Jon Henke's blog

WSJ: "Economists ... Say Recession Is Over"

Pro Publica: "Just 12 Percent of Stimulus Money Has Been Spent"

Big Government has saved us!  Can it please stop now?

Since Pelosi and Hoyer's House Commentary on Un-American Activities informs us that "drowning out opposing views is simply un-American", let me resurrect the views of some of our friends on the Left. A few years ago, when the "Angry Left" was upset that their anger was being ridiculed, they argued that anger was good and criticism of anger was just a lazy, dishonesst diversion.

Daily Kos (Kos) explains that it's understandable that the powerless party is angry, and the party in power shouldn't be upset about that.

We're everywhere! So angry! Snarl! Grrr!

Though what I really want to know is why conservatives are so angry. Always snarling and snapping about evil liberals. Heck, they control everything. If something's wrong, it's their fault. Not the powerless Democrats snipping at their heels.

If Democrats had the trifecta I'd be in heaven. It'd be bliss. Everyday would be a party. Confetti, good beer, and party hats, all around.

But not them. They're still angry.

Daily Kos (Georgia10) explains that it is a diversionary "copout" to focus on the angry people, rather than the more important issues at hand...

The whole "angry left" myth is a copout, an escape-hatch for those who are confronted by fact and choose to respond by attacking the messenger rather than the message. It's a cowardly tactic that originated on the radical right (see Malkin and the "moonbats"); lately, we have seen its use on the rise in the traditional media.  It is, indeed, a pathetic diversionary tactic.  Instead of addressing the substance of the critique, those who use the easy-out "angry left" defense avoid addressing the true issue at hand. 

Glenn Greenwald explains that it is "intellectually lazy" and "deceitful" to point to some angry people and "ascribe those attributes generally to some larger group"...

There is no cheaper or emptier form of argumentation than to isolate a specific individual, describe her, and then, without any basis, ascribe those attributes generally to some larger group -- in this case, a much, much larger and more diverse group -- of which she is ostensibly a part. ... [The] pre-ordained goal here is to depict the blogosphere as a content-free venting ground where death wishes are heaped upon George Bush, so he simply searches those comments out and then holds them up as illustrative of the blogosphere. [...]

The Washington Post alone has published several articles in the last couple months which suggest, imply or outright state that the blogosphere generally, and the liberal blogosphere in particular, is irresponsible and filled with raged-driven radicals who are as extreme as they are irrelevant. ... Needless to say, the most simplistic and intellectually corrupt Bush followers have seized on this most simplistic and corrupt journalistic stunt, pointing to it as some sort of vindication for every cheap stereotype in which they routinely traffic.

Glenn Greenwald says "it is noble to be angry about dangerous situations and corrupt leaders" and Democrats need to be more angry...

The "Angry Left" cartoon has forever been a favorite tactic of those models of Civility and Rhetorical Restraint on the Right -- and as demonstrated by the head-patting praise which the "good boy" Cohen received from Bush supporters, it still is. And many Democrats have internalized it, too. Anger is a bad, bad thing and must be avoided at all costs. McGovern's 1972 defeat proves that.

This argument is false -- dangerously so -- for so many reasons. Most successful political movements need passion. Anger, when constructively directed, is a potent and inspiring passion. It is noble to be angry about dangerous situations and corrupt leaders, and there are few passions which can compete with anger for inspiring oneself and others to meaningful action. [...]

Democrats need to get away -- as far away and as quickly as possible -- from that bland, mushy, sonorous, overly calculating and painfully restrained, passion-free dead zone. And in that regard, a much bigger problem for Democrats has been a lack of anger -- and most other human passions -- not an excess of it. [...]

...I'd go so far as to say that no political movement could really succeed without the passion of anger. People need a reason to devote their time, money and energy to a political cause. That incentive will usually come in the form of believing that there is something terribly unjust, corrupt and/or dangerous about the current political situation, and in people who are alive and impassioned, that will usually result in some anger. Those who have no passion or beliefs and are more interested in showing how rational and balanced they are will turn up their effete noses at displays of anger, but it is a potent and necessary force to enroll people in political change. [...] As Republicans have demonstrated for quite some time, the party which runs away from anger is the party which stands for nothing, inspires nobody, and loses.

Reports out of Florida indicate that Democrats have decided to do something about the emerging threat of those pesky voters talking back to their betters. You see, the way it works is the politicians talk AT the people, and the people shut up and listen. These angry people are doing it wrong.

