Take It Back 8: The Media

In my latest reading of Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future (copyright 2006), James Carville and Paul Begala talk about media bias.

They dispute that the media have a liberal bias, for they note that the media were particularly hard on Bill Clinton during the 1992 election and also during Clinton's Presidency, and on Al Gore during the 2000 election.  Meanwhile, the media failed to cover some of George W. Bush's indiscretions: for example, Governor George W. Bush denied under oath that he had "discussed a funeral home investigation...with the head of the state agency charged with investigating funeral homes or with representatives of the funeral home corporation under investigation", and yet his appointee to the agency and the funeral home company's CEO and lobbyist contradicted his testimony.

What are the media's motivations?  Carville and Begala highlight a few.  They believe that, although the mainstream media consist of a large number of people who voted for Clinton, the media still relish the prospect of taking down a President, in this case, Bill Clinton.  Moreover, Carville and Begala cite a study by Professor David Croteau that shows that, while many in the media are socially liberal (i.e., pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights), they are economically conservative.  Plus, there's the personal factor: there were many in the media who personally liked George W. Bush, but they did not particularly care for Vice-President Gore.

Carville and Begala argue that the Right exploits the charge of liberal media bias to get the sort of coverage that it desires, as journalists bend over backwards to avoid accusations of unfairness and seek out conservative voices.  Carville and Begala also note an example of how, in this Internet age, one can distort the truth and the distortion spreads throughout the media like wildfire.  Essentially, it was alleged that John Kerry initially supported President Bush's outsourcing of the hunt for Osama Bin-Laden to Afghan warlords, based on something that Kerry said to Larry King about a whole other issue: whether or not we should smoke Osama Bin-Laden out of his cave.  But the distortion was picked up by Chris Wallace, David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer, who presented it as truth.  And Carville and Begala discuss how George W. Bush's campaign and Administration played hardball with the media by punishing those who didn't report things as Bush wished, by denying them exposure to Bush and the Administration, by giving a story to a competitor, etc.  (Newt Gingrich made a similar point about President Barack Obama----see my post here.)

Carville and Begala offer ideas on how Democrats can cope with the media.  One way is to be aggressive in attacking Republican indiscretions and policy-proposals, which will get the media's attention because the media love to cover a fight.  Another way is to make use of local media outlets.  According to Carville and Begala, a number of Democrats seek the favor of the New York Times while ignoring local media outlets, but Bill Clinton in 1992 did not go that route, for Clinton appeared on a number of local stations.

What is my stance on the media?  I used to think that the media were liberal, and, to be honest, as I look back, I believe that this viewpoint on my part made me aware that there is such a thing as bias and that I can't necessarily accept everything that I read and hear at face value.  At the same time, this viewpoint allowed me to dismiss anything inconvenient to my Republican worldview as something made up by the "liberal" media, and so my view that the media are liberal made me critical and un-critical, at the same time. 

Nowadays, I don't dismiss that the mainstream media at times convey liberal views.  But I can't accept that as the full story because the media did attack Bill Clinton, and leftists would argue that the media pulled their punches during the George W. Bush Administration.  The media are often after acclaim and a story and are not always pursuing an ideological agenda.  Or maybe, as Carville and Begala contend, there are a variety of factors: perhaps the media only went so far in attacking Bush because they still wanted exposure to the Bush White House.

One thing that I thought about in my latest reading of Carville and Begala was my perception of George W. Bush.  Why did I like him and vote for him in 2004?  One reason was that I was a conservative, and I also was being a contrarian against the liberal environment where I was, which disdained and despised Bush.  But I also thought that Bush came across as a meek, humble, and friendly man, one who, like Ronald Reagan, did not have to be President in order to be happy.  Perhaps there was something to that narrative, but that has to be balanced out with the times that people say that Bush has played serious hardball in order to advance his interests.  Such stories don't make Bush look particularly meek, humble, friendly, or apathetic about having power!

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 6

For my write-up today on Al Gore's Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, I'll start with something that Gore says on page 179:

"...men and women who care must be politically empowered to demand and help effect remedies to ecological problems wherever they live.  As the dramatic environmental problems in Eastern Europe show, freedom is a necessary condition for an effective stewardship of the environment.  Here in the United States, a hugely disproportionate number of the worst hazardous waste sites are in poor and minority communities that have relatively little political power because of race or poverty or both.  Indeed, almost wherever people at the grass-roots level are deprived of a voice in the decisions that affect their lives, they and the environment suffer.  I have therefore come to believe that an essential prerequisite for saving the environment is the spread of democratic government to more nations of the world."

A while back, I wrote a post about Newt Gingrich's argument that capitalism is better for the environment than socialism and communism.  I've heard a similar argument from other right-wingers: "Oh, so capitalism is bad for the environment, huh?", the argument runs.  "What about the damage that was done to the environment in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe?  Chernobyl, anyone?  And how about China's pollution of the environment?"

I disagree with this argument if it's point is that a laissez-faire economy is best for the environment.  In my opinion, it would be comparing apples and oranges to liken the government imposing environmental regulations to the sort of system that Communist countries had or have.  Communist countries were collectivist, but my impression is that they were willing to disregard the environment when they felt that doing so would increase productivity.  Saying that Communist countries have hurt the environment does not mean that laissez-faire capitalism is right.

