ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Franken Wins Again

225px_al_franken.jpg

From the Star Tribune:

After a trial spanning nearly three months, Norm Coleman’s attempt to reverse Al Franken’s lead in the recount of the U.S. Senate election was soundly rejected today by a three-judge panel that dismissed the Republican’s lawsuit.

The judges swept away Coleman’s argument that the election and its aftermath were fraught with systemic errors that made the results invalid.

Apparently Coleman has more fruitless appeals to make, so the seating of Al Franken can continue to be delayed.

It’s worth remarking a bit on the incredible solidarity the Minnesota GOP is showing with their colleagues’ broader interest in obstructing the inevitable here. Representatives John Kline, Erik Paulsen, and Michele Bachmann, along with Governor Tim Pawlenty, are all seeing their quest to get Minnesota’s fair share of pork and other parochial interests undermined by the fact that their state only has one Senator. Normally, I would expect politicians in that kind of situation to put the interests of themselves and their state ahead of the interests of their political party. In general, the level of party discipline that the Republicans have been able to muster in 2009 (thus far) is really impressive and goes against a lot of conventional wisdom about how the American political system operates. I hope some smart political scientists are doing some thinking about this.

Politics

72 percent of Americans disagree with Cheney’s claim that Obama has made the U.S. less safe.

Last month, former Vice President Dick Cheney complained that President Obama’s policies “raise the risk…of another attack” in the U.S. Since then, numerous government officials — including Gen. David Petraeus and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — have spoken out against Cheney’s remarks. Now, a new CNN poll shows that the American public also view Cheney’s claim with disregard. According to the poll, 72 percent “disagree with Cheney’s view that some of Obama’s actions have put the country at greater risk with 26 percent agreeing with the former vice president.”

Politics

Minnesota court rules in favor of Franken over Coleman in U.S. Senate race.

After a recount that has gone on since the November election, a Minnesota court today ruled that Democrat Al Franken received more votes than Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in the state’s U.S. Senate race. Coleman has said that he plans to appeal the ruling to the state’s Supreme Court, which “could mean weeks more delay in seating Minnesota’s second senator. After a statewide recount and seven-week trial, Franken stands 312 votes ahead. Franken actually gained more votes from the election challenge than Coleman, the candidate who brought it.” Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) has said that although having just one senator is hurting the state’s residents, he supports Coleman’s appeals.

Climate Progress

Yes, the science says on our current emissions path we are projected to warm most of U.S. 10 – 15°F by 2100, with sea level rise of 5 feet or more, and the SW will be a permanent Dust Bowl

What is the best, most accurate soundbite for climate science advocates asked about projected climate impacts on this country by 2100 assuming we stay on business-as-usual emissions — according to the latest science?

I suggest some version of

On our current emissions path we are projected to warm most of the United States 10 – 15°F by 2100, with sea level rise of 5 feet or higher, the U.S. Southwest a permanent Dust Bowl, half or more species extinct, and much of the ocean a hot, acidic dead zone.

I say that, of course, because that is what the latest science says, as I document at length with links to the literature here:  An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water.

You can quibble with the word choice, and sometimes I don’t remember to say every word or phrase I’d like to, such as “from preindustrial levels” [or "from Kansas and Oklahoham to California"].   But this is now the median projection for business-as-usual emissions and warming.  It might not be that bad, but it could be much worse.

If you like to err on the conservative side, you can throw in “up to” — i.e. “we are projected to warm most of the U.S. up to 15°F or more by 2100, with sea level rise of up to 5 feet or more….”

Now conservatives, who err all the time, don’t like blunt progressives who know their science.  So they are trying to shout down this soundbite by misstating the science.

Read more

Health

Cost Containment Will Require Government Action

costcontainmentpills2.jpgThe most recent version of the Annals of Internal Medicine contains a rather gloomy forecast for President Obama’s proposed cost-containment measures. The administration has promised that investments in health information technology, comparative effectiveness research, preventive care, and payment reform could lower health care costs, but authors of this piece — Theodore Marmor, Jonathan Oberlander, and Joseph White — aren’t buying the hype:

However, none of these measures is likely to substantially reduce health care spending in the short run, even if they are worthwhile long-term investments that improve quality of care and health outcomes. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has issued a report disputing claims of sizable savings from moving to electronic medical records; other CBO studies cast doubt on the capacity of disease management programs to reduce costs.

