Jon Henke's blog

President Obama gave a speech tonight extolling the virtues of getting his way on health care reform, and paying for it by finally tracking down the Bigfoot of federal spending: Medicare Waste.  Politicians have stalked it for decades on campaign trails, yet this elusive savings has never been captured by actual politicians. (Note: Perhaps "the Flying Dutchman of federal spending" would be a better metaphor; table it for now)  Cato @ Liberty has a good live-blog.

But let's skip a discussion of Democratic health care proposas for the moment.  And let's skip the standard Republican proposals - inter-state health insurance markets, tort reform, ending the employer-based health insurance problem, etc.

What health care reform proposals should Republicans consider? I'll start with a couple:

• Safety Net: Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid and replace it with Megan McArdle's suggestion: "catastrophic federal insurance for those whose medical bills exceed 15-20% of gross income".  The safety net would still be in place for everybody - stronger, even - but it would be more targeted on actual need and unpredictable, catastrophic health care bills.  Plus, since insurance companies wouldn't have to worry about unpredictably escalating costs, health insurance should cost dramatically less.

• Break up the Medical Cartels: Absurdly restrictive licensing barriers to providing even rudimentary care make health care very, very expensive.  Any parent can tell you children's ear infections are about as common as weekends.  And they're about as hard to diagnose, too.  Yet, instead of just picking up the amoxicillin over the counter and giving it to the crying child (20 minutes, tops), parents have to spend a very substantial portion of a day trying to see the doctor (and kids never have ear infections during regular doctor's hours) and getting a prescription filled.  That's insane.  It doesn't take a decade's worth of medical training to diagnose an ear infection.  So let's have a more graduated licensing system, with vocational schools teaching the lower-level diagnostics and treatments.  Let's expand the Physician's Assistant and Nurse Practitioner classifications (a good start), so that more people can provide more health care options (supply) at lower prices. 

Your turn. 

Megan McArdle has previously postulated Jane's Law.

Jane's Law: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

I think it's a good generalization about very broad political dynamics.  Thinking about that this weekend, I came up with the following psychological spectrum.  People tend towards the left side of the spectrum when it comes to allies; towards the right side of the spectrum when it comes to opponents.

Cognitive biases are a natural human tendency and none of us (including me) are immune to them.  It is useful to be aware of the problem.

The reaction to the WorldNetDaily story has been remarkable and I appreciate those that have offered support.  I would encourage people to continue contacting me about which organizations on the Right are, or are not, working with WorldNetDaily.

[1] Let's start with good news: WorldNetDaily will not be at CPAC next year.  I exchanged emails with the CPAC organizer earlier today and she told me this:

[WorldNetDaily founder Joseph] Farah asked if he could speak on the issue (birther movement), but that isn't something we're interested in.

Rejected.  Well done.  There are a couple other demagogues who appeal to our baser instincts that I would like to see CPAC decline to host, too, but this is a very positive step.  Kudos, CPAC.

If any other organizations wish to let it be known that they also reject or renounce association with WorldNetDaily, please email me.

[2] Almost everybody seems to have a misconception about what I'm doing here. I have not called for a reader boycott of WorldNetDaily.  I don't think that would do much good, anyway.  Like Alex Jones, Joseph Farah and WND will have readers; there's a market for the bunker mentality and criticism only rallies them. (shrug) It's not my goal to persuade the true believers.  If they didn't reason their way into it, they probably won't reason their way out of it.

What I have argued is that credible organizations on the Right should not be supporting or encouraging the fevered swamps. If they do, the Right should not support them.  Most coverage seems to have misunderstood this.

[3] After my post on the RNC's non-response to my questions, I had hoped the RNC might do the right thing and provide answers - hopefully, the right answers. Integrity can be difficult in the short term, but it's important...and it's better than letting the world watch you try to hide in plain sight. Unfortunately, I have not heard a word from them. Nothing.  That is disappointing. 

[4] I very much appreciated Patrick Ruffini's thoughtful comments.  He is right.  The Joe-The-Plumberization of the Right is dangerous.  Echo chambers reinforce and magnify errors. We need more Bill Buckley and less Bill O'Reilly.

