Breaking American exceptionalism

We are in the Empire business

By Pepe Escobar

 Never underestimate American soft power. 

What if the US government actually shut down to mourn the passing of Breaking Bad, arguably the most astonishing show in the history of television? It would be nothing short of poetic justice - as Breaking Bad is infinitely more pertinent for the American psyche than predictable cheap shots at Capitol Hill. 

Walter White, aka Heisenberg, may have become the ultimate, larger than life hero of the Google/YouTube/Facebook era. In an arc of tragedy spanning five seasons, Breaking Bad essentially chronicled what it takes for a man to accept who he really is, while in the process ending up paying the unbearable price of losing everything he holds dear and what is assumed to be his ultimate treasure; the love of his wife and son. 

Along the way, Breaking Bad was also an entomologist study on American turbo-capitalism - with the 1% haves depicted as either cheats or gangsters and the almost-haves or have-nots barely surviving, as in public school teachers degraded to second-class citizen status. 

Walter White was dying of cancer at the beginning of Breaking Bad, in 2008. Progressively, he gets rid of Mr Hyde - a placid chemistry teacher - for the benefit of Dr Jekyll - undisputed crystal meth kingpin Heinsenberg. It's not a Faustian pact. It's a descent into the dark night of his own soul. And in the end he even "wins", under his own terms, burning out with a beatific smile.

His secret is that it was never only about the transgressive high of producing the purest crystal meth. It was about the ultimate Outsider act, as in a Dostoevsky or Camus novel; a man confronting his fears, crossing the threshold, taking full control of his life, and finally facing the consequences, with no turning back.

And then, as in all things Breaking Bad, the music told a crucial part of the story. In this case, no less than the closing with Badfinger's My Baby Blue, the bleakest of love songs:

Guess I got what I deserve Kept you waiting there, too long my love All that time, without a word Didn't know you'd think, that I'd forget, or I'd regret The special love I have for you/ My baby blue

So - as Walter White finally admits, fittingly, in the last episode - he did it all, Sinatra's My Way, not for the sake of his family, but for him. And here we have the purest crystal meth as a reflection of this purest revelation in this purest of TV shows, blessed with unmatched writing (you can almost palpably feel the exhilaration in the writers' room), direction, sterling cast, outstanding cinematography quoting everything from Scarface to Taxi Driver via The Godfather, meticulous character development and gobsmacking plot twists.

To the victors belong the spoils

Here Comes the Spoils Society

By Robert Samuelson 

"To the victors belong the spoils"

-- Senator William L. Marcy of New York, 1786-1857, arguing why victorious political parties deserve government jobs.

We are, I fear, slowly moving from "the affluent society" toward a "spoils society." In 1958, Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith published his best-seller, "The Affluent Society," which profoundly influenced national thinking for decades. To the Great Depression's survivors, post-World War II prosperity dazzled. Suburbia offered a quiet alternative to crowded and noisy cities. New technologies impressed -- television, frozen foods, automatic washers and dryers. Never, it seemed, had so much been enjoyed by so many.

This explosive abundance, Galbraith argued, meant the country could afford both private wants and public needs. It could devote more to schools, roads, parks and pollution control. Economic growth became the holy grail of government policy. Production was paramount. It muted social conflict.

The "spoils society" reverses this logic. It de-emphasizes production and fuels conflict. Here's why.

There are two ways to become richer. One is to provide more goods and services; that's economic growth. The other is to snatch someone else's wealth or income; that's the spoils society. In a spoils society, economic success increasingly depends on who wins countless distributional contests: not who creates wealth but who controls it. But this can be contentious. Winners celebrate; losers fume.

Of course, the two systems have long coexisted -- and always will. All modern societies chase growth; all redistribute income and wealth. Some shuffling is visible and popular. Until now, that's been the case with America's largest transfer, which is from workers to retirees through Social Security and Medicare. In 2012, this exceeded $1 trillion. Still, for the nation, the relevant question is whether productive behavior (generating economic growth) is losing ground to predatory behavior (grabbing existing wealth and income). There are good reasons to think it is.

Since 1950, the U.S. economy has grown slightly more than 3 percent annually. But projections for the future are just above 2 percent. The slowdown mostly reflects an aging population, which translates into less expansion of the workforce. Indeed, overall growth of 2 percent may be unattainable if, as some economists argue, the pace of innovation is slackening. All this suggests diminishing economic gains in the productive sector.

