“Doomsday Prepper Economics”: The Weird Obsession That’s Ruining The GOP
Call it doomsday prepper economics. For more than five years, many Republicans and conservatives have warned that catastrophe is nigh. Washington’s deficit spending and the Federal Reserve’s excessive money printing will lead to a financial crisis worse than the Great Recession, they prophesied. Inflation will skyrocket, the dollar will collapse, and the Chinese will dump treasuries, they swore. As Ron Paul, the libertarian former GOP congressman and presidential candidate, said back in 2009: “More inflation is absolutely the wrong way to go. We’re taking a recession and trying to turn it into a depression. We’re going to see a real calamity.”
Many GOP politicians have since echoed Paul’s prediction. But the Next Great Inflation never happened. The Consumer Price Index, including food and energy, has risen by an annual average of just 1.6 percent since 2008, below the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target. During the Great Inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s, by contrast, prices rose five times faster.
This information isn’t a secret. The Labor Department releases inflation data monthly on its website. Yet inflation fears still rage on the right. Those concerns are a big reason why Republicans continue to push for a balanced budget ASAP. They’re why the GOP wants to saddle the Fed with restrictive new rules.
Regardless of the potential merits of those policy ideas, the inflation alarmism driving them is taking a weird turn. Some Republicans and conservatives now argue that Washington is figuring inflation all wrong, maybe even intentionally. Better, they say, to trust independent outside sources such as the website ShadowStats, which “exposes and analyzes flaws” in government economic data. According to one set of ShadowStats calculations, the true inflation rate is nearly 10 percent today. The inflation truth is out there.
In a recent National Review Online article, conservative author Amity Shlaes approvingly cites ShadowStats as supporting her thesis that “inflation is higher than what the official data suggest.” Others fans include conservative intellectual Niall Ferguson, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), and a good chunk of the conservative blogosphere.
ShadowStats’ popularity on the right is crazy — because the site’s methodology has been roundly ridiculed by both economists and business journalists. Critics also note that the subscription price for the ShadowStats newsletter has remained unchanged for years. Inflation for thee, but not for me. Beyond that, MIT’s Billion Price Project, which tracks prices from online retailers every day, puts U.S. inflation at just over 2 percent. And consider this: If inflation were really 10 percent, that would mean the real economy, adjusted for inflation, has been sharply shrinking — yet somehow still adding 2 million net new jobs a year.
If GOP inflationistas had their way, the weak U.S. recovery would almost surely be even weaker. Just look at Europe. Unlike the Fed, the inflation-phobic European Central Bank sat on its hands despite weak growth. The result has been an unemployment rate nearly twice America’s and a nasty double-dip recession. Of course, inflation is lower than in America — so low, in fact, that the region risks a dangerous deflationary spiral of falling prices and falling wages.
Why this GOP inflation obsession? Maybe it’s a legacy of how rapidly rising prices in the 1970s swept conservatives into power in both America and Great Britain. Maybe it’s how many conservative talk radio shows are sponsored by gold companies who stand to benefit from inflation hysteria. Maybe it’s a belief that every single economic metric must be a nightmare under President Obama.
But whatever the reason, the GOP’s preoccupation with phantom price increases is distracting it from the actual problems afflicting the U.S. economy — such as low social mobility, stagnant wages, and the decline of middle-class work. The price of not addressing those issues is rising every year. And that is the kind of inflation worth obsessing over.
By: James Pethokoukis, DeWitt Wallace Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: The Week, July 23, 2014
“Chosen By God?”: Bachmann, ‘There’s A Chance I Could Run’ For President In 2016
Michele Bachmann may be retiring from the House of Representatives, but that doesn’t mean that she’s ready to leave the spotlight. In news that should depress Republicans (and thrill fans of This Week In Crazy), the Minnesota congresswoman now says that she may run for president again in 2016.
Bachmann, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination in 2012, floated the possibility of another White House bid in an interview with RealClearPolitics.
“The only thing that the media has speculated on is that it’s going to be various men that are running,” she said in response to a question on whether any Republican women might join the 2016 race. “They haven’t speculated, for instance, that I’m going to run. What if I decide to run? And there’s a chance I could run.”
