AnnotatedOpinions.com

This might seem an odd moment to argue that the Senate is fundamentally broken and repairs should top our list of priorities. After all, the Senate passed a $900 billion health-care bill Thursday morning. . .  

To understand why the modern legislative process is so bad, why every Senator seems able to demand a king’s ransom in return for his or her vote and no bill ever seems to be truly bipartisan, you need to understand one basic fact: The government can function if the minority party has either the incentive to make the majority fail or the power to make the majority fail. It cannot function if it has both. . .  

Potential solutions abound. Harkin would eliminate the filibuster while still protecting the minority’s right to debate. Under his proposal, bills would initially require 60 votes to pass. Three days later, that threshold would fall to 57. Three days after that, 54. And three days after that, 51. Merkley has some other ideas. One is to attract Republicans to the project by phasing the filibuster out six or eight years in the future, when we can’t predict which party will initially benefit. . .  

[AO: Senator Harkin’s solution is compelling. According to the writer, Ezra Klein, government cannot function when the minority party has the incentive and power to make the majority party fail. Harkin’s solution addresses this concern by gradually reducing the minority party’s power over time.   

However, the solution does more than simply reduce the minority’s power over time. As envisioned, the solution creates a situation in which the majority could engage in a series of steps with the goal that, nine days later, it can vote its desired bill by 51 votes, whatever the outcome of those intervening steps. As such, the nine-day delay in unlikely to encourage concessions between the majority and minority and may even discourage negotiation if the minority party comes to believe that the majority intends to pass the legislation nine days later whatever the outcome of negotiations. In other words, Harkin’s suggestion will add significant leverage to the majority party’s negotiating position. Indeed, the outcome may be similar to having no nine day delay at all.  

An alternative is to simply lower the cloture requirement to, say, 55 votes or couple that lower vote requirement with Harkin’s solution so that after six or nine days 55 votes, not 51, are required to initiate cloture. One advantage of this approach is that it keeps the major benefit of the filibuster, requiring a significant majority of senators, not a simple majority, to concur on contentious legislation. This approach also leaves the minority party with enough power to negotiate with the majority party without enabling the minority to prevent the government from functioning.   

The 60 vote requirement for cloture is an exceedingly high bar, the health-care bill’s passage notwithstanding. A 55 vote requirement for cloture will reduce the instances in which the minority party can bring legislation to a halt without completely eliminating the minority party’s leverage. It is a high bur, but not an exceedingly high one. It is a reasonable bar for contentious legislation. ]

It was serendipitous to have almost simultaneous climaxes in Copenhagen and Congress. The former’s accomplishment was indiscernible, the latter’s was unsightly.  

It would have been unprecedented had the president not described the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit as “unprecedented,” . . . Actually, the mountain beneath the summit . . . labored mightily and gave birth to a mouselet, a 12-paragraph document committing the signatories to . . . make a list. [AO: Actually, Copenhagen gave birth to more than a list. As the Houston chronicle, New York Times and other publications describe, the climate summit produced “an agreement with the Chinese on a major sticking point — monitoring emission levels.” The summit also produced “a general statement of principles embraced by major conference attendees.”  

One of the most important outcomes of the summit, however, was the nonbinding accord setting “a goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.” There was also the agreement between developed countries to help poor countries fund activities that fight climate change such as preventing deforestation.  

In other words, contrary to what the writer, George Will, suggests, Copenhagen produced more than a list. Moreover, although President Obama may have described the outcome as “unprecedented,” he also stated that “This progress did not come easily, and we know that this
progress alone is not enough.” Most people who followed to summit recognize that more will have to be done to fight climate change. Obama, of all people, recognizes that.]  

At least the president got a health-care bill through the Senate. But what problem does it “solve” (Obama’s word)? Not that of the uninsured, 23 million of whom will remain in 2019. Not that of rising health-care spending. This will rise faster over the next decade. [AO: Here, Will makes an incorrect insinuation. The health insurance bill solves a number of problems.   