[5] I always appreciate Robert Stacy McCain's blogging - he really is a terrific writer - but he misunderstands my argument about WorldNetDaily.  I'm not calling for a "purge" of the grassroots and I certainly hope we don't have to choose between "grassroots" and "reality". If we do have to choose between the two, we lose.  William F. Buckley's rejection of the John Birch Society is a very important precedent, so it's worth remembering how Buckley responded to criticisms of his editorial.

It was precisely my desire to strengthen the ranks of conservatism that led me to publish the editorial. Our movement has got to govern. It has got to expand by bringing into our ranks those people who are, at the moment, on our immediate Left - the moderate, wishy-washy conservatives; the Nixonites… I am talking… about 20 to 30 million people… If they are being asked to join a movement whose leadership believes the drivel of [the Birch Society leadership], they will pass by crackpot alley, and will not pause until they feel the warm embrace of those way over on the other side, the Liberals."

My view is this: If Republicans don't clean up their own house, they cannot govern.  They may win elections again, but they won't be able to do anything with it; they won't know what to do with it. [See: 2001-2009]  We can't have a two-party system composed of Democrats and Not-Democrats.

Beating Democrats is not enough.  We need to actually have something worth beating them with.

[6] Conor Friedersdorf makes an important point.

One problem on the right is that loyalty to the grassroots is defined by how shamelessly one panders to them. Thus a talk radio host who crafts an inaccurate news narrative that plays to the prejudices of his audience is deemed a loyal player advancing the movement’s ends, whereas a blogger who points out how his words mislead listeners about reality is considered an obstacle to the cause who is overly concerned about playing fair.

Unlike some in the media, I don’t regard the grassroots on the right as uniquely insane. I’ve done enough reporting at that level to know that most Americans on the right and left are reasonable people acting in good faith. The right’s fringe problem at this moment in time is one that elites have created as much as any crazy fringe righty. Outfits ... deliberately play on the worst impulses of the conservative base, stoking their paranoia and misleading them about reality, all for the sake of bigger audiences and greater revenues. That ought to outrage anyone who actually respects the grassroots, and has their best interests at heart.

This is not a problem unique to the Right.  After all, "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."  Next, one hopes, comes regeneration.

After I argued that credible organizations on the Right should not support the conspiracy peddling of WorldNetDaily, it was pointed out that the RNC appears to have rented access to the WND email list.  So I emailed the RNC to inquire about it and encourage them to stop. 

My question was: "Is the RNC really renting the World Net Daily email list?"  This was the response from the RNC Press Secretary:

Nice to meet you. Pls note that we have already weighed in on the birther issue -- weeks ago.  Thanks.

The Press Secretary then appended a NYT story in which this was their response:

“Chairman Steele believes this is an unnecessary distraction and that the president is a U.S. citizen,” said Gail Gitcho, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. “He wants to move on and continue talking about real and immediate issues that are facing our nation, like health care and the economy. Chairman Steele has other issues to take up with the president having to do with policy, not a birth certificate.”

So, the sum total of the RNC's response was (a) Obama is "a U.S. citizen", but (b) we want to ignore this Birther story, (c) we're not saying whether or not we're working with the Birthers, and (d) we're just going to completely ignore the actual question you asked.

I sent two follow up emails requesting clarification on the following points.

1. Are the Birther claims a "distraction" or are they false?
2. Was the RNC renting/using the WorldNetDaily email list or otherwise engaged in anything with WorldNetDaily?
3. Is the RNC currently engaged in any way with WorldNetDaily?
4. If the RNC has used the WorldNetDaily email list, does the RNC regret doing so?
5. Will the RNC renounce future engagement with WorldNetDaily?

The RNC has not responded to either of my emails.  So, in addition to the questions listed above, here are a few more questions:

1. Why will the Republican National Committee not clearly say that the Birther claims are categorically false and that President Obama was born in the United States?
2. Why will the Republican National Committee not answer whether or not they paid money to WorldNetDaily?
3. Why will the Republican National Committee not distance itself from organizations and people who are peddling these ridiculous, disgraceful conspiracy theories?