The notion probably isn’t sending a shiver down Hillary Clinton’s spine. Although Bachmann’s victory in the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa in 2011 briefly elevated her to the top tier of Republican contenders, her candidacy rapidly bottomed out and collapsed. It was exactly as crazy as you might expect; along the way, the campaign allegedly committed multiple campaign finance violations, and Bachmann allegedly fell under the “unnatural,” “Rapsutin-like” influence of a campaign advisor.
Bachmann ultimately finished in 6th place in the Iowa Caucus, and dropped out shortly thereafter. But according to the congresswoman, that experience would “certainly” help her if she chooses to run again.
“Like with anything else, practice makes perfect,” she said. “And I think if a person has gone through the process — for instance, I had gone through 15 presidential debates — it’s easy to see a person’s improvement going through that.”
Bachmann has claimed that in 2012, she was a “perfect candidate” who “didn’t get anything wrong” and was literally chosen by God — so she’s setting a pretty high bar when she promises to improve.
Still, it’s unclear why Bachmann would bother to seek a four-year term in the White House. After all, according to her, we’re already in the End Times.
By: Henry Decker, The National Memo, July 23, 2014
“A Partisan Axe To Grind”: An ‘Unfortunate Political Stunt’ Goes Awry
Earlier this year, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) thought he’d come up with a great idea: he’d file a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act in the hopes of making coverage more expensive for Capitol Hill staff. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Johnson’s home state of Wisconsin, conceded the senator’s lawsuit was “frivolous” and an “unfortunate political stunt.”
Yesterday, in a development that was arguably even more important than it appears at first blush, a federal judge threw out the case.
A federal judge based in Green Bay has tossed a Sen. Ron Johnson’s Obamacare lawsuit targeting the health benefits for members of Congress and their staff.
The court dismissed the lawsuit, which contended the Obama administrations decision to grant employer contributions for health plans purchased through the District of Columbia’s Obamacare health exchange ran afoul of the law.
Chief Judge William C. Griesbach of the Eastern District of Wisconsin ruled that Johnson and fellow plaintiff Brooke Ericson lacked standing, siding with the argument made by the government’s lawyers.
The hurdle for Johnson’s lawyers was always going to be difficult to clear: how would the Republican senator demonstrate he’d been harmed by the health care policy he doesn’t like? Remember, when filing a lawsuit challenging the legality of a law, plaintiffs can’t just say, “I don’t like it.” They need to show how they’ve been adversely affected by it.
Johnson couldn’t, so his case was dismissed. But this is more than just a setback for one Republican senator with a partisan axe to grind; this is also likely the start of things to come for the GOP’s anti-Obama litigation.
Let’s not forget that in April, Johnson not only had high hopes for his case, he also had the enthusiastic support of his Republican colleagues. As we talked about at the time, 38 GOP senators signed onto a legal brief, urging the courts to rule in Johnson’s favor.
As these lawmakers saw it, they were fighting for the preservation of the republic. “The unlawful executive action at issue in this case is not an isolated incident,” the brief said. “Rather, it is part of an ongoing campaign by the executive branch to rewrite the Affordable Care Act on a wholesale basis.”
The courts must side with Johnson, the GOP lawmakers’ brief added, because the administration’s campaign “threatens to subvert the most basic precept of our system of government.”
It was, to be sure, a dumb and overdramatic argument. But more important, it also failed miserably – a federal judge ruled late yesterday that without standing to argue the case, far-right lawmakers will have to pursue their preservation of the republic in some other way.
One wonders if House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) took note of the developments.
As for the underlying policy issue, a little background is probably in order. Johnson argued that Democrats came up with a congressional subsidy in the ACA “once members realized how harmful Obamacare actually was.” That was brazenly false.
In reality, the law includes a provision that says members of Congress and their staffs have to sign up for coverage through an exchange. This became tricky because the exchange marketplaces were designed primarily for the uninsured, but Republicans said they wanted this in the law, so it’s in there.
But the story got a little more complicated when the Office of Personnel Management had to decide whether lawmakers and their staffs should also receive the same employer subsidy as everyone else, or whether everyone on Capitol Hill should face higher costs just because they work on Capitol Hill. OPM, with the blessing of the House Republican leadership, said lawmakers and aides can keep the same employer subsidy and play by the same rules as everyone else.
