June 2005 Archives

I've often said that it won't matter who runs for the GOP in '08 because they'll simply offer more tax cuts and nobody lost an election offering tax cuts.

You could look it up.

That said, do tax cuts really work? The Laffer Curve (appropriately drawn on a cocktail napkin) suggests that if you raise tax rates "too high" gross tax revenues eventually start going down. If you lower tax rates "low enough" then gross tax revenues actually begin to increase.

Conservatives love to tell the story of Ronald Reagan and tax cuts. Here's how Stephen Moore of the WSJ remembers it:

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan chopped the highest personal income tax rate from the confiscatory 70% rate that he inherited when he entered office to 28% when he left office and the resulting economic burst caused federal tax receipts to almost precisely double: from $517 billion to $1,032 billion.

Classic supply-side theory made real by the Gipper (and Laffer).

Unfortunately, it's a fairy-tale.

Let Kevin Drum do the math:

1. First, we should adjust for inflation, shouldn't we? In 1980 dollars, $1,032 billion is actually $670 billion.

2. And of course, population increased over that time too, which naturally increases tax payments. Adjusting for that, tax revenue was $2,283 per person in 1980 and $2,694 per person in 1990.

3. That's not double. It's an increase of 18%. And it's worth noting that a lot of that is due to consistent tax increases throughout the 1980s (details here). Without that, Reagan wouldn't have gotten even the anemic growth in tax revenue that he did.

But wait. Is "anemic growth" fair? Why yes. After all, we can play this game with any decade. Annual tax receipts are here. Adjusting for inflation and population growth, the supposedly horrible 70s produced an increase in tax revenue per person of 25%. The Clinton 90s produced growth of 40%. In fact, Reagan produced the slowest growth in tax revenue of any decade since World War II. That's a real supply side triumph.

Here's the thing: Guys like Grover "Starve the Beast" Norquist really do want to shrink the government. They want to shrink it small enough to be able to drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the tub. And the historical record on tax revenues simply puts Norquist's goals in sharper focus.

And/but most conservative Republicans still preach that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy and increase tax revenues.

Fact is, they wouldn't be telling that story if it wasn't effective in getting them elected.

Thirty years ago, I entered the business world as a managing partner in a solar energy business. We beat the odds and prospered for nearly ten years until energy prices went down and tax credits flickered out. We moved on.

Our reliance on foreign oil is once again pushing us into an uncertain future. But this time, there's a new kid on the block: the Chinese economy is now the second largest consumer of oil in the world. And their appetite for crude doesn't look like it's going down any time in the near future.

Unless you believe that the world supply of oil is infinite (I don't), unless you believe that the Saudi production capacity has room for growth (I don't), unless you believe that the Russian production capacity will bail us out (I don't, not with China AND India out there), unless you believe that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will yield a significant amount of oil (I don't), unless you buy all of that (and I don't), then the only way out is to make an Apollo-moon-landing type commitment to energy independence NOW.

I know, I know, it will take decades and hundreds of billions of dollars. But you know what? Back in 1975 the naysayers were saying the same thing -- but had we done it then, we'd be home free by now.

It's deja-goddam-vu all over again -- you think we'll get it right this time?

P.S. Newsweek has an interview with Charlie Baker, Honda's Chief Engineer in the US:

Toyota talks about every car being a hybrid someday. What do you think is going to be on our highways in 10 and 20 years?

We would love to make 100 percent hybrids. Obviously, there are huge challenges, but it would be a perfect embodiment of the Honda philosophy. In the longer term, you want to move to a carbon-free type of mobility. So we are determined to lead in fuel cells.

But developing an affordable electric-fuel-cell car seems ever elusive. Will we ever get there or are we trying to crack the wrong nut?

We've got fuel cells on the road right now. At Honda that's the equivalent of the moon shot. We absolutely pick that as a challenge. Can we guarantee there will be 32 percent of Hondas that will have fuel cells by 2013? No. But there is a huge commitment to fuel cells.

