JustOneMinute

Circling The Drain On Syria

Times coverage of Obama's latest plan for Syria is brutal. Here is David Sanger with a News Analysis:

Tripping on His Own Red Line?

WASHINGTON — IT started with just 20 words, intended to keep Barack Obama out of a war. The tens of thousands dying in Syria was a global tragedy, he told reporters a year ago, when the worst horrors were still months away, but as commander in chief he had to focus on American strategic interests and could not intervene in every humanitarian tragedy around the world.

Then he offered his one caveat. “A red line for us,” he said, “is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

...

Yet the sharply limited goals Mr. Obama has described in explaining his rationale for taking military action now — “a shot across the bow” to halt future chemical attacks, he told PBS — pose risks of their own. If President Bashar al-Assad emerges from a few days of Tomahawk missile barrages relatively unscathed, he will be able to claim that he faced down not only his domestic opponents but the United States, which he has charged is the secret hand behind the uprising.

In the words of one recently departed senior adviser to Mr. Obama, “the worst outcome would be making Assad look stronger.”

How did Mr. Obama find himself in this trap? Partly, it was an accident of history: in the early, heady days of the Arab uprisings, no one bet that Mr. Assad would survive this long, in a country where his Alawite sect is a minority.

But there is an argument that Mr. Obama’s own caution about foreign interventions put him in this box. Horrific as the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack was, it was no more horrific than the conventional attacks that caused the deaths of 100,000 Syrians. Those prompted only a minimal American response — international condemnations, some sporadic arms shipments for a ragtag group of rebels, and an understandable reluctance by an American president to get on the same side of the civil war as Al Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Now the crossing of the red line has forced Mr. Obama’s hand. He says he is intervening to stop the use of a specific weapon whose use in World War I shocked the world. But he is not intervening to stop the mass killing, or to remove the man behind those attacks.

Mark Landler is also unsparing:

President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made

...

After two years of resisting deeper involvement in Syria, Mr. Obama finally decided to order a military strike — only to put his order on a shelf while he seeks Congressional approval.

...

To a large degree, much of Mr. Obama’s quandary is that he boxed himself in by setting a “red line” on the use of chemical weapons by Syria, a line he now feels obliged to enforce to preserve his credibility. But the path to this messy moment has been complicated by more than an ill-advised utterance on Syria.

Throughout his presidency, whether the goal was closing the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, or backing the NATO air campaign in Libya, Mr. Obama has proved better at articulating legal principles than at managing the politics that could help him defend those principles.

Ouch.

Some analysts say that Mr. Obama’s determination even now to divorce military action from broader engagement in Syria may have complicated his effort to rally international support.

“We’re telling people, we still don’t want to get involved, we just want to punish this guy,” said Vali R. Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “The reason people aren’t lining up with us is that they don’t have trust in our policy.”

Ouch again. The article closes with thoughts from some former members of Team Obama:

Given the intractable nature of the Syrian conflict and the deep-rooted suspicions in the Arab world about American motives, some former administration officials said that Mr. Obama’s limited intervention would inevitably create a new set of problems.

“If the scope of the attacks is too narrow,” said Steven Simon, who until this year was the senior director for the Middle East at the National Security Council, “Obama is going to end up with a gloating Assad. If it’s too sweeping, it’s going to raise questions about regime change and American ownership. How do you find the sweet spot?”

For that reason, officials expect Mr. Obama to follow his military action with a renewed diplomatic effort. The trouble is, the fracturing of Syria into warring, increasingly radical factions makes diplomacy even harder.

For those who argued that Mr. Obama should have done more to support the rebels a year ago, his quandary seems sadly inevitable.

“What was eminently predictable has come to pass,” said Anne-Marie Slaughter, former director of policy planning at the State Department and the incoming president of the New America Foundation. “Because of the way it’s evolved, it is an incredibly complicated problem.”

It's Complicated. Maybe that can be Hillarity's bumper sticker for 2016.

And do let me add - anyone who declared Wednesday, August 28 to be the worst day of the Obama Administration needs to recalibrate:

Obama no longer commands respect

By Jennifer Rubin

Mark your calendar: Aug. 28, 2013. That was the day the roof fell in on President Obama. Our closest ally, Congress, the media and our military demonstrated their utter contempt for him. He has tried to avoid the world and U.S. involvement in it, so, naturally, his sudden call to arms (however weak and unsatisfactory) has provoked waves of skepticism.

In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron was “deserted by rebels in his own Conservative Party [and] lost a parliamentary vote for provisional authorization for military action in Syria.” The White House vowed to go it alone, an ironic outcome for Obama, who berated his predecessor for failing to work with multi-lateral bodies.

If Wednesday was the day the roof fell in, Saturday was the day the rubble burst into flames. Geez, I can't wait for Tuesday...

 

He Didn't Quite Say "Phony Scandal"...

Putin disputes Obama on Syria:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has challenged the US to present to the UN evidence that Syria attacked rebels with chemical weapons near Damascus.

Mr Putin said it would be "utter nonsense" for Syria's government to provoke opponents with such attacks.

...

Speaking to journalists in the Russian far-eastern city of Vladivostok, Mr Putin urged Mr Obama - as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate - to think about future victims in Syria before using force.

He said it was ridiculous to suggest the Syrian government was to blame for the attack, calling it a "provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict".

"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions," he said.

"In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense."

He said that the US failure to present evidence to the international community was "simply disrespectful".

"If there is evidence it should be shown. If it is not shown, then there isn't any," he said.

I assume Putin deplores these distractions.

FWIW: Their tough guy is tougher than our tough guy but we are still the US and Putin still leads the down-sized right-sized former USSR. So we've got that going for us.

 

The Fierce Moral Urgency Of Manana

The First Communicator seizes the Saturday of Labor Day weekend to announce what normally would have been buried on a Friday afternoon - he will seek Congressional authorization to wrist-slap Syria.

The decision to seek congressional authorization is a departure from the administration’s decision to intervene in Libya in 2011. Though the president said he thinks he has the authority to order a military strike, he made clear he will ask Congress to vote on the issue.

“I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” the president said. He added: “I’m also mindful that I’m president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

I am not sure where the votes will come from. This is the anti-war President of the anti-war party, so folks on that side of the aisle won't feel any pressure to get behind this.

And on the right, what is the likely support for yet another foreign adventure led by a guy - OK, with Kerry, make that two guys - who will turn against this if/when the going gets tough? An adventure, let us add, undertaken without the political cover of Democratic votes? And when a majority of House Democrats reject an authorization, will Obama blame the Republicans? (Well, of course he will, but will it make any sense?)

