Some Historical Observations on the Iran Nuclear Deal

Unless you've been living in a cave in Outer Mongolia for the last few months, you've heard of the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" ... otherwise known as the "nuclear deal" ... which has been worked out between Iran and a group of other nations consisting of the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, France, China, and the European Union. The essential idea behind the agreement is that in exchange for allowing some limits on its nuclear activities, Iran will get relief from economic sanctions while being allowed to continue its atomic program for peaceful purposes.

Not everybody is happy with this arrangement. Republicans in particular are beside themselves with fury, accusing President Obama of everything up to and including treason for negotiating what they consider to be a terrible deal with a dangerous and untrustworthy foreign government, ignoring the will of Congress as expressed by the "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015," and for considering the deal to be an "executive agreement" between the President and Iran rather than a treaty constitutionally subject to Congressional review. News outlets in this country are hip-deep in stories with headlines like "21 Reasons the Iran Deal Is a Bad Deal."

Opponents of the agreement generally cite two arguments:

1) Iran has broken every treaty it's ever signed; and,

2) The Iranians can't be trusted.

Now, I don't know all the details of the agreement, and I certainly don't know whether it's a good deal or not, and by whose definition ... most of what I know is what I read in this very good summary article on CNN. Nor have I seen a list of all the agreements and treaties the Iranians are said to have broken. I also don't know whether or not we can or should trust the Iranians ... but I doubt they think they can trust us.

Yes, I'll bet that many senior figures in the Iranian government don't think they can trust us any more than we trust them. One of the criticisms thrown at the agreement by GOP critics is that "the Iranians have broken every agreement they've ever made." This may or may not be true. But from an Iranian point of view, it's the US government that has a long and distinguished history of ignoring and breaking treaties ... after all, how many of the solemn treaties signed between the US and the Indian tribes in the 18th and 19th centuries continue to be scrupulously observed today?

The Iranians also remember (even if we choose not to) that the CIA engineered the 1953 revolution that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran and its Premier, Mohammed Mossadegh, on behalf of Western oil companies angered by Mossadegh's decision to to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. The coup organized by the CIA put Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi - a man detested by many Iranians - back on the peacock throne ... an action that led eventually to the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah and put a radically anti-American Islamic government in power.

And let us not forget that the Iranians have the recent experience of seeing Republican members of the US Senate contacting them directly in an attempt to undermine their government's negotiating position. If you were the Iranians, would you trust a government that not only can't speak with one voice, but which actively seeks to undermine itself? A government including elected officials who tell them they can't trust in the worth or longevity of any agreement it signs?

Who can't trust whom?

Again, I don't know if this is the best deal that could have been worked out. I don't know if the President has handled the negotiations as well as he might, or if he should have treated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as a treaty subject to the consent of a Congress that was reflexively opposed to it, anyhow. But I think that those in our government who are howling to scrap it and start over, using the threat of military force to drive the Iranians back to the table, are being abysmally stupid. After all, look how well military force has worked in Iraq ... a much smaller country. What message does it send to our allies who joined in the negotiations and who have a stake in putting limits - of whatever sort and longevity - on the Iranian nuclear program. And finally, consider that the Iranians have no particular reason to trust us any more than we do them.

Have a good day. Stop shouting and think this through rationally. Use this article by Peter Beinart to help you.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Magical Plans

As we discussed in this space a week or so ago, the Supreme Court today is hearing the case of King v Burwell which, depending upon how the court decides, could fatally undercut the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) by disallowing the subsidies upon which millions of low and middle income Americans depend to afford their health care insurance. Given that health care in this country is ridiculously expensive for the reasons we’ve already discussed, it seems fairly Grinchy to pull the rug out from under people who are now enjoying health insurance, many for the first time ...

But help is at hand, apparently, should the Supreme Court decide the subsidies are illegal*!

In an OpEd article that appeared in The Washington Post on March 1^st, three Republican Congressmen - Orrin Hatch of Utah (Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee), Lamar Alexander of Tennessee (Chair of the Senate Finance Committee), and John Barrasso of Wyoming (Chair of the Senate Republican Policy Committee) – announced that

“Republicans have a plan to protect Americans harmed by the administration’s actions**.”