Got that? Honda. And Toyota.

And where the hell are GM and Ford? I'll tell you where -- still trying to figure out why their stock is now rated "junk," i.e., nowhere.

(HT to Bill in Portland Maine)

From the inestimable John Rogers:

Oh, and the one thing that really, REALLY drives me nut-shudderingly mad is when I point out something about the current administration's policies, and I hear: "But Clinton --"

Boom. Done. You have just forfeited. You've just said "I have no rebuttal or ideas which contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the policies of the guy who not only is running the country right now, but has been doing so with the moral force of 9/11 behind him and full control of both Houses for the last FIVE. GODDAM. YEARS and so has the closest to absolute power of any President in a HALF CENTURY. There is no reasonable argument I can make based on current facts. I must pull up some comparison to Clinton -- "

Clinton has been gone for FIVE YEARS people. He is an ex-president! 'E's passed on! This president is no more! He has ceased to be president! 'Is term's expired and he's gone! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of legislative life, 'Is political processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off Air Force One, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PRESIDENT!!

Heh.

"At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. … Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Below are my favorites from the AFI Top 100 Movies Quotes list.

I chose the ones that are a part of my normal day-to-day vocabulary. Well, except for maybe #21, which I used mostly to scare my kids.

How about you? Which are your favorite quotes from the list?

Gandhi said that even if you were a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.

Apparently, the Wisconsin Assembly doesn't get it:

The Wisconsin Assembly approved a ban on the so-called morning-after pill on state college campuses, a restriction that would be the first in the nation if approved...

The legislation would prohibit University of Wisconsin System health centers from advertising, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception: drugs that can block a pregnancy in the days after sex...

Republican Rep. Daniel LeMahieu introduced the bill after a health clinic serving UW-Madison students published ads in campus newspapers inviting students to call for prescriptions for the drug to use on spring break.

"Are we going to change the lifestyle of every UW student? No," LeMahieu said. "But we can tell the university that you are not going to condone it, you are not going to participate in it, and you are not going to use our tax dollars to do it."

That's nice, but there are some Constitutional questions that have to be answered:

Democratic Rep. Marlin Schneider called the measure "a direct frontal assault on the right to privacy, on the right of free speech, on the right of a free press."

And then there's that whole ignore-history-and-you'll-be-doomed-to-relive-it thing:

"Apparently some in this body want to take us back to the time when the dispensing of contraception was a criminal act," Schneider said.

Yeah, I know -- people should take responsibility for their actions. But what's your Plan B? More abortions? Jail-time for those who sell contraband contraceptives?

From Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen:

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from.

If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Back to you, Wince.

(HT to Cory)

Some facts about China, America and Walmart:

• Walmart charges amazingly low prices on everything.

• Walmart is everywhere.

• Walmart is America's #1 retailer.

• Most of Walmart's suppliers come from China (probably close to 80%).

• America currently sustains a trade imbalance with China -- we buy more from China than we sell them. America sells raw materials to China and China sells us finished goods like electronics and clothing -- that are sold in Walmart.

• American factory workers get paid an average of $15 per hour.

• Chinese factory workers get paid an average of 35 cents an hour.

Some opinions about China, America and Walmart:

• Walmart's proponents will tell you that they are helping Americans attain a higher standard of living simply because of their low prices.

• Walmart's opponents will tell you that Walmart is hurting Americans' chances at a higher standard of living by lowering wages and cutting benefits (not to mention "discouraging" unionization).

• American economists are divided on the issue.

Where do we go from here?

A rebuttal to conservative claims.

