Talking to the Man, Once Again

So, every so often, I like to reach out to my governmental representatives (OK, and sometimes I like to reach out to other people's representatives, but let's not worry about that now...).

So, today, I sent emails to my guys in the Senate and the House. (Both good, noble men fully worthy of my support. So far.) And, because I'm lazy, they were identical except for the greeting. (I've mentioned that I'm lazy, right? Because it's true.) And it went like this.

Dear Sen. Bingaman, (or "Rep. Heinrich," depending)

The Republicans are now trying to spread the lie that the penalty that's imposed under the Affordable Care Act for not having health insurance is a tax. You should probably get out in front of this, and for one good reason.

If it's a tax, they can repeal it through the reconciliation process.

Fortunately, this is easy to rebut. Justice Roberts didn't say that the penalty is a tax: what he said was, it was legal for Congress to levy a penalty in exactly the same way that it is legal for them to apply a tax.

And if you go to his opinion (all 150 pages or so), Roberts comes right out and said that it isn't a tax.

Page 11:

Before turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have the authority to do so. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessmentor collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the per-son against whom such tax was assessed. 26 U. S. C. §7421(a). This statute protects the Government’s abilityto collect a consistent stream of revenue, by barring litigation to enjoin or otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes.

Translation: "We can't rule on it if it's a tax. We're ruling on it. Think about it." Page 12:

According to amicus, by directing that the penalty be “assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes,” §5000A(g)(1) made the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to this penalty.

The Government disagrees. It argues that §5000A(g)(1) does not direct courts to apply the Anti-Injunction Act,because §5000A(g) is a directive only to the Secretary of the Treasury to use the same "methodology and procedures" to collect the penalty that he uses to collect taxes. Brief for United States 32–33 (quoting Seven-Sky, 661 F. 3d, at 11).

We think the Government has the better reading.

Translation: "This guy says it's a tax; the government says it isn't. We agree with the government."

So, later on, (page 35) when he writes "The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty," he isn't saying it's a tax, just explaining what part of the Constitution applies (which is why he phrased it "may for constitutional purposes be considered").

You need to keep them from taking over the argument by rewording reality. Go out on the floor and explain, on the record, in simple words, that life doesn't work like that.

If you want to get the attention of the media, apologize that reading is so difficult for our Republican friends. Or explain that things like this are why the Texas GOP is trying to ban critical thinking.

Or maybe explain that, if they're so upset that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional after all, they should consider getting on anti-depressants. After all, admitting that you suffer from depression isn't going to count as a preexisting condition any more.

Time for an investigation

It's unfortunate that the GOP has enough power that they've neutered most consumer protection agencies in their attempts to allow rich people to continue stealing from the poor.

The question of the moment, though, is whether they can cover up fraud.

What you might have missed last week, during the debate over the debt ceiling being raised, was the trigger for a huge dip in the bond market. Someone placed a single buy of one billion dollars on the bond futures market. One of the largest single purchases in recent history, betting on the US economy getting worse and our credit rating getting downgraded.

The question that needs to be asked is, was it insider trading?

I believe what happened is a debt-ceiling deal was done in Washington and leaked to a major proprietary trader. Everyone knows the debt negotiations in Washington have been an extreme game of brinksmanship between political parties, but now someone knows how that game played out.

This had the hallmarks of one of the largest bond shops in the world knowing something the rest of the market didn't.

The number of shops or even central banks that can take on this level of market risk is extremely small.

So, who was willing to bet that, two weeks later, the US credit rating would be downgraded from AAA to AA+?

For that matter, was it somebody in Congress? Somebody who had a hand in the idiotic behavior of the GOP these past few months, which directly caused the downgrade?

For example, Eric Cantor was one of the key reasons that the budget ceiling negotiations didn't reach an agreement for so long, and when the economy took a hit like it just did, Cantor made a bundle.

(Here's a new phrase for you: "Conflict of interest." Look it up.)

After all, if insider trading is illegal on Wall Street, it seems to me that it should be illegal in Congress, too. It isn't, but it should be.