At the same time, I do think that capitalism can generate the wealth and productivity that are necessary for cleaner technology to be developed, and for companies to be able to financially bear environmental regulations.  And please keep in mind that many countries that have been called socialistic----such as certain nations in Western Europe and Scandinavia----actually have a solid capitalistic element.

I also think that Gore does well to point out that democracy can be conducive to good environmental stewardship.  In a democracy, if I don't like for my neck of the woods to be polluted, I can make my will known on this and perhaps effect change.  My understanding is that, in a number of Communist countries, people had no say about what their government did, and so they couldn't do much if the government contributed to the pollution of where they lived.  And yet, democracy may not be fool-proof, for polluters are also part of a democracy, and they have a significant amount of power and influence on the government.  And even everyday people may not like rigorous action on the environment, fearing that this could cost them their jobs.  Moreover, even in our democracy, there are people who lack power, and their neighborhoods especially suffer environmental degradation, as Gore notes.  That needs to be taken into consideration, and somehow rectified.

Lou Dobbs' "War on the Middle Class" 1

I started Lou Dobbs' 2006 book, War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back.

Here are some items:

1.  On pages 5-6, Lou Dobbs talks about how the Bush II Administration imposed a four-year embargo on White House staffers appearing on Dobbs' show.  The reason?  Dobbs criticized the Bush II Administration for using the term "war on terror" rather than highlighting that the war is against "radical Islamist terrorists".  This stood out to me because I recalled Newt Gingrich arguing that President Barack Obama's Administration boycotted Fox News because it did not like Fox's coverage.  Apparently, Lou Dobbs thinks that George W. Bush's Administration did the same sort of thing to him!  But I'm puzzled as to why the Bush II Administration did that, for I thought that the Bush II Administration publicly acknowledged that the U.S. was at war with radical Islam.

2.  On pages 6-7, Dobbs says that he criticized the U.S. Justice Department for indicting Arthur Andersen's Enron auditing firm rather than Arthur Andersen alone.  Dobbs did so because he was concerned for the "twenty-eight thousand innocent employees" who were put out of work because the entire firm was indicted.  Dobbs notes that the Justice Department later adopted a policy of indicting individuals rather than firms, and that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the firm.

3.  On page 14, the book has a moving passage about how not all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were from the elite.  Some of them were, but there were others who were millworkers and small businessmen.

4.  On page 19, Dobbs criticizes legislation to "roll back the estate tax", a tax that affects hardly two percent of Americans and brings in over $20 billion annually in taxes.  According to Dobbs, rolling this tax back will result in higher tax rates for "you"----which I take to be the middle class.  There is debate about who has a greater tax burden, the rich or the middle class.  Many conservatives have argued that the rich pay a lot of taxes, whereas there are many others in America who pay no federal income taxes.  But there are people on the left who contend that the rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their income than do the middle class.

5.  On page 20, Dobbs says that "less than a third of the richest people in the United States started out their lives in the middle or lower classes on the economic scale" (page 20).  For Dobbs, there is not much economic mobility in the U.S. these days.  And Dobbs thinks that a significant part of the problem is free trade policies, putting U.S. workers into competition with poorer workers in the world, tax cuts resulting in less funding for education, and lack of government concern about health care.  And, like Arianna Huffington, Dobbs criticizes the bankruptcy law, which robs middle-class people of the refuge of bankruptcy.

Dobbs says that free trade policies are "for the benefit of U.S. multinationals that remain uncompetitive in the global marketplace", but I wish that he'd explain how the multinationals are uncompetitive yet are benefiting.  I thought the problem was that we could not compete with cheaper foreign labor.  Maybe Dobbs will explain later in the book.

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 11: Moderate, Small Government Democrats

I finished Newt Gingrich's To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine.  In this post, I'd like to highlight something that Newt says on page 316:

The Tea Party movement "is not a movement of any one party.  While the recent GOP victories are good for the movement, success will also require moderate, small-government Democrats to beat the secular-socialist machine's candidates in Democratic districts."

This quote stood out to me because it reminded me of a time when I was reading about Christian Coalition people who were making inroads into the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party!  Sure, you'd expect for all of them to be Republicans, but that's not the case.  A few are Democrats.  My question is this: Is there a difference between your typical Christian Coalition person who is a Democrat, and your typical Christian Coalition person who is a Republican?

I'm curious as to what Newt means by "moderate, small-government Democrats".  There are Democrats who are deficit-hawks, such as Leon Panetta and (I think) the Democratic Leadership Council.  Bill Clinton governed as a deficit-hawk.  My impression (and I am open to correction) is that these types of Democrats are not adverse to raising taxes, for that's what supposedly keeps the deficit from spiraling out of control.  And the Tea Party doesn't care for raising taxes!

But then there are Democrats who (ideology-wise) are practically Republicans.  In Massachusetts, a left-leaning lady once told me that politicians in parts of Massachusetts could not be elected as Republicans, and so they ran as Democrats.  But they govern as Republicans in the sense that they cut programs for the needy.

