1. Like Fack Youk, I liked McGwire better before all this apology nonsense. FY on how contrary to what Poz says, McGwire’s apology is little better than A-Rod’s (courtsey of Poz)
2. I’ve enjoyed following this Lane Kiffin-to-USC thing. Enjoyed reading initial reactions (Ratto & Plaschke) but the guy who’s probably having the most fun with this story is T.J. Simers.
3. This is, like, kinda funny.
4. And finally, “Dock Ellis and his no-hitter on acid going to Sundance“
1. Typical Boston asshat. There’s something in the water up there, makes ’em all back-biters. It’s worse in the winter after a Patriots loss.
2. I thought I was the only one still reading TJ Simers. I love him, though he’s clearly insane, and not in a Ray Ratto kinda way.
3. Like, didn’t he used to be, like, liberal? Or was he, like, just contrarian, and, like, trying to be, like, against whatever was in the the forefront? He’s kinda, like, become a dick. I went to grad school with a bunch of people like Hitchens and I’ve still not quite decided how I feel about him. Making fun of people with poor phonetics, though, seems beneath his gaze. Must’ve been a slow news week or his deadline was before McGwire’s conversation.
4. I loved acid. What a fun, fun drug.
And get off your lawn?
1. A couple of things I liked about the FY piece: a) proper recognition of his own role when it all comes down to it: “When you are a media bottom feeder like myself and you wait 36 hours to give your opinion on a story like this, all that’s left is the backwash of the backlash. So here goes nothing…”; b) well-articulated praise of Posnanski as a pre-“back-biting” caveat: “If you don’t read Joe Posnanski’s blog, you are truly missing out. If there was a sports writers draft tomorrow, he would be snatched up with the first pick. He weaves together disparate topics with ease and makes seemingly uninteresting things worth reading about. His posts are long and nuanced and are meant to be read in full, but I’m going to blockquote him here (and take him out of context) to make a point”; c) his point, from a post the next day on the same subject, on how intelligent writers can disagree–a point that sort-of addresses your questions about Hitchens in No. 3.
On the other hand, one thing I don’t like about the piece is the use of the phrase, “I still consider the single season home run record to be 61.” Also, their blog’s name is disturbingly similar to this one’s.
2. Yeah, Simers is definitely out there. Or we should say, he puts himself out there.
3. I just discovered Hitchens through mb’s recommendation and have been reading him regularly via his twitter account. So far, I like the writing–I probably don’t have enough info on him and the subjects he covers to speak on whether he’s changing politically. It’d be interesting to hear from mb on this.
he says all that nice stuff about Posnanski, then rips him for being inconsistent between A-Rod’s confession and McGwire confession. There’s a reason for that: A-Rod’s a douche.
He’s not ripping him, just pointing out an inconsistency. I’m with Boston ass-hat on this one.
meh.
Speaking of meh, has someone kidnapped the monkey?
I had some statisticians I had to crush under my bootheel.
He’s tied up in my basement. I loved him too much to let him roam free. You’re next, LB.
{shakes uncontrollably}
Fwiw, Pos agrees… to an extent.
re. Hitchens:
He’s always been kind of a classic witty, hard-drinking, erudite British intellectual. Lots of fun to read if you agree with him, and infuriating if you don’t. He was generally left-leaning, often to an extreme, and in particular very anti-religion. (I remember turning on the radio when I first moved to Berkeley, landing on KPFA and hearing this guy who turned out to be Hitchens railing against Mother Teresa.)
After 9/11 he became an enthusiastic champion of the “war on terror,” including the invasion of Iraq and some of the civil rights abuses in the US. Whether that constitutes a radical shift in his ideology depends on how you look at it. On the one hand he was aligning himself with people and supporting similar practices to ones he had blasted in the past. On the other hand, his belief that radical Islam needs to be stamped out can be seen as just part of his larger anti-religion crusade. (Also worth noting is that many secular Europeans worry, rightly or wrongly, about a growing Muslim population gaining too much political power there, in the same way that their American counterparts worry about the influence of the (Christian) religious right here.)
I read him regularly and I watch him if he’s on the television. I try to reattach my earlier viewpoint of him with what I see of him today.
