brought to you and made by socialism

Obsidian Wings: The Regulatory Origins of the Internet:

Patrick Ruffini argues that Obama's alleged regulatory overreaching could (or at least should) move Silicon Valley back into the Republican camp.  I'm not really diving into that, but I wanted to quibble with this statement:

The irony here is that many of the entreprenuers who succeeded in the most unregulated environment possible -- the Internet -- are at once hyper-capitalist and socially-liberal Obama voters. (Good luck creating Twitter or Facebook in any industry as tightly regulated as the auto or banking sectors in the Age of Obama.)

This really can't be repeated enough -- the Internet was regulated.  Regulation is what made it work.  Indeed, the Internet's phenomenal success stemmed directly from the underlying common carrier regulation that made it possible. There was no immaculate conception.  The Internet came about because of sustained federal funding for research and development.  Originally, the data services that ultimately evolved into what we now call "the Internet" depended entirely on access to the underlying phone networks. And so when these data services got going, the federal government faced a choice.  A crossroads, if you will.  The government could ensure that Internet/data services had nondiscriminatory access to the underlying phone networks on which they "rode."  Or, it could have allowed the phone companies (i.e., AT&T) to dictate the terms of access.  (This is basically how most wireless service in America works -- it's the "walled garden" approach.  And don't you loves it?).

Wisely, in the Computer Inquiries proceedings, the FCC opted for open, nondiscriminatory access.  The Twitters of yesteryear didn't need permission from AT&T to start their business.  The nondiscriminatory access that made the Internet successful didn't happen because AT&T was full of benevolent, far-seeing souls.  It was because of government regulation.  (On an aside, that's why the fight over net neutrality is actually a battle to maintain a ridiculously successful status quo).

Given that the Internet is probably the single greatest advance of mankind since the printing press, you could plausibly argue that the Internet is regulation's crown jewel.

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

U.S. corruption to blame for drug trade?

Calderon: corruption in the U.S. fuels drug trade

In an interview with the BBC before the G20 last week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon responded to charges that his country is becoming a failed state. The president cautiously admitted that there is a drug problem, but placed most of the blame on his country's geographic proximity to the world's largest drug market: the United States. More blame falls on the U.S. as well: for allowing weapons to flow across the border. And Calderon theorizes that U.S. corruption is also partly to blame. He theorizes that if corruption allows drugs on the Mexican side of the border, it also must be true that corruption in the U.S. has something to do with the continuing passage of narcotics into that country. Hmm. Does he have a point?

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

“It is easy to convince yourself that one-third of government spending is wasted. I, at least, also find it easy to convince myself that the other two-thirds of government spending buy capabilities and accomplishments that the private market--which, remember, could not exist at all without the institutional underpinnings provided by the government--could never provide at all." --Brad Delong

I could learn from Obama...

David Pacini a Philosopher over at Emory has always pushed me to look long term and be more stoic, in fact he turned me on to the Stoics when we first met. Epictitus' The Art of Living is one of the most influential works I have ever read.

Pacini has pointed to how smart Obama is at navigating politics, and I have to agree, bumps in the road not withstanding the guy is shrewed, elegant, and restrained. I guess you'd call him a leader?

Thought Bob Herbert had some good points this morning in the Times:

While Lindsey Graham was behaving like a 6-year-old on the Senate floor and Pete Sessions was studying passages in his Taliban handbook, Mr. Obama and his aides were assessing what's achievable in terms of stimulus legislation and how best to get there.

I'd personally like to see a more robust stimulus package, with increased infrastructure spending and fewer tax cuts. But the reality is that Mr. Obama needs at least a handful of Republican votes in the Senate to get anything at all done, and he can't afford to lose this first crucial legislative fight of his presidency.

The Democrats may succeed in bolstering their package somewhat in conference, but I think Mr. Obama would have been satisfied all along to start his presidency off with an $800 billion-plus stimulus program.

The leadership is refreshing because I think it leads to good government, which will help end some of the apathy and frustration of nonvoters... which is vital to have in a healthy democracy--which for better or worse is something to desire.

very cool...

Jason Pye points us to The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises...

