Petty
 

Remind me to get all smug on you more often, Fezzik.

So There are Just 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights?
 

Then I think what you are saying is that the 2nd Amendment, as applied to the states, has no teeth. That would be fine and good, except it is radically different than the application of the other amendments to the states.

efs

So There are Just 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights?
 

I don't understand why you're making this complicated. In my view, every individual has a right under the Second Amendment to bear arms in connection with militia service. This right protects them from laws -- state or federal -- which would frustrate that right.

When you say that on my view the Second Amendment has "no teeth," you seem to be complaining that it doesn't let people carry guns if they're not part of a militia. But if the point of the Second Amendment is to ensure a "well-regulated militia," what's the beef?

what crisis?
 

Kevin Drum:

Unversal Coverage
 

How do you solve the problem of 5.3 million Californians without health insurance?

Turn them into felons.

• SACRAMENTO — The concept of requiring all Californians to carry their own health insurance is gaining momentum in the Capitol, as some lawmakers and healthcare advocates see it as a politically viable way to deal with the state's 5.3 million uninsured.
  
  With the November defeat of Proposition 72 halting efforts to require employers to provide healthcare coverage, the concept looks likely to be part of next year's legislative debate. But it faces huge hurdles over how to make it financially feasible for the poor and enforce it.

Unversal Coverage
 

They could also solve their homeless problem by requiring everyone to buy a home. I don't know why they didn't think of this sooner.

No inauguration?
 

The Bull Moose forwards the argument that the Bush Administration, instead of embracing an inauguration that would make Chairman Mao proud, should honor the troops by not having an inauguration at all.

• The Moose recommends an Inauguration that truly honors the armed services.
  
  The official Presidential Inaugural Committee has announced its plan for a $40 million extravaganza. The Washington Times reports,
  
  "The official theme for the events surrounding Mr. Bush's Jan. 20 inauguration is "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service," and was selected to recognize that "we are a nation at war" and to thank the troops who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, said Jeanne Phillips, chairwoman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee."
  
  It appears that the Inauguration will have the usual complement of parties and balls with the lavish funding coming from the coffers of the taxpayers and private corporate donations.
  
  The Moose suggests that since we are at war, perhaps an "Inauguration as Usual" is not appropriate. One of the most striking aspects of this war is that the public has not been asked to sacrifice. So, why doesn't the President send a message to America that this will be a different type of inauguration?
  
  Dispense with all of the hoopla and festivities and direct the private donations that would have gone for the partying to the soldiers and families of those who have been disabled and killed in this war. The President can be sworn in at the Capitol and then address the nation. And in his inaugural address he can ask the nation to contribute to a fund to help wounded troops and the families of those who have lost loved ones.
  
  Somehow it is obscene for party goers to be dancing the Texas Two Step at the Black Tie and Boots Ball while across town young men and women are struggling to walk again at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval.
  
  Please, Mr. President, make this inauguration worthy of the courage of our soldiers and the uniqueness of the moment.

I do not recall our history in inaugurals during other times of war, but this has some instinctive appeal.

No inauguration?
 

I think they are planning on cutting back from past inaugurals a little- one thing- no Presidential blow jobs from interns- and also no obese Senators invited.

Unversal Coverage
 

They have -- it's just federal, not state. Look for this to be Step 43 of the Ownership Society. Once GWB takes care of this pesky little Social Security thing, he'll get right on it.

Unversal Coverage
 

Just think what it's going to do for the whole prison overcrowding problem.

Actually, the insurance thing probably wraps most of the homeless problem. How many homeless you think have medical coverage? Once you round up the uninsured and put them in jail, you've really got very few homeless left. And they'll be able to move in cheap to the low-income housing stock left empty.

No inauguration?
 

If there's no fucking of Sharon Stone at the Bush II Redux inagural, it's certainly GWB's prerogative, but to me it sounds like that's Bush's loss.

Caption Please
 

*sigh*
 

But-for-the-paperwork marriages seem to be the new thing.

In the interest of sanctity, the Social Security Administration will not acknowledge any marriage from New Paltz, New York. One of those brides could have had a dick, you know.

Jesus fucking Christ.

