Disqus - Latest Comments for alchemytoday

Re: The Limits Of Standing Your Ground

alchemytoday — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:50:20 -0000

I lived a few doors down from a similar neighborhood vigilante who'd confront neighbors with cameras rolling, called the police so often that they'd show up with their eyes pre-rolled (to their credit that they responded at all) and would constantly spout about how his rights (to videotape anyone, to not have anyone overlap his parking spot, etc) were threatened in similar legal-ish terms. It led to all sorts of totally unneeded tension, but luckily he was into some sort of Buddhism so that was all that came of it.

Re: Tax flight a reality for Frederick business owner

alchemytoday — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:39:04 -0000

"Gaver is the owner of GTI Federal, an IT provider to federal agencies." ... "“I am the first person in my family to have significant financial success. … I’m being punished for that financial success.”

I'm fairly certain that Gaver's received more Federal largesse than his allegedly free-loading relative.

Re: Three Terrorist Attacks I Worry About the Most: Jeffrey Goldberg - Bloomberg

alchemytoday — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:01:04 -0000

"One day, a Timothy McVeigh or an Anders Breivik is completely unknown to the public and to the authorities."
McVeigh wrote death threats to an FBI sniper who was at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Breivik had been arrested with explosives. Scott Roeder (who killed Kansas doctor George Tiller because he legally provided abortions) had been arrested with explosives. The Columbine shooters had a website, known to local authorities, detailing lists of people to kill, documenting them building bombs, etc.

More often than not it seems, the lone-wolf terrorists were identified before their attacks. How many Muslim-Americans were rounded up after 9/11 with much, much less evidence that they were likely to be involved with terrorism? Cheryl Sullenger was jailed for attempting to bomb an abortion clinic; she was in contact with Scott Roeder; she's still working with the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. It's more likely than not that she's made peace with this and isn't a threat to anyone, but are people going to say "who would've known?" if she does attack again?

Re: Your Moment Of Blogger Sexism - Ta-Nehisi Coates - National - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:56:37 -0000

True enough!

Re: Your Moment Of Blogger Sexism - Ta-Nehisi Coates - National - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:24:32 -0000

Is it sexist to say Bachmann's a great campaigner in person, but has a really poor strategy overall? Pawlenty's her main competition right now, and he's been running on this idiotic plan for massive tax cuts that'll save the world for a month or so. All Bachmann has to say is, "I've voted to lower taxes X times in the House; I've never voted to raise taxes. In Y years, Tim Pawlenty didn't lower a single tax in Minnesota; he actually raised taxes Z times! Tim might call this 'getting things done' but it's not what needs doing in Washington!" And then Pawlenty's campaign implodes in a series of attempts to parse the nonexistent difference between taxes and fees.

Re: The Democrats Cave - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:53:47 -0000

There is still one (or more) scheduled shakedown -- the continuing budget resolution expires in September. I haven't seen any word of a plan to extend spending through 2013. The GOP's up against a much more flexible wall with the budget than the debt ceiling and can extract more concessions since they're actually willing to shoot the hostage.

I haven't seen the details on the Reid/Pelosi proposal -- it could be that it counts cutting tax expenditures as cutting spending (which I agree that it is, but Republicans don't) which could make it more of a compromise.

Re: Obama Backs Bipartisan Debt Plan in Principle - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:07:30 -0000

No one should report on the House passing Cut/Cap/Balance without noting that the House earlier passed a budget that, if enacted, would be in violation of Cut/Cap/Balance on every front, would continue to be in violation of it for over a decade, and would require multiple supermajority votes in both houses of Congress every year whereupon we would inevitably have the sort of routine hostage taking that's crippled the Congress for a year or so.

Specifically, even using Ryan's bogus math, his budget violates the Balanced Budget Amendment on the following fronts:
1) Runs a deficit until ~2030 (Figure 9)
2) Spends more than 18% GDP until 2040 or so; spends more than 18% of the previous year's GDP till ~2050 (Figure 8)
3) Raises taxes on the poor and middle class to maintain current revenues while dramatically lowering marginal rates: "Broaden the tax base to keep revenue as a share of the economy at levels sufficient to fund critical missions that rightly belong in the domain of the federal government."