I doubt you'll see the tax increases for a while... Expectations that i've seen are still for 7-8% unemployment in 2010 with the stimulus package. I don't want to see those increases until the legs are back underneath the economy.

Health Care Crisis

Factcheck.org: Highlighting Health Care

Back in 2003, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies concluded that the societal benefits of covering the uninsured "are likely greater than" the added costs to society. It also determined that the potential economic value from covering all Americans was between $65 billion and $130 billion a year. A more recent report, from the New America Foundation in 2008, reached a similar verdict: "The economic cost of failing to fix our broken health care system is greater than the upfront expense of comprehensive health reform. In 2006, our economy lost as much as $200 billion because of the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured."

Tauzin cited a 2007 study by the Milken Institute, and funded by his organization, that found common chronic diseases had an impact on the U.S. economy, both in real dollars and lost productivity. The Milken study found that seven chronic diseases had a $1.3 trillion impact on the economy annually, with the majority of that figure, $1.1 trillion, in the form of lost productivity. The study didn't call for universal health care as a fix, and some of the diseases could be mitigated with public health measures even without addressing insurance. But the Milken report did say that improving people's health, by increasing prevention efforts and early intervention, and reducing obesity rates – all things that could come about with a solid health plan – would lower costs and boost workers' output.

The ad ends by saying that "quality, affordable health care" is "not just something we should do for America's families. It's something we must do for America's economy." Hours after the group launched the ad, Barack Obama mentioned health care in what was billed as a major speech on the economy, pushing for electronic medical records and echoing the words of Nielsen in saying that an investment in health care (along with energy and education) "will jump-start economic growth."

Taxs cuts--the not so magic bullet...

EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT TAX CUTS LOSE REVENUE

Federal Budget

A Balanced Approach to Restoring Fiscal Responsibility

Rather than spending time trying to hammer out complex budget procedures of dubious merit and effectiveness, policymakers should focus on actual steps they can start taking to reduce projected deficits by slowing the growth of health care spending throughout the U.S. health care system while also reforming Medicare, closing the Social Security shortfall, and raising more revenue. While policymakers may not yet be ready to address such matters fully, they can begin by seeking “grand bargains” involving changes in both the big spending programs and taxes, including the changes suggested below. To be sure, some of these changes will be difficult to enact on their own. But, in the spirit of “shared sacrifice” as exemplified by the deficit‐reduction packages of 1990 and 1993, these measures may be achievable as part of overall deficit‐reduction packages. (Note: Not all signatories to this statement favor all of the following measures, but all favor at least a majority of them.)

• Adopting recommendations of Congress’ Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which could generate substantial savings;
• Increasing the Medicare premiums that affluent beneficiaries pay;
• Instituting vigorous research programs to determine the comparative effectiveness of different health care treatments and procedures as well as what is causing the huge differences in health care costs across the country, and using the results as the basis for new policies to restrain health care costs without compromising health care quality;
• Curbing or eliminating outdated or unproductive tax expenditures;
• Switching to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ alternative, more accurate Consumer Price Index in computing the annual cost‐of‐living adjustments in Social Security and other entitlement programs (while taking steps to shield low‐income and other vulnerable beneficiaries) and the annual inflation adjustments in the tax code;
• Reforming farm price supports; and
• Adhering to Pay‐As‐You‐Go rules for both increases in mandatory programs and tax cuts.

While, taken together, these proposals would have a substantial effect on future deficits, policymakers will need ultimately to enact more extensive measures to achieve long‐term fiscal sustainability.

things good government should do...

fund the humanities.

My wife was just mentioning in the car--during an npr segment on museums trying to keep field trips coming to them in an age of standardized test--that because some kids don't get exposed to culture and broader horizons schools should actively work to engage them in the world around them through the arts, and museums, and different cultures.

Libertarianism, Proper Politics and "Property" Proper

The Lesson of Rod Blagojevich: We Need Better Government!

But if government just doesn’t work, limited government just doesn’t work either. So either go ahead and come out as an anarchist or swallow your iconoclastic loathing of “good government” pap and admit that you want better government. I want better government!