However, if both he and Cornell West are hanging off a cliff and I can only save one, I’m probably stepping on Hitchens fingers to pull Brother Cornell up.
This book seems to show Hitchens in both lights; that is, how he might be at once liberal and yet a pain in the liberal establishment’s collective ass.
Also, LB, isn’t it one-l-Cornel?
Yup. I’ve made an error. E-Sign maker.
Oh, one more link, channeling LB above:
It very well could be his true belief in the opposition of religion. He is very anti-religion. It does seem strange however that he seemingly switched allegiances. Of course, it also could be that he didn’t and felt he could do more damage from within. If ANYONE were capable of making this transition, it’s him. He’s egocentric enough to assume he could make some people change their minds in that capacity. I dunno.
Yeah, well, IIRC, Cockburn’s jumped his own tracks as well.
He’s a good read these days.
He’s got all wistful and French since he got sick.
I think, although cannot know, that I would be glad for this article even if Obama did not cut spending more than Bush. Spending cuts are a core conservative goal, and the ability to achieve them should be something conservatives focus on.
Giving credit where credit is due should be a goal for both sides, so consider this one of mine.
Thoughts on the bank tax?
See, I have been working out.
Doesn’t this have to be true:
No, it seems like a totally separate issue. I mean, it’s absurd that Bowie Kuhn is in the hall of fame and Marvin Miller is not, just as it’s absurd that Jim Rice and Lou Brock are in and Raines is not, but there’s no real way to compare the players to the non-players.
That was weird. For whatever reason, I spent the first 3/4ths of that article assuming it was Plaschke who wrote it, and I was subconsciously ripping it.
Rock on, SABR. Rock on.
Deep Focus, Inc.’s a NYC-based marketing company. They’re scum. My backing goes with the stat geeks. Roll, geeks.
Hey, do I impugn sign-makers?
JC, you’re in marketing?!
There is no god.
Where did you think his wit came from?
This looks funny.
Oh my god…no fucking way!!!!!!
Tony, Tony, Tony. Being truthful is always the correct course of action.
Sometimes it’s wiser to be truthful than to lie, so you won’t be believed. Don’t you believe me?
Answer: protecting their ability to get Cardinals stories next season.
I read that and thought “Or Buzz Bissinger?”
Tony, Just Admit It
Tapir baby!
Lemur conkers!
Science Thursday: people are stupid.
Aka: Karl Rove is (no-snark) one of the better campaign managers of modern US politics.
If Klein is right, this is an out-and-out stupid deal:
At least the Nelson deal was something that was structurally good (more federal medicare money) instead of something that is structurally bad (less revenue generated by excise tax)
apples and oranges, NM
This is good for the unions. They can’t afford to have their members hammered by that excise tax, and here in Cali it would effect quite a few union members. They are probably hoping that this will get revisited when there is additional pressure for real reform.
No, not apples and oranges.
Both are giveaways to secure support. The first was a giveaway we should be giving to everyone (instead of just NE). The second was a giveaway we should not be giving.
Unions should be negotiating an xfer from medical benefits to wages with their management (who, unless I’m missing something, wouldn’t care) rather than fighting for targeted giveaways.
I see the two differently. Nelson held up the senate for his piece with a wedge issue. The “cadillac tax” as it is called is a real problem for the union constituency, for the following reasons –
A. The value of excellent health benefits is very hard to predict even in a normal cycle of inflation, much less with x factor of subsidies and impending mandates thrown in. That is why it has been to unions’ advantage to bargain for the best possible benefit and lock it in for the longest period.
B. Union’s have collective bargaining agreements that expire at different times. It is never a good strategy for a union to open negotiations on a mandatory subject of bargaining without the leverage of broader subjects at issue and a full spectrum of leverage to wield at the table. Even worse (I would call it incompetent) for a union to open negotiations on a mandatory subject with a predetermined takeaway as the end objective. It just won’t work, you can never get back the value of the takeaway.
This cadillac tax has been a huge problem from the beginnning and it will only get in if the unions believe that it will not have any real impact by the time it goes into effect. Which fits with the broader pipe dream, among establishment dems anyway, of this legislation.