There ought to be some value to the Kosovo analogy, where the House Republicans just couldn't get behind Clinton on the bombing, although funding was never held up. From the CRS:

As the situation in Kosovo turned away from peace talks and toward enforcement action, Congress reviewed proposals that supported or disapproved of the NATO air operation; the Senate, but not the House, endorsed the air strikes. Congress later considered but did not agree to resolutions that invoked the War Powers Resolution in an effort by sponsors to assert Congress’ role in authorizing the military action. Some Members of Congress challenged the President’s authority under the Constitution to engage U.S. armed forces in military operations in the Balkans without congressional approval. A greater number of others, however, abandoned or rejected options that might have dictated a forced removal of U.S. armed forces from Kosovo operations.

In spite of some serious misgivings about the NATO air operation in Kosovo, most Members of Congress strongly supported providing full funding for Department of Defense expenditures in the Balkans, out of concern for perceived budgetary shortfalls in the U.S. military. Thus, even Members who vehemently opposed Operation Allied Force voted to substantially increase funds for U.S. military forces participating in the operation. The same kind of support was not evident for meeting the Clinton Administration’s request for emergency supplemental funds for civilian reconstruction and regional financial stabilization efforts. On these matters, Congress established spending limits and cut back on requested funds for regional stabilization assistance.

 LET IT OUT... Here is a vigorous tirade about the utter stupidity of our abandonment of Iraq. To which I say, as I have with Afghanistan, if you elect a guy committed to losing you need to expect to lose.

You Go To War With The President You Have...

Sure, Obama may have ad-libbed his way to a red line and a diplomatic crise with his talk of red lines in Syria. But we elected and re-elected a guy with a penchant for writing checks with his mouth that our nation can't cash. Indeed, cheerleaders like Matt Yglesias applauded Obama's "foreign policy by gaffe" back when the topic was Iran and meeting leaders without pre-conditions. subsequent Obama improvs on AIPAC and Egypt maybe didn't go so well.

Nontheless... although we certainly hope that Obama, Kerry et al are capable of learning from past mistakes sub-optimal articulations, and although we hope they enjoy a meaningful self-awareness interlude as they contemplate their adoption of Bush-Cheney non-multilateralist foreign policy as a complement to their adoption of the Bush-Cheney surveillance state, there is still the problem of what the US should do next in Syria.

Non-President John McCain had this to say:

Mr. Obama came under criticism from the other side as Senator John McCain, his Republican opponent in 2008 and a longtime advocate of stronger action in Syria, said the president’s apparent plans were still too weak. “The president apparently wants to have a kind of cosmetic strike, launch a few missiles and then say, ‘Well, we responded,'” Mr. McCain said on NBC’s “The Tonight Show” on Friday night. “This is the same president that, two years ago, said Bashar Assad had to go. It’s also the president that said that there would be a red line if they used chemical weapons. Maybe that red line was written in disappearing ink.”

Put him down as a hawk (surprise!), and let's wait for his improbable announcement that we are all Syrians now.

The Times rememberss that it is reflexively anti-war and runs a good article on the many problems of Obama's expected minimalist response:

Experts Fear That U.S. Plan to Strike Syria Overlooks Risks

By ANNE BARNARD and ALISSA J. RUBIN

BEIRUT, Lebanon — President Obama says he is considering a “limited, narrow” military strike against Syria — an aim that many Middle East experts fear overlooks the potential to worsen the violence in Syria and intensify a fight for regional influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Supporters of the president’s proposal contend that a limited punitive strike can be carried out without inflaming an already volatile situation. But a number of diplomats and other experts say it fails to adequately plan for a range of unintended consequences, from a surge in anti-Americanism that could bolster Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, to a wider regional conflict that could drag in other countries, including Israel and Turkey.

I thought the repeal of the Law of Unintended Consequences was part of the ObamaCare bill. My bad...

In outlining its tentative plans, the Obama administration has left many questions unanswered. Diplomats familiar with Mr. Assad say there is no way to know how he would respond, and they question what the United States would do if he chose to order a chemical strike or other major retaliation against civilians.

That would leave the United States to choose between a loss of credibility and a more expansive — and unpopular — conflict, they said. “So he continues on in defiance — maybe he even launches another chemical attack to put a stick in our eye — and then what?” Mr. Crocker said. “Because once you start down this road, it’s pretty hard to get off it and maintain political credibility.”

Obama already ceded the initiative to Assad a year ago with his talk of a red line.

For the United States, the challenge is to deliver the intended message to Mr. Assad without opening the door to a takeover by rebels linked to Al Qaeda, the collapse of state institutions, or a major escalation by Syria’s allies. Skeptics doubt that the United States — or anyone else — has the information to calibrate the attack that precisely.

That is partly because the United States is preparing to inject itself into a conflict that is no longer just about Syria, but has become a volatile regional morass that pits Iran and Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group in Lebanon, against Qaeda affiliates backed by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf benefactors.

For anyone having trouble lying awake nights with worry David Brooks has more on how the Islam versus The World has morphed into Islam versus Islam.

A way to redirect Sunni-Shiite hostility is to have them unite against a common foe. That role has been filled by Israel and the US in the past, as the Times notes:

Anger over American involvement could also undo one of the major benefits to American interests from the Arab uprisings by restoring the alliance against Israel that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah had with the Sunni Palestinian group Hamas. The conflict in Syria has sorely tested that alliance, with Hamas supporting the Sunni-led Syrian rebellion.

I will Boldly Assert that It's Complicated. The Times editors deliver a classic example of the sort of pitiable hand-wringing these complexities induce:

Absent on Syria

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

As President Obama moves toward unilateral military action in response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people, he is doing so without legal justification and without the backing of two key institutions, Congress and the United Nations Security Council. Both have abdicated their roles in dealing with this crisis.

Congress hasn't acted? No kidding. Yet the Democrats, putatively led by Barack Obama, control the Senate.

And I am not sure at all that Congressional involvement will go any better for Obama than it did for David cameron in the UK. Republicans are not feeling any pressure to bomb Syria or back Obama. Do the Times editors remember Kosovo?

Melting Down In Syria

Bill Jacobson: Syria: Cluster bombs won’t solve this cluster—-

To which I will add, we are trying to get this done with smart bombs and dumb leaders.