The fewer the gains, the more people will fight over existing income and wealth, because -- as has been said -- that's where the money is. The United States' annual income (gross domestic product) now exceeds $16 trillion; the value of all fixed assets owned by businesses and individuals is roughly $50 trillion. Diverting even a small sliver of these sums can be hugely enriching. Distributional battles involve attacking and defending bastions of wealth and income. Consider three examples:

-- The oil giant BP and plaintiff lawyers are fighting over how it provides compensation for damages from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The process has been so perverted, says BP, that it's paying "hundreds of millions of dollars -- soon likely to be billions -- for fictitious and inflated losses." Naturally, the plaintiffs' lawyers disagree.

-- "Patent trolls" are firms that amass huge patent portfolios and then harass and sue high-tech companies for alleged infringements. Companies often pay up rather than face a threat to their products. Extortion, they say. A legitimate return, retort the patent companies.

-- CEOs are routinely accused of padding their pay by using friendly compensation consultants. Naturally, CEOs contend they're being rewarded for performance, not plundering their own companies.

Larger distributional contests loom. Growing income inequality has intensified pressures to raise taxes on the rich and near-rich, however defined, to support the middle class and poor. The massive transfers from workers to retirees are starting to sow a backlash among the young, who wonder whether all the elderly's benefits are justified.

Most Americans seem indifferent as to how they get ahead, whether by wealth creation or redistribution. The choice seems abstract. Fair enough. But for the country, the choice matters enormously. The appeal of the affluent society was that one group's gains didn't have to come at the expense of others'. The promise of economic growth was oversold, but it had the healthy effect of encouraging an expansive and inclusive vision of America.

What's emerging today is more self-interested and self-destructive. The dilemma of a rich society is that its prospects can be undermined by its very abundance. Countries preoccupied by distributional wars are distracted from production. The ambitions of many of its most talented members can be satisfied not by adding to the total output but simply by subtracting from someone else's. They are merely rearranging economic assets among themselves. If taken too far, this promises more political division and economic decline.  

In Defense of Privacy

Anyone who values freedom must resist the assault on private and family life

By Frank Furedi

In the twenty-first century, the privacy of individuals, groups and institutions is continually being tested, by a variety of forces that seem determined to undermine it. Computer hackers threaten to uncover the most personal details about our lives. Reports of phone-hacking journalists preying on the parents of kidnapped children remind us that not even the right to grieve privately can be taken for granted anymore. Most of us have become so used to being monitored by CCTV cameras and digital technology that even recent revelations about the US National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) activities did not cause much of a stir.

What is most striking about contemporary Western society’s attitude towards privacy is that episodic expressions of outrage about the violation of privacy in some areas of life coexist with a casual acceptance of such violations in other spheres. In fact, there are as many calls to limit or weaken the private realm as there are to defend it. Modern Western culture is deeply ambivalent about the question privacy.

This month, the Observer columnist Henry Porter wrote an article headlined ‘Perhaps I’m out of step and Britons just don’t think privacy is important’. He was addressing what he considered to be the ‘complacency’ over the revelations of mass snooping by the NSA. Yet in the very same issue of the Observer, a report titled ‘Hundreds of thousands of elderly people were abused last year’ claimed to be exposing a ‘hidden national scandal’. That news article’s association of abuse with the spheres of life that are ‘hidden’ from public view - that is, its coupling of abuse and privacy - expressed a view that is widely held in society today. Is it any surprise that when the private sphere is looked upon so ambiguously, as being fraught with dangers, there will be little outrage when it is interfered with by external forces?

Our attitude towards the distinction between private and public life is influenced by what society values. As Jeff Weintraub has pointed out, ‘debates about how to cut up the social world between public and private are rarely innocent exercises, since they often carry powerful normative implications’. For example, the frequently repeated argument that the innocent have nothing to fear from the prying eyes of Big Brother reveals how little value we attach to the idea of having protected private spaces these days. In contrast, the older phrase ‘An Englishman’s home is his castle’ expressed a contrasting sentiment that idealised private space.

In this essay, I put forward an argument for valuing privacy, and then go on to explore the main forces that threaten it in the contemporary period.

The need for privacy

The ideal of separating social life into distinct public and private spheres is in many ways an historical accomplishment of modernity. However, there is considerable evidence in much earlier eras of an aspiration to be ‘left alone’ and to limit the involvement of the state in people’s private lives. In his famous 431 BC funeral speech, where he celebrated the greatness of Athens, Pericles boasted: ‘The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens.’

