Important Context On State's Objections to Benghazi Talking Points

Recently uncovered emails sent by Victoria Nuland about the CIA talking points are not as incriminating as some would have you believe.

The U.S. “diplomatic post” in Benghazi in flames after the attack of Sept. 11, 2012. (Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters, copied from the Washington Post)

Update 5/15/13: When I originally wrote this article, I relied on interpretations of an email exchange by The White House, State Department, and CIA. These interpretations came from CBS News, ABC News, and The Weekly Standard. However, the White House has now released to CNN a series of 100 emails, including the aforementioned email exchange. Essentially, it looks as though the actual emails effectively debunk the theory that the Obama Administration intentionally mislead the American people about the nature of the Benghazi attacks. I have added updates explaining the differences as they apply to this post.

On Monday, May 10th, ABC News released an Exclusive Report on changes to the CIA Talking Points provided to congress shortly after the September 11th, 2012 attacks in Benghazi. Contrary to a previous assertion by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, it appears as though the State Department and White House were heavily involved in the re-writing of those talking points:

"White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack." (ABC News Exclusive Report)

The gut reaction to this news may be that Republicans were right all along suggesting the administration engaged in a cover up, hiding the fact that Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack, for political reasons.

But gut reactions can be very misleading. The addition of some context, as well as attention to detail, provide a few challenges to this reaction (Although there are many issues to explore with these revelations, this post will focus exclusively on State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland's objections to the CIA's talking points).

Victoria Nulan's Smoking Gun?

One of the most contentious aspects to these revelations is a specific objection by Victoria Nuland to the initial references to al Qa'ida, as well as previous warnings by the CIA. The original Weekly Standard column gave a somewhat oversimplified account of these objections:

"The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”"

A smoking gun right? Well, not so fast. Before we explore this in detail, it may be prudent to point out a somewhat obvious fact: Emails often lack context. Most of the time, when someone writes an email, they are not actively thinking that those emails are going to one day become public. As a result, being careful to provide appropriate context is not always a common priority. When viewing "leaked emails," don't be surprised if you find a few "hide the decline" instances. In addition, a closer inspection of the talking points, as well as her specific reactions should provide some insight.

The first thing to note is what exactly Victoria Nuland was objecting to. Here is the version of the talking points Nuland saw at 6:52 pm:

• The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September we notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy. 

• The investigation is ongoing as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. We do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. 

• Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved. Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study. 

• The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks. 

• The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks. 

• The U.S. Government is working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

Luckily, CBS News provided a much more detailed account of Nuland's response:

7:39 p.m. email: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed the most sweeping concerns. "I have serious concerns about all parts highlighted below in arming members of Congress with information to start making assertions to the media that we ourselves are not making because we don't want to prejudice the investigation... Why do we want the Hill to be fingering [al-Qaeda linked] Ansar al-Sharia when we aren't doing that ourselves until we have investigation results? And the penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency [CIA] about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda...[which] could be abused by members of Congress to fault the State Department for not paying attention... so why would we want to cede that, either?"

 Update 5/15/13: The interpretation of Nulan's email differs slightly from the actual email. However, none of the differences appear substantial, although the final sentence is significantly less verbose than its interpretation. 

Notice that her objections are two-fold:

1. Her objections to the mention of al-Qa'ida links are based on a fear of prejudicing the FBI investigation. Nuland herself was constrained from mentioning this information in her daily press briefings. Given this fact, it is no surprise why she questions why the CIA would give congress information she was not herself allowed to divulge yet. However, as CBS News points out, A facilitator of the email threads mentions the FBI did not voice any major concerns. Yet despite this, the following version of the talking points, released at 8:59pm, removes the third talking point discussing the link to Ansar al-Sharia. Since the CIA originally removed the strongest reference to "Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida" during internal distribution, the only mention remaining of a terrorist group possibly being involved is the 5th talking point. It is not yet clear why this talking point was removed. It is possible there was a miscommunication somewhere that led the FBI to mistakenly approve the talking point about Ansar al-Sharia. Perhaps they changed their mind for security reasons.
   
   Update 5/15/13: According to the original email, when Nuland received the response about the FBI not having any major concerns, that email already includes the updated talking points. This means that we can rule out the possibility that Nuland had anything to do with the removal of that talking point beyond her conserns about prejudicing the investigation. It may be the case CBS meant to convey this point with their interpretation. However, CBS's use of the word "they" was slightly ambiguous. 
   
   Either way, this case proves that some discussions were happening outside of the email thread, which means that readers should be very mindful of the context behind the emails. It is also interesting to note that the mention of terrorist groups in the 5th talking point were kept. However, it can also be noted that this specifically talks about past events and at best vaguely implies a link between the aforementioned terrorist groups and the Benghazi attacks. If there was a grey area over what would or would not have prejudiced the FBI investigation, it is possible this may have fallen into the latter category. Either way, the bottom line is that Nuland's objections to these terrorist references have virtually nothing to do with politics.
2. Her last objection deals exclusively with the 5th talking point. Her worry that the talking point could be "abused by members of Congress to fault the State Department for not paying attention" does sound quite political and pretty incriminating. However, as mentioned before when reading leaked emails, one should always be mindful of context. There are a few facts that need to be examined before coming to any conclusion about Nuland's objection. I will dedicate the rest of this post to exploring these facts and what relevance they have to Nuland's objection.

 Throwing The State Department Under The Bus 

First and foremost, we should observe that the first talking point mentions the attack took place at two places, a State Department consulate and CIA annex.  However, it has since been revealed that the "consulate" in question was not actually a consulate, but a CIA compound. Eli Lake of The Daily Beast explains:

"The CIA’s role in the Benghazi facility’s security was part of an arrangement with the State Department, according to a November 1 Wall Street Journal story that first disclosed several details about the true nature of the U.S. mission in Benghazi. That piece also said 23 of the 30 people evacuated from the Benghazi compound on the evening of the attack were CIA officers using State Department cover. Other U.S. officials confirmed this to The Daily Beast. “The Benghazi compound was a U.S. intelligence station with State Department cover,” one U.S. official said."" (emphasis mine)

Ambassador Stevens was merely visiting the compound at the time of the attack. Tragically, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, given the secretive nature of the mission, administration officials could not reveal this at the time.

With that in mind, let's take a second look at that 5th talking point in more detail:

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.(emphasis mine)

If we pair the emphasized parts with the first talking point, mentioning the attack was "a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex," it is clear the CIA was putting the blame for any screw-ups on the State Department.

As Glenn Kessler explains, this is no trivial matter:

"The clear implication is that State screwed up, even though internally, it was known that this was a CIA operation. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland especially objects to the reference to previous warnings, saying it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.”"

Essentially, Victoria Nuland objects to the CIA throwing the State Department under the bus for what is arguably a CIA screw-up. Is this completely innocent? Well, it is a bit too early to tell until more information comes out about the US Mission in Benghazi. Either way, it is far from the smoking gun some sensationalist headlines make it out to be.