Brits Out

The British Parliament rejects action in Syria. Hmm, its tough for Obama to lead from behind if no one is in front. Over to Paris?!?

JUST THINKING OUT LOUD... As we look around and try to figure out who is in charge here, I'm wondering - isn't there an unemployed rodeo clown looking for work? Put him on the team! He'll fit right in and he can hardly make it worse.

Evil Everywhere

Allison Benedikt of Slate delivers a public intellectual's version of the Miley Cyrus VMA display. And she is getting lots of attention, with her name spelled right!

Her lead:

If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person

You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.

Ms. Benedikt is pro-choice prior to delivery; after birth the child becomes an instrument of the state.

I am not surprised by the gusto of the right-wing denunciations; it is the utter lack of support from the left that catches my eye.

LEST YOU WONDER...Yes, Ms. Benedikt does have kids - three, per this recent column, but the oldest is not yet school age.

Circling The Drain On ObamaCare

The National Journal, hardly a reliable outlet for the right wing noise machine, engages in a bit of ObamaCare bashing, including a misstatement of fact:

Obama's Affordable Care Act Looking a Bit Unaffordable

Independent National Journal analysis finds premiums higher under Obamacare as employers weigh dropping coverage.

Republicans have long blamed President Obama's signature health care initiative for increasing insurance costs, dubbing it the "Unaffordable Care Act."

Turns out, they might be right.

For the vast majority of Americans, premium prices will be higher in the individual exchange than what they're currently paying for employer-sponsored benefits, according to a National Journal analysis of new coverage and cost data. Adding even more out-of-pocket expenses to consumers' monthly insurance bills is a swell in deductibles under the Affordable Care Act.

Those aren't the White House talking points, which emphasize that high prices on the exchanges won't matter to most people because Mitt Romney's sons, or the rich, or anyway, taxpayers will be providing subsidies. Eventually ther NJ addresses that.

Health law proponents have excused the rate hikes by saying the prices in the exchange won't apply to the millions receiving coverage from their employers. But that's only if employers continue to offer that coverage--something that's looking increasingly uncertain. Already, UPS, for example, cited Obamacare as its reason for nixing spousal coverage.

The UPS example is problematic, since they only dropped spousal coverage for spouses eligible for coverage at their own jobs. Pressing on...

And while a Kaiser Family Foundation report found that 49 percent of the U.S. population now receives employer-sponsored coverage, more companies are debating whether they will continue to be in the business of providing such benefits at all.

Economists largely agree there won't be a sea change among employers offering coverage. But they're also saying small businesses are still in play.

Caroline Pearson, vice president at Avalere Health, a health care and public policy advisory firm, said there's a calculation low-wage companies will make to determine if there's cost savings in sending employees to the exchanges.

"The amount you have to gross up their wages so they can get their own insurance and the cost of the penalties may add up to less than the cost of providing care," she said.

It's a choice companies are already making. The number of employers offering coverage has declined, from 66 percent in 2003 to 57 percent today, according to Kaiser's study.

Yet another wrinkle is that employers can restructure jobs so that employees are part time, thereby minimizing any employer penalties.

The NJ offers this mysterious economics lesson:

"To any small employer, it's a no-brainer," said Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative policy research organization. "If workers can get better coverage that's subsidized, it makes sense for the employer to stop providing health insurance."

Why that logic does not apply to large employers is left unexplained.

And what about the subsidies?

Whether the quality of care in the new market is comparable to private offerings remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: The cost of care in the new market doesn't stack up. A single wage earner must make less than $20,000 to see his or her current premiums drop or stay the same under Obamacare, an independent review by National Journal found. That's equivalent to approximately 34 percent of all single workers in the U.S. seeing any benefit in the new system. For those seeking family-of-four coverage under the ACA, about 43 percent will see cost savings. Families must earn less than or equal to $62,300, or they, too, will be looking at a bigger bill.

Those numbers include the generous tax subsidies designed to make the new system more attractive to consumers.

 

Zero Sum Waistlines

Thank heaven for studies:

Study: Link Found Between Losing Sports Teams, Heavier Fans

Gov. Christie has tro be a Jets/Mets fan. And didn't Rudy get slimmer during his years as Mayor and First Fan?

Believe it or not, a study published Monday in a Psychological Science found that after a sports team loses, fans of that team eat 16 percent more saturated fats than they usually do.

Fans of winning teams apparently are getting thinner, too. The study found the winning fans ate 9 percent less saturated fat.

Fans have such a deep attachment to their NFL teams that losing can trigger a food binge, the study said.

Unless we can wave in a lot of losing teams from abroad (Canadian footballers?) I don't think we can leverage this into a national weight-reduction program.

But maybe some public service announcements by teams like the NY Jets could raise fan awareness of their likely food choices. "Don't be fat losers like us..." Hmm. Needs work.

Hold The Presses, Or, Everything Old Is New Again

Matt Drudge is linking to this new story on Breitbart:

Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

Fascinating. And people were fascinated when this study was published in 2007.

I imagine the conclusions would still hold if the numbers were updated, but why the sudden burst of attention?

Syria - A Time To Choose, Or Not

The Times editors exhort Obama to do, well, something beneficient and wise in Syria. Violent, if necessary, but not too violent. Legal if possible, but otherwise make sure it is legitimate.

Left unsaid (but I'm saying it!) - whatever Obama chooses to do the Times editors, not to mention John Kerry and Obama himself, will oppose it within six months.

Drifting Towards The Exits

The cheerleaders are setting down the pom-poms. Bill Keller of the NY Times on Obama's approach to Egypt:

Adrift On The Nile

...In the excruciating test that Egypt has become, the president has largely failed to live up to his own eloquently articulated standard (of 2011). In the two years since his speech — and most shamefully in the eight weeks since the army’s coup — America has seemed not just cautious (caution is good) but timid and indecisive, reactive and shortsighted, stranded between our professed commitment to change and our fear of chaos.

And why the failure to lead?

But with a little leadership the U.S. could have mobilized a united Western front, embraced the standards Obama laid out in 2011, and offered Egypt’s factions incentives to stay on a path toward political reconciliation and economic growth. There was a halfhearted effort led by France in 2011 to create a sort of collective support system for Arab Spring democracy; the so-called Deauville Partnership never got much beyond the stage of rhetoric. I’m told a more ambitious proposal for a concerted Arab Spring initiative was debated within the Obama administration in 2012 but was rejected because it might have been a distraction from President Obama’s all-about-the-middle-class re-election campaign.