Re: Obama's Debt-Ceiling Press Conference - Clive Crook - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:20:34 -0000

Specifically, the Simpson-Bowles Chairman's Mark (the first option presented) lowers total revenues by ~4% GDP going forward and reduces the progressivity in the tax code by pretty much every definition *relative to current law*.

On the whole, the changes by Simpson/Bowles are regressive. I think change in after-tax-income is as good a measure of progressivity as you'll get for the tax provisions here. Relative to current law, after-tax-income changes by -2.7, -2.7, -1.6, -0.2, and +0.8 (lowest quintile to highest quintile) for the highest-revenue/most-progressive option. The lower revenue option gives you -1.3, -1.1, +0.2, +1.5, +1.4 percent. This includes Social Security income. Relative to current policy, the story's a little more muddled but there's no argument that the changes are progressive on the whole.

Re: Obama's Debt-Ceiling Press Conference - Clive Crook - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:55:51 -0000

All I'm saying is that it doesn't balance cuts with revenue increases. Decreasing revenue relative to current law is decreasing revenue. It balances the budget by (1) having the government do less and less each year by having discretionary spending increase at a lower rate than the economy and (2) reducing the size of the social safety net. It does both of these things to a much greater extent than would be necessary if we didn't cut taxes and instead let revenue increase to ~25% GDP as per the law as it stands today.

Re: Obama's Debt-Ceiling Press Conference - Clive Crook - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:15:34 -0000

Bowles-Simpson decreases revenue relative dramatically relative to current law. I realize that all rhetoric in DC compares various economic plans to current policy, but there's no reason to compare possible changes to something that's as unworkable as Bush-cuts-extended tax law. Do we compare the spending in the Bowles-Simpson vision of Medicare in 2050 to what it'd be without their plan? Of course not -- you can project current Medicare spending to 2050, but everyone knows that the growth rate of Medicare will go down one way or another absent some miraculous increase in American economic output. So there's no reason to compare the Bowles-Simpson plan of 21% GDP revenue to the unworkable ~19% figure under current policy.

Bowles-Simpson doesn't balance tax hikes with budget cuts. Instead, it's proposing a massive, permanent tax cut relative to current law, bringing revenues well below what's needed to sustain a role of government in healthcare, pensions, etc that's supported by large majorities of Americans. Relative to current law, Bowles-Simpson is a tax hike for the poorest 40% of Americans, has little effect on the middle 20%, and is a tax cut for the richest 40%. Even the most extreme variant of Bowles-Simpson (the least feasible politically) is a tax cut for the richest 20%.

Re: Obama to Congress Needs to Show Me an Outline of Debt Deal - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:10:10 -0000

"House Speaker John Boehner pressed for more spending cuts, "like spending caps, and like a balanced budget amendment" during his own live appearance."

I can only assume that our responsible press immediately asked him why the House passed a budget that, even if you take it's laughable numbers at face value, violates the proposed balanced budget amendment in every one of its components (the Ryan budget spends >18% GDP, runs a deficit for a long time, requires a massive increase in the debt ceiling, and raises taxes on the poor and middle class).

Re: Cantor Says Obama Stormed Out of Budget Talks - Billy House, Katy O'Donnel & George E. Condon, Jr. - National - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:21:02 -0000

Cantor's pathetic. He was embarrassed by his take-the-ball-and-go-home moment a few days ago. He sees the chance to be able to say, "But Obama did it too!" and runs off to reporters. Even going on Cantor's version alone, there's enough to realize that saying, "I'm out -- see you tomorrow!" is slightly different from "No tax increases ever! These negotiations are over!" Obama's got to watch out and not take any bathroom breaks or step out of the room for any reason today lest Cantor seize the moment.

