Ezra Klein: Unions, the counterbalance to Corporate Power

From Wisconsin is about power, not money:

America's various governmental entities are looking for ways to avoid defaulting on their debt - or at least defaulting on their debt to the powerful. That addendum is important, because one of the strategies that's emerging is to default on debt to the less powerful, the people who don't have the power to wreck our economy.

This is a crucial fact about the economy, and one often underplayed by economists: power matters. It's worth more, in many cases, than money. And that's what's really at issue in Wisconsin. It's why Gov. Scott Walker is uninterested in taking concessions from the unions on wages and benefits if they don't come alongside concessions on collective bargaining. What he wants isn't a change in the balance of payments. It's a change in the balance of power.

The deal Wisconsin made with its state employees was simple: Accept lower wages than you could get in the private sector now in return for better pensions and health-care benefits when you retire. Now Walker wants to renege on that deal.

Rather than stiff the banks, in other words, he wants to stiff the teachers - but the crucial twist he's added, the one that's sent tens of thousands of workers into the streets, is that he wants to make sure they can't fight back once he does it.

The reason you can't stiff bondholders is that they can make a state or country regret reneging on the deals they've made. They can increase borrowing costs far into the future, slowing economic growth and, through the resulting economic pain, throwing politicians out of office. That gives them power. An ordinary teacher does not have access to such artillery. Unless, of course, she's part of a union.

Unions - through collective bargaining, strikes and other means - give workers power. They make reneging on contracts with their members painful. They also make negotiations less lopsided.

They're not perfect, of course. They sometimes negotiate bad deals, or misbehave, or hand good money over to bad people, or put their short-term interests ahead of the public's long-term interests. But then, so do corporations and politicians.

But their power matters for more than just debt repayment. For all their faults, unions tend to see their constituents as not just their own members, but the "working class," broadly defined. That's why you'll find labor's fingerprints on everything from the two-day weekend to Medicare to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 - none of which require you to flash a union card before you can benefit from them. They act -- quite self-consciously -- as a counterbalance to corporate power.

There's more to this column of course, and I encourage you to go and read it, but this was the meat of the idea, in my mind.

The Fireside Chat for February 19th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President speaks from the Intel campus in Oregon about educating our kids for the jobs of tomorrow so we can make sure America wins the future:



Sorry for the delay. It was because of the three day weekend.

MSNBC: The Physics of American Politics

Are we waking a sleeping giant? (Lord knows, y'all slept through November):

The situation in Wisconsin is also another reminder that Newton's third law of motion -- for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction -- applies to American politics. When George W. Bush, after winning re-election, tried to partially privatize Social Security in early 2005, he woke up a despondent Democratic base. When Barack Obama, at the height of his popularity, decided to take on health care, the Tea Party and an energized GOP rose to combat it. And now the physics of politics is playing out in Wisconsin, where Democrats and organized labor are resisting new Gov. Scott Walker's (R) effort to strip state workers of their collective bargaining rights. The question to ponder in Wisconsin -- as well as in the battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida, or in the Capitol Hill fight over Planned Parenthood -- is whether these combative efforts end up energizing Democrats as we head into 2012. After all, there is probably not a more unifying force than being out of power.

Where I say something nice about...a Republican?!?

It happens.

Rarely.

Let me take a moment to speak in praise of Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

I remember him from his periodic appearances with Bill Maher, he's definitely a Conservative, and I hope he loses his upcoming Senate race to replace John Kyl.

But there's some indication that if Jeff Flake were to win, he wouldn't be that bad.  There's something honorable about the man.  Take his three quotes from this week.  The first was when he was asked about possibly running against Gabrielle Giffords for Kyl's Senate Seat:

"The most wonderful thing in the world would be to have her make a Senate run."

Now, that was wasn't empty boilerplate about Giffords of the tragedy that befell her. That wasn't a generic "we'll see what happens". That was a unapologetic "My God, my friend and colleague from the House would be better and whole and thus...that would be the most wonderful thing in the world."

A couple days later, he was asked about (yawn) the President's Birth Certificate.  But quel suprise!

Responding to a question Thursday on CNN about a recent poll that found a majority of Republican primary voters don't believe President Obama was born in the U.S., Flake said he didn't believe the findings.

"Well, I have a hard time believing that poll," Flake said. "I think that most people understand and accept the reality. The reality is that, yes, he was born in the United States."

And wait, it gets better. When talking about the GOP's proposed spending cuts he said:

We’re proposing $100 billion in cuts — kind of. It’s a little funny math, as it always is here. But it’s a pretty significant cut to non-defense discretionary [spending]. But that’s a rounding error when it comes to the overall budget and deficit. It represents one-fifteenth of the current deficit that we’re running.

This one is a little less than good news in that, he sees the cuts being proposed by the GOP as nothing more than a flea on a Lion, and that any cuts he'd propose would be far, far more drastic...which isn't good news...

...but at least he's honest about the worthlessness of what the GOP is trying to do.

I have to admit, I have no idea about his Tea-Party background (I'd bet he's sympathetic), but if we can rely on him to be this straightforward and honest, he wouldn't be a bad Senator.  If nothing else, I would hope that a General Election campaign between Flake and Giffords (should she recover and choose to run) might be a model of civility where the people of Arizona might actually gain just from the debate.

Still, just to be sure, get ready to scratch some checks for Giffords for Senate in 2012, okay?

Where my respect for Andrew Sullivan and Joe Klein is bleeding away..

You can read these crapfests from uber-Villager Joe Klein and Deficit-Sorched-Earther Andrew Sullivan if you want. I won't stop you. Their pieces both show they haven't a clue as to why the Public Employee Unions are upset, and fighting back as hard as they are.

To do that, they would have had to take five minutes, and read Ezra Klein's piece:

Walker proposes that the right to collectively bargain be taken away from most -- but not all -- state and local workers. Who's left out? "Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes." As Harold Meyerson notes, these are also the unions that happened to be more supportive of Walker in the last election. Funny, that.

