Kausfiles

Does Harry Reid's Health Care Bill Create a "Fed" for Medicare?

Mickey Kaus — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:06:00 GMT

David Leonhardt, complaining that the House health care bill doesn't do enough to control costs, touts a particular model for imposing parsimonious changes on the nation's health care delivery system:

Twice a year, an outside advisory board sends Congress a list of suggestions for Medicare payment rates, based on the available evidence. Congress generally ignores them, in deference to the various industry groups that oppose any cuts to their payments.

We already have a wonderful model for how to avoid such interference. It’s called the Federal Reserve. The Fed is charged with setting interest rates based on economic conditions, not politics. The Senate bill would create such a commission for Medicare.

But does the Senate bill really have a cost-cutting commission that's like the Fed? The Fed is a highly independent agency whose actions take effect without approval from Congress. Maybe Congress could overturn a Fed action, but it would require a new piece of legislation, passed by both houses and signed by the president. In contrast, the current cost-cutting "MedPAC" panel submits proposals that then have to be passed as new laws by Congress or else they don't take effect (which, as Leonhardt notes, is usually what happens).

The logical middle ground would be to have an independent panel whose recommendations take effect unless they are somehow vetoed by Congress without presidential involvement, or whose recommendations must be affirmatively passed by Congress but get the benefit of a streamlined, limited-amendmenent up-or-down fast-track "base closing" type of legislative process.

I assumed that the second of these obvious middle ground alternatives--rather than a "Fed" approach--had been taken when I read this description of the Reid Senate bill on Ezra Klein's blog:

The idea isn't simply that a panel of experts gets to dream up interesting reforms to try out in Medicare. It's that they are charged with making sure that Medicare hits certain growth targets, and their package of reforms has to achieve that goal. Those reforms are then sent to Congress, where Senate debate is limited to 30 hours, and amendments must be both budget neutral and "germane." This report, in other words, is exempt from the filibuster. So far as anything is ever easy to pass, this is easy to pass.

Then I read the bill. As far as I can see, it's actually a whole lot closer to Leonhardt's "Fed" model than I'd thought possible. In general, there is an independent panel ("IMAB"), and if Congress does nothing, its cost-cutting rules take effect. Indeed, its rules take effect unless Congress acts to repudiate it and the President signs on to that repudiation. If that doesn't happen--if Congress doesn't pass what is in effect a new piece of legislation--the panel's rules are implemented, just like the Fed's rules. This would be a very powerful unelected board. David Broder may explode.

**********

You can read the law yourself--the relevant provision (Sec. 3403) runs from page 1000 to page 1053 here. But what it seems to say, specifically, is:

--The new 15 member "IMAB" board makes cost-cutting recommendations if Medicare spending exceeds specific targets.

--Congress can disapprove these changes by passing a bill. But like other legislation, the president can veto that bill (and his veto can be overridden).

--The "fast tracking" provisions Klein discusses apply to the bill disapproving the changes. That is, they make it easier for opponents of the changes to block them without, say, being filibustered in the Senate. But they also sharply restrict what a "fast-tracked" disapproval can do--for example, it can't block spending cuts if that causes cost-reduction targets to be missed. To this extent it's an "up or down" vote, like a base-closing resolution

--Key point: If Congress doesn't pass the fast-tracked bill, the Secretary of HHS must implement the IMAB panel's recommendations

--And Congress loses even its fast-track disapproval power after 2020, unless, by a 60% supermajority, during a specific window in the first half of 2017, while standing on one leg and humming Battle Hymn of the Republic, it passes a joint resolution discontinuing the whole process. Correction: The part about standing on one leg and humming doesn't seem to be in the final bill.

Complicated! (If I got it wrong, let me know.) The most obvious flaw seems to be this: Under the Reid bill, the way Congress disapproves the "IMAB" board's rules is by passing a law, subject to presidential veto, on a carefully-circumscribed "fast track" But Congress can pass a new law, subject to veto, anytime it wants on any subject, using its traditional "slow track" (or any faster track it feels like creating). The Reid bill can't stop future Congress's from doing that--passing a law throwing out the IMAB boards recommendations, for example. Or killing the IMAB board completely (whether or not it passes this law in the first half of 2017). All the Reid reform can hope to do is prevent Congress from doing this via the specirfied "fast track." A meddling Congress, faced with constituents angry at Medicare cuts, might well say, in effect, 'take your fast track and shove it--we'll show you fast'.

Suppose, say, the "expert" IMAB board decrees that the feds won't pay for routine mammograms for women under forty. How do you think Congress would react? ... 10:40 P.M.