Ouch. Meanwhile, the AP is distancing themselves from Their One as noted by John Hinderaker.

One more data point makes a trend!

Sunday Afternoon

We hit the ground running. Eventually.

Here is a great tribute to the great Elmore Leonard.

Fifty Shades Of Red

Has Syria crossed the Obama's "red line" and changed his "calculus" by using chemical weapons? No one knows, yet. But any day now, unless not.

SOOOO DERIVATIVE... If and when he revises his calculus, what will Obama do - ratchet up his handwringing a logarithm? Take a (stylistically but not scientifically) bold quantum step?

Maybe Later

The Delay strategy, which has nothing to do with Tom DeLay, makes a lot of sense as the better way to halt ObamaCare.

As we will eventually get around to noting, why put off 'til tomorrow what you can put off 'til next week?

These Go To Six

Al Gore finds his inner Spinal Tap:

Would there be hurricanes and floods and droughts without man-made global warming? Of course. But they’re stronger now. The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6.

Let's not say "No", let's say "Maybe someday."

You Say You Want An Evolution

Roll Call notes that Obama has not yet evolved on marijuana reform. The story presents a tough choice - which is funnier, the idea of Obama as a "leader", or this quaint description of an earlier time in US history by White House prerssflack Josh Earnest:

"...At the same time, the president does not — you know, at this point, advocate a change in the law.”

Wait, Obama considers himself to be limited by the actual law? What happened to a simple exercise in prosecutorial discretion, as with his implementation of much of the Dream Act by Executive fiat? Or his ongoing Obamacare revisions?

I guess the polling on marijuana reform isn't where it needs to be at the moment, and the Big Hollywood money hasn't adopted this as the latest fashion.

Delivering A Message

Remember, if you like your current insurance, Obamacare won't affect you at all. Unless you are at UPS, or looking for a full-time job when you could settle for two part-time ones.

Warming Up

The next round of IPCC reports on climate change will take an even less equivocal position on anthropogenic global warming:

Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming

By JUSTIN GILLIS

An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace.

The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.

The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.

“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

...

The 2007 report found “unequivocal” evidence of warming, but hedged a little on responsibility, saying the chances were at least 90 percent that human activities were the cause. The language in the new draft is stronger, saying the odds are at least 95 percent that humans are the principal cause.

I wonder whether this will change anyone's mind about the underlying reality or the appropriate response. The Times provides this incomplete taxonomy:

Some climate doubters challenge the idea that the earth is warming at all; others concede that it is, but deny human responsibility; still others acknowledge a human role, but assert that the warming is likely to be limited and the impacts manageable. Every major scientific academy in the world has warned that global warming is a serious problem.

Hmm, what do the Times consider those of us who think that, whether the climate impact is manageable or not, the proposed remediations are too expensive, insufficient, and, since China and India have not been on board, incomplete? On the question of China, this report is interesting - higher sea levels will hit China hard.

When greens back nuclear (esp. thorium) and the substitution of fracked natural gas for coal I will believe that they believe we have a global warming crisis.

Back In Cairo - Despite Three Geniuses...

Despite the tireless efforts of three geniuses, Obama Clinton and Kerry have experienced "failure" in Egypt, per the NY Times Dead Tree Sunday headline:

How A U.S. Push To Defuse Egypt Ended In Failure

Online, failure was not an option - the current headline at the Times website is

How American Hopes for a Deal in Egypt Were Undercut

The URL header gives a third choice: pressure-by-us-failed-to-sway-egypts-leaders

Ross Douthat says it is time for us to go:

Now, though, the calculus has to change. Egypt is rolling back into authoritarianism along a track that’s soaked in blood. The cycle of crackdown-radicalization, crackdown-radicalization is likely to get worse, the cost of being intimately tied to the military regime is getting higher, and the window for demonstrating that America’s favor really is conditional is closing fast.

Right now, the Obama administration is trapped by its client state the way that great-power patrons often are. Because our aid to Egypt is our most obvious leverage over its military, and because we can really only pull that lever once, Washington is afraid to follow through and do it.

But leverage can be lost through inaction as well. If we can’t cut the Egyptian military off amid this blood bath, we’re basically proving that we never, ever will.

Far better to act like the superpower we are, and make an end. It’s time, and past time, to let this client go.

Just to belabor the obvious - if President Bush were backing this sort of murderous crackdown in 2007, Candidate Obama would be railing against it.

Charles Kupchan, "a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University" writes in the Times that the US should slow the dash to democracy:

Rather than cajoling Cairo to hold elections and threatening to suspend aid if it does not, Washington should press the current leadership to adhere to clear standards of responsible governance, including ending the violence and political repression, restoring the basic functions of the state, facilitating economic recovery, countering militant extremists and keeping the peace with Israel. At this fragile moment in Egypt’s political awakening, the performance of its government will be a more important determinant of its legitimacy and durability than whether it won an election.

More generally, Washington should back off from its zealous promotion of democracy in Egypt and the broader Middle East for three main reasons.

His three reasons are that, although democracy may provide stability in the long run it often leads to instability during the transition; that the entrenched power of politcal Islam creates special problems in the Middle East; and that the promotion of democracy puts us at odds with certain key allies, such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms.

Truthiness Indeed

Demonstrating that it takes one to know one, Paul Krugman calls out Eric Cantor, among others, for lies and deceit:

Moment of Truthiness

By PAUL KRUGMAN

We all know how democracy is supposed to work. Politicians are supposed to campaign on the issues, and an informed public is supposed to cast its votes based on those issues, with some allowance for the politicians’ perceived character and competence.

But with lying liars everywhere, how can truth possibly find its boots, let alone put them on?

But is even this modified, more realistic vision of democracy in action still relevant? Or has our political system been so degraded by misinformation and disinformation that it can no longer function?

Well, consider the case of the budget deficit — an issue that dominated Washington discussion for almost three years, although it has recently receded.

You probably won’t be surprised to hear that voters are poorly informed about the deficit. But you may be surprised by just how misinformed.

I will be surprised if this surprises me...

In a well-known paper with the discouraging title, “It Feels Like We’re Thinking,” the political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels reported on a 1996 survey that asked voters whether the budget deficit had increased or decreased under President Clinton. In fact, the deficit was down sharply, but a plurality of voters — and a majority of Republicans — believed that it had gone up.