Re: Did Republicans Blink Too Soon? - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:21:17 -0000

Except we do live that way. Nearly half of Americans are insured by the government. Give folks the option to pay half as much for the same quality care and I think

"We're a lot bigger, and a lot more spread out and diverse, and lot more independent." I'd say Canada is more spread out and more independent. It's also a Federal system with a tradition of local rule (as is Switzerland). Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Chile, New Zealand, Iceland, and Estonia are all OECD countries that are less dense than the Untied States. Diversity and independence are quite subjective, but I'd argue in favor of some of those countries over the States on those metrics. I can't see how the United States is perfectly situation in a niche of independence/diversity/density that makes universal, national insurance impossible here (I'd prefer nationalizing providing care as well, but this goes most of the way). The only thing special about the United States is that we have a government structured to make fundamental action nearly impossible (excepting wars). We would've had national insurance some time ago if the structure of Congress was slightly different; if it didn't work out, the GOP would be welcome to run on ending it.

Re: Did Republicans Blink Too Soon? - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:21:15 -0000

How in the world will getting rid of the employer deduction nullify employers' contractual obligations to provide lifetime health insurance?

Edit: Also, Obamacare's required by law to reduce Medicare spending relative to current law. If it doesn't, that'll be the fault of Congress overriding the law, not the law itself. I'm talking about national spending per capita, not total Federal outlays. Whether or not the subsidies are totally in balance with the revenue measures is a different issue. And I'm not arguing that the law's remotely ideal. The argument's that the evidence overwhelmingly says we can nationalize healthcare and spend 30-50% less per capita on health care as well as provide a mechanism for controlling health care costs. I'd think that anyone who thinks the United States is going to face a huge debt crisis would consider adopting a proven way to massively reduce our current and long-term deficits.

Re: Did Republicans Blink Too Soon? - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:05:17 -0000

Go check out practically every vote in the past 10 years that would've reduced national spending on healthcare in the long-term. That's where the entire problem is, and Democrats have consistently been the only party doing anything about it. Anyone who thinks the debt is an existential crisis should look around the world and come to the obvious conclusion that we can nationalize healthcare and almost immediately cure both problems with the national debt and deal with pension problems that are crippling local governments and American industry (yes, this would imply more taxes, but the increase in taxes would be lower than out-0f-pocket healthcare costs for nearly everyone).

Re: Did Republicans Blink Too Soon? - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:36:51 -0000

Note that the GOP attained this majority in the midst of a then-popular war, with a still-popular President, during a period of economic growth. Didn't cross a single item off your List.

Re: Did Republicans Blink Too Soon? - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:31:27 -0000

FYI, government was unified during the 109th Congress. The GOP had smaller Congressional majorities in both Houses than the Democrats had in the 111th Congress, but I'd argue that the GOP effectively had a larger governing majority on most issues given that the party's more in line ideologically than the Democrats (not on every issue; say, Obamacare, but Bush had a much easier time getting confirmations, etc).

Guess what the 109th Congress accomplished? A few bucks for a largely symbolic border fence, a week screwing around with Teri Schiavo's life, and a change in Daylight Savings Time. All the evidence shows that the modern GOP's a lot more effective at advancing the conservative agenda when there isn't a unified government.

Also, I wouldn't be so confident that the debt ceiling is a winning election issue. It makes Congress look stupid (after all, they can pass a balanced budget whenever they want), and for the life of me I can't think of an effective campaign commercial focused on the debt.

Re: Did Republicans Blink Too Soon? - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:12:55 -0000

It's not unconstitutional at all. There are several laws that are handled similarly with Congress voting under some modified set of rules to approve or reject something. Congress does it to avoid responsibility for unpopular measures -- see the BRAC process or the IPAB in Obamacare. Executive (or some extra-Congressional panel) presents a plan -- some sort of supermajority is required to preempt plan.

Yeah, it's cowardly, but not half as cowardly as demanding a Constitutional amendment that'd require something that no one's stopping Congress from doing now (balancing the budget).

