Huge improvement to have a foil for Bill who makes me think instead of making me want to rip my hair out and scream. Matt is driving me berserk. Interesting that the left and right can agree in their hatred of Max Baucus. The Montana electorate also strongly disagrees. His only support comes from the insurance lobby and his fellow bribe-taking democratic senators.

Conn Carroll, Democratic Strategist? This sounds pretty good to me.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Conn Carroll, Democratic Strategist? This sounds pretty good to me.

I thought you were all about the rule-of-law...

Quoting Unit: I thought you were all about the rule-of-law...

Precisely. And what he's outlining as apocalyptic conspiracy is exactly what the law lays out as methods of legislating. That's all I meant: that as backhanded as that appears, it is legal. So Conn should get over it.

Conn says he want tax cuts to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Bill says have a better mix of stimulus spending. I don't hear Conn or any republicans saying we should cancel the unspent stimulus spending plans. Is anyone in Congress demanding the feds balance their budget? All in all, if we are going to stay a unified country, the top priority of the feds has to be balancing the budget. Raise taxes, cut spending. Whatever it takes. If the economy crashes because of the increased tax burden, they we just have to cut more from government spending. It is unethical to pass on our debts to the taxpayers of the future.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Precisely. And what he's outlining as apocalyptic conspiracy is exactly what the law lays out as methods of legislating. That's all I meant: that as backhanded as that appears, it is legal. So Conn should get over it.

exactly. Conn puts too much focus on political procedure. Let the democrats have an up or down, majority wins, vote in both the Senate and House. Big picture wise republicans can't regain control of their lives until the federal government imploads. Democrat plans to lay on another level of mandates on society will hasten the arrival of that outcome. The objective for republicans has to be constitutionally limit the power of goverment. Force it to balance the budget. Free people have the right to conduct commercial transactions with each other, like the buying and selling of health insurance, without restriction by the feds.

I don't think it is just a matter of procedure to demand that Congress actually know what they are voting on before they vote.
If Reid writes his bill, and the CBO is given enough time to give a real score, then I think that would be a victory for small d-democracy.
If Reid and Pelosi strike a deal, and Senators are forced to cast votes before the CBO has scored the thing, than that would be more than just a procedural travesty.
We are talking about reorganizing one sixth of our economy here.

One of the many commercial transaction stopping mandates the feds impose on us all is the minimum wage law. Theoretically, there should be no voluntary unemployment if the employee is free to negotiate their rate of pay. Consider that even GM could be profitable if the currently unemployed were allowed to work for it for sub mimimum wage rates of pay. Which reinvigorates the domestic auto industry, reduces the federal deficit by the amount of the subsidies being paid to the car companies and enables people without work to be able do something productive and make some money. That said, I don't understand how there were so many unemployed people during the pre FDR years of the great depression. I assume the feds had not gotten around to mandating minimum wage rates back then.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Precisely. And what he's outlining as apocalyptic conspiracy is exactly what the law lays out as methods of legislating. That's all I meant: that as backhanded as that appears, it is legal. So Conn should get over it.

He talks about gutting TARP to put in the health-care reform etc...I'm not an expert, but it sounds like they would be violating the "spirit" of the law at least. Previously you seemed to be opposed to banks giving advice on how to dodge the law even if these were legal loop-holes, but maybe I misunderstood.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: That said, I don't understand how there were so many unemployed people during the pre FDR years of the great depression. I assume the feds had not gotten around to mandating minimum wage rates back then.

The quantity of money dropped by a third. But aside from that, recessions do happen, these are periods where large amounts of workers try to get out of one or more sectors and find jobs elsewhere. It takes time to readjust.

