Paul M. Jones

Perhaps predictibly, someone showed up in the comments to my post on Medicare and Social Security to argue that liberal analysts have very serious plans to cut Medicare's costs, which is why we need universal coverage, so that we can implement those very serious plans.

I hear this argument quite often, and it's gibberish in a prom dress. Any cost savings you want to wring out of Medicare can be wrung out of Medicare right now: the program is large and powerful enough, and costly enough, that they are worth doing without adding a single new person to the mix. Conversely, if there is some political or institutional barrier which is preventing you from controlling Medicare cost inflation, than that barrier probably is not going away merely because the program covers more people. Indeed, to the extent that seniors themselves are the people blocking change (as they often are), adding more users makes it harder, not easier, to get things done.

via Medicare is going to bankrupt us, which is why we need universal health care - Megan McArdle.

In late April, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced during a Senate briefing that there are between 50 and 100 detainees at Guantanamo Bay whom the government would not transfer to other countries or prosecute in civilian or military tribunals. Last week, major media outlets, confirming previous "chatter," reported that the Obama administration would retool and revive the highly disparaged military courts.

And just when it seemed that all of these changes in anti-terrorism policy were too good to be true, today's Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama administration might indefinitely detain some Guantanamo Bay inmates in the United States following the closure of the facility. Presumably, the indefinitely detained individuals would include the 50-100 people Gates described in late April.

If Congress blocks the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, will Obama stop the process of closing the facility? Was this the plan all along? How does the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects in the United States, as opposed to Guantanamo Bay, represent an improvement over the Bush administration's policies?

via DISSENTING JUSTICE: Change Alert: Indefinite Detention in the USA -- Not Guantanamo Bay.

Once again, hope and change!

The Washington Post leads with President Obama's decision to try to block the release of photographs showing the abuse of detainees by U.S. soldiers. Last month, the administration said it wouldn't fight a court order to release 44 photos by May 28, but Obama changed his mind after he saw some of the photographs and heard from top Pentagon officials that releasing the images could endanger troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Wall Street Journal leads its world-wide newsbox with word that the Obama administration is discussing ways to detain terror suspects. The administration is apparently considering a proposal to indefinitely hold some Guantanamo detainees inside the United Stats with the approval of a new national security court.

via Obama reverses on abuse photos; administration wants to regulate derivatives. - By Daniel Politi - Slate Magazine.

I don't know if this is the right thing to do, but I wonder if the people who railed against Bush for wanting to keep photos like this secret, will rail also against Obama for the same thing.

They must be registered voters.

This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.

via 090514_Dead_People_Get_Stimulus_Checks.

The barrage of tax increases proposed in President Barack Obama's budget could, if enacted by Congress, kill any chance of an early and sustained recovery.

Historians and economists who've studied the 1930s conclude that the tax increases passed during that decade derailed the recovery and slowed the decline in unemployment. That was true of the 1935 tax on corporate earnings and of the 1937 introduction of the payroll tax. Japan did the same destructive thing by raising its value-added tax rate in 1997.

via Tax Increases Could Kill the Recovery - WSJ.com.

The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.

The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.

Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve's supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.

Among ideas being discussed are Fed rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank -- such as paying loan officers for the volume of business they do, not the quality. The administration is also discussing issuing "best practices" to guide firms in structuring pay.

via U.S. Eyes Bank Pay Overhaul - WSJ.com.

(Emphasis mine.) Government "guides" at the point of a gun. They won't call this "nationalization" because that would mean the President and his administration would have to own up to their end-game.

You can't blame Obama for the recession or the bank bailouts and maybe even the auto bailout. Those started on Bush's watch. But the record-setting deficits? Those are Obama's idea. He's not grappling with that problem. He created that problem, certainly in the dimensions that we're talking about. It's not one of his short-term "headaches." A headache is what usually happens out of the blue. But if a guy is banging his head against the wall, you don't want to say that one of his short-term problems is a headache. The short-term problem is that he's banging his head against the wall.

via Cafe Hayek: The Grappler.

Civil rights "boo!" to this LA:

Sen. Alexander votes against guns in national parks

More here. Here's the vote. AP story. Another story. It appears he was the lone Republican voting against it. Here's his no vote.

UPDATE: Just confirmed with his office he did vote against the measure. Details coming.

UPDATE II: Here's the statement his office just e-mailed me: I have consistently been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, but this legislation goes too far - further than President Reagan, further than President Bush, and further than Tennessee law.

UPDATE III: TN's other senator, Bob Corker, voted for the measure.

UPDATE IV: Glenn Reynolds: Not a good move for Lamar.

SayUncle: Neither Bush was exceptionally friendly to gun rights. While Reagan signed the Firearms Owners Protection Act, it also contained the Hughes amendment.

Rustmeister's Alehouse: Ok, Mister Senator, but I have to ask: Does it go further than the US Constitution? Or, for that matter, the desires of your constituents ?

UPDATE V: Statement from Sen. Bob Corker, R-TN: I understand the importance of ensuring the safety of people visiting our national parks as well as protecting our nation's wildlife from illegal poaching. I believe states should have the ability to weigh these considerations in carrying out their responsibility to regulate firearms within their borders.

via Sen. Alexander votes against guns in national parks.

But civil rights "yay!" for this LA:

The House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice voted 9-6 today for a bill that would allow those with concealed handgun permits to carry their weapons on campus.

House Bill 27 by Rep. Ernest Wooton, R-Belle Chasse, was approved over the objection of college students and officials who said the measure would make their campuses less safe.

Officials at Tulane and Loyola universities have said they are opposed to the bill, which would allow the concealed guns on campus if the individual has passed a background check and is qualified to carry a concealed weapon.

The bill would allow the governing boards of the colleges to designate where the weapons would be stored while the carrier is on campus.

via http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/05/house_committee_says_ok_to_gun.html.

More commentary here: Common Sense in Louisiana.

The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.

Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?

Until Chrysler.

via Chrysler and the Rule of Law - WSJ.com.

The "green shoots" theory of economic recovery is starting to look a bit like the herbs in my back yard--the ones I forgot to tell Peter to water while I was in Omaha. Retail sales fell again, despite confident proclamations that consumers had rethought their overreaction last fall. And foreclosures hit another record, which was oddly described as a "levelling off" by a lot of papers. The March numbers showed a big spike, because legislative and corporate moratoriums expired. In that context, a 1% increase in April isn't a "levelling off"--it's extraordinarily worrying.

I don't want to push the Great Depression analogy too far, but what's surprising when you go back to primary sources from 1930 is the optimism. I don't mean to imply that everyone thinks things are just swell. But while you know that they are facing the worst economic decade of the twentieth century, they don't.

via Green? Shoot. - Megan McArdle.