This is wonderful news! Of course, it might have been even more wonderful had it been announced a few years ago, in place of endless, useless votes to defund all or part of the ACA, but hey! – they have a plan now!

But as you might suspect, Bilbo the Cynical Curmudgeon has a few questions and observations about this GOP plan as outlined in the OpEd article …

First, an observation: an OpEd article does not constitute a “plan.” It constitutes a pair of promises designed to give the impression that a plan exists. As we shall see, I’m not sure that’s true.

The GOP recognizes that if the Supreme Court decides against the subsidies, millions of people who now are getting health insurance for the first time will no longer be able to afford it, and will lose it. This would be undesirable from a PR perspective. Therefore, the first part of the “plan” is this:

“We would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period.”

Riddle me this, Batman … what will be the source of funding for this financial assistance? The GOP advertises itself, after all, as the party of fiscal restraint, insisting that new spending be offset by cuts to other programs. One might reasonably ask, therefore, what other programs will be cut to provide this assistance, or what other source of funding has been identified. This is not spelled out in the article, and I suspect it has been glossed over in the hopes that no one asks about it ... especially not the extreme fiscal conservatives of the GOP who will adamantly oppose new spending***.

The second part of the “plan” is this:

“We will give states the freedom and flexibility to create better, more competitive health insurance markets offering more options and different choices ... We have had many discussions with our Senate and House Republican colleagues on this issue, and there is a great deal of consensus on how to proceed. Many of our colleagues have good ideas, and we look forward to working together.”

You will, I hope, forgive me if I question the existence of “consensus” or an ability to “work together” within the Republican party. The recent fiasco over funding the Department of Homeland Security is a direct result of the refusal of the most hardline conservative Republicans to work with their more moderate colleagues (although there is great effort being made to put the blame on the Democrats). But be that as it may, how will the GOP “plan” to increase options and choices work? What are the other options that are being considered? How will they differ from the options and choices now available? Inquiring minds want to know.

So I ask again ... what's the plan? And what makes Senators Hatch, Alexander, and Barrasso think that anyone other than the most die-hard conservatives will believe that their platitudes constitute a plan?

Sadly there's quite a bit of stupidity and gullibility in the American voting population ... perhaps just enough to carry the day. And then they can turn to the GOP and ask what the plan is.

Good luck getting a straight answer.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* For a very good analysis of the legal issue, read this New York Times OpEd by Nicholas Bagley: Hello, Justices? It's Reality Calling.

** I assume they are referring to the incalculable harm done to millions of Americans who are now able to obtain affordable health care insurance.

***  The obvious solution is that they will just print the money and blame the Democrats for making it necessary for them to do so.

If They Can _____, Why Can't They _____?

The title of today's post represents a classic construction that's usually invoked to compare two totally unrelated things to make a point that can't be made in any other way. Some examples are:

If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they fix the DC Metro?, and

If they can eradicate smallpox, why can't they find a cure for the common cold?

To these, I would add another one:

If we can build a fantastically complicated mobile space laboratory, send it 352 million miles to Mars, and land it safely on the surface in an impossibly complex maneuver, why can't we build anything else in this country?

Ask yourself when the last time was that you bought a manufactured item that was made in the United States, including any toy, any piece of clothing, or any consumer electronic device starting with "i".

Betcha can't remember.

And then ask yourself why we have over 8% unemployment.

And then ask any of the people running for president* what - exactly - their plan is for bringing any of those manufacturing jobs back to the United States ... broad, general hot-air statements about tax credits and protecting job creators don't count.

Good luck getting an answer.

Just something else to think about in the 90-odd** days remaining until the election.

Have a good day. Enjoy your job, if you have one. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Especially Governor Romney, since he wants us to believe he can do a better job than the incumbent.

** And trust me, they will certainly be odd.

Well, That About Sums It Up...

Yesterday, one of my friends posted a link on his Facebook page to this article from the Los Angeles Times: Senate Republicans Block Action on Oil Tax Breaks. One of the most interesting parts of the article reads ...

"Republicans contend that the tax breaks are necessary to encourage domestic production. The repeal effort also was opposed by the oil and gas industries, which contributed more than $21 million to House and Senate candidates — about three-fourths of which went to Republicans — in the last election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics."