Update 5/15/13 from CNN:

"Senior administration officials say that long before the CIA heard concerns from the State Department about warnings being put in the talking points, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell advocated for removing the warnings out, since he felt the talking points should focus on what happened in Benghazi on September 11, rather than the previous six months. He also felt it was unprofessional and unfair for the CIA to cite its own warnings to the State Department, officials said." (emphasis mine)

Subsequent Revisions

As mentioned earlier, the following version of the talking points, released at 8:59pm, removed the third talking point discussing the link to Ansar al-Sharia. The Weekly Standard column mentioned that, despite this and other small changes, Nuland was still unhappy. However, The Weekly Standard fails to mention the obvious reason why this is. Despite Nuland's arguably justified objection to the 5th talking point (you know, the one where the CIA throws the State Department under the bus), it still remained in the 8:59pm revision of the talking points, only with one minor revision. Again, context matters!

Misleading Journalism

Clearly all we can tell from these details that Nuland voiced two separate concerns about two separate aspects of the talking points. Her objection to the inclusion of references to terrorist organizations had to do with her current understanding of what information could and could not be divulged to the public. This was generally apolitical. However, her objection to the CIA throwing the State Department under the bus was in fact political, although arguably justified and essentially unrelated to any mentions of terrorist organizations. The only reference to terrorists scrubbed as a result of this objection was entirely incidental. So Nuland's objection provides no further evidence of the popular GOP conspiracy that the Obama Administration covered up uncomfortable details about the Benghazi attack due to the election. Be skeptical of sensationalist stories that suggest otherwise.

Punditfulls of Predictions!

My Election Prediction 2012 (270toWin)

During the primaries, I remember telling a friend of mine that if Romney was nominated, this election would look a lot like 2004.Turns out the similarities are striking. However, one of the most comical similarities is the denialism. In 2004, we had sites like the Donkey Rising Blog trying to explain away Bush's favorable numbers in the polls. Today we have sites like UnSkewed Polls doing the same thing to Obama's poll numbers, sometimes even projecting Romney will win in a near-landslide! However, the methods used to come up with these numbers are deeply flawed. But that hasn't stopped a number of pundits from giving similarly absurd projections:

• Michael Barone, The Examiner: Romney 315, Obama 223.  
• George Will, The Washington Post: Romney 321, Obama 217.
• James Pethokoukis: Romney 301, Obama 227.
• Dick Morris, FoxNews: Romney 325, Obama 213.
• Jim Cramer, CNBC: Obama 440, Romney 98.
• Dean Chambers, UnskewedPolls.com: Romney 311, Obama 227. 

Every one of these pundits is predicting a highly unlikely result. Other than Jim Cramer, each one predicts Romney picking up over 300 Electoral votes, meaning Obama would pick up at most 238 electoral votes. According to the RCP averages, this means the polls would have to be off by up to 4 points in some states! In the FiveThirtyEight model, such a thing would be historically unprecedented to an incredible degree! However, unlike Cramer's prediction, the FiveThirtyEight model at least holds this as a possibility, albeit an incredibly small one. One has to wonder why so many pundits are risking their credibility with such unbelievably unlikely predictions. Of course, one would also have to underestimate the level of cognitive dissonance some of these pundits have, as well as their fans.

I have to confess. Over the last couple of months, I have grown an unhealthy obsession with the polls. I have made trips to RealClearPolitics, Pollster, and FiveThirtyEight a regular habit. When I wake up in the morning to take the puppy out, I check the Rand Corporation's Daily Poll. Throughout the day, I check RCP for updates to the Rasmussen poll, the Gallup Poll, Investor's Business Daily, and ABC/Washington Post, as well as up to date averages of the state polls. I also make regular trips to Pollster to check on polls RCP doesn't factor in. I understand that you cannot cherry pick polls, that you have to account for house effects, and that you have to look at both the the national and state polls to get a clear picture of the race. As a result, I have mostly taken a break from blogging, preferring to post whatever thoughts I may have on Facebook rather than this blog, likely to the utter annoyance of all my friends. So before the election concludes tomorrow (hopefully), I thought I would put my own projection on the table (on the top of this page). Some explanations:

• Pennsylvania and Michigan: Despite Romney's recent play on Pennsylvania, the chances of him winning the state are extremely low: FiveThirtyEight gives Obama a 99% chance of taking the state. Other than the extremely right-leaning Susquehanna Poll, the most Romney-favorable polls still give Obama a comfortable 3 point lead. As Nate Silver has explained, this state is also incredibly inelastic, meaning there are rarely very many voters who will wait til the last minute to make a choice.  In Michigan, the only poll giving Romney any chance is the Baydoun/Foster poll. Although this poll is classified as a Democratic pollster, its numbers in Michigan have been extremely favorable to Romney, meaning it has a larger than normal house effect. Nate Silver gives Obama a 100% chance of winning the state and Romney has not seriously contested it.
• Nevada: Although RCP only gives Obama a 2.8 percent lead here, Nevada polls have consistently underrated Democrats for the elections in 2008 and 2010, by large margins. Given the issues among pollsters with the Latino vote, as well as Harry Reid's superior ground game in the state, I doubt 2012 will be any different. Nate Silver also has Obama at a 94% chance of winning Nevada.
• Wisconsin and Ohio: Both of these states show small but persistent Obama leads. And neither state show any poll with a  Romney lead. RCP has Obama up 2.9 points in Ohio and 4.2 points in Wisconsin. The distribution in Ohio has been very tight, despite the large number of polls conducted in the state. Wisconsin's distribution has been less so but it has also shown better numbers for Obama in its more Obama-favorable polls. However, both the polls showing strong Obama leads have been incredibly volatile over the course of this campaign. Nonetheless, Nate Silver gives Obama a 92% chance of carrying Ohio and a 97% chance of carrying Wisconsin. 
• Iowa and New Hampshire: Both of these states have had very sporadic polling. But Obama is still favored in both. RCP has Obama up 2.4 points in Iowa and 2.0 points in New Hampshire. In addition, only two polls give Romney a lead in Iowa and none give him a lead in New Hampshire. The two polls that give Romney a lead in Iowa tend to have very Romney-favorable results, and their leads are only a point. At least one Romney-favorable poll also gives Obama a 4 point lead in Iowa. In addition, Iowa's only local poll gives Obama one of his best leads. The situation is similar in New Hampshire. Nate silver gives Obama a 86% chance of winning Iowa and an 86% chance of winning New Hampshire.
• Virginia and Colorado: Both of these states appear to be toss-ups, although Nate Silver marked them both as "Likely Obama" today. According to RCP, Obama has a 0.3% lead in Virginia and a 1.5% lead in Colorado. However, there are still a few polls giving Romney slight leads in each state. Although early voting in Colorado seems to be favoring Mitt Romney, Democrats have been closing the gap (we should see the final results of early voting tomorrow morning). Some polls that have asked about early voting show that Obama is expected to do better on election day than he has in early voting. Others show he is expected to do worse but may get better results tomorrow morning. But this may not matter. In 2008, Obama barely edged out McCain in early voting, yet still won the state by 8.6 percentage points, meaning historically the early voting trend may not be unprecedented in Colorado given that Obama will likely not win by 8.6 percentage points anyway. For the purposes of my projection, I predict Obama will carry Colorado, mainly because of the polls. Virginia is very close nationally, and it is hard to come by good early voting statistics for the state. Their only local poll has also been extremely volatile. Given Nate Silver's projection, as well as the RCP average, I give Obama the slight edge in the state. Update 11/6/12: Wow, I cannot believe I didn't notice this until now. I fell for the fallacy of equating registration advantage with candidate advantage in Colorado. I took a look at whatever polls I could and noticed that Democrats do not have the identity advantage in Colorado that they do in other states. It appears as though, although Democrats and Republicans seem tied in terms of party identity, Republicans hold a 2-3 point registration advantage over Democrats in these polls, suggesting Obama is leading big with both registered and identified Independents. Indeed PPP's cross-tabs suggest as much. As a result, it is entirely possible, even likely, that Obama is still winning the early vote in Colorado, even though registered Republicans are ahead.
• Florida: On the surface, this state appears to be even more of a toss-up than other states. RCP has  Romney up 1.5 points, but FiveThirtyEight has Obama up 0.2 percentage points. In addition, this is a state where the inaccuracies in polling the Latino vote should make the final outcome more Obama-favorable than the polls suggest. However, the local polls are Romney's strongest polls, and local polls should be given more weight. As a result, I would buck the FiveThirtyEight model (just barely) and give Florida to Romney.
• North Carolina: RCP gives Romney a 3.0 point lead in this state and Nate Silver gives Romney a 72% chance of winning the state. Obama does have a significant lead in early voting, but the polls for North Carolina reflect the polls of Ohio, but in Romney's favor. Given the razor thin margin Obama won this state by in 2008, I seriously doubt Obama will win this state again in 2012.

