Gold, Women, & Sheep

Colbert and Stewart and a few others have noticed Fox News' and other conservative commentator's obsession with gold. You see, when people get scared or nervous, the price of gold goes up because it's a finite precious metal. Well, guess which fearmongers are also spokesman for gold (both on their shows AND on infomercials)? That's right: Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Linda Ingraham, etc. Selling fear, and making money off gold.

Of course, the Colbert Report does an impeccable job pointing out the hypocrisy. Check the video.

Lieberman: "One More Minute Please?"; Franken: "Nope, We've Had Enough of Your Solipsism"

Check this video out. Thank you, Al Franken, for standing up to my arch-nemesis.

Real Heros of Health Reform

I'll quote Ezra in full here:

Right on the heels of Joe Lieberman trying to kill the bill because it had a Medicare buy-in proposal, Howard Dean is exhorting Democrats to kill the bill because it doesn't have a Medicare buy-in proposal. Sigh.

So let this serve as an encomium to Ron Wyden, Tom Harkin, Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Chris Dodd and Jay Rockefeller, among many others. All of these senators could have been the 60th vote. All of them had issues they believe in and worked for. Chris Dodd built and passed a bill. Sherrod Brown whipped up liberal support for the public option. Chuck Schumer spent countless hours devising compromises and searching for new paths forward. Ron Wyden spent years crafting the Healthy Americans Act, getting a CBO score, pulling together co-sponsors, speaking to activists and industry groups and other legislators. Jay Rockefeller has spent decades on this issue and wasn't even invited into the Gang of Six process.

But you know what? They're all still there. Because in the end, this isn't about them, and though their states and their pet issues might benefit if they tried to make it about them, the process, and thus the result, would be endangered. I've said before that the remarkable thing isn't that Joe Lieberman acts the way he does but that so few join him. The legislative process is given a bad name by the showboats and grandstanders, but the only reason it functions at all is because the vast majority of the participants keep their role in perspective.

If this bill passes, it will not be because Lieberman was pacified. It will be because senators such as Rockefeller, Wyden, Schumer, Harkin, Brown and Dodd swallowed their pride and their passion and allowed him to be pacified. They are the heroes here, and beneath it all, their quiet determination made them the key players.

Spineless, Spiteful Joe Lieberman on how to Bite the Hand that Feeds You

Jon Cohn who, along with Ezra Klein, has been my health care go-to journalist has an excellent post describing why Joe Lieberman is acting selfishly. And it's a crying shame that a U.S. Senator - who seemingly believes in health care reform - would blatantly lie and draw an ever-moving line in the sand simply to annoy the real Democrats who have reached out to him.

there’s no evidence Lieberman believes any of these arguments against reform, and a great deal of evidence that he does not. Lieberman, by all appearances, seems to share the belief of essentially all Democrats and many non-Democrats that health care reform is a moral imperative. And his discomfort with a modest Medicare buy-in seems altogether contrived, given that he endorsed the idea of a Medicare buy-in during the 2000 presidential campaign and defended it as recently as three months ago.

To put it bluntly, the idea that Lieberman now finds the very same proposal a grave threat to the public good is simply not credible. And while I understand the rules of strategic gamesmanship, somebody who took health care reform seriously--somebody who genuinely cared about ending the misfortune that visits people without affordable medical care--simply would not have made such a strong stand, over such a tiny issue, at such a pivotal time.

The proof, I think, is in the actions of Lieberman’s adversaries. Sherrod Brown supports the public option just as passionately as Lieberman opposes it. The same goes for Jay Rockefeller. But Brown and Rockefeller have already made a series of huge concessions, because those concessions were necessary to move a bill through Congress. Last night, both men signaled they were prepared to make one last concession--to give up on the idea of a public plan altogether--because that’s what it will take to pass the law.

Brown and Rockefeller, in other words, acted to promote the greater good. I can believe some of their adversaries are doing the same. I find it hard to believe Lieberman is among them.

Redneck Christmas

"I went to church and cried. Then I got back to work."

(via Syd O) MUST READ: Enviro writer and founder of 350.org posts on the Copenhagen conference over at Climate Progress.

Doesn't Obama Sound a Lot Like Bush?