Generally, we’re more likely to get relatively good government in a cultural climate that encourages good government. Ridiculing as naive norms of anti-corruption and civic responsibility doesn’t undermine belief in the efficacy of government so much as expose the one who ridicules as a defector in a crucial cooperative game, undermining his reputation as a sincere advocate of the public interest. It is valuable and necessary to point out that certain institutional arrangements are unstable and invite corruption, and should therefore be reformed. But people are more likely to listen to you if they believe you believe reform is possible.

government...

Mankiw on government expansion during crisis.

He notes that the biggest expansion was from 29-45 saying that with the Great Depression and War this was understandable.

But what is noteworthy is that while these crises were transitory, the increase in the scope of government was permanent.

Then goes on to worry about Rahm Emanuel who apparently said, "You don't ever want to let a crisis go to waste: It's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid." Mankiw worries...

It is not entirely clear what he meant by this. But one interpretation is that he wants to use a temporary crisis as an pretense to engineer a permanent increase in the size of government.

But the way Mankiw frames this is, well, weird. Do you now anyone who sits around trying to make government big? Like, they just like big governments? I read him as saying its an opportunity for the government to begin to be politically responsive to the people who don't feel government is doing its job right now.

Could it be that modern economy's require larger governments than say pre-capitalist agrarian economies? Or that we're now more democratic, and the more more people have desires for what government should be doing--and feel vested enough to demand it? I dunno...

I was more intrigued by his classic framing of the question. No one I know sits around talking about creating big government(aside from conservatives), they talk about good health care, poverty, education, national security.

the jihadists at home...

Muslim’s scarf leads to arrest at courthouse

A Douglasville woman was jailed Tuesday after a judge found her in contempt of court for refusing to remove her hijab, the head covering worn by Muslim women.

Lisa Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, 40, was arrested at the Douglasville Municipal Court for violating a court policy of no headgear, said Chris Womack, deputy chief of operations for the Douglasville Police Department.

corruption in Iraq

Bush Asleep While Iraqi Fraud Funnels Millions To al-Qaeda

former Iraqi officials revealed that more than $18 billion intended to rebuild Iraq may have been lost to local fraud and that millions have been funneled to al-Qaeda by corrupt Iraqis

More from Think Progress:
Rice: No ‘American Money’ In Iraq Was Lost To Corruption

Throughout the U.S. occupation of Iraq, billions in tax dollars have been lost due to corruption and incompetence. Some of the most egregious losses have been via “American programs”:

– The Coalition Provisional Authority delivered 363 tons of cash on an airplane, totaling $12 billion, to Iraq “without assurance the monies were properly used or accounted for.”

– The State Dept spent $36.4 million dollars on weapons and equipment that could not be accounted for because “invoices were vague and there was no backup documentation“.

– Top contractor KBR came under fire last year from government investigators for overpricing its contract by $2 billion, which, for example, included overstating labor costs by 51 percent.

– State Dept. employees testified in May 2008 that the U.S. “allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government,” resulting in the loss of billions in U.S. tax dollars.

The use of private contractors, a major source of the corruption, has skyrocketed under Bush. The government has spent $85 billion on contracts in Iraq and other countries in the first four years of the war. “Taxpayers have been bled dry with massive misuse of public dollars,” observed Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who has spearheaded investigations into waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq.

Thus far, some $50 billion in taxpayer dollars have been spent on the reconstruction of Iraq, which anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International listed as the third-most corrupt nation in the world.

Leiter on Caroline Kennedy

Tales from the American Oligarchy:

Caroline Kennedy, whose main qualification is that she is the daughter of a former womanizing President, wants to be named to the New York Senate seat. That journalists, opinion makers, and ordinary citizens do not laugh in her face at the very idea tells us everything we need to know about the oligarchy in America.

Amen... this hero worship nonsense has done great harm to our democracy.

The trouble with economics

It isn't exactly science, as noted at the economist.com:

First of all, I know that we all consider economics a science, but as sub-fields go, macroeconomics is one of the least science-y. Among the reasons—too many variables, too small samples, no repeatable experiments, and so on. Consider the paper Mr Cowen would have us consider. It examines the American economy from 1955 to 2000, and it excludes all fiscal shocks but those that are orthogonal to the business cycle. What that leaves is, well, not very much. There are similar methodologies in other key papers on the subject, including that by the family Romer, and given the range of multipliers presented I don't know how one could conclude, definitively, that the science isn't there.