___________________________

Harry Reid - Health care - Medicare - United States Congress - Filibuster

When GM says 'Here's your money back,' they really mean it!

Mickey Kaus — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:53:00 GMT

GM "says it will begin to pay back U.S. loans." But of course it's paying back that debt to taxpayers with money from ... taxpayers. Even the new, nicer Truth About Cars isn't falling for it. GM got $50 billion from the government, after all, mainly for a 60% share in the company. It's planning to pay back $1.2 billion in December--basically a PR attempt, TTAC speculates, to erase its negative consumer image as a bailout baby. The only hope for the taxpayers actually being repaid for their entire $50B investment is an IPO. TTAC pinpoints 2010 as the ideal year, when the innovative Chevy Volt will be conveniently not yet released. "GM’s hail-mary will provide a speculative upside to GM’s value as long as it’s still just around the corner." ...

P.S.: Also, these financial results are not GAAP-ready. "North American Operations are still bleeding cash. And, as Henderson has admitted, the fourth quarter results for 2009 are only going to bring worse news." [TTAC again] ... P.P.S.: But GM will launch a company-wide sale this week to clear excess U.S. inventory. A sure sign of success! ... 2:58 P.M.

___________________________

General Motors - United States - Chevrolet Volt - Initial public offering - U.S

Amnesty's Last Chance?

Mickey Kaus — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:15:00 GMT

New push for "comprehensive" (i.e. including amnesty) immigration reform:

1) Is it good for Obama's health care effort that this comes out now? Doesn't it potentially make 2010 midterm voters more uneasy about Dem overreach? Maybe it placates Hispanic lawmakers who might be upset at the treatment of illegals in the health bill itself--but that's Obama again playing the inside game of keeping Congress' factions happy. His problem is the outside game of keeping the public on board, no? ... Wait, I forgot. Health care reform is a fait accompli. Never mind. ... P.S.: Or maybe Obama has concluded that health care reform gets more unpopular when voters think about it, so he's changing the subject. ...

2) It seems like almost yesterday that the official, liberal pro-legalization position was that the decline in the number of illegals had little to do with increased enforcement. It was all the declining economy. (After all, illegals are here to stay and there's nothing we can do about that, right? But if enforcement works to produce a big demographic shift ....) Now Obama Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano is claiming that we can go ahead with legalization because "better enforcement" has indeed worked to produce a decline in the number of illegals. But wasn't that all due to the economy? I sense a contradiction. ...P.S.: Maybe another factor was the 2007 defeat of comprehensive immigration reform itself. Without the promise of a legalization and eventual U.S. citizenship, crossing the border seemed less worth the risk and sacrifice ...

3) If the economy is even a partial factor, shouldn't we wait until enforcement techniques survive an actual, illegal-attracting economic rebound--and court attacks by the Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic caucus and civil libertarians--before we proclaim those enforcement techniques enough of a success to withstand an illegal-attracting amnesty? Napolitano's speech never explains why the enhanced enforcement powers she says she needs--"tougher anti smuggling laws," greater penalties for "dishonest businesses" and immigration attorneys, etc.--couldn't be enacted without tacking on an amnesty. Maybe she has an argument, but she doesn't make it.

4) Are Democrats going ahead with immigration legalization in 2010 because they realize the way things are going they will have no chance in 2011? ...

Update: Mark Krikorian, noting the number of times Napolitano said the onus was on Congress to act, thinks I'm being unsophisticated if I believe the White House actually plans a significant amnesty push in 2010:

But with unemployment over 10 percent, among other reasons, Congress isn't going to do any of this, so the White House is giving itself plausible deniability.

String along La Raza, prepare to blame Congress for failure, and make sure it's all reported in the least-read newspaper of the week. As my colleague Jon Feere writes, "Amnesty is a year away, and always will be." [E.A.]

But in a year, it won't be a year away. Not after the 2010 midterms. ... 10:11 P.M.

___________________________

If California's neighbors--Arizona, Nevada and Oregon--are almost in as bad fiscal shape as California (according to this Pew chart) doesn't it suggest that California's problem can't just be high taxes. Nevada and Arizona are relatively low-tax states, no? Yet they're going broke too. Of course they still have public employee unions. ... P.S.: Maybe it's some regional phenomenon. Gee, what problem might these states clustered in the Southwest near the Mexican border have in common? ... I'm thinking! ... Update: David Berger notes that "CA, AZ NV and FL have something else in common - most overbuilt during the housing bubble." ... [Via John Ellis, who twitters more than I'd realized. Ellis, a Bush relative, is not a 'Don't Worry, Be Happy' kind of guy. He's a "Worry" kind of guy. Which is one reason he's valuable.]