And that’s why Johnson sued – he wanted Capitol Hill employees to pay more for health care because it would make the right feel better. As of yesterday, the argument is a bust.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, July 22, 2014
“Judicial Neutrality Is Nothing But A Farce”: The Latest ObamaCare Decision Makes It Official, We Need More Liberal Judges
After the passage of ObamaCare in 2010, dozens of conservative wonks, activists, and lawyers began poring over the text of the law, trying to find some legal foothold to overthrow as much of it as possible. First they argued that the law’s individual mandate was unconstitutional in NFIB vs. Sebelius, which was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2012. However, the decision weakened the law by making its expansion of Medicaid optional, which led most conservative states to reject it and deny coverage to millions of poorer Americans.
Then, in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, conservatives attacked the scope of the law’s mandated coverage, arguing that the inclusion of certain kinds of contraception violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That one they basically won, though the damage was minimal.
You’ll know these efforts by what conservatives usually call them: “judicial activism.” It paid off again today, with a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealing a sharp blow to ObamaCare’s subsidy system. Adrianna McIntyre explains:
The suit alleges that subsidies should only be available in states that set up their own insurance exchanges, based on the text of the Affordable Care Act. The government can still appeal, but if it ultimately loses the case at the Supreme Court, it’s possible that federal subsidies will no longer be available to help make insurance affordable in over 30 states.
Due to what appears to many outside observers to have been poorly crafted legislative language, Congress arguably wrote a sentence that provides subsidies exclusively to state-based exchanges and not to federally facilitated ones, even while subjectively intending to provide subsidies in both cases. [Vox]
Now, Halbig v. Burwell is only a preliminary ruling. The government probably will request an “en banc” ruling before the entire appellate court, which leans to the left — thanks to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushing through filibuster reform that filled its long-empty seats with President Obama’s appointees. What’s more, another ruling hours later by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, upheld the ObamaCare subsidies, deferring to the government’s interpretation of the language to mean that it is authorized to dole out those subsidies. It’s possible this will all end up before the Supreme Court, increasingly America’s only policy-making body of consequence.
God only knows what the high court will decide. Thirty-six states did not create their own ObamaCare exchanges, which means that upholding Halbig would swipe the subsidies from something like 87 percent of people who bought insurance on the federal exchange — about 4.7 million of them. Premiums would shoot up by an average of 76 percent, basically crippling the law. An individual mandate is unjustifiable without subsidies for people who can’t afford insurance. Chief Justice John Roberts might balk at destroying the keystone achievement of the Obama presidency on what amounts to a trivial technicality — or he might not.
What we do know is that the concept of judicial “neutrality” is nothing but a farce. The conservative goal is to pick at any possible legal thread and mobilize the judicial system to achieve their aim of destroying the law and throwing millions of people off their health insurance, even if the underlying legal rationale is wildly tendentious or weaselly or undemocratic. There will be Republican-appointed judges who will buy such arguments wholesale, as evidenced by the conservative majority in Halbig, which didn’t even bother to hide their scorn for the government’s case.
Indeed, half the reason so many states don’t have exchanges in the first place is that a Cato Institute analyst named Michael Cannon has been crossing the nation telling them not to, with the deliberate object of maximizing the damage to ObamaCare if the courts endorsed Halbig-style reasoning.
Liberals need to jettison the impossible idea of neutral, objective judges, and just get avowed lefties appointed wherever possible. As conservatives have demonstrated, that’s simply how the system works.
By: Ryan Cooper, The Week, July 22, 2014
“Arrogance Cloaked In Humility”: Conservative Judges Are Ganging Up To Steal Your Affordable Healthcare
Tuesday morning, two competing courts – and the conservative judges turned silent partisan assassins that dominate them – put at risk the affordable health insurance on which millions of Americans have already come to rely. These six robed men in Washington and Virginia, within about two hours, have now set up yet another US supreme court showdown on the Obamacare law Republicans on Capitol Hill just couldn’t kill, despite trying more than 50 times.
Up first: an outrageous two-to-one decision by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruling against sensible subsidies that real people need, based on what we can charitably called the “reasoning” of the two Republican nominees on the three-judge panel – the opinion was written by an appointee of George HW Bush, along with a judge nominated by his son.