We will come back to that. But history is repeating itself:

I wondered on my blog what a similar survey would show today, with the deficit falling even faster than it did in the 1990s. Ask and ye shall receive: Hal Varian, the chief economist of Google, offered to run a Google Consumer Survey — a service the company normally sells to market researchers — on the question. So we asked whether the deficit has gone up or down since January 2010. And the results were even worse than in 1996: A majority of those who replied said the deficit has gone up, with more than 40 percent saying that it has gone up a lot. Only 12 percent answered correctly that it has gone down a lot.

Am I saying that voters are stupid? Not at all. People have lives, jobs, children to raise. They’re not going to sit down with Congressional Budget Office reports. Instead, they rely on what they hear from authority figures. The problem is that much of what they hear is misleading if not outright false.

Ah, well. Another problem is that the national debt has been rising steadily even though the annual deficit has been falling, so casual obervers get confused.

Eric Cantor is eventually cited as one of the misleading authority figures:

The outright falsehoods, you won’t be surprised to learn, tend to be politically motivated. In those 1996 data, Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to hold false views about the deficit, and the same must surely be true today. After all, Republicans made a lot of political hay over a supposedly runaway deficit early in the Obama administration, and they have maintained the same rhetoric even as the deficit has plunged. Thus Eric Cantor, the third-ranking Republican in the House, declared on Fox News that we have a “growing deficit,” while Senator Rand Paul told Bloomberg Businessweek that we’re running “a trillion-dollar deficit every year.”

In yet another low self-awareness moment Krugman bemoans the loss of credibility of the mainstream media:

Still, aren’t there umpires for this sort of thing — trusted, nonpartisan authorities who can and will call out purveyors of falsehood? Once upon a time, I think, there were. But these days the partisan divide runs very deep, and even those who try to play umpire seem afraid to call out falsehood. Incredibly, the fact-checking site PolitiFact rated Mr. Cantor’s flatly false statement as “half true.”

Really? And why might they have rated a "flatly false" statement "half-true"? PolitFact is not known as a friend of the right. Let's see what Cantor and PolitFact said.

Cantor said, "What we are trying to do is fund the government and make sure also that we take away the kinds of things that are standing in the way of a growing economy (and) a better health care, and all the while keeping our eye focused on trying to deal with the ultimate problem, which is this growing deficit."

There’s one problem: The federal deficit isn’t "growing." At least not now.

"Not now" is the key caveat:

And the CBO projects that the deficit will continue to go down for two more years...

If CBO is on target, then by 2015, the deficit will be roughly a quarter of what it was in 2009.

In other words, Cantor is wrong about what has been happening to the deficit, and what is projected to happen in the near future.

After 2015, however, Cantor has a point -- the deficit begins growing again, according to CBO projections...

"The current baseline has deficits growing again in 2016, and even with his proposed tax increases, deficits are set to begin growing again in the out-years under President Obama’s own budget proposals," said Rory Cooper, Cantor’s spokesman. Cantor, he said, "is equally concerned with this long-term deficit trend" as he is with the shrinkage of the deficit in recent years.

So rather than take comfort in the nearly inevitable decline in the reduction of the deficit as the economy recovers from a dreadful recession, Cantor remains worried about the long term projections of a growing deficit (even as a percent of GDP). And this is irresponsible, deceitful leadership?

The Politfact ruling:

Cantor said that the federal deficit is "growing." Annual federal deficits are not growing right now, and they are not projected to grow through 2015, a point at which the deficit will have shrunk by three-quarters since 2009. By this standard, Cantor is wrong. However, unless policies are changed, deficits are projected to grow again in 2016 and beyond, according to the CBO. On balance, we rate his claim Half True.

So literalists and partisan pundits will claimn Cantor is wrong; folks actually evaluating our current path will have cause to worry about growing deficits.

ABOUT 1996: Let's flash back to 1996; this CNN story is from a few days after Derek and Mariano's first triumph together:

NEW YORK (CNN) White House officials announced on Monday that the budget deficit for the 1996 fiscal year was $107.3 billion, the smallest since 1981.
...

Administration officials have predicted that beginning next year the deficit will start to rise again. They cannot predict the exact figure but previously had estimated the 1997 deficit would be $144 billion.

In fact the deficit eventually turned to surplus, but survey respondents as of 1996 might have made the same argument Cantor is making today - the national debt was still rising and the long term outlook was for rising deficits.

TACKLING THE TOUGH ONES: Mariano, r u nutz? The Yankees had the best closer in baseball but never the best shortstop. But we won't go to WAR over this.

Get It Right, Eventually, And See If Anyone Still CAres

Only a booth review will determine whether baseball is committing a ghastly own-goal with their expanded replay idea.

I find football games, with the refs huddling around a camera waiting for a puff of smoke to announce that a decision has been made, unwatchable. Now baseball?

Friday Afternoon Open Thread

I am so whatever today.

THIS JUST IN... OK, Thursday. Yes, you can be too ready for the weekend.

The Times v. The Clintons

The Times does a big expose of trouble at the Clinton Global Initiative, now known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Karma and payback being what they are, the Times website then crashed out for a few hours. Messing with Hillary, and history? C'mon, It's Her Turn!

Send In The Clowns

And send in the clown jokes.

Delayed Impact

This was apparently posted at the Dept. of Labor last winter, but who can read all that gobbledygook?

A Limit on Consumer Costs Is Delayed in Health Care Law

By Robert Pear

WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.

The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.

The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 “frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation” — department officials confirmed the policy.

The wrinkle seems to be the inability of some plan sponsors to integrate their medical coverage and their separate drug coverage under one unified cap. Oh, well - legislate in haste and defer in leisure.

 

Sentencing Reform - Bipartisan Cooperation, Or Prosecutorial Indiscretion?

The NY Times delivers a headscratcher on the latest initiative from AG Eric Holder with a suggestion of unilateral action at odds with other reporting:

Justice Dept. Seeks to Curtail Stiff Drug Sentences

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — In a major shift in criminal justice policy, the Obama administration will move on Monday to ease overcrowding in federal prisons by ordering prosecutors to omit listing quantities of illegal substances in indictments for low-level drug cases, sidestepping federal laws that impose strict mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses.

That was easy! The judge can't impose a minimum if the prosecutor conceals the facts.

Under a policy memorandum being sent to all United States attorney offices on Monday, according to an administration official, prosecutors will be told that they may not write the specific quantity of drugs when drafting indictments for drug defendants who meet the following four criteria: their conduct did not involve violence, the use of a weapon or sales to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or cartels; and they have no significant criminal history.