Walker tries to sell the change in collective bargaining as modest. "State and local employees could continue to bargain for base pay, they would not be able to bargain over other compensation measures." But that's not really true. Read down a bit further and you'll find that "total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum." In other words, they couldn't bargain for wages to rise faster than inflation. So, in reality, they can't bargain for wages and they can't bargain over other forms of compensation. They just can't bargain.

The proposal doesn't stop there, though. "Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues." These rules have nothing to do with pension costs or even bargaining. They're just about weakening unions: They make it harder for unions to collect dues from members, to negotiate stable contracts or to survive a bad year.

It's one thing to disagree with the Public Employee's Unions stance. At least there, I'll just think you're a heartless bastard. but at least you've looked at the issue, and taken a stand.

But for Klein and Sullivan foist this level of bull@#$% on the American public, when you have a platform, shows not only that they didn't do their homework, they didn't give a @#$^ about doing it.

My readership of both these men is starting to come into question.

UPDATE: 2:41pm Pacific: Andrew's Readers (at least) let him have it.

Why the hell is MSNBC of all networks playing games with the President's remarks?

I'm a Liberal, but I can't stand Ed Schultz.

Sorry, I know that's sacrilege in some parts.

My problem is Ed let his TV Career go to his head. He likes to grandstand. (Don't believe me? Just ask Randi Rhodes about the One Nation Rally...where she volunteered her services in any capacity...yet wasn't allowed onstage because it was Ed's show.)

Now there's this thing where he "demanded" a response from the White House and got it the next day.

Only thing is, MSNBC selectively edited what the President said, and allowed Ed to...yes...grandstand again...about how this is all an attack against Unions, and the President needs to say more about that.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But guess what, Ed? HE DID SAY JUST THAT!!!!



I don't know what the hell kind of games MSNBC is playing, but this is the kind of crap I expect from Fox News. If Ed's ego needs this much massaging, maybe he needs to find another line of work.

UPDATE: 10:16am Pacific: The President's complete interview can be found here.

John of Orange just guaranteed there's going to be a Government Shutdown.

From Jay Newton-Small:

House Speaker John Boehner today ruled out a short term extension of current levels of government funding, raising the prospect of a government shutdown.

The House tonight or tomorrow is expected to pass funding for the government through the rest of the year. But both chambers of Congress are out next week for President's Day recess. The current funding expires March 4th. Which means that in the five days Congress is back the week after next, the Senate must pass it's version the continuing resolution (CR) -- they're unlikely to accept the House bill as it's written with more than $100 billion in cuts -- and kick it back to the House. Then, if the House doesn't accept the Senate version, a compromise must be wrought and passed by both chambers. In the world of budgets, achieving this in five days is a lightening speed unlikely to be achieved. Democrats had been counting on a temporary extension of current funding while a deal is negotiated for the rest of the year, but Boehner's refusal today to give the process any more time forces Dems, and some Senate Republicans, to either accept deeper cuts than they'd like or face a government shutdown.

In other words (and paraphrasing Harry Reid) John Boenher doesn't have control of his conference.

Rachel asks the question on everyone's mind... How good at his job is John Boehner? (VIDEO)

Yeah. Turns out...not so much:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"John Boehner is no Nancy Pelosi..."

Ezra punched out an...let's just say an amendment to his appearance to Rachel's show.  He reiterated a number of his points that he made with Rachel, but he didn't come down as hard on John-of-Orange as Rachel did.

Growth numbers like these means one thing...

The Federal Reserve (which is evil, just ask Ron Paul) released some interesting data today:

The Federal Reserve revealed Wednesday that its policy makers had substantially upgraded their forecasts for how much the United States economy will grow this year, even though they expect that unemployment will remain painfully high for some time.

The core projections of top Fed officials now call for growth of 3.4 percent to 3.9 percent this year, up from the previous forecast of 3 percent to 3.6 percent, released in November.

It's not all rainbows and sunshine at Bernanke's shop, but remember...Jobs are the last thing to come back after a Recession.  But this is really, really good news.  Growth numbers like this, coupled with a unemployment numbers headed downward means that the President is going to be re-elected.

The Recession's over. Growth is on the way back. The Jobs are next...

...at the very least, the Business Community is running out of excuses.

We're all...and remain...Keynesians...for now, and forever... (VIDEO)

I've posted this video before (about this time last year, as it turns out), but heck, it's been an Econ heavy day today...and Randi spent a lot of time talking about "Austrian Economics" on her show today, so why not watch it again! Enjoy!

Washington's no better than a stopped clock, thus it has to work twice as hard to be right even twice a day...

Andrew Sullivan (still on my nerves, though he has dialed it down a bit) went to those ultra-fair bastions of Journalistic integrity at the Murdoch Street Journal, and dug out this little nugget of information:

Mr. Obama's budget also assumes annual economic growth of more than 4% from 2012-2014. That's far more robust than anything this recovery has produced so far, and it is at least a percentage point higher than most private economists or the Congressional Budget Office predict.

Andrew, like all Debt-fetishists would, freaked.

And once again, we turn to Jonathan Chait to put that notion in its place:

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is criticizing the Obama administration's budget for, among other things, using economic estimates from the Office of management and Budget that are more optimistic than those put forth by the Congressional Budget Office. Andrew Sullivan calls this "mendacity and delusion." What's interesting here is that this question, esoteric as it may sound, was the flashpoint of the Clinton-Gingrich budget showdown.

Republicans insisted that any budget agreement use CBO's more pessimistic projections, which Republicans called "real numbers." Indeed, hard as it may be to understand now, the GOP demand that both sides attain a balanced budget based on "real numbers" was a major impetus for the government shutdown.

...

So, which prediction turned out to be correct? Well, the CBO's prediction of 2.3% annual growth through 2002 turned out to be too pessimistic. OMB's prediction of 2.5% growth turned out to be... too pessimistic. The actual result was 3.5% growth. The deficit disappeared with much less fiscal pain than anybody predicted would be needed.

"Wonks have a preference for the bold plan, the single solution, the sweeping stroke. [Problem is, wonks] don't tend to get much done."

