Monday Cartoon Fun: Peanuts Edition

"854,000 People...Hold Top-Secret Security Clearances"

Dana Priest of The Washington Post publishes her first part of a multi-part series on secrecy in America. Here are some rather sobering, if not frightening, findings:

A hidden world, growing beyond control

The investigation's other findings include:

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

Senate Confirmation Rules

SENATE RULES XXIV,

PARAGRAPHS 1-9:

CONFIRMATION OF

A PRESIDENTIAL

NOMINEE.

BY ITAMAR MOSES

- - - -

1. Whenever the name of a nominee shall be submitted, its introduction shall, if objected to, be postponed for one day or, if there are no objections, for two days.

2. (a) When the name of a nominee has been introduced, the Presiding Officer, having taken the chair, and a quorum being present, shall immediately bring the chair back from wherever he has taken it, unless by motion the return of the chair shall be waived, the question being, "Shall the Presiding Officers bring back the chair he took?" which question shall be deemed privileged and proceeded with until disposed of, i.e. the question, not the chair, excepting as provided for in subparagraph (b).

(b) The chair itself can also be disposed of, too, sure, in the event that the Presiding Officer's doctor said this might be better for his back.

3. (a) The 'chair question' having been satisfactorily resolved, the Senate shall proceed immediately to an up or down vote on the nominee, excepting as provided for in subparagraph (b).

(b) Just kidding, the Senate will not proceed immediately to a vote. First, the President must submit the recommended forms, 'recommended' in this case meaning whatever forms each Senator happens to request. The recommended (i.e. required) forms may include but are totally totally not limited to:

• Certificate of Appointment of Nominee

• Certificate of Authenticity of Certificate of Appointment of Nominee

• Certificate of Authenticity for At Least Two Items of Sports Memorabilia (e.g. Significant Home Run Ball and Lock of Athlete's Hair)

• Certificate of Deposit of Monies into Coffers of Requesting Senator's Home State

• Certificate of Ownership of a 1991 Mazda Protégé

• Photo of the President Shaking Hands with a Firefighter

The President may, if he so chooses, divide his staff into two teams to complete the scavenger hunt. The winning team shall receive a pizza party.

(c) The required recommended forms having been duly submitted, their introduction shall immediately, and without delay, be postponed indefinitely until such time as everyone sort of has the sense that it's been long enough. Whatever. It's not a science. You sort of know it when you feel it.

4. Vacay! Everyone takes six weeks off.

5. Okay. So. Each member of the Senate having used the forms as they see fit, for instance as kindling, or to write reminders on the back of to themselves of stuff they might otherwise have forgotten to do, the Senate shall now at long last proceed, immediately, to an up or down vote on the, haha, no, but really, they are nowhere near voting at this point, just relax, okay? So, no, seriously guys, next this happens:

6. (a) The Nominee having been brought before the Senate for questioning, and having answered three riddles of increasingly fiendish complexity, and thus not having been devoured by the Manticore, shall immediately, and without any delay whatsoever, begin counting to fifty million billion trillion. During which counting, the Presiding Officer shall announce, "And if you mess up, guess what, you get devoured by the Manticore."

(b) In absence of a Manticore (like, say, if they've been hunted to extinction, because someday it will be a long time from now and we, the Founding Fathers who are writing these Rules and Regulations, have a lot of foresight, and let's face it anything can happen) the Presiding Officer may simply smite the Nominee with his cutlass blade. If people aren't even using cutlasses anymore, well, then, we're at a loss. Next you'll be telling me that one of the Presidents coming up a long time from now will be Ronald Reagan. The actor.

7. Roll the dice. If you roll a six, return to step 2. If you roll anything other than a six, return to step 1.

8. Seriously, what are things like in the future? Like, if you're not using cutlasses anymore, then how the heck do people kill each other? Probably with some kind of laboratorium scientifico freeze ray, right? And I bet you don't even walk from place to place anymore but rather fly around on the backs of your slaves. Actually, slightly more than half of us are pretty sure that slavery is wrong, so we're assuming that we eventually found the courage to abolish it, probably with little or no fuss, but in case we pussed out and it's still around, I guess you could make good arguments on both sides. Well, that's not true, but who knows? Like we said before anything is possible. We still have freaking Manticores back here

9. Thusly, with all of the above rules having been correctly followed and all requirements having been met, the Senate shall, at that very instant, pausing neither for breath nor something alliterative with 'breath' that we'll add in later when we think of it... bone, maybe? No, that doesn't make sense. But anyhow, right away, and for real this time, the Senate shall vote on the Nominee. And they shall vote 'No.' Better luck next time, Mr. President.

