Individual Freedom and the Birth Control Debate: Finally, a Man's Perspective

This whole recent debate about birth control has been truly one of the worst examples of how we Liberal and Conservative Americans talk to one another. There has famously been a whole lot of name calling, but not a lot of listening. And it definitely has been cutting both ways.

Terrible things have been said by Rush Limbaugh regarding Sandra Fluke's testimony about birth control to Congress, and he has been rightfully excoriated by the mainstream media to the point where his advertisers are having a hard time justifying their sponsorship of his program. But while it is fun and a little bit cathartic to jump on the anti-Rush bandwagon, I think we've lost what is a legitimate concern for right-wing types: why should birth control be subsidized by taxpayers and not by users of birth control?

Limbaugh's tirade came on the heels of an earlier discussion that was kicked off by the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius when she announced that women needed to be granted free birth control coverage by insurance companies, and that there would not be a religious exemption granted for religious-owned organizations that did not primarily serve a religious clientele. Catholic Church members and social conservatives pointed out that this was an unprecedented government infringement on the separation of church and state. But too often their concerns were blown off as just the same old anti-choice womyn-hating bluster by establishment media.

There are legitimate concerns about government overreach and freedom of religion at the heart of these debates, and I think these concerns need to be acknowledged and addressed.

However, I also think that the concerns of Liberals aren't getting the proper amount of attention. Advocates of free birth control for women are not advocating taxpayer-funded guilt-free sex for sluts. Their concern is the relationship between cost and access to birth control, especially for the poor, and that by expanding access to birth control, poor women would be able to define their own economic destiny more easily. But no one is making this argument. Those who should be making this argument are too often making the argument that Conservatives are bullies and pigs and should be ignored.

One thing all of us Americans should be able to agree on is that the right of an individual to be able to choose things in life (religion, career, products and services) should be preserved whenever pragmatic. That's why it's so annoying to me to see these arguments where the Conservatives are the only ones who are pointing out the government infringement on an individual's right to choose, be it a pious employer or an outraged taxpayer. By choosing to upbraid Rush Limbaugh, liberal media types leave the link between lack of money and lack of choice unexposed, which is surprising considering the success that Occupy Wall Street had in raising awareness at the advantages that wealthy people have in a capitalist society.

And just in case Liberals are thinking that they don't need to address these arguments because the public is on their side, they should really take a look at this recent New York Times / CBS poll (page 22) that shows that 51% of Americans believe that not just religious organizations but all employers ought to be able to opt out of offering insurance that covers birth control if it violates their conscience, compared to just 40% that say employers shouldn't be able to. The numbers go to 57% / 36% when only religious organizations are counted.

We may be winning the Battle of Rush Limbaugh, but we are definitely losing the War of Insurance Coverage for Birth Control (note: we'll probably need to come up with a better name for this war).

Jim Rogers Does it Again!

I'm sort of obsessed with Jim Rogers. Every two years, Jim Rogers will appear on the primary ballot as a candidate for U.S. president or U.S. senator, and despite doing limited campaigning, he will get an extraordinary amount of votes. And by "limited campaigning," I mean "standing on a street corner in a crimson sweatshirt and holding a sign up as traffic honks at him".

Yesterday was Oklahoma's presidential preference primary, and while the important stuff was going down on the other side of the aisle, Oklahoma's Democrats were asked to do one simple thing for democracy: checking the box that says Barack Obama. Unfortunately for the sitting president, only 57% of ornery Oklahoma Democrats are willing to give him a second term. Turns out 18% of Oklahoma Democrats would prefer the anti-abortion activist (and former Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Florida) Randall Terry. And 14% would prefer the distinguished hobo from Midwest City Jim Rogers.

The news stories this morning advertised the fact that based on Terry breaking the 15% viability threshhold, Randall Terry would get to claim a delegate or two and spoil what would have otherwise been a perfect delegate tally for Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention. But the news stories are incomplete. Randall Terry doesn't get to have all the fun.

Assuming he's still a candidate on April 4th, and assuming he submits a slate of delegates to the Oklahoma Democratic Party by March 15th, Jim Rogers should be able to claim three national convention delegates. Party rules say that the delegates to the national convention shall be awarded proportionally not only by statewide tally but also by congressional district. Of the 16 statewide delegates at stake, Obama should claim at least 11, leaving 5 to Randall Terry and 0 for Jim Rogers. But in the congressional district vote, Rogers got more than 15% in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th districts (the non-Oklahoma City, non-Tulsa parts of the state). Of the 29 delegates awarded to the districts, Obama should get 22, Terry should get 4, and Rogers should get 3. (Muskogee Politico breaks it down 21, 5, 3).

