Speaking of Ralph Nader

This is why we need to open up the presidential debates to third party candidates. This idea of a tax on securities and derivatives transactions as a means of financing the Wall Street bailout is intriguing.

What do you guys think?

The Healthcare Plan Hierarchy

Okay, I wan't to talk about Ralph Nader for a moment. I know I know. He cost Gore the election in 2000, which led to the horrendous presidency of George W. Bush. Let's leave that aside for the moment. The fact of the matter is that Ralph Nader is a very progressive candidate. 

In this post I'm going to focus on healthcare. Now, admittedly, Barack Obama's healthcare plan is vastly superior to John McCain's. But in my opinion, both miss the mark.

The Nader plan would would create what's called a single payer healthcare system. As the name implies, a single entity is responsible for the payment of healthcare costs (as apposed to the cost being split up between you and your employer). In this case, the single payer would be the government, and for-profit insurance companies would no longer be necessary.

There are a lot of advantages of a single payer healthcare system. First, and foremost, every single American would receive high quality healthcare. Second, a single payer system would lower costs through simplicity and efficiency. It is estimated that 24% of our healthcare costs are due to administrative and other non-clinical expenses. If the federal government were solely responsible for paying healthcare costs, the current healthcare bureaucracy that coordinates between patients, employers, and insurance companies would no longer be necessary.

Let's make this a little more concrete. The World Health Organization ranks France number one in overall quality and access. The United States is ranked 37th. Yet, France spends 11.2% of its gdp on healthcare, while the U.S. spends 15.2% of gdp. So what's the deal? France has a single payer system, and the U.S. has a market based system. 

So, how would Nader pay for his plan? Employers would simply pay a 7% payroll tax. For larger employers, this actually turns out to be less than what they currently spend on healthcare for their employees. This payroll tax would also level the playing field because companies that currently do not provide benefits would not have a competitive advantage. The rest of the money would come from a 2% income tax. Now, this might sound like your taxes are being raised, but when you consider the fact that you are no longer paying premiums, deductables, or copays, they actually aren't.

The bottom line is that we could be providing quality healthcare to every single American at an equal or lower cost. Let's do it.

A Simple "Yes" Would Have Been Sufficient

Holly crap.

What Will Become of the Republican Party?

In the last week I have seen what I believe to be the beginning of the end for the Republican party as we know it today. First, I want to start with Alan Greenspan's testimony on capitol hill today:

This is striking. Is it possible that the republican party will now acknowledge that the government has a vital oversight role to play when it comes to the economy? I certainly hope so. I really respect what Greenspan did today. It takes a lot of courage to admit that the policies you championed as chairman of the federal reserve created an environment that enabled the largest economic crisis since the great depression.

The second major event I would like to talk about is Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. It was one of the most thoughtful moments I have seen throughout the course of this two year campaign. In addition to being an endorsement of Barack Obama, it was a rebuking of what the Republican party has become: one that has moved further to the right on domestic and foreign policy, values anti-intellectualism, and seeks to divide us rather than unite us.

Need evidence? Over the past week we heard Sarah Palin talk about the "real" America, and Michelle Bachman call for investigations into the anti-american members of congress (i.e. liberals). Take a look:

So what does this all mean? It's looking increasingly likely that November 4th will be a big win for the Democrats (gains in both houses of congress and the presidency). I believe that we are at a defining moment in our history, and that Barack Obama, like FDR before him, will usher in a new era of progressivism. The good news for the Republican party is that it will have some time to do some serious soul searching. My guess is that the party will become more moderate on social and economic issues, while continuing to advocate for small government and fiscal conservatism when possible. Personally, I'd welcome a return of the party of Barry Goldwater. At least then we could have an honest debate about the direction of the country.

In Defense of Progressive Taxation

The new meme being generated by the McCain campaign is that Barack Obama is a socialist. I guess their attempt to cast Obama as a terrorist didn't work, so with two weeks to go McCain needed a new narrative. The McCain campaign offers Obama's tax plan as evidence his socialist agenda.

First of all, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Barack Obama believes in the central tenet of socialism; collective ownership of the means of production. Obama believes in a free market economy as a means of generating wealth, but acknowledges that an unregulated market is less than ideal (as the last month has shown).

Getting back to tax policy, Barack Obama's is based on the idea that the middle class is the backbone of our economy. So if tax cuts are to be given, they should favor the middle class. John McCain is clearly a supply sider; concentrate wealth at the top by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations in the hope that this wealth will trickle down to the rest of the economy.

The Center for American Progress recently released a study that compared the economies under the two most recent administrations (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) that implemented policies based on supply side economics to the economy under Bill Clinton's administration. In short, the study found that many economic indicators such as investment, productivity, GDP, unemployment, income, hourly wages, and the federal deficit were, on average, as good or better during the Clinton administration. I should also point out that this study doesn't even include the current economic crisis we find ourselves in under the Bush administration.