I'm the sort of person who would like for the government to help people and to make a positive difference, but to do so in a fiscally-responsible way.  What I wonder is this: Do the deficit-hawk Democrats fit the bill?  Bill Clinton had his critics from the Left, and so there was a feeling that his deficit-hawk, end-of-big-government ways hurt the needy.  But did these critics from the Left have their own program for fiscal responsibility?  Maybe tax the rich and end foreign wars, but how politically feasible is that?

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 10: The Second Amendment

In my latest reading of To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, Newt Gingrich affirms that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, for that enables people to defend themselves against tyranny.  Newt appeals to Federalist Number 46, in which James Madison presents an armed populace as a bulwark against tyranny.

I remember a Republican congressional candidate going to a high school and making that argument about the Second Amendment.  The students then cross-examined him on this.  If the people find themselves in a position where they need to fight their government because it's become tyrannical, they asked, shouldn't their weaponry be equal to what the government has, for them to stand a chance?  Wouldn't they need aircraft carriers, or nuclear weapons?  The candidate did not know how to answer these questions.

I suppose that, if the people needed to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, the government would have the advantage, for the government has bombs, aircraft, and nuclear weapons.  But I doubt that the government would want to wipe out everyone in America, were it to become tyrannical.  Who would it then control?  Who would support the economy, which sustains the government?  Maybe the government would bomb a few areas, but suppose an armed populace did not give up but kept resisting?  Could the government suppress that?

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 9: Energy and the Environment

I have four items for my write-up today on Newt Gingrich's To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine.  Their focus is on the environment and/or energy.

1.  On page 240, Newt challenges the narrative that capitalism coincides with damage to the environment:

"This narrative fails to recognize that capitalist democracies are among the most environmentally conscious nations in the world.  As a rule, the more socialist a nation becomes, the more the environment suffers----just look at the environmental degradation that characterized nearly every Cold War-era Communist nation.  [W]ealth and freedom generally lead to better environmental practices; forests are declining in poor nations but expanding in wealthy ones."

Newt makes a good point when he says that a number of Communist countries have damaged the environment.  Here is an interesting article by the libertarian journal, The Freeman, on this issue, and this article also notes that governments pollute, so big government is not always the good guy.  But, in my opinion, that does not mean that "socialism" necessarily entails damage to the environment, for Western Europe and some of the Scandinavian countries do fairly well, environmentally-speaking (see here).  But, while many of them have regulations, some of them actually do the sorts of things that Newt supports: incentivizing clean energy.  Regarding Newt's statement that poor nations have declining forests, I think that what Newt fails to consider is that corporations go into poor countries and plunder their resources, and so capitalism cannot escape at least some blame for environmental degradation. 

2.  On page 243, Newt states what he thinks our policy should be towards climate change:

"Green conservatives should be skeptical, prudent, and smart.  We must demand complete objectivity from our scientists and our policymakers...If carbon overload should lead to major problems, our continuing investment in science and technology will give us the best chance of averting or adapting to the consequences."

Newt does not agree with left-wing hysteria about global warming, but he does not seem to dismiss the possibility that humans are causing it, to some degree.  He does not want to wreck the economy over it, but what if it turns out to be true?  In that case, he believes that technology would help us to avert its consequences or adapt to it.  Could we arrive at a position where it's too late, though----where global warming is causing so much damage, and it's really difficult to adapt to it or reverse it?

3.  Newt does not believe that renewable energy is the end-all, be-all, for he says that the wind is not always blowing and the sun is not always shining (page 253).  (Yet, I have heard the argument that solar vehicles are powered by batteries when the sun is not shining.)  But Newt does support it.  He states on page 256 that "the southwest has so much sunlight that if companies constructed a series of solar plants covering 100 square miles, those plants could generate as much electricity as all the fossil fuel-fired plants in America."

But Newt notes (with disapproval) incidents in which environmentalists are challenging renewable energy projects because of threats to endangered species (see here and here).  In the case of the solar energy project in the Mojave Desert, however, the Sierra Club was not against the project, but rather wanted it to be located somewhere else so as to protect an endangered turtle.

4.  Newt supports ethanol.  Critics of ethanol, however, contend that it drives up food prices because fewer crops are being used for food.  Newt says on page 258, however, that "without the growth of biofuel yields, the American grain farmer will drown in a glut of production, and farm incomes will collapse."  So Newt believes that ethanol can actually help farmers avoid deflation.

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 8: Medicare

In my latest reading of To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, Newt Gingrich talks about Medicare.  He laments that a lot of money on Medicare is wasted on account of such things as Medicare fraud, lack of coordination, paperwork, etc.  Earlier in the book, on page 210, Newt says that the American health care system does not focus enough on incentivizing quality care, and he states that "we need a reimbursement model that takes into account the quality of the care delivered, not simply that it was delivered."  My impression is that Newt dislikes the fact that the reimbursement system pays for a bunch of treatments and doctor's visits, without really caring if those things are making people better.