• The Bill cover more than 30 million Americans who currently don’t have health insurance
• The bill will, “by 2019, result in 94 percent of all citizens and legal residents below Medicare age having health insurance.”
• The bill will “reduce deficits over the next decade by $132 billion and even more in the following decade.”
• The bill provides tax cuts to help small businesses buy insurance and provides subsidies to help individuals do the same.
• It funds projects to investigate cost-saving measures.

So yes, the bill solves a number of problems. Sure it doesn’t solve all our health insurance problems, like the 23 million who will remain uninsured in 2019, but can we really expect such a landmark bill coming out of congress to solve all our health insurance problems?   

Sweeping legislations passed in the past have required numerous tweaking over subsequent years. No doubt the current health insurance bill, if passed, will require further fixes. Having waited decades, Congress must pass the current bill and fix its shortcomings later or we coule be waiting decades for another health insurance bill.]

Even if Congress passes legislation — a good bet — the finished product will fall far short of Obama’s extravagant promises. . . [AO: That’s ok because it seems Obama has adjusted his goals based on what he thinks can be accomplished in the Senate with the requirement of 60 votes and Republican senators basically saying NO to any and everything despite the majority of Americans wanting health reform. In short, don’t worry about Obama.]  

The various health-care proposals represent atrocious legislation. To be sure, they would provide insurance to 30 million or more Americans by 2019. People would enjoy more security. But even these gains must be qualified. Some of the newly insured will get healthier, but how many and by how much is unclear. . . [AO: Clearly there is uncertainty about some of the exact numbers. But that alone cannot be the reason not to pass the health insurance reform bill. Basically, the writer, Robert Samuelson, is saying that the bill will make some people better off but Congress can’t be sure how many people will be helped so the Senate should not pass the bill. That seems wrong.]  

The remaining uninsured may also exceed estimates. Under the Senate bill, they would total 24 million in 2019, reckons Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But a wild card is immigration. From 1999 to 2008, about 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics. [AO: See
above. Basically, the same uncertainty argument.]  

Obama’s plan might add almost an additional $1 trillion in spending over a decade — and more later. Even if this is fully covered, as Obama contends, by higher taxes and cuts in Medicare  eimbursements, this revenue could have been used to cut the existing deficits. . . [AO: Ahhh… A deficit hawk. The healthcare of as many as 24 million Americans or more should be sacrificed to shave a few points off the deficit. But why? The responsibility of Congress is to set priorities. Congress (assuming a thumbs-up vote), and frankly the majority of Americans who support health insurance reform, favored prioritizing health over deficits.  

Obama's overhaul would also change how private firms insure workers. Perhaps 18 million workers could lose coverage and 16 million gain it, as companies adapt to new regulations and subsidies, estimates the Lewin Group, a consulting firm. Private insurers argue that premiums in the individual and small-group markets, where many workers would end up, might rise an extra 25 to 50 percent over a decade. The administration and the CBO disagree. The dispute underlines the bills' immense uncertainties. . . [AO: Again with the uncertainty argument. Taking a page from the cigarette companies’ play book, Samuelson is using uncertainty as the three legs to support his argument.   

When some argued that smoking was bad for the smoker’s health, Big Tobacco responded that there was no conclusive evidence that smoking caused cancer. In other words, it was uncertain. Samuelson is doing the same here.]

. . . The simple fact is that insuring tens of millions must initially raise health-care spending. How else could the previously uninsured enjoy an increase in health-care services? It is, however, fair to ask whether the bills under consideration pay for those added costs and promise credibly to slow the long-term growth of health-care spending.

The Congressional Budget Office has answered the first question: The House-passed bill and the one before the Senate would offset the spending necessary to extend coverage with other spending cuts and tax increases. These bills would reduce the deficit slightly over the first 10 years and more later. . .

Samuelson disparages the budget cuts because Congress has not always enforced promised spending reductions. Congress has, however, repeatedly stuck with promised cuts in health-care spending — in 1990 and 1993 as part of budget deals that helped balance the budget in that decade, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Most of these cuts, like those proposed in the health-care bills, were gradual. . .