*sigh*
 

Uh, how does the female half of a straight couple married in SF get her name changed with the SSA? I like this, because I hate when people fucking change their fucking names, but given the popularity of the practice, this seems problematic.

Unversal Coverage
 

Funny to pin it on Bush when the DEMs control the capital here.

Unversal Coverage
 

Uh, ok.

My attempt at a joke tried to leverage SS' manatory home ownership policy and Bush's Ownership Society. I thought the break from the original story was pretty complete.

Unversal Coverage
 

Bah, Humbug

How your taxes are being wasted in Iraq.
 

Conservatives, rejoice! All your worst fears about government waste are being confirmed! Too bad it took a GOP government to do it.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...iraqfunds2.jpg

The Army We Have
 

As SecDef Rummy has so eloquently told us, it's a shame that there's not a pie slice in there that actually relates to the procurement of equipment.

WaPo

• An America coming out of the Great Depression somehow found the leadership and the will to build and deploy around the globe 2.5 million trucks in the same period of time that the incumbent U.S. government has failed to get 30,000 fully armored vehicles to Iraq.
  
  The Bush administration has appropriated $34.3 billion on a theoretical missile defense system -- which proved again this week to be an expensive dud in its first test in two years, when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground to intercept the target missile carrying a mock warhead -- but has been able up to now, according to congressional budget authorities, to spend just $2 billion to armor the vehicles of Americans under fire.
  
  Nobody has been more persistent in holding the Pentagon and the White House accountable than maverick Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. "When I visit Iraq," says Taylor, "I ride around in an armored vehicle, and I am sure the secretary [of defense] does as well. That should be the single standard: If it is good enough for the big shots, it is good enough for every American soldier."
  
  The armor is truly a matter of life and death, as the Mississippi congressman explains: "Half of all our casualties, half of all our deaths and half of all our wounded are the direct result of improvised explosive devices [IEDs, or homemade bombs]." But when Washington officials visit Iraq, their traveling security includes not only heavily armored vehicles but also radio-signal jammers, which can disable the IEDs.
  
  What makes Taylor authentically angry is the inexcusable failure of the U.S. brass -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he names -- to provide radio jammers (which cost $10,000 each) to the fewer than 30,000 U.S. military vehicles in Iraq.
  
  How many U.S. vehicles are now equipped with jammers? The Pentagon insists the figure is classified. According to Taylor, the number is "minuscule."

Granted, the comparison is to some degree unfair. WWII involved asking the citizenry to sacrifice to actually make this happen, instead of being asked to accept tax cuts.

Query: If Rumsfeld actually does develop a sudden desire to spend more time with his family after January 30, as Kristol's, McCain's, Lott's, and others' comments suggest, anyone care to guess who replaces him? Or wager how this will change any facts on the ground?

Maybe There's Hope
 

Doesn't that seem exceedingly unlikely? Especially as these arguments have been made before?

Unversal Coverage
 

Well, I thought it was funny.

*sigh*
 

You know, when you actually go read the actual regulation, though (see parts E & G), it's not that bad. The SSA clearly accepts same sex marriage certificates from Massachusetts and Civil Union certificates from Vermont), but refuses certificates from jurisdictions where the legality of the certificates is unclear.

I mean, I'm a blue blue stater, but this is just about giving clear instructions to the flunky down at the front counter at your local Social Security Office. Or to put it another way, it would be just as easy for a red stater to get worked up about this reg., based on the recognition of Massachusetts same sex marriages.

Tim Dunlop posts about our relations with India:

• Last night I had an interesting conversation with a friend who works on Capitol Hill. He was recently part of a Congressional delegation that went to India. The delegation was mainly Republicans.
  
  They spoke to a lot of Indian government people and the message from them was very clear, and in a nutshell it was this: We don't much care about America. He said they were very polite but almost indifferent. Maybe matter-of-fact is a better description. The conversation went something like this:
  
  We consider ourselves as in competition with China for leadership in the new century. That's our focus and frankly, you have made it very difficult for us to deal with you. We find your approach to international affairs ridiculous. The invasion of Iraq was insane. You've encouraged the very things you say you were trying to fix - terrorism and instability. Your attitude to Iran is ridiculous. You need to engage with Iran. We are. We are bemused by your hypocrisy. You lecture the world about dealing with dictators and you deal with Pakistan. We are very sorry for your losses from the 9/11 terror attacks. Welcome to our world. You threaten us with sanctions for not signing the non-proliferation treaty, but you continue to be nuclear armed and to investigate new weapons. You expect us to neglect our own security because you want us to. We don't care about sanctions.
  