Newt says that President Barack Obama acknowledges that there are "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" in the American health care system (Obama's words on page 218).  Newt does not believe, however, that President Obama has done enough to tackle the problem.

At the same time, on page 94, Newt criticizes Obamacare for cutting Medicare by half a trillion dollars to "pay for other aspects of the reform plan, like government subsidies and Medicaid expansion."  He says that, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, these cuts include "home health ($39 billion); hospitals ($131 billion); skilled nursing facilities ($22 billion); and Medicare Advantage benefits ($101 billion)."  Newt also states that the Mayo Clinic announced that "its Arizona facilities would stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries because the federal government does not pay the clinic enough to even cover its costs."

How do defenders of President Obama (or fact-checkers, or whatever) respond to these sorts of criticisms?  This article states the following (and remember that "ACA" stands for the Affordable Care Act, meaning Obamacare):

"So does it 'cut' Medicare by $500 billion?  Medicare spending will continue to grow, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but ACA will slow that growth. According to a report from the Kaiser Family Health Foundation  over the next 10 years, the federal government will devote about $500 billion less to Medicare than it would have without ACA.  CMS and the Kaiser Family Foundation tell ABC News that there will be no benefit cuts to Medicare.  They say instead of Medicare’s being cut, there will be much more spending at the end of a 10-year window, but it does slow the rate of that growth...CMS says—and Kaiser agrees—that spending will be reduced by getting rid of fraud and ending overpayments to private insurance companies. It sends a message to those insurance companies: Operate more efficiently.  And instead of cuts, the CMS says they will be able to fund new benefits, including free preventive care and broader prescription coverage, including closing the 'doughnut hole' affecting seniors."

According to this article, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services----the same group that Newt cites as an authority----states the Obamacare slows down the rate of Medicare's growth, and that the savings (if you will) come from tackling fraud and overpayment to insurance companies rather than from cutting benefits to seniors.  Moreover, the CMS says that new benefits are included, such as preventative care and "broader prescription coverage" (the article's words).  Newt himself is an advocate of preventative care and Medicare covering prescription drugs because those prevent emergencies that cost the health care system a lot of money.  Is Obamacare already doing (or will it do) things that Newt thinks the government should be doing?

I think a good question is this: How can we get rid of unnecessary reimbursements, without also killing a lot of necessary reimbursements?  Newt says that the government should be more conscious about tackling Medicare fraud.  Remember the episode of The West Wing in which Democratic candidate for President Matthew Santos (played by Jimmy Smits) lauded Medicare for not having that big of a bureaucracy?  Newt addresses this argument (though he doesn't mention Santos) on page 220:

"So Medicaid has nearly three times the improper payment rate of all government.  That is one reason the Left can tout low administrative costs for Medicare and Medicaid: they simply write checks without effective oversight.  They pay more in fraud than they gain in lean administration."

I'll stop here.  By the way, check out this article on what the Obama Administration is doing about Medicare fraud.

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

I have two items for my write-up today on Newt Gingrich's To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine.

1.  I actually liked Newt's discussion about welfare reform.  Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan.

The proposal goes like this: Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day's work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.  According to Newt, "The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants' small children", and the children would "receive medical care and treatment when necessary" (page 190).  Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home.  They would also receive the earned-income tax credit.  Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

This proposal contains elements that conservatives have mocked.  Newt himself has expressed disapproval of the earned-income tax credit, and (even in To Save America) he appears to be critical of giving tax "cuts" to people who do not pay taxes.  Conservatives, such as Connie Marshner, have been critical of guaranteed employment or a guaranteed national income.  (I base this on things Marshner says in William Martin's With God on Our Side.)

What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.  Moreover, the provision of day care and medical care for children is also important.  I think of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, in which a lady was working long-hours in a welfare-to-work program, leaving her children unattended, with the result that one child shot another child.  Free day care, hopefully, would prevent that kind of problem.

There are questions and concerns that I have about the proposal, though.  First of all, suppose there is a long line at the welfare office before 9:00 a.m. to get work?  Would this proposal be able to meet the needs of every one who wants a day's work, or would it leave out a lot of people?  Second, will there be enough companies that would want for extra bodies to come in to work for them?  Hopefully, enough companies would sign up for something like this.  I'm also a little leery about pushing the poor into private health insurance, for I tend to distrust private health insurance companies.

But I agree with the spirit of the proposal----to provide the poor with work.  At the same time, I'd be open to having some of the poor work in New Deal-like programs, refurbishing the countryside, for example.  That, in my opinion, is better than President Obama's stimulus program (if I understand it correctly), which gives money to big companies which do not necessarily hire the unemployed.

2.  Newt made a couple of statements about health care that stood out to me.

a.  On page 207, Newt states:

"...special-needs plans in Medicare Advantage actively compete to enroll and cover the sickest Medicare beneficiaries and stay in business by meeting their needs.  This is the alternative to forcing insurers to take high-cost patients for cut-rate premiums, which guarantees those patients will be unwanted and ultimately untreated."