In his column this week, Samuelson cited a Center for American Progress study and seemed to accept its estimates. But according to that study, the bills under consideration would shave more than $1 trillion from national health-care spending and use half that money to extend coverage. Yet Samuelson says that isn’t good enough. . .

[AO: These are only a few of the issue Aaron addresses. Follow the link below for the full story. ] 

Rushing to lock the nation into expensive health-care and climate-change commitments, Democrats are in an understandable frenzy because public enthusiasm for both crusades has been inversely proportional to the time the public has had to think about them. . .  

A CNN poll shows 36 percent of the public in favor of what the Democratic Senate is trying to do to health care, 61 percent opposed. It is clear what the public wants Congress to do: Take a mulligan and start over.   

So Republicans can win in 2009 by stopping the bill, or in 2010 by saying: Unpopular health-care legislation passed because of a 60-40 party-line decision to bring it to a Senate vote. Therefore each incumbent Democrat is responsible for everything in the law.   

[AO: Americans are concerned about health insurance legislation under consideration in the Senate. This is clear from the CNN poll. However the same individuals surveyed in the CNN poll, while disfavoring the Senate version of reform by 61 percent to 36 percent, were in favor of a public option by 53 percent to 46 percent. What is a Democratic Senate to too?  

If you consider that many of the senators opposing the public option are Republicans, one wonders how successful a charge in 2010 against Democrats for passing unpopular health insurance legislation will be. After all, part of the reason the health insurance legislation is unpopular is that Republicans are blocking portions of the legislation people favor, namely the public option.   

So, the writer, George Will, is suggesting that Republicans campaign against Democrats, accusing them of passing unpopular legislation, when in fact one of the reasons the legislation was made unpopular is that Republicans prevented Democrats from adding provisions that the American people want. Welcome to Washington.]

With unemployment stuck around 10 percent, President Obama has pledged “to take every responsible step to accelerate the pace of job growth.” Here’s a thought: Instead of trying to “create” jobs by tweaking this tax break or increasing that spending program, why not stop doing things that destroy jobs?  

. . . End federal protectionism and price supports for sugar. . . In 2006, the Commerce Department estimated that the sugar program cost three confectionery manufacturing jobs for each job it saved in sugar growing and harvesting.  

. . . Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. Passed in the 1930s to “stabilize” the construction industry . . ., this law requires employers to pay the “prevailing” local wage on federally funded projects.

  . . . Reduce the federal minimum wage.  

[AO: It is true that President Obama has pledged to take every responsible step to accelerate the pace of job growth. However, job growth without an attention to attendant effects is not wise.   

The latter two suggestions, repealing the Davis-Bacon Act and reducing minimum wage, may well create more jobs. But it does so at the cost of lowering the salary of existing workers. This will not necessarily lead to an economic recovery.   

As has been explained on this site and by economists elsewhere, a key missing ingredient in the recovery is consumer spending. It’s down . . . way down. Consumers are not spending because many consumers are unemployed and others are concerned that they may loose their jobs. The latter two suggestions would slash consumers’ salaries. The effect will be to split a salary that would otherwise go to one person between multiple employees. This will not lead to increased spending by consumers. Indeed, the effect of the latter two suggestions may be increased employment numbers attended by no change in consumer spending because the economy is effectively not being grown. What we need is to create jobs without slashing the salaries of existing workers.  

The first suggestion, ending sugar policy, is more likely to be successful. However, one must be careful. Just because the price of raw materials (here, sugar) is reduced doesn’t mean that business owners will necessarily employ more individuals. They might simply save the increased profits. If this happens, the economy will not receive the short-term boost in spending it needs. One reason employers may not employ more individuals is that they already are producing the maximum amount of product that the economy will purchase.]

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an “endangerment” to human health. . .  

Not everyone is pleased. . . When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.   