No doubt the freedom to do what one liked in ‘ordinary life’ was severely limited by the realities of life in that ancient city-state. However, Pericles’ affirmation of the freedom of the private sphere suggests that privacy was valued by the citizens of Athens.

But it wasn’t until the rise of capitalism and modern society in Europe that arguments for maintaining a dichotomous divide between the public and private spheres were made seriously and rigorously. The advocates of liberalism forcefully promoted the idea of a protected private sphere, insisting that what happened in the household was not a matter for state intervention. Since the sixteenth century, arguments for privacy have been made in a variety of ways. Early claims for privacy tended to couple the private sphere with property and with a defence of individual conscience. Over the past two centuries, the case for the private sphere evolved and started to be justified on moral, psychological and political grounds.

A useful working definition of privacy is provided by Alan Westin in his study, Privacy and Freedom: ‘Privacy is the claim of individuals, groups or institutions to determine for themselves when, how and of what extent information about them is communicated to others.’ This definition focuses on the need of individuals to establish a balance between their aspiration for privacy and their desire for disclosure and communication. Historically, demands for privacy were motivated by a determination to curtail the power of the state to intrude into the private activities of citizens. Today, this concern with restraining state intervention into private life is still around, and important; but in the main, the argument for privacy is increasingly focused on the psychological and moral need for a retreat from the busy public world so that people can insulate themselves from the immediacy of outside pressures.

The Lights Shine Brightly In Poland As A Former Basket Case Morphs Into A European Tiger

Poland Emerges as a Central European Powerhouse

By Alex Storozynski

There’s an old joke about how many Poles it took to screw in a light bulb. But after a Polish electrician named Lech Walesa pulled the plug on Communism and helped bring down the Soviet Union, that joke lost its luster. These days the light bulbs are made in Poland, and over the past two decades, the country’s economy has grown at a record pace compared to its neighbors.

This month marks the 20^th anniversary of Russia withdrawing the Soviet army from Poland. Since then, Poland went from Communist basket case, to what German magazine Der Spiegel dubbed last year as: “The Miracle Next Door: Poland Emerges as a Central European Powerhouse.”

Poland is the only European Union economy to avoid recession since the global financial crisis hit in 2008. Polish workers use to travel abroad to where the factories were. These days, factories move to where the Polish workers are. This summer, Fabrizio Pedroni closed his factory in Italy when his employees went on vacation, and packed up his electric component machinery and shipped it to Poland where workers rank higher on the World Economic Forum’s global pay and productivity table.

Last month, Arvato, which supplies financial and consulting services to Google and Microsoft , moved 140 jobs from Ireland to Poland. Dell Computer moved its factory from Ireland to Poland in 2009, while Esplex, a subsidiary of PC manufacturer Acerclosed logistics centers in France and England and moved those jobs to Poland. Cadbury Schweppes, the tea giant Twinnings, and Electrolux have all moved jobs to Poland. Last year Credit Suisse moved IT jobs to Poland.

Freedom, Not Fertility, Is The Key To A Thriving Economy

It is a profoundly personal decision that only parents can make based on their particular preferences and circumstances

By Paul Hsieh,

Is America’s declining fertility rate “the root cause of most of our problems”? This was the bold claim made recently by conservative writer Jonathan Last in the Wall Street Journal. Other conservative pundits have echoed this theme. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently pleaded for, “More Babies, Please” to maintain our economic growth. In the Weekly Standard, Joel Kotkin and Harry Siegel warned of “soaring entitlement costs and diminished economic vigor” if America remains a “low fertility society.” All of these conservatives have identified genuine economic challenges facing America. But if we wish America to thrive economically, the government’s job should be to protect freedom, not promote fertility.

There’s no doubt that fertility rates and population growth (or decline) can affect a country’s economy. As Megan McArdle notes, “economic growth equals the growth in the workforce plus the growth in productivity of that workforce.” And many industrialized countries with declining birthrates have also experienced economic stagnation as the population ages. Jonathan Last cited the example of Japan, where fewer people are getting married and having children. The average Japanese woman now has only 1.3 children over her lifetime (2.1 is considered the “replacement rate” necessary to maintain a stable population). As a result, Last argues, the Japanese economy has suffered.