(HT to shep)

Matt Labash profiles Dave "Mudcat" Saunders in the Weekly Standard. Along the way he has a conversation with Saunders' partner, Steve Jarding who says this, about Southerners who vote Republican:

...."If you say to them, 'You're voting against your own economic interest,' is that true? Damn right, it's true. But it sounds belittling. It sounds like you're saying, 'You're an idiot.' No, Democrats, you're the idiots. They're voting on their values. They're voting on something out there, because the other side gave them something to vote on. You've given them nothing, and while you're doing that, suicide rates are up. Unemployment rates are up. Wages are down — it's a terrible mess in rural America."

Kevin Drum takes it one step further, asking just what exactly constitutes one's "economic interests?" If you vote for Democrats and their argument that you're voting for your own economic interest, just what exactly are you getting?

A higher minimum wage? Maybe, but even in the rural South most people already make more than the minimum wage.

Medicare and Social Security? They already exist.

Money for roads? Republicans do that too.

More labor friendly laws? That doesn't resonate much in the South, and in any case they probably don't believe that Dems can deliver on that anyway.

So exactly what economic interests are they voting against? Forget ...arguments about regressive taxes or rising income inequality. They may be true, but they're way too abstract.

If you want to convince these guys that their economic interests lie with Democrats, we need to offer them something real: local clinics, free healthcare, tax rebates, something. Right now, I don't think these voters believe that Democrats are actually promising anything that would make a genuine difference in their lives.

In other words, it's not that [cultural] values have drowned out the economic arguments, it's that no one's even making the economic arguments in language that means anything to these guys.

Until we start, we'll never really know for sure whether or not [cultural] values trump economics, will we?

OK, altogether now: "Medicare for all."

Krugman:

A system in which the government provides universal health insurance is often referred to as "single payer," but I like Ted Kennedy's slogan "Medicare for all."

It reminds voters that America already has a highly successful, popular single-payer program, albeit only for the elderly. It shows that we're talking about government insurance, not government-provided health care.

And it makes it clear that like Medicare (but unlike Canada's system), a U.S. national health insurance system would allow individuals with the means and inclination to buy their own medical care.

The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada's government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system. Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. The reason is that single-payer systems don't devote large resources to screening out high-risk clients or charging them higher fees. The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured.

Sounds pretty straightforward.

But we know that the insurance lobby will fight it.

How about doctors -- would they fight it? Why or why not? Would patients reject it? Why or why not? Would taxpayers vote for it? Why or why not?

Would Democrats run on it? In other words, could the issue be used to nationalize the mid-term elections?

Discuss.

I am the father of four kids -- two of my own and two by marriage. They range in age from 6-17.

I'm also a liberal.

I've also spent plenty of time watching TV with all of my kids at one time or another. So I know (from experience) that there is plenty of good stuff on TV as well as plenty of crap, too.

And at one time or another I've told my kids what they are allowed to watch (good stuff) and what they are not allowed to watch (crap).

They didn't always like it, but that's what we (as parents) do.

I also know that some parents go beyond that: some parents petition the networks and Congress to ban certain kinds of content. Some parents are not satisfied to discipline their own kids; they want to discipline mine too. Death to Sponge Bob!

The conventional wisdom among liberals is that this is censorship. The conventional wisdom among liberals is that this is bad. And to a certain extent, the conventional wisdom is correct.

After all, this is a free-market. Anything goes. That's the American Way, baby -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But here's the thing: this alienates people who see themselves as parents first and political junkies second.

They have a point.

They know that when people gather in large numbers to watch crap, then crap is king. It will get supported by lots of advertising money.

So here's what one liberal would do to promote family-friendly TV: promote truth in labeling. Who could be against that?

Some of you are thinking that we already have that -- the familiar TV-MA, TV-14, TV-PG, etc. And you're right. But I'd like to suggest that we keep those ratings/logos on the screen during the entire broadcast of the show, not just during the opening 5 seconds.

In addition, put them in a uniform spot on the screen -- upper-left, lower-right, etc.

By doing these two things, a channel surfing parent will know what each program's content is as they scoot around the dial.

In addition, I'd suggest that each rating be more clearly defined.

