On the Tea Party and Undenounced Lies

This was an email that turned into a blog post.

I believe the reporting of the phenomenon is way bigger than the phenomenon itself, and I feel that all except the most extreme tea party folks realize that the way to bring about change in this country is to rally popular support and elect different representatives. I definitely don't think the movement will end up in revolution. One thing that members of the tea party make clear is that they love the Constitution.

Having said that, it's all this inflammatory chest-thumping posturing that is ridiculous. This author is exactly right that the stupid things these white people are saying would scare the shit out of white people if black people were saying them. And the mainstream reporting of the phenomenon covers these right-wing talking heads with respect undeserving of the commentary they produce. The media should be loudly exposing the lies espoused by conservative commentators, not broadcasting them without comment. Congressmen and senators should be loudly denouncing their fellow members for this chest-thumping counterproductive revolutionary talk. And they should be doing it loudly because it is the right thing to do, not because it will score political points. And they should do it overtly, like calling out by name, and including the term "pants-on-fire" as many times as possible in their press conferences. Because these people should know that when they whip the public into a froth of fury, some radicals may actually believe the lies, and they'll start flying their planes into IRS buildings or start plotting to kill local police officers or something.

I'm Definitely Dim

Cool! This blog is mentioned in a survey of Oklahoma blogs on the McCarville Report Online, one of the few frequently updated political blogs in Oklahoma. I've gone dim! What an honor!

Health Care Concerns: Interstate Commerce Clause

As far as I can tell, 100% of the non-spamming readers of this site have law degrees. So I need your help with these two questions: does the government really have the power to force people to buy a private insurance plan, and is a tax on the uninsured an overreaching form of discrimination?

I was listening to an interview with the Attorney General of Virginia Ken Cuccinelli on NPR the other day, and his gripes with the new health care law seemed to be well-thought-out and well-articulated (unlike his gripes with homosexuals). Ken Cuccinelli is suing the government because he believes the law is unconstitutional because it compels all citizens to buy a product from a private marketplace. And honestly, I can't immediately think of a private good or service required by all individuals, not just car-owners or house-owners or business-providers.

Another worry of mine about the health care bill is the prospect for the private insurers in the exchanges to jack up prices. They will no longer be allowed to rescind policies or deny policies to people, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing that says they have to provide a policy at a low price. And, like so many Republicans have argued, there is nothing in the health care law to control costs of medical service. So rising insurance premiums will surely keep rising without any market control method of the size that only a government could provide. This was the rationale behind the extinct public option, after all. (Hell, it's the rationale behind single payer coverage too).

It was thought to be the news in California of Anthem Blue Cross's 39% rate hike that steeled the nerves of Democratic lawmakers and helped them finally pass the health care law. But what is the method by which this new law would be able to stop rate hikes like this? Increased competition? There are many health insurers with many plans in California already. It doesn't stop them from raising rates. The market for health insurance contains too much friction for people to be able to switch insurance policies. And because of measures that strengthen employer-based health insurance policies, the health insurance market should continue to operate opaquely.

I don't like the private-insurance-only health care bill, but only time will tell if it makes the country better or worse.

Ronald Reagan = Leftist Fringe

Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com:

How much clearer evidence can there be of how warped and extremist we've become on these matters? The express policies of the right-wing Ronald Reagan -- "applying the rule of law to terrorists"; delegitimizing Terrorists by treating them as "criminals"; and compelling the criminal prosecution of those who authorize torture -- are now considered on the Leftist fringe. Merely advocating what Reagan explicitly adopted as his policy -- "to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against" Terrorists -- is now the exclusive province of civil liberties extremists. In those rare cases when Obama does what Reagan's policy demanded in all instances and what even Bush did at times -- namely, trials and due process for accused Terrorists -- he is attacked as being "Soft on Terror" by Democrats and Republicans alike. And the mere notion that we should prosecute torturers (as Reagan bound the U.S. to do) -- or even hold them accountable in ways short of criminal proceedings -- is now the hallmark of a Far Leftist Purist. That's how far we've fallen, how extremist our political consensus has become.