P.P.S.: Like many people, I found William Voegeli's recent City Journal piece on the decline of the high-tax/high-service model of state government extremely clarifying. Nut graf:

Whatever theoretical claims are made for imposing high taxes to provide generous government benefits, the practical reality is that these public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good: their beneficiaries are mostly the service providers themselves, and their quality is poor.

In short, now we pay high taxes and get lousy services. Worse than Texas! ... But looking at that Pew chart I wonder if this is really the explanation of California's current fiscal trouble--as opposed to a more general explanation of why Californians would be getting a lousy deal from their union-dominated state government even if the state's books were balanced? (You have to think that Jon Corzine in New Jersey was a victim of the same phenomenon.) The fiscal crisis is mainly just a convenient news hook, no? ... 9:40 P.M.

___________________________

Man Doesn't Bite Dog! Detroit-bashing Truth About Cars catalogues Chrysler's assets--and discovers they're not nothin'. The biggest one: faster-moving management than the GM lifers Rattner left in place. ... 9:23 P.M.

___________________________

New Jersey - United States - California - Health care - Nevada

Suckers of the Week

Mickey Kaus — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:09:00 GMT

Explainer Wanted: Why would a politician ever concede a non-blowout race until every last ballot is counted? The momentary frisson of good will can't be worth the possibility that the concession will turn out to have been a mistake--as it was for Jimmy Carter in 1980, Al Gore in 2000, and now conservative Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 congressional race. ... Hoffman will probably still lose when all the ballots are in, but his concession has already had real world consequences--it allowed Nancy Pelosi to swear in Hoffman's Democratic opponent in time to give health care reform its narrow House majority. I'm assuming the people who voted for Hoffman aren't happy with that. ... P.S.: Dick Morris claims, plausibly, that Pelosi had many Dem votes in reserve. Still, thanks to Hoffman's concession she didn't have to use them. ...

Update: Mystery Pollster answers.

One answer: They remember Ellen Sauerbrey http://tr.im/EToC Hoffman wants to run again next year, also counted right http://tr.im/EToX

I'm not convinced. You don't have to be nasty about it. Just say "Let's see how it turns out" and don't concede. ... 9:48 P.M.

___________________________

Things you thought you were getting in the auto bailout. ... Chrysler's showy electric and hybrid cars? Forget them. Now that Chrysler has your money, they're dead. ... GM's 2010 IPO? The one that was going to raise money to repay taxpayers? It's receding rapidly into the future. "It depends on how quickly we become profitable. ... I can’t promise a date," says GM Chairman Ed Whitacre. Translation: Not going to happen. ... Suckers! ... 9:40 P.M.

___________________________

Am I the only one who smells Kabuki in the reports that President Obama has dramatically rejected all the Afghan war options with which he was presented, demanding to know where the "off ramps" are? If you were about to recommend a troop increase that was unpopular, especially with your Democratic base, wouldn't you precede it with some drama like this to demonstrate that you are a) in charge, b) not being conned, and c) insistent on a withdrawal as quickly as possible? Just asking. ... 10:54 P.M.

___________________________

What's wrong with the upcoming Chevy Cruze? Production of the new compact has been delayed three months. The New York Times says the problem is "engine performance and the quietness of the Cruze's ride." AP, quoting the same GM executive, says the problem is the transmission ("No one was thrilled with where it shifted, how it shifted.") What if they're both right? ... P.S.: It's fine that GM postpones a launch for a car that's not yet up to snuff. But the NYT's Bill Vlasic is a sucker for buying the line that this sort of delay represents a dramatic "culture" shift:

In the past, G.M. rarely held back a product to add the extra touches that would improve its chances in a fiercely competitive market.

Please. GM's been peddling this line for years. See, for example, this U.S. News report:

Concerns over quality have substantially altered the way Detroit launches new models. A case in point is the line of luxury midsized cars planned for this fall by Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobile. Transaxle problems with these front-wheel-drive C-body models caused GM to delay their introduction until at least January, and possibly spring. ''The car will have to tell us when it's ready," says Robert Burger, Cadillac's general manager. Notes a longtime industry observer: ''In the old days, that would be unheard of. They'd move the cars in the fall, whether they were right or not.''

That paragraph was published in 1983. ... 10:56 P.M.

___________________________

"CNN doesn't have a brand. It has a bland. It just got blander." -- Alert reader T. ... 11:36 P.M.

___________________________

Nancy Pelosi - Al Gore - Jimmy Carter - Democratic Party - Health care

Did Fox Win the War?