In the 1960's, Goldwater and a few Republicans had the integrity and guts to denounce the irresponsible fringe in the fevered swamps of the Right.  Today, as far as I can tell, the Republican National Committee works with them.

If the RNC responds further - and I hope they do - I will update this post with that response.

I'm going to post more follow up on the WorldNetDaily issue - including the response I've gotten from the RNC - but first a round-up of the responses we've gotten from WND and their charming readers.

Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily...

• He says my call for right-of-center organizations to stop supporting WND's conspiracy peddling is "bullying tactics". 
• He says he has never heard of me.
• He says that WND didn't say they were "concentration camps"; they just said that the legislation "appears designed to create the type of detention center" that people "fear" could be used as "concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany."  He calls this "nuanced".
• He claims I have called "for an all-out jihad against WND."
• He says, "Am I scared? No, folks. I'm not." and says he's just standing up for "truth".

In The Washington Times, Farah "questioned Mr. Henke's motives and standing", arguing that The Next Right is "pretty much a Republican establishment group who has worked for the RNC and the Republican Party and I can certainly understand why a group like that would have problems with World Net Daily." He added "these are not journalists, they are political activists who have their own agendas."

So, he's taking the "you can't handle the truth!" approach so beloved by true believers and conspiracy theorists.  He also seems to think I'm part of the "Republican establishment" and aligned with the RNC.  This is an interesting argument, considering the fact that I'm trying to get the RNC to stop working with Joseph Farah.

Some WorldNetDaily readers also wrote to offer feedback. 

Dave says I'm a Commie Leftist or RINO and he does't read this blog.

"Tell me son are you a Commie Leftist incognito or just a RINO being stupid? I've read WND for years, which is more than I can say for your blog. I can't wait to read your blog after BO gets his army of maggots after you one day."

Randy Curtis says Birchers and Birthers were right and I've drunk the Kool-Aid

Actually you are embarrassing to the right but you wouldn't know the right from Adam's off ox.  History is showing that the Bircher's were right and while the "Birthers" may not be correct in their accusations they are right in demanding that Obama show what he has in order to prove what he says.  Instead he spends thousands to stop people from questioning him.  This is not a problem for you?  These questions could end tomorrow and we could look ar his Socialist agenda if he would put up.   Have another sip of Kool-aid and go to sleep since you disregard the founding documents and their principles. If you belong to the right then you should appreciate WND.

Carmen Valdes says I must be enjoying the traffic from WND (actually, WND doesn't really send much traffic) and I'm a communist:

you must be basking in the sun with all the free publicity you must be getting from Farah's editorial in WND directing traffic to your unknown little hole.  since you are in the same bed as media matters and the huffinton post no serious normal thinking conservative would be associated with the likes of you. why don't you direct your efforts to exposing obama's administration being run by communists and terrorists? what am i thinking? you are one of them

Jeffery says I am an "enemy of American", he's going to troll the web attacking me and our CAPTCHA sucks:

YOU sir are an enemy of America in the WORSE FORM! www.wnd.com is one of the FEW REAL INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST LEFT!! So I will be posting and suggesting a boycott of YOUR MOVEMENT all over the net today and the rest of the week, then month and maybe even year unless I see a retraction of some type from wnd.com. Have a good day. By the way your "captcha" makes no sense, the first word is no "word" at all.

Gunnery Sgt D.C. Robertson threatened me with violence and wrote a lot of things that I'm going to redact.

Jon,I hope you get a triple case of AIDS the next time you take it up the a**, you f*****g homo.  You and your putrid ilk put that Comie n****r in the White House and accidently woke up the silent majority of white, Christain, tax-paying Americans.  No longer will the soul of this great nation be intimidated by political correctness.   You f****d up buddy and now you have a front row seat to see the newly awakened vanquish the cancer of fascism from this land.  Oh, by the by, I do hope to meet you in person some day for a bit of attitude adjustment.Semper Fi, Motherf****r.

Plungeon offered his thoughts in ALL CAPS.  That's way more convincing than those sentence case arguments.