They were asked to decide on the legality of the subsidies based on the precise wording of the Affordable Care Act, which provided health benefits to non-affluent Americans purchasing insurance from federal exchanges newly established under President Obama’s signature health-care law. In the literal language of the statute, subsidies are available to those purchasing insurance on “state exchanges”, although a majority of exchanges were ultimately established in the states by the federal government because of state-level Republican hostility to the law. Sensibly, the Internal Revenue Service allowed anyone who purchased from any exchange – federal or state – to qualify for the subsidies.
The Bush-appointed judges, however, aren’t much for being sensible: they ruled instead that only those who purchase insurance from the exchanges established by the states are allowed subsidies.
In what can only be described as black comedy, the majority opinion concludes with paeans to judicial restraint. (One is reminded of Lewis Carroll’s Walrus, “deeply sympathizing” with oysters prior to having “eaten every one”.) “We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance,” the majority wrote, going on to concede the following:
[O]ur ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.
But they are compelled, you see, to inflict these consequences as a means of “ensuring that policy is made by elected, politically accountable representatives, not by appointed, life-tenured judges.” For two judges to subvert the clear purpose of the law in the name of judicial restraint is, to borrow Justice William Brennan’s phrase, arrogance cloaked as humility.
The sole dissenting judge, Harry Edwards, in his tour de force dissent, made clear his distaste for appointed judges making new law – and pointed out that the majority opinion requires the courts to ignore all the sound principles of statutory construction.
Congress clearly thought the subsidies were essential to the functioning of the exchanges, and it permitted the federal government to establish exchanges in order to prevent states from thwarting the aims of the ACA – which is to help people buy more affordable health insurance.
The majority’s reading, however, would allow hostile states to do exactly what the law was designed to prevent: by refusing to establish a state exchanges, they could effectively stop all the exchanges from working properly.
As Edwards observes, the majority’s interpretation “is implausible because it would destroy the fundamental policy structure and goals of the ACA that are apparent when the statute is read as a whole”. Plus, not a single state government – even those hostile to the law – believed that the statute demands what the majority says it does. Nobody is confused about what the law intended, but some people who oppose the ACA on political grounds are opportunistically pretending to be.
Meanwhile, just across the Potomac River, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was charged with hearing a different case on the same question. But it ruled in favor of the administration, effectively siding with the first ruling’s minority opinion. That’s the sort of legal dichotomy – however strange the buzzer-beater timing – that pretty much guarantees the supreme court will ultimately answer this question for all the Americans using the federal exchanges.
That’s slim comfort for some: while most of the law narrowly survived a constitutional challenge that made it to the supreme court, the number of Americans covered by it would be much higher had the court not used bafflingly illogical reasoning to re-write the act’s Medicaid expansion in a separate ruling, which made it easier for states to opt out of that provision.
That’s all part of the Republican strategy, of course: once they lost their battle in Congress to ensure that as many non-affluent Americans as possible would continue to experience the “freedom” of going without health insurance coverage, they’ve been throwing ad hoc legal arguments at the ACA, hoping that something would stick.
Don’t be fooled that the judges who hear these challenges are not influenced by the ongoing political partisanship. As Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress demonstrated, both judges who ruled against the subsidies today are highly partisan Republicans.
Despite Republican efforts, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine published last week found that 20m Americans are now covered by the exchanges and Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care Act. For all its imperfections, the law is a striking policy success and has done a great deal to address a major national problem. However, the Republican party – and most of its agents on the federal courts – would still prefer the number of Americans who benefit from the law to be much lower, as evidenced by their legal strategy.
The only good news is that this decision against the subsidies may not stand. The federal government is expected to appeal for a hearing from the entire DC circuit court, and it is unlikely that the full court would reach the same conclusion. It’s also far from clear that opponents’ argument could command a majority of the supreme court, where the cases are probably headed.
But it’s still remarkable that an argument this legally weak – and with such destructive human consequences – could command support from the majority of an appellate panel. Given the active Republican hostility to the Affordable Care Act, and the party’s utter indifference to the fate of the millions of people is helping, there’s no way to be entirely confident that the supreme court won’t use the opportunity of a new case to take something else away from the Americans who need it.
By: Scott Lemieux, The Guardian, July 22, 2014
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 