As I understand it, the Baucus bill contains cuts in medicare reimbursement rates. Granted, medicare is an atrocity in that recipients are not means tested, premiums are way too low, the government gets no claim on a person's estate after paying large sums for their end of life care and recipients can't pay a doctor some money in addition to what medicare pays the Dr. I think that is how it all works. But medicare has to be cut. Ration care and ration it some more. Republicans are so busy ginning up senior's opposition to HCR that they have lost sight of the need to cut medicare spending. Best way to reform HC is to establish government run health clinics and hospitals. Ration care. Patients pay what they are able to pay. Eliminate all the medicare and medicaid programs. If a person needs medical care and can't pay for it, they go to their local government run HC facility.

Quoting conncarroll: I don't think it is just a matter of procedure to demand that Congress actually know what they are voting on before they vote.
If Reid writes his bill, and the CBO is given enough time to give a real score, then I think that would be a victory for small d-democracy.
If Reid and Pelosi strike a deal, and Senators are forced to cast votes before the CBO has scored the thing, than that would be more than just a procedural travesty.

Forcing Senators to vote? Sounds like a good thing to me. Get these people on record. Yes, the bill extends the mandate power of the federal government. Yes, it will slow medical innovation and increase the HI premiums of a lot of people. Come 2010, if the majority of voters return a democrat majority to the house, then so be it. I think the impact of the federal deficit spending dwarfs the affect of HCR. Social security is running a deficit lately, years earlier than the actuary tables predicted. The government is guaranteeing trillions in home loan mortgages. The federal deposit insurance fund is out of money. The trade deficit with China is way too

Quoting Unit: The quantity of money dropped by a third. But aside from that, recessions do happen, these are periods where large amounts of workers try to get out of one or more sectors and find jobs elsewhere. It takes time to readjust.

My thinking is in a modern society these imbalances are more quickly communicated and addressed. Work skills can be learned by the willing easier today than before. In 1930 a willing worker could not easily travel to another state for work. Supply and demand information is communicated thru the economicy system a lot faster today than during the GD.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: My thinking is in a modern society these imbalances are more quickly communicated and addressed. Work skills can be learned by the willing easier today than before. In 1930 a willing worker could not easily travel to another state for work. Supply and demand information is communicated thru the economicy system a lot faster today than during the GD.

You could be right. In which case the govt way over-reacted....

Quoting DenvilleSteve: As I understand it, the Baucus bill contains cuts in medicare reimbursement rates. Granted, medicare is an atrocity in that recipients are not means tested, premiums are way too low, the government gets no claim on a person's estate after paying large sums for their end of life care and recipients can't pay a doctor some money in addition to what medicare pays the Dr. I think that is how it all works.

But medicare has to be cut. Ration care and ration it some more. Republicans are so busy ginning up senior's opposition to HCR that they have lost sight of the need to cut medicare spending.

Best way to reform HC is to establish government run health clinics and hospitals. Ration care. Patients pay what they are able to pay. Eliminate all the medicare and medicaid programs. If a person needs medical care and can't pay for it, they go to their local government run HC facility.

My understanding is that the medicare cuts are just "promises" of cuts "in the future" (so no one will take responsibility when those cuts don't materialize).

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Forcing Senators to vote? Sounds like a good thing to me. Get these people on record. Yes, the bill extends the mandate power of the federal government. Yes, it will slow medical innovation and increase the HI premiums of a lot of people. Come 2010, if the majority of voters return a democrat majority to the house, then so be it.

What about the provision that the Health Care Reform bill (whenever it is finally written) will not take effect until after the 2012 elections (this seems to be the only consistancy of the many bills)? It seems a bit cold-hearted considering that 40,000 people are dying each year from lack of Obamacare but then I guess 160,000 dead is small potatoes compared to a solid majority.

Quoting Unit: He talks about gutting TARP to put in the health-care reform etc...I'm not an expert, but it sounds like they would be violating the "spirit" of the law at least. Previously you seemed to be opposed to banks giving advice on how to dodge the law even if these were legal loop-holes, but maybe I misunderstood.