Notice I rarely mentioned ground games. It is extremely hard to predict what kind of an effect a strong ground game will have on the election. Nevada is the obvious exception

So my final electoral vote prediction is Obama at 303 electoral votes and Romney at 235 electoral votes. I would expect the election to swing anywhere from Obama winning 281-257 to Obama winning 332-206. So let's see what happens!

Note: for early voting results, see here.

No Paul Ryan, Payroll Taxes Are NOT Going Towards ObamaCare

Paul Ryan has been LYING about Obamacare and payroll taxes.

During a campaign stop at Miami University in Ohio, Paul Ryan made the claim that payroll taxes will now be used to fund the Affordable Care Act:

"Ryan slightly reframed the attack by arguing that Obamacare is effectively taking hundreds of billions from payroll taxes. “Take a look at your paycheck next time. Look at that line on your paycheck that [reads] payroll taxes," Ryan said. "You see our payroll taxes from our paychecks are supposed to go to two programs--Social Security and Medicare period. Now because of Obamacare they’re also going to pay for Obamacare." The crowd booed." (emphasis mine)

One problem with this: It is completely false. And the Romney campaign knows it.

Earlier this week, FactCheck.org released probably the best article on Mediscare claims since they began resurfacing after the Ryan VP pick. This article is an absolute must read for anyone wanting to understand how Medicare works, as well as what Romney, Ryan, and Obama each plan to do about Medicare's fiscal problems. The article begins with explaining the troubles Medicare faces down the road, mainly focusing on insolvency (which is different from bankruptcy). The article then summarizes the history of Medicare, as well as the different "Parts" of Medicare (A,B,C, and D). Understanding this is crucial for understanding the Ryan, Romney, and Obama Medicare plans (Obama has already passed his plan as part of the ACA). Here is a basic summary of what each Part of Medicare covers:

• Medicare Part A: Hospital insurance
• Medicare Part B: Insurance for doctor visits
• Medicare Part C (Medicare Advnatage): Combines both Part A and B but uses a private insurer.
• Medicare Part D: Prescription Drugs

The article also debunks the claims from both the Obama and Romney campaigns about how each candidate plans to cut benefits and push the cost of healthcare further onto seniors. I will not spend any time in this post talking about whether or not either campaign's arguments hold water (See my previous post and Roundup from last week for that). This post will be dedicated to understanding why Paul Ryan is lying about payroll taxes going to fund the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, PPACA, ACA).

One area where FactCheck's article falls a bit short is on explaining why Paul Ryan's claim mentioned above is wrong. The article is a bit vague and inconclusive. However, a campaign speech by Paul Ryan finally motivated FactCheck to get more detailed and help explain specifically why Paul Ryan's claim is wrong (the article also debunks Medicare bankruptcy claims). This article is another absolute must read. I will summarize and expand here:

Medicare payroll taxes go to pay for Medicare Part A. What revenue is left over goes into the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund. And that fund goes to finance shortfalls in Medicare Part A. As of late, there is not enough revenue coming from payroll taxes to cover hospital insurance for medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the trust fund is being drained and will eventually be empty, meaning Medicare Part A will become insolvent. To help mitigate the problem, the Affordable Coverage Act slows the amount of money coming out of the trust fund via reduced payments to hospitals. Obama can get away with those reduced payments to hospitals largely without causing them to drop out of the program because of a deal he stuck with hospitals, promising new patients through the ACA, more than making up for the lost revenue. This saved money stays in the trust fund (although it can be loaned out, more on that later).³ It does not go to cover the uninsured not currently in Medicare. In addition, Obama increases the revenue coming into the trust fund via a 0.9 percent tax "on earnings above $200,000 for single taxpayers or $250,000 for married couples."

The savings from Medicare that actually go into Obamacare come from Medicare Parts B, C, and D, and only from funds that come from congress (income taxes, corporate taxes, etc...) to cover outlays. This accounts for approximately 2/3 of $716 Billion in slowed medicare growth. Obama decreases the growth of money congress spends on Medicare from general revenue using the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is incredibly limited¹ in what it can target.

So it should be pretty clear Paul Ryan's claim is false. But remember I accused Ryan of more than just telling him a falsehood. I accused him of lying, meaning he knew what he was saying was false. What is my evidence? Besides Ryan's work on the medicare program (meaning he should know this Medicare 101 knowledge) and acceptance of Obama's ACA Medicare savings (he should know what he is accepting), when FactCheck asked Romney's campaign about their claims, the campaign responded this way:

"When we asked the campaign how it could argue that Obama’s spending reductions didn’t extend the life of the trust fund, a spokesman replied that it didn’t extend the fund “unless the administration is ready to admit their law blows a huge hole in our deficit.”"

So essentially they are accusing Obama of double counting the savings from hospital insurance. If that money has to be put into the trust fund, it can't also cover the non-Medicare related Obamacare expenses. Fact Check explains (from their original article):

"The fact is that CBO and the guardians of the hospital trust fund say Obama’s health care law does both extend the life of the trust fund and reduce the deficit, but can’t be also counted as paying for the law’s added spending."

This may sound a bit confusing. It essentially comes from the fact that a bill can both reduce the deficit and not be "paid for." This is because some of the revenue that comes in goes "into savings" instead of being used to pay the bills. And just like a bank uses savings accounts to make loans, so too can this Medicare money "in savings" be loaned out to pay for other programs.² FactCheck explains:

"What happens in government accounting is that after Treasury issues a bond that it will have to pay later, it can spend the money it received on other things. And it often does, whether that’s coverage expansion, as called for in the health care law, or any number of things. The Romney spokesman said it was “a shell game.”"