Mentioned ever so briefly in a post from yesterday, this is the most frequent complaint amongst my ideological colleagues (and folks like Sullivan). The President isn't doing enough. He needs to fight. He needs to lead more.  Blah-blah-the @#$%-blah...

Change the record already...

Here, Ezra goes into far more detail about the White House's thinking than I ever could:

The Obama administration's theory of policymaking amid divided government is a frustrating one. What most people want from the president is to lead. And leading, in this case, means giving a speech, getting behind some unpopular ideas, trying to change public opinion. It means acting like Jed Bartlet in the final five minutes of an episode of "The West Wing." "What are the next 10 words in your budget?" Obama is supposed to ask the Republicans after delivering his bout of tough fiscal medicine. "Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next 10 words. How are we going to do it? Give me 10 after that, I'll drop out of the race right now."

But the White House has come to the conclusion that that type of leadership doesn't work. It believes that the quickest way to kill a controversial proposal in a polarized political system is to have the president endorse it. Once a high-profile proposal is associated with the White House, Republicans (correctly) view its passage as a threat to their political fortunes. That's why the Obama administration didn't endorse a payroll tax holiday until after the election, when it emerged as part of the tax deal. Endorsing it before the election would've "poisoned the well," one administration official told me after. Republicans would have had to attack it, and that would have made it impossible for them to endorse it later.

Greenstein sees a similar theory at work in the budget. "I don't think Obama could’ve been clearer that he wants a bipartisan commission on Social Security like they had in the early '80s," he says. "But if you look at what came out of that commission, if those items had been in Reagan's budget the previous February, they would've been dead in 30 days."

Obama echoed this argument at his news conference Tuesday. "If you look at the history of how these deals get done," he said, "typically it’s not because there’s an Obama plan out there; it’s because Democrats and Republicans are both committed to tackling this issue in a serious way."

And are Democrats and Republicans committed to tackling this issues in a serious way? I guess we'll find out. "We're going to be in discussions over the next several months," Obama continued. "This is going to be a negotiation process."

The most serious work being done is in the Senate, where Mark Warner (D-Va.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) are meeting regularly to create legislation based off the Fiscal Commission's final report. In theory, that's the sort of project Obama is looking for: a negotiation between sitting senators of both parties. I asked Warner about this today. Should the White House have put its shoulder behind his process? "We're not at the point where the president should get involved yet," he replied.

Wonks -- myself included -- have a preference for the bold plan, the single solution, the sweeping stroke. Slow and incremental just isn't how people who care about policy tend to think. They want to solve problems, not make a bit of progress on them. And from that perspective, the budget was a huge disappointment. That's particularly true when compared to the Fiscal Commission's report, which took on the military, entitlements and tax expenditures. Love it or hate it, it was, at the least, ambitious. And policy types like ambitious.

But policy types don't tend to get much done. And although this administration has been enormously frustrating, what with its preference to let Congress take the lead, to draw few lines in the sand and to let the process play itself out, it's gotten a lot done. Much more than its critics would've expected at the beginning of any particular policy campaign the White House has kicked off. "Let’s face it," Obama said at his news conference Tuesday, "you guys are pretty impatient. If something doesn’t happen today, then the assumption is it’s just not going to happen. Right? I’ve had this conversation for that last two years about every single issue that we worked on, whether it was health care or 'don't ask, don't tell.' "

The President's "downfield blocking" Press Conference for Feb. 15, 2011 (VIDEO)

Thomas Ricks' note of warning to Al-Qaeda.

This from the author of Fiasco, a warning for Al-Qaeda:

If I were an al Qaeda bigwig, events in Egypt would worry me -- in two weeks, those crowds have brought more change to the Arab world than AQ ever did.

Jonathan Chait tells Liberals they should be okay with this Budget, believe it or not.

Food for thought from Why Obama's Budget Is OK:

Changing people's minds about government is hard. People support most actual programs, but they think foreign aid constitutes a huge part of the budget and you can generate mass savings by eliminating waste and bureaucracy. They've believed those things for a long time.

What's more, I actually see the administration's budget gambit as a subtle attempt to change peoples' minds. The administration is loudly publicizing the fact that it's cutting programs it thinks are necessary. The message, sometimes made explicit, is that the budget actually does not contain a lot of waste. It's filled with programs that have survived many previous rounds of belt-tightening for a reason. If you want to cut the budget, you have to cut useful and necessary things.

I don't think this will have a big effect. But I do think Obama is trying, in a passive-aggressive way, to do what liberals have demanded. He's explaining to the public that the free-ride view of budget cutting -- we can cut our way out of the deficit by eliminating waste and spending that only benefits foreigners -- is wrong. Obviously, having a budget in deficit during a period of mass unemployment and a GOP-led House immune to macroeconomic reason is a bad hand. I think ultimately Obama is playing it reasonably well.

Andrew Sullivan can never, EVER be trusted on the Debt: Any sacrifice you're willing to make is good enough for him.

One of the difficult things in reading a lot of political writing is the amount of information you have to save in your mental rolodex about people.  One of the things I do when I read Paul Krugman is that I know going in that his numbers will always on target.  (He is, after all, a Nobel Laureate in Economics).  Does he know what he's talking about when it comes to Politics?  Ehhh, not so much.

In fact, look at today.  He said this:

The failure of the stimulus that never happened has become conventional wisdom — which is what I feared would happen, two years ago, when I was tearing my hair out over the inadequacy of the original plan. 

Yes, I know, it’s argued that Obama couldn’t have gotten anything more. I don’t really want to revisit all of that; my point here is simply that everyone is drawing the wrong lesson. Fiscal policy didn’t fail; it wasn’t tried.

Again, is Dr. Krugman right? Was the Stimulus too small? Yeah. (These would be the numbers of which I spoke.)

Dr. Krugman is also right to acknowledge that nothing higher in price could have passed the Congress, yet he doesn't want to talk about that...or any possible solutions to that massive roadblock. No, it's always the same: Obama should lead more.

