Benefit "Cuts" For The Rich...The Horror! The Horror!

Bush has finally come up the first details of Social Security reform, and they include benefit "cuts" for the rich, and a sliding progressive scale-back for those in the middle. The poor would go on with the current schedules.

Naturally enough, Democrats are outraged.

Bush would "gut benefits for middle-class families," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said in a joint statement.

First, an obvious point. Benefits for those on the upper end would not actually be cut, the rate of growth in those benefits would be slowed down. Benefits for the wealthier among us in constant-dollar inflation-adjusted terms would not be reduced one dime from current levels. Benefits for the middle class would not be cut but would increase faster than inflation and thus would still rise in real terms. Benefits for the lower-income would rise as currently scheduled, and maybe even be enhanced.

This is the same shrill screeching we hear all the time about programs being "gutted" when they're actually getting more money than the year before, just not as much as they were previously scheduled for, or as much as they wanted.

Second, why is reducing federal expenditures (in a time of record deficits) on the rich and middle class a bad thing, but raising taxes on them a good thing?

As the mathematics of the Pozen proposal shows, much of the problem with future SS financing involves the steady growth of benefits at rates above inflation, and the effect of the proportion of those increased benefits going to the better-off. By establishing a baseline safety-net "floor" of benefits (as I've argued for here) and reining in the top-end expansions for those with more resources, a good chunk of the problem goes away. This is the mathematical "flip side" of the Democrat argument that the SS problem can be "solved" with "minor" tax increases.

UPDATE: House GOP Plans Social Security Draft

Soon to be seen on MoveOn.org as "House GOP Plans Draft". Hey, be sure to get "GOP" and "Draft" together in that headline....nope, no subliminality there.

MORE UPDATE: Bush's Social Security Plan Cuts Benefits

Under Bush's approach, future Social Security checks would increase more quickly for the lowest-income retirees than for everyone else. Though Bush promised that middle- and upper-income retirees would get benefits "equal to or greater than the benefits enjoyed by today's seniors," they would be smaller than what the system is now promising for the future.

See point #1, above. Seems that Pelosi and Reid are writing the headlines for AP now.

Dueling Conservatisms

Andrew Sullivan describes the dueling factions of "conservatism."

Crisis of Faith: HOW FUNDAMENTALISM IS SPLITTING THE GOP

Let me be rash and describe the fundamental divide within conservatism as a battle between two rival forms. The two forms I'm referring to are ideal types. I know very few conservatives who fit completely into one camp or the other; and these camps do not easily comport with the categories we have become used to deploying--categories like "libertarian," "social conservative," "paleoconservative," "fiscal conservative and social liberal," and so on. There is, I think, a deeper rift, and a more fundamental one....Call one the conservatism of faith and the other the conservatism of doubt.

Sully may not quite have hit a home run here, but he's sure as heck rounding third with a lead. And you can safely put me in the "type 2" category.

(As always, cross-posted to Centerfield--head on over!)

DeLay under the gun

Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is saying that it's time for Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX) to "come forward" and explain the actions that have led to accusations of ethical lapses and misconduct.

Sen. Rick Santorum's comments seem to reflect the nervousness among congressional Republicans about the fallout from the increased scrutiny into DeLay's way of doing business.

DeLay, R-Texas, has been dogged in recent months by reports of possible ethics violations. There have been questions about his overseas travel, campaign payments to family members and his connections to lobbyists who are under investigation.

"I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves," said Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

When those immediately behind you in line for the party leadership start handing you sharp objects and telling you to be careful, it's time to review your career options.

(As always, cross-posted to Centerfield. Go there to reply.)

Crossover Issues

Yes, I'm lousy at updating and cross-linking and my comment code is farked. Get over it. And go visit the community Centerfield blog for some thoughtful discussion of current issues.

-------------------------------------------------------

It's easy to make the mistake that political topics are not highly interrelated, as we tend to examine them in isolation. There's very good reason to tackle issues one at a time in a democracy. Simply put, there is no feasible Grand Unified Field Solution in the democratic process. Democratic reform is by nature incremental, an uphill struggle against societal inertia. Trying to do everything at once is called "revolution," generally requires abrupt and deadly force, a forced disintegration of the social compact. Democracy is designed to avoid such abrupt violent revolution by substituting peaceful (if noisy and often bitter) incremental revolution in its place.