What Conn describes isn't exactly what the reporter he linked to unearthed. From what I understood, they would be using the TARP bill as a template/shell to turn health care reform as a tax bill, which changes the procedural rules around it. I'm pretty sure that's legal. And my opposition to corporate support of tax havens isn't grounded in the spirit of the law, but in the letter of the law: it's a violation of international law for them to do so, which I see as having precedence over national law.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: And my opposition to corporate support of tax havens isn't grounded in the spirit of the law, but in the letter of the law: it's a violation of international law for them to do so, which I see as having precedence over national law.

Is it really? Can you point to this international law that you refer to?

Quoting Unit: Is it really? Can you point to this international law that you refer to?

Yep. OECD tax guidelines and the UN (Ruggie) Framework. I mentioned these as the legal justification for taking on UBS in the earlier thread where you and I debated the 'rule of law' question. If I'm wrong about how those laws work, then, on my own principles of legal strictness, the case against UBS falls apart.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Yep. OECD tax guidelines and the UN (Ruggie) Framework. I mentioned these as the legal justification for taking on UBS in the earlier thread where you and I debated the 'rule of law' question. If I'm wrong about how those laws work, then, on my own principles of legal strictness, the case against UBS falls apart.

The OECD is an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The link you provide has some tax "guidelines", "principles of transparency", that some countries accept and others are "actively negotiating" etc...Mostly it seems to be a declaration of intents to be followed by a revision of each country's internal legislation. I don't know if this counts as "letter of the law" especially if no formal treaty is signed or voted on by the interested populations. As an aside, it's exactly these sort of "financial" agreements that made the financial meltdown worse (read Basel), because when everybody acts in unison there is more risk of high fluctuations (both in a positive and in a negative direction). I believe we would have a more stable equilibrium if there was less international cooperation on matters of financial regulation.

Quoting Unit: Mostly it seems to be a declaration of intents to be followed by a revision of each country's internal legislation.

That's how international law works. So to the extent that this follows the procedural basis for international law, it has letter-of-law weight. And the US and Switzerland both happen to be in the category of countries that are fully committed to these principles.

Quoting Unit: As an aside, it's exactly these sort of "financial" agreements that made the financial meltdown worse (read Basel), because when everybody acts in unison there is more risk of high fluctuations (both in a positive and in a negative direction). I believe we would have a more stable equilibrium if there was less international cooperation on matters of financial regulation.

Basel failed because the content of its regulations was bad, not because the principle of international regulation was bad. When you talk to bank CEOs, most of them want more, not less, international coordination.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: That's how international law works. So to the extent that this follows the procedural basis for international law, it has letter-of-law weight. And the US and Switzerland both happen to be in the category of countries that are fully committed to these principles.

Well the link you provided specifically mentioned Switzerland as one of the countries that was not embracing the full agreement. But I actually disagree with your point. Most of our long back-and-forth last time hinged on the question of "what is law?" I was trying to make the case that it's a loose and indeterminate phenomenon and you only seemed to consider established, official, state law (presumable also enforced) with a democratic stamp of approval. However, now "international declarations of intent" become "letter of the law"?

Basel failed because the content of its regulations was bad, not because the principle of international regulation was bad. When you talk to bank CEOs, most of them want more, not less, international coordination.

Why am I not surprised that bankers who've just been bailed-out like royalty support more regulation? This is just Public Choice 101. New regulation is always lobbied for (and paid for) by key players

Still Thankful that Conn is back! Keep it coming!

Quoting Unit: But I actually disagree with your point. Most of our long back-and-forth last time hinged on the question of "what is law?" I was trying to make the case that it's a loose and indeterminate phenomenon and you only seemed to consider established, official, state law (presumable also enforced) with a democratic stamp of approval. However, now "international declarations of intent" become "letter of the law"?

My definition of law is official state law. But that includes international agreements to which those states submit themselves.

Quoting Unit: New regulation is always lobbied for (and paid for) by key players in the sector that is going to be regulated.

Fair point. And definitely something that should concern us when drafting specific regulations. But that doesn't change the fact that no banker, or other executive, I've spoken to in the past year has said the government/too much regulation was to blame here. It does seem from speaking to folks involved that it was the specific content of the regulations in place that was the problem.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: My definition of law is official state law. But that includes international agreements to which those states submit themselves.