SHOULD WE FOLLOW OUR CONSTITUTION OR NOT?  DO THE TERM "NATURAL BORN" MEAN NUTTIN' TO YOU ALL?!  AHH....THE 14TH AMENDMENT: IS YOUR POSITION THAT WHEN AN ILLEGAL ALIEN DROPS A NEWBORN BABY ON OUR SOIL THAT THE BABY IS A U.S. CITIZEN?  IF SO, TRY REREADING OUR CONSTITUTION CORRECTLY!!!!!!!!!

J.T. Wheeler thinks I was put up to this in order to help somebody stage a "coup".

You smell like a liberal.  It sounds like someone put you up to a hit piece on WND, to help commence a staged "right-wing" coup.

I wear the criticisms of Joseph Farah and his WorldNetDaily supporters like a badge of honor.

This is just hideously embarrassing for the Right.

[T]he Web site Worldnetdaily.com says that the government is considering Nazi-like concentration camps for dissidents. Jerome Corsi, the author of "The Obama Nation," an anti-Obama book, says that a proposal in Congress "appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany."

In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being "so far removed from common sense" and later said "We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet.  The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration.  For instance, I have been told that F.I.R.E (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) - an otherwise respectable group that does important work - uses the WND email list.  They should stop. [SEE UPDATE II]

No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles.  Those who do are not respectable. 

I think it's time to find out what conservative/libertarian organizations support WND through advertising, list rental or other commercial collaboration (email me if you know of any), and boycott any of those organizations that will not renounce any further support for WorldNetDaily.

UPDATE

I have inquired with F.I.R.E., but they have not responded to my email.  I will attempt to get an answer from them again.  If you know or can contact somebody with F.I.R.E, please let me know what you hear.

I have also inquired with the RNC, which appears to have recently paid for access to the WorldNetDaily email list.  I have not gotten a substantive response from the RNC yet.

In the meantime, I would encourage you to (a) email me with any substantive information you have on what other right-of-center groups advertise on, or rent email lists from, WorldNetDaily, and (b) email or call to let these groups know that Republican, conservative or libertarian groups should not support Birther/Concentration Camp conspiracy theories.

UPDATE II

I tried to contact F.I.R.E. yesterday before publishing this and I tried again today, but never received a response.  However, David Mastio, Senior Editor for Online Opinion and Innovation at the Washington Times, emails to tell me the response he got from F.I.R.E.

I called Fire and talked to the Veep Robert Shibley.

According to him, Fire rented a list from WND through a third party broker on one occasion (SOP for list rental) and does not have any continuing relationship or plans to rent from them again. He says that they were not aware of any loopy views espoused by WND as they didn't see a need to investigate before they rented the list.

I think that is a reasonable and satisfactory explanation from F.I.R.E.

I argue that Republicans could actually win the environmental argument, improve energy efficiency and foreign policy issues and kneecap Democratic attempts to impose cap-and-trade by supporting the elimination of the payroll tax in exchange for a carbon tax. Not only would be good policy (the payroll tax reduces positive externalities; the carbon tax reduces negative externalities), it would take a central issue off the table for Democrats.

So I'm heartened to see a promising Republican candidate who sees the opportunity...

Instead of turning to a complex system of cap-and-trade credits to combat global warming, the country should consider a carbon tax that is “more simple and straightforward” for businesses and consumers, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate said Monday. “I’m not fooled by cap and trade,” said Rob Simmons, who is angling to unseat U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd in next year’s election. [...]

He said the government ought to “call it what it is” — a carbon tax — and take on the issue directly. Generally, most of those pushing for a carbon tax instead argue that its simplicity would prevent the need for more bureaucratic oversight, drive out speculators and offer the chance to return any taxes collected through payroll or income tax reductions.

Improve the environment, reduce congestion, reduce dependence on oil, pay less money to tyrannies, elimate the payroll tax, beat Democrats at their own game and do it all without raising total taxes at all or giving government (or industry) more control over the market? I can get onboard with that. 

UPDATE: (sigh) Never mind.  See the comment section at the news article, where the Simmons campaign manager says "Rob Simmons does not support a carbon tax. He does believe that supporters of "cap and trade" should be more straightforward about their intentions and propose a carbon tax if that is what they desire so the American people can make a clear judgment about the consequences of such a policy - a policy Rob opposes."