Andrew Sullivan is no different in this regard.  I believe he's a genuine Conservative, unlike the breed we have now in the Republican Party.  But like most conservatives, he's got a serious debt fetish, bordering on obsessive.  He is genuinely correct that the long term debt is a problem, but seems to be willing to engage in a fiscal scorched earth policy in order to do it.  I find this particularly easy for a man who wasn't born here, or raised here to say give up the things you associate with making your country great in order to satisfy my demand for debt control

Mr. Sullivan.  Go @#$% yourself.

It's real easy to send America into another Depression when you're secure in your job, and don't have to worry about the rent getting paid at all.  But hey, any sacrifice you're willing to make is good enough for him.  We're going to grow our way out of this hole, unless I start hearing what sacrifices you're willing to make to your bottom line to get it done?  Willing to give up you and lover's Mortgage Interest Deduction?  Didn't think so.

He speaks on the debt with the zealotry of the newly converted. He hates the Social Safety net.  He's convinced that it did in his native England, and is convinced it will happen here:

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

Honestly, go @#$% yourself Andrew.

I actually found that paragraph more than a little offensive. I feel quite capable in my own political judgments and don't need to be called a dupe or stupid in the process. It may be at times I don't agree with you, is the line I remember most from Page 11 of Audacity of Hope. Apparently, Andrew hasn't read it either. If he has that admonition wasn't good enough for him.

Forunately, we have people like Jonathan Chait to smack him around:

Andrew Sullivan is back from his absence and in incredibly high dudgeon over the Obama administration's failure to propose a more austere budget. Andrew concedes that any such proposal would fail and exact huge political damage upon Obama but somehow thinks it's unconscionable Obama didn't do it anyway.

...

Why would proposing something that gets shot down not be not only useful but an absolute moral obligation? I don't really get it. It seems like the smart play is to first win the budget showdown and try to beat some sanity into the Republicans, who can't possibly compromise right now, and then either cut a deal or (preferably) just let the GOP kill the entire Bush tax cuts for you, which would more or less take care of the medium-term deficit problem.

No, Jonathan. Don't you understand? It's the standard problem people have with this President. Either he does it the way they want him to do it, word for word, line by line, or he's a completely and utter failure, fraud, cynic or liar. Pick your poison.

The Fireside Chat for February 12th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President previews his budget, explaining that it will help the government live within its means, while still investing to make sure America wins the future:

Before you let Conservatives bull@#$% you into thinking the CBO said that Health Care Reform will cost jobs

Read this piece from Ezra:

The short version is this: If you make health-care insurance cheaper and make it harder for insurance companies to deny people coverage, then a certain number of people who would like to leave the labor force but can't afford or access health-care insurance without their job will stop working.

To understand why, imagine a 62-year-old woman who works for IBM and beat breast cancer 10 years ago. She wants to retire. She has the money to retire. But no one will sell her health care under the status quo. Under the health-reform law, she can buy health care in an exchange because insurers can't turn her away due to her history of breast cancer. So she'll retire. Or imagine a 50-year-old single mother who wants to home-school her developmentally disabled child but can't quit her job because they'll lose health care. The subsidies and the protections in the Affordable Care Act will give her the option to stop working for awhile, while under the old system she'd need to stick with her job to keep her family's health-care coverage. That's how health-care reform can reduce the labor supply. If either case counts as a destroyed job, then so does my winning the lottery and moving to Scotland in search of the perfect glass of whiskey.

“This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied..." (VIDEO)

From the prepared remarks:

...above all, we saw a new generation emerge -- a generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears; a government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations. One Egyptian put it simply: Most people have discovered in the last few days…that they are worth something, and this cannot be taken away from them anymore, ever.

This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied. Egyptians have inspired us, and they’ve done so by putting the lie to the idea that justice is best gained through violence. For in Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence -- not terrorism, not mindless killing -- but nonviolence, moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice once more.

White Board: Goolsbee on the National Wireless Initiative (VIDEO)

Goolsbee speaks to the propeller head in us all:



In this White House White Board Austan Goolsbee, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, explains the National Wireless Initiative, which will help America win the future by building a 21st Century infrastructure.

Saying Farewell to Robert Gibbs (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Fare-thee-well, Robert Gibbs...

See you in Grant Park, in 2012.

President Obama's speech on the National Wireless Initiative (VIDEO)

President Obama discusses the National Wireless Initiative in Marquette, MI, a proposal will help America win the future by building a 21st Century infrastructure.

President Obama Addresses U.S. Chamber of Commerce (VIDEO)

The President's Interview with Billo during the Superbowl Pre-Game Show (VIDEO)

...if you can stomach it.



Interrupt much, Billo?

It's amazing that even in a moment of geninue gratitude, Bill O'Reilly makes it sound like Fox News is the only thing that matters in the universe.

The Fireside Chat for February 5th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President discusses the labs at Penn State as an example of how American innovation, particularly in infrastructure and energy, can create jobs and win the future for America.

Desperate to change the subject after that last post...

I'm posting this not because it has anything to do with anything (other than being a damn good Super Bowl ad for Sunday...and featuring Star Wars), but I wanted to wash the taste out of my mouth from that last video I posted. Euugh.

KFC China, your new commercial was an INCREDIBLY BAD idea... (VIDEO)

Watch it while you can, and don't be surprised if its yanked...and soon.



Lord have mercy.

Was anyone else offended? I was.

Forget the old stereotypes of black men and fried chicken (that was chicken, right? My Mandarin is rusty). But crushing him with it, and having the crowd cheer? Tone deaf much?

Winning the Future with Clean Energy (VIDEO)

President Obama travels to Penn State University and speaks about encouraging and investing in innovation and clean energy technologies to create new jobs, grow the economy, and win the future.

The President's Address at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2011 (VIDEO)

Speech heavy day today:

The Bonddad makes it plain! The Economy Has Turned the Corner.

We talk about the Economy a lot on this blog.  Of course, the mission of Fort McHenryis Political, but I doubt you'll find much argument that the Economy isn't important to the President's re-election prospects. So when it comes to getting plain-english Econ-talk (backed by statistical facts), you gotta go to the Bonddad.