  They also spoke about economic development and the message here was that we're doing fine thanks. We can't address the poverty in our country wholesale--most of it is rural poverty anyway--but we find we have skills in the hi-tech area. We will continue to pursue that. We currently produce around 10,000 (I think, ed) science PhDs a year. We will build up a rich, well-educated strata.
  
  Another thing he said that was mentioned a number of times was the relationship with Australia. They spoke of educational exchanges and the growing number of immigrants. Australia was thought of highly.
  
  Like I said, this was a Congressional delegation and it spoke to key people in the Indian government. I gather it was a real eye-opener for those involved. (Having friends back home who have worked on Indian issues for Australian governments going back twenty years, I doubt you would get the same level of surprise.)

(Dunlop is Australian.)

Not to mention their dry cleaning monopoly.

Funny, I recently read an article that was 180 degrees from this. I'll have to see if I can find it.

this is great! if we can fuck the Indians, we can really support the Pakis. We just need to give the Islamists one country it hates- everyone assumed it needed to be Israel which makes it tough- but now shit- lets support Kashmir going Paki and maybe even help them with strong military hardware.

Too much choice
 

One possible downside of SocSec privatization is that, despite its moral superiority, perhaps many Americans wouldn't want to be overwhelmed by the choices it presents.

• People want control over their lives; they value their freedom. But the first reason to wonder whether "ownership" is always good is that it can be stressful. It may be true, as promoters of ownership like to say, that nobody ever washed a rented car; but renters are very happy not to have to get the hose out. If it's up to you to choose how to invest your pension account, agonizing over health stocks vs. Asian bonds may not be such a privilege.
  
  It's not just that financial planning is a dry topic to most folks. It's that modern life is overloaded with choices. In "The Paradox of Choice," the Swarthmore College psychologist Barry Schwartz shows how a certain measure of choice can be liberating but how too much is a treadmill -- sometimes even triggering depression. Freedom and choice are wonderful things that allow us to realize our human potential. But there's a limit to how many choices each of us has time to make, and most people in the rich world are pretty much maxed out already.
  
  You see this truth in the behavior of the affluent, who actually pay to avoid choices. They hire home decorators so they don't have to stare glassily at 200 kinds of curtain rail. They hire marriage planners so they don't have to fret about cream napkins vs. white ones. There are said to be 10,000 wedding consultants practicing in the United States. If the rich are deliberately avoiding choice, why are we so sure that the majority want more of it?
  
  Ownership does not merely involve choice; it involves risk also. A certain measure of risk is fine; indeed, if you want a dynamic society it's positively essential. But just as the modern economy threatens Americans with choice overload, so it also piles more risk on the shoulders of the average citizens. The risk of not being able to afford health care has risen, albeit because health care has more to offer than it used to. Fewer people have risk-free "defined benefit" pension plans that guarantee a fixed proportion of salary upon retirement. An index devised by Yale's Jacob Hacker shows that income volatility has increased sharply since the 1970s. Given that risk is already on the rise, perhaps public policy should avoid adding to it?

Bush to Christians Everywhere: Drop Dead (and during the "Holiday Season", too!)
 

Opening of Bush' press conference today.

• PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you. Please be seated.
  Good morning and happy holidays to you all.

Boy, is O'Reilly going to tear this guy a new one.

Bush to Christians Everywhere: Drop Dead (and during the "Holiday Season", too!)
 

I don't remember him doing that on the calls.

fake crisis
 

Why are the Administration's economic predictions gloomier when they talk about Social Security? Why, bilmore, why?