Mickey Kaus — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:19:00 GMT

Obama aide Anita Dunn, who started the White House war against Fox, is leaving her post. ... Meanwhile, Obama will give an interview to Fox's Major Garrett. ... Did Fox win? ... Or was it an October fundraising ploy all along? ... If Obama won, his communications shop certainly knows how to magnanimously make it look like he lost. ... Is that what Sun Tzu would do? ... 11/13 Update: Dunn a) declares victory on her way out the door("People took a step back and said, ‘Hmm, am I really wanting to go chase those stories?’”) b) lobs a few more shells c) suggests she had a White House pre-clearance to launch the war ("White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and perhaps even the president himself gave her the green light," says Sam Stein.) d) says “There are no confirmed television interviews in China," where the Major Garrett interview was reported to be planned. Won't that make it a bit embarrassing if it happens? ... P.S.: Still looks like a retreat to me, even if I agree with Dunn's underlying premise--that Fox News is in essence a different sort of animal from even MSNBC. ... 6:20 P.M.

____________________________

BriarPatch.org: From ABC's Note:

MoveOn.org is launching a round of TV ads this week targeting Democratic House members who voted against the health care bill over the weekend.

Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill, though MoveOn is starting by targeting only six fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats: Rep. Mike Ross, [D-Ark.]; Rep. Jason Atlmire, D-Pa.; Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Va.; Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va.; Rep. Larry Kissell, D-N.C..; and Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. ...[snip]

A spokesman for the group said MoveOn plans to spend $500,000 on the ads, which come as liberals seek to pressure moderate Democrats in the Senate to support President Obama in his quest for health care reform.

Alert reader T. emails:

If you were a Democratic House Member from a relatively conservative district (especially if you've already taken a bad vote on cap and trade) how much would you pay MoveOn to come into your district and publicize your vote where you stood up to Pelosi and Obama on government-run health care?

True. But doesn't MoveOn know this? They still get to look tough, and raise money. Conservative Dems get to triangulate. It's win-win. ... 7:41 P.M.

___________________________

A very pretty mid-50s FIAT with a body by the late Elio Zagato. Note subtle grille graphics. ... 7:41 P.M.

___________________________

White House - Anita Dunn - Sun Tzu: The Art of War for Managers; 50 Strategic Rules - Major Garrett - Sun Tzu

Health Care Reform: Got Id?

Mickey Kaus — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:11:00 GMT

TTAC asks: Will today's recyclable cars fall apart? ... 5:36 P.M.

___________________________

Are you as sophisticated as Politico? Spot the weak point in Carrie Budoff Brown's optimistic health care reform report:

Reid also said he will deliver a final bill to the president by Christmas, meeting the White House deadline.

"We sure hope so," Reid said.

2:18 P.M.

___________________________

"Abortion Dispute Could Derail Health Bill": Do you really think an abortion dispute will derail the massive health bill? Me neither. I think if the Democrats are scared to pass the health bill they will let an abortion dispute derail the massive health bill. If they aren't too scared, the abortion issue can be finessed with a variety of possible compromises. (Sample: The Stupak Amendment with an opt-out for states that vote explicitly to allow private insurance premiums (on federally subsidized policies) to fund abortions.)

That goes for all the allegedly difficult House/Senate sticking points. Timothy Noah lists four, in addition to abortion: the public option, the government's ability to negotiate drug prices, the size of the lower-income subsidies, the tax that will pay for it all. I'm not impressed. It would take a conscientious conference committee, working in secret, maybe, what, two days to split the difference on most of them? Even if differences can't be split, they can be finessed, or kicked down the road. And even if that's impossible--well,nobody really believes that the left is going to sabotage a once-in-a-lifetime chance at health care reform over abortion, or the "robustness" of the public option, or the ability of illegal immigrants to get insurance.

The problem facing health care reform, as Dick Morris and others have been arguing for months, isn't these tediously subtle legislative complications. They're what we see on the surface. The problem is the crude, primal politics underneath them--the legislature's' "id." It's the fear, among power-lusting Democratic Congresspersons, that if they vote for health care they won't be Congresspersons much past November, 2010 (or that even if they win, they will no longer be in the majority party). They're not worried about Cadillac plans. They're worried about castration.

Note that Obama's House pep talk, according to John Dickerson, focused on the primal politics:

Before the House vote last Saturday, Obama made two key political points to Democratic House members. First, they needed to vote for health care because it would motivate the party base in 2010. Second, those who think they can run away from the president by voting against his signature legislative effort are kidding themselves. The president believes that a key lesson of the Republican rout of Democrats in 1994 was that Democrats who oppose their president can never get far enough away to survive politically. So if you're going to get stuck defending the president, you should get behind his plan and benefit from the political cover he'll work to give those who support him.