But that doesn’t mean that the Medicare trust fund will be slashed or its “piggy bank” “robbed” or “raided,” or any other claim we’d put firmly in the category of “senior scare.” (emphasis mine)

Romney does have a point in essentially calling this an accounting trick. And he could spend time making that claim instead of a demonstrably false one. You can argue over whether or not the CBO was therefore wrong to say the ACA cuts the deficit (see Update 8/28/12). But you cannot say payroll taxes are going toward the ACA anymore than you can say your personal savings in the bank are going toward someone else's loan. Just like those savings are still legally yours, so are the trust funds still legally Medicare's. Any money that is borrowed from the fund has to be paid back. The Romney campaign knows this and it is reasonable to assume Ryan does as well. So he knows payroll taxes will not fund the ACA, yet he still makes that claim. It is a lie.

¹ Most of what the IPAB targets is the extra money paid into Medicare Advantage (Part C,except for hospital insurance), making costs from the expensive program fall into line with traditional Medicare. You can argue this will indirectly affect benefits, but the program is forbidden from directly cutting benefits. Romney and Ryan, on the other hand, give congress practically unlimited power to save money however they desire, including through benefits (and we all trust congress, don't we). As Ezra Klein and others have repeatedly noted, ObamaCare and Ryan's plan call for approximately the same-sized reductions in future medicare growth. The difference is in how it is implemented. Without a doubt though, Romney's plan to avoid the $716 in slowed growth is the worst. It will actually hasten insolvency.


Update 8/28/12:

For the last few weeks, the Washington Post Fact Checker has been on vacation. So he as not been posting fact checks on this issue since the Ryan VP pick. Today he finally posted a response to readers' questions on Medicare Cuts, bankruptcy, and cost shifting. Overall, the post was not all that impressive compared to FactCheck's posts. However, he did link to an old article talking about the "double counting" issue mentioned above. This article is another absolute must read for anyone interested in this issue. It turns out double counting has been an acceptable practice for both parties for the last few decades. That's right, Republicans use this as well:

"When President Bill Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) was one of the speakers. “On Medicare, we came together and we saved the system for at least a decade,” he declared. How could he make this claim? Through the same double-counting that Republican now decry. The

Fact Checker especially frowns on hypocrisy, and Republicans should acknowledge that they have gladly played this game before, including under President George W. Bush." (emphasis mine)

However, playing the "you did it too" game is not a good excuse for doing something potentially harmful. But it does turn out this practice isn't really that bad, since it increases gross debt without increasing public debt. The Fact Checker explains:

"Some argue that the increase in the gross debt is evidence of double-counting but the CBO has said that focusing on the health care law’s impact on the gross debt is not very illuminating: “That measure of debt conveys little information about the federal government’s future financial burdens and has little economic meaning.” (emphasis mine)

This may explain why the Romney campaign has avoided this line of argument and instead chosen a demonstrably false line of argument. He would be open to criticisms that both parties do this and could put the reputation Reputation of congressional Republicans in 1997 in jeopardy. It is much easier to tell a simple lie.

Note: Just to head off a potential criticism, Ryan cannot say that he was talking about Medicare funds being loaned Obamacare when he said payroll taxes were being used to fund Obamacare. If he had meant it in this way, he would have to admit payroll taxes also fund national defense, congressional pay, the war on drugs, and most any program funded by congress through general revenue. However, his statement started by claiming that payroll taxes only fund Medicare and Social Security. So either way, he was lying.

² I reworded this to make it clearer. It used to say "However, as with any "savings account", that money is available for other uses when it's not being spent"

³ I added the qualifier in parenthesis to make it clear that this money can still be loaned out, even if it still belongs to the trust fund. It has to be paid back.

The Roundup

Best Thing to Happen to The Internet Since Al Gore! ... Here is a cat singing the theme from Game of Thrones (Thanks to The Washington Post):

Yet another reason to subscribe to Ezra Klein's RSS...

Steven Novella: Nocebo Nonsense

"Chopra’s article was inspired by a New York Times article by researchers into nocebo effects. The researchers, however, make very different points from Chopra. They review the scientific evidence, which is pretty clear. People will report negative side effects even when taking placebos. If they are warned about a particular side effect, they are more likely to report that one. Again – there is no reason to think this is anything other than subjective reporting. Stress is the one factor that can cause real physiological consequences, and therefore illnesses that significantly respond to stress (like heart disease) can be affected by anxiety or hopefulness. This is not true, however, of most diseases." (emhpasis mine)

The Solyndra Standard
A MUST READ on the GOP's hypocrisy in the Solyndra case. Stephen Lacey puts the case in context:

"And here’s the really astonishing disconnect: While supporting tens of thousands of jobs, the loan guarantee program is expected to cost $2 billion less than Congress budgeted for, according to an analysis from Herb Allison, John McCain’s former National Finance Chairman.

Meanwhile, amidst the Solyndra saga, we casually accept a $300 million aircraft failure without batting an eye. No outrage. No sustained political campaign. It’s just another day testing our military toys.

Why? Because we don’t often see programs like this as a “failure” in the political arena. We would never use one failure as an excuse to abandon investment in new technologies. Most politicians accept losses in military R&D expenditures because the long-term gains are potentially so important for national defense and for eventually developing technologies for civilian use.

We should always strive to make programs as efficient and cost-effective as possible. But a few bankrupt clean energy companies representing a fraction of the program’s budgeted cost is no excuse for abandoning federal investments in clean energy — a strategically important sector that is becoming one of the largest drivers of business this century." (emphasis mine)

Will the Fed’s efforts to boost the economy only benefit the wealthiest?
Thanks to the inaction of congress, quantitative easing may be one of the last options to help stimulate the economy. It effectively lowers the value of debt using inflation, which could help tackle the crippling deleveraging that is keeping consumer demand down and slowing the recovery (particularly in the housing market). But there is a price. That price is increased income inequality.

Great hyperinflation episodes in history — and what they tell us about the Fed
A MUST READ:
A look at historical cases of hyperinflation point to why it is absurd to suggest it will happen in the US any time soon:

"none of the most severe instances of hyperinflation appear to be triggered by a central bank simply trying to inject money into a basically intact economy in order to reduce the unemployment rate." (emphasis mine)

Conservative Group Plans to Push Republicans Toward Action on Climate, Cleaner Energy

"Leading members of the Christian Coalition and the Young Republicans on Monday will launch nationwide the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, a grassroots group aimed at engaging Republicans on the goals of cutting oil use, backing alternative energy and clean-air regulations, and fighting climate change."

Can these groups pull the GOP away from the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry?

The politics and philosophy of racism
Two points:

1. Turns out racists aren't necessarily more likely to be republican than democrat. 
2.  Libertarianism will not sure racism for essentially the same reason free markets work: individual cases of racism are "spontaneous orders—of phenomena that are the product of human action, but not of human design" 

2013 may be the year of Austerity. Isn't that what the GOP wanted so badly back in 2010?