For example, in the case of a defendant accused of conspiring to sell five kilograms of cocaine — an amount that would set off a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence — the prosecutor would write that “the defendant conspired to distribute cocaine” without saying how much. The quantity would still factor in when prosecutors and judges consult sentencing guidelines, but depending on the circumstances, the result could be a sentence of less than the 10 years called for by the mandatory minimum law, the official said.

The Times provides a multi-paragraph interlude describing the success of incarceration reform in "conservative-leaning" states such as Texas and Arkansas before finally pointing out a possible problem with Holder's approach:

Still, in states that have undertaken prison and parole overhauls, the changes were approved by state lawmakers. Mr. Holder’s reform is different: instead of going through Congress for legislation to modify mandatory minimum sentencing laws, he is invoking his power of prosecutorial discretion to sidestep them.

Well, there is that dated "execute faithfully" phrase in Holder's oath of office. But as the Times notes, that is ancient history:

Earlier in Mr. Obama’s presidency, the administration went through Congress to achieve policy goals like reducing the sentencing disparity between crack and powder forms of cocaine. But it has increasingly pursued a strategy of invoking unilateral executive powers without Congress, which the White House sees as bogged down by Republican obstructionism.

Previous examples, like Mr. Obama’s decision last year to issue an executive order allowing immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children to remain without fear of deportation and to work, have drawn fire from Republicans as “power grabs” that usurp the role of Congress.

All that said, the WaPo provides a different take on the upcoming Holder speech:

Holder seeks to avert mandatory minimum sentences for some low-level drug offenders

By Sari Horowitz

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is set to announce Monday that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with no ties to gangs or large-scale drug organizations will no longer be charged with offenses that impose severe mandatory sentences.

The new Justice Department policy is part of a comprehensive prison reform package that Holder will reveal in a speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco, according to senior department officials. He is also expected to introduce a policy to reduce sentences for elderly, nonviolent inmates and find alternatives to prison for nonviolent criminals.

...

Holder is calling for a change in Justice Department policies to reserve the most severe penalties for drug offenses for serious, high-level or violent drug traffickers. He has directed his 94 U.S. attorneys across the country to develop specific, locally tailored guidelines for determining when federal charges should be filed and when they should not.

The attorney general can make some of these changes to drug policy on his own. He is giving new instructions to federal prosecutors on how they should write their criminal complaints when charging low-level drug offenders, to avoid triggering the mandatory minimum sentences. Under certain statutes, inflexible sentences for drug crimes are mandated regardless of the facts or conduct in the case, reducing the discretion of prosecutors, judges and juries.

So far, that tracks the NY Times reporting. However, a plot twist:

Some of Holder’s other initiatives will require legislative change. Holder is urging passage of legislation with bipartisan support that is aimed at giving federal judges more discretion in applying mandatory minimum sentences to certain drug offenses.

“Such legislation will ultimately save our country billions of dollars,” Holder said of legislation supported by Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “Although incarceration has a role to play in our justice system, widespread incarceration at the federal, state and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable.”

Geez, that looks terribly bipartisan to me. TownHall has more:

The war on drugs has presented "a lot of unintended consequences," Holder recently told NPR, and the federal government "can certainly change" its enforcement policies. NPR reports that Justice Department lawyers have been crafting reform proposals, which Holder may roll out at the lawyer confab.

It's about time.

Tea party Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah have co-sponsored legislation (with Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.) to reform federal mandatory minimum sentences. Holder told NPR that the administration wants to work with legislators. Translation: Obama has been waiting for political cover, and now he has it.

I am not sure why the Times is simultaneously emphasizing Holder's unilateral action and the support for these reforms in "conservative-leaning" states while ignoring the bipartisan push in the Senate.Maybe they assume (or assume their readers will assume) it is DOA in the House? If so a 'DOA' quote from a House leader and a mention of the Senate effort would surely be appropriate.

 

Sunday Morning...

Away we go!

I'm Rooting For Pujols

In the first (and last) week of his new radio show, former baseball star Jack Clark made news and inspired a lawsuit:

Los Angeles Angels slugger Albert Pujols fired back at former major leaguer Jack Clark after he said that Pujols used performance-enhancing drugs when he played for the St. Louis Cardinals.

...

Clark, who played for the Cardinals from 1985-87, said on the radio show that Pujols' former personal trainer Chris Mihlfeld told Clark 10 years ago that he "shot him up, all that stuff."

Mihlfied is standing by his man:

"I haven't even talked to Jack Clark in close to 10 years," Mihlfeld said in an email to NBCSports. "His statements are simply not true. I have known Albert Pujols since he was 18 years old and he would never use illegal drugs in any way. I would bet my life on it and probably drop dead on the spot if I found out he has. As before once again both Albert and myself have been accused of doing something we didn't do."

FWIW, Pujols has been NL MVP three times and twice more came in second to the enhanced Barry Bonds. As to the possibility of a lawsuit, let's hope Pujols doesn't end up on the trail blazed by Oscar Wilde.

Saturday Kick Off

Oooh, we make the segue to football metaphors...

Almost All Of Us Are Trayvon... Except In The Bronx

From the Times:

Grand Jury Decides Not to Charge Officer Who Fatally Shot Unarmed Youth in Bronx

Eighteen months after a police officer barged into a private residence and fatally shot an unarmed teenager in the bathroom of the home, the criminal case against the officer has collapsed with a grand jury’s decision to not bring charges in the case.

What kind of a world are we living in in which young men act like thugs and then experience grim consequences?

Narcotics officers had become suspicious of Mr. Graham as he walked through the Wakefield section of the Bronx with two friends. Officer Haste, 31, pursued the teenager, forcing his way into the apartment where Mr. Graham lived with his grandmother. The officer confronted him in the bathroom and shot him, after he mistakenly interpreted a gesture as Mr. Graham reaching for a gun, according to the officer’s account to the grand jury.

The resulting tensions in the community had been largely calmed after Officer Haste was initially indicted last year on manslaughter charges. But a judge dismissed the indictment in May, saying prosecutors had improperly precluded the grand jury from considering Officer Haste’s claim that he believed that Mr. Graham was armed, based on what he had heard fellow officers say over a police radio.

I feel strangely confident that the NYPD profiled this lad and marked him for death. At a minimium, NY state should promptly repeal their Stand Your Ground Law which led to this travesty. Or not...

 

Laughing At The Liability Lawyers, Or, The Law Also Sets

Is this a great country or what?