It's never going to happen. Why would a Congresscritter vote to stop making money based on the laws he's passing? Which leads to a similar question: why would Congress vote to raise taxes on the richest Americans, when the majority of them - including most of the new Teabaggers - are millionaires?

THE CONGRESS EVERYONE LOVES TO HATE

Remarkable!  Moments after I left a comment under tnlib’s latest post, I found this story at the NBC News website, The Do-Something Congress:

This Congress … accomplished more, legislatively, than any other Congress since the 1960s (the Great Society) or the 1930s (the New Deal). In the past two years, it has:

• expanded the safety net with the health-care law;
• invested billions in the nation's roadways, airports, schools, and green technologies with the stimulus;
• reformed the nation's financial system with financial reform;
• passed billions in tax cuts for Americans with the stimulus and the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts
• expanded civil rights with the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don't Tell."

And in its final piece of business, the Senate is currently working on one of the White House's top foreign-policy goals: ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. Then throw in all of the other legislation enacted this Congress, like credit-card reform and the Lilly Ledbetter anti-pay-discrimination act.

(…)

Yet as we -- and others -- have pointed out before, political power in Congress comes and goes.  What truly matters is what you do with it when you have it.

To repeat what I said earlier under tnlib’s post:

If Jane Hamsher had her way, Congressional Democrats and Republicans would be locked in mortal combat, and none of this would have happened.

There is much to be admired in the patient and pragmatic approach – in contrast to being dogmatic and self-sabotaging. I will say this of folks who allow themselves to get angry in any debate: If you feel you must trade on anger to win an argument, then you have defaulted on any claim to win by persuasion.

So Jane, how is that hopey changey thing working out for you? It works quite well, IMHO.

Too much business

It's one of those things many Obama supporters hoped he would do, and do quickly. It's also one of those things nobody should have expected him to be able to do given any amount of time. I'm talking about the malignant, corrupting influence of unfettered, and unlimited lobbying.

Amidst the chorus singing about too much government influence in the oil industry being the culprit in the Gulf Oil Disaster (along with the president, of course) isn't it time to listen to the quiet voices trying to remind us that it's too much business involvement in Government that's corrupting both sectors? Of course they're quiet only in comparison, because the volume of noise is directly proportional to the volume of oil bucks and Gas bucks and the volume of Republican/Corporate money wells pumping away at the opportunity to make even more through more obfuscation and deregulation.

If The Washington Post has it right and 3 out of 4 oil and gas lobbyists were formerly part of the Federal Government, we have to believe that congress isn't going to find fault with a practice that can offer lucrative employment to the departing congressman or the promise of election support that opens the spigot of campaign financing from those industries. No, I don't see Obama doing much about it. In fact I don't see us or anyone else doing much about it. We just can't afford to compete.

Pathologizing Dissent, or Deja Vu All Over Again

Hendrik Hertzberg, from The New Yorker magazine, whose political commentary I usually enjoy and agree with, has just added himself to the growing and not-so-illustrious line of those who mock and dismiss critics of our so-called health care reform bill, in his piece aptly titled -- because of its unintentional self-mockery -- Um, Pathetic.

To his credit, Hertzberg, somewhat reluctantly, admits that the bill has “conspicuous flaws,” but he breezily absolves our lawmakers of their responsibility for them, maintaining, rather unconvincingly, that our Congress is an inanimate entity, impervious to human feelings, thoughts, or intentions.

A curious observation, that, especially in light of the various astounding concessions our supposedly unfeeling and unthinking Senators (OK, there may be some truth to it) were able to intentionally finagle for their votes. For example, the sweet and jaw-dropping Medicaid deal for Nebraska secured by just one (allegedly unfeeling and unthinking) individual Senator, Ben Nelson. Or a mind-boggling provision giving Medicare benefits to all citizens of one town in Montana, obtained by Senator Baucus. (This begs an obvious question: if it can be done for all citizens of one whole town, why not for all citizens of our country?)