Citibank Gets Money--Lots Of Money

Secretary Reich informs us that we are all going broke, unless you happen to be one of the assholes that broke us!

Citigroup Scores

If you had any doubt at all about the primacy of Wall Street over Main Street; the utter lack of transparency behind the biggest government giveaway in history to financial executives, and their shareholders, directors, and creditors; and the intimate connections the lie between Administrations -- both Republican and Democratic -- and the heavyweights on Wall Street, your doubts should be laid to rest. Today it was decided the government will guarantee more than $300 billion of troubled mortgages and other assets of Citigroup under a federal plan to stabilize the lender after its stock fell 60 percent last week. The company will also will get a $20 billion cash infusion from the Treasury Department, adding to the $25 billion the bank received last month under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

This is not a particularly good deal for American taxpayers, but it is a marvelous deal for Citi. In return for all the cash and guarantees they are giving away, taxpayers will get only $27 billion of preferred shares paying an 8 percent dividend. No other strings are attached. The senior executives of Citi, including those who have served at the highest levels in the US government, have done their jobs exceedingly well. The American public, including the media, have not the slightest clue what just happened.

Meanwhile, more than a million workers in the automobile industry, along with six million mortgagees, and a millions of Americans who depend on small businesses and retailers for paychecks, are getting nothing at all.

Elected Officials: Dumber Than You!

Jonathan Turley always has shocking stuff at his blog. This, though not surprising, is rather shocking!

Elected Officials Score Lower on Civics Tests Than Average Citizens (Who Score Lower than Basic Condiments)

Published November 23, 2008

American elected officials showed a shocking lack of knowledge about government, history, and basic constitutional principles. They scored a failing grade of just 44 percent on a basic test of knowledge of our nation in a quiz by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). Average citizens scored 49 percent. Note: many of these people scored less than a random or blind selection of answers — quite an achievement.

It's A Beautiful Day!

Willacy County Grand Jury Indicts Vice President

Tuesday , November 18, 2008 Posted: 02:38 PM

Several political figures also indicted

WILLACY COUNTY - A Willacy County grand jury has indicted a number of political figures, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

Indictments have not yet been made public and we're told a district judge still has to sign the indictments. Two state district judges are also indicted along with Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr.

NEWSCHANNEL 5 is digging to find out more. Senator Lucio has already issued a statement in response to the indictment. It says a motion will be filed to quash Senator Lucio's indictment this week.

NEWSCHANNEL 5 is working in Willacy County right now and will bring you the latest when it becomes available.

Note To Obama: Don't Let Them Slide!

The Rule Of Law

by hilzoy

From the AP:

"Barack Obama's incoming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists during the George W. Bush presidency. Obama, who has criticized the use of torture, is being urged by some constitutional scholars and human rights groups to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush administration.

Two Obama advisers said there's little — if any — chance that the incoming president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.

The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans are still tentative. A spokesman for Obama's transition team did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Additionally, the question of whether to prosecute may never become an issue if Bush issues pre-emptive pardons to protect those involved."

This is a big mistake. It is enormously important that we establish the principle that members of the government cannot break the law with impunity, and we cannot do that without being willing to prosecute them when, as in this case, there is overwhelming evidence that they violated the law. This is especially true of the most senior members of government, like the Vice President.

That said, I can easily see why Obama might not want to do this. The problem isn't just that it would be bad for him to be seen as carrying out a partisan witch hunt; it would also be bad for the law, and for these prosecutions, if they were seen as a partisan witch hunt.

Luckily, there's a fairly obvious solution to this problem. Obama should appoint a special prosecutor. (If current laws do not allow for this, they should be changed.) This prosecutor should be someone with an unimpeachable reputation for wisdom, rectitude, and non-partisanship. (Think Archibald Cox.) He or she should be given complete independence, and should decide, without any interference from anyone in government, whether or not to bring charges. That would allow charges to be brought if they are merited, while minimizing the chances that they would be seen as partisan.

Altogether too many people believe that the laws do not apply to people in power. This is always a dangerous thing for people to think in a democracy; it is especially dangerous since some of the people who believe this are in power now, and others might attain power in the future. It is very, very important that this belief be wrong. And whether or not it is wrong depends on President-elect Obama. I hope he chooses wisely.

