work, and saving the middle class.

Why the middle class, and not the poor?  Well, look at it like this.  Programs for the poor are sinkhole programs.  Necessary evils.  That money is not helping the poor advance, or get out of poverty, it's less than substistence wages.  It's just barely making it.  It's wage slavery.  But it's the only thing they got.  But helping the middle class, that's another story. 

Helping the middle class is economic stimulus.  New business growth will explode, new jobs will appear, education will be more affordable, healthcare reform will lighten the burden of medical hardship.  Providing longer maternity leaves, and giving them to men will encourage young families to stay engaged in the workforce, and continue their careers without fear of economic reprisal.

So, tonight after my tax class, I'm going to raise a pint to the Census bureau and Elizabeth Warren.

New Deflation Fears

I' been singin' this song for two years now.  Inflation is not a fear relevant to our current economic situation:  Deflation is.  And now the Fed is worrying about it too.  But what can the Fed do?  Interest rates are already at zero.  They could buy more treasury notes and increase the money supply, go negative interest, but is that really desirable?

Monetary policy has failed--except for Bernanke's landmark moves to save the financial system from complete meltdown, the country needs a blood transfusion, stat.  And that means, yooouuu guessed it!  More government spending!

Here's the thing.  While politicans respond to polls and Fox news fears about the federal deficit, the States are in serious trouble.  We all know about California, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.  And the states can't run deficits.  They are constitutionally unable to run deficits.  Except for one state, Vermont.  So when the government can't afford to pay their employees, the only way to close the budget will be to institute mass layoffs or accept federal subsidies.  Watch those Republican governer's squirm as they bitch about government spending with their mouths, and greedily go for all the cash they can grab with their hands.  We've already seen that in Louisana.  Go Bobby Jindal!

Let's see who to can first?  Everyone hates bureaucrat's, let's can them.  So no state licensing, no state medical billing, no consumer protection=no new businesses.  Not to mention that every single one of those guys will be eligible for unemployment, raising the deficit higher.  No wait, Republicans want to eliminate unemployment checks.  Ok, that's great.  Well, millions of people aren't going to starve to death, and there are no jobs to have, so let's riot.  So crime will go up, but wait, we've cut down the police force to minimal staffing requirements.  Not to mention our nonexistent state fire departments, so you can count on raging neighborhood fires.  Thousands of homeless.  But wait, let's cut the teachers.  That's a good idea.  So, business goes on as usual except for the fact that public education is at a stand still.  Well at least childcare will go up.  Oh wait, that's not counted in GDP, so there again, continue the downward spiral.  But don't we want to grow the economy?  Not allow for a productivity gap larger than anything the world has experienced since World War II?  Don't count on it.  What else?  Road maintence down, accidents up.  No courts, no justice.  Let alone the markets.  If the SEC were to dissolve say, public companies would be under no obligation to tell the truth to their investors.  Everyone would declare famous profits, and the market would crash in disbelief. 

So yay states rights.  Yay right to life.  Yay personal responsibility.  Boo gay marriage.  Boo Mexicans.  Boo Muslims. 

Yay chaos and anarchy.

So I'm being a little overboard.  True.  If any of this happens at all, it won't happen overnight.  And all it takes will be a taste of blood letting in the streets before politicans on both sides of the aisle get off their hands.  But lest we forget, think Summer of 1967, 1968, and 1969.  Riots and assassinations.  Police brutality, John Birch Society, Black Panthers, riots in a dozen major American cities.  All this has happened here before.  And it can happen again.  And it will happen again.

So forgive me for not being concerned about the deficit.  America's venerability as a debt guaranteeing society does not depend on today's Federal Deficit, it depends on its political stability.  America's economic future does not depend on the money it owes today, it depends on the investment it makes on its people tomorrow.

So Americans vote Democratic.  We ain't great, but we've passed two major, historical pieces of legislation with absolutely no help from the opposition party.  And we're already seeing the effects.  Remember overdraft charges?  In 5 days, you'll never see another overdraft charge again*.  That's what we call consumer protection.

*Caveat.  Provided you 1) opt out.  And 2) This means your card will get declined, so mind your balance!