Poll: Republicans Really Aren't Big Fans of Arabs or Muslims

Brutal Attack On Palestinian Met With Near-Universal Rebuke among Israelis

On the Progressive Consumption Tax and What it means for people like Romney.

Very good story about the debate over the minimum wage.

Quote of the Day: Early Voting a Bad Idea Because it Makes it Easier for Blacks to Vote

NPR debunks the myth of the "independent voter".

The Roundup: Election Edition

Greg Sargent: The Morning Plum: No, Romney and Ryan don’t really want a `great debate’

"Romney wants to repeal the unpopular Obamacare, and promises he’d do something for some people with preexisting conditions — because replacing it with nothing would be even more unpopular. Romney says he’d get rid of Wall Street reform, and vows to replace it with unspecified “common sense” regulations — because replacing reform with nothing is also a political nonstarter. Romney says he’d cut whole agencies to make government more efficient and cost-effective, but won’t say which ones; and Ryan won’t explain in meaningful detail how he’d achieve the draconian spending cuts necessary to make his numbers work — because when the talk turns to specifics, suddenly cutting government is politically very difficult indeed, and gutting social programs would be very unpopular. Romney and Ryan won’t say how they’d pay for their tax cuts — because they must be paid for by hiking the middle class’s tax burden or exploding the deficit, neither of which is politically palatable." (emphasis mine)

When asked about cutting the size of government, most people are conservatives. When you get into asking about the specifics, the leftward shift is incredible!


Ezra Klein: Obama’s money gap: Incompetence, incumbency or meaningless?
Romney is currently outspending Obama 2 to 1, partly because of Obama's negative attitude toward wall street. However, there seems to be little if any effect on the polls. The country already largely feels like they know Obama. So negative a advertising will only do so much to hurt him. Romney would theoretically be better off running on his own strengths rather than attack Obama. But those strengths in the most important areas (jobs, budget) are quite suspect to say the least.

Ezra Klein: The real Romney-Ryan budgets cuts aren’t to Medicare. They’re to programs for the poor.

"And so, if you look at Ryan’s specific cuts, most of them are programs for poor people. In fact, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that more than six of every 10 dollars Ryan cuts from the federal budget is coming from programs for the poor" (emphasis mine)

And Romney's is MUCH worse!

No, Republicans Have Not Suddenly Developed a Love of Policy Wonkery

"Conservatives are excited about Ryan because he's a true believer, not because they've developed a sudden love of budget wonkery. They would have been equally ecstatic about Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio, and they're breathing a sigh of rel ief that Romney didn't pick Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty, both of whom are plenty serious policy wonks but don't have quite the right-wing fire in their eyes that the other guys do."

Desperate Measures: Paul Ryan Tries To Revive the “Death Panel” Canard
Spreading malicious lies about ObamaCare in 2010 helped bolster Republicans to take over the house in 2011. Only problem, Obama is campaigning now and, even though he is behind in spending (for the last month or so), he has money in the cof fers to help keep him from falling too far behind. And he has the incmbant advantage, meaning attacks against him are much less effective. So he has the means to dispel this misinformation campaign (and the sad truth: start some of his own)

"But even if seniors like the first Gen Xer on a presidential ticket personally, the Pew poll shows that they dislike Ryan’s plan even more than their younger counterparts.

This points to an information vacuum, which is why death panels are back, and why this campaign is only going to get uglier from here."

Republicans Wanted a Culture War, Now They're Getting It

"If conservatives do indeed want a "truce" on issues like abortion, that's fine with me: let them start observing one. Leave Planned Parenthood the hell alone. Stop pushing for laws that challenge Roe v. Wade. Shut down all your ultrasounds . Tell Bob Vander Plaats to stop trying to run pro-marriage-equality judges off the Iowa Supreme Court. Take all those dog whistles about "respect for life" and "constitutional originalism" out of your platforms and speeches. Promise us you won't put unholy pressure on a President Romney to ensure the next new member of the Supreme Court will vote to turn abortion policy back to the states or even protect zygotes under the 14th Amendment."

Paul Krugman: Nobody Cares About the Deficit

"If the right was at all consistent, it would be denouncing the CBO report for failing to take into account the impact of a lower deficit in deterring the invisible bond vigilantes and encouraging the confidence fairy."

Five things to know about Mitt Romney’s energy plan 
Five points on Romney's energy plan:

1. North American energy independence is already expected to largely happen by 2020, regardless of who is in the white house 
2. Romney's refusal to accept Obama's fuel-efficiency standards will make his plan more difficult. 
3. Energy independence will not significantly lower prices since oil is still traded in world markets (exhibit A: Canada) 
4. Although energy independence may have gross job gains (likely much smaller than what Romney has predicted), the net effect will likely be insignificant. 
5. Romney does not tackle environmental concerns (global warming, fracking, oil spills), which may mean "public concern over fracking could stymie gas development."

Why the Weak Economy Doesn't Doom Obama

"So think of it this way. In 1980, Jimmy Carter didn't have an argument for re-election that appealed very far beyond the Democratic base. Similarly, in 1984, Walter Mondale simply didn't have much of an argument for getting rid of Ronald Reagan. The Republicans didn't have a good argument for holding on to power in 2006, nor did the Democrats in 2010. The elections reflect that.

This year, Barack Obama has an argument -- he didn't inherit the mess, and the economy is slowly expanding. That's an argument that is probably good enough to get him to 46 or 47 percent of the vote. Similarly, Mitt Romney has a pretty good argument for electing a new president, one that will shore up his base and Republican-leaning independents. Thus, we should probably expect what we're presently seeing in the polls: a close race, to be decided by a relatively small slice of the electorate." (emphasis mine)

Ezra Klein: The GOP has picked the wrong time to rediscover gold
When people think of returning to the gold standard, they think of it as a way of controlling inflation. However, it actually does precisely the opposite. Gold prices are tied to demand across global markets, meaning inflation would be tied to the whims of gold buyers and the fed would lose its ability to control it.

"Unlike 1981, in other words, when the gold standard made a kind of superficial sense as a response to our problems, 2012 is a moment when a gold standard would clearly have worsened our problems. Dramatically. As Eichengreen concludes, the idea’s “proponents paint the gold standard as a guarantee of financial stability; in practice, it would be precisely the opposite.”

Not reimbursing towns for expenses dealing with presidential incumbent campaigns is common for BOTH PARTIES.

Debunking Romney (Part 3): Medicare Claims

This post is part three of a three part series debunking a few central claims that have been made by the Romney campaign this year. The first part deals with Romnay's tax policies, the recent Tax Policy Center study, and Romney's response to that study. The second part deals with the white paper Romney's advisers wrote to attempt to justify his plan. Finally, the third part deals with Romney's recent Medicare claims, as well as his impossible promises on the subject. 


From Ezra Klein of The Washington Post:

I’ve got a modest proposal: You’re not allowed to demand a “serious conversation” over Medicare unless you can answer these three questions:

1) Mitt Romney says that “unlike the current president who has cut Medicare funding by $700 billion. We will preserve and protect Medicare.” What happens to those cuts in the Ryan budget?

2) What is the growth rate of Medicare under the Ryan budget?