So is Barack Obama a socialist? I don't really call restoring fairness to the tax code socialism, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a tax code similar to the one under Bill Clinton is better for our free market economy.

Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama

I have to say that this is a very powerful endorsement. 

Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary?

I have a question for everyone. Should Barack Obama appoint Paul Krugman to be his treasury secretary? It makes a lot of sense to me. 

Paul Krugman called on the government to recapitalize the banks from pretty early on. Low and behold, that is exactly what Hank Paulson has decided to do. 

If that isn't enough for you, Krugman was also awarded the Nobel Prize in economics today. Not a bad day for Paul Krugman. Not bad at all.

McCain Always Was a Terrible Student

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has released a report card that grades every member of congress on their support for legislation important to veterans. John McCain got a D. Barack Obama got a B. As far as I can tell, John McCain's way of supporting the troops amounts to asking them to risk their lives in unnecessary, never-ending wars.

Time for a Grand Bargain with Iran

Let's stick with the theme from yesterday: Conducting foreign policy based on national interests rather than ideology.

Bush Moves Away From the Neocons

The New York Times reports today that the Bush Administration has decided to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. I have to say that this is one area where I think Bush has seen the light. Many neocons such as John Bolton are criticizing the move, but here are the facts. When Bush came into office the Clinton administration had established an Agreed Framework with North Korea. This agreement provided the North with reactors for domestic energy production and provided them with oil. In exchange, North Korea froze activities at their plutonium reactors and delayed the construction of new ones. It is believed that had it not been for the Agreed Framework, North Korea might have enough weapons grade plutonium for 100 nuclear weapons.

In 2002 the Bush administration believed that North Korea had a secret uranium enrichment program, and decided to pull out of the Agreed Framework altogether. For four years there was no real effort to engage North Korea, and in 2006 the North successfully detonated a nuclear device. Clearly, Bush's policy had failed.

If we fast forward to earlier this year, the Bush administration got North Korea to dismantle its plutonium enrichment facility in Yongbyon, and allow weapons inspectors to monitor the process. In exchange the U.S. would remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. This would allow the North to normalize diplomatic relations with the world, and be eligible for financial aid. This was undoubtedly a big success.

Recently, however, there was a huge setback. North Korea was not allowing inspectors to verify the state of their nuclear program, and threatened to restart their nuclear program. They say it was because the U.S. had not removed them from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Now, it's not clear to me who was in the wrong here, and it seems like both of these things were supposed to happen simultaneously. Even with this breakdown, I still think the negotiations had made progress because North Korea's ability to produce weapons grade plutonium had suffered a huge setback.

Today the Bush administration seems to have put the negotiations back on track by agreeing to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. In exchange, North Korea has agreed to resume the dismantling of the facility at Yongbyon, and allow inspectors to return. There are still questions about how inspectors will verify the steps that North Korea is taking, but I still believe that progress is being made. 

Credit Where Credit Is Due

I'm going to give John McCain some credit for tonight's debate. He didn't engage in character assassination. He didn't bring up Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, or Tony Rezko. Good for you senator. Hopefully you will send the message to the rest of your campaign. 

With that out of the way. I think Obama won the debate hands down. He took on McCain's supply side economic policies, his saber rattling foreign policies, his radical healthcare policy, and his drill baby drill energy policy.

McCain Asked For It

Obama's Comments Disqualify Him from the Presidency?

During Thursday night's VP debate Sarah Palin used a statement made by Barack Obama to argue that he is unfit for the Presidency. Here is what she was referring to:

The inconvenient truth for Governor Palin is that Barack Obama is correct. The AP did a fact check on this claim, and found that in 2007 the U.S. military was responsible for more civilian deaths than the insurgents (i.e. the Taliban and al-Qaeda) we are there to fight. The reason for this is because the U.S. diverted its attention from Afghanistan to Iraq. There are currently 146,000 troops in Iraq (more than before the surge, which is another bogus claim Palin made during the debate), but only 32,000 in Afghanistan. As a result, the U.S. has become increasingly reliant on air strikes. The fact of the matter is that a bomb, no matter how precise, cannot discriminate between insurgents and civilians better than troops on the ground. This has caused real problems in Afghanistan because it creates sympathy for the Taliban's cause.

I'd also add that Defense Secretary Bob Gates recently issued an apology for recent air strikes that killed 90 civilians in Afghanistan, but I don't hear Sarah Palin calling for his resignation.

So despite Palin's claim, I think these comments show that he is qualified to be President because he understands the current situation on the ground, and knows how to weigh the consequences of various military tactics.

Is Anybody Buying This?

Is anybody buying the argument that we ought to forget about the last 8 years, and only look to the future? If we ignore the past, aren't we destined to repeat it? I thought Joe Biden hit it out of the park.

The Most Maverickey Maverick of All Mavericks

Please.