NYTimes, Alan Grayson - Problem Child

The Times did an unfortunate hit piece on Rep. Alan Grayson. Salon did one last week, after the Rep called a female lobbiest a K-Street whore. The Times piece ended with a nice comment by Barney Frank, but the New York Times wrote the book on good journalism (I know, I know) and so they also know that very people make it to the end of an article anyway.

In the very fourth paragraph, they call Grayson a "wingnut." "Mr. Grayson could be the latest incarnation of what in the American political idiom is known as a wing nut."

I know each side thinks they're right, I know that's the very definition of partisanship. But really? Rush Limbaugh is a wingnut, not because he is a loud voice on the right, but because he is actually really scary. This is a man who despite his October 12th mea culpa, is roundly regarded as openly racist. Now, I mean, the far right is a believer of the aristocratic elite, but is racism, really a defendable political ideology? Shouldn't racism be condemned as a matter of course?

The Times cites Grayson "Then, appearing on MSNBC, he said of former Vice President Dick Cheney: “I have trouble listening to what he says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking.”

Again, this is loud rhetoric, but Dick Cheney actually believes in the value of torture. Ask him. There is no hiding, no obfuscation, no exageration: Cheney believes in torture. That may not make him a vampire, though his involvement in Haliburton and government contracting might make him one, but why should Grayson be condemned for a comment that aptly sums up what any rational person ought to know. Dick Cheney is a dangerous man, and for all intents and purposes has some really filthy, disgusting ideas.

The Times also cites Grayson: "“If you get sick, America, the Republicans’ health care plan is this: Die quickly.” This was the remark that Barney Frank, bless his heart, thought was spot on. And it's the type of rhetoric that America needs to hear more of. It's the type of rhetoric that would shame the Republicans who oppose healthcare reform to do one of two things: 1) Explain why they don't believe that (forcing them to spout factually incorrect data-contrived to make their point, thereby digging themselves deeper or 2) Force the more moderate Republicans to get on board.

Anyway, in true Times fashion, I'll save my apology for the last paragraph. The article isn't that bad. It does say some nice things about Grayson, and being a Problem Child isn't always a bad thing. Buuuuut....no. Fortunately, the American Left does have an outlet now--as opposed to 9 years ago, when the internet was really just a toddler.

I'll close with a Grayson quote I got from Think Progress:

“Rush Limbaugh is a has-been hypocrite loser, who craves attention. His
right-wing lunacy sounds like Mikhail Gorbachev, extolling the virtues of
communism. Limbaugh actually was more lucid when he was a drug addict. If
America ever did 1% of what he wanted us to do, then we’d all need pain
killers.”

Thomas Friedman's - Op-Ed Today

Two blogs in one day! I know crazy! I must have nothing to do!

Hardly.

So Tom Friedman is an interesting columnist at the Times. He's liberally minded, but has an independent streak, and for several years during the Bush era, was pretty uncritical at a time when that sort of thing could have really made a difference.

But he has a piece today which pretty much sums up my opinion on Afghanistan. And Iraq. This will piss off the gf--she's a you break it you, you buy it kind of gal. The buzz on Afghanistan this month from a ton of people ostensibly in the "know" is that the real reason Afghanistan isn't getting any better is that the American presence isn't large enough and that the only a solid, longterm commitment from the US can achieve any lasting stability. NPR and Charlie Rose have been beating that drum to death.

First point: America is a democracy, far far away from Afghanistan. Even if we sent them half a million troops tomorrow--there could never be a firm committment. It would come up every two years at the very least. Foreign policing actions are black holes with a very low rate of success, and are almost unilaterally rife with corruption. So if the venture cannot succeed without a firm committment, and such a commitment is genuinely, logically, impossible--then it stands to reason that we should leave.

Second point: To those that say leaving Afghanistan and Iraq in such a terrible way would inflict a terrible human cost--you're right. But is it so much better now? Sure there may not be any massacres, but the bombs keep blowing up, and the taliban doesn't quit--and I'm not sure that a firm commitment would change that, so what's to gain but more death, and waste.