• DOES BUSH BELIEVE IN THE CRISIS? Following up on the post below and a suggestion from Nick Confessore, I thought it would be instructive to compare the Social Security Administration's economic forecasts on which the alleged "crisis" is based to the administration's own growth forecasts. The SSA says that "the average annual growth in real GDP is projected to be 2.9 percent over the short-range projection period (2004-13), a slower rate than the 3.3 percent average observed over the historical 40-year period (1962-2002)." Meanwhile the White House's Council of Economic Advisors has recently released its own economic forecasts (PDF) for the years 2004-10, concluding that we'll see an average of 3.4 percent growth for that seven-year period.
  For the numbers to work out, we'd need to see an extraordinary collapse to 1.87 percent average annual GDP growth for 2011-13. Another way of putting this would be that for five out of the seven years in which their projections overlap, the administration's estimates for productivity growth are higher than those used in the SSA's intermediate forecast. If even the White House doesn't believe the SSA's short-term forecasts (i.e., the ones that are most likely to be accurate) why should the rest of us (and the press and politicians in general) be expected to take their 75-year (and even infinite horizon!) forecasts seriously?

Matt Yglesias at TAPPED.

fake crisis
 

Actually, this tension will only increase as the Administration also pushes its (next) tax cut plan.

The breaking point will occur when Bush has to explain his rationale while employing (and pronouncing) the term "asymptote."

fake crisis
 

Not if he "refuses to negotiate with himself."

fake crisis
 

Fair point.

"John, I don't get to write the growth projections ...."

fake crisis
 

Help me.

SS will go broke in about 2050 unless fixed soon. Bush has a proposal, you don't like it- okay- it seems like the sort of thing that really should be a joint Dem/Rep solution since it's long term, and will necessarially span several administrations. What is the Dem solution? Hillary was co-President for 8 years. Why didn't we hear about it then? What was his solution?

Let them eat cake?

I know I still need to get used to "We're in power-we'll always be in power- and the also-rans will bitch"- like on HS b-ball when Thurgreed was second string to me, and he kept saying I shoot too much when I came near during time outs. But really, like I finally told T. back then, you don't have a better shot, so shut up, please.

Too much choice
 

I've seen a whole load of articles lately about the horrors of having too many options/risky decisions to make. This is part and parcel of a greater fearful reaction to the flood of information we get regularly as a result of technology. Some Americans have this fucked up reaction to knowledge - they actually seem to believe you can know too much, or have TMI about a given topic. I hear this shit from old people all the time - "We were better off when things were simpler." Ignorance is bliss. One idiot in one of last month's NRs actually hinted that we should re-embrace religion and stop researching genetics because we're better off "believing" in an absolute than learning the scientific bases for everything. That writer's prime concern was the fact that scientists are beginning to unravel the synaptic and chemical components of what we've called our "souls" or "inner selves" for centuries. Having choice is the worst of all worlds for the "ignorance is bliss" crowd. Now, not only are they forced to think, they're forced to make decisions based on processing varying data. This is the point where the radical left and right are in agreement. They both want a larger group to make all their decisions for them. Jesus or Uncle Sam? Which will it be? Just. Don't. Make. Me. Responsible.

There are far too many rubes and imbeciles in this nation to privatize SS, but in theory, I love Bush's idea.

The simple solution to the problem of too much choice for the unskilled or scared SS investor is to offer them an opt out. They should be allowed to opt out of choosing their own investments and allow theit account to be managed by the govt. If they want to change that later - as they will when the next tech boom erupts - they should have to go through a rollover period sort of like when you roll your pension into an IRA.

fake crisis
 

Hank,

I appreciate the humor that scatology brings, but the holiday season seems to induce really weak shit from you. Must be the egg nog.

The problem is that Bush's proposal, such as it is, doesn't really solve anything. It's a massive change that converts a welfare program into government controlled 401(k)s, but does little to fix the problem that you're so concerned about.

Bush is proposing a solution that, far as I can tell, even its advocates concede won't solve the problem by itself*. Like I asked earlier, if you can point me in the direction of something that actually refutes the proposition that privitization *can't* create the boost necessary to make SocSec solvent by 2050 (or whenever), I'd like to hear it.

It's also a problem which, btw, can be addressed easily over the next 50 years by tinkering with the tax rate or with the level of benefits. That's a touchy problem, though, so I can understand at some level Bush's inclination to THINK BIG, and in a way that distracts us from actually addressing the problem.