And boy, did he lay it out today!:

Let's start with top line economic growth. The economy has now printed six quarters of GDP growth. Simply put, economies grow in an expansion, not a contraction.

Next, let's turn to retail sales. The Christmas season was the best in several years. More importantly, consumer spending is now at levels higher than the previous expansion, and retail sales have been printing some strong numbers for the last several months. The data indicates the consumer has returned and with thesavings rate fluctuating between 5%-6%, there is plenty of ammo to keep spending.

Next, look at manufacturing, which the recent Beige Book also indicates is doing well. However, we've had two great data prints this week -- the first from Chicagoand the second from the ISM -- indicating that manufacturing is on track -- in fact, more than "on track;" on fire. A cheaper dollar and strong overseas growth should help manufacturing to keep the momentum up.

Services are also in decent shape, although not as good as manufacturing. This does not mean they are in a recession, but it does mean that on a scale of 1 to 10, they're probably 6.5; they're in OK shape, but also appear to be turning the corner. However, with an expanding economy, this sector should continue improving. (UPDATE: The latest ISM was strong as well, printing a stronger number).

Employment also finally seems to be improving. While weekly initial claims have jumped around for the last month, the problems have been administrative, but fundamental. The last two ADP reports have been good and while the BLS data has been weaker, NDD has correctly noted the data has been positive for some time and all the revisions have been positive.

Housing is still a basket case and will continue to be for for some, largely because of a massive inventory overhang. But if that hasn't killed the recovery yet, then it probably won't.

In short, the data (I know, those pesky facts again) indicate the economy has expanded for over a year and most of the underlying components are improving. There has been enough data over a long enough period of time to indicate we're turned the corner.

White House White Board: Austan Goolsbee on Startup America (VIDEO)

This'll show you how much Egypt has sucked the air out of the room. I almost missed this!

President Obama's statement on the Transition in Egypt (VIDEO)

Rich Guys have somehow Jedi-Mindtricked themselves into believing that the First Amendment protects them from criticism.

First off, you don't have to be a football fan to enjoy (or understand) the following story:

If you root for the Washington Redskins, as I do, odds are you loathe Redskins Owner Daniel Synder. Mr. Sydner is a Maryland Grad, a brilliant owner, and one of the worst Owners in Pro Sports. He has managed to improve the Redskins balance sheets while simultaneously guaranteeing q burgundy and gold slump towards mediocrity. (4-12 in 2009, 6-10 in 2010).

Needless to say, the Press has noticed Mr. Synder's inept management of the team and one of them wrote a rather harsh (but funny as hell) article on the history of Synder's terrible, horrible management history. It was called: The Cranky Redskin Fan's Guide to Dan Synder.

Needless to say, Danny didn't like it.

Few of us like criticism (few meaning everyone planet-wide). It would be one thing for Danny to shake his fist angrily at the Washington City paper, or release a statement trashing the paper and the article for...well, whatever reason they saw fit.

But of course, that's not what Danny's doing.

What's Danny doing? He's trying to get the writer of the article fired.

With that we can now tie this Football story into a story worthy of a Political blog.

This isn't the first time Danny's done something like this. As the Skins were imploding in 2009, and the 'Skins fans were letting him have it in every manner possible, he banned signs in Fedex Field.

This seems to be the first tact of the those in power. We saw it in Egypt. We see it in China every day. The first idea that pops into the heads of those in power, when faced with criticism, don't address it, squelch it.

Now, let me not make the Steve Cohen mistake. I am examining an idea, an impulse in the human conditition. While on a really bad Sunday where we're losing to the woeful Detroit Lions, one might be cranky enough to compare Danny Synder to a totalitarian dictator, the comparison isn't really apt.

Danny Synder is an @$$hole. He's a bad businessman. He sucks at what he does, but he's not Murbarak, by any measure or stretch of the imagination.

So let's go back to the idea. Why is the first impluse to squelch dissent? Why do the powerful not only do it, but defend the practise as though it was a natural human right.

I would accept it's a natural human impulse. We're all human, and don't like it too much when criticism is hurled our way, no matter how mild it is. The first impulse is to shut it off. For you or me, that means turning away, walking away, pretending it never happened. While these actions may not be helpful in the long run, they are natural impulses.

But the rich and powerful are in a different position than the rest of us. They not only can turn away from such criticism of their wonderful selves (normal), but they have the ability to make sure no one else hears it either. And now we're into creepy territory.

And worse, as I have said, the rich and powerful tend to confuse their rights as a political authority or their rights as a property owner or business owner...with what is right.

It takes a brave person with a stout heart to turn and face criticism. It takes character. One of the things we're going to have to ask in the future is that people in power and authority have more than a little, and not just claim that they do.

Signs you've been in the Senate too long (a not-too-fond farewell to Orrin Hatch)

Courtesy Ezra.

It's not like I ever liked Hatch to begin with, but he is an arrogant bastard. And while it's very likely we wind up with someone like Mike Lee as his replacement, let it be said, Hatch is going down in 2012, and I won't shed any tears:

Perhaps the most telling moment came when Utah's Orrin Hatch scolded Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor who served as Ronald Reagan's solicitor general and considers the mandate easily constitutional, for the quality of his arguments.

The primary flaw Hatch pointed out in Fried's thinking was that, well, Hatch disagreed with it. Despite his preexisting respect for the quality of Fried's legal thinking, the fact that Fried's position differed from Hatch's had left Hatch "shocked" at Fried, not more skeptical of his own thinking. Motivated skepticism in action, I guess.

The Affordable Care Act represents the last time Liberals will compromise on Health Care Reform

Conservatives...be damn careful what you wish for.  Because this ruling, also makes unconstitutional one of your preferred fantasies.

Ummm, what other thing would you like the Government to make us all go out and buy?

Would it be Stocks and Bonds...with your Social Security money, a scheme known as Privatization?

If you can't stomach the idea of being made to buy Health Insurance, how can you then justify making us all go out and buy stocks and bocks with our Social Security Insurance?

And you do realize that the Affordable Care Act represents something else, don't you?