With the Senate blocking President Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d’etat served as the administration’s loud response to Webb: The hell we can’t. With this EPA “endangerment” finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.  

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society — as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based — you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats. . .  

[AO: Charles Krauthammer tells a story. It’s a story about how Third World countries are attempting to steal the treasures of Western Democracies. It’s a story about how socialists traded in their red colors for green so they can continue their socialist agenda. It’s a story about how the current administration, unilaterally, is using the EPA to usurp the will of the people and Congress by imposing or threatening to impose restrictions on carbon. In short, it is a fanciful story . . . a very fanciful story. One challenged by reality.  

Here’s a more fact based, shorter account. No talk of Third World kleptocracies. No talk of socialists changing colors. No. None of that. No doubt, this account is not as interesting and doesn’t warm the hearts of some but, alas, this is the unfortunate reality of simply sticking to the facts and avoiding grandiose theories that veer away from reality.  

Congress, in the Clean Air Act, authorized the EPA to regulated harmful substances in the air. The Bush administration decided it had no authority to regulate carbon emissions despite evidence that carbon emissions are harmful. The state of Massachusetts, in the name of its people, twelve other states and several cities, sued the EPA. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court where
the Supreme Court held that the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon. The Supreme Court also ruled that the EPA must provide a good reason if it wants to avoid regulation required by the Clean Air Act passed by Congress. In other words, Congress ordered the EPA to regulate carbon in the Clean Air Act. If the EPA wants to avoid its responsibility, it’d better have a very good reason.  

The EPA eventually decided, with its back against the wall, that it has to regulate carbon.  

Now, we have Congress telling the EPA to regulate carbon. We have states demanding that the EPA do what Congress ordered. We have the US Supreme Court telling the EPA that the Clean Air Act authorizes it to regulate carbon. We have the EPA finally conceding, after putting up a mighty struggle, that it has the authority to regulate carbon.  

Yet, Krauthammer wants us to believe that this is an attempt by the EPA to usurp the power of the Congress and ordinary Americans.   

Like I said, he tells a fanciful story.]

Three issues central to the outcome [of the Afghan war] should enter the public debate as his strategy is launched.

The first is America’s place in the world in the 21st century. Officials from Moscow to Beijing, from Iran’s revolutionaries to Somalia’s pirates, will scrutinize this last-ditch U.S. effort — and weigh their actions, reactions and interactions with the United States on how Obama’s effort fares.   

Failure by the world’s mightiest military power, backed by the largest military alliance, to uproot the Taliban — a force without an air force, armored corps, long-range artillery, satellite intelligence or powerful foreign backer — would vividly illustrate the limits of U.S. power. The consequences could dwarf those of the defeat in Vietnam, even if the loss of life was smaller. . . .

U.S. standing in the Islamic world is also at stake. The historic rule of thumb is that winners have influence; losers don’t. Winners get to set standards. Their ideas get more attention. Their leaders gain greater authority.  

And the outcome of the U.S. confrontation with various branches of al-Qaeda and the Taliban is pivotal to the future of the Islamic world. Almost a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Muslim world is at a crossroads. Polls show key Muslim societies are increasingly rejecting  extremism. . .  

Finally, U.S. interests in the wider region are also at stake, notably on two fronts.   

Obama’s strategy will deeply affect India, the world’s largest democracy. Long-standing tensions between Pakistan and India have taken the world closer to the brink of nuclear war than any conflict has since World War II. . .

Just as worrisome are the stakes with Iran, which borders both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan has become for Iran what Iraq once was: a surrogate battlefield with the United States. . .

[AO: We encourage you to read the full article by following the link below. ]

. . .people in places just like Nyon recently voted decisively — 57.5 percent — in favor of a referendum that will ban the construction of minarets on mosques throughout Switzerland. This decision has been interpreted across Europe, and particularly in the United States, as evidence of Swiss bigotry and rising religious intolerance. But it was not — or at least not entirely. More important, it was evidence of fear, though not fear of “foreigners” or “outsiders” as such. . .  