I guess then we have to make sure we agree on what constitutes and international agreement.

Fair point. And definitely something that should concern us when drafting specific regulations. But that doesn't change the fact that no banker, or other executive, I've spoken to in the past year has said the government/too much regulation was to blame here. It does seem from speaking to folks involved that it was the specific content of the regulations in place that was the problem.

Yes definitely: it's not a question of less or more regulation, which doesn't make any sense. But it could be a choice between regulation that decentralizes and de-harmonizes, say more small failures but more stability in the long run, vs. regulation that homogenizes countries and favors the too-big-to-fail model (less failures but higher risk of systemic failure). I have no idea of what's best. That's why in such cases I revert to a philosophical position of "letting a thousand flowers bloom". I don't really have an answer except that I'm quite skeptical

Quoting Unit: I guess then we have to make sure we agree on what constitutes and international agreement.

Right. I'd count OECD policies as international agreements between member states. If you wanted to be more skeptical of the organization, you could count the policies as agreements only between those states who are furthest along in adopting policies, but that would still cover the US, which would explain why the IRS would have legal grounds to go after UBS. On regulatory reform, I'd agree that we really want to be skeptical of anything that encourages more too-big-to-fail-ness, but I also think too much decentralization leaves too much room for regulators to pass the buck to one another. I'm not at all sure what I'd want to see in a new regulatory framework.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Conn says he want tax cuts to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Bill says have a better mix of stimulus spending. I don't hear Conn or any republicans saying we should cancel the unspent stimulus spending plans. Is anyone in Congress demanding the feds balance their budget?

Of course not. Almost all members of Congress are either Democrats or Republicans. Both parties have proven, time and time again, that they LOVE spending our money. The Republicans want to spend money we don't have, then destroy the economy via the resulting debt. The Democrats want to spend money we don't have, then destroy the economy via confiscatory taxes. "Moderate" Democrats like Bill will tell you that Democrats are far better because they are spending money we don't have on more-worthwhile things. The history of government over-spending does not support his argument well. For example, we are going to get some kind of health-care reform bill, and it will be a GREAT deal for Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Government. The rest of us will get fully-funded prostate exams that last all night.

The end of this TWIB is absolutely classic! In the space of a minute, we go from this to this. Keep it classy Conn!

Quoting Stapler Malone: The end of this TWIB is absolutely classic! In the space of a minute, we go from this to this. Keep it classy Conn!

Heh. Great juxtaposition. Conn is all Heritage Foundation: Full blown wingnut.

I think Bill is generally right. However, Dem neo-cons like Josh Marshall will absolutely be on board for any well-planned pro-democracy action in Afghanistan. Markos will support any military action that doesn't sound like Viet Nam. I can think of several folks over at DKOS who will sign on for a US backed independent Kurdistan for example. All that's missing for Dem blogger support are reasonably fair elections then it's GOOOD MORNNIIINNNG AFGHANNNISTAN! Folks forget that neo-cons are bleeding hearts willing to pick up the cudgel. There are a few around. We know that much. They're just waiting for the right party.

Quoting kidneystones: I think Bill is generally right.

However, Dem neo-cons like Josh Marshall will absolutely be on board for any well-planned pro-democracy action in Afghanistan. Markos will support any military action that doesn't sound like Viet Nam. I can think of several folks over at DKOS who will sign on for a US backed independent Kurdistan for example.

All that's missing for Dem blogger support are reasonably fair elections then it's GOOOD MORNNIIINNNG AFGHANNNISTAN!

Folks forget that neo-cons are bleeding hearts willing to pick up the cudgel. There are a few around.

We know that much. They're just waiting for the right party.

"Democrat neocons?" That's incoherent. So is the broader attempt to shovel the debate about Afghanistan into a hole the size and shape of Iraq. There's a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about whether the conflict in Afghanistan is in our, or their, interest; and at what cost. This is not that debate.