It's the last compromise.

Yeah, because if you trash this, if you make this law invalid, we Democrats will be left with only one choice when it comes to reforming Health Care...that'd would be something we love, and you hate called: Medicare for all.

Yeah, Single...payer.

Not the Public Option.  Not Medicare at 55, Medicare...for...all.

Game on, fellas.

The next big and dangerous lie about Health Care Reform...

You watch it. What's going to happen is that the 26 Attorneys General who sued the Adminstration over Health Care Reform are going to seize upon Judge Vinson's ruling that the Law is unconstitutional, and start saying: "How dare the President enforce his unconstitutional law."

One problem.

Judge Vinson called the Law unconstitutional...sure.

He neglected...for some reason...to put a stay on it.

That's right, for all the hubbub and hoopla over this ruling, the Judge in the matter neglected stop it from being enforced. Mostly likely because he knew it wouldn't stand up in Court for more than a nanosecond.

Still, that won't stop a lot of Conservative douchebags and liars out there from proclaiming that the Law is unconstitutional. (Uhh, you've got two Judges saying it is, I got two Judges saying it is -- meet you at Anthony Kennedy's desk in a little over a year).

Once again, the Rhetoric around Health Care Repeal will escalate to dangerous proportions, because in their zeal to make their argument (which will be that the President is doing dangerous and unconstitutional things), we continue down the road that led to Congresswoman's shooting, only this time the the consequences might be far, far more tragic.

Do we even know what the Muslim Brotherhood is? (VIDEO)

Seems to me that a great deal of the commentary about the possible future of Egypt rests on a definition of the Muslim Brotherhood that may not be entirely valid.

That's not to say that they're not bad news, they are.  But co-flating The Brotherhood with Al-Qaeda (as a lot of Righties are doing) is not valid (apparently, they hate each other).



Should the Brotherhood get into power Will they be more radical than Murbarak? Yes.

Will they institute Sharia Law? They'll try.

Will they try to walk away from the 1979 Peace Agreement with Israel? Again, they'll try...they might even succeed as Israel is real unpopular in Egypt.

Will they wage War on Israel? Only if they really, really, really want to get their asses kicked by the Israeli Military and have their stay in power only be a few short months. (If the Protests are about a lack of food and jobs, how does attacking Israel, or sparking an attack from Israel help on either of these fronts?) My bet is they shake their fists real, real hard, but stop short of anything provocative, like sending aid directly into Gaza.

Will they attack America? See the Israel answer above, and multiply times fifty.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Mubarak Mu Problems - Samer Shehata
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

Once again, WHY AM I GETTING BETTER INFORMATION ON COLBERT OR THE DAILY SHOW than I am from the News Media?

The slightly out of place (on reflection) Fireside Chat for January 29, 2011 (VIDEO)

By the way, this was done the Wednesday before in Wisconsin, before all hell broke loose in Egypt:



The President discusses his visit to a company in Manitowoc, Wisconsin and how it exemplified his agenda for America to “win the future” spelled out in the State of the Union Address.

The YouTube Interview with President Obama (VIDEO)

Your questions (well, a good handful, not all 300 million Americans) answered by the President.

The President's speech at Families USA (VIDEO)

Egypt is certainly on the minds of friends and loved ones around the world. It is most certainly the most important news story out there right now.

But the fight goes on...still.



From the Hill:

In his most vigorous defense of the healthcare law since Republicans took control of the House, Obama fired back Friday at GOP claims that the law deprives essential care for seniors and balloons the deficit.

“You may have heard once or twice this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity,” Obama said to pro-reform advocates at the Families USA annual conference in Washington. “That just doesn’t match up to the reality.”

Obama’s fired-up rhetoric comes just days after the president offered a more muted defense of the healthcare reform law in the State of the Union address.

The president was firm Friday and used the home-field advantage of a pro-healthcare reform crowd to bolster his defense of the law, which House Republicans voted to repeal only a week ago.

Obama fought back against GOP claims that the bill won’t reduce healthcare costs and would hurt the nation’s seniors while expanding the deficit.

With House Republicans using committee hearings this week to pose the reform law as bad for business, Obama touched on a report from a large business advocacy group that said the law would reduce premiums for workers.

“That’s money that business can use to grow to invest or hire. … That’s money workers won’t have to see vanish from paychecks or bonuses. That’s good for all of us,” he said.

“And I can report that granny is safe,” he added, hitting back at GOP claims that the administration wants to ration expensive care for the elderly.

Steve Benen:

As a rule, consultants tell officials not to repeat the wording of a rhetorical attack, because it only helps lend credence to the criticism, but I'm glad Obama put it this way this morning. The president is, in effect, openly mocking Republicans for transparently ridiculous talking points that are fundamentally dishonest.

And since they deserve to be mocked, this was an entirely appropriate line to take. Instead of getting angry, there's something to be said for a "can you believe these guys?" kind of approach.

President Obama's statement on Egypt (VIDEO)

Ezra. Ever more pessimistic.

I couldn't find a place to snip and cut "Did the Senate just lose the future?" without losing its meaning (a testament to the writer). the last sentence was the killer for me:

The pity of the deal that Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell struck on rules reform is that this was a really good moment for Senate reform. The usual danger with this kind of project is that it'll end up being a power grab directed at passing some discrete pieces of legislation, as when Bill Frist tried to free judicial nominees from the filibuster, rather than an overhaul dedicated to making the institution work better. But with one party controlling the House and another controlling the Senate, there was no way that a more majoritarian Senate could start ramming all sorts of legislation into law. For the next two years -- and probably some time after that -- Barack Obama will not sign anything that John Boehner hasn't already approved. Both Republicans and Democrats had the luxury of contemplating the Senate's workings without giving either party a major advantage in passing new legislation.

Instead, the Senate decided that its current procedures are good enough. There's something slightly terrifying about that. Accepting a dysfunctional legislature is, as James Fallows and others have argued, one way to lose the future. Our problems -- debt, health-care costs, infrastructure, education, etc. -- are on autopilot. Our solutions are not. Obama can give as many speeches as he wants. If we don't have a political system capable of acting on our challenges, we don't have a political system capable of overcoming them.