It's still amazing to me. This guy whose sole contribution to our republic is standing out on Reno and holding a handmade sign has received 15,000 Democratic votes, or 2.28% of the votes cast so far in all Democratic primaries and caucuses. He now has more delegates than Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, and Gary Johnson combined, as well as a higher percentage of votes cast. Vermin Supreme, New Hampshire's grizzled old coot of a perennial candidate, has one-twentieth of the votes that Jim Rogers has, and that guy's even been on TV.

Political Sign Spotting: Oklahoma's Super Tuesday GOP Primary

Oklahoma is holding its Republican presidential primary on Tuesday, March 6.  Supporters of the candidates have probably been hard at work campaigning, including placing campaign signs in public rights-of-way.  These are the dates that I've first seen a candidate's signs somewhere while driving in Norman:

Ron Paul: sometime in 2011
Rick Santorum: February 10th or so
Mitt Romney: March 2
Newt Gingrich: N.A.

Santorum is up in the polls here and is expected to win.

I'm Rooting for Romney. Really.

It seems Mitt Romney has won the Republican primary in Michigan, defeating Rick Santorum in a close race.

As a Democrat who is going to vote for Barack Obama in the fall (a pointless action in red-state Oklahoma!), I am glad to see him win.

While I understand the Michael Moore Operation Hilarity perspective, I think having Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate for president keeps a lot of issues that I would consider important on the front burner.  Issues like privilege and wealth and income inequality.  With Mitt Romney as a candidate, allies of Barack Obama will be making arguments that the system that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the 99% will be perpetuated and strengthened under a Romney administration.  We will get to continue asking questions like, "why is it fair that Mitt Romney pays an effective 14% tax rate when those who make a tenth of what he makes pay almost twice what he does?" and "why was it logical for Mitt Romney to be against the GM bailouts but for the bank bailouts?"

We may also get to hear debates about policies long taken for granted, like "why should capital gains be taxed lower than wages; has this economic theory been proven?" and "what is the cost/benefit of a government's increasing regulation in terms of the overall welfare of its citizens?"

This is in addition to the fact that Mitt Romney is an unlikable candidate.  He does not inspire that warm fuzzy Reaganesque feeling in his fellow Republicans.  He inspires more of the McCain/Dole/Kerry "hold your nose and pull the lever" feeling that has lost elections in the past.  He has been saying all the right things for Republicans in this primary, but many Republicans don't believe that he means them.  He has an inauthenticity problem.  Although it's not entirely true.  I have no doubt that he really does have friends who are NASCAR team owners, and that he really does believe that "corporations are people."

And if I'm wrong and Barack Obama loses?  The consequences of a Republican victory in November are less dire with Mitt Romney than with Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul.  Romney has flipped before, and he is perceived as one who would flip again.  And even if his electorate holds him to his word in the campaign, his campaign has for the most part been perceived as more moderate than his fellow Republicans.  Did he say he'd get rid of Obamacare on day one of his presidency?  Maybe.  Do I think he's going to actually do it?  No. 

So, all in all, I'm feeling pretty good about the 2012 presidential election.  And that feeling will carry me all the way to 2016, when our nation will elect President Marco Rubio to the first of his two terms. 

Serious Journalist Quotes: February 27, 2012

NPR quote of the morning: it's a tie!

1. "Ron Paul has denied the allegation that he's having a bromance with Romney." - Sonari Glinton

I'm almost positive Ron Paul would call you a queer if you suggested he was having a "bromance" to his face.

2. "Only time will tell if 'Man or Muppet' becomes a classic." - Mandalit del Barco

Only time will tell if in 20 years we dumb down the threshhold for the word "classic" low enough to incorporate a novelty song about Muppets.

Income Tax Cuts - Mary Fallin's War on the Poor

It has been an absolutely wacky first week of the Oklahoma legislature's 2012 session. Foods containing aborted fetuses? Personhood definitions? This cake featuring Ronald Reagan's face and an extra "W"? This declaration that "any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina" would be "an action against an unborn child"? This isn't even counting the stuff going down at Night Trips' newest location, the insurance commissioner's office.

But maybe the most important news from this week was officially unveiled at Governor Mary Fallin's State of the State address. Fallin introduced a plan to reduce the Oklahoma state income tax drastically, from a current top rate of 5.25% down to a rate of 3.5% for individuals making more than $35,000 per year or couples making more than $70,000 per year. Fallin said that a family making $40,000 per year would pay 37% less in taxes in 2013. Amazing, right? So, how will we pay for it?

The official word is that the $100,000,000 revenue-deficiency in 2013 and the $300,000,000 revenue-deficiency in 2014 would be made up with the elimination of "loopholes", "credits", "carve-outs", and other words for things that unscrupulous businesses and rich people with personal accountants take advantage of. But, as it turns out, just doing the transferable tax credit stuff still means that the state is "woefully short" on making up the revenue lost. So that means eliminating a bunch of other tax credit programs that normal people use, like the personal exemption (claimed by 83% of tax payers), the earned income tax credit, the child care tax credit, a tax credit used to offset the sales tax for groceries for poor people, et cetera.