That’s interesting. I wouldn’t have expected that a predetermined takeaway was an impossible position (when the takeaway is neutral for employers). That’s a different kind of negotiating than I’m familiar with, but certainly doesn’t make it wrong.
I personally think the “huge problem” idea is crap to begin with (its a tax on 40% of benefits after the high threshold, so it’s a tiny tax on a tiny number of plans). Unions who negotiated big benefits and small wages gained a windfall for a long time, the fact that that window needs to close for a much larger and unrelated reason can’t possibly make the sky fall. Or, put another way, there is no good policy reason for employer-provided health benefits to be untaxed at all (while other health insurance is taxed), so taxing only the most expensive ones is a long way from unfair.
And to clarify, no one (at least that I am aware of) believes the tax will have no impact. It is designed to raise revenue, and can only do that by having an impact. Furthermore, its existence will provide an incentive towards less expensive plans (especially important because more expensive plans are not necessarily better).
The point is that the takeaway is never neutral and trying to agree on the facts and figures with an employer with intrinsic power in the relationship requires a certain amount of bludgeoning. It is about power.
Yes it is an entirely regressive tax.
Union members have sacrificed higher waiges for years in order to maintain what they thought was a responsible level of health benefit. What this bill calls a cadillac here in CA is often really just completely adequate insurance.
Union members have made these decisions partly in the belief that holding up their better plans would benefit society in general. It has been a strategy in the last decade to do this in order to put pressure on employers to support some kind of national health care. You apparently have a dim view of unions but you are wrong on this point, NM. They are not all bad and many of the folks involved in organizing have high ideals.
This goes to another area of HCR, which is the problem of disparate billing practices which makes comparing policy prices in different parts of the country almost impossible. Really, truly, a $1500 per month policy for a family of four in the bay area, which might not even allow more than a veneer of provider choice, is probably adequate and may be full of holes. Said family of four living on a combined income of $100,000 is not the family we should be taxing even if their employer is picking up the tab.
To clarify, I don’t have a dim view of unions generally (although I do in this instance).
You’re also playing some numbers games. A $1500/month policy is not a $24,000 policy and would not be subject to any tax. A $2000/month policy would not be subject to any tax. A $2500/month policy would be subject to $200/month of taxes. Conversely, for a $100,000 family that paid for insurance without a tax break, that $2500/month would be subject to $478/month of taxes (19.1% total tax rate).
It is also not a regressive tax because it only applies to people with generous benefits (and I certainly think $2000/month is generous in the bay area). It would be more progressive to tax benefits directly because income tax is a more progressive system, but that attempt failed. The limitation to taxing insurance providers rather than individuals is that you can’t consider the individuals’ income level.
I wasn’t up on the numbers and thresholds in the proposal. So that was really just a hypothetical game I was playing.
But I have been out of the game for about 3 years. It is actually concievable that some plans exceed the $2000 per month and it is also concievable that these are not extraordanarily rich.
Again, it would be a mistake to assume that this proposal won’t hammer some people with more modest means than you might imagine and that is why there is this resistance. That’s why I call it regressive, though “riddled with holes” might be a better term.
From a union perspective, albeit way too altruistic, why should any union member get taxed in this context? I mean that is where I am coming from.
Because any cost control is going to effect people. I, personally, would favor ending the exemption entirely as long as the additional income was well allocated. I don’t think health care is a problem we can solve exclusively by taxing the top 1% of earners. It’s too big for that.
The better question, I think, is why shouldn’t union workers also pay the tax?
Well politically, I think union workers have earned a pass this time around.
Pragmatically they shouldn’t because it is not income. Again, these are folks who have, very responsibly, prioritized healthcare for themselves and their families. If they were paying out of their pocket directly I would feel different.
I guess I just don’t understand either issue. By politically, do you mean because Dems are in power?
Benefits are compensation and are therefore part of income. I see them as folks who have (smartly) preferred an employer spend $1 on a tax-free benefit than on taxed income, but I don’t see how that’s a laudable moral choice (rather than a smart financial one).
Maybe the answer to both is the same.