Which is why it's important to have a good, qualitative model of the mechanisms involved to supplement the data analysis. Greg Mankiw gave us a potential model for a way in which tax cuts might boost private investment, but it's not clear that his narrative is superior to those explaining just how deficit-funded government investment might work. In short, the data, on its own, isn't compelling enough in such cases to justify policy.

with Mark Thoma also noting:

We have very little U.S. historical data for time periods when the economy is in a depression, so we don't know a lot about the effectiveness of policy in this framework. It's hard to find decent data about the economy prior to 1947 (and make that 1959 for data on money), and we haven't had that many recessions in that time period. And more importantly, we haven't had the deep kind of recession that depression economics is intended to address. When most of your data (half in any case) is from good times, it is not surprising that the empirical evidence finds that crowding out is an important consideration. If we had lots of episodes like the current one to look at, then I would have more confidence in these results, but we don't. Parameters such as the responsiveness of investment and money demand to changes in the interest rate, the marginal propensity to save, etc., can all change drastically in deep recessions, and that means that the results from empirical investigations covering other time periods won't be very informative. I don't think we know much at all from the econometric evidence about the success of fiscal policy in deep downturns. We'll know more in the future because we'll be able to look back at this one, but for now policymakers are flying pretty blind. What we can examine is the experience of the Great Depression, and when you do, the case for fiscal policy is strong.

Go read the rest of Marks Post Depression Economics: Normal Rules Don't Apply, as it takes apart a lot of what conservatives are saying right now... and has an awesome example for answering the question about government spending crowding out private investment.

Nothing like a little propaganda push

Insurers Seek Presence at Health Care Sessions
When supporters of President-elect Barack Obama hold house parties to discuss ways of fixing the health care system over the next two weeks, they may find some unexpected guests.

The health insurance industry is encouraging its employees and satisfied customers to attend. A trade group representing some of the nation’s largest health care businesses, including drug companies, is organizing several meetings. The American Medical Association and other medical societies are encouraging doctors to get involved.

Nothing like a little good old fashioned profit motive to bring more civic participation:

Insurers are also fighting Mr. Obama’s proposal to cut the Medicare payments they receive for providing comprehensive care to more than 10 million of the 44 million Medicare beneficiaries. Many independent studies have found that Medicare overpays the private plans.

Seriously though, whats the difference?

Is What Blago Did Illegal?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment. Obviously, if the tapes are accurate, what Blagojevich was odious and unethical and dishonorable. But was it illegal?

Here's why I ask: the Tribune's reporting that not only was Jesse Jackson Jr. candidate five, but that Blago had a meeting with a business man named Raghuveer Nayak who's a fundraiser for both men, and it was during that conversation that Nayak offered to raise as much as $1.5 million for Blago's campaign fund if he gave Jackson the seat.

OK, it's possible that Jackson had no idea these folks (including, it appears, his brother) were scheming on his behalf. But here's my question: My understanding of the law is that there's a distinction between personal pecuniary interests/compensation and campaign fundraising. In other words: it would be manifestly illegal, obviously, if Blago was "selling" the seat in the sense of trading it fro cash for himself. But is trading the seat for fundraising help really illegal? and if so, doesn't that mean that a huge percentage of political transactions are illegal, including all those conversations during the primary about Obama inducing HRC to drop out in exchange for fundraising help to retire her debt?

I'm not defending this at all. Let me make that clear. I'm saying that politicians trade things for fundraising help all the time, it's half of what they do. So where's the line where that becomes illegal?

this might be satire... (on both our parts?)

comment from a fellow leftist that I highly disagree with:

FDR's and LBJ's fascist tendencies are the reason we have entitlements, and the United Auto Workers' fascist tendencies are the main reason the auto companies are failing. We blame CEOs, and exonerate unionized workers, because CEOs make "excessive" amounts of money, while workers are, well, working. But we never stop to think that CEOs have a lot of talent, education, and jobs that require hard work and much more stress than working on an assembly line. The advantage of being on the left is that you don't have to think or put forth any effort to be considered compassionate.