No one quite says what the real issue is, but everybody knows: As grotesquely unfair as a referendum to ban minarets may have been to hundreds of thousands of ordinary, well-integrated Muslims, I have no doubt that the Swiss voted in favor primarily because they don’t have much Islamic extremism — and they don’t want any.  

[AO: Therein lies the problem. Because of their fear of a small minority of Islamic extremists, the Swiss are willing to impose a rule that is “grotesquely unfair” on all Muslims in a country where most residents are quite frankly not Muslim. What are the chances that a similar referendum would pass if the targeted class wielded more power in Switzerland or was more numerous?  

There is also an element of a majority seeming to protect itself at the cost of a minority using a mechanism that the minority has not chance of influencing. Moreover, the mechanism used by the majority to “protect itself” is neither necessary nor likely to be successful. In other words, the cost to the minority is disproportionate to any gain to the majority but because the majority stands only to “benefit” from passing the referendum, it passed.  

This may explain why the “decision has been interpreted across Europe, and particularly in the United States, as evidence of Swiss  bigotry and rising religious intolerance,” as the writer put it. ]

Visits from three senior U.S. officials in three weeks indicate troubles in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Washington has failed to deliver on the regional strategy it promised this spring, and friction with Pakistan seems to be contributing to the long delay in announcement of a new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. . .  

Any surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan would depend on the Pakistani army’s help to protect the truck convoys that would supply the extra Western troops in landlocked Afghanistan. Washington would need even greater clandestine cooperation from the Pakistani military in targeting terrorist hideouts along the border. . .  

U.S. troops cannot roll back the Taliban in southern and eastern Afghanistan without the Pakistanis cutting off the men and materials the Afghan Taliban can draw on.   

If U.S. and NATO troops stay on in Afghanistan and beat back the Afghan Taliban in the next few years, the Pakistani military is likely to cooperate with the West.  

If, however, President Obama speaks soon of an exit strategy . . . the Pakistani army is likely to push Afghan President Hamid Karzai to accept a Pakistani-brokered deal to form a pro-Pakistan government with the Taliban in Kabul. . .  

To avoid a regional debacle and the Taliban gaining even more ground, Obama needs to fulfill the commitment he made to Afghanistan in March: to send more troops . . . as well as civilian experts, and more funds for development. He must bring both India and Pakistan on board and help reduce their differences; a regional strategy is necessary for any U.S. strategy in Afghanistan to have a chance. The United States needs to persuade India to be more flexible toward Pakistan while convincing Pakistanis to match such flexibility in a step-by-step process that reduces terrorist groups operating from its soil so that the two archenemies can rebuild a modicum of trust. . . 

[AO: “A regional strategy is necessary for any US strategy in Afghanistan to have a chance.” Which countries should be part of this regional strategy? Pakistan sits between Afghanistan and India. Also, has anyone considered inviting Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Iran to join this regional strategy? These countries, unlike India, actually share a boundary with Afghanistan. Moreover, as the writer explains, actions in Pakistan will determine whether the Afghan war is successful or not. It’s the Pakistani army that must provide everything from troop support to fighting terrorists in Pakistan if the Afghan war is to be successful.   

“The United States needs to persuade India to be more flexible toward Pakistan while convincing Pakistanis to match such flexibility in a step-by-step process that reduces terrorist groups operating from its soil . . .” By flexibility, of course, the writer means India should stop demanding that Pakistan first eliminate terrorist groups targeting India from Punjab and Karachi. That is, the writer is recommending that before moving forward in the fight against terrorist in Afghanistan, the U.S. must persuade an ally that suffered a 9/11 style attack, India, to stop demanding that Pakistan eliminate the source of those terrorists who attacked India. This is an odd and seemingly illogical demand considering that, vis-à-vis India, the point of the Afghan war is the same as the point of its demand.   

Also, it is difficult to see why Pakistan needs India to stop  demanding that Pakistan eliminate certain terrorist on its soil before moving forward against other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.]