3) What is the growth rate of Medicare under the Obama budget?

The answers to these questions are, in order, “it keeps them,” “GDP+0.5%,” and “GDP+0.5%.”

Let’s be very clear on what that means: Ryan’s budget — which Romney has endorsed — keeps Obama’s cuts to Medicare, and both Ryan and Obama envision the same long-term spending path for Medicare. The difference between the two campaigns is not in how much they cut Medicare, but in how they cut Medicare.

...

These plans get at the basic disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on Medicare. Democrats believe the best way to reform Medicare is to leave the program intact but vastly strengthen its ability to pay for quality. Republicans believe the best way to reform Medicare is to fracture the system between private plans and traditional Medicare and let competition do its work.

...

But it’s simply a conservative myth that the White House hasn’t put forward a Medicare reform plan. What that line really means is that White House hasn’t put forward some variant of Ryan’s plan, which in many Republican circles, has come to be seen as the only policy change that counts as “entitlement reform.”

But Obama’s plan is, without doubt, far more detailed than anything Romney has put forward, and Republicans are well aware of its existence." (emphasis mine)

Ironically, Romney has attacked Obama for these cuts to Medicare growth. It should be noted that, of all the ways Medicare growth can be cut under Obama's plan, there is one area that is protected: benefits:

"It’s worth noting that there’s one area these cuts don’t touch: Medicare benefits. The Affordable Care Act rolls back payment rates for hospitals and insurers. It does not, however, change the basket of benefits that patients have access to." (emphasis mine)

In the time since this article appeared, Romney has declared he will not keep Obama's cuts to future Medicare growth, despite the fact that these cuts would keep the Medicare trust fund solvent through 2024 (without them, they could lose solvency as soon as 2016). However, this will also make his budget promises practically impossible. Ezra Klein explains:

"Consider what Romney has promised. By 2016, he says federal spending will be below 20 percent of GDP, and at least 4 percent of that will be defense spending. At that point, he will cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, meaning it can never rise above that level.

All that’s hard enough. Romney will have to cut federal spending by between $6 and $7 trillion over the next decade to hit those targets. As my colleague Suzy Khimm has detailed, those budget promises already require cuts far in excess of what even Paul Ryan’s budget proposes.

But Ryan’s budget includes more than $700 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade, Romney’s budget won’t. And Romney promises that there will be no other changes to Social Security or Medicare for those over 55, which means neither program can be cut for the next 10 years. But once you add up Medicare, Social Security and defense and you’ve got more than half of the federal budget. So Romney is going to make the largest spending cuts in history while protecting or increasing spending on more than half of the budget."

...

"Consider what the Romney campaign, then, is saying: If Romney is elected, then by his third year in office, every single federal program that is not Medicare, Social Security, or defense, will be cut, on average, by 40 percent. That means Medicaid, infrastructure, education, food safety, road safety, the postal service, basic research, foreign aid, housing subsidies, food stamps, the Census, Pell grants, the Patent and Trademark Office, the FDA — all of it has to be cut by, on average, 40 percent. If Romney tried to protect any particular priority, it would mean all the others have to be cut by more than 40 percent.

That’s not even remotely plausible. The consequences would be catastrophic. The outcry would be deafening. And Romney has shown no stomach for selling such severe cuts.

...

And yet Romney, who has never released the specific cuts that would make his numbers add up, repeatedly touts it on the campaign trail, and the media dutifully reports his promises to cut federal spending by more than $500 billion in 2016, and in fact to balance the budget by the end of his second term, which would require far larger cuts than what I’ve outlined here, despite the fact that everyone basically knows these cuts aren’t credible and will never happen.

I’m not sure what alternative there is, exactly, except to say, as clearly as possible, Romney’s budget plan is a fantasy, and it will never happen." (emphasis mine)

But what about Ryan's plan. Isn't it supposed to be a bipartisan option? To answer this question, Ezra Klein interviewed Sen. Wyden (D-OR), then man for whom the "bipartisan" label is referring to:

"Ron Wyden: My view is that the policies that were adopted by the Republican House majority and the Romney campaign do not preserve the Medicare guarantee. And that’s what the [Ryan/Wyden] white paper was all about. It was a set of options for improving on the existing Medicare system with public and private choices, beefing up consumer protection, adopting a new way to control costs and put Medicare on a budget so you can protect the guarantee.

Probably the two most significant specific differences between what Governor Romney is talking about and the white paper is, first, that the Romney campaign and the governor would repeal the Affordable Care Act. To lay a foundation for putting together a program to protect the guarantee and protect the budget, you need the changes the Affordable Care Act makes to Medicare, like bundled payments and moving the system towards pay-for-quality. Without it, you can’t move to premium support.

The second difference is that the Romney approach completely pulls the rug out from under the poorest and most vulnerable seniors. In the white paper, protections for so-called dual eligibles, the people in both Medicare and Medicaid, are bulletproof. There’s no way to throw them under the bus. Gov. Romney says he’d block grant the Medicaid program and push those cuts onto the people, which would do enormous harm to those people whose protection was at the center of the white paper." (emphasis mine)

Indeed there has been little attention to Ryan's proposals for cutting government healthcare spending outside of Medicare. And these cuts are no small thing. For instance, Sen Wyden mentions Ryan's Medicaid cuts, which total $800 Billion. Of course there will be impacts:

"The Urban Institute estimates that between 14 million and 27 million people would lose coverage because of Ryan's spending restrictions."

No wonder this plan isn't really bipartisan. So you have the presidential candidate passing off a nearly impossible solution as serious budget talk, and you have his VP proposing draconian right wing measures and calling them bipartisan. Both are accusing Obama of having no plan for Medicare reform, yet Obama has the most serious and detailed plan of all three. And then they attack him for the plan they claim he does not have! What is going on?! Some conservative pundits actually possess the cognitive dissonance to buy into this. But will the American people?

The Roundup: 

Mediscare Edition

Private-Market Tooth Fairy Can’t Cut Medicare Cost

"The bottom line is that, if anything, Medicare Advantage bids are above, not below, traditional Medicare -- once you do the analysis correctly, on an apples-to-apples basis. So regardless of whether you use the CBO analysis of Ryan 1.0, or the evidence to date with Medicare Advantage to analyze Ryan 2.0, the conclusion is the same.

We don’t want to put all our chips down on the health-care competition tooth fairy."

And yes, he notes that the CBO analysis is of Ryans 2011 plan:

"I focused on the 2011 plan because that is the only one that CBO has evaluated in terms of total, not just federal, cost.

The difference in the new version of the Ryan plan is that traditional Medicare would coexist with private plans. To suggest that this would change everything is to make an odd argument: Moving entirely to private competition would not generate big savings, but moving partially would."