... That was my initial thought watching his 60min interview yesterday - talking the "surge" language, talking about how "hard it is" to be President, etc. But at the same time Obama seems to not be a sham when he touches on some familiar arguments. People have said the same about his West Point andparts of his Nobel acceptance speech: that Bush could have given parts of them. But why is it that I tend to believe Obama and distrust Bush when they toss out the same phrases? Am I that bias? Maybe, but I think it has to with the fact that they're not saying the same thing. Ta-Nehisi makes the point:

I'd like to pair this with something I'm hearing a lot these day. After an entire campaign season where Obama was dismissed as a far-left radical, the new meme became that he was actually firmly entrenched in the "right wing of the Democratic party." Now I'm hearing people say that Obama's speech could have been made by Bush, or some such.

There are people who think presidential politics--from a voter's perspective--is about electing someone who will do exactly what you say and enact every single one of your priorities in exactly the same manner as you would.

And then there are people who think presidential politics--from a voter's perspective--is about electing someone who shares many of your priorities, but not all of them, who may not enact them as you would, and yet whose wisdom you trust. That, for me, is the point. Barack Obama is wise. Sarah Palin is not.

In that vein, I didn't object to George Bush because he claimed that there was "evil" in the world. I objected to George Bush because there was so much evil that he didn't see, and he was awful at prosecuting the evil he did see. I objected to George Bush's foreign policy because it married a freshman's view of idealism (Big talk on human rights) with a profane, dishonest take one realism (We don't torture.) It's weak to look two presidents, see them both use the word "evil," and then conclude that they're the same.

I expect Obama to be who he campaigned as. But more than that, I expect him to actually think about the world. I expect him to be curious, deliberative, and cool-headed. That's who he is. I often disagree with him. But I don't regret a thing. I don't understand these people. It's like they thought he'd go to Oslo, hand over the launch codes, and offer twenty Texas virgins in exchange for a pledge from Al'Qaeda to stop being mean to us.

Did the Maccabbes Re-Take the Temple in 8 Crazy Nights?

David Brooks tells the real story behind Hanukkah - and sadly, it has nothing to do with a lamp ... I never knew!

The VAT Tax

(via Ezra Klein) Many people think that taxes will have to go up in the future - wars, debt, health/climate reform, etc - but that raising the income tax won't be able to pick up the slack. So, be prepared to keep hearing about the value added tax (VAT) that is used in most European countries. Here's a great primer:

The value-added tax is also the darling of many economists for its bounce-a-quarter-off-its-abs efficiency. Its administrative costs to the government are generally low. It is also considered less of a drag on the economy over the long run than raising income taxes, which discourage people from saving money and thereby making capital available to businesses.

To understand why a value-added tax is considered so efficient, you have to understand how it usually works.

Imagine the production of a new dress, in three steps:

1) A fabric store sells a tailor enough silk to make one dress, at a total price of $10 before taxes;

2) The tailor sews a dress and sells it to Macy’s for $30 before taxes;

3) Macy’s then sells the dress to a shopper for $50, before taxes.

Let’s say the value-added tax is 10 percent. The government will collect some tax revenue in each step of the production process, from roll of fabric to cocktail-party scene-stealer, but each business in the chain gets credit for the tax already paid by other suppliers.

When selling the cloth to the tailor, the fabric store adds a tax of 10 percent, or $1 on the $10 of supplies the tailor purchases. The tailor pays the fabric store $11, and the store remits $1 to the government.

When the tailor sells his dress to Macy’s, he calculates the value-added tax as $3, or 10 percent of his $30 pretax price. Macy’s pays the tailor $33.

But instead of sending the full $3 to the government, the tailor gets to subtract the $1 of taxes he had already paid to the fabric store. So he sends $2 to the government.

When Macy’s sells the dress to a shopper, it adds another 10 percent, so the shopper pays $55, or $50 plus $5 in tax. That would be in addition to any state or local sales taxes consumers have to pay, depending on the locale.

Macy’s checks to see how much the previous companies in the supply chain — the fabric store and the tailor — have already paid the government in value-added taxes, and subtracts that from the $5. Macy’s ends up remitting just $2 to the government.

The government receives $5 total, or 10 percent of the final purchase price, but from three different businesses.

Although more complicated, value-added taxes are considered better than equivalent sales taxes — where the tax is levied only when the consumer buys a product — for two main reasons.

First, if a single business evades the value-added tax, the government does not lose a large portion of money, because it will collect taxes at other stages of production.