I cannot evaluate this statement on account of my limited knowledge, but I have questions.  First of all, while Obamacare may require insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, is there anything that would prevent those companies from being stingy when it comes to paying for the care of those with the pre-existing conditions?  Second, would the free market take care of the sickest?  I can see the point that the sickest are potential consumers and so some health insurance companies would want to take advantage of that.  But the companies would probably have to charge high premiums because the sickest cost more to treat.  And, because the companies would probably want to make a profit, there's the possibility that they'd be stingy in terms of paying for treatment.

b.  On page 208, Newt notes (with disapproval): "The self-employed, small businesses, and certain organizations are legally prohibited from banding together to purchase health insurance."

If this is true, then it is an example of big government standing in the way of health care reform.  I do not know the rationale behind this legal prohibition, but I think that people should be able to band together to purchase health insurance.  The reason is that it's cheaper for groups (such as companies) to purchase health insurance than it is for individuals to do so. 

When George W. Bush was running for re-election in 2004, he said that allowing small businesses to band together to buy health insurance was a good idea (and see this article about George H.W. Bush's support for this idea).  But, as far as I know, he did not make that into policy.  Whether he even fought to do so, I don't know.  If only there were politicians who would work hard to make it policy.

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 6: Economic Rules?

In my latest reading of To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular Socialist Machine, Newt Gingrich argues that tax cuts stimulate the economy, encourage economic mobility, and increase revenue.  Newt looks at the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II tax cuts, and he also talks about how an increase in revenue from the capital gains tax corresponded with the capital gains tax cut, and how a decrease in the corporate tax rate has helped Europe economically.

Here are some of my reactions to this and other points in my latest reading of this book.

1.  I wrote in my post on Reagan's centennial that it's hard to know which narrative on the 80's is right, since both the Left and the Right present statistics to support their positions.  I'd say that the same is true regarding the Kennedy tax cuts: Whereas Newt argues that the Kennedy tax cuts increased revenue, economist Bruce Bartlett contends in his book Impostor that they did not exactly do that.  Granted, Bartlett says that the Kennedy tax cuts generated economic growth that made up for a lot of the lost revenue that they initially caused, but he does not think that they actually increased revenue----in terms of the government getting more money than it was getting before the Kennedy tax cuts.  (That's my recollection of Bartlett's argument, according to my understanding.)

So who's right?  You'd think that different sides would agree at least on what the data are.  Maybe it would be a good project sometime to compare the statistics that different sides present on a particular issue----such as "Did income increase during the 1980's, or did wages stagnate?"----and look at where the statistics are coming from.

2.  How easy is it to identify cause and effect in the economy?  Newt says that corporate tax cuts are helping the European economy, but (elsewhere) he argues that socialism inhibits Europe's economy.  Newt says that Bush II's tax cuts (which he deems good, yet inadequate) helped the economy, yet he also contends that regulations during Bush II's administration hindered the creation of jobs and led to the collapse of the housing bubble.  So there are economies that are good and bad, I guess.  How can one attribute what's good in the economy to tax cuts, and what's bad in the economy to government intervention?  Maybe the opposite is true!  Is there a way to tell?

3.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around certain economic rules.  For example, if you want to decrease inflation, then the standard wisdom is that the Federal Reserve can do so by increasing interest rates.  Why?   I think it's because less money is in circulation when interest rates are high, since people are reluctant to borrow money from the bank.  So inflation goes down when there is less money in circulation.  If that's the case, though, wouldn't tax cuts be inflationary, too, since that puts more money into the private sector?  Well, maybe not, if the rich just sit on their money!  But I thought the whole idea behind tax cuts was that the rich would not just sit on their money but would invest it, spend it, use it for job creation, etc.

Newt says that increasing government spending is inflationary.  I'm not entirely sure why this is so, but I have heard this claim from conservatives.  Why, then, was inflation low under Reagan, who increased government spending on defense?

As I said, the conventional wisdom is that you reduce inflation by increasing interest rates.  But, as Newt notes, the Carter years were a time when both interest rates and also inflation were high!  Newt says that Reagan bringing down inflation set the stage for interest rates to come down later, though, so perhaps low interest rates and low inflation can coincide somehow.

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 5

In my latest reading of Newt Gingrich's To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, two chapters that stood out to me were "Chapter Eight: The Corruption of Climate Science by the Secular-Socialist Machine", and "Chapter Nine: Corruption at the United Nations".

In Chapter 8, Newt talks about how there are believers in human-caused global warming who have sought to suppress debate, who have argued on the basis of non-scientific statements by environmental groups, and who have hyped up global warming in order to get more money in research grants.

In this post, I'm not going to thoroughly research Newt's charges and the responses to them by believers in human-made global warming.  Wikipedia's article here may give you a good start if you are inclined to read up on this, or if I decide to read up on it in the future.  I will, however, ask some questions.  First of all, Newt acknowledges that there is an ideological motivation behind those who say that there is human-caused global warming, a desire to shape policy.  Does this not imply that, notwithstanding whatever deceptive tactics they may use (assuming they even are using deceptive tactics), they truly believe that humans are causing global warming, for some reason?  Why should we assume that their concern is baseless?  Second, while there may be people who have non-scientific justifications for their position that humans are causing global warming, there are also climatologists who offer scientific justifications for this view.  Shouldn't their views be taken seriously, on some level?  

In Chapter 9, Newt talks about such issues as corruption in the UN's humanitarian, peacekeeping, and renovation projects; how certain UN groups have called for a redistribution of the world's wealth; how the UN Human Rights Council condemns the United States and Israel often but rarely criticizes other dictatorships; how the Human Rights Council has members that themselves are abusers of human rights; and how President Barack Obama's administration is part of the problem rather than part of the solution, for his administration supported some measures calling on governments to outlaw the defamation of religions, such as Islam (even though Newt acknowledges that it opposed other such measures).  You can read more about this issue here.

Newt says on page 137 that "until the UN drops its resistance to anti-corruption measures, the United States should work to minimize the organization's importance", and that "Whenever possible, we should operate through well-functioning bilateral and regional organizations outside the UN framework."

Newt probably has valid criticisms of the UN.  But I don't think that the UN is currently a danger to the U.S., and so I see no reason for us to withdraw from it.  That's just my opinion, based on what I know at the moment.  Newt talks about how the Human Rights Council condemns the U.S. and how elements of the UN desire for wealth to be redistributed, and how there is a desire among some within the Human Rights Council that governments ban the defamation of religion.  But, as far as I know, the UN has no power to make the U.S. do anything. 

I suppose, though, that the UN can be problematic in a couple of areas.  First, if we sign a UN treaty or an agreement, say, to ban the defamation of religion, then the UN's desires are becoming policy.  I wouldn't want for that to happen, for I believe that I should have the right to criticize any religion I want.  I hope that my country's leaders are on the same page on this.  Second, if we're involved in a peacekeeping mission, we should take heed that the UN's peacekeeping apparatus does not contain elements that are rooting against us and for our enemies.  I think of a right-wing tract I once read against the UN, which said that we fought the Korean War under the authority of a UN official who was a Communist!  I don't know if this was true, but it's something to be careful about.

Overall, I think that the UN can be a good place for us to listen to the concerns of other nations, even if the UN is not always good and fair (and, here's a newsflash: the same can be said about the U.S.!).

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 4: Health Care

In my latest reading of To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, Newt Gingrich critiques Obamacare and ACORN as well as argues (using examples) that big businesses support government regulation because that hinders their smaller competitors.  For the last point, I was especially intrigued by Newt's statement that Clarence Darrow (the famed criminal defense attorney and champion of the underdog) was a critic of the National Recovery Administration, which was part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, because Darrow thought that big business essentially wrote the NRA's codes.  See here for more information on this.

What I want to focus on in this post is health care.  Five points that Newt made especially stood out to me.  First, Newt says that Obamacare's tax on makers of drugs and medical equipment will make matters worse, for the businesses will simply pass on the cost of the tax to their consumers, resulting in higher health care costs.  Second, Newt notes that government "often tries to control costs by cutting Medicaid reimbursements to providers", and he says that "With 20 million Americans being pushed into Medicaid by the new law, this is an ominous sign of things to come" (page 95).  Third, Newt narrates that Democratic representatives Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak demanded information on health insurance companies' business practices, and Newt sums up their implied message as "get on board with 'reform,' or we'll embarrass and investigate you until you do" (page 102).  Fourth, on page 116, Newt refers to Washington Examiner lobbying editor Timothy Carney's observation that "during the 2008 election cycle, the securities, health insurance, and pharmaceutical industries, and even many of the biggest oil companies, gave more money to Democrats than Republicans" (Newt's words on page 116).  And fifth, I talked recently about a provision of Obamacare that denies coverage to the purchase of over-the-counter medicine without a prescription (if I understand the provision correctly).  Newt appears to discuss this (or a similar) provision on page 119----the provision that (in his words) "prohibits the use of funds from Health Savings Accounts for over-the-counter medications."  The effect of this, Newt argues, is to "encourage Americans to buy expensive prescription drugs made by big drug companies."  Pharmaceuticals profit from Obamacare, Newt argues.

Here are some of my reactions to Newt's arguments:

1.  I was initially reluctant to read this book by Newt, since I had already read four other books that he wrote.  But I am actually liking this book because it is a well-documented and effective critique of President Barack Obama's policies.  I think that it's important to remember, however, that there's always another side to the story.

2.  What I am being further sensitized to as I read this book is how we are often being offered imperfect choices.  In terms of health care, the situation before Obamacare stank, but there are also provisions of Obamacare that stink, so what can we do?  In some cases, the provisions may be understandable, but they can have bad consequences.  For example, it's understandable that Obamacare has taxes, for money has to be raised to pay for it.  But Newt does well to argue that the taxes can make matters worse, as companies pass on the cost of the taxes to their consumers.  I hope, though, that Obamacare would help Americans to get their money back somehow, in the form of cheaper health care.  After all, taxes in Canada are higher than they are in the U.S. because of Canada's national health insurance system, but there are many Canadians who like that system because it takes care of their medical costs.

3.  Newt's concern that government health insurance tries to cut costs is a concern of mine, as well.  Granted, this is also the case with private health insurance, but the government doing it too makes me wonder if we should pursue other ways to bring down costs (i.e., tort reform) than putting more people into a government system.  At the same time, I have heard Canadians say that they may have to wait for certain treatments, but they do get treated----and in many cases they don't have to wait.  I know some who are on Medicaid, and they say that Medicaid is a pretty generous system.  And yet, when Medicaid eats up so much of states' budgets, there's continually a danger that it will be cut. Is it preferable for people to be at the mercy of this sort of system, or is there a better way: enable people to somehow get their hands on private health insurance that is affordable yet sufficient enough to meet their medical needs (if such insurance even exists or can exist)?

4.  Newt's book may sensitize me to the corruption and imperfections in the political system, on all sides.  At the same time, though, there are politicians who stand up to the health insurance industry, as he notes (albeit with disfavor).  Their strongarm tactics may be problematic, but I have to admire them for seeking to put to rest the insurance companies' obstructionist efforts to protect their profits by killing health care reform.  Moreover, Newt says that the insurance companies give more to Democrats, but perhaps that's because they fear the Democrats more than the Republicans and thus want the Democrats in their pockets.

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 3

In my latest reading of To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, Newt Gingrich essentially portrays President Barack Obama as someone who heavy-handedly shoves his liberal agenda down the country's throat, as Obama employs signing statements to circumvent laws passed by Congress, punishes Fox News by calling on news organizations to "shun Fox" and refusing "to provide guests to FOX News Sunday" (Newt's words on page 80), has the EPA consider carbon emissions to be a pollutant right when the Congress is considering a climate change treaty, excludes Republicans when crafting a health care policy, etc.  This picture conflicts with how some on the Left see Obama----as a wimp who caves in to the Republicans.  Bruce Bartlett is not a leftist, but he talks here about how Obama agreed with the Republicans to extend all of the tax cuts (including the ones for the rich).  Does Obama roll over and allow Republicans to walk all over him, or does he use strong-arm tactics to ramrod his agenda down the country's throat?  Maybe it depends on the situation!

I think of Huey Long, who used strong-arm tactics to effect his agenda when he was the governor of Louisiana.  The thing is, so did his political opponents!  At least Huey was using his tactics to serve the people.  But I can understand Newt's concern that Obama has overstepped bounds.  If a President does this----and people on the Left and Right, as well as libertarians, made the case that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney did so as well----does this set a bad precedent?  I may like Obama getting things done, but what would prevent authorities from using their power for evil rather than for good?  Perhaps elections can serve as a check on this, but there are limits to that, for bureaucrats who abuse power are not subject to election.

I'd like to turn to another issue that Newt raises in this book.  On page 70, Newt says:

"One of the lawyers now working in the Department of Justice's security division is Jennifer Daskal, formerly of Human Rights Watch, who in 2006 campaigned for the UN Human Rights Committee to condemn the United States for its actions in 'the so-called 'war on terrorism.''  Daskal has also argued for closing Guantanamo and releasing those terrorists we cannot try in civilian courts, despite acknowledging 'these men may...join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day."

Newt here reminds me of Joe McCarthy and right-wingers in the 1940's-1960's, and I'm not necessarily saying this in a pejorative sense.  In the 1940's-1960's, there was concern that Communists or people who were not sufficiently committed to the security of America were in sensitive government positions and were influencing American policy.  That was a legitimate concern then, and I'd say that Newt does well to raise a similar concern now when it comes to people in the Obama Administration.  At the same time, I question any notion that people on the Left are rooting for our enemies and lack commitment to American security.  If you read Jennifer Daskal's remarks on releasing people from Guantanamo (see here), you'll see that she argues that holding people indefinitely does not keep the U.S. secure but rather costs the U.S. support and moral authority as well as further inflames her enemies.  Is she right on this?  That's a debate.  I certainly hope that there are also people with another point-of-view in Obama's Administration.  I don't think it's wrong, though, to question Guantanamo, especially since there's question that some of the people detained there are even terrorists (see here, but see also this article, which discusses why some are against trying Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts).

Incidentally, many who criticize Guantanamo and favor trying detainees in civilian courts have a similar concern to that of right-wing critics of Obama: that powerful interests overstepping bounds can set a bad precedent and lead to abuses of power.

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 2

In my latest reading of Newt Gingrich's To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, Newt defines what he means by "secular", "socialist", and "machine".  In this post, I'd like to focus on the "socialist" part.  Newt on page 42 defines what he means by socialism:

"Broadly defined, socialist policies favor increased central planning of the economy by politicians and bureaucrats instead of allowing entrepreneurs, businesses, and customers to make decisions in the free market.  Socialists also favor government attempts to collectivize the means of production and to divvy up the national wealth.  Socialists favor these methods because they insist on equality of results, rather than the traditional American belief in equality under the law.  Therefore, they champion a strong central government to impose equality of outcomes, as Joe the Plumber found out during the 2008 campaign when he was told by then-candidate Obama that taxes needed to be raised in order to 'spread the wealth around'".

