Individual Mandates

So the Supremes are going to look at Obamacare. The section of the bill most frequently attacked is the "individual mandate" section, which requires most Americans to have some sort of health insurance. The (far) right jumps up and down, screaming "uncontitutional! unconstitutional!". But is it?

Historical precedent

On May 8, 1792, just four years after the constitution was ratified, President George Washington signed the Militia Act of 1792. The act enrolled every able-bodied white male between 18 and 45 to join a militia. But it also said this:

"every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack... "

Militia Act of 1792

 The constitutionality of this bill was never challenged. It remained in effect for more than 110 years. All able-bodied white males were individually mandated.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

What I find curious about the claims from the far right that individual mandates for health insurance are unconstitutional is that just 22 years ago, they themselves advocated individual mandates for health insurance. Yep, that's right. In 1989, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, published a paper by its Director of Domestic Policy Studies (Stewart Butler), which said this:

"Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement."

"Assuring Affordable Health Care" on the Heritage website

How far to the right has the GOP shifted?

In the New Hampshire GOP debate earlier this week, Michele Bachman hardly raised an eyebrow when she said that Congress needed to get rid of the "job-killing" Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA was created as a result of executive order, by Republican Richard Nixon.

The GOP has moved so far to the right that they now want to tear down some of the things they themselves created.

Taliban express doubt that bin Laden is dead

"KABUL, Afghanistan – The Taliban cast suspicion Tuesday on the announcement of Osama bin Laden's death, saying they would not believe the al-Qaida leader was dead until they had seen proof or received confirmation from sources close to him."

Click here to read the news article

Once again the far right agrees with the Taliban.

Warren Buffet was right

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." -- Warren Buffet, New York Times, November 26, 2006.

I ran across some interesting data from the Congressional Budget Office recently. It shows the tax rate, the share of the tax burden, and the share of income for each 20% of income earners in the US from 1979 to 2006. The link's at the bottom of this post.

Conservatives like to claim that the rich are paying more of the federal income taxes, and they're correct. In 1979, the top 10% of income earners paid 48.1% of all federal income taxes. In 2006, they paid 72.8% of all federal income taxes.

But that ignores the fact that at the same time their percent of all taxes paid went up, their effective tax rate went down. In 1979, the effective federal tax rate for the top 10% of earners was 17.4%. In 2006, it had declined to 16%. The fact is that everyone's federal tax rates have gone down. Our federal income tax rates are now at their lowest point since the Truman Administration. That's right, we aren't being "taxed to death". We're paying lower taxes than the greatest generation did.

The CBO data also tells another story. To see, let's look at what happened to those income brackets over the same 27 years from 1979 to 2006. First of all, remember that each bracket represents 20% of the wage earners, so each of the five brackets represents about the same number of people.

Pre-tax income
In 1979, the average pre-tax income for the middle bracket was $52,700 and the average pre-tax income for the top 10% of earners was $136,400. The top 10% earned roughly two and a half times what the middle bracket did.

In 2006, the middle bracket earned $60,700, while the top 10% of earners brought in $248,400. The top 10% were now making about four times as much as the middle bracket.

In those intervening 27 years, the income for the middle class had gone up by 15%, while the income for the top 10% had gone up by a whopping 80%.

Share of income
in 1979, the middle bracket accounted for 15.8% of all income in this country, while the top 10% accounted for 30.5%. Twenty-seven years later, the middle quintile accounted for 13.2% of all income, and the top 10% accounted for 41.6%.

The middle class's share of of all income earned actually shrank over those twenty seven years. Of the five income brackets, the lowest four all lost ground during that same time frame. In 1979, the bottom 80% of all earners accounted for 54.5% of all income earned. In 2006, their share had dropped to 44.3%.

Over the two and a half decades from 1979 to 2006, there has been a massive transfer of wealth in this country. From the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.

So the next time some conservative complains about "class warfare", tell them they're right about class warfare, but wrong about who's waging it and who's winning it.

CBO report

Why hasn't unemployment recovered yet?

To answer that question, let’s compare the Great Recession to the others in the last 50 years.

The recession of 1960-61 lasted ten months (April 1960 - Feb 61). The GDP went down 1.6%. Unemployment went up from 5% to 7%, and didn’t drop back down close to where it started until July 62, 17 months after the recession had ended.

The recession of 1969-1970 lasted 11 months (Dec 69 - Nov 70). GDP went down by a scant 0.6%. Unemployment went up from 3.5% to 6.1%, and NEVER dropped back down to where it started. The closest it came was 4.6% in October 73, three years after the recession had ended.