Of course, if the fate of health reform in fact turns on such non-wonk, non-policy analysis, reform supporters couldn't help but notice at least two danger signs:

1) The size of the House majority. 220-215 votes. It's hard to believe it was this close--that Pelosi didn't have more votes she could have called on in a pinch. But if (as reported) she really needed to agree to the anti-choice Stupak amendment in order to get past 218, maybe she did pull out nearly all the stops. If so, yikes! The thinness of Pelosi's House majority is a very bad sign--not because it shows the House doesn't have any room to negotiate with the Senate. (If the bill moves to the right by, say, dropping the public option, they'll cave.) It's a bad sign because it shows that even in the heavily Democratic, disciplined, liberal House the primal drive for health care reform just isn't that high. There is no room for more fear.

2) "[Y]ou should get behind his plan and benefit from the from the political cover he'll work to give those who support him," Dickerson has Obama saying. You mean like the cover he gave Jon Corzine in New Jersey? ...

Update: Matt Yglesias clarifies some of the Kabuki--

[I]nsofar as there are members who don’t want to take the political risk of voting “yes” on a comprehensive health care reform bill, but also don’t want to be seen as spiking the initiative, then developing a hard line position on abortion can be convenient. Like say Ben Nelson and Bob Casey say they can’t vote for health care unless it contains Stupak language, and then Joe Lieberman (Freedom of Choice Act cosponsor!) and Olympia Snowe say they can’t vote for health care unless it doesn’t contain Stupak language. Well, then health care dies. And yet nobody has to take the blame for having killed it if a constituent gets mad. [E.A.]

It's also true that if you don't want to take the political risk of voting "yes" on a comprehensive health care reform bill and also don't want to take the political risk of developing a hard line position on abortion then it's in your interest that others, like Ben Nelson, develop that hard line position and cause a train wreck. You can't be blamed, of course. You supported health care! You were nowhere near the scene of the crash! It just kind of happened. Terrible thing, just terrible. ... But maybe you will quietly thank Nelson in your prayers. ... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of course, was accused of engineering just this kind of train wreck on "comprehensive immigration reform" in 2007. ... 2:23 A.M.

___________________________

Is it an accident that Rep. Alan Grayson, despite his respectable resume, turned into a flamboyant hey-look-at-me bombthrower after hiring famously intemperate blogger Matt Stoller as "policy adviser"? (Here's Stoller displaying his laid back personality on bloggingheads.tv.) The NYT, which puzzled on Grayson's transition a week ago, missed this angle. ... Or was Grayson intemperate before--and that's why he hired Stoller (and why Stoller went to work for him)? Hard to see which way causality runs. Could run in all directions, of course. A vicious circle of hotheadedness. ... 1:48 P.M.

___________________________

Democratic Party - Health care - Politics - Insurance - United States Senate

Scozzafava and the Feiler Faster Thesis

Mickey Kaus — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:50:00 GMT

FFT-NY-23: Was the NY-23 race--in which conservative third-party candidate Doug Hoffman's surge suddenly unsurged after the GOP candidate dropped out--an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis (which holds that voters now comfortably process new information and events with a speed that matches the speeding up of the news cycle)? Here's Mark Blumenthal:

Experience tells us that when a candidate enters a contest's final weekend with both a lead and as much apparent momentum as Hoffman, they almost always win. By the end of a long campaign, voters have spent weeks or months acquiring information and pondering their choice, and most have made up their minds by the final weekend.

In this case, however, the voters experienced "man bites dog" news twice: First, the Republican nominee [Dede Scozzafava] dropped out, then she endorsed the Democrat. I am guessing that the unprecedented news made a significant number of these habitual voters sit up and take special notice, especially those who had until that moment experienced the campaign mostly through television advertising.

So here is my hunch: When confronted by a pollster's call over the weekend, many were simply not ready to make a final decision. If pollsters pushed hard for a choice, some voters may have fallen back on an initial preference that they were now in the process of reconsidering. For those who shifted to Owens that weekend, however, the campaign had started anew. Their final decisions were probably not made until they cast a ballot on Tuesday. [E.A.]

NY-23 voters certainly seem to have processed a lot of dramatic new information very quickly, the essence of the Feiler Faster Thesis. Upshot: Not only is momentum not what it used to be--a venerable implication of the FFT--but dropping out or switching candidates a few days before an election doesn't seem to annoy or confuse voters. Rather, it can have its intended effect (for Scozzafava, the intended effect of defeating Hoffman). Prediction: We will see a lot more of these dramatic last-minute drop-outs and support switches. I wouldn't even be surprised to see it happen in a presidential race.**

**--In October, 1988 I thought the flailing Michael Dukakis should drop out and let his then-popular VP pick, Lloyd Bentsen, become the Democratic candidate. I snuck the idea into a Newsweek piece, and then felt vaguely embarrassed. When I argued to my friends that it was the best chance to beat Bush, people looked at me like I was an unsophisticated high schooler, Presidential candidates didn't pull stunts like that. It was simply too late for Dukakis to avoid inevitable defeat. If he bailed, voters would only be confused and demoralized. Democrats might stay home--and then down-ballot Dems would suffer along with Dukakis.