I've never been a huge fan of 'the constitutional option. My oft-expressed preference was for both parties to recognize that the Senate is broken and requires fairly fundamental reforms. One way to do that would be to phase in the reforms over six years, ensuring that no one knew who would benefit from the more majoritarian institution first. Another would've been to do it now, when divided government would undermine any advantage that Democrats might gain from the new rules, and thus might have given both parties space to participate in the process with more of a long-range perspective.

Instead, both parties decided to back off. There were hard decisions to be made, and they agreed not to make them. They chose the parochial comforts of what they were used to, and what would advantage each of them personally, to the discomfort and sacrifice that creating a more workable legislative process would require.

When I speak publicly, I always get variants of the same question: We've got so many problems to solve. Can we solve them? And the answer I always give is the same: Yes. in most cases, we already know what to do. The question is simply whether we'll do it. And I'm a lot less confident about that.

As much as I personally at "the Club" (aka the Senate) I understand the Founder's intentions. The House is and remains the House of the people, where their passions are recognized, and Legislation passed in accordance with those passions.

Problem is the people are flakes. They tent to jerk the Country too hard one way or the other, and the consequences of such flakiness can be rather dramatic.  WE WANT HEALTH CARE!!!  JUST NOT FOR THOSE PEOPLE!!  WE WANT GOVERNMENT SERVICES!!  JUST DON'T TAX US FOR IT!!!  And of course KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!!!

 Thus, we have the Senate, the saucer that cools (or kills) the drink. It's function is to prevent the leftward-rightward shifts the people want to put the country through are milder, less severe.

Get me a better quality person...and I'll get you a better Senate.

In the end, Ezra notes that we're more worried about what we'll lose rather than what we'll gain, and the Senate is no different.

So why did Senate Democrats agree, in principle, that simple majorities can't change the Senate's rules, and even exceedingly modest changes to the filibuster are out-of-bounds? Easy: They're a simple majority now, but someday soon, they'll be a simple minority. When that happens, they want to be able to mount constant filibusters as well.

To borrow David Brooks's schtick for a minute, there's an easy behavioral explanation for this preference: Loss aversion. Study after study shows that human beings fear the consequences of loss much more than they value the benefits of gains. And so too in the Senate, where the two parties think about the rules in terms of "what happens when I lose" rather than "what happens when I win?"

But if you really think you've got a great agenda and that the voters would agree, that would imply a fantastic upside to rules that allow you to make good on your campaign promises: Either the American people would get to judge you on all the great stuff you want to do, as opposed to all the great stuff you got stopped from doing, or they'd get to judge the other party on all the awful stuff they did, and which you could then reverse with a simple majority vote. That's a coherent theory of the way accountability encourages good ideas and wise governance in American politics. A world in which you can't enact your ideas or govern effectively and so the voters end up thinking you as feckless as the folks across the aisle isn't. That's a world in which the rules of the Senate, and not the policies of the parties, drive outcomes, and thus drive elections. That's a world where voters never know whose ideas are best because neither side can ever enact their agendas. But that's the world the Senate apparently prefers to inhabit.

The point about the Democrats soon (possibly) being in the minority is a point I made yesterday. The only problem I have with this analysis is one of simple human psychology and mathematics.

We're human beings living in the world, living with other human beings. Most of the time, we as individuals we want things (events, items, etc.) and most times, we don't get them (i.e., we don't "win"). And the same time, we tend to forget that other individuals want things as well, and they're not getting them either. You put the two of them in collision and you get a great big stew of people not getting what they want colliding into other people not getting what they want...

...yet somehow we all muddle through.

Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains. Think about that. (--Nuke LaLoosh)

Ezra made it sound like these results are not normal, when they're anything but.

It's also called Democracy.

In the end, Senate Reform for me, isn't about making better rules. The rules are fine. It's the Senators willingness to game them that has broken the system down. It doesn't take a genius to filibuster something, but it does take a particular corruption of the soul to abuse the filibuster the way it has been abused, to use it more times than at any point in History.

One type of person says: Hey, we lost the election. There are more of them than there are of us. These guys what Health Care Reform. Let's see which of our ideas we can get in there to make it more palatable for our side.

The other type of person says: So what if we lost the election. I don't care if there are more of them than there are of us. They don't get their way, period. Let's burn Health Care Reform down, even if we have to take the whole country with us!

Who do you think we've had to deal with in the Senate these last two years?

Get me a better quality of person in the Senate (and I'm not just talking replacing only Conservatives or Republicans believe it or not), get me people more interested in the country than in ideology (...or the club), and I'll get you a better Senate.

I'm sure Professor Dad has a better, more elegant, and mathematical explanation for all this.

Where a Liberal (that'd be me) argues that losing the Filibuster would have been bad, bad, bad...

Ezra banged out this little 'graph, with a twinge of disappointment in his writer's voice:

A few moments ago, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell took to the floor of the Senate to announce a five-point agreement on rules reform. But the five-points weren't, well, the point. The real agreement was on the process by which rules can be reformed.

"As part of this compromise," Reid said, "we've agreed that I won't force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate -- that is the so-called ‘constitutional option’ -- and he [McConnell] won't in the future." In other words, Reid and McConnell have agreed that the Senate's rules cannot -- or at least should not -- be decided by a simple majority. That was what the constitutional option was about, and that's what Reid explicitly rejected in his speech. Why? "Both McConnell and Reid feared what would happen if they were in the minority," explains a Reid aide.

Okay, the big, big thing is the fact that Give 'Em Hell Harry got McConnell to agree to not hold a similar filibuster vote in the future. Why?  Because given the number of Democratic Senate Seats up for grabs in the 2012 election, its quite possible that we're going to lose the Senate as we're re-electing Barack Obama (yes, I'm still way confident that's going to happen). Should we lose the Senate (the number of Democratic Seats up outweighs Teabaggers by 2 to 1) you, me and every other Liberal out there is going to fall so in love with the Filibuster, it's gonna make your head spin like Linda Blair.