Since companies usually get credit for taxes already paid by their suppliers, companies will pressure other businesses in the production chain to prove they paid their taxes. That means the system is somewhat self-policing.

To some foes of big government, though, the efficiency of the tax is also its fatal flaw. Conservatives worry that it enables the government to raise money with such little effort that it will encourage Washington to spend even more.

On the other hand, liberals are wary of value-added taxes because they are regressive. Poor people spend a higher portion of their income buying things than the rich, meaning lower-income people would be disproportionately hurt.

Chart of the Day

(via Yglesias)

Climate-Gate in Perspective

Read this Popular Mechanic's article to see where I stand. Of course climate science is political, of course there are unethical scientists ... but put all the conspiracies in context - science is pretty damn reliable, it's transparent and peer reviewed, and gets stuff right over time.

Fox Thinks 120% of the Public Believe Scientists Fake Global Warming Data

(via Medium) Fox & Friends took a Rasmussen poll - and then combined the numbers and double counted to make it look like 120% of Americans think Scientists are bluffing. Also, last month, Fox showed a pie chart showing 193% of the public support Palin, Huckabee and Romney for the 2012 nomination.

Toon

3 Cups of Tea

(via Mayo) This story in the CSM may be the most uplifting news I've heard. The author of "3 Cups of Tea" is getting together with US leaders (civilian and military) to teach and show them how to make inroads in Afghanistan.

(Photo: author Greg Mortenson and Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen)

Don't Go Green

(via Yglesias) A great column from the Ex-Dir of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network ... addressing, really, the free loader problem.

Don't spend an hour changing your light bulbs. Don't take a day to caulk your windows. Instead, pick up a phone, open a laptop, or travel to a U.S. Senate office near you and turn the tables: "What are the 10 green statutes you're working on to save the planet, Senator?"

Of course, that assumes our political institutions are capable of making change - and change drastic enough to make a difference.

It's Official: Bush and Cheney and Rummy Let Osama Go

W really "took it to the terrorists" ..... according to the new Senate Report:

“The decision not to deploy American forces to go after Bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, General Tommy Franks,” the report says.

“On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, Bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.”

Rumsfeld’s argument at the time, the report says, was that deploying too many American troops could jeopardize the mission by creating an anti-US backlash among the local populace.

The report dismisses arguments at the time from Franks, Vice President Dick Cheney and others defending the decision and arguing that the intelligence was inconclusive about Bin Laden’s location.

“The review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora.”

CBO: Health Care Reform Makes Premiums GO DOWN

MUST READ: Read this Ezra Klein post in its entirety - it does a great job of de-bunking the lies about how people will pay more for heath care under reform.

Premiums for the same policy in the individual market fall by 14 to 20 percent. But people in the individual market, who are largely low-income, will now have the opportunity to purchase better policies that cover more expenses and provide more security. That's a good thing. It's one of the reasons for health-care reform, in fact. And it is not analogous to health-care insurance becoming more expensive, any more than the fact that I could buy a nicer car after getting a better job suggests that cars are becoming more expensive.

Escalation in Afghanistan

I agree w/ Matt :

It seems I should write my official What I Think About Obama’s Escalation in Afghanistan post.

Mostly the whole situation makes me want to sigh. I don’t think the kind of effort that as best I understand it we’re undertaking in Afghanistan meets any kind of plausible cost benefit test. At the same time, unlike conservatives who only invoke this principle opportunistically I do think it makes sense to pay attention to what military professionals have to say about operational aspects of defense policy. And in a major contrast to Bush’s Iraq policy, Obama’s Afghanistan policy seems to be firmly grounded in a real consensus among the relevant people about what is and isn’t workable. That’s good. It makes me think the odds of a disaster are low, and the odds of a policy that “works” are pretty good. And I think we have good reason to believe that if their operational approach doesn’t work, that everyone on the team is prepared to shift directions and try something better.

Now none of that actually makes any of this worth doing. I haven’t seen anyone even really attempt to persuade me that this policy makes sense in cost-benefit terms. And I think the reaction to David Obey’s “war tax” idea is telling—nobody seems to really think there are national interests at stake that are critical enough to be worth paying slightly higher taxes for. But if a war’s not worth paying for, how can it be worth fighting? And if we don’t pay for the war in the FY 2010 budget, we still need to pay back the loans.