That may have been true in 1988. Not sure it would be true today. ... 12:19 P.M.

___________________________

Republican - Democratic - Michael Dukakis - Feiler Faster Thesis - United States

Health Care Reform: Reich Overboard!

Mickey Kaus — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:43:00 GMT

Canary Ejects from Coal Mine: Robert Reich sure seems to be saying that Obama should have focused on the economy and put off health care reform:

a) Reich's test of success or failure seems to be whether "the Democrats lose one or both houses of Congress in the midterms." His analysis of why this might happen (benefits of health plan won't be felt, lack of jobs will) appears sound. But if Obama had focused on the economy, what measures, exactly, could he have taken to avoid a midterm massacre? A larger stimulus? Obama got as big a stimulus as he could last spring, no? Maybe Reich thinks Obama could have gotten a second tranche earlier this fall if he'd delayed health care. But Reich more or less admits that now it's too late for any measure to have a big impact before the election. So why not get health care reform? The way things are going, it's not like Dems will have another chance in 2011.

b) Reich's clearly still miffed that President Clinton rejected his stimulus plans in early 1993, choosing instead to lower the budget deficit and interest rates. As a result, Reich declares, "the Clinton years produced few if any major social reforms." Hmm. I can think of one. Actually, two and a half (work-oriented welfare reform coupled with the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and medical care for poor children). Even if Reich perversely won't count that as a "social reform," Clinton's rejection of Reich's advice was followed by the longest economic expansion in our history. The combination lowered the child poverty rate from 22% to 16%. Never trust content from Robert Reich.

c) You could say it's a bad sign for Obama if Reich has ejected from the health care express. On the other hand, if there were a theatrical, left-cultivating, personal-branding semi-economist who was going to get attention for himself by jumping ship, it would be Robert Reich. He's sort of a canary in the coal mine in this respect. The canary has jumped! But at this point it's only the canary. ... Any metaphors left? [Shark-ed Well, Reich's chances of returning to power in an Obama administration are now close to zero. Maybe he's jumped that too. ... ] 9:01 P.M.

___________________________

Allthumbsucking: From WaPo reporter Michael Shear's exceptionally gauzy and correct "analysis" of Obama's "challenges"--including handling the aftermath of the Ft. Hood mass shooting:

And the incident -- clearly out of Obama's control -- comes as the president appears nearing a decision to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan. Explaining that decision to the public will be a critical job for Obama during the next several months, and Hasan's actions can only make that more difficult. [E.A.]

"Only"? Really? If Obama wants to send thousands more troops to bottle up radical Islamic terrorists who would like to bring violence to America, it seems as if this violent incident might make explaining it easier, no? ... P.S.: I'm not saying it necessarily makes it righter--just easier to win support for. ... 9:01 P.M.

___________________________

Health care - Democratic - Bill Clinton - Earned Income Tax Credit - Presidency of Barack Obama

Zombie Orszagism Returns to Kill Health Care Reform For Good?

Mickey Kaus — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:01:00 GMT

The Obama Administration will find a way to blow health care reform yet. Mere Rhetoric notes a report that Obama aides plan to address Tuesday's election defeats by resurrecting Orszagism, the doctrine that health care reform is the way to control the deficit because it will enable the government to "bend the cost curve" down without compromising care. From Josh Gerstein:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted Wednesday that the White House plans no changes whatsoever in its legislative strategy or agenda as a result of this week’s contests. However, a White House aide told ABC that the administration will seek to bolster moderates by returning to an argument that health care reform will curb the deficit—a talking point Obama aides have de-emphasized in recent months in favor of a focus on making the insurance system more secure and predictable. [E.A.]

If I recall, the White House had"de-emphasized" Orszagism because those who heard the argument tended to fall into roughly two camps: 1) Voters who thought it was at best pie-in-the-sky and that the government probably couldn't "bend the curve" over the next two decades--the way it hasn't been able to do with Medicare, for example; and 2) Voters who thought the government could indeed "bend the curve" and were terrified by the prospect, because the argument seemed to be that only if the government controlled virtually the entire health system could it ~~really turn the screws~~ ~~start denying treatments~~ initiate a "very difficult democratic conversation" over which treatments were really cost-effective, including treatments at the end of life. ...