One of the biggest cop-outs in examining any political issue is to try to divert attention to another issue, saying "But what about X?" Social Security is a problem. But you're ignoring Medicare, which is a bigger problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. But deficit spending is a bigger problem--what about that? Sorry, but the Revolution isn't here yet. One step at a time, please, and quit changing the subject!

But, of course, many issues are highly interrelated. If they weren't, solutions would be much easier to find and implement. I've written often about the very good and sound practical reasons that both parties pay lip service to illegal immigration but don't ever seem to do much about it. Today, the New York Times shows that I'm not the only one who's noticed some of those reasons.

Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions

Canada, Land of the Benevolent [CENSORED]

The hearings into the sponsorship scandal of the Liberal Party of Canada continue, and the judge in the case has issued a publication ban on the proceedings to keep otherwise open-court testimony out of the eye of the public.

Already a conservative U.S. blog is being accused of violating the Canadian law. Captain's Quarters has been noted by the Toronto Sun as having posted parts of the banned testimony, angering the Canadian court. And an all-news Canadian web site (Nealenews.com) has been pressured into pulling its link to Captain's Quarters under threat of legal action.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit notes that Canada seems to be all in favor of the supremacy of international law and the United Nations--until it comes to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

O, Canada! Land glorious and free!

Good news from Iraq, Part 20

[Crossposted to the Centrist Coalition blog]

The regular Chrenkoff report on what you don't normally see on the 6 o'clock news.

Good news from Iraq, Part 20

Naturally, much on the elections, including the surprising show of voters in Falluja and Mosul. Also a few things on the election that I haven't found at all elsewhere, like the Turkish press report from the election observers.

Those Uber-Civilized Germans

[Crossposted to the Centrist Coalition blog]

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Euro-socialism, anyone?

UPDATE: At least partially urban myth, a "planted" story.

Health Care: The 800-lb Gorilla

[Cross posted to The Centrist Coalition blog.]

While the Democrats work overtime to shoot down a Social Security reform plan that hasn't even been proposed or detailed yet, there's another crisis waiting in the wings to explode. And for this one, there's no cushion of lead time.

Tax-Exempt Hospitals' Practices Challenged
46 Lawsuits Allege That Uninsured Pay the Most

As the cost of medical care continues to increase faster than economic growth, even the institutions that are supposed to help are taking a very hard line indeed on collecting bills from the uninsured--and charging them more to boot. While insurors negotiate steep price breaks on services, the uninsured are dunned for full "list" price, sometimes as much as six times what an insured patient's bill would be. In times past, the poor's charges would be written off as charity. Now even the non-profits are sending the bill collectors to dun minimum-wage workers for bills they can't possibly pay.

Malpractice suits, insurance companies, high drug costs, boutique clinics, corporate medicine--the list of things and people to blame is endless. But the bottom line is that the system is out of control, and rapidly becoming unaffordable to even those in the middle rungs of the ladder. Health insurance for a family of four has already passed the $10,000 a year mark, and that's NOT including deductibles and co-pays. By far the #1 cause of bankruptcy in America today is medical bills.

Social Security reform, while not cheap, is not complicated. The choices are fairly clear, the finances not all that ambiguous. If we act soon, it can be brought under control without the system imploding. But Medicare isn't running out of tax revenue in 2018. It's running out of revenue NOW, and the overall cost of the program in constant-dollar terms is expected to more than quadruple in the coming years. And that may be an optimistic estimate. One conclusion is inescapable--Medicare can not be reformed without reforming the overall health care system.

In the meantime, fewer and fewer employers are picking up the full tab for medical insurance. And even fewer pay anything at all for the employee's dependents--that's extra. The cost of insurance is severely retarding wage growth, and is the #1 factor cited in "outsourcing" decisions by employers.

Many defenders of the American health care system like to say that we have the finest health-care system in the world. And it's true that American health-care innovation is unrivaled, in drug and technology and treatment development. But outcomes are lagging, as large portions of the populace simply can't afford to access these innovations. We do indeed have the finest for-profit health care system in the world. It's the absolute finest at producing profits. But it's rapidly becoming second-rate at producing outcomes.