For example, here's the existing definition of TV-14:

This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended.

Pretty vague. The definition continues:

This program contains one or more of the following: intense violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive dialogue (D).

A little better, but not much. Just what exactly is "intensely suggestive dialogue?"

I like what Kids In Mind has done. Their rating system has hundreds of gradations to it, rating a movie on a scale of 1-10 on three categories: Sex, Violence and Profanity.

For example, they've rated Cinderella Man 4-6-4 -- 4 for Sex, 6 for violence, and 4 for profanity. In addition, they list incidences of each (during the movie) on their web site:

SEX/NUDITY 4

• A bare-chested man opens his door, we see two scantily clad women in the room behind him, and it is suggested that the three of them have been having sex.
  
• A woman climbs on her husband's lap, they hug and kiss, he picks her up and carries her into shadows and we hear her giggling.
  
• Women wear evening gowns that reveal bare shoulders, back and cleavage, and men are bare-chested while in the boxing ring in many scenes.
  
• A man and a woman kiss in several scenes, a man kisses his wife on the cheek, and men and women dance together.
  
• A woman asks her husband about "the women" he might have seen while he was away at a boxing match.

There it is: a specific and/but dispassionate, neutral, almost mechanical, listing of incidents, devoid of prosletyzing or value-judgements.

The parents decide what they want their kids to be exposed to.

I've consulted this site many, many times during the "difficult" pre-teen years. It worked pretty well. (Note: Cinderella Man is rated PG-13).

Take another example: Revenge of the Sith is rated 2-7-0 or 2 for Sex, 7 for Violence, 0 for Profanity.

You can also search the database by dialing in your own rating limits. For example, if I dial in 3-3-3, I can find 385 movies that match that criteria (Air Bud, Big Fat Liar, among others). If dial in 6-6-6, I find 219 films that match that criteria (Anchorman, Ace Ventura, among others). I can dial in 9-9-9 and find 25 films that match that criteria (21 Grams, Shawshank Redemption, among others). You can dial in any combination (or range of combinations) you want.

Why can't we insist on a similar system (to be displayed prominently) for TV shows? All we're talking about is truth in labeling, right?

What liberal would be against truth in labeling? We insist upon it for food that we put in our bodies. Why not insist on it for ideas that we put in our heads?

Notice that I'm not saying, for example, that watching Power Rangers makes boys into karate-chopping goofballs (or worse). Nor am I saying that Sponge Bob will make your kid grow up and marry a same-sex partner.

I'm simply saying that a parent should know what ingredients go into a show that will be consumed by their kids. You read the label on the cereal box. Why not insist on similar labeling on a TV show?

The technology is there to give us truth in labeling. Let's go for it.

I've been reading Ellis' biography of George Washington and I guess some things never change.

Ellis reminds us that (after 1775-76) colonial support for the war fell to dangerous levels, hampering Washington's efforts at establishing and funding a professional standing army.

Flash forward to 2005, to a war that is much less crucial and to a commander-in-chief with much lower charismatic appeal and ability.

If Washington had such a tough time, what are the prospects for George W. Bush?

• For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll...

• Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise...

• Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable

• Two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down

• Nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting

In all three cases [this matches or exceeds] the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded.

• More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

• 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has.

It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.

• Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency.

• A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.

There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security.

• Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems;

• Of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats.

• For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.

• By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating he has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.

As history shows with Washington and pretty much any commander-in-chief that came after him, public opinion can affect military objectives because, as Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis wrote in a note to his troops as he led them back into Iraq in February 2004, "our friendly strategic center of gravity is the will of the American people."

Here are a couple of true statements:

1. There is probably no more solidly Democratic city in the nation than Detroit.

2. Democrats have not found a convincing voice that can deliver God-talk to an electorate that wants to hear it.

That said, I was interested to read this article in the Detroit Free Press this morning:

Fifty thousand people are expected to crowd Ford Field [home to the NFL's Detroit Lions] this weekend for the free two-day, multiracial and multidenominational worship service. And it's not only about music and praying.