While we're at it, we can also talk about the ONE TO TWO TRILLION DOLLARS required to make this adjustment to accommodate the ideological fantasies of conservatives if you'd like to, but since Bush has declared that we'll borrow every single dime of that amount, we'd better have that discussion quickly before the Administration takes the borrowing off-budget, and we never hear about it again but start wondering why the dollar's valuation has fallen off the edge of a fucking cliff.

The problem with your "Oh, yeah? Where's YOUR proposal" argument is that

(1) Bush hasn't actually proposed anything of substance yet, other than the orgasmic word "privitization." The pity is that, according to the man's press conference yesterday, Bush's White House actually doesn't make legislative proposals -- instead, they come up with the Big Idea, and waits for someone in Congress to find a way to make it work in the Reality Based Community.

When he's able to find someone Republican in the hallways of Congress who can grab a #2 pencil and write down exactly how this is going to work, and how he intends to pay for it, then let's talk.

(2) There's not universal agreement that we've got a crisis today. Arguing that we do is part of the reason that we've got an administration churning out sunny-day estimates for tax cut purposes, but an SSA predicting an oncoming typhoon. If Bush really wants to tackle a crisis, we can talk about Medicare, which will dwarf any problems SocSec might pose. The challenge there, I suppose, is that it's harder to refashion Medicare benefits into a private account that can be played in the markets.

(3) When the GOP solution is one that ignores any financial pain whatsoever, relying on the opposition to provide one that is tethered to the constraints of reality is a bit disengenuous, don't you think?

Gattigap




* See, for example, the GAO's own statement that "The creation of private accounts for Social Security will not deal with the solvency and sustainability of the Social Security fund." Once the Ownership Society's orgasm from Bush's proposal has receded, and we're into its multi-month refractory period, we'll have to face up to this unpleasant fact.

Too much choice
 

I was with you until the end. The government should not be in the investment business.

I too can't understand the objections to doing something about SS. You (not you Sebby, the universal you) may not agree with the proposals (which is difficult, because they have not really been presented yet), or you may not think the Bush team knows what they are doing, but I'm not sure how anyone can take the position that the status quo is OK.

Too much choice
 

Agreed, an opt-out would resolve the problem of too many choices. I suppose you could tie those people to an overall stock index fund, and they'd be fucked only in the event of an overall market decline. But the question is really if we want the government to play the markets for us. I don't really have the requisite degree of confidence in it.

As an aside, I recently heard one opponent of privitization frame the issue this way, which I thought was interesting: Most people have three legs to the "stool" of retirement. One being a pension or 401(k) or something similar (if they have that), which is dependent on stock market risk; one being their equity holding (usually their house) which is dependent to some degree on housing market risk, and then government assistance through SocSec. Among the discussion about SocSec reform is whether Americans, as much as we like free markets, really want ALL of our retirement resources dependent upon the vagaries of those markets.

Too much choice
 

I'm not sure that many people really take that position.

People generally agree that the problem is a big one, albeit one that is generational in duration, and where the big hit occurs decades hence. It's a good idea to fix it sooner, rather than later, and preferably now.

Think of it as a half-completed train trestle across a river. The train is approaching, and people have dithered for years over whether to increase taxes to finish the trestle, or keep funds as they are and use cheaper materials. The Bush Administration's Big Idea is akin to eschewing both of those solutions for getting the train across the river but instead building a gigantic fucking catapult.

This idea, of course, is good news of messianic proportions to the local catapult industry, but those who object this "plan" shouldn't necessarily be described as wanting only the status quo.

Too much choice
 

If the GOP really thinks that the prospect of a Social Security that (like, e.g., the military) will start drawing on general revenues in 2050 is so bad, why isn't it doing something about the massive structural deficits we have now, or the problems with the Medicare system that we'll be confronting much sooner? Social Security is hardly the greatest of our problems now.

eta: And the idea of adding trillions to the deficit to "save" Social Security from running deficits decades in the future would be comical if not for the fact that so many conservatives seem to be suspending cognitive functioning to line up behind it.