Yes, yes, and yes. As a teacher I think consequences are necessary to learning. This administration has violated many laws, yet nothing has happened to them. Obama needs to think about the world he is leading, and who lives in it--like his daughters and my son. To do nothing would be silly season!

Take Lieberman's Manhood!

In case you weren't sure how to vote in the poll at the top of the site, here's 2 minutes of reminding. I suppose he can caucus, but take away his gavel!

Paulson Screwed Us, Gave Banks Secret $140B

How surprising typical:

The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.

Read it and weep. When is inauguration day?

Teachers And Time

Eduwonk has an interesting piece up. What happens if you are late to work, or miss work all together? Do 20 children get left alone with no supervision? Well, for a teacher, that's what often happens. This is a problem.

Time Off!

Well, a lot of teachers got Tuesday off as schools are increasingly closing on election day to make it easier to operate as polling places. But, as Ed Week reports here and here, teacher absenteeism is a larger issue than that. I get the idea that different policies can influence consumption of sick leave and so forth and those are issues worth considering. Still, aren’t there larger issue here?

Teachers get very frustrated that they end up spending their Saturdays doing the things that other workers get to do during the week. They can’t take lunches with friends for 9 or 10 months of the year. It’s hard to take a morning, or an afternoon, for personal issue. And even trips to the doctor become a logistical hassle.

Of course, when you’re thinking about schools there is a basic custodial function that matters. At a lot of jobs if you show up late it’s not that big of a deal. If you’re a first-grade teacher, it’s a big deal…

Yet shouldn’t we be having a bigger conversation about how to organize schools so that teachers have more discretionary time both for personal issues but also to collaborate together and so forth around the work? We could address some lifestyle issues that matter while also addressing the larger absenteeism issue through creative use of schedules and other ideas in that vein. Someone has to be with the kids at all times, but we can be a lot more creative about who that person is in a way that makes schools a more attractive place to work for the key members of our labor force — teachers. One school I’m aware of uses a concierge to help teachers with basic life maintenance issues to free up their time. Sounds gratuitous but is actually a really smart way to look after your people and one that is not uncommon in some other fields. Other places are experimenting with schedules.

Coupled with sensible policies on leave seems we need a lot more ideas in that spirit.

My district does not take off election day. But I think it is a great idea. In fact, why not make election day a federal holiday (except for the poll workers, the press, and the other essentials)?

2nd Amendment Blues

Yesterday, an idiot father and and even more brain-dead “instructor” allowed an eight-year-old boy to fire a fully automatic Uzi submachine gun at an event billed as, “all legal and and fun! — No permits or licenses required!!!” Naturally, the gun kicked up, as it is designed to do, flipping toward the child who managed to shoot himself in the head with it. Since kids’ heads aren’t all that heavily armored, we now have a little boy who will never see his ninth birthday.

So, little Christopher Bizilj is dead, dead, dead. His father, Dr. Charles Bizilj, director of emergency medicine (if you can believe it) at a hospital in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, got to watch his son bleed out from a head wound on the floor. And the people who put this little event together have to look at themselves in their mirrors and ask themselves the simple question, “What the FUCK made me think it was a good idea to put a submachine gun in a child’s hands?”

As a parent and teacher, this horrifies me.
h/t Newshoggers

We Live In A Constitution-Free Zone!!

Did you know you could be arrested because you live 100 miles from the border? So do 66% of your fellow countrymen! Read on......

ACLU highlights 'Constitution-Free Zone' 100 miles from border
Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday October 22, 2008

This past summer, Craig Johnson joined dozens of other activists in a San Diego-area park to protest the expansion of a fence along the US-Mexico border.

An associate professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, Johnson says he took his two children, aged 8 and 10, to Border Field State Park in Imperial Beach in June. Scores of border patrol agents were on the scene, Johnson said, and some were recording license plate numbers from protesters' cars parked a more than a mile away from the border.

It seems that Johnson's participation in the anti-fence demonstration may have landed him on a government watch list that has inhibited his ability to travel freely between the US and Mexico. A professor of Music, Johnson said he traveled to Tijuana about a week after the protest; upon returning to the US, Johnson says he was handcuffed and arrested by customs agents after a listing associated with his name pegged him as armed and dangerous.