We could eliminate the payroll tax and take this environmental issue off the table for Democrats. But no, Republicans are content to keep the payroll tax and settle for complaining about Democrats.

This GOP Senior Health Care Bill of Rights is a depressing example of the kind of Keynesian Political Strategy of that now defines the Republican Party.

• Protect medicare and not cut it in the name of health care reform
• Prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors
• Prohibit efforts to ration health care based on age
• Prevent government from interfering with end-of-life care discussions
• Ensure seniors can keep their current coverage
• Protect veterans by preserving tricare and other benefit programs for military families

What exactly is the message here? That Republicans think Medicare is peachy? Republicans are now the Party of the Entitlement Status Quo?

The Democrats tried to address Iraq like this in 2004.  Their proposals amounted to "The same, but....better! And less expensive! No hard choices for America! Please like us."

The GOP is doing the same thing on health care.  This is not a policy vision; it is a campaign vision.  The message is: We want to pick off some senior citizen votes in 2010.

On the off chance that the Republican leadership is listening to anybody but their campaign operatives these days: The horse is supposed to go in front of the cart.  Policy should not be made by polling.  Campaign committees and operatives should be selling policy, not making it.

Democrats have excelled at creating the impression that wages have been stagnant or even declining in recent decades (which is inaccurate), so this sort of thing is important to emphasize. We really are getting richer. (bullet points added for clarity)

While looking for something else, I stumbled across this Census report on household income from 2006.  What's really interesting is to look at the percentage of households in each income category and how that's changed over time.  If the prophets of doom and decline and rising inequality are right, we would expect to see, I'd think, lots more rich households and lots more poor ones as the supposed gap widens.  Some prophets of doom might expect to see fewer households in the upper brackets as the highest income categories are dominated by a few people getting very, very rich.

The reality, as it turns out, is different. 

• From 1980 to 2006, the percentage of US households earning $100,000 or more (in constant 2006 dollars) grew from 8.6% to 19.1%.
• The percentage between $75k and $100K grew from 10.3 to 11.3 percent. 
• At the other end, the percentage under $15K fell from 16.6% to 13.4% and
• [T]he percentage between $15K and $34K fell from 26.2% to 23.3%.
• Thus all three categories below $35K fell a total of 6.1 percentage points. 

The middle classes fell too, though by less.   The sum total across the $35K to $75K categories fell by 5.4 percentage points.  In other words:  the net movement of households was an 11.5 percentage point gain in households above $75K and a net reduction of 11.5 percentage points in houses below $75K.  So the percentage above $75K rose from 18.9% to 30.4%.  That is, it increased by over 50%. Let me repeat that:  over 30% of US households in 2006 earned above $75K compared to under 20% in 1980.  Over the same period, the percentage of US households earning under $35K fell from 42.8% to 36.7%.  Fewer households are poor, fewer are middle class, and a hunk more are above $75K.

Democrats say they'll "go it alone on a health bill", which sounds all mavericky and bold and makes progressives quiver with excitement.

Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.

But let me translate that into practical, electoral terms:

Given hardening [voter] opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of [winning many seats in 2010 if they pass a controversial bill], and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks [that allows Democrats to vote whichever way is most likely to get them reelected].

"Go it alone" = optimizing their chances for re-election.  Remember, you don't win elections by winning a legislative fight.  Winners don't need to turn out again; they already won.  You win elections by convincing your base that you are in a fight and victory is just around the corner...if we win this election.

This is how it will likely shake out:

• YES: Blue District Democrats will vote for the Exciting Progressive Health Care Plan, and then go home and tell everybody how principled they were.
• POLLING: Swing District Democrats will take a principled stand one way or the other just as soon as their internal polling is finished.
• NO: Red District Democrats will vote against the unfortunate bill that just isn't right for America but if you reelect me I'll vote for Free Health Care and Unicorns For Everybody.
• ATTACK: Democratic challengers, unencumbered by actual votes or responsibility, will be free to attack their opponents on whichever grounds seems most useful, and (like Red District Democrats) will promise lower costs, more coverage and a pony.