In light of new video I have acquired, It's understandable that Democrats would want to stock up on Union security to put a stop to all that protesting.  Witness the mob!

UPDATE

Well, this is fascinating. The Tampa Bay Online story that I linked above has been radically changed.   It initially said this...

Reed said she set up the town hall with the help of Service Employees International Union, a large, politically active union that represents nursing home workers, among others. "I represent a number of people who ask questions about what's going on with health care, so I thought it would be good to put on a meeting and have the congresswoman come in and give an update," said Reed.

Asked earlier today about possible disruption at the event, Kim Diehl of SEIU said, "We're prepared. We have strategies to deal with it if it should come up."

That has been deleted and replaced with something far more SEIU/Democrat friendly:

The meeting was organized by Reed plus the Service Employees International Union, other unions and Organizing for America, a liberal group that grew out of the Obama presidential campaign.

Some opponents accused the organizers of trying to stack the crowd by allowing early admission to those on their side. Reed denied that, saying those admitted early were organizers setting up the room.

In any case, opponents appeared to outnumber proponents both inside and outside.

After doors to the meeting room closed, some of those outside crowded around the windows of the meeting room, where they held up signs and chanted.

In the last week or so, similar disruptive protests have erupted at town hall meetings in several states.

Democrats, including White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, have said the disruptions were organized attacks aimed at Democrats by conservative, anti-health care reform interest groups. Several protestors at Thursday's meeting in Tampa angrily rejected that contention.

Castor's staff said Reed planned the meeting and invited Castor before the controversy became so heated. Reed said she set up the meeting because, "I represent a number of people who ask questions about what's going on with health care, so I thought it would be good to put on a meeting and have the congresswoman come in and give an update."

Reed said she was shocked by the number of people who turned out and some of their reactions. "When you get to the point of possible violence, you've gone over the edge," she said.

In a news conference prior to the town hall, Castor had said, "I do expect some rabble-rousing." She said the protesters who have been appearing at town hall forums on health care "would have been protesting Medicare … they would never have accepted Social Security."

Tampa police spokeswoman Andrea Davis said the department was told a couple hundred people would show up and sent a squad of 10-15 officers, two marked cars, two supervisors and some undercover officers. As the crowd grew, more were brought in mainly for traffic control, she said, but they also broke up some scuffles. She said no arrests were made.

So they eliminated the part about the SEIU being a "large, politically active union".  They also eliminated the SEIU representative saying "We have strategies to deal with" the protesters.

In their place, they just inserted Democratic talking points. Terrific.

See also:

• Red State

• Carol with a report from the event (with pictures)

• Nadia Naffe, who says police reports were file by people saying they were injured by SEIU people, as well as this: "The last thing I was before I exited the event were two women running over to a cop sitting in his vehicle, screaming, “Don’t you see that man over there has a gun?” The cop looked up and calmly replied, “Ma’am in this country people have the right to bear arms”."

• The one picture of somebody actually being hit at the Tampa meeting.  The person delivering the hit is identified as Karen Miracle.  I'm guessing she's the Karen Miracle who is Treasurer of the E. Hillsborough Democratic Club.  Her husband, Garry (also pictured), is the Political Director.

• Another apparent Democrat arrested.

[Note: Sorry, the title should read "2009 VS 2005", but I can't change it without breaking links]

Paul Krugman:

A number of people in the news analysis business seem to be equating the role of liberal activists in making trouble for Republicans back in 2005, during the debate over Social Security privatization, with that of conservative activists in making trouble for Democrats over health care reform. [...] Seriously, I’ve been searching through news reports on the Social Security town halls, and I can’t find any examples of the kind of behavior we’re seeing now. Yes, there were noisy demonstrations — but they were outside the events. That was even true during the first month or two, when Republicans actually tried having open town halls. Congressmen were very upset by the reception they received, but not, at least according to any of the report I can find, because opponents were disruptive — crowds booed lines they didn’t like, but that was about it. [...]

So please, no false equivalences. The campaign against Social Security privatization was energetic and no doubt rude, but did not involve intimidation and disruption.

Reality:

• NW Progressive Institute, March 2005: "a boisterous crowd which frequently interrupted the discussion with shouts and hard nosed questions. ... Democrats in the audience who were interrupting the panel.... the crowd erupted in anger... Democrats in the audience started shouting him down again."