The Morning Plum: Romney and Ryan muddy the Medicare waters
Great read!
Greg Sargent goes over the various back and forth blows from the Obama and Romney campaign. Both campaigns think they will carry the medicare message. However, Democrats may need to explain whats really going on here between both campaigns' plans for Medicare:

"The difference is not over whether to do something about Medicare over the long haul; it’s over how to do it. The true nature of this difference is what Romney’s strategy is designed to obscure" (emphasis mine)

Paul Ryan and the Problem With Competitive Bidding

"Private corporations all rely on competitive bidding, and it just hasn't done much to hold down costs. That's because the real source of America's high medical costs is the fact that we simply pay more than other countries for everything we get: more for doctors, more for procedures, more for hospital stays, more for drugs, and — yes — more for insurance. If you really want to hold down costs, you have to hold down costs at the source, and Paul Ryan's Medicare plan has no mechanisms for doing this. It relies solely on competitive bidding, and there's very little chance that this alone can keep Medicare costs from outpacing his "fallback" growth cap. It's a near certainty that his growth cap will be the real mechanism for reining in costs."

PolitiFact: Do Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to turn Medicare into a voucher program?
After bitching about the 2011 lie of the year, democrats are finally getting it together and making accurate statements about Ryan's Medicare plan:

We agree that in the world of policy wonks, there are distinctions between "vouchers" and "premium support," having to do with the type of inflation adjustment used and the degree of marketplace regulation imposed. Compared with his original plan, Ryan’s most recent plan does move closer to fitting the definition of pure premium support. But substantively, it’s still somewhere in between the two approaches.

But the Romney-Ryan approach pretty much matches the dictionary definition of "a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures." We think that describes the general way Ryan's plan would work. For a political discussion aimed at voters rather than policy wonks, we think Obama’s use of the term "voucher" is close enough to earn it a rating of Mostly True. (emphasis mine)

David Frum: Paul Ryan Declares Generational War
Paul Ryan's criticism of Obamacare and the $700 billion in Medicare savings essentially amounts to a generational war:

"The talking point isn't even about changing Medicare, its about keeping the entitlements for the old, and not spending any of that money on the young. You could title this speech: Entitlements for Me, Not for Thee. Spending money on 'deserving' old people is good, spending on anyone else is a waste."

PolitiFact: Ryan's plan includes $700 billion in Medicare "cuts," says Stephanie Cutter

"Cutter said that Romney attacked Obama for cutting $700 billion out of Medicare, but "Paul Ryan protected those cuts in his budget." Again, with this item we are not addressing whether they are cuts, but simply whether she is correctly characterizing Ryan's plan.

Cutter is correct that the Ryan budget plan included cost savings that were part of the future health care law. Just recently, the Romney campaign backed away from that play, saying Romney’s plan would restore the spending that the health law is set to curtail, such as extra funding for private insurers under the Medicare Advantage plan." (emphasis mine)

As PolitiFact has noted before, these are not technically cuts. The reason they assigned a "true" rating is because it is of no consequence to cutter's speech. Cutter is essentially saying that what people are protesting in the Obama law, these "cuts," are preserved in the Ryan plan. So they should not criticize Obama for it without also criticizing Ryan.

Romney's Health Care Plan Freaks Out Utah Republicans

"When asked what they thought should be done to fix health care, Love and McCain offered up an unintentional endorsement of some of the very laws that they've been campaigning angrily against for the past two years, Obamacare and the federal stimulus package." (emphasis mine)

Mitt Romney: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan And Mine Are The Same, 'If Not Identical' 

A possible unintended consequence of the Ryan plan?

Update 8/21/12:

David Cutler: Hey Republicans! Stop Misusing My Medicare Study!
Supporters for the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan misrepresent a study on the effects of premium support healthcare systems.

David Brooks Badly Misrepresents the Romney/Ryan Medicare Plan
 
Update 8/26/12:

Ezra Klein: The problem with Romney’s Medicare chart: It’s not true

"You could take one of two views on this. You could say that Ryan’s and Obama’s plans put Medicare on a sustainable fiscal path, while Romney’s doesn’t, because that’s pretty much what the CBO will say, and they’re the folks who judge these things. Or you could say that none of the plans really make Medicare solvent — that they’re all just theory and prayer. What you can’t say is that Romney has released a plan that makes Medicare solvent." (emphasis mine)

"You Didn't Build That" Is An Argument For Equal Opportunity

Recently I wrote an article debunking a few fallacies that underlie criticisms of Obama's "You didn't build that" remark. These criticisms had very little to do with taking his quote out of context, as the Romney campaign has frequently done. This article focused more on those who kept the quote in context, yet still got the point wrong:

"Essentially, Krauthammer is committing a fallacy by failing to distinguish between necessary and sufficient causes. Obama is saying that the government plays a necessary role in the success of entrepreneurs (and in Krauthammer's analogy, so does the post office). As Krauthammer eluded to earlier, civil society also plays a necessary role. Yet, this is not a sufficient role."

However, I was also very careful not to argue for any particular proposals:

"My purpose in this article is to get the facts straight over what Obama said and what liberals generally mean when talking about this subject. I do not aim to criticize or endorse any solution to the reality observed here. I may do that in a later post."

This is essentially that "later post."

As David Frum notes, President Obama appeared to only use the point to argue for the restoration of the 1990's Clinton tax rates for high income earners (although that is not the best way to describe it). Does that mean he is intending to punish high income people for their success, just because luck played a role in that success? Not necessarily.

I, along with other liberals, do not see a pure equality of opportunity arising out of a libertarian free-market (where the government plays an absolute minimal role in regulation, mostly insuring mutual non-violence). Every person was raised by a different family with different incomes and communities. Even under our socialized education system, inequalities abound among schools, both public and private. Humans are not omniscient, meaning there are unforeseen factors beyond everyone's control that can ruin even the most well thought-out plans, as well as lives. Not everyone has access to health insurance. And health is nearly always necessary for success. Free-market-driven opportunity, like any resource, is scarce. And this opportunity does not always discriminate based on individual initiative or intelligence.

As a result of this fact, we liberals tend to see governments as a mechanism for ensuring equality of opportunity. Governments can fund education, as well as provide healthcare and school lunches. Governments can provide a safety net so a string of bad luck can be overcome. Governments are capable of doing this. And we tend to believe they should.

However none of this is cheap. Safety nets in particular have helped contribute to large budget deficits over the last few years. And there is little doubt the United States faces a long term budget crisis down the road. Although the US can provide stimulus funds over the short term to help accelerate the recovery, there is little doubt a plan for addressing long term deficits is needed. This plan needs to either cut spending, increase revenues, or both. Within these plans lies a choice. What can the government target? As I just noted, government programs meant to provide an equality of opportunity are expensive. And spending that benefits lower income individuals will probably have that effect. This means that, if we want to help fix our long term budget issues, maintain a strong defense, preserve American initiatives (ex: research and development), and avoid the kind of lower and middle class tax increases that may exacerbate the problem, tax increases on the highest tax earners (whether in the form of higher rates or decreased expenditures) need serious consideration. Conservatives may argue that these higher taxes will have the effect of decreasing opportunity since the higher income-earners affected by these tax increases are "wealth creators." Yet the recent inverse relationship between corporate profits and employment gives us a good reason to doubt this. Essentially, we liberals are not buying it, especially with tax rates (as well as tax progressiveness) so low by historical standards. However, even if we were not justified in being skeptical of these claims, we would still not want to just punish successful people.