In the world of business, is it really necessary to have a tax incentive to encourage doing something it makes sense to do in the first place? Just curious.

Anyhow, the article, citing data in a report from the organization Taxpayers for Common Sense, says that the value of tax breaks to the oil and gas industry is about $16 billion per year; the bill voted down in Congress took aim at about $2 billion of that which is steered to five major oil companies: Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron. These would be the oil companies which have posted record profits this year.

Just a little something to think about while you're sitting in line at the gas station, thinking about partisan efforts in Congress to slash spending on wasteful, frivolous things like ... oh ... education and health care.

When considering the actions of your elected reprehensives, it's useful to consider the wise words of immortal sage Jerry Reed: "He who expected nothin' ain't gonna be deceived."

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Useless Pledges

This past week, the Republican party published a wonderful, glossy, 28-page work of fiction entitled A Pledge to America. It's a great read, full of the sort of pious platitudes and self-righteous chest-thumping you'd expect from the GOP. Heaven knows how much it must have cost to print (except that I'm sure some printing company is writing off the cost on its taxes this year).

And, if you'll pardon my French, it's bullshit of the highest and purest order, probably produced by bulls on a farm that receives rich subsidies at your expense.

The word pledge is defined by my Webster's New Collegiate dictionary this way: a binding promise or agreement to do or forbear. You might want to remember the part about binding when the time comes to hold the authors of the Pledge to America accountable. But you won't, because we Americans have short memories.

One of the things you first notice about the Pledge to America is that it's long on denunciation of the current administration and on faithful promises to reign in big government, "act immediately to reduce spending," and "root out government waste." It all sounds great, doesn't it? Who could argue against this? Well, as it turns out, it's not so easy as a glossy bumper sticker makes it sound. It's hard to find spending to reduce and government waste to root out. If you listened to Robert Siegel's interview of House Chief Deputy Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy on NPR the other evening, you heard a master politician shamelessly dodge every single attempt by Mr Siegel to get him to identify a single federal agency or program that the Republicans would cut. If you missed the interview, you can read the transcript or listen to the recorded interview here.

Yesterday I found this article by Washington Post economic and domestic policy writer Ezra Klein: There's No Such Thing As Easy Spending Cuts. It's very short and to-the-point, and it does a wonderful job of explaining why the Pledge to America, for all its slick production and how-can-you-argue-against-something-obvious words, will accomplish nothing. Mr Kline makes the point that there's no budgetary line item for waste, other than things like farm subsidies (check out Mike's post for a way to see who's feeding at that trough) ... and that "just about everything in the federal budget is protected by powerful constituencies and politicians."

The sad truth, as Mr Kline notes, is that it's all but impossible to slash the federal budget as the Pledge to America promises to do without wiping out programs funded by your tax dollars that are third rails for very vocal and very powerful constituencies - things like veterans' benefits (hey, I'm a veteran!), the National Institutes of Health, the FAA (John?), national parks, defense, social security, and many other beloved programs.

And that part about slashing taxes? At the risk of again sounding like a one-note trumpet, I have to remind you that taxes are the way governments raise money to operate. At least, they were before we started using them as a system to reward political allies and perform social engineering experiments. Actually, there are three ways governments can raise money: levy taxes, charge fees for services, or borrow money. But nobody likes to pay taxes, everyone cries foul about fees for services (aren't my tax dollars paying for that already?), and oh-by-the-way you and I are funding the spectacular rise of China as a global competitor because - surprise! - they're buying up our debt. We are becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beijing.

So let's stop being stupid about all this. Let's agree that the Pledge to America is a meaningless document that relies - as all good cons do - on the gullibility and short memories of those about to be shamelessly fleeced. It tries to convince us that our problems can be solved if we just do all sorts of things that sound great, but but are politically impossible to do without more spine than anyone in Congress (or the Executive Branch, for that matter) has displayed for many years.

When you receive your next door-to-door visit from someone flacking for a candidate for office, ask him or her my five basic questions. Insist on details rather than vague promises and the old dodge-and-weave.