I have no easy answers. But I'd love to hear suggestions. How do we cage the 800-lb gorilla? And how can we afford to feed it?

Blizzard Blues

Many of the East coast blogs appear to be down this morning, including my favorite haunt of Centerfield.

Hang in there, folks! Two weeks ago I was chainsawing my way off the porch after the ice storm that dropped half the trees in Kansas on my front lawn. Things will get better. Today I'm doing some yardwork in jeans and a T-shirt.

Gloat.

The New Media Landscape

Over the last few years I've written several times abut the evolution of the modern media. These observations have come during discussions of media bias. With the advent of the Internet and cable television, the rise in popularity of conservative talk radio, and the easy accessability of alternative media, the main stream media (MSM) has lost traction. Many believe the media has become increasingly polarized. Others claim it is not. Many fingers have been pointed, blaming this and that and the other. They're mostly all wrong. The polarization of journalism is a natural result of market forces and changing technology.

What we think of as a neutral national media is an artifact of the advance of technology. A century and a half ago there was no discussion of media bias. It was simply a fact of life. Radio and television did not exist. ALL media markets were local. Newspapers served their markets and blatantly pandered to the politics of their readers. They were often even named The Democrat or The Republican. If the market was big enough there would be more than one paper so that minority views could also be served (and profited on). Even the rise of the media moguls such as Hearst did not change this--it simply consolidated the independents. National reporting was done by national chains, and by local papers selling each other articles for reprint. Even smaller cities had more than one newspaper.

By the 1970's that still applied only to large cities. When radio came along after WWI, followed by television after WWII, the nature of news reporting changed. Suddenly there was a market for standardized national news that could be profitably served, and the business success of a national media outlet was dependent on attracting the largest audience possible. This meant that news had to become more neutral and impartial, less biased, less slanted to the opinions of local markets. News became homogenized. And so began the journalistic tradition of neutral reporting as a standard, rather than an exception.

What resulted was a market oligopoly of national news. The big broadcast networks and the big newspaper chains ruled. Many local papers remained independent, but still relied on the wire services for their national news. Economics and technology had shaped the market--and the neutrality of journalistic ideology. Business is business, and in a capitalist economy formative forces lead to maximum market-seeking.

But once a market is seized, if there are no alternative sources of supply the oligopolist or monopolist can pretty much do what they want. And political bias began to creep back into the news. Not by leaps and bounds, but slowly, like water through a crack. By the late 1970's the national media establishment was solidly centrist to liberal, and conservatives began to grumble and complain and tune it out.

Time and technology march on. Along comes cable TV, and suddenly the barriers to entry in the national media market are much lower. Ted Turner leaps into the fray, not on ideological motives but pure profit motives, and CNN begins to erode the bottom lines of the Big Three. Rush Limbaugh hits the scene, demonstrating that there is a HUGE untapped market for right-of-center news and views. And along comes the Internet, with almost no barriers to entry at all. In steps Fox. And the Big Three begin to flounder.

The result of this was all predictable, and I've gone on at length about it here and in other places over the last few years. Having lost their oligopoly and under severe market pressures the media, ALL media, have begun to seek market niches to serve profitably. One-size-fits-all is simply not a profitable formula at the moment. The obvious result is that media news outlets have become more ideologically polarized as the news markets fragmented, and the ideal of objective and impartial journalism has taken a big hit.

As I mentioned there is much finger-pointing in the discussion of media bias, disagreement about who is biased how, the origins of bias, even the denial that this outlet or the other has a bias. But the fact is that the media do not shape the markets. The markets shape the media.

This long-winded background review of what I've said for years is leading into something, as you may have guessed. The release of the CBS report has brought the discussion of media bias back into the limelight. But for once, there are signs that some of the media are finally seeing beyond the spitball-throwing of the moment and noticing what has happened, and even figuring out the consequences, and starting to look ahead at what might be.

Some hate it--Howard Fineman, for example. Some like it--Peggy Noonan makes that case. And some, including Noonan and former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter, see an opportunity for the phoenix to rise from the ashes. A chance for news media to re-assess their market positions and aim for the Big Prize of a stronger, healthier, less partisan reporting ethos that serves more than ideological niches and can capture the big central market through clear, fair, and accurate reporting.

Here's hoping they're right.