If You Wrongfully Detain a Suspected Terrorist

Dahlia Lithwick's latest Guantanamo piece reminds me of a series of childrens books by Laura Numeroff that the kids love, the "If You Give A [anthropomorphic animal] a [baked good]" series.

If you wrongfully detain a suspected terrorist,
He'll ask you for his lawyer.
You'll have to keep him at Guantanamo for awhile.
He'll probably be radicalized there.
He'll go on and on about his right to access a court.
You'll probably have to suspend habeas corpus.
His Yemeni background will be enough.
There will be an act of terrorism in this country eventually.
The public will be shocked
Then outraged.
They'll expect you to "do something".
You'll probably have to interfere with the judicial system some more.
And chances are,
If your Yemeni can in any way connected to the terrorist plot,
You'll have to send him back
To Guantanamo.
Forever.

Now all I need is an illustrator!

A State's Guide to Qualifying for Higher Medicare Payments

From a NY Times article:

Another item in the package would increase Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors in any state where at least 50 percent of the counties are “frontier counties,” defined as those having a population density less than six people per square mile.

And which are the lucky states? The bill gives no clue. But the Congressional Budget Office has determined that Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming meet the criteria.

This is an interesting wrinkle in the health bill, and since it falls at an intersection of two of my interests (the health care reform bill and trivial U.S. geography), I felt the urge to comment.

What is interesting to me is that the extra money for Medicare payments does not go to the least populous states (bottom five: Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota), nor does it go to the states with the least population density (bottom five: Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota). It goes to the states with the highest number of counties that fall under a certain threshhold of population density. Why so arcane? I'm guessing by having it tied to counties, the provision was designed to screw Alaska, the least population-dense state by far, but a state without counties. (Take that, Sarah Palin!) But in it's stead, the provision rewards Utah, the 10th least population dense state in the country, and just as rosy red. It's two senators are no more likely to vote for the provision than they are to vote for a pro-gay marriage law. States that have less population density than Utah include swing states New Mexico and Nevada, as well as the swing-senator-Ben-Nelson-containing state of Nebraska. Utah has 29 counties, and it just so happens that the lines have been drawn so that 15 of them have a population density of less than six people per square mile.

But have no fear, sparse states! You can qualify for this additional Medicare payment just by doing a little redrawing of your maps. All you have to do is some combination of merging populous counties together while splitting less populous counties in two or three parts. For instance, New Mexico currently contains 14 counties out of a possible 33 that have a population density of under six people per square mile. Therefore, all that New Mexico would need to do was to merge six counties together that have population densities over 6 per square mile. For instance, by merging Lea, Eddy, Roosevelt, Otero, Curry and Chaves counties together into one mega-rancher-haven county, New Mexico could qualify for extra Medicare payments. (14 out of 28 counties).

There's nothing that says every state in the union can't do this. I suggest Oklahoma get in on this deal too. Keep the panhandle counties. Merge every other county together. 2 out of 4 counties would get Oklahoma some Medicare money. The state could even designate the existing counties in the main part of Oklahoma as some kind of special jurisdictions (parishes? boroughs?) so that county-level services like courthouses and rural roads don't need to be compromised geographically. But under this plan, Oklahoma would only officially have four "counties".

E.Z. Million, Norman's Most Interesting (-ly Named) Politician, Dies

Oh, E.Z. Million, never could you manage to proclaim
An electoral victory due to a football game.
A single issue politician rarely gets to claim
A democratic victory to carry him to fame.
We'll all fondly remember every Fall when you'd exclaim
That it was so unfair to go to Texas for this game.
And when we'd read your interviews, our thoughts were all the same:
"But seriously, sir, is that your honest Christian name?"