"I was thoroughly and aggressively searched. ... Every inch and crack and crevice of my body was poked and prodded," Johnson said. "I was in complete bewilderment of what was going on; I felt violated and frankly was embarrassed."

Prior to that visit, Johnson said he had traveled regularly between the US and Mexico for a variety of reasons without facing any harassment. After the June visit, Johnson said he did not cross the border again until October, when he decided to go simply to see whether he could re-enter the country easily. He was subjected to the same harassment.

"It took me four months to return to Mexico," he said. "Not because I'm afraid of traveling outside my own country, but rather because I'm afraid of returning home."

Johnson spoke Wednesday at a gathering organized by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is highlighting the extent to which the Department of Homeland Security is expanding the authority it claims at US border crossings to infringe upon Americans rights.

The ACLU says a "Constitution-free zone" exists within 100 miles of the US border, where DHS claims the authority to stop, search and detain anyone for any reason. Nearly two-thirds of the US population lives within 100 miles of the border, according to the ACLU, and the border zone encompasses scores of major metropolitan areas and even entire states.



Customs and Border Patrol, a component of DHS, was authorized by Congress to operate within a "reasonable" distance of the border, and that distance has been set at 100 miles in regulations governing CBP, the ACLU says. The authorization has been in place for decades, but complaints about abuses of the extended border zone began to ramp up as CBP was expanded and folded into DHS after 9/11.

Also of concern, according to the group, is the border patrol's use of massive databases and watch lists to screen travelers. Much remains unknown about how those lists are compiled and it is exceedingly difficult for a person to be removed from the list once he or she is added to it.

ACLU affiliates around the country have fielded dozens of calls from people claiming they were harassed by border agents, and the group believes there are untold numbers of other victims who are afraid to come forward.

No lawsuits have yet been filed against DHS or CBP, but the ACLU says its attorneys in border states are preparing cases.

"Part of what we're trying to do is to draw our own line in the sand here and say this has to stop," Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program, said Wednesday. "We cannot determine two-thirds of America as a Constitution free zone."

DHS 33 "interior checkpoints" that are monitored by the border patrol, according to a 2005 Government Accountability Office report. The ACLU assumes more checkpoints have been established since then, and group affiliates have complained about checkpoints as far as 93 miles from the border.

ACLU lobbyists are working with members of Congress to rein in DHS's border authority. Caroline Fredrickson, the group's chief legislative counsel, praised a measure introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold and others to ban suspicionless laptop searches at the border.

"We need to restore the Constitution to the Constitution-free zone," Fredrickson said.

Wednesday's event also featured a video testimonial from Vince Peppard, another San Diegoan who faced trouble from border agents. Peppard said he was stopped at least 20 miles inside the border on a return trip from Mexico. He refused to open his trunk "on a matter of principle" and was detained for about 30 minutes.

"I didn't feel like I was in the United States," he says. "I felt like I was in some kind of police state."

The ACLU posted a video of Peppard on YouTube:

Posse Comitatus Is Alive And Well Under Bush

A very scary development. The Army is training to quell civil unrest. Soldiers may be coming to a street near you! Here's a snippet:

In a barely noticed development last week, the Army stationed an active unit inside the United States. The Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Team is back from Iraq, now training for domestic operations under the control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The unit will serve as an on-call federal response for large-scale emergencies and disasters. It’s being called the Consequence Management Response Force, CCMRF, or “sea-smurf” for short.

The Chinese Hold Their Fuckups Accountable, Shouldn't We?

From Matt Yglesias:

In the People’s Republic of China they have this crazy system where if a huge problem emerges in an area of policy, the person who was supposed to be in charge of that area loses his job, rather than getting $700 billion to spend at his absolute discretion:

The head of China’s top quality watchdog agency resigned Monday in the wake of a growing scandal over the country’s tainted milk supply, which has already sickened more than 50,000 infants and killed at least three children, according to the state-runs Xinhua News Agency.

They sure are inscrutable over there.

Imagine if we held people accountable!

The Bailout Is A Problem

Still more, this time from L, G & M. Money quote:

One reason careful oversight is crucial in this situation is that the most basic question of whether this is a good proposal can't even begin to be answered until Congress and the American people know what exactly the government is proposing to pay for all this bad debt.

In the legislation's present form, we have absolutely no idea. Being asked to sign off on it is equivalent to being asked to buy a bunch of condemned properties on the condition that you'll only find out later what you paid for them. On second thought, I guess that's not actually a metaphor.