Pamplona-Style Bull Running Is Coming to America

I would have said the liability issues would have been insurmountable, and I would have been wrong:

"The Great Bull Run" on August 24 at the Virginia Motor Sports Park is an American adaptation of Pamplona's San Fermin running of the bulls, made famous by Ernest Hemingway's 1926 novel "The Sun Also Rises."

In the U.S. version, participants will have to buy insurance before braving the horns and hooves of bulls chasing them down a quarter-mile strip of asphalt set in farmland south of Richmond.

Hmm, they are required to buy insurance? I see a possible tie-in to the promotion of ObamaCare.

Register here, but be sure to read the waiver first.

Having explored the registration process I have learned that there is a $13 dollar insurance surcharge on top of the $50 registration fee. Here is the info provided on the supplemental insurance:

As you can imagine, the insurance for these events is outrageously expensive.  Simply put, running with live bulls can be dangerous. Now, if everybody would sign the waiver, acknowledge that the event involves serious risks, and swear a sacred unbreakable oath to never sue us if they do get hurt, then we could do away with this contribution fee.  Unfortunately, we live in a litigious society, so we're forced to do things this way.

This fee is your contribution to the costs incurred by The Great Bull Run LLC associated with insuring this festival.   For each event, The Great Bull Run LLC obtains General Liability Insurance from A rated insurance companies.  Under limited circumstances, these policies provide limited coverage to event participants.  However, PLEASE NOTE, PARTICIPATION IN THE GREAT BULL RUN IS AT THE PARTICIPANT’S SOLE RISK AND INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED DURING THE GREAT BULL RUN, AND ASSOCIATED DAMAGES, ARE NOT GUARANTEED TO BE COVERED BY THESE INSURANCE POLICIES.  THE GREAT BULL RUN LLC STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS OBTAIN ADEQUATE MEDICAL INSURANCE PRIOR TO PARTAKING IN THE GREAT BULL RUN.  For more information, please email info@thegreatbullrun.com.

The processing fee is another $5.67, for a total registration cost of $68.67. A bargain at twice the price, especially if this is the last item on your YOLO bucket list. For me, no thanks.

CNN Joins The Choom Gang

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN savant and former future Surgeon General, comes out swinging in favor of medical marijuana. A sign of the New Times?  I Boldly Predict that gay marriage will become yesterday's cause and weed will be tomorrow's. Especially with the phony race war connection (We are all Trayvon and we are all high...).

The good doctor does include this important caveat:

I do want to mention a concern that I think about as a father. Young, developing brains are likely more susceptible to harm from marijuana than adult brains. Some recent studies suggest that regular use in teenage years leads to a permanent decrease in IQ. Other research hints at a possible heightened risk of developing psychosis.

Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s when their brains are fully developed.

Obama's personal history makes his inevitable evolution on this one a bit tougher, but, as with gay marriage, he will 'lead' once there are enough people out in front of him.

THAT WAS QUICK: My Bold Prediction may be more in the way of a 'what else is new?'.  Andrew Sullivan:

That the Obama administration has done nothing to reclassify the drug to conform to minimal medical standards of accuracy can only be called extreme cowardice. At some point, in my view, this president needs to say about marijuana what he said about marriage equality: that he’s for legalization, taxation and regulation. But Gupta is a helpful stepping stone – a mainstream celebrity acknowledging that the US government is engaged in misleading and lying repeatedly to the American people.

Heading To The Olympics, Wherever They Are

In a hard-hitting chat with Jay Leno Obama exhorted the Russian hosts not to let their anti-gay laws upset the upcoming Olympics:

THE PRESIDENT:  I think Putin and Russia have a big stake in making sure the Olympics work, and I think they understand that for most of the countries that participate in the Olympics, we wouldn’t tolerate gays and lesbians being treated differently.  They’re athletes, they’re there to compete.  And if Russia wants to uphold the Olympic spirit, then every judgment should be made on the track, or in the swimming pool, or on the balance beam, and people’s sexual orientation shouldn’t have anything to do with it.  (Applause.)

I will tell you right now - the Russians will ignore that. And well they might, since they are hosting the Winter Olympics in 2014; events involving the track, the swimming pool, and the balance beam will be hosted in Rio in 2016. Odd that Obama has forgotten that, since he put in an appearance in Copenhagen during Chicago's attempt to win those games.

Fitness Buffs Clutch Their Hearts

'W', a mere 67 years old, needs a heart stent?

(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush underwent successful surgery at a Dallas hospital on Tuesday to place a stent in a blocked heart artery, a spokesman said.

...

Doctors discovered the blockage on Monday during Bush's annual physical exam at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas, the statement said. Doctors recommended a stent to open the blockage and he underwent surgery on Tuesday morning at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, the statement said.

They discovered it during an annual physical. Does that mean he was asymptomatic?

Bush was known as a fitness enthusiast during his two terms in the White House, from 2001 to 2009, and liked to run before knee pain led him to do more bicycling.

Please Make Sure Your Denunciation Is In The Form Of A Question

Why didn't Alex Trebek just blow the whistle on the off-screen, faceless, unaccountable "judges"? Unacceptable:

NEWTOWN -- Newtown eighth-grader Thomas Hurley III was thrilled to be chosen as a contestant on the Kids Week episode of the television game show "Jeopardy!" that was filmed in February and aired this week.

...

As the final buzzer sounded, the 12-year-old penned his answer for the "Famous Documents'' question about the 1863 document Abraham Lincoln said was a "fit and necessary war measure.''

The correct answer: Emancipation Proclamation.

The studio and viewing audience saw that, despite the scrawl of an extra "t'' in Emancipation, the 12-year-old had the correct answer.

Even game show host Alex Trebek read it correctly at first, but then swiftly disqualified the boy's answer, saying he so "badly misspelled" the word it would cost him the $3,000 bet he placed on the answer.

The young man had spelled it "Emanciptation", although Trebek pronounced it correctly in reading it.

As it turned out, the final standings were not affected by the judges ruling. Skyler Hornback, the eventual winner, had an unsurmountable lead of $36,000 to $9,600 going into Final Jeopardy. The bold young Hornback caracked open the window of opportunity for his opponents by wagering $30,000 on the final question, but... he is a Civil War buff so there was a method to his madness. He also got the correct answer, for a near-record $66,000 final pot.

As for Hurley, apparently the second place finisher collects $2,000 regardless of the dollar amount the viewers are seeing at home, so the ruling cost him nothing but pride. Which surely should have a value.