 

• Savannah Morning News, March 2005: "By now, Jack Kingston is used to shouted questions, interruptions and boos. Republican congressmen expect such responses these days when they meet with constituents about President Bush's proposal to overhaul Social Security."

 

• USA Today, March 2005: "Shaken by raucous protests at open "town hall"-style meetings last month ... Santorum was among dozens of members of Congress who ran gantlets of demonstrators and shouted over hecklers at Social Security events last month. Many who showed up to protest were alerted by e-mails and bused in by anti-Bush organizations such as MoveOn.org and USAction, a liberal advocacy group. They came with prepared questions and instructions on how to confront lawmakers."

Democrats argue that a Public Option won't crowd out private health insurance. It will just give them "healthy" competition. I'm skeptical, in large part because the government can and will simply legislate away the normal aspects of competition (the need to balance the books, to make cost/benefit calculations, and to negotiate on price/quality, rather than on "...or else we'll regulate you into submission").  Policies designed to keep down health care spending will not survive against politicians up for reelection.

The people responsible for Trillion dollar deficits are unlikely to usher in an era of health care spending restraint.

Other Democrats have just come right out and acknowledged that a public option would eventually crowd out private health insurance.

A public insurance plan able to use Medicare's bargaining power to secure deep discounts for its customers and ensure the maximum possible network would be cheaper and more efficient than private insurers. Over time, this increased efficiency would make the plan more attractive because it could offer more coverage for less money. As consumers recognized this fact, they would increasingly migrate towards the plan, and the public insurer would become, if not a de facto single payer system, something close to it. The public insurer, in this scenario, is a game changer. [...] Insurers, predictably, howled that a public insurer with access to Medicare's market power would put them out of business. (Generally speaking, liberals agreed with that.)

Still other Democrats have pointed to the education system as an example of universal coverage with private alternatives.  On Twitter, Pandagon's Jesse Taylor argued that a Public Option wouldn't affect private insurance...

What healthcare choice can you exercise right now that a.) would be gone under a public option and b.) couldn't be taken away currently?

Politicians who make this argument should be confronted with this question: What school choice can you exercise right now that would be gone if we had vouchers and school choice for everybody?

Democrats refuse to level the playing field between the public and private options in education.  They will do the same thing in health care. 

If you forward an inaccurate email or write an inaccurate blog post, the White House wants to see it.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

What, exactly, does the White House plan to do with this information? 

UPDATE: The White House responds...

"There is a lot of misinformation about health insurance reform circulating on the Internet and elsewhere,'' she explains. "Some of it is intentionally misleading.

"We want to be sure people have the facts about health insurance reform that will lower costs, protect consumers from insurance regulations that deny them coverage and assure quality and affordable health care for all Americans,'' she adds. "We are not compiling lists or sources of information. We may post fact checks from time to time to be sure Americans know the truth about health insurance reform.''

I believe that is the case. This was simply an inartful way of asking people to help them figure out which new claims they need to be addressing.  The White House should respond to inaccurate arguments.  But I hope they will do so in a transparent way.  Instead of responding to private emails, they should be linking and responding to claims made publicly online.  Better yet, they should be participating in a dialogue - responding to the better criticisms made by important critics in the internet media and blogosphere. That would be transparent and valuable.

Nate Silver shows that Arlen Specter firmly believes in whatever position will get him elected.  Specter certainly has principles; and if you don't like them, he has others.

During the August recess, Republicans will ramp up the Tea Parties and other protests in an effort to influence conservative Democrats not to vote for the Democratic health care legislation.

If the grassroots really want to influence the swing votes on health care, they should be organizing behind conservative Democratic primary opponents.

Paul Krugman makes some legitimate points about why the market for health care is very inefficient.  Greg Mankiw makes a more compelling argument, summing up the central dispute between Left and Right over health care.

Perhaps a lot of the disagreement over healthcare reform, and maybe other policy issues as well, stems from the fundamental question of what kind of institutions a person trusts. Some people are naturally skeptical of profit-seeking firms; others are naturally skeptical of government. ... I tend to distrust power unchecked by competition. This makes me particularly suspicious of federal policies that take a strong role in directing private decisions. I am much more willing to have state and local governments exercise power in a variety of ways than for the federal government to undertake similar actions. ... Most private organizations have some competitors, and this fact makes me more comfortable interacting with them. If Harvard is a bad employer, I can move to Princeton or Yale, and this knowledge keeps Harvard in line. To be sure, we need a government-run court system to enforce contracts, prevent fraud, and preserve honest competition. But it is fundamentally competition among private organizations that I trust. ... A central question in this and perhaps other debates is, Whom do you trust?