And if they ask you use your bathroom, you can offer them a copy of the Pledge to America in lieu of Charmin.

Because that's all it's worth.

Have a good day. Ask the hard questions and demand the hard answers. It's your government, after all.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Vote for Me Because He's No Good

Okay, Dear Readers, I know you're tired of listening to me pontificate about the sad state of politics in America, my complete and utter loss of faith in both major parties, and the empty-headed bloviation of tea party wingnuts and other ass-clowns on both fringes of the political spectrum. About the only hole bigger than the crater where my retirement savings used to be is the monumental, slime-bedewed sinkhole of electoral politics.

There's an adage that says when you've hit bottom, you should stop digging. The Democrats have obviously not heard this adage or, if they have, they've chosen to grandly ignore it in classic Republican fashion. If you are one of my Facebook friends, you saw that I posted a link to this article yesterday: Democrats to Voters: You May Hate Us, but the Republicans Are Worse.

As ringing endorsements of a political position go, that one's a true classic worthy of study by future analysts of hard-fought political campaigns. It certainly makes me want to run right out and vote for my favorite candidate ...

One of the things that drives me absolutely crazy is the "attack ad," in which a political candidate wastes 60 seconds of your time with a campaign ad which explains in great detail (with appropriate special effects and musical accompaniment) what a drunken, spouse-beating, non-church-going, inept, useless, all-around waste of skin his (or her) opponent is ... but somehow manages to tell you absolutely nothing about what he (or she) stands for, supports, opposes, or would do if elected. At the end of an ad like that, all you know about this candidate is that that candidate is a useless slimeball.

Closely related to the attack ad is the door-to-door campaign visit, generally conducted by earnest young people who believe their candidate is the only thing standing between civilization as we know it and the utter ruin represented by (insert name of opposing candidate here). My experience has been that most of these door-to-door pests know nothing about their candidate that isn't in their script. They have no clue what positions she (or he) takes on issues other than the very broadest ones, and can't tell you what policies he (or she) would pursue or support if elected. They can't discuss budget priorities, fiscal trade-offs, or much of anything else. All they do is soak up oxygen that could be better used by my plants.

So ...

If you are a political campaign worker in the Northern Virginia area and are planning to either call me or appear on my doorstep to flack for your candidate, don't waste your time unless you are ready to answer these five minimum questions:

1. What does your candidate bring to office that the opponent doesn't? What are his/her qualifications that would convince me to vote for him/her? No credit for "we need change," "I can do better," or "my opponent is a bum" - tell me exactly why I should believe your guy is worth my vote.

2. What specific projects and programs does your candidate support? No credit for "stop illegal immigration" or "put Americans back to work." What - specifically - does your guy propose to do to achieve those ends?

3. What items in the current budget does your candidate support cutting in order to pay for them? No credit for any non-specific answer ... "cutting fat" and "getting rid of fraud and waste" are meaningless and simply tell me your guy doesn't have any original ideas.

4. Does your candidate believe the answer to every problem is cutting taxes? Good-bye, try next door. Taxes are how the government raises the money to operate, and the Constitution specifically grants the power to impose taxes (see Section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment). Instead, tell me about the spending programs you'd be willing to cut to help balance tax income with spending outlays. See #3 above.

5. Does your candidate believe the answer to every problem is a new government spending program? Good-bye, try next door. If you can't tell me exactly how you propose to pay for it, or why it's better than doing nothing, you have no clue. See #3 above.

If you are going to call or visit me on behalf of a candidate and you can't intelligently address these five questions for starters, don't waste my time and yours. Oh, and I hang up on robo-calls, so don't bother.

Unlike corporations or political action committees, I don't have the money to buy an election. I have one vote, and I need to make the best decision I can on how to invest it. If you can't convince me to invest it in you, you need to stay in your current line of work ... or, if you're the incumbent, you need to start polishing your resume.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Yet Another Snarky Question About Health Care

Yesterday I offered a tongue-in-cheek satirical post that provided answers to frequently asked questions about health care reform. The topic of health care is, of course, a serious one on which reasonable people (if you can find any nowadays) can disagree. Back on March 29th, I wrote a post titled Health Care Reform Yardstick in which I asked a few questions that nobody working the issues of health care reform appeared to be answering...or even considering. A week before that, on March 21st, I asked some other Questions About Health Care. If you want to go back and read those again, go ahead...I'll wait.

