‘Public Option’ in Health Plan May Be Dropped

‘Public Option’ in Health Plan May Be Dropped: "For President Obama, giving up on a public insurance plan could punch a hole in Republican arguments but could also alienate liberal Democrats."

He's doing this so Republicans will get on board. You know, the "moderate Republicans" who are willing to "work with" Democrats to get this bill passed. If anyone who does not support this bill could explain to me why the public option is bad, I'd really like to hear it.

Interesting article about healthcare

Haven't blogged much in a while. Don't intend to restart. Only wanted to point to an article by Peter Singer on the issue of healthcare (nationalized versus private) in the New York Times a week or two ago. I have to agree with Professor Singer (like that matters): despite what is written in the news, the human cost of private healthcare is simply less immediately visible than that of nationalized healthcare. Take a read and see what you think.

[via NYT Magazine]

Economists' Response to Bailout

I have been pretty quiet about the mortgage/bailout crisis that the American economy has been experiencing in the past week or so. The reason for that is that I cannot really say that I know what exactly should be done and, perhaps more importantly, I am not sure how the Fed and the Treasury should react (nor how they should be allowed to react) to the crisis. To that end, I finally found something that sums up my concerns about the bailout plan. It comes in the form of a letter written to Congress by leading academic economists and goes something like this:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries “systemic risk.” The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America’s dynamic and innovative private-capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons, we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.

I think that really sums up most of my concerns about this bailout. It could be said in much more politically evocative terms (as I believe several Congress members have already done), but generally, this is a good summary of all the questions I have regarding the government bailout of the financial industry.

[via NYT Freakonomics]
[full letter and signatories available here]

Tim Wise's "White Privilege": How Palin is Even Running for VP

I just read a really interesting piece on the effects of "white privilege" (on, in particular, the upcoming election). Unfortunately, the site posting the piece is membership only, so I am attaching it below. Enjoy.

THIS IS YOUR NATION ON WHITE PRIVILEGE
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being
disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who
say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign
policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and
certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

After spending a little more time tracking down the original source of this article, it seems that Tim Wise first wrote it for the Red Room. The article is accessible via the link below. Enjoy.

[via Red Room]

Google CEO Eric Schmidt's Eco Forum Talk

Somebody just sent me a link to this YouTube video capturing Eric Schmidt's talk at the Eco Forum about how companies (and even private citizens) can help reduce the environmental degradation going on today. Schmidt does not lay the responsibility for humanity's survival on the earth in the hands of politicians; he places it squarely on the shoulders of private firms and individuals, who, he says, are much more easily able to effect environmental change than any American politician/administration. That changes the whole context of the global warming debate, as it puts the onus of action back on people and companies, rather than letting us wait for our slow-moving governments to do the things we should be doing.
Schmidt continues in the speech by talking about an idea that I think is exactly on the mark: ultimately, it will not be sweeping innovations or governmental mandates that will increase our chances of survival on the earth. Rather, it will be the continuing drive towards efficient production/consumption that will lead to a more sustainable tenure on earth for humanity. We have to learn how to produce and consume the things we need (and want) in ways that allow for the upcoming generations of humanity to be able to produce and consume those things as well. Schmidt explains how he hopes to make Google more efficient, talking about the solar and wind power projects already in place around Google campuses, and provides suggestions for how the US, as a whole, can shift towards reduced resource consumption and improved alternative energy production (here, he sometimes leans on government help).
Overall, it's a really good talk from somebody who is in a position to do something about the global warming problem and actually seems to be doing his bit. It also reassures me, despite the Chrome privacy snafus, etc., that Google still has its head in the right place...

[via YouTube]