What I said above is that, and now I am very far afield here, but union members chose these benefits not only out of a sense of responsibility but as a strategy.
Further explanation: in negotiations union members have been told by employers “your health benefits are too expensive, you need to shoulder more of the cost.” The good union’s response has been “it’s not our fault premiums are going up” and then they proved that to be true and then showed the employer – look this is what we are doing as a group in various efforts to reform healthcare – what are you, boss, doing about it? The answer from the employer is always the same. Which is most employers have been fighting any reform efforts, politically and in practice. Obviously just making this argument doesn’t do shit so you have to, again, pummel the employer.
So, you see, what I’m getting to, these unions think they have led the battle for reform in some respects, so politically they have to get a bone.
The reason I am maybe a tad on a limb here is I don’t know the numbers so we may be talking about very few actually effected. In which case this is entirely political.
One other point, it is a mistake to just put a dollar amount on benefits. There are intangibles…
Related post that does not resolve your disagreement, but nevertheless contains various enlightening (for me, anyway) details:
A couple reactions:
This suggests the bbenny is right about this being a political issue first.
Second, if these plans have a ton of 50+ year olds in them, the line won’t be $24k (or rather, their cost will be adjusted downwards via community rating).
Thanks mk. That describes one common “scenario.” Hotel workers, laborers, etc. tend to have these types of arrangements.
The other big group that this may effect are health care workers, both public and private, teachers and other state employees who have historically pushed their employers to run or join consortiums that were meant to lower costs and provide top notch coverage. Some of these relationships have resulted in inefficiencies but most have provided well for union memnbers primarily because members are active stakeholders. You can see how these arrangements could lead to increased costs. As union members held the line on coverage the insurance companies have just jacked up the prices, knowing that the employers were locked into the deals. So this is why this tax is seen as unfair to unions. And also why it is hard to convert coverage into a dollar value. There are just too many factors for me to account for.
These are good points, that’s also the sort of behavior (on the insurer’s part) that the tax is designed to discourage.
Ezra spins.
From a pure health care cost control policy angle: Lowering the threshold is bad; excluding vision and dental I’m not as sure about (but I lean towards it being bad); excluding union plans for eight years is bad and unfair; and the pool adjustments are good.
I agree with Ezra that it could have been worse, and that HCR should still be passed. I just wish we didn’t have to capitulate to unions to do it.
Is there a reason no one is talking about Felipe Lopez? He’s an above average 2B/3B (SSS on 3B) and a below average SS with an average bat. CHONE likes him as a 2+ WAR guy, and lord knows we need people who can play those three positions.
He knows what he did.
Last summer?
Well, let’s just say I’m never making Boeuf en Daube and inviting him to the Hamptons again.
I always enjoyed Grant’s old Giants website, Waiting for Boeuf.
Honest question: Isn’t Race to the Top the most popular of Obama’s programs amongst conservatives? Am I making that up?
I think it’s about this sort of thing.
Yikes.
At what point do other states coordinate their purchasing to counteract the Texas effect? The “perfect world” solution of allowing each district to make its own decisions assumes a wide range of textbooks to choose between, which I doubt has ever been the case.
The other alternative would be something based on kindle-like technology – not only allowing for much wider and locally tailored choices, but also doing away with the health risks of overweight backpacks full of books.
Imma have this tattooed across my back:
Typical Texas edumakashun – everyone knows David Hasselhoff overthrew communism.
… so the Ruling Class can read that every time they screw you?
Little Tramp stamp
In college, I played jazz flute for Marin County Fern Bar
You must have frond memories of that time.
Not really. I was very spore at the time.
Did you have to germinate your relationship with the group?
Uh oh. Here we grow again.
At one point my brother wanted to make “Pippi Longstocking”. I’m like, “That’s career suicide, playboy.”
Tigers jump to the front of the offseason WTF line.
I am listening to the Simmons-Tim Goodman podcast right now. I give Simmons credit for pulling guests that make me turn on his podcasts (well, Klosterman is the only other one I can think of right now). But they are always disappointing. Bleh.
Um, did you guys go start another website and not tell me?
Seriously.
I’ve got coals heating right now.
Are you starring in a 1907 period piece?