So...

At the risk of sounding like a one-note trumpet, I still have all the same questions, and have so far amassed exactly NO answers. I even have a new one:

The "public option," which I understand to mean a single-payer, government-run national health-care insurance system, has been savagely vilified by many commentators whose arguments seem to boil down to one thing: I don't want any #$@%! government bureaucrat making decisions about my health care!

Well, here's a news flash for those of you who have been mindlessly parroting that old bromide: bureaucrats are already making decisions about your health care. The only difference is that they work for insurance companies, and not for the government. Remember, if you will, that insurance companies are profit-driven businesses...delivering health care insurance is their way of making money for their shareholders.

So riddle me this, Batman: is it worse to have decisions about your health care made by a government bureaucrat who (at least in theory) is a public servant not motivated by maximizing profits while minimizing costs, or by an insurance company worker whose livelihood depends on maximizing profits while minimizing costs?

I'm just asking the question...not advocating a position.

I was thinking about this because I recently received a letter from my insurance company titled: "Status of your out-of-pocket maximum." This letter told me that, as of May 29th, I had completed 0.71% of my annual out-of-pocket maximum, while Agnes had completed 0.00%. It went on to say that "Th(is) information is intended to help you understand and manage your health care spending."

So, what does this actually mean and how does it help me "understand and manage my health care spending?" If I get sick, I'm going to the doctor. If I have a painful toothache, I'm going to the dentist. What's to "understand and manage?" And what happens when I reach the (very large) "out of pocket maximum?" Does the insurance company start paying 100%? I don't think so.

No answers today, just more questions.

I've given up on getting the answers.

Have a good day. Stay healthy...you can't afford not to.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Questions About Health Care

I woke up a little stiff, sore, and cranky after working in the yard all day yesterday, so I'm in the right frame of mind and body to ask a few questions and make a few comments on the subject of the health care overhaul debate. Here's what comes immediately to mind...

Why is it so hard to get straight, unbiased, information about the true cost of health care and the implications of various options? Insurance companies, the AMA, the pharmaceutical industry, and every group representing a demographic slice (age, religion, sex, etc) of the population has its own view reflecting its own interests...and which takes no account of the legitimate interests of anyone else. Who is providing us the bottom-line information that will help us decide whether or not a particular reform bill is any good? (Hint: this is a trick question...the answer is nobody. The closest thing you'll find is at FactCheck.org)

Why do we tie health insurance to employment? Aren't unemployed people allowed to get sick?

Why do we pay for medical and dental insurance separately?

Why do you pay medical insurance premiums, and a deductible, and a co-pay for each visit to the doctor? Your auto collision insurance has premiums and a deductible...but you don't have a co-pay each time you go to the body shop. I guess if your body is made of metal and fiberglass, different economic rules apply.

Insurance companies are not in business to pay for your health care. They are in business to make money. Your good health is incidental to that.

Why do we file so many lawsuits about medical malpractice, which lead to such enormous jury awards? While I'm sure there are cases of true and egregious malpractice, one can't ignore the enormous cost of malpractice insurance premiums to doctors as a factor in the cost of health care. Should there be a cap on malpractice suit awards?

When I had a hernia repaired a few years ago, the total out-of-pocket cost to me - the surgery and prescriptions - was less than $100. The root canal and follow-up crown that I had done this year cost almost $1200 out-of-pocket. Why is there such an enormous disparity in the costs of medical and dental care? And oh-by-the-way - if I hadn't had a good job that provided insurance coverage, I'd likely still be walking around with a hernia and an insanely painful dead tooth (see question #2 above).

Those are just a few of the questions and observations that come to mind as I ponder the issue of health care reform. And when the shouting blowhards at Faux News thunder that "the American people don't want health care reform," they didn't ask me. Despite what those morons would have you believe, I am an American. I want affordable health care. And I want answers a guy like me can understand so that I can make an informed decision.

That's it for now. I'm feeling cranky...but I'd really like someone to answer those questions for me.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo