I had the Washington Generals in mind, but we can use your metaphor instead.

Suppose you are taking a voyage on a leaky ship. There is a good chance that you won't make it across the sea, but you have already embarked. This is where we are now. What are the choices.

1. You want to get (re)elected - you deny or minimize the problem.

2. You want to make your profits and leave - you deny the problem.

3. You are a hapless citizen - you listen to your (preferred) leaders.

4. You are an activist - you try to call attention to the problem.

The US is caught in an economic model of consumerism/capitalism. This requires continual consumption and economic growth. To admit that the world is finite and that over population is making resources scarce is to admit that the basis of our society will need to change. No economist nor politician will do this. Notice the word that is never spoken is sacrifice. We aren't willing to adjust our habits to the extent of buying smaller cars or driving less, let alone scale back our consumption and/or raise taxes enough to pay for our spending.

A society that has 4% of the world's population and consumes 40% of the resources is unsustainable. Vague ideas of improved efficiency, "smart growth" and alternative fuels are just political pablum, not real solutions. If we don't make real changes mother nature will do it for us.

Don't pick on Harold Ford, he's guiding the leaky ship and can't get off. If you want change just ignore him and his cohorts and look to those with a realistic view of the problems.

Try any or all of these:

Herman Daly
Robert Costanza
James Kunstler
Bill McKibben

They don't have the answers, but at least the understand the question.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

I think it sounds like time to keep pushing for mandatory drug testing in Congress.

Max, I would love to see you, or Ed Kilgore, or especially Josh, post something regarding Ford's bald-faced lie about Kurita changing parties.

Is it TPM policy to allow guest commentators to lie about other Democrats and not be called on it?

Ford didn't misspeak. This wasn't over the top blogger rhetoric. He said Kurita "Changed Parties" and that simply isn't true. The most basic research - looking up her congressional web page - proves that she is a Democrat.

Ford was simply lashing out, as he often does, at those who disagree with him. Kurita is a sore spot with him because, as he said, there were many in the liberal blogosphere, including myself, and my fellow bloggers at The Flypaper Theory (based in Memphis) who felt that the DLC undermined Kurita's campaign by exerting pressure on the Tennessee Democratic party, because the DLC believes primaries are bad - a waste of money and resources better saved for the general election. This is a debatable point, but the DLC isn't interested in debating it. They advise local party officials to drop unannointed candidates.

We also felt that Ford feared losing the primary to Kurita. She is a better Democrat and a much better representative of Tennessee. I think one completely overlooked weakness in Ford's campaign, overlooked by everyone except the Tennessee Democrats who didn't vote for him, is that he wasn't really running to represent Tennessee - he was running to build his resume for higher office.

Given the choice between someone who wants to represent the people and someone who wants to represent himself, I think Tennessee Democrats would have chosen in favor of Tennessee, not Harold Ford. We weren't given that choice because Kurita found the Democratic party doors and wallets closed to her, thanks to the DLC.

But just because liberal bloggers have flogged Mr. Ford with his likely primary loss to Ms. Kurita, that doesn't give him the right to lie about her current party affiliation.

He should be called on it by the management.

And he should apologize to Ms. Kurita, and to the readers and commentors, and to Josh.

That was quite an excellent post, please allow me to extend my compliments.

I would like to make a few comments on the ideas advanced. This should not in any sense be taken as a criticism of you or your views, but observations as to policies advanced by the DLC...

Another part of their proposal addresses the problem of the uninsured by requiring everyone who can afford to purchase health care to purchase it, or else pay a tax penalty.

How is an ongoing, income based, government imposed financial obligation *not* a tax?

Indeed, it strikes me that the sole distinction is that this is a government mandated tax paid to private entities. Corporate health insurers.

This is not, in any sense, a market solution, since the mandatory nature of the obligation eliminates the most critical element of consumer choice: The right to choose not to purchase.

The right to decline to purchase is gone. The consumer enters the marketplace with a major disadvantage. He knows he is required to buy. The vendors know he is required to buy. The negotiating position is unequal from the start. Given the importance of health care, and its requirement as a social staple, that negotiating position was unequal already. The effect is to exacerbate the inequality.

A perfect marketplace, of course, would presuppose equality between the buyer and vendor in order to reach optimum equilibrium for both. An unequal situation amounts to a transfer of advantage from one to the other, with an increasingly imperfect and inflexible market operating poorly.

The situation invites endless abuses. For instance, low end bottom feeders might infest the market offering cheap packages which deliver nothing. Alternately, given that the field is likely to be small, or to become small, coordination or cooperation among insurance providers might result in a closed and expensive loop. I note that gas prices at the pump, despite the occasional price war, seem to rise and fall quite uniformly... with impunity.

The solution to these problems, I suppose, would be to impose more and more regulation, close government supervision and remedial measures including specialized courts or appeal processes, and mandatory insurer obligations... but this is simply an endless process of trying to patch up a bad idea with endless bandages and planks, continually stopping leaks.

There are other issue, of course. The proposal seems oblivious to individual circumstances. There may be specific reasons why an individual, either due to pricing or due to personal financial straits may not be able to purchase health care. Such a mandatory system would hurt rather than help these individuals by taking no account of their particular circumstances... unless of course, we added another band aid to the system.

More importantly, it doesn't seem to address the real issue of accessibility. The problem is not with people who can afford health care, but the fact that large numbers of people can't.

For the most part, people who can afford health care insurance obtain it. The issue is not malingering or 'could but won't'. All this proposal does is worsen the market position of those who are already participating in the market.

It does nothing for those unable to participate. Perhaps this is unfair, since the DLC does not propose that this policy address that problem, and in fact, advances other policies to that problem.

But then, this begs the question. If its not a problem, why is this policy being advanced at all? It does not support public goals in any way, and arguably worsens things in many ways.

It strikes me that the only likely beneficiaries, and the only parties who would push such a policy are the Health Insurance Providers. In which case, they're using the DLC to advance laws to squeeze a few more dollars out of an already oppressed and poorly served population.

I dunno...

Strikes me that its a bad idea from the start. Maybe the way to go with policy is not to present a bad idea with attached bandaids, but to present a good idea. You know, wacky million to one shot, but it just might work.

Certainly, if this is typical of policy proposals advanced by the DLC, I'd have to write them off as intellectually and morally bankrupt. The worst castigations as corporate shills and stealth republicans would not be too harsh.

Just a thought or two.

I am curious what you mean by "fiscal conservative."  The term is used so loosely. 

Do you mean you are suspicious that the government is wasting your money?  In what way? 

Do you mean you would like to be a free rider rather than a fair share tax payer?

Do you mean that government should take a careful look at its financial commitments before it makes them?

I am highly suspicious that "fiscal conservative" is often used to mean "tax averse."  I am tax averse, as are 300 million other people in this country. 

I am also price averse, but I buy things.  However, I am conscientious about costs and my ability to pay.  I expect the same of government.  But I am not under the impression that government is pressed at the moment, despite a lot of rightwing rhetoric.

We've always had them. JFK put Douglas Dillon in charge of the Treasury. Bill Clinton . . . don't get me started.

Yeah, but they didn't have their own sect.

I'm having a flashback to when George Packer tried to have a conversation with this place. which is still the more moderate of the progressive blogs, so i guess this is the best it will ever get.

keep getting your shots in at Ford, kids.

he won't be here for long.

On health, what with the rage for mandates on individuals to buy health insurance, to me the central questions are 1) will companies be able to pick and choose their customers and the prices they charge; and 2) how will subsidies to individuals be devised.

On question 1, my assumption is that the DLC answer is a hesitant "yes" - although I can't find a place where they address the question directly. I'm only basing that on the DLC's standard preference for deregulation and competition. That immediately raises the question of what minimal standards of quality a provider's care or insurer's plan offerings must meet in order to fit into the mandated purchasing requirement. Val mentioned the problem of bottom feeders in his reply. What if a individual says "Hey, I need government help because I can't afford health care on my budget," and the government comes back and says "Oh, yes you can! You can get your health care from Dr. Nick's House of Health for only $29.95 a month. We can't help you."

A big part of the DLC approach is based on encouraging large metropolitan areas to form health purchasing alliances, where employers and insurance companies get together to bring their purchasing power muscle to bear on improving the quality and lowering the costs of the providers' product. Since the emphasis here is still on the employer-provided health care model, I imagine the DLC thinks that would somewhat limit the ability of providers and insurers to market specialized high-cost, low-quality products to individuals in particular risk and income classes.

But I couldn't find anything in the DLC plans about improved collective bargaining to help workers achieve the best possible benefits from their employers. Instead, there is a lot of New Economy talk about worker self-reliance, ownership society asset building, expanding the "winners' circle" and lifelong learning opportunities that allow the US workforce, which increasingly resembles an army of glorified temp workers, to bounce off the social "trampoline" in our dynamic and flux-ridden economy, thus assuring that they don't fall too far behind as they bounce from one meaningless short-term job to another, leaving shredded comunities and personal relationships in their wake.

The fundamental Big Idea driving the DLC proposals is that health care costs too much, because health care providers are in a poorly designed market with lousy incentive structures, because uninsured and irresponsible free riders are living off the emergency care subsidized by those of us who are paying, and because malpractice costs are ballooning the overhead.

On foreign policy, the nub of the issue is what sort of adventures an excellent United Nations military force will engage in.

In general, the DLC is less enamored with taboos about state sovereignty than liberal internationalists of old. As I see it, the overall DLC thrust is to expand the potential for interventions, and probably increase their frequency. But not by United Nations forces. They are expecting more stabilization, pacification, policing and state-building operations, but they don't seem to anticipate UN forces doing a lot of these jobs. Instead they are apparently expecting US-NATO operations to do the military lifting. They want more US troops, and transformed training, because they are anticipating more work.

The UN role is to legitimize these operations, by providing the requisite resolutions, and then getting out of the way. One of the things they want to do is get more US-friendly states on the Security Council, and eliminate the veto, so China and Russia can't stop us from intervening in places the US and NATO have decided they want to go into. They also want a new institutionalized coalition of democracies that, while not so large as to include most of the world's nations, is large enough that it can rival the UN as an alternate source of legitimacy, and is too big to be resisted effectively. That way, if the US resists their desired reforms, they can go forum-shopping for the legitmizing paperwork elsewhere.

The DLC military agenda is very pro-active and assertive. The main DLC criticism of Iraq is that it was fought with too few troops, was poorly planned, was diplomatically bungled and incompetently managed. My guess is that in A DLC administration, we get our Iraq invasion - more intelligently managed to be sure - but with a couple of Darfurs thrown in to boot.

This is how I see the DLC agenda. But I may have gotten some things wrong or received the wrong impression. It sure would be good if Chairman Ford were around to lay out the agenda himself.

I think that I would object to your making that post on this thread, stewieeee.

Other threads, sure. Fair enough. But on this thread, there are real conversations, particularly by Dan K, on the subject of what the DLC's policies are. It's more than a fair hearing, and if those policies are criticized or seem problematic... well, its fair dinkum.

max's tone spoke for itself.

if i wasn't ford and someone spoke to me like that no matter what it was about, i'd just tell them to go fuck themselves and be done with it.

but that's why i'm not in politics.

hey. i just thought max was being a dick that's all.

playing to the crowd. at leat the snide remarks to Packer were left to the comments sections and never made the front page.

Re: health insurance

Where I work, they offer health insurance. No one can afford it, but no one can accuse them of not offering it.

Doesn't solve the problem.

I'm not very interested in making health care more affordable. It's already waaaaaaaay beyond too expensive. The horse it out of the barn and the barn has burned to the ground.

We've got to build a new barn around the horse, and that means basic universal health coverage for everyone. And by basic, I mean coverage for your doctor visits, your medicine, your rehab, your hospitalization for medically-necessary treatments, and your long-term care for chronic debilitations.

That's the best way I know to make health care more affordable for everyone.

It's all too easy to be a dick on line, I know that from personal experience.

And frankly, there are other threads where you'd be right on target.

But this is probably one of the best threads I've seen for a substantive discussion of DLC policies.

And I suppose, I'd argue against taking offense at the tone of a single post to condemn an entire thread.

Re: They do accept the need for a safety net at the bottom of the income scale, but everyone above that level purchases insurance in a very competitive free market, with expanded consumer choice

I don't a problem with this if (and it's a big if) the health insurers are very strictly regulated to prevent cherry picking and other unfair, anti-consummer (and often anti-competitive) practices.

Re: How is an ongoing, income based, government imposed financial obligation *not* a tax?

The government mandates all kinds of things that require outlays on my part: that I buy auto insurance if I own a car, that my home must meet certain safety and sanitary standards, that I vaccinate my pets for rabies, that I wear clothing when in public, and if I have children that I provide them with minimal standards of food clothing, education etc. I don't see these things as taxes because the money does not go to the government (that's a crucial part of the definition of a tax) and because I have some choice (even a lot of choice) as to exactly how I comply with these mandates.

Re: This is not, in any sense, a market solution, since the mandatory nature of the obligation eliminates the most critical element of consumer choice: The right to choose not to purchase.

So even though I can shop at a vast number of stores for my clothing, there is also no free market in clothing because of the laws against public nudity?

so's mine.

it's the condescension, max.

it comes through.

my relatives in the south said i was "different" and "creative", which, literally speaking, certainly aren't awful things to say about someone.

but it's the tone. i detected a distinct tone.

the first person who responded to this post called it "dry wit." and offered a disadvantageous comparison.

maybe if i called it that, and propped up my bona fides and slamming the dlc, i'd get better ratings on my comments.

I dunno stewieeeeee, I find that post peculiar. It certainly isn't in keeping with your reservations about objectionable tones, being somewhat sarcastic itself.

Was that really you? Or are you being trolled.

purchases insurance in a very competitive free market, with expanded consumer choice

But in fact, its not a real market because those choices have in fact been circumscribed. Consumer choice is legally narrowed or restricted.

I think my point is that this is not a consumer friendly provision at all, and in fact, it has no impact or a negative impact on consumers. It will not assist those who are now unable to afford health insurance, it has no impact on the poor. What it does have is a punitive effect on those whose personal circumstances make them unable to afford or obtain health care despite arbitrarily set income levels.

Moreover, this provision does not seem reflective of or responsive to the ways in which Health Insurance is obtained, as with or through employment sponsored coverage, co-sponsored coverage, individual private coverage, etc.

Rather, it arbitrarily and unevenly tilts the playing field, benefitting only one entity: The Health Insurance Providers, who now have a legislatively corralled market.

I don't a problem with this if (and it's a big if) the health insurers are very strictly regulated to prevent cherry picking and other unfair, anti-consummer (and often anti-competitive) practices.

Considering that the Health Insurers have the clout and policy influence to advance and implement a policy which will benefit no other constituency but them, I think I would be profoundly skeptical about subsequent policies arising from the same source which purports to restrict them.

It's very seldom that the process is from whore to instant virgin. Usually its the other way around, with varying speed.

The government mandates all kinds of things that require outlays on my part: that I buy auto insurance if I own a car, that my home must meet certain safety and sanitary standards, that I vaccinate my pets for rabies, that I wear clothing when in public, and if I have children that I provide them with minimal standards of food clothing, education etc. I don't see these things as taxes because the money does not go to the government (that's a crucial part of the definition of a tax) and because I have some choice (even a lot of choice) as to exactly how I comply with these mandates.

Actually, there are case law and academic articles which define and describe what a tax is, and deals with such things as levies and tariffs.

I think a useful starting point would be a mandatory levy, fee or cost, imposed by the government, according to eligibility criteria set by the government. There's more, but in terms of the payor, that's what really counts.

With respect to the proposed 'Health Insurance Tax' (I may as well call it that), it is a mandatory financial obligation to be imposed by legislation.

It's true that the government mandates all sorts of things that do not amount to a tax, director or indirect. But then again, you are not obligated by law to own a car, you are not obligated by law to own a house, you are not obligated by law to have children, or if you have children, the law does not automatically assume you are the custodial parent in every circumstance.

On the other hand, there is no ability to opt out of the mandatory financial obligation.

Now, I don't think its all that constructive to argue whether its a tax or not. Frankly, I don't feel like exploring the case law.

Instead, let's agree that instead of a Tax, we will call it an "Arbitrarily Specified Universally Applicable Government Imposed Financial Obligation Targeted As Defined by Government Decided Eligibility Criteria."

Or some less cumbersome version of that. As long as the fact that it is Government imposed, mandatory, and subject to government criteria is included. Happy?

Frankly, I'd be more comfortable with a Health Insurance Tax going directly to the government which could be administered fairly in a sensible health care system.

This notion of using the law aggressively in support of Health Care Insurers and not in response to any genuine public policy need seems to be the worst of every world.

Re: This is not, in any sense, a market solution, since the mandatory nature of the obligation eliminates the most critical element of consumer choice: The right to choose not to purchase.

So even though I can shop at a vast number of stores for my clothing, there is also no free market in clothing because of the laws against public nudity?

But there's no law against nudity per se. There's private nudity, there are nude beaches and forums. There is in fact no particular criteria mandating or restricting wardrobe.

One could, for instance, walk around in a G-string or a speedo. Or one could make a loincloth out of newspapers. One can make ones own clothes. One can borrow clothes. One can obtain free clothing.

But let's be serious here. Do you really equate a government prohibition against public nudity on the one hand, and a textiles marketplace containing near infinite ranges of choice with near infinite vendors, which choices can be exercised at any time, and with such minimal financial consequences as to be practically nil at one range.... with a government mandated legal obligation to purchase a specific sort of product from a limited range of vendors at great inherent cost.

I think you're being mischievous with me. You might even be flirting. I'm not that kind of guy.

it's the real stewieeeee being very straight fwd about something.

just to clear that up.

Ah, so... flexible attitude to tone and sarcasm? I just a slip of the tongue? No harm no foul either way.

Re: So all you health insurance does is take your money and redistribute it, while making a handsome profit. It's a tax.

Hmm, banks do the same thing. They take in money for covnenient safe-keeping (see: deposits) then loan it out at a profit. Maybe we should stop that too. (If a puritan is someone who is terrified someone somewhere is having fun, a socialist is someone who is terrified that someone somewhere is making money.)

Valdron, YOU'RE the one with the excellent post. Incredibly clear analysis of the DLC proposal. Count me as suitable impressed. My subsequent copying of your agruments will prove that.

Excellent. I'm glad we've dispensed with all that ideological baggage about the free market, and the attendant nonsense.

So, there's no particular reason to prefer a private health insurance based scheme over any other sort.

This leaves us then, to debate the merits of a policy proposal on its actual merits, and not on the ideological bells and whistles of 'free market' 'more competition' 'more choice.'

None of which, clearly, is applying to a health insurance marketplace which is the subject of mandatory, government-legislated expenses established pursuant to government criteria.

So, what do we make of the DLC policy?

It benefits Health Insurance Companies and no one else.

How can it be made to work? By fixing it and patching holes and plugging leaks, etc. etc.

Will those things be done? Well, probably not, if the level of influence to impose a one sided policy exists, that level of influence probably prevents 'fixing.'

Translation: Real Bad Policy proposal.

It ain't more complicated than that.

Given that its just a policy proposal, I don't see that we have any urgent need to adopt it, to take it seriously. I think that we can call it a bad idea from corporate shills and move on.

If this is the DLC's idea of a contribution, or a good proposal, well....

What if the DLC identified one Democratic candidate in one district currently held by a Republican. Then explain why they have chosen that particular person to be the Democratic nominee. We could respond with comments, questions and perhaps alternative candidates. Hopefully, we could reach an agreement on the person with the best chance to win the seat for the Democratic Party.

The DLC isn't into welcoming input. They want to tell Dems what to do, and we're supposed to get on our knees and kiss their ring or something.

Me, I'm so disgusted with their tactics (especially that LOSER/APPEASER/Demonize the Base habit they have) that, if they put the ring in my face, I'd bite off their damned finger.

Everyone has policy preferences, that is why the Budget is the primary policy tool of the government.

Also, no one will get all of his or her policy preferences.

Last, history suggests it will be very hard to completely eliminate log rolling (now called earmarks).  This is just part of how consensus is built.

If by "fiscal conservative," you mean you want all of your policy preferences not achieved by log rolling, you're dreaming.

How much compromise are you willing to tolerate?