From this quote Robbie obviously took the side of Marx in his spat with Bakunin. I took the other side and I think history has exposed Marx as having been wrong about decreasing liberty via authoritarianism as an end to be sought.

Entitlements via subconscious pathologies? Robbie you are mixing micro with macro... even more you are taking quick steps from conscious to subconscious. Tough to do which is why I might be misinterpreting some of your positions.

But moving on... how do personal pathologies of elected officials equal out to social policies that are popular? Directly mind you not indirectly... because then everything gets thrown into the interpretation

So did the fascist tendencies of FDR beat the fascist society of Germany? If so then good. Ditto for passing popular legislation.

UAW? If you are opposed to the purchasing power of walmart and want to attack their ceo's then i'd be happy to get into a discussion of the collective bargaining pro's and con's of the UAW. I hold human beings to be more important than excessive shareholder value thats an ideological position on my part. The idea that unions are the reasons for their troubles shows a very shallow grasp of the issue, unions didn't stop the foreign makers from making popular high quality cars. If the American Auto Manufactures management aren't as good as the competitors with managing their unions,well that's a problem but not the unions or the other compainies.

CEO's have talent...well, some do some don't.

Ineptitude and pay rate are not necessarily corollaries.

Larry Summers is getting a promotion to a job in the Obama administration for missing and helping perpetuate the housing bubble!?!?!?

What percentage of economist missed the housing bubble as a major crisis... and/or stayed silent on it 75,85,95%????

How many of them got fired for it?

I am a lowly wage slave mind you so i'm oft to be disingenuous and ignorant of so many things.

As to Robbie's experience from being on the left, that "you don't have to think or put forth any effort to be considered compassionate" I can't speak to it because I have never worked with people and talked about compassion at all. I've always worked with people on the left talking about improving the quality of life for people through policies and organizing. At least in my experience compassion ain't a topic of discussion much.

Mind you compassion (ethics more broadly) often is a topic in my political philosophy classes... and I must confess I do enjoy a good philosophical debate. But when it comes to actual politics and organizing, dealing with very real problems and how to solve them--what I would define as "politics"--there isn't much use for such ivory tower intellectualism. To someone in politics words have meaning... but human consequences are the important issue at hand.

That does drum up some debates within social science has to how and what we are measuring with our analysis. But i'll leave that for anohter day.

If you are trying to keep Iran from pushing for nuclear...

Israel Drafting Blueprint for Iran Attack, Report Says
The U.S. should condemn this and bring other global powers together to sit down with Israel to discuss how we can help decrease their need for aggressive posturing with Iran which inflames the middle east and plays into the hands of the terrorists.

Its not even a smart move...

One Israeli defense official expressed doubt that a unilateral Israeli strike could destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities, which are geographically dispersed and some of which are underground.

“We could not risk an operation which would only partially succeed," the official said. "That would leave us open to a nuclear attack from Iran’s remaining weapons stock. Israel would likely need the support, the backing, of forces from a Western ally to successfully carry out the operation.”

We aren't going to do something between now and 2041???

Jason Pye posted on the social security/medicare crisis stating:

These two programs are cause for serious concern and it is irresponsible of our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, to keep avoiding the issue. But like Sullum says, there is no political will to take it up and we'll pay the price in the long run.

I hate the corruption, red tape, and slowness of a Republic. Our founding fathers consciously put slow reform as a top priority... but I don't seriously believe we won't do something about the health care crisis within the next 10 years or address social security funding between now and 2041. I may be cynical about government but I'm not that cynical.


There is so much here... I don't know where to begin. Both in the description of the problem and then from a political theory perspective...

The 2008 trustee's report:

Social Security's current annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures will begin to decline in 2011 and then turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires.

First we knew that, its not a shocker. In fact we've been taking in more taxes--building the surplus--for that very reason. So its not going bankrupt in 2011... its turning towards the surplus we built up for this very reason:

Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2019 and Social Security reserves in 2041.