Even now, nearly 50% of health care spending is done by government, and the other 50% is sharply regulated and burdened by government-imposed barriers.  There is little doubt that our health care system is inefficient, full of perverse incentives and in need of reform.  However, the central fear of the Right is that a greater government role will have the same results it has everywhere else: inefficient spending (Defense), corporate welfare (Agriculture), regulatory capture (Commerce), theater (Homeland Security), interest group pandering (Education), Do-Gooderism (Justice), and so forth and so on.

Those problems do not have to be written into the legislation.  There is plenty of precedent to the idea that politicians have perverse incentives, and government does not do benign interference.  Government is a monopolist. 

Republicans have fought cap and trade wrong, and they're going to lose because of it.  If the bill passes, they've lost a policy fight; if the bill fails, Republicans will not get credit for lower prices, but they will be blamed (fairly or not) for obstructing progress on environmental problems.

Let's stipulate a few political realities: (a) the public generally agrees that something must be done about climate change, (b) cap-and-trade is expensive, complicated, inefficient, unpopular, subject to industry gaming and political manipulation, (c) cap and trade is widely regarded (including by environmentalists) as inferior to a carbon tax, but (d) Democrats are pushing for cap and trade anyway, because it is "politically possible."

What should Republicans do instead?  Propose a carbon tax. 

But, instead of a straight tax increase (as Democrats want), Republican should propose a carbon tax that replaces the payroll tax.   That is revenue neutral, meaning there is no total tax increase.

There are many reasons this works.

• Environment: Republicans would be offering the most pro-environment solution to climate change. 
• Cost: A Carbon-for-Payroll tax would address the climate change problem without imposing any additional tax on Americans (unlike cap and trade).
• Externalities: The payroll tax disincentivizes positive externalities - labor and employment.  The carbon tax disincentives negative externalities - congestion, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions/climate change, dependence on foreign oil, money sent to tyrants and enemies, foreign debt, the trade deficit, price volatility.
• Tangibility: A carbon tax is a consumption tax (e.g., a gas tax), which consumers feel in a tangible way and can adjust behavior to optimize their exposure to the tax. Payroll taxes is money they never see, so the cost is much less noticed.  The more sensitive the public is to the price they're paying for government, the more rational they will be about government spending.

Finally, the key: The idea of swapping the payroll tax for a carbon tax was proposed by....Al Gore.  So you've got a coalition composed of environmentalists, foreign policy hawks, the Chamber of Commerce (and businesses in general), Exxon, the auto industry and Republicans who want to stop higher taxes.

Republicans should be offering The Al Gore Amendment to every piece of energy/environment legislation in sight.  And if Democrats oppose it, then the burder is on Democrats to explain why they refuse to support the most pro-environment and pro-economic growth proposal to address climate change.

That's good policy and good politics.

Should Republicans seek more bipartisanship? The answer is an unequivocal "Sometimes."

People mean different things by bipartisan. Most politicians mean "shut up and do what we want", and "bipartisanship" mostly becomes a rhetorical club to swing at opponents.  Practically speaking, I think there are a couple ways to approach bipartisanship.

1. Compromise [Unlikely]: Republicans and Democrats are not likely to pursue bipartisan compromise on the more significant, contentious issues.  As Atrios has so often reminded us, People Disagree About Stuff.  Compromising over those disputes is almost invariably a bad idea.  It's bad politics (because you're angering your supporters) and bad policy (because you're splitting the policy baby).

   What's more, I don't think we really want that kind of bipartisanship.  It invariably involves horse-trading (you can buy my vote if I can buy your vote).  Outside of government, we call that sort of thing collusion and those of us being colluded against get stuck with much higher prices (government spending & taxes).  Russell Roberts' terrific 1995 essay ("If you're paying, I'll have top sirloin") touched on this point.

2. Collaboration [Yes, hopefully]: The second kind of bipartisanship - working together on areas of mutual agreement - is much more possible, and Republicans really ought to pursue it.  We don't do enough collaborative, bi-partisan policy-making, because politicians tend to focus on the more contentious issues.  For instance, everybody basically agrees on things like transparency, but that means there are relatively few points to be scored.  Everybody wants to Win The War, nobody wants to fix the sink.  As a result, important things don't get done. Republicans can begin rebuilding their credibility by pursuing some of this low-hanging fruit.