It was only when the Orszagism was in fact de-emphasized (over the summer) that opposition to health care reform stopped its relentless upward rise and actually fell for a brief period. Why go back to the debacle of last Spring? Vague policyspeak about curve-bending has already, unnecessarily, cost health care reform the support of the elderly. Does Obama want to give reform's opponents the ammo to drive opposition above the 60% line? Go ahead. Make Dick Morris' day. ...

P.S.: I should make it clear that I am in camp #1--I don't think Americans will tolerate draconian, or even semi-draconian, denials of service. As a result I don't think the curve (which is driven mainly by advances in medicine that yield expensive treatments) will be bent. That's why I'm for health care reform. But Orszagism is still lousy politics, because lots of voters will fall into Camp #2. ...

For more: See kf's extensive fall Orszagism collection. ... 12:06 A.M.

___________________________

White House - Medicare - Health care - Democratic - Robert Gibbs

Why Are the Health Care Polls Going South?

Mickey Kaus — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:01:00 GMT

Another seemingly grim health care poll--49/39 against, compared with 42/40 earlier in the month by the same pollster (Ipsos/McClatchy). The new poll eerily resonates with Rasmussen's increased margin of 54/42 against. But, again, part of the drop in support could come from erstwhile reform supporters worried about the status of the "public option." I'd be interested in the breakout of independents and Democrats--but I can't open the file. If you can, feel free to let me know. Mickey_Kaus at msn dot com. ... Mickey's Assignment Desk: Mark Blumenthal--maybe you can help. Why are the health care polls going south? Unaffiliated voters worried about the deficit? Libs worried about the public option? Seniors worried about ~~death panels~~ overzealous cost containment measures? Everyone worried about rising premiums? ... Or any combination of the above (including voters betraying their stereotypes--e.g. liberals worried about overzealous cost controls or deficits?) ...

Update: Thanks to all who sent the numbers. Opposition to reform appears to have held steady among GOPs. but risen among independents by 15 percentage points (from 38% opposed to 53%) and also among Democrats by 7 percentage points (from 18% to 25%). Less clear is what could have provoked these drops. It's hard to say "lack of a public option," given that the public option seems to be in better shape today than early in October--though the poll was taken immediately following Sen. Lieberman's filibuster threat. ...

More: CNN is out with another grim survey-- 53/45 against, a sharp change from the 49/49 tie CNN reported in mid-October. ... On the other hand, Rasmussen has moved slightly in the pro-reform direction (it's now 7 points down instead of 12). The Rasmussen poll is fresher, by a week, than CNN's. But it also was taken the very weekend the House passed it's version of the bill (with an anti-abortion amendment)--so it may record a potentially short-lived bounce. ... 4:27 P.M.

___________________________

Health care - Democratic - Rasmussen - Health - Democrats

Conservatives Against "Spiritual Health"

Mickey Kaus — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:35:00 GMT

Conservatives against prayer ... Or, rather, against requiring health insurance in Obama's "exchanges" to cover prayer treatment ("religious and spiritual health care"). a) Yes, a government-run plan will always have to contend with this sort of pressure, in addition to pressure to cover experimental procedures and expensive mental health treatments. These pressures are often harder for our political system to resist than for private insurers to resist; b) But if the government can avoid covering Christian Science prayer treatment under Medicare you'd think it could avoid covering it under the smaller health insurance exchange plans envisioned by the Dems, no? c) Wonder which way Sarah Palin comes down on this; d) Can the Scientologists be far behind? ... 12:18 P.M.

___________________________

Hugh ("only time will tell") Sidey has a worthy successor: Eugene Robinson in this morning's WaPo:

Reading too much into Tuesday's off-off-year election results would be a mistake, but reading too little into them would be wrong as well.

[Thanks to reader J] 12:08 P.M.

____________________________

Chrysler to break out new "Ram" line of trucks. If they'd called it the Rahm line I'd really start to worry about politicization. ... P.S.: Chrysler has now "projected that it will double its sales over five years." Do you believe that? Me neither, though I guess if Chrysler sales keep falling (down 39% so far this year from last year, which wasn't so great itself) they'll eventually be able to double their sales just by selling another one. [Update: They put an actual number on what they expect to do--increase sales from 1.3 million in 2009 to 2.8 million in 2014. With this? Okeydokey.] ... 12:04 P.M.

___________________________

Insurance - Sarah Palin - Medicare - Health insurance - Health care

Mineola Man Survives N.J. Nuclear Holocaust!