Now, if you want to question whether or not Reid can trust McConnell to keep his word, have at it. (Ultimately, to because Senate decorum is more important to these guys than anything else, I actually believe McConnell will keep his word). But as far as the long game, Harry Reid surrendered our ability to get some stuff done in 2011 to keep our ability to hold back a Teabagger Apocalypse in 2013.

Good job, Harry.  Though, I'm betting the Professional Left doesn't see it that way for two more years.

The everlasting value of Mark Penn's advice...

Mark Penn hated the speech.  Couldn't have been all bad, right?

Begala loved it.  He was the one Hillarylander I trusted even back in 2008, though he got on my nerve.  Still, that's a damn good sign to me.

The (Enchanced) State of the Union Speech. January 25, 2010 (VIDEO)

Randi Rhodes once said that to really take in the speech, it was important to watch it on C-SPAN, where there is no commentary on it afterwards by the Pundit class. Separating the speech from the Punditocracy really informs your own opinion about the speech, but in a good way.

That being said, I missed the speech last night. I came in just in time to watch the MSNBC crew going over it (mostly in glowing terms). Then I watched the speech. It was enough separation to let me judge it on its own terms. That being said, I liked the speech. I don't think I flipped over it as much as the Pundit class, but I liked it.

My favorite part, early on, was the moment when he reminded the new House GOP: "By the way...you have to actually govern now, not just say no to everything."

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won’t usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

I believe we can. And I believe we must. That’s what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they’ve determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all -– for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

I'm afraid the lack of specificity is a symptom of how uncertain our times still remain, and, of course, the fact that we got a Republican Congress (thanks stay-at-homers!) and the President doesn't want to show all his cards. After all, drawing a line in the sand, and having to renegotiate that line doesn't exactly win him any friends in the Depressed Left.

Anyway, in deference to the White Houses' ideas (and the fact that any State of the Union isn't the most...cinematic of creations), I have decided to use the White House's "Enchanced" Video, showing all their fancy charts and graphs.

David Shuster speculates (probably pretty damn accurately) what happened to Keith Olbermann

This is from a Transcript of David Shuster's appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources. Remember, David was fired by MSNBC for taping a pilot for CNN (when his MSNBC was about to expire, and it wasn't going to be renewed). David's gag order has been lifted just as Keith's is going to into effect, so judge for yourself:

KURTZ: Let me turn to David Shuster.

SHUSTER: I'm not sure if I can accept your assertions of what was going on at NBC, but in any case --

KURTZ: But you worked there a long time.

SHUSTER: Yes.

KURTZ: You had a good relationship with Olbermann. You filled in for him periodically on "Countdown."

What about this constant friction? I described it as a war between him and top executives at NBC and MSNBC.

SHUSTER: Well, look, I mean, everybody knew that with the new sort of Comcast coming in to take over from General Electric, that the reporting structure within MSNBC was going to be different. Until Comcast comes in, you have Phil Griffin, who very much was a Keith Olbermann protector, reporting directly to Jeff Zucker, the head of NBC News.

Under the new arrangement, Steve Capus, from NBC News, he will essentially be right above Phil Griffin. And so NBC News is going to have much more of an influence over what happens on MSNBC. And I think Keith anticipated, perhaps justifiably so, that his wings might be clipped, that some of the special commentaries that he would be making, that there would be much more sort of deference that would have to be paid to NBC News' standards and judgments.

And I think Keith felt that he built this franchise for eight years, it was highly successful. He treasured his independence, and he treasured the fans, the 250,000 who signed the petitions back in November, demanding that he put right back on the show.

The Fireside Chat (and SOTU Preview) for January 22, 2011 (VIDEO)

Yeah, I know. It's way late.



President Obama discusses the steps he is taking to make America competitive in the short and long terms, and why he chose GE CEO Jeff Immelt to head up the new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Everything's going to hell...unless it isn't...

In the span of twenty minutes, you were told, most assuredly that things were either total crap on the Violent rhetoric front...or getting much better...by two Hosts of two different shows on the same network.

First, we had Keith's Special Comment from Monday night...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

...which bled into Rachel's segment containing happiness, sunshine, rainbows and unicorns (well, happiness, sunshine, rainbows and unicorns for her):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In truth, this is Liberalism. We have debates even among each other. We don't always agree (see: Deal, Tax Cut...and Option, Public), but at least we have the debate. It's not like a version of Colbert's frequent question: "George Bush, Great President...or the Greatest President?!?"

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Great President...or Greatest President?
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

White House White Board: The Cost of Repeal...

The first White Board without the Goolsbee!

Jonathan Cohn: "Why Today's vote matters"

A very nice article from a guy who's been watching this fight for the last couple of years. But the killer paragraph(s) were these:

Today's House vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act is merely symbolic. The Senate will almost certainly not pass it and, even if it did, the president surely would not sign it.

But symbolism matters. It sends a message about values. And so it's worth considering what values this generation of Republicans has decided to embrace.

Over the last year, the Republicans have spent a lot of time arguing that the Affordable Care Act will cost too much, that it will micromanage care, that it will burden business with taxes and bureaucracy. The most outrageous claims, like the notion of government-run "death panels," have zero basis in fact. And even the less explosive arguments frequently rely on flimsy evidence. But the most remarkable thing about the Republican campaign against health care reform is what the advocates of repeal haven't said.

They never bothered to engage with the fundamental moral logic behind the Affordable Care Act--that a modern society guarantees everybody access to doctors, hospitals, and the treatments they provide; that it's wrong to sit by and watch people give up their savings, or their lives, just because they happened to get sick. They have some ideas, yes, but nothing that would come remotely close to insuring 30 million people or bolstering coverage for the people who have it.

As recently as the last debate over health care reform, in the 1990s, prominent Republicans showed sincere interest in finding common ground in order to achieve similar goals. And there are, I know, honest, caring conservatives who still feel the same way. But the Republicans in the House? If they too are committed to helping the un- and under-insured, they haven't shown it.