Kotkin and Siegel also note that there will be fewer productive Japanese workers to pay for government retirement and health care benefits for their elderly. With an average fertility rate of 1.5, Western European countries are experiencing similar problems. The U.S. has a slightly higher fertility rate of 1.93, but still below the replacement rate of 2.1.

So what role, if any, should the U.S. government play in raising the national fertility rate? Douthat notes that “America has no family policy to speak of” as opposed to countries like Sweden and France. Kotkin and Siegel support reforming the U.S. tax code “to encourage marriage and children.” But it’s unclear that such direct policies will work. Last notes that the French fertility rate is still below 2.1 despite aggressive pro-childbirth programs such as state-run daycare.

More fundamentally, it’s not the government’s job to promote any particular lifestyle — e.g., single vs. married or childless vs. multiple child families. The government should not attempt to tilt the playing field to favor a specific “ideal” family size of 2.1+ children. Rather, the government’s job should be to protect the freedom of parents to have zero, one, two, or five children — provided the parents can properly nurture and care for them all. How many children to have is a profoundly personal decision that only parents themselves can make based on their particular preferences and circumstances.

Criminal Elements

A Few Critical Points of Inflection

By James Bowman

Let’s break it down.” A man and a woman in a darkened classroom, flirting, are taking an elemental inventory of the human body. Hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon alone come to 98 percent, nitrogen and calcium tick up to 99.5, and half a dozen more trace elements only bring them to 99.888042 — where is the other 0.111958? Supposedly that’s everything, the woman insists, but the man is sure there must be something missing. “There’s got to be more to a human being than that.” What about the soul, the woman suggests? “Ha, there’s no soul. There’s just chemistry here.”

This calculation is overcut with a montage of the same man, twenty-odd years later, cleaning up after the “chemical disincorporation” of his inaugural murder victim (the first of a long line). The victim’s soul, if there ever was one, is long since departed, leaving gallons of bloody slosh behind, while the killer’s soul, if he ever had one, has just crossed a threshold of its own.

Thus begins the third episode of Vince Gilligan’s Breaking Bad, which debuted on AMC in 2008 and is this summer heading into the second half of its fifth and final season. Walter White, the antihero played by Bryan Cranston, is a high school chemistry teacher in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who receives an unexpected diagnosis of inoperable lung cancer the day after his fiftieth birthday. With his corpus of 99.888042 percent traceable elements breaking down, he breaks bad — applying his scientific expertise to the manufacture of methamphetamine so he can make enough money to provide for his pregnant wife and disabled son after his impending death. Guided by his ne’er-do-well former student Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul), Walt plunges into a criminal underworld of ruthless rival drug kingpins governed by little more than Hobbes’s bellum omnium contra omnes. While fighting to survive in this crowd he must also stay out of sight of what remains of the law, as near to him as his own drug enforcement agent brother-in-law, Hank Schrader (Dean Norris), as, with dread turning to relish, Walt contributes to the disincorporation of civil society.

All of us are uneasily aware that beneath the good civilizational order in which most readers of these pages and viewers of the show continue to live their lives there is a dark alternative where old rules dominate, the Enlightenment’s recurring bad dream just waiting for the opportunity to reassert itself. Ironically, it is Walt’s Enlightenment credentials as a man of science that are his entrance ticket to this new state of nature. Chemistry, as Walt rapturously tells his less-than-rapt students, is a cycle of “growth, then decay, then transformation”; and while Enlightenment notions of moral progress are implicitly connected to material progress in the advance of science and rationality, the lesson of the science itself is that moral and social transformation is as likely to be cyclical as it is progressive.

Students of history or anthropology are more likely to see the alternative to Western civilization and the rule of law not as the twilight struggle of individual savagery but as the tribal, family-oriented society and the honor culture that actually did precede the Enlightenment’s commitment to universal values and that is still predominant in most parts of the world where those liberal and progressive standards have a more precarious hold.

Some of the best television of the last decade or so has explored the tension between Enlightenment liberal modernity and pre-Enlightenment honor culture. The Sopranos treated it playfully, imagining the criminal classes as aspiring to suburban respectability while still hoping to inhabit, out of sight of their New Jersey neighbors, the same Sicilian underworld where their fathers and grandfathers had lived. The sense of the threat posed by that underworld to the dominant culture was less in mind than the threat — or promise — that the dominant culture, with its therapeutic and liberal standards, would swamp the already evanescent honor culture of the Mafia. In The Wire, the state of nature was also circumscribed and limited to the streets of Baltimore where the dominant culture with sometimes greater and sometimes less success has managed to contain it by its own legally dubious methods. But in Breaking Bad, the state of pre-Enlightenment nature is seen as thrusting its way up from its subterranean hiding places and reasserting itself anew.