 

Obama Lied, Keystone Supporters Sighed

Yesterday's news today - Obama misunderestimated the likely employment around the Keystone pipeline. Here are the WaPo and Politifact:

Obama said the Keystone XL pipeline might produce about 2,000 jobs during construction, based on the most reliable estimates. The White House provided no supporting evidence and the administration’s own State Department predicted that while the pipeline would produce few permanent jobs, the construction process itself would create nearly twice as many jobs as the president said.

We rate the statement False.

 

 

Medical Mysteries

Elisabeth Rosenthal of the Times has an endless article on the high cost of hip replacement surgery in the US (Spoiler alert - its the greedy medical device manufacturers fault). A barrel of ink later, however, some seemingly-obvious questions are never addressed.

Her lead:

WARSAW, Ind. — Michael Shopenn’s artificial hip was made by a company based in this remote town, a global center of joint manufacturing. But he had to fly to Europe to have it installed.

Mr. Shopenn, 67, an architectural photographer and avid snowboarder, had been in such pain from arthritis that he could not stand long enough to make coffee, let alone work. He had health insurance, but it would not cover a joint replacement because his degenerative disease was related to an old sports injury, thus considered a pre-existing condition.

Uhh, he is 67 years old - why doesn't Medicare cover this? Every Earnest Lib knows that Medicare is the answer to everything (see Gross v. Net, below), but we never learn why it doesn't cover this patient. After many, many intervening paragraphs we do learn this about Medicare:

With artificial joints, cost-trimming efforts have been similarly ineffective. Medicare does not negotiate directly with manufacturers, but offers all-inclusive payments for surgery to hospitals to prompt them to bargain harder for better implant prices. Instead, hospitals complain that acquiring the implant consumes 50 percent to 70 percent of Medicare’s reimbursement, which now averages $12,099, up 25 percent from $9,645 in 1993. Meanwhile, surgeons’ fees have dropped by nearly half.

This 2008 paper has more than I care to know on the topic.

GROSS V. NET  Crooks and Liars lives up to its billing with this headline:

Study: Medicare For All Would Save Half-Trillion In First Years

Per the linked stoiry, the gross savings woiuld exceed half a trillion, but $343 billion would promptly be spent providing expanded coverage to the currently uninsured.

 

Just Dial "O"

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley thinks things are going his way as he preps for a Presidential run in 2016. Anybody But Hillary!

The Incredible Shrinking Aluminum Scandal

We are intrigued by this progression of the NY Times coverage of a warehousing "scandal" supposedly orchestrated by Goldman Sachs to fleece the world's users of aluminum. From July 20:

MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich. — Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachs and other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars.

...

...the efforts by Goldman and other financial players has cost American consumers more than $5 billion over the last three years, say former industry executives, analysts and consultants.

$5 billion? BS. - the US market for aluminum in the last three years was about $26 billion, and no one is alleging that his scheme has driven prices up by 20%.

But now the Times has backed up quite a bit; this is from July 31:

Goldman Sachs has offered to speed up delivery of aluminum stored in warehouses that it controls as federal authorities examine how delays at the facilities have driven up the price of the metal.

Under scrutiny for the long waits that have cost manufacturers — and ultimately consumers — many millions of dollars, Goldman said on Wednesday that its warehouse unit, Metro International Trade Services, would give customers who store aluminum at the warehouses immediate access to their metal.

"Billions of dollars" has now become "many millions". Which is it? They have no idea. The Metal Miner did a three-part series recently (1, 2, 3) which provides useful background. They explain (3) that, contra Times reporting, the higher premium for spot delivery benefits primary producers (and keeps mines and smelters marginally profitable), not Goldman Sachs. Think of it as a jobs program inspired by low interest rates.

Contrary to popular opinion, that money is not paid to Goldman Sachs or the warehouse operators.

Steel, Aluminum, Copper, Stainless, Rare Earth, Metal Prices, Forecasting | MetalMiner
Read More at http://agmetalminer.com/2013/07/31/breaking-down-millercoors-3-billion-aluminum-premium-assertion/
Copyright © 2013 MetalMiner

If your company sources any product that contains steel, stainless steel, non-ferrous metals, ferro alloys, precious metals, rare earth metals, or minor metals — or if you engage in global scrap trading and consume scrap as a significant cost input — you need MetalMiner IndX℠. http://www.metalminerindx.com

Traditional Rainy Day Open Thread

Away we go.

Doubling Down On The Wages Of Ignorance

Ryan Chittum, the new McTerminator of faux journalism, takes on everyone who swooned for the now-withdrawn Huffington Post article about Big Macs and doubled wages. And that is a long list - he has the links to ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, the NY Times, Forbes, the Business Insider, Think Progress and many more.

Yours truly gets a very nice mention for providing early pushback and I would like to thank Glenn Reynolds and James Taranto for sounding the trumpet. Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy and the PowerGuys joined in, Ryan Chittum delivered a well-researched piece to which Matt Drudge linked, and away the story went. Literally.

The A Rod Death Watch

As we await news on the possible lifetime ban on Alex Rodriguez, we appreciate the concern expressed by Oriole manager Buck Showalter - if A Rod is suspended, the Yankees don't pay him, nor does his contracted salary count against the Yankees salary cap and luxury tax.

So who is rooting for what as we await word from the commissioner? The Yankee front office is at risk of a fist bump crisis if the commissioner relieves them of the burden of A Rods contract for 2014 and lets them reset under the new luxury tax rules. More money for Robinson Cano!

And who else benefits if the Yankees can become big spenders again? Well, the players union will huff and puff if the commissioner extends his "integrity of the game" power to ban A Rod for drug related offenses, but they will be thrilled to see the Yankees perk up the free agent market, and force other teams to reach into their wallets as well. Which further suggests that other owners are wishing A Rod would go quietly into that good night and somehow take the once free-spending Yankees with him. An A Rod suspension is going to cost a lot of owners a lot of money in new, more expensive free agent signings and "lock 'em up" contract extensions.

Personally, I have never particularly disliked A Rod. He is a weird mix of needy, nerdy over-achiever and massively talented athlete. He tries to be cool instead of just being cool, which is odd for one of the greatest ball players ever. But all that said, he and the Yankees have opposite interests here and if neither can live while the other survives then I have to hope he is banned in perpetuity.

Fabulous Fab Fail

The SEC gives us a chance to sleep more soundly tonight by successfully busting nobody for nothing.

On The Road Again...

Another open road open thread.