Nick Baumann

Nick Baumann

Senior Editor

Nick is based in our DC bureau, where he covers national politics and civil liberties issues. Nick has also written for The Economist, The Atlantic, The Washington Monthly, and Commonweal. Email tips and insights to nbaumann [at] motherjones [dot] com. You can also follow him on Facebook.

Get my RSS |

The Democrats' Jobs "Plan"

| Thu Feb. 4, 2010 1:44 PM EST

Scott Brown is set to be sworn in as the newest member of the United States Senate later today. That means Democrats will need at least one Republican to switch sides if they hope to beat a Republican filibuster of their jobs bill. An initial vote on the package is set for Monday. Brian Beutler has the latest on how the Dems' plan to do that:

"You need two to tango. And you need Republicans for bipartisanship," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (I-IL). "Hope is prospective...we don't have bipartisanship at this moment. I hope we'll have it in a matter of minutes, hours, days."

Hope may be prospective. But it's not a plan.

Maybe the Dems really do have a GOPer on board, and they just don't want to say yet. But more likely, they're expecting the bill to fail and plan on blaming the Republicans for it. That might be good politics, but it doesn't actually help anyone get a job.

Kevin is traveling today.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Paul Ryan's Budget

| Thu Feb. 4, 2010 1:06 PM EST

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has received a lot of attention in recent days for his plan to slash the deficit. (If you haven't yet, read Ezra Klein's interview with Ryan.) Mostly that's because he actually has something resembling a plan. The bulk of the "savings" from the plan come from converting Medicare to a voucher program and limiting the value of the vouchers. In other words, Ryan would change Medicare from what is essentially a single-payer plan for the elderly into a coupon program, with coupons that wouldn't cover the full cost of your medical care. (Ryan would also essentially privatize Social Security, but he doesn't get much in the way of savings from that.) And it's true—if you eliminate the whole "social insurance" bit about Medicare, it gets a lot cheaper. 

Now, Kevin says the plan is all "smoke and mirrors" because Ryan doesn't say "how his spending limits will be met." But using vouchers is actually a great way to set spending limits, if that's what you want to do. The real problem with Ryan's plan is that it's the kind of plan you propose when you don't actually have to pass a plan. Ross Douthat writes that "even if there were a politically-feasible path toward the kind of overhaul Ryan has in mind, it’s not clear how many Republican politicians would want to take it." Even Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who appeared with Ryan at a press conference on Tuesday to discuss the plan, hasn't embraced its proposals. The Atlantic's Derek Thompson has it right: "It's a shocking budget, and the kind of thing that no party in power would ever have the cojones to propose." It's the "gradual extermination" of Medicare, Thompson says. 

The biggest problem with Ryan's plan is that it doesn't actually control health care costs. It simply shifts the burden of paying for them from the public sector to individuals. Instead of the government going bankrupt trying to pay for medical care, it'll be individuals. That's all well and good for the rich, who might be able to pay for their own health care. But people who would have relied on Medicare are going to be out of luck. Medical costs wil rise much faster than the value of the voucher will. Ryan's plan seems to pretend that the problem isn't medical costs—it's just that the government is trying to pay for them. James Kwak is good on this:

The implicit premise [of Ryan's plan] is that we have to screw ordinary people–or at least make them bear a high degree of risk–in order to save the government budget. But what is the government budget? It’s a pile of money that we contribute and that our representatives are supposed to spend on things we can’t buy for ourselves individually. I know that those representatives make mistakes, are borderline corrupt, etc. But Medicare is exactly the kind of program that we want government to provide–a program that shifts risk from individuals to the government, and thereby the country as a whole–and that’s why it’s so popular.

Other countries manage to keep their citizens healthy at a much lower cost than we do. They don't have to dismantle their social insurance programs to do it. Why should we?

Kevin is traveling today.

More Question Time?

| Wed Feb. 3, 2010 6:21 PM EST

Last week, President Barack Obama and the House Republican caucus held a riveting, televised question-and-answer session at the GOP's retreat. Now a bunch of lefty and righty bloggers, academics, and media figures (including Mother Jones' David Corn, who drafted the petition) have formed a coalition to demand more events along the same lines. Alex Balk thinks this is a bad idea:

It's a good idea unless you've seen how Question Times actually work in parliamentary democracies, where members of the governing parties ask self-serving softballs (e.g., "Do you agree with me that the American worker is the hardest worker in the world?") designed to run out the clock, while the opposition party tosses up as many cheap shots as it can in hopes that something will stick. And even were the process to be modified so that it was simply the President and Republicans, what does it benefit the President to reward the opposition with a continuing platform from which they can repeatedly voice their disagreements without offering credible, concrete alternatives? I mean, doesn't he already do that enough with the Senate's Democratic caucus? Nobody wants to watch that.

David actually addresses this concern fairly well in his piece announcing the coalition:

None of us are naive and believe that implementing Question Time will cure what ails our country and our political process. We do realize that if QT does become a Washington routine, politicians and their aides will do what they can to game it to their advantage.... There may well be attempts to institutionalize Question Time in a fashion that renders it nothing more than a canned replay of pre-existing spin. But even though there are problems with the presidential debates—which have been taken over by the political parties and a corporate-sponsored commission—those events still have value.

At Wednesday's White House press conference, when David asked Bill Burton whether the administration would commit to more Question Time-type events, Burton essentially said no, arguing that last week's event worked because of its "spontaneity." Burton and Balk have a point. Even if Question Time happens again, it probably won't be as good as it was last week. But I think David actually comes out on top here. No one thinks that a few question-and-answer sessions will fix America's problems. But QT could make things a little bit better. How can that be bad?