It's Not an Accident ... It's Policy

Government Is Largely Responsible for Soaring Inequality

by George Washington

America is experiencing unprecedented inequality. And a who's who of prominent economists (and investors) say that inequality is hurting the economy.

Defenders of the status quo pretend that this inequality is something outside of our control ... like a force of nature. They argue that it's due to globalization, technological innovation or something else outside of policy-makers' control.

In reality, inequality is rising due to the government policy.

The chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University says that it is inaccurate to call politicians prostitutes. Specifically, he says that they are more correct to call them “pimps”, since they are pimping out the American people to the financial giants.

The government has saved the big banks at taxpayer expense, chosen the banks over the little guy, and said no to helping Main Street ... while continuing to throw trillions at the giant banks.

Crony capitalism has gotten even worse under Obama than under Bush.

Obama is prosecuting fewer financial crimes than Bush, or his father, or Ronald Reagan.

Moreover, not only is the cop not cracking down on crime ... he's on the take, and helping carry out and cover up the crimes.

No wonder:

All of the monetary and economic policy of the last 3 years has helped the wealthiest and penalized everyone else. See this, this and this.

***

Economist Steve Keen says:

“This is the biggest transfer of wealth in history”, as the giant banks have handed their toxic debts from fraudulent activities to the countries and their people.

Stiglitz said in 2009 that Geithner’s toxic asset plan “amounts to robbery of the American people”.

And economist Dean Baker said in 2009 that the true purpose of the bank rescue plans is “a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives”.

Without the government’s creation of the too big to fail banks (they’ve gotten much bigger under Obama), the Fed’s intervention in interest rates and the markets (most of the quantitative easinghas occurred under Obama), and government-created moral hazard emboldening casino-style speculation (there’s now more moral hazard than ever before) … things wouldn’t have gotten nearly as bad.

As I noted in March 2009:

The bailout money is just going to line the pockets of the wealthy, instead of helping to stabilize the economy or even the companies receiving the bailouts:

·         Bailout money is being used to subsidize companies run by horrible business men, allowing the bankers to receive fat bonuses, to redecorate their offices, and to buy gold toilets and prostitutes

·         A lot of the bailout money is going to the failing companies’ shareholders

Interesting Facts About Health Care in US

Half Of US Population Accounts For Only 2.9% Of Healthcare Spending; 1% Responsible For 21.4% Of Expenditures

By Tyler Durden

With the topic of peak class polarization once again permeating the airwaves and clogging up NSA servers, and terms like 1% this or that being thrown around for political punchlines and other talking points, one aspect where social inequality has gotten less prominence, yet where the spread between the "1%" and everyone else is perhaps most substantial is in realm of healthcare spending: perhaps the biggest threat to the long-term sustainability of the US debt picture and economy in general. The numbers are stunning.

According to the latest data compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in 2010, just 1% of the population accounted for a whopping 21.4% of total health care expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $87,570. Just below them, 5% of the population accounted for nearly 50% of all healthcare spending. Just as stunning is the "other" side: the lower 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for only 2.8% of the total for 2009 and 2010 respectively. Perhaps in addition to bashing the "1%" of wealth holders, a relatively straightforward and justified exercise in the current political climate, it is time for public attention to also turn to the chronic 1% (and 5%)-ers who are the primary issue when it comes to the debt-funding needed to preserve the US welfare state.

The spending distribution in chart format:

Broken down by age - While the elderly represented 13.3 percent of the overall population, they represented 47.9 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders:

Chaos Theory as Applied to Economics

Motives and purposes are in the heart and brain of man, consequences are in the world of fact

BY JR NYQUIST

In March 1988 Murray Rothbard wrote a fascinating piece titled "Chaos Theory: Destroying Mathematical Economics from Within?" He observed that chaos theory had very “radical” implications. For those unfamiliar with chaos theory, it is a mathematical discovery which has implications for meteorology, physics, biology and economics. According to chaos theory, volatile dynamic systems are highly sensitive to small differences in initial conditions. Rothbard explained it as follows: “Two decades ago, Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist at MIT stumbled onto chaos theory by making the discovery that ever so tiny changes in climate could bring about enormous and volatile changes in weather. Calling it the Butterfly Effect, he pointed out that if a butterfly flapped its wings in Brazil, it could produce a tornado in Texas.”