While correct on the merits, Marmor, Oberlander, and White may be too pessimistic. The above mentioned measures may not score well with the Congressional Budget Office, but independent efforts to lower health care spending have incorporated some of Obama’s proposals:

- Kaiser Permanente And Health IT: Today, all of its medical clinics and two-thirds of its hospitals operate in a paperless environment and the rest are scheduled to be completely digitized by next year. “Within the first 18 months of installing electronic medical records, the rate of patient visits to doctors’ offices and clinics and the emergency department falls by about 7%.” Unnecessary office visits were reduced or replaced with telephone visits.

- Geisinger Health Systems And Payment Reform: Geisinger has devised a 90-day warranty on elective heart surgery, promising to get it right the first time, for a flat fee. If complications arise or the patient returns to the hospital, Geisinger bears the additional cost. The venture has paid off. “Heart patients have fared measurably better, and the health system has cut its bypass surgery costs by 15 percent.”

- Transitional Care And Care Coordination: Mary Naylor, RN, PhD, has developed approaches to transitional care that can reduces the need for readmission to hospitals. This model has resulted in significant reductions in readmission rates and savings for patients.

These cost containment measures are in line with Obama’s proposals and could result in savings not captured by standard actuary measures. In fact, government investment in health IT, comparative effectiveness research, preventive care and care coordination should unleash even greater innovation in the private sector and better cost containment models.

As the authors point out, containing costs, will inevitably lower the profits of “doctors, nurses, and hospitals to pharmaceutical companies, insurers, lawyers, and sales and marketing staff.” But a health care system that spends one-third ($700 billion) of its dollars on treatments that don’t work and still leaves 16 percent of the population without health insurance, is simply unsustainable. Thus, the Obama administration will likely adopt a broad spectrum of cost containment measures, greatly regulate the insurance industry, and allow an efficient public health plan to compete alongside private insurers.

After all, government is not in the business of sustaining inefficient practices. Rather, it has a responsibility to funnel its resources towards efforts that incentivize quality and efficiency in the health care system. Recently, Medicare decided to stop reimbursing providers for “never events” -– serious and costly errors in the provision of health care services that should never happen like surgery on the wrong body part or mismatched blood transfusion — and is considering ending payments for Medicare coverage of virtual colonoscopies (because it hasn’t found enough evidence that these tests, which use X-ray images and computer software to create images of the colon, improve outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries).

To the extent that Medicare can shape the market towards quality and efficiency (private insurers have also sopped reimbursing for never-events), it can play an important role in lowering the nation’s health care costs.

Security

Kristol Uses Pirate Crisis To Argue For More Defense Spending

kristol-furrowed.jpgEarlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a plan to reorient defense spending away from lucrative boondoggles for contractors and toward systems that are proven to work and are needed in present-day military situations. Conservatives immediately cried foul; Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) went so far as to claim that the Obama administration “is willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs.”

Right-wing pundit Bill Kristol was among the conservatives fearmongering about the supposed “cuts.” Following North Korea’s test launch of a missile, Kristol declared that “it is scary to have a president” talk about cutting the defense budget. “It is a very dangerous moment,” he said. Today on Bill Bennett’s radio show, Kristol said he hoped that the pirate crisis would make President Obama think twice before following through on the proposed budget reforms:

KRISTOL: Unfortunately, given the world we live in, this [military funding] is not something we can skimp. And that’s another thing I hope the president realizes

BENNETT: Budget cuts. The defense budget cuts, right?

KRISTOL: Well I hope he thinks about that. I mean, a lot of things that don’t look necessary — who needs the a big destroyer, the U.S.S. Bainbridge? Who needs Seals getting hours, weeks, months of training being snipers, isn’t that something that went out of fashion 70 years go? You can imagine people making these arguments. And it turns out, a lot of these things turn out to be important. … And I do hope it makes him sort of understand that there’s no substitute for having a strong and large military, honestly.