Not exactly top priority in the way of "major drains on the budget" (i.e. the Iraq war boon-doggle)

On the "crisis" itself. You'll often see Medicare and Social Security lopped together... to talk about the "crisis." One reason is that the trustee's are mandated (I think it's a mandate) by law to address them together as if they are one program, but this plays right into those who want to drum up business for their fiancial industry buddies. Medicare's crisis is one built on the house of cards we call our health care industry. We pay 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations for health care and get worse quality care for it--we rank 37th in the world for health care according to the world health organization.

Back to the trustee's report:

Medicare's financial status is even worse. This year Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up from general revenues which pay for interest credits to the Trust Fund.

Two things... If we brought competition into the health care market--by way of a government plan that people could choose to buy into if they wanted--we would bring down costs and remove the excessive bureaucracy that runs up your doctors bill and gives you and your doctor headaches dealing with the insurance companies who make money by denying coverage. But there are a lot of people making money off our status quo so the obvious fix, universal health care is off the table of discussion for the "crisis" crew.

So problem one is not only a medicare problem... its a huge private sector problem that has put health care reform on the table for discussion (finally). Meaning we will get some kind of reform soon--many in the business community who opposed the Clinton effort in the 90's are now on board... See here.

If you care about Medicare check out is The Impact of the Medicare Drug Benefit on Health Care Spending by Older Households
December 2008, Dean Baker and Ben Zipperer

So the health care crisis is part of the drag on the long term "crisis" we face with Medicare. Keep in mind its 2008 not 2018... lets fix the health care system now! It'll save the lives of people who are falling through the cracks, save you time and money personally, and help with our fiscal woes. Joining the rest of the industriziled world on this issue is going to be a dynamic long term fix to many problems we face.

Secondly if we aren't taking in enough revenue and needing to dig into the general budget thats a revenue problem (i.e. we are paying enough taxes towards it... gasp!!!) At least the increasing revenue to deal with this problem should be on the table as one solution--but its not even on the agenda of the "crisis" folks.
Further from the report:

The Medicare Report shows that the program could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by an immediate 122 percent increase in the payroll tax (from 2.9 percent to 6.44 percent),

There is also a demographic issue in the form of the baby boomers getting old (which means I'm getting old... sigh...).

But there's a very simple solution to that. Increase the workforce. Increasing immigration--for those who are concerned about the demographic aspect of the "crisis", has got to be a top priority--there is no way around that one (that or heavey subsidies to promote technological innovations that will make our workforce more productive which we used to create this new fangeled thing here i'm typing on, not to mention the internet these words are crossing through).

The majority of these folks do not support free markets, therefore they do not believe in open borders to allow for the free flow of labor--one of the fundamental aspects of "free market theory". In polite society the immigration reform required-- in regards to the demographic crisis--though necessary, is also not on the agenda and therefore is not to be discussed.

Also... and this seems absurd but maybe i'm just not educated enough on such things--how many government programs are projected 75 years!!!

Its hard for economist to project into next year let alone 75 years. It is the dismal science! Thats why the trustee's do three predictions... from bad to rosy. If I remember correctly, the historical long term economic growth we've seen in this country--which we have no reason to believe will change--leans towards a more optimistic forecast. I can't source it off the top of my head--trust me on that one!

There is another fact we often forget. In 2041 its not like there will be zero benefits. Its like 75% of promised benefits--which is adjusted for inflation better benefits than currently received by people on social security.

Bottom line 2041 is a long ways a way and you'll still be getting more bang for your buck. Social security has been in far worse buget situations in the past which we addressed. Don't lose any sleep over it.

Now onto the theoretical questions which I think are very concerning for those of us who believe in democratic principles and living in a civilized world where we are our brothers keeper. If you don't believe we are all in this together--which is an incoherent concept to begin with. Or don't believe in a basic quality of life for your fellow man nothing I have to say will be of any relevance to you. We just disagree. But for those of you concerned about living in a civilized world, where we combat and reject the dog eat dog pathology of our popular culture, I think there are some unstated premises that pop up in regards to this question.