The recession of 1973-75 lasted 16 months (Nov 73 - Mar 75). The GDP declined by 3.2%. Unemployment went up from 4.8% to 9%, and never dropped back down to where it started. The closest it came was 5.6% in May 79, four years after the recession officially ended.

The recession of 1980 lasted 6 months (Jan 80 - July 80). The GDP dropped by 2.2%. Unemployment went up from 6.3% to 7.8%, but didn’t drop back down to where it started until August 87, seven years after the recession officially ended.

The early 1980’s recession lasted 16 months (July 81 - November 82). The GDP dropped 2.7%. Unemployment went up from 7.2% to 10.8%, and didn’t drop back down to where it started until July 84, two years and four months after the recession officially ended.

The early 1990’s recession lasted 8 months (July 90 - March 91). The GDP dropped a meager 0.3%. Unemployment rose from 5.7% to 6.8%. But it kept on rising even after the recession officially ended, peaking at 7.8% in June 92. It didn’t drop back down to where it started until October 94, three and a half years after the recession officially ended.

The early 2000’s recession lasted 8 months (March 2001 - November 01). The GDP dropped 0.3%. Unemployment rose from 4.0% to 5.5%. But, like the preceding recession, it kept on rising after the recession was officially over, peaking at 6.3% in June 03. It didn’t drop back down close to where it started until December 06, more than five years after the recession officially ended.

The Great Recession lasted eighteen months (December 07 - June 09). The GDP dropped 4.1%. Unemployment rose from 5% to 9.5%, but, like the preceding two recessions, it kept on rising, peaking out at 10.1% in October 09. So far, it’s dropped back down to 8.8%.

So, the Great Recession:

• Lasted longer than any in the last 50 years.
• Saw a much steeper decline in the GDP any in the last 50 years.
• Saw unemployment grow more any in the last 50 years.

So if anyone expected unemployment to have completely recovered by now, dream on. Unemployment always trails in a recovery. Always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1959-01&EndYear=2011-03&submit1=Create+Report

Trickle-down didn't work

Think trickle-down works? Think again. Let's look at the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts and see what impact they had on jobs and the economy. If their tax cuts worked, we should expect to see unemployment drop. But that's not what happened.

Reagan's first tax cut went into effect in August of 1981. At that time, unemployment was 7.2% (down 0.2% from his inauguration, and down 0.6% over the previous year). Starting the very next month, unemployment went up for the next seventeen consecutive months, peaking at a whopping 10.8% in November 1982. It didn't come back down to where it started until June 1984, almost three years after the tax cuts went into effect.

Bush II's first tax cut went into effect in May of 2001. At that time unemployment was 4.3% (up 0.1% from his inauguration - so much for the conservative claim that Bush inherited a recession, right?). Beginning the very next month, unemployment went up steadily for the next two years, topping out at 6.3% in June of 2003. It didn't ever go back down to 4.3% during his time in office, but it did reach 4.4% in October 2006, five years after the tax cut.

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1980-06&En

Cold, hard facts. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts were followed by higher unemployment, not lower unemployment.

"Bias" in the media is a myth

Conservatives have been on the rampage about taxpayer support for NPR, claiming that the government shouldn't support liberal news organizations. Let's look at that claim for a minute. I maintain that the complaints about "liberal bias" at NPR tell us more about the complainers than about NPR.

I've challenged conservatives several times for examples of NPR's alleged "bias." So far, no takers. If you, gentle reader, have objective evidence that NPR News is biased, please let me know.

Remember the leftist zealots from the 60's? They had a black-or-white, no-middle-ground view of the world. They were convinced that everyone who wasn't with them was the enemy. This was exemplified by Eldridge Cleaver's famous statement, "You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem."

Today's conservative zealots have exactly the same black-or-white, no-middle-ground view of the world, equally convinced that everyone who isn't with them is the enemy. Their attitude is exemplified by George W. Bush's statement "You either stand with us or with the terrorists."

What the zealots of both sides have in common are attacks on the press. Why? Simple - because zealots think that everyone who isn't on their side is against them, and when the press does its job and remains neutral, it's seen by both sides as the enemy.

Let's face it, conservatives don't really object to all bias. If they objected to all bias, they'd also express outrage at Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, or others. But do they? No.

So the complaints of today's conservative zealots, like their 1960's leftist counterparts, isn't that the press is biased against them - it's that the press isn't biased towards them. The sad fact is that today's conservative zealots, like their leftists counterparts from the 60's, like bias in the press. They want bias in the press. They just want to make sure it's their bias in the press.