Listen here:

Kristol cites the pirate crisis — and the use of the U.S.S. Bainbridge — as some sort of proof that the plan to shift resources away from costly Naval destroyers is misguided. However, there was no need for a massive naval destroyer; in fact, it took “several hours” for the 8,000-ton ship to arrive at the scene. Indeed, as Matthew Yglesias noted, Gates himself mocked the idea that such ships could defend against pirates:

Gates is holding on to the Littoral Combat System project for the Navy even though the program has had a lot of cost overruns and so forth. Gates said that despite the problems, “I think it has a capability we just have to have.” Specifically, the promise of a ship that’s not only agile, but relative cheap on a per-ship basis is large. “You don’t need a $5 billion ship to go after pirates,” Gates said.

A greater number of less expensive ships would be arguably more effective than fewer, expensive naval destroyers like the Bainbridge and its even more expensive successors, the DDG-1000, which Gates is seeking to cut. Indeed, the defense budget reforms reflect the type of “reshaping,” Gates said, “that the combatant commanders are asking for.”

Kristol is not alone is seeking to use the pirate crisis to shill for increased defense spending. Last week, Fox military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney said on air that he would deploy the massively expensive and unproved F-22 to combat pirates. Conveniently, McInerney is a consultant for one of the F-22′s major contractors.

Media

Structural Issues in Cable News

rachel_maddow_olbermann_1.jpg

Brendan Nyhan links to some Daily Howler critiques of Rachel Maddow and argues that the “inescapable conclusion of reading Somerby is that the problem with cable news is structural, not ideological . . . I’m sure liberals tell themselves that she’s still better than Hannity, O’Reilly, et al. but that’s a pretty low bar.”

I’d make a few points about this. One is that “better than Hannity, O’Reilly, et. al.” may be a low bar, but it’s also the relevant bar. You make progress but doing things better than the people who’ve previously been doing similar things do them. Cable news isn’t really my cup of tea, but Keith Olbermann’s show was a good deal better than anything that was on prime time cable previously, and Maddow’s show is even better. By contrast, Glenn Beck’s show is incredibly terrible, much worse than anything Hannity or O’Reilly ever used to do.

Second, I would caution against drawing “inescapable” conclusions based on the relatively limited cable news market. If there were a thousand cable news channels all competing ferociously, we could draw a lot of “inescapable” conclusions about their behavior. Instead, we have just a few. For a while, MSNBC thought that the way to compete with Fox was to put more conservatives on the air and one might have reached the “inescapable” conclusion that only conservatives can succeed on cable. Now that seems wrong.

Last, we should be clear about what the structural issue is here, and I think it’s the fact that the appeal of these shows to the suits is that they have basically no budget. TV news at its best is like a series of mini-documentaries that can add a level of depth that words alone don’t capture. And it can bring original research and reporting to bear. And it’s not that there’s no audience for that sort of thing. But the cable executives don’t believe, perhaps rightly, that the increase in audience you could obtain by doing more value-added work (and note that you almost certainly could gain audience, prime time cable news shows are all very low rated compared to more in-depth offerings like 60 Minutes and various PBS ventures) would be proportional to the additional expense you would incur.

Note that part of the nature of capitalism is that for a venture to get funded by a publicly traded firm in a competitive market, you need to be able to make the case that not only is it profitable but it’s actually profit-maximizing. Even an expensive show that attracted enough viewers and ad dollars to cover its costs couldn’t get on the air. The old tradition of a heavily regulated three-network oligopoly meant that ABC, CBS, and NBC really only need news divisions to generate enough revenue to more-or-less pay for themselves and offer some prestige. In the future, perhaps non-commercial video production and distribution of various kinds will be more viable and we’ll get more rich TV or TV-esque content. Arguably the BBC, which has never been a commercial enterprise and has tons of reporters, is extremely well-positioned to take advantage of the rapid deterioration of the market status of news-gathering in the United States.