Imagine the implications for international finance. A small perturbation might produce a completely unexpected turning of the entire global economy. The result would not only be unexpected, it would be virtually unpredictable (due to the complexity of the interactions of all the related small-fry phenomena). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on “Chaos” tells us that chaos theory postulates sensitive dependence (on initial conditions) within a system that is deterministic and nonlinear. The Stanford article points out that Aristotle “was already aware of something like what we now call sensitive dependence.” But Aristotle’s understanding of this was epistemological rather than metaphysical. On this matter the ancient philosopher wrote, “the least initial deviation from truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.” In other words, a small lie at the beginning may lead to a complete break with reality somewhere down the line – an epistemological corollary of chaos theory. (We will return to this idea later.)

Getting to the heart of the matter Rothbard wrote, “The upshot of chaos theory is not that the real world is chaotic or in principle unpredictable or undetermined, but that in practice much of it is unpredictable.” For if we find within a dynamic system (both mathematically precise and deterministic) that prediction is effectively impossible, our math suddenly ceases to serve any purpose. According to Rothbard, chaos theory has “subversive implications … for orthodox mathematical economics. For if rational expectations theory violates the real world, then so too does general equilibrium … and all the rest of the neoclassical apparatus.”

Rothbard was not, of course, endorsing chaos theory. He was having fun by using mathematical conclusions to confound mathematical methods applied to economics. Here the errors of the economists are many, and serious. To be sure, economists intend to present a realistic picture of economic activity, but in fact the falsification of their science is palpable. The sociologist William Graham Sumner published an essay in 1902 titled “Purposes and Consequences” in which he offered a distinction between facts and intentions; namely, that the former is real while the latter is irrelevant to the outcome. This distinction has great significance for what Ludwig von Mises called “human action.” As human beings we live in a world of purposive action and factual outcomes. The most important thing to understand about economics is not merely that we are mathematically unable to arrive at precise predictions, but that (according to Sumner) “ideals like perfect liberty, justice, or equality ... can never furnish rational or scientific motives of actions or starting points for rational effort.” Yet everything within today’s crumbling civilization comes down to this sort of thing, on a mass scale. Here we find the “human action” corollary of chaos theory. A small [financial] mistake at the beginning may lead to total breakdown at the end. The official economic policy of the United States may be characterized thus. It is at the mercy of moralistic slogans which have no bearing on economic fact (or financial math). Here is something beyond the chaos of numbers. It is the chaos of the human heart.

Republicans for Obamacare?

Ruling Parties

by Angelo M. Codevilla    

All Republicans say they oppose Obamacare and vie to call it bad names. But while some will not vote for any bill that appropriates money for it, the Republican Establishment’s leaders in Congress are poised to vote to save its funding. They call the Republicans committed to de-funding Obamacare worse names than they call Obamacare itself, as do The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. They couch their animus in the pretense that withholding funds from Obamacare is impossible. Not so. The Constitution requires that the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President agree on identical versions of each and every appropriation. Otherwise, zero money. So, if Congress ends up appropriating money to enable Obamacare, it will be because Republicans made that happen. Period. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Republican Establishmentarians dislike Republicans who are resisting Obamacare more than they dislike that law because the resisters are forcing them to choose which they value more, their standing in the ruling class or their standing with their voters. Since these Establishmentarians have lived by pretending to represent those voters against big government, forcing them to reveal their true political identity portends a major reorganization of American public life.

The more that the Republican Establishment vilifies the Obamacare resisters, however, the more it clarifies its identity.

The House, which has a Republican majority, can fund Obamacare only if Republicans join the Democrats in voting for it. In the Senate, an appropriation for Obamacare can be voted on only if enough Republicans join Democrats in a sixty-vote majority to cut off debate. But the Republican Establishment, which seems committed to providing those crucial votes, argues that since Obamacare’s proposed appropriation is part of an omnibus “Continuing Resolution” that funds the entire government, Republicans can refuse to fund Obamacare only by refusing to fund the entire government, thus “shutting it down.” They profess certainty that the American people would punish the Republican Party for that.