I'll point to two that come to mind from the comments on Jason's post

Again it is all about personal responsibility ....BUT the government with its arrogance and stupidity on the economy have made it all but impossible for the average citizen and I am talking about those who hold legal citizenship to plan,save and execute a workable plan to save for their own future.

incoherent conception of government and market systems. Also I disagree on the question of representation of the population. Social security and medicare are very popular programs. If you believe in democracy in some form or fashion it is an obvious truism that you support fixing not gutting these plans. From the tone of the comments i'll infer this person does not. Difference of opinion. Also note that they state "legal citizenship" therefore this person obviously is not a proponent of free market theory so some of the easy fixes will not be on the table for him. Free flow of labor, as noted above, is an important step in the demographic crisis involved in this issue.

I agree that individuals need to plan for their retirement--these programs are saftey nets. But market systems by definition will cause some people to not thrive. These programs keep millions above the poverty line and provide a basic standard of living for all of our citizens. Freedom means responsibility... and those of us who have benifited from the economy--it is a collective effort mind you--should from an ethical standpoint in my mind provide basic subsitance for others. Take John Rawl's veil of ignorance that sets out to show that

principles of justice would be manifest in a society premised on free and fair cooperation between citizens, including respect for liberty, and an interest in reciprocity.

In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature. This coercion is sometimes thought to invalidate any contractual arrangement occurring in the state of nature. In the original position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a "veil of ignorance", depriving the representatives of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are attempting to agree to.

back to the commentor...

We have a government that is out of control and will not change its ways of stupidity and waste until the citizens see the food from their table going to feed the do nothings in Washington.

I'm not really sure what this means.

When are we going to demand Washington,Atlanta and in my case McDonough stop the wasteful,non essential spending habits they are so fond of?

once again these are popular programs. Therefore the bums in DC actually are--this in situation--representing the people. So it can't possibly be nonessential spending. Again if you don't accept my two theoretical premises this will not logically follow.

So in both the actual facts on the ground... and from a theoretical standpoint--which is quite common and has been for a long time--see moreal teachings of christianity, judaism, Islam, buddhism... for examples--just ask someone on the streets at random. 9 times out of 10 they like democracy and believe humans should have food, shelter, and opportunities to thrive beyond abject poverty.

Also most of the "crisis" folks don't mention they are often just pushing privitization for theoretical reasons and are just looking for any reason to attack these programs. These programs are founded on the belief that we owe citizens of this country a safety net. No one gets left behind.

Some people bleive in an abstration that states its every man for themselves and that a privitized world where your neigher is a consumer and an object of labor who sells themselves on the market for the highest bidder.

Though i'm not necessarily opposed to privitization plans as an add-on to create incentives for further savings beyond the safety net the unmentionable by these types is that the transition costs are huge. If they want to talk about some kind of add on to create incentives for individuals to actually save for their future (which is think is not done enough these days) then you ought to start talking about the way we bring in the revenue to pay for this program. Once again this question is not on the table for discussion.

Anyways that was my two cents for now. I'm sure I left something out...

Just don't worry social security and medicare will be okay if we join the rest of the industrizlied world and fix our health care system. And social security won't be gone tomorrow--at least if we are smart enough to do something about between now and 2041...

by the by if you want to see a cool tool that helps put our health insurance crisis into perspective and helps us look at the buget issues more objectively, check out CEPR's Health Care Cost-Adjusted IOUSA Deficit Calculator which

allows you to see what the projected U.S. budget deficit would be, as a percentage of GDP, if the United States had the same per person health care costs as any of the countries in the list below, all of which enjoy longer life expectancies than the United States. All of the other budget assumptions are the ones used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which form the basis for the scary deficit numbers in IOUSA. Each country is listed with its life expectancy in parentheses.

Or on the question of privitization: Accurate Benifits Calculaor which

compares current-law Social Security benefits to the Bush Plan based on "Progressive Indexing" and the 2005 State of the Union proposal, which includes private accounts paid for by 4 percentage points of the employee's payroll tax

And if your worried about the economy. Call your Representative and demand a fiscal stimulus plan (see the open letter from over 375 economist calling on a quick, effictive bill which "should be in the range of $300 to $400 billion per year and should be geared toward targets that inject capital into the nation's economic system immediately" )

update: Jason responds with a good chess move...

update part deux: ah the en passant