As it turns out, Mary Fallin's tax reform proposal would actually result in tax increases for the bottom 55% of income earners, according to the Oklahoma Policy Institute. Now that's broadening the base!

Other ways to pay for Fallin's tax reform proposal, according to Fallin, would be that as a result of shoveling fat stacks of Benjamins into the pockets of the Aubrie McClendons of the state, the state's economy would grow fast enough to overcome the revenue shortfall. "New jobs and increased investments in Oklahoma will lead to more revenue and increased collections in sales tax, corporate tax, excise tax, and more." Tax cuts pay for themselves, y'all. If this smells exactly like an Arthur Laffer supply-side voodoo economics argument-turd, it's because Arthur Laffer's consulting firm helped create the plan with the right-wing think tank Oklahoma Council on Public Affairs.

Oklahoma's economy has grown quite fast since the 2008-2009 recession in part due to our booming energy industry and in part because, well, nowhere to go but up, right? This should mean that bond ratings agencies would look more favorably at the credit rating of the state and its ability to pay back its bonds. But today Moody's announced that it was keeping the credit rating of the state steady, partly because of the tax reform plan, but mostly because our constitution makes it really hard to raise taxes.

From the Tulsa World:

The Moody's report says the state's financial situation is made stronger by a strong state constitutional balanced-budget requirement, a healthy state balance sheet, and substantial oil and gas reserves.

But the agency expressed concerns about the state's past and future plans to cut income taxes.

"The trend of decreasing income tax rates combined with the difficulty in increasing taxes constricts future financial flexibility," the Moody's report says.

So when bad economic times come again, tax reform will cripple the state, and we will be unable to afford many of the functions of government that so many people, at least in part, will depend on to offset the cost of having to pay higher taxes due to said tax reform.

PolitiFact Truth Index, Part 5: That Other PolitiFact Truth Index

This week PolitiFact announced a new feature on their mobile phone app. They developed a chart of general truthiness against time so that trends could be seen more easily. In order to do this, they had to create some way of quantifying their own Truth-o-meter® ratings, so they assigned values to their ratings with positive numbers representing truths and negative numbers representing lies. Then they took the average of the last seven days and charted the results.

The feature is almost exactly like my PolitiFact Truth Index.

What did PolitiFact call this new feature? The PolitiFact Truth Index.

Coincidence? Who knows.

So now when you search for "politifact truth index" in Google, PolitiFact's site comes up first rather than mine. On the other hand, now that the PolitiFact Truth Index is actually a thing, maybe auxiliary search traffic to this site will increase.

Not that any of that actually matters.

There are differences between our methods, PolitiFact and me, but most of them are arcane, with one big exception: PolitiFact's PolitiFact Truth Index doesn't break it down by political party. This is probably in an attempt to avoid any overt semblance of partisanship, because otherwise PolitiFact would have to defend the reason why Democrats have a higher Truth Index value than Republicans, and then they get into the whole debate about selection bias versus actual lying, and then they lose their non-partisan aura which is essential to their reputation as a source for the mainstream media.

I obviously don't have any of those qualms. I just charts 'em as I sees 'em, and I see Republicans lying (although recently the numbers have been evening out, as shown below).




Other differences between the Quibbling Potatoes PolitiFact Truth Index and the PolitiFact PolitiFact Truth Index have more to do with the calculation of points. My points for the six categories of statements in descending truth order are as follows: 1, 1, 0, 0, -1, -1. PolitiFact's are essentially as follows: 1, 0.5, 0, -0.5, -1, -1.5. They also multiply the result by 100 because it just looks cooler that way. And their average is calculated by date that they analyzed the statement, not by the date that the statement was made. So even though PolitiFact claims to be tracking the "ups and downs of political discourse" with its Truth Index, they are really tracking the ups and downs of PolitiFact's choice of statements for the week. There are differences between those two methods as you can see by comparing the chart below to the one above.



PolitiFact's method is so similar to mine that it was really easy to calculate and make a chart based on one of the other methods of quantification that I tried which was based on a 5-4-3-2-1-0 point system. So the chart below represents what PolitiFact's PolitiFact Truth Index would be if they broke their numbers down by political party.



For the week ending July 1, 2011, Republicans had an Index value of -30.43 and Democrats had an Index value of -25.00.

PolitiFact's method makes everyone look a little worse, which is to be expected when three out of the six categories essentially are downgraded by half a point so that Pants-on-fire ratings are 50% worse on the bad side than True ratings are on the good side. But it still shows that, but for the week ending on May 20, 2011, Democrats have scored better than Republicans in every week I've looked at so far.