(FWIW Kevin thinks last week marked the "first and last" Question Time. Despite all this, he could very well be right.)

Kevin is traveling today and tomorrow.

Interrogating Abdulmutallab

| Wed Feb. 3, 2010 4:47 PM EST

Flickr/Mike Licht (Creative Commons).Flickr/Mike Licht (Creative Commons).On Tuesday, Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) joined Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and a bunch of Republicans to slam the Obama administration's plan to try the alleged 9/11 co-conspirators in federal court. Graham announced that he planned to introduce a bill—with Lincoln and Webb's support—to prohibit funding for civilian trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and the other accused planners of the 9/11 attacks. The Senate rejected a similar bill, 55-45, back in November, but Graham and many of his allies pointed to the failed Christmas attack allegedly carried out by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as evidence that the Obama adminstration's strategy for fighting terrorism isn't working.

Many of the critics of the Obama administration's response seem to be claiming that Abdulmutallab should not have been arrested or read his Miranda rights. They seem to believe he should have been turned over to military custody so he could face the same military tribunals that they want KSM et. al. to face. (TPM's Justin Elliott has a good piece on why tribunals might not be the most effective way to try and convict terrorists.) And some of the critics are suggesting that Abdulmutallab should have faced "harsher" interrogation—an argument-by-euphemism for using techniques that have been banned as torture.

On Tuesday night, the Obama adminstration fought back at the criticism with a barrage of leaks to the press. Abdulmutallab is cooperating with investigators, sources told the New York Times. Gaining his trust by involving his family was supposedly key to getting him to provide information on Al Qaeda. So the Obama administration is defending its way of dealing with terrorist suspects by claiming that its way works. (The Obama administration's way is also the way it was almost always done before 9/11, and sometimes after—shoe-bomber Richard Reid was Mirandized, too, and no one raised a fuss.)

But in some ways, using the "it works" defense is too weak. Attorney General Eric Holder has a better idea: defend the Obama administration because, when it comes to Abdulmutallab, it's following precedent, the Constitution, and the law. In a letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Senate minority leader, Holder writes:

The practice of the U.S. government, followed by prior and current Administrations without a single exception, has been to arrest and detain under federal criminal law all terrorist suspects who are apprehended inside the United States... Some have argued that had Abdulmutallab been declared an enemy combatant, the government could have held him indefinitely without providing him access to an attorney. But the government's legal authority to do so is far from clear. In fact, when the Bush administration attempted to deny Jose Padilla access to an attorney, a federal judge in New York rejected that position, ruling that Padilla must be allowed to meet with his lawyer. Notably, the judge in that case was Michael Mukasey, my predecessor as Attorney General. In fact, there is no court-approved system currently in place in which suspected terrorists captured inside the United States can be detained and held without access to an attorney; nor is there any known mechanism to persuade an uncooperative individual to talk to the government that has been proven more effective than the criminal justice system.

Adam Serwer, who first wrote about the Holder letter, has a good list of the ways in which Abdulmutallab's successful interrogation "explodes" key torture myths. But I also especially enjoyed the take of "M.S." at The Economist (although I know Kevin hates their semi-anonymous blogs):

THERE are apparently a significant number of people in America who don't think that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should have been arrested, read his rights, and interrogated by FBI officers, with a view to ultimate prosecution in a court of law for the crime of attempted murder. I don't really understand what it is that these people do think.... Eventually, one assumes, such people want Mr Abdulmutallab tried by some other parallel system of justice, a military tribunal perhaps, so that he gets less of an opportunity to defend himself than he would have in the normal criminal-justice system. As Scott Brown says, "In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them." I have no idea what Mr Brown is afraid might happen to Mr Abdulmutallab in court: that, with a clever lawyer, he might beat the rap? The man's underpants burst into flame in full view of an airplane full of passengers.

This is a really important point. The criminal justice system is how America has traditionally dealt with terrorists. It has so far proven more effective at actually convicting them than military tribunals have. The burden of proof should fall on those who advocate using a different system.

Kevin is traveling today and tomorrow.

News from the Hill

| Wed Feb. 3, 2010 4:00 PM EST

Kevin Drum is traveling today and tomorrow, so I'm covering for him over on his blog. Here's the latest politics news:

Decision "Next Week" On Health Care Strategy

The Democrats will soon have a strategy to pass health care reform, Harry Reid said Tuesday night. We've heard that before.

Chris Dodd vs. the Volcker Rule

The chair of the Senate banking committee thinks Obama's financial regulatory reforms, which were dreamed up by former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, may be excessively ambitious. What exactly does that mean?

More Health Care Questions

Now that Scott Brown's in town, there's really only one workable path to pass health care reform. So why are the Democrats saying they're still trying to figure out a strategy? Answer: there's something else going on.

I'll have more later in the day at Kevin's place.

Mon Jul. 21, 2014 6:00 AM EDT
Mon Feb. 4, 2013 11:23 AM EST
Tue Nov. 6, 2012 9:47 PM EST
Fri Sep. 21, 2012 5:40 PM EDT
Sun Aug. 19, 2012 6:21 PM EDT
Mon Jul. 30, 2012 11:16 AM EDT
Mon Jul. 9, 2012 10:04 AM EDT
Thu Jun. 28, 2012 12:40 PM EDT
Wed Jun. 20, 2012 7:30 AM EDT
Mon Jun. 11, 2012 10:32 AM EDT
Mon Jun. 4, 2012 9:43 AM EDT
Wed May. 9, 2012 3:01 AM EDT
Tue Mar. 20, 2012 11:15 AM EDT
Fri Feb. 10, 2012 1:56 PM EST