For an inanimate, unfeeling entity, the Senate members have shown remarkable, life-like nimbleness and skills in securing favorable concessions on their own behalf (because, let’s face it, they were negotiated with an eye on their upcoming elections).

Furthermore, Hertzberg does something even more unsavory in his attempt to excuse the Senate and President Obama from bearing responsibility for the "conspicuous flaws" of this bill: he joins the chorus of those who pathologize dissenting critics, even though his attempts at this untoward exercise are somewhat less heavy-handed than those done by the White House.

But Hertzberg too ridicules people like Howard Dean (whom the White House called “insane,” “irrational” and “uninformed”), Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann, Ralph Nader, and others. Not that he gives any space in his column to discussing the merits of their criticisms – he dismisses them off hand, attributing to the critics' thinking a “pathetic fallacy:" that of considering our Congress to be populated by living and breathing human beings.

Hertzberg says,

The pathetic fallacy is a category mistake. It’s the false attribution of human feelings, thoughts, or intentions to inanimate objects, or to living entities that cannot possibly have such feelings, thoughts, or intentions—cruel seas, dancing leaves, hot air that “wants” to rise.

Ah, yes, cruel seas and dancing leaves. Just like our Congress.

To think of it, accusing one of cultivating a “pathetic fallacy” is only a tiny bit less offensive, if at all, than calling one “insane” (as it was done to Howard Dean). But the overall message is the same: the critics of the insurance reform must be, well - what’s the word? – crazy. Their thinking is seriously and "pathetically" compromised. That’s the diagnosis at which Hertzberg and others in his camp arrive without giving any consideration to the merits of the critics’ objections.

For some of us, this trend to pathologize dissent has the familiar aura of the way the Soviet government dealt with its critics, labeling them psychotic if they dared to voice their opposition to its policies. The next step was forced hospitalization and “treatment” – thankfully, Hertzberg et al. are not advocating that. Yet.

Instead, they issue soothing assurances from experts, like Paul Krugman who calls this massive and mandatory transfer of the American working and middle-class into the hands of private corporations “a great achievement.”

Reasonable people disagree on this. Rather than “establishing the principle that all Americans are entitled to essential health care,” as Krugman says (quoted by Hertzberg), the bill clearly establishes that all Americans are to be sacrificed like lambs on the altars of the corporate profits – or be punished if they refuse to participate in the sacrifice.

Call it what you will, but please do not call it a “great achievement,” or, even worse, a historic health care overhaul, as our grandiose and self-serving lawmakers and pundits are prone to do. That’s as offensive and possibly harmful as being diagnosed insane for pointing out the unpalatable obvious.

Hertzberg also compares the current legislation to the troubled and imperfect process of enacting Medicare under, first, Kennedy, and then Lyndon Johnson, as if forgetting that Medicare is a government-run program and not yet another corporate enterprise (which is what this health insurance reform effectively turns our health care into).

He lectures angry progressives, in the condescending manner of one who can so capably point out others' pathetic fallacies, that their indignation would be better directed at what an earlier generation of malcontents called “the system”—starting, perhaps, with the Senate’s filibuster rule, an inanimate object if there ever was one.

Curiously, or not at all, somehow Hertzberg does not seem to appreciate a possible fallacy creeping into his own reasoning -- that trying to change "the system" is only slightly more challenging than trying to change individual minds of "the system's" members.

But you know what they say: one man's fallacy is another's New Yorker's commentary.

Last but not least: Hertzberg takes exception to those who call Obama a “liar.” All right. What should we call the President then, if he has broken his major campaign and early presidential promises pertaining to the health care reform (e.g., on drug price controls and importation, public option, tax increases – you know, all those things that would make this legislation a real reform, and not just putting lipstick on the corporate pig)?

Not only that, but when recently asked about his abandonment of the public option, Obama stated that he never campaigned on it or promised it, which flies in the face of verifiable facts (i.e., his own documented statements). If these are not lies, what should we call them – terminological inexactitudes perhaps?

On one thing, however, I agree with Hertzberg: yes, it is all, um, pathetic.

Cross-posted from The Middle of Nowhere.