I spend a lot of time on these pages talking about caring for other people, and so I want you to understand that I do not think I am being hypocritical. But religous fundamentalism is beyond my ken. The handmaidens of fundamentalism, poverty, ignorance and cynicism, are too strong in these places.

The United States needs to regroup at the very least. This half ass continued engagement will be the end of us.

Ross Douthat Op-Ed at the Times

So, Mr. Douthat writes some interesting columns at the Times. As most in the paper's employ, his columns are fairly thoughtful--even for a conservative! This time though I'm mighty peeved.

Douthat suggests that we consider the plans of Martin Feldstein. I haven't read his plan, but Douthat's summary of it is atrocious.

The basic problem with healthcare now, beside the lack of insurance for 30-40 million Americans, and the terribly inadequate care for millions more, is that the costs are rising well beyond what anyone can reasonably be expected to pay. Douthat sums that up well. Where I think he errs, is that he advocates for universal catestrophic coverage. As anyone who has ever had catastrophic plans can attest to--this is an utterly implausible idea.

His words:

"Such a system would provide universal catastrophic health insurance, in other words, while creating a free market for non-catastrophic care. In the process, it would marry a central conservative insight that we'll never control spending so long as Americans are insulated from the true price of their medical care” to the admirable liberal premise that nobody should go bankrupt paying for life-saving treatment.

The details would vary depending on your political predilections. Under the more free-market approach, championed by Harvard's Martin Feldstein, the government would provide vouchers for the purchase of private catastrophic plans. Under a more liberal version, like the one sketched out by Berkeley's Brad DeLong, the government itself would act as the insurer. And liberals and conservatives would no doubt disagree about where to set the income threshold, and what additional interventions to support."

First of all, insurers always argue what merrits a catastrophy, and there's no reason to suggest the government would act differently. So that's debunked. Also, as several commentators point out--the main issues with rising healthcare cost is that current costs are based on a catastrophic coverage already. There isn't enough preventative care, which is cheap and effective, so that people are forced to wait until problems become catastrophic. My gf is a case in point. She was having terrible abdominable pains. For months she sat on them, and just lay beside me on the bed at night, moaning in pain. And she couldn't go to see a doctor, because that was two-three hundred dollars per visit that she didn't have. Finally she was admitted to the hospital, and the bill ended up going into several thousand dollars. Which her catastrophy insurance paid for--and the catastrophic treatment was largely ineffective anyway.

This phrase was particularly offensive to me, "it would marry a central conservative insight that we'll never control spending so long as Americans are insulated from the true price of their medical care." Fuck you Douthat. We are well aware. Every stinkin' one of us. Even the insured. But two or three hundred dollars to have a doctor prescribe advil until things get worse? Bullshit.

I had an ankle sprain earlier this year. My healthcare provider paid for three months of therapy. And they hate that. But if I hadn't had that therapy--I couldn't have gone back to work for months, and may well have had that injury permanently. But no catastrophic plan would ever have paid for that. And left to my own devices, I never could have either.

There is a moral imperative here. The welfare of the people is the government's only going concern. And it's in their best interest. The more we work, the more we earn, the more we pay. Is that free market enough for ya?

And vouchers? Seriously? The voucher system is lousy, ineffectual, and adds entirely too much beauracracy.

Costs are rising. Largely because the government is prevented by law from bargaining with providers, and drug companies. This needs to change. The government is the single largest purchaser of drugs and healthcare--if they're not in the market, then the market prices are inflated and controlled by an oligarchic industry.

Happy Nuptials Jenna

I find myself weirdly happy for George Bush today, as the New York Times reports on his daughter's nuptials. I don't like the man, he is dangerously delusional. But I can't help but feel sympathy for the man. He's been a fuck up his entire life, and being a president hasn't changed that. I have no doubt that when his impressive array of handlers leave his side as he exits the office, that he'll find some other impressive way to fuck up. However, he's like Homer Simpson that way, the only good thing he ever really did was bring children into the world. I don't like Jenna, and I know that she and her hubby are going to spawn Bushies that will continue to plague the earth for generations to come, but for now? It's a wedding. Throw your glass back and shout huzzah!