On Friday morning, 12 semi-trucks will unload 10,000 food baskets outside Straight Gate's doors. They'll go, first-come-first-served to the needy.

In the Christian world, the event is being billed as the "Spiritual Super Bowl XL," complete with slick ads.

Last year, the church picked up the tab for renting Ford Field. [Pastor Andrew] Merritt [of Detroit's Straight Gate International Church] won't talk about the cost, but it was obviously money well spent. The event's wide popularity helped draw corporate sponsors this year such as McDonald's, Comerica Bank and Compuware.

"The Super Bowl and the All-Star Game are wonderful events for the city of Detroit," Merritt said. "But this is a call of hearts that doesn't cost anyone (the public) anything."

One in Worship is not the first or only conference to bring top Gospel talent and renowned religious leaders to Detroit. Pastors across the region do it, many of them showcasing homegrown stars.

But only a select group has the pull to be broadcast live internationally. Through agreements with Total Christian Television, Christian Television Network, Daystar, the Miracle Network and Trinity Broadcasting, 400 million people will have TV access to One in Worship.

That may be due to the multitude of faces that will take the stage.

"Diversity is a reflection of the core of Christ, out of one blood made he all nations," Merritt said.

"Arabs will participate, Greek, French, Hispanics. But no cultural names, no denomination will get in the way of what people are coming here to do, and that is to worship as one body."

Reading this article, I was further reminded of two things I experienced in just the last few days.

One was a drive down the back roads of Utica, MS. We passed small homes by the side of the road that had signs in the front yard, signs that looked like the old "Burma Shave" signs (remember those?) The signs had Old and New Testament Bible verses on them. The homes were owned by African Americans.

Then a few days later, I found myself touring the Motown Museum in Detroit. Among other things, I was moved by a short documentary wherein Smokey Robinson recounted what Marvin Gaye told him during the recording of What's Going On: "God is helping me write this album."

As if that wasn't enough, Berry Gordy spoke of the spirit of Motown, all those years ago: "There's a little bit of you in me and a little bit of me in you." You might think it sounds quaint now, but I found it a very powerful reminder of things that are better remembered than forgotten.

Now comes Pastor Merritt, speaking of diversity and one-ness and helping the poor, and (in case you didn't get it) getting the participation of large corporate donors.

The writing is on the wall, people.

If Pastor Merritt and his flock are not part of the Democratic base, then the Democrats have no base.

Remembering Bobby Kennedy (who died 37 years ago, almost to the day) has triggered some memories of my first trip to Washington in the late summer of 1998.

When my then-wife and I decided to make the trip, we planned for it as though it were a trip to DisneyWorld, a trip we had made many times before.

In fact, while we were there, I had the distinct impression that (with a bit of tweaking here and there) Washington could be made into the baddest theme park of all time.

Well.

Did I say it was like a trip to DisneyWorld? Right. We knew we'd be walking and sight-seeing; we knew we'd be waiting in line. Our kids were accustomed to this drill.

Also, know this about the Rubyan family: we are into politics. Each member of my family is a political junkie of the most intense kind. For example, my son once told me that his favorite president was Harry Truman.

He told me this when he was four years old.

We became the ultimate tourists, making up lists of sights to see and checking them off one by one. We rode the subway, we walked, we drove. We covered the city like a blanket in the 72 hours that we were there. We got up early, we stayed out late.

For example, one evening we trekked out to view the White House lit at night. We heard it was quite a beautiful sight.

We got there at 11 pm, approaching from the south. Just as we walked up to the gate, all the exterior lights went out at once.

"Hey! Who tripped on the extension cord?" I said. My son didn't think it was funny. He insisted we go back again the next night, an hour earlier.