From Louis XIV to George W. Bush

Here, in just 32 words, is a summation of the state of American democracy in our time: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Translation: Congress will take $700 billion from the pockets of ordinary Americans, and hand it to Henry Paulson. Paulson then has absolute, unreviewable authority to do with this money what he thinks best.

Many people have pointed out in the past day or so that this is bad. What no one seems to be raising is the question of whether it's even legal. Of course after eight years of George W. L'etat, C'est Moi Bush, the question of whether the biggest financial rescue operation in American history is actually legal is considered nothing more than a bothersome technicality, if that, to be dealt with by the administration's lawyers to the satisfaction of Very Serious People everywhere.

I'm not an expert in administrative law, but I would be curious to learn what in the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes Congress to delegate this kind of completely unreviewable spending power to an executive branch agency. [Update: An administrative law expert tells me that as a formal matter it won't be difficult to work around the APA itself, but that "if the non-delegation doctrine still means anything at all then this proposal pushes it to or past the breaking point." On non-delegation, see below].

Furthermore, even if Congress authorizes itself to do something like this, there's another act, the Constitution of the United States, which requires something called "due process." When it comes to making laws, due process has been interpreted by our courts to include the basic principle that while Congress can delegate substantial rulemaking authority to executive branch agencies, it can't simply hand the executive a blank check and beg our leaders to spend the money wisely, while promising not to interfere in any way, and moreover barring the courts from inquiring into any aspect of the matter.

This legislation as written is the equivalent of taking the view that it's legal for Congress to give the president an enormous army equipped with lots of shiny weapons and big beautiful bombs, while leaving it to his complete discretion to start wars against any country he believes might come to pose a threat to the United States at some point in the future.

And speaking of the Bush doctrine, when considering just how questionable all this is, let's not forget there's a good chance that the man who thought Sarah Palin was a good choice to succeed him as president will in a few months be appointing Paulson's successor.

A further point: The legality of this sort of completely unregulated executive branch discretion isn't merely a formal matter. One reason careful oversight is crucial in this situation is that the most basic question of whether this is a good proposal can't even begin to be answered until Congress and the American people know what exactly the government is proposing to pay for all this bad debt.

In the legislation's present form, we have absolutely no idea. Being asked to sign off on it is equivalent to being asked to buy a bunch of condemned properties on the condition that you'll only find out later what you paid for them. On second thought, I guess that's not actually a metaphor.

Us and Them II

Here's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans justify breaking the law when it is morally right, and then fight for exoneration based on the morality of their illegal action.

Democrats justify breaking the law when it is morally right knowing full well there is disagreement, and then take the consequences.

I can't remember where I saw it, or who it was, but a high ranking military officer said, referring to the ticking time bomb scenario, that if you choose to torture someone based on the TTB scenario, fine, BUT you must be willing--willing--to face prosecution for your actions. If you are so sure of your righteousness, then you believe you will probably be exonerated if prosecuted because the torture worked; and you very well could be exonerated. Republicans would say they deserved exoneration in this case simply because the torture worked. Democrats would fight for exoneration knowing they were in trouble, even though the torture worked.

Sarah Palin's Troopergate is being quashed by the Republicans. I just heard Tucker Carlson say that the trooper, since he was a jerk, should have been fired. He was dangerous, tasing kids and drinking beer in the car. Hell, if I was Governor, I might want to fire him too!

But, the problem is, he was disciplined for those things prior to Troopergate. The Troopergate thing is about abuse of power--Palin's illegally pushing for the firing of a completely different person (the trooper's boss who wouldn't fire him)--not whether or not some trooper should be walking around armed.

Therein lies the difference. A Democratic Governor would maybe fire (illegally) the trooper, but if caught, would succumb. A Republican Governor would claim the firing was righteous because the trooper was a dick, so, leave me alone!

Democrats, apparently, have a thing for the law (of course so do the 10 Alaska Republicans on the committee that approved the subpoenas in Troopergate that are being ignored).

Republicans (except those mentioned above, and I assume many more), apparently, have a thing for rising above the law and claiming the mantle of righteousness in spite of the law.

For Democrats, it's about preservation of the law.

For Republicans, it's about preservation.

Update: I have nothing to support this. But I still think I am right.