Employer-Based Health Insurance Is Becoming An Endangered Species

Where do we sign up?

by Michael Snyder

Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, and when it comes to health care he has definitely kept his promise.  Thanks to Obamacare, health care spending is up, health insurance premiums are up, the number of hours Americans are working is down and employer-based health insurance is becoming an endangered species.  Of course employer-based health insurance will not disappear completely any time soon, but it has been steadily shrinking for over a decade, and Obamacare will greatly accelerate that decline. 

If you go back to 1999, 64.1 percent of all Americans were covered by employment-based health insurance.  That was pretty good.  Today, only 54.9 percent of all Americans are covered by employment-based health insurance, and now thousands upon thousands of U.S. employers are considering reducing the scope of the health plans they offer to employees or eliminating them altogether due to Obamacare.  If you are thinking that this sounds like a potential nightmare for millions of Americans families, you would be exactly right.

There have already been widespread reports of companies dropping health insurance, but nobody knows for sure how widespread the carnage will be.  According to Businessweek, the surveys that have been done up to this point have come up with widely varying results...

A Deloitte study last year suggested 10 percent of employers would stop offering group health plans. A widely criticized McKinsey report from 2011 put the number as high as one-third. The Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections suggest 8 million fewer people will be covered by employer plans five years from now under the ACA than without it. Many of them will get policies through health insurance exchanges instead.

But what everyone does agree on is that employer-based health coverage will continue to diminish.

And we are already watching this happen right in front of our eyes.  Just this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the largest security guard firm in the United States is dropping health coverage for 55,000 employees...

UNICEF’s Chemical Weapon

Intention and effect are not always quite the same

by Theodore Dalrymple

Yesterday I was on a flight on an airline that claimed to be deeply anxious to preserve the environment, though not quite anxious enough, obviously, to go out of business. This kind of self-righteous sanctimony, a commercial reflection in the mirror of political correctness, ever more prevalent, irritates me greatly, and would irritate me just as much if the claimed virtue were real rather than false. Save the world by all means, but please do so in private.

Worse was to come. A short while before we came into land the chief steward announced over the public address system that the airline was making a charity collection and that this month’s charity was UNICEF. A small contribution—about 60 cents US—was enough to immunize a child against a disease that might otherwise kill it. And to prove that this was true, a recording of a celebrity (of whom, naturally, I had never heard) was played that relayed exactly the same message. How could what a celebrity said be wrong?

Those who would once have been called stewards and stewardesses passed up and down the aircraft aisle to the jingle of allegedly life-saving contributions. It was like passing the plate at the end of a religious service. The passenger next to me gave generously, and for a moment I felt morally intimidated into doing likewise, but in the end I was able to resist. I kept my hands in my pockets.

“Save the world by all means, but please do so in private.”

Quite apart from the fact that there are few countries that really could not save their children’s lives for 60 cents if they really wanted to (rather than, say, have their ambassadors riding chauffeur-driven around the capitals of Europe in black Mercedes limousines), I am not an unequivocal admirer of UNICEF. This is not just because their Christmas cards are in doubtful taste. I simply do not believe that if I gave it 60 cents it would use it to save the life of a child. Like most charities these days, it has other priorities that it was set up to serve.

In fact, UNICEF is the greatest mass poisoner of children in world history. It employed the comparatively old-fashioned poison of arsenic that practically no poisoner uses nowadays. The last mass poisoning by arsenic that I know of, though I am no expert, was in Manchester, England, in about 1900, when arsenic-tainted sulfuric acid was used in the manufacture of beer and about 6,000 people suffered arsenic poisoning. Forty years before that, not far away in Bradford, a confectioner adulterated his peppermints with white arsenic (which was cheaper, apparently, than peppermint cream) and sixty children died.

These were trifling affairs by comparison with UNICEF’s great effort, greater than that of the Manchester brewery by at least a thousand times. Like the brewer and the confectioner, UNICEF had no malicious intent, but as we all know intention and effect are not always quite the same. Indeed, they are often opposite.

In Bangladesh, UNICEF correctly observed that diarrheal diseases were killing a lot of children. In all poor countries diarrheal diseases caused by a contaminated water supply are among the most prolific killers of children, and UNICEF decided to give Bangladesh clean water. It sank millions of tube wells so that Bangladeshis should henceforth drink clean groundwater.