On page 45, Newt summarizes why he considers the policies of President Barack Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and others on the Left to be socialist:

"The policies of the Left are clearly socialist.  They would have government define and dominate every aspect of energy production in America.  They would have government define and dominate healthcare----one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  (The first healthcare overhaul bill to pass the House gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to unilaterally reduce benefits, increase premiums, and establish waiting lines for high risk patients.)  They have taken over AIG, America's largest insurer.  They took over General Motors and Chrysler.  They dominate banking.  They have a 'pay czar' in the White House to dictate salaries at ostensibly private companies.  These actions are consistent with a socialist vision of America where the government defines and dominates the private sector."

I have a variety of responses to this:

1.  I don't think that President Barack Obama is totally against "allowing entrepreneurs, businesses, and customers to make decisions in the free market."  Granted, he is for certain regulations and does not support a completely laissez-faire economy, but he is for the existence of private businesses in the United States.  Does he support the government bringing about equality of outcomes?  I seriously doubt that he wants for the government to ensure that everyone makes the exact same amount of money.  But Obama probably does believe that it's a problem when a small piece of the America population makes so much money, while so many people who are poor and middle-class struggle to make ends meet.  His desire to spread the wealth around is not just about raising taxes, but it's also about giving tax cuts and tax breaks to the middle class so that they can have a chance, while increasing taxes on the rich so that the government can prevent a deficit.

2.  I do not think that President Barack Obama intended for the government to permanently run General Motors and Chrysler.  It was an emergency measure that was designed to rescue those companies.  I'm not sure what the latest is, but I read here that the U.S. Treasury Department's share of GM stock has significantly declined over the years, meaning that the company is moving more and more into private hands.

3.  What about the White House Pay Czar?  What I gather from my Internet search is that his job was to cap the salaries of executives at companies that were receiving a bailout.  I think that's reasonable because, when companies are in trouble, their money should be used to rebuild the company, not to provide exorbitant salaries to executives, some of whom have contributed to running the company to the ground.  I wouldn't want for the government permanently to tell companies how much they can pay, but it's understandable to me as a temporary emergency measure.

4.  Like Newt, I do believe that Obamacare brings about increased government intervention into health care, especially through the regulations that are placed on insurance companies.  A couple of people (who are not right-wing) have recommended this article, which discusses what has changed (or will change) under Obamacare.

Some of those regulations strike me as reasonable, such as the requirement that insurance companies completely cover preventative care, as well as the prohibition on insurance companies dropping people who are sick.  Some of the regulations, however, I do not entirely understand.  The article says: "A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover."  The goal here may be to prevent people from increasing costs for the health care system by letting their insurance pay for their over-the-counter medication (without a prescription).  But I think that people should be able to get medication cheaply even when it is not prescribed by a doctor.  Some people prefer alternative forms of medicine, such as homeopathy, and I do not believe that insurance companies should be required to discriminate against such people's medical preferences.  But I don't know whether that specific regulation relates to that or not.

I'd be uncomfortable with not having any government regulations at all on health insurance.  Just leaving things to the free market, I do not know how profitable it would be for insurance companies to pay for those who are really sick.  There's also the danger that, in a laissez-faire way of doing health insurance, people would not buy insurance that is comprehensive enough, since they'd want to save themselves money.  The result of that would be that people would not be contributing enough to the system, and also that they'd get sick and find that their insurance does not cover treatment for their condition.

Newt Gingrich's To Save America 1

I started Newt Gingrich's To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine.

So why am I reading this book, when I've already read and blogged through four other books by Newt?  First, the other books by Newt that I read were dated before Barack Obama became President, and so I'm curious about Newt's specific criticisms of President Obama's policies.  Second, I wonder how (in Newt's eyes) Obama is secular (or perhaps "secularist" would be a better word) and a socialist.  Third, Newt has a chapter on how big business is an ally of big government, and I'd like to learn more about that.

There may be a lot of overlap between what Newt says in this book and what he says in his other books that I have read.  Consequently, I'll simply highlight things in my reading that stood out to me, without necessarily seeking to capture the essence in my posts of Newt's overall arguments.

There were two things that stood out to me in my latest reading:

1.  On page 9, Newt refers to rooms in New York City schools where incompetent teachers sit around and do nothing.  Newt says that "because of their union contract, it takes up to seven years to fire them".  This costs taxpayers about $65 million annually.  Newt cites this article.  I should also note this article, which is about Mayor Bloomberg's response to this situation.  Essentially, the teachers are awaiting disciplinary hearings.  Some of them are accused of serious wrongdoing.  Others, according to the latter article, got in trouble with their boss because they "ran afoul of a principal or they blew the whistle on someone who was fudging test scores."

2.  On page 19, Newt says: "...there is the corruption of the secular-socialist machine, which knows if it competed fairly in the political system it would be crushed by the vast majority of Americans who oppose its values.  Thus, out of necessity, left-wing politicians routinely encourage vote theft, lie about their policies, and defame their opponents."

This criticism may have some legitimacy to it, but it's a one-sided cheap shot, especially considering the electoral shenanigans that some Republicans have been accused of doing: Diebold, partisan Secretary of States, gerrymandering, etc.  See here.