I also remember our trip to Arlington Cemetery. I remember being struck by the familiar and dramatic set-piece that is the JFK family grave site. If you have only seen pictures of it, you are missing the grandest part of all -- the view out over the Potomac River and across the mall. You can literally see for miles. It is a breathtaking view of Washington.

But around the corner, a short walk away, is the grave site of Robert Kennedy. It is a totally different experience.

Robert Kennedy's grave sits by itself, marked with a single white cross and a small, gravestone lying flat on the ground. It is surrounded by green grass. On the other side of the walk is a low fountain, more of a basin than anything else.

Carved into the walls surrounding the fountain are the words of a speech that Kennedy gave one evening in Indianapolis in April, 1968.

Some background: Kennedy was at a campaign stop. Martin Luther King had been murdered just moments before. Most of the people in the assembled crowd that night were African Americans; many did not know that King lay dead in Memphis. It was up to Kennedy to address the crowd with that horrible news. It was up to him to try to calm the restless crowd. It was up to him to try to put this cataclysmic event into some kind of perspective.

What he said that evening is carved on the walls of the fountain near his grave. This audio recording captured Kennedy's words that night in Indianapolis:

"In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it is perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.

"For those of you who are black...you can be filled with bitterness, with hatred, and a desire for revenge.

"We can move in that direction as a country, in great polarization--black people amongst black, white people amongst white, filled with hatred toward one another.

"Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and to replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand with compassion and love.

"For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and distrust...against all white people, I can only say that I feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling.

"I had a member of my family killed...

"But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have to make an effort to understand, to go beyond these rather difficult times.

"My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He wrote: 'In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.'

"What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black.

"So I shall ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King...but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love--a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke."

I remember seeing film of that speech the next day back in '68. I was watching Huntley-Brinkley and thinking, "Is there any other politician who could have given that speech, at that moment?"

After more than 35 years, I still have the same question. Who could have connected with the crowd, connected with the nation, connected with history that night, in that way? Only a remarkable man. It was a galvanizing moment.

It was a profoundly moving experience to see those words etched in stone on the grounds of Arlington Cemetery, 30 years later. When I saw those words, I said a simple prayer: God, bless America.

(This post was adapted from one three years ago.)

Josh Marshall writing at the new (and excellent) TPM Cafe:

When I asked, what would we do if we were back in power?, here's the focus of the dilemma that immediately came into my mind: health care.

The great challenge of progressive reform today is finding ways to counterbalance and reverse the pervasive privatization of risk we see across our society. (That is almost synonomous with the concentration and ossification of power and wealth among the few since they are the ones most able to thrive in a world of individualized risk.) That is not only a bad thing in itself, it also undermines the quality of life and, though this is not always seen as clearly, opportunity itself. But I don't think there's really any way to do any of that -- to make a serious dent in the problem -- as long as we have a health care system that is even remotely like the one we have today.

It used to be that we, through our system of governance, removed obstacles from in front of those that were willing and able to move up the economic ladder. Or, if you will, we created a social safety net through universal insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare. In other words, the Federal government (given all its inefficiencies and red tape) was still the place where everyone came together and no one -- no one! -- was left behind.

Not any more. Now, we have something called "The Ownership Society," which is just another way of saying "You're On Your Own." It's a good thing, I suppose, if you have enough of an economic cushion, a foundation, on which you can rest. Then, a greater amount of risk is desirable because it is evidence of the availability of a greater reward.

But, by removing the the safety net while increasing risk, I don't believe the vast majority of our nation benefits.

P.S. What's weird is that large corporations -- I'm talking to you, General Motors -- should be in favor of universal health care. Do you realize how badly they are hobbled by the cost of health care for current and retired workers? Hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars are added to the cost of every car that comes off the assembly line. This simply makes it more expensive for consumers to buy their product. It also handicaps the corporation in its competitive race with foreign manufacturers who have no such costs to deal with.