Whether we liberals are justified or not, we see the increase in revenue from high income earners as necessary to help sustain and strengthen the government programs providing opportunity to people who may not have had that opportunity otherwise. There is no need to posit some desire to punish successful people to help explain Obama's call for higher tax rates for the rich. Externals factors, whether you want to call them "luck," are necessary to help determine success. Raising tax rates on high income earners protects the government programs that help provide this luck.

The Roundup:

Always choose wealthy parents

For the Romney campaign, having "the entrepreneurial spirit" means having wealthy parents:

"Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business" - Romney

Steve Benen summarizes this gaffe:

"If you're a young person who can't afford rising college tuition rates and/or don't have the resources to launch a business venture, the GOP's would-be president has some advice for you: choose wealthy parents."

Success is so much easier when you have wealthy parents eh...I know this sounds like a stupid question, but does Romney not realize many people out there do not have wealthy parents? This is no trivial gaffe. This shows a serious disconnect between Romney and the rest of the population who don't have the kind of parents willing and/or able to give them unlimited opportunities.

And Then All Hell Breaks Loose… 
Richard Carrier explains the fall of David Barton:

And then there’s David Barton, who has long been the David Irving of the American Christian revisionism movement (those who argue that this has always been a Christian nation, founded by conservative Christians writing a Constitution based on the Bible, and praying thanks to Jesus and whatnot). Barton’s bestselling book The Jefferson Lies was voted “the least credible history book in print” by the History News Network and exposed as bullshit on NPR, and our own Chris Rodda has been instrumental in fact-checking and exposing his distortion and misrepresentation of the facts (and even the fabricating of quotes).

Now even prominent fellows of the fundamentalist Discovery Institute have declared his book full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.” Yes, you heard that right, even they are now spitting him out of their mouth. Many other conservative Christians have been piling on and confirming Barton a fraud, and have pretty much washed their hands of him. But the final blow was that his own publisher just declared his book essentially fraudulent and has pulled publication. That’s Thomas Nelson, a major Christian publisher. Barton is still defending himself and has a few lackeys punting for him, but his ship has well sunk by this point. (You can read up on all this breaking news as reported by our own Ed Brayton, Al Stefanelli, and Mano Singham.)

He then follows up with a point on the 2012 election I've been making for a while:

"This single factor, who picks the next Supreme Court Justice, is literally the single most important decision every voter will be making this November, whether they are aware of it or not. We had all better vote with that on our conscience." (emphasis mine)

Indeed this point may have been made most eloquently by Eddie Tabash at FreeOK2012. Sadly I do not have a copy of the video. Please comment if you find one.

The Problematic Use of Skeptics in Supernatural Shows
A MUST-READ on the supernatural-shows' skeptic strawman:

"The problem is that skeptics are treated as a character type which just has a proclivity to doubt even in the teeth of overwhelming evidence. Rather than being judiciously thinking people who believe when they see evidence, and who are skeptical merely of frauds and of the unproven, they are people who remain stubborn disbelievers despite clear and unavoidable evidence or despite knowing about similar kinds of realities within their world, etc."

Election Day impersonation, an impetus for voter ID laws, a rarity, data show  
Voter impersonation fraud is virtually nonexistent. Cases of voter fraud almost never include voter impersonation fraud (instead they are often voter registration fraud, which almost never results in actual voting), meaning voter ID laws do nothing to solve the problem. And the few cases where voter impersonation fraud has existed, voter ID laws would still not be effective (absentee voting, etc...). So why again are Republicans trying to hard to enact Voter ID laws?

Democratic Members Of Ohio Election Board Removed For Supporting Voter Rights 
If you compare polls of "all," verses "registered voters" and "likely voters," there is a clear trend. The former tends to side with democrats significantly more than the latter. As a result, any attempt to make voting tougher (whether through voter ID laws, suppression of weekend voting, etc...) is going to favor republicans. This is no secret. The GOP is fully aware of this and is also fully aware that Ohio may be the most important swing state in the election.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

Former climate skeptic Richard Muller continues to evolve his stance on climate change:

"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming."

...

"We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions." (emphasis mine)

Remember this study was partly funded by the libertarian Koch Brothers.

The GOP's Sobering Electoral Math 
Although the popular vote is neck-in-neck (Obama +4.0 as of 8-13-12), there doesn't seem to be nearly as much attention drawn to the fact that Obama has a major electoral lead (237-191, with enough swing states to win easily as of 8-13-12).

Mandatory, extended vacation is good for the economy

"Americans have less vacation time than workers in any other advanced economy.

This is absurd. A mandatory three weeks off would be good for everyone -- including employers. Studies show workers who take time off are more productive after their batteries are recharged. They have higher morale, and are less likely to mentally check out on the job."

Paul Ryan Got Federal Funds To Help With Bush-Era GM Plant Closure He Blames On Obama

"The attack has already received a fair amount of ridicule because the Janesville, Wis., plant actually closed during the last year of George W. Bush's presidency. What hasn't really been emphasized is whether Ryan clearly knew this and made the charge nonetheless."

What I built — with government help
Good article, although it focuses on government programs that are a bit more constant rather than non-individualism based variables. The difference is explained here.

California law barring parents from 'curing' gay children moves through legislature
Although the former bill had its issues, the newer bill is very justified. These SOCE treatments are harmful. Although we shouldn't necessarily ban these treatments for consenting adults, it makes sense to ban them for minors legally unable to consent. SOCE is essentially psychological child abuse. While SOCE supporters point to anecdotes and pseudoscience to support their side, SOCE critics point to legitimate research that shows SOCE is neither effective, nor safe.

FiveThirtyEight: Akin Comments Could Swing Missouri Senate Race

"A paper by Nicholas Chad Long of St. Edward’s University examined the performance of Senate candidates running for re-election between 1974 and 2008 who were involved in various types of controversy.

Mr. Long identified 21 cases in which the controversy surrounded a public statement the candidate had made. He found that, on average, these candidates received about 5 percent less of the vote than they otherwise would have on Election Day, controlling for other factors. Since most Senate races are two-way contests, losing five percentage points also implies that the opponent gains five percentage points, meaning that the net swing is equal to 10 points."

...

"Some Republican activists on social media platforms, perhaps going through a similar calculation, are calling on Mr. Akin to withdraw from the race. An effort to replace a candidate on the ballot would create controversy of its own, potentially including legal challenges. But if the swing against Mr. Akin in the polls is 10 percentage points or more, it might be an avenue Republicans would need to consider if they want to maximize their chances of taking over the seat." (emphasis mine)

Charles Negy, Professor, Says Students Showed 'Religious Arrogance And Bigotry' In A Letter Later Posted On Reddit 

Donald Prothero reviews Ivan Schwab’s outstanding book Evolution’s Witness: How Eyes Evolved.

I predicted Romney would see an initial boost in the polls from the Ryan pick. I may be wrong...

Romney Picked Ryan Over Advisers' Early Doubts

Be careful of campaign tactics that seek to take partisan words and attribute them to non-partisan sources. These tactics are very common. 

Romney continues to take Obama's words out of context. And this is the man who demanded an apology from Obama for dishonesty?

For weight loss, studies have shown dieting to be much more effective than exercise.