America's Legal Influence: Not Worth Much

A story in the NY Times on how our legal system is the laughing stock of the world. Money quote:

But now American legal influence is waning. Even as a debate continues in the court over whether its decisions should ever cite foreign law, a diminishing number of foreign courts seem to pay attention to the writings of American justices.

Judges around the world have long looked to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court for guidance, citing and often following them in hundreds of their own rulings since the Second World War.

But now American legal influence is waning. Even as a debate continues in the court over whether its decisions should ever cite foreign law, a diminishing number of foreign courts seem to pay attention to the writings of American justices.

“One of our great exports used to be constitutional law,” said Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. “We are losing one of the greatest bully pulpits we have ever had.”

From 1990 through 2002, for instance, the Canadian Supreme Court cited decisions of the United States Supreme Court about a dozen times a year, an analysis by The New York Times found. In the six years since, the annual citation rate has fallen by half, to about six.

Australian state supreme courts cited American decisions 208 times in 1995, according to a recent study by Russell Smyth, an Australian economist. By 2005, the number had fallen to 72.

The story is similar around the globe, legal experts say, particularly in cases involving human rights. These days, foreign courts in developed democracies often cite the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning equality, liberty and prohibitions against cruel treatment, said Harold Hongju Koh, the dean of the Yale Law School. In those areas, Dean Koh said, “they tend not to look to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

h/t Eric Martin

John McCain Will Let You Die (not on purpose!)

Over at The Edge of the American West there's a post exposing how horrible it would be to need a doctor if McCain becomes president.

I have grown sick of shadows, so I’m going to get a torch.

John McCain’s health care plan is rubbish. So says everyone. Most of the summaries I’ve seen have focused on the fact that twenty million will likely lose their employer-cushioned coverage, and that the individual market is horrible to those who have been ill, or for those who are obese.

The plan is rubbish, for all the reasons cited. But it’s rubbish for more reasons. It’s rubbish because it’s made of rubbish.

The individual market is horrible to those have been ill, but when it’s stated like that, it sounds like something only the sick or chronically ill will have to worry about.* And most of the people writing about it are either young, and eminently insurable on account of being young, or have comfortable employer-based insurance. I don’t think they get quite how much the individual market sucks for a normal person.

So let’s play pretend, because let’s be clear: this is a bad idea for everyone.

John McCain is elected, and the health care coverage of twenty million people gets dropped. Two of those people, Jack and Jill, are a couple in their fifties. Jack and Jill are in excellent health and middle class. Absolutely no chronic conditions. Great CON. Neither of them smoke. And we’ll assume that they’re also of normal weight.

Let’s play on eHealthInsurance.com. Jill is 52 and Jack is 56. For $400 a month, they can get coverage. This is not nice coverage. This is coverage that tends to have a multi-thousand dollar deductible, no prescription coverage, no doctor’s visits coverage. If they want an HMO-style plan with co-pays and prescription coverage, call it $1100. (And of course, their risk is evaluated individually.)

But let’s make it a little more realistic. Jill is overweight. Not obese, mind you. Let’s say she has a BMI of 27. This varies a bit by company, but add 25% onto her premium. Jack smokes. He’s been trying to quit, but he picked up this habit back in the 60s and it’s been hard to kick. Jack is probably now uninsurable. (Were he younger, figure another 25%)

Actually, they probably both are. In their fifties, they’re bad risks. When they had employer-based coverage, this wasn’t a big deal, because their own personal risk wasn’t evaluated. It is now.

And we’ve spotted them perfect health and perfect health histories, mind you. According to this study, the average American adult fills nine prescriptions a year. Someone in her fifties: 13. So surely it’s not insane to think that someone in her fifties might be on one or two medications.

Now, we can assume that the market will change a little bit, and that Jack and Jill might have a tax credit to play with. That isn’t going to make them younger, or a better risk. This plan is cruel to boomers.

So who in this country is this plan supposed to benefit?

Poverty and Education, Yglesias Style

Good post from Matt exposing conservatives as educationally challenged. Money quote:

Countries like Denmark and Finland are basically poster children for the interrelatedness of social policy concerns, something conservatives are usually keen to deny preferring instead to believe that if we just squeezed teachers harder the schools would be great. But the child poverty rate in Denmark is 2.4 percent and in Finland it’s 2.8 percent. In the United States it’s 21.9 percent.

Go read it.

Obama vs. McCain on Science!

Check out a side-by-side comparison of answers to 14 top science questions posed to Barack Obama and John McCain here. It's worth a look.