Climate Progress

Among Plutocrats Fueled By Coal, Climate Bill Sends Chill

MO Coal Plant“In Areas Fueled By Coal, Climate Bill Sends Chill” — so goes the title of a recent New York Times article by Felicity Barringer, in which she persuasively describes the “wounded economy” of Missouri. She explained the state’s reliance on “21 coal-fired power plants that emit more than 75 million tons of carbon dioxide annually and generate 80 percent of Missouri’s electricity,” based on “economic incentives built into the state’s laws, history and habits” that “encourage burning as much coal as possible.” But coal-state Democrats are fighting “legislation that would put a price on carbon-dioxide emissions”:

Missouri is hardly alone. Nebraska, Indiana and Iowa are also states where coal turns on most of the lights. That is why, even before Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, proposed legislation that would put a price on carbon-dioxide emissions, Senate and House Democrats from coal-using states began to push back. They are concerned that the new costs would get passed on to consumers, to Ms. Daniels-Hanner, to farmers from rural Missouri and to employers like the energy-hungry Noranda aluminum plant in New Madrid in the southeast of the state, which has 1,000 workers. And they worry that in an already wounded economy, increased costs could turn one of the relatively few economic blessings into a blight.

Is that really what “coal-state Democrats like Senator Claire McCaskill” are concerned about? After all, the “low-cost electricity” in coal states hasn’t helped their citizens much. In fact, states with higher electricity rates also have higher wages. Limiting coal pollution will increase the health of their constituents and spur a clean-energy economic recovery.

The actual beneficiary of coal’s dominance in states like Missouri have not been the working people Felicity Barringer profiles, but rather the polluting corporations and their conservative allies. In particular, Missouri is home to “the world’s leading coal merchant,” Peabody Energy, and the 20th largest utility in the country, Ameren. Peabody and Ameren respectively pulled in $6.6 billion and $7.5 billion in annual revenues in 2008. Peabody CEO Gregory Boyce’s salary was $11.95 million in 2008 — Ameren CEO Gary Rainwater made $5 million. Strangely for a piece about the politics of regulating coal’s pollution, Barringer fails to note Peabody and Ameren’s outsized political influence: Read more

Politics

Fox host: ‘It’s now my great duty to promote the tea parties. Here we go!’

Fox News host Neil Cavuto regularly claims that when he aggressively advocates for the anti-Obama “tea party” protests on air, he is simply covering them as a journalist. But Stuart Varney, Cavuto’s fill-in host, admitted this afternoon that the the network is actually promoting the right-wing protests. After telling a guest that the tea parties were in protest to President Obama’s policies, Varney closed a segment by saying, “It’s now my great duty to promote the tea parties. Here we go!” Watch it:

In a Washington Post online chat today, media critic Howard Kurtz said that “it makes me a bit uncomfortable the way the channel has turned these April 15 protests into something of a crusade, complete with the drumbeat of advance publicity and the above-named hosts planning to attend various tea parties. But it’s not fair to say that Fox’s reporters are jumping on this bandwagon.” Fox News bills Varney as a “business journalist.”

Update

On CNN yesterday, Kurtz critiqued Fox’s tea party promotion. Watch the video here.

Politics

Gallup: Views of income taxes are ‘about as positive as at any point in the last 60 years.’

In its annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, Gallup has found that Americans view of income taxes are the second most positive they’ve been since 1956, with 48 percent saying that the amount of federal taxes they pay is “about right.” Forty-six percent say they’re “too high.” According to Gallup, the more positive sentiment — which increased among both lower- and middle-income Americans, but not upper-income Americans — is likely due President Obama’s stimulus and budget plans:

The slightly more positive view this year may reflect a public response to President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus and budget plans. He has promised not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, while cutting taxes for lower- and middle-income Americans. The latter has already begun, as the government has reduced the withholding amount for federal income taxes from middle- and lower-income American workers’ paychecks.

The poll also found that 61 percent of Americans “regard the income taxes they have to pay this year as fair,” a view that has not changed much in the past six years.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up