Re: Did Republicans Blink Too Soon? - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:49:44 -0000

There's only one way we see a single-day loss on par with that associated with the House TARP vote: If there's a vote to raise the debt ceiling that's expected to pass, but fails (unlike, say, the earlier one that was intended to fail). If Boehner says he has the votes for McConnell's plan and turns out not to, the market will plummet.

If, on the other hand, this brinksmanship continues, you'll eventually see interest rates begin to rise modestly -- not even remotely at the level of a sovereign debt crisis. However, all interest rates for day-to-day business transactions are related to the rates for US debt. The cost of doing business will rise, folks will complain about this, and the ceiling will be raised one way or another. Perhaps Boehner will somehow signal to Obama that he won't do anything if Obama exercises the Constitutional option and continues to make all payments required by law.

Re: Republicans Push Constitutional Amendment as Part of Debt Deal - Lindsey Boerma - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:54:23 -0000

What's stopping them from just, you know, passing a balanced budget? IIRC this merely requires a majority in both houses and ratification by zero-fourths of the states.

It's also puzzling why Cantor and Jordan would be so determined to make this part of the budget deal only months after voting for Paul Ryan's budget -- a budget that would've been in violation of the amendment forever on one count (it pegged revenue at 19% GDP; more than the 18% limit here), would've required increases in the debt ceiling for many years that are well in excess of what's required under current law, and would've run deficits for many years as well.

Re: Pawlenty Is Right: Bachmann Has Accomplished Very Little - Atlantic Mobile

alchemytoday — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:38:51 -0000

I'm not saying whether or not she is overly emotional and I don't criticize Pawlenty for raising fees to balance the MN budget (although he is a complete phony to say he never raised taxes, and if he's gonna say reducing taxes pays for itself and leads to 5% GDP growth why didn't he do it in MN?). I'm saying that, as an experienced lawyer, she's making a bogus argument in a way that's not intellectually rigorous but probably works for her target audience. It's not a sign of her being unqualified to be President, but a sign of her being qualified to be a very successful politician.

Re: Pawlenty Is Right: Bachmann Has Accomplished Very Little - Atlantic Mobile

alchemytoday — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:26:52 -0000

To be fair, Gingrich is the revisionist history professor; Bachmann is the revisionist armchair historian.

Re: Pawlenty Is Right: Bachmann Has Accomplished Very Little - Atlantic Mobile

alchemytoday — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:25:56 -0000

If Bachmann had competent campaign management (rather than succeeding solely on the back of her determination relative to a bunch of terrible candidates), this would be the end of Pawlenty's candidacy: "I just wish Gov. Pawlenty's record of raising taxes was nonexistent. He raised taxes X times in only Y years as Governor of Minnesota. He never lowered taxes. In Congress, I've never voted to raise taxes, and I've voted to lower taxes every chance I've had -- successfully lowering taxes for Americans Z times."

Done. Pawlenty will bicker that fees aren't taxes and then Bachmann could hit him again for being out of touch.

I totally disagree on your interpretation of Bachmann's cap-and-tax floor speech. Have you ever served on a jury? Her cadence and twisted logic are totally characteristic of many opening and closing arguments. Her job is to persuade with emotion, not rigorous logic. She's pretty good at it.

I still think she has no chance of winning; way too radical on social issues and, like Gingrich, she's brighter than the average GOP candidate but has no mental filter. There's a benefit to taking your time in speaking in Presidential elections that separates them from most other elections with less media exposure.

Re: Boehner: Back to Biden, Please - Steve Clemons - National - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:45:37 -0000

How many centrist voters are skeptical of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid? These programs are all enormously popular; cutting them won't win votes a la cutting funding for housing projects and pensions that were widely looked down upon.

Re: Paul Ryan's $400 Haircut - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

alchemytoday — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:41:06 -0000

I think Paul Ryan's a cancer on the country, but why should I care about this, anyway? I recall that Obama & Michelle ate at Citronelle shortly after the inauguration... that's something like $200 each these days for the tasting menu plus something circa $100 for wine pairings. As long as we're going to have a ridiculous distribution of wealth in this country, it's best for the poor and middle class if it's spent as unwisely as possible.