Mickey Kaus — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:38:00 GMT

What Liberal Bias? This is the main headline on the L.A.Times web home page:

Dem score congressional victories in California, N.Y.

From staff and wire reports | 9:42 p.m.

The GOP fares better in Virginia and New Jersey as both states elect Republican governors.

* * * * * *

Thanks to alert reader KL, who speculates that not even the conservative Washington Times would try something that disoriented. I think it would be a stretch for Granma. ...

Update: As of an hour later the headline was "Democrats win Congressional victories in California, N.Y.." with the same subhed. ...10:48 P.M.

____________________________

New Jersey - Virginia - Republican - California - Conservatism

Election 2009: Some Winners, Losers,

Mickey Kaus — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:02:00 GMT

Winner: Robopolls. Rasmussen's final poll, showing a 46-43-8 Christie win, was pretty damn accurate. Polls using conventional human operators tended to show Corzine ahead. They were wrong.** ... If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the presitigous N.Y.Times, go with Rasmussen! ... Why this is important: Rasmussen's polls tend to show the highest level of opposition to health care reform. If they accurately predict who will turn out to vote, they may signify big potential trouble for Democrats in lower-turnout mid-term elections. The Democratic Congressional id--at least the part that represents primordial existential fear of non-reelection--is throbbing. Expect a lot more time-consuming negotiating hangups and talk about how we should avoid arbitrary deadlines when it comes to passing Obama's big reform. ... (I still think it will eventually pass, but it may take until next Spring or beyond.) ...

Loser: Health care reform (see above) ...

Loser: Obama, who tried to work his magic for Corzine and discovered it wasn't there. (I don't buy the "he invested his prestige" line. A President is still allowed to try to help in a tight race. But he was clearly not a transformative presence in this one. It was more an Olympics bid situation.)

Winner: The Incumbent Rule--which holds that late-breaking voters do not go to the incumbent. Tarnished in 2004, it's having a Nixon-like rehabilitation in New Jersey. Update: And in New York City. ...

Losers: E.J.Dionne, Walter Shapiro and others caught in the MSM negative-ads worked narrative for New Jersey (which just happened to favor the Democrat). ... Update: Negative ads were losers in Virginia too, says Byron York. ...

Winners: ACORN, SEIU, voter fraud. A close election would have put the spotlight on them, no? ~~I guess that could still happen in NY-23~~. ... Corollary Loser: John Fund. A close election would have given him six months of well-paying work. ...

Losers: Dems who were planning to argue that a Corzine victory, when contrasted with Deeds' loss, shows the need to stick with "core Democratic values" (i.e. unions) ...

Loser: Card check. Virginia Republican McDonnell didn't fudge on labor's "card check" bill. He bashed it. He won. Virginia is hardly a union state, but neither are the states with Senators who are swing votes on "card check". ...

Losers: Beck, Limbaugh, New Media conservatives who thought the rebellious Reaganite vote was bigger than it turned out to be in NY-23. ... Also Dem-leaning MSM who were planning to use a rebellious Reaganite victory as demonstrating a tea-party takeover of GOP (as opposed to a botched candidate-selection process). ...

Winner: GOP, because now that the rebellious Reaganites have had some serotonin leakage, they might be a bit easier to handle. ...

Winner: Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC. Breath of sanity next to K. Olbermann ...

Perennial loser: Exit polls (see below).

P.S.: Always trust content from kausfiles!

**--Note, though, that robopollster PPP was way off on NY-23. ... 8:33 P.M.

___________________________

New Jersey - Democratic - United States - Health care - United States midterm election

Election 2009: Were the Exit Polls Wrong Again?

Mickey Kaus — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:12:00 GMT

Why do I get the feeling that the VNS Exit Polls were way off--in a pro-Dem direction--once again? Answer: Because early evening posts like this one from Marc Ambinder seemed to be hinting at a Corzine victory:

Courtesy of CBS News: If Jon Corzine wins re-election, he can thank women, who gave him a narrow advantage and who voted at higher proportions than men did.

He could have written "If Chris Christie is the new governor of N.J., he can thank men, who gave him a huge advantage ..." But ... he didn't. Did the exit polls show a relatively big Corzine victory? Back in the day when the exit polls were widely leaked, everyone would know what they were and--if they were wrong--they would know that they were wrong. Now they are more closely held--which allows the VNS to keep screwing up and hide its inaccuracy ... Again, if we can't trust the exit poll's bottom line result (presumably due to a subtle bias in which voters pollsters talk to) why can we trust any of the demographic breakouts that scholars, etc. use? Won't they be subtly biased too? ...

Update: A kf source reports

Exits were close in VA and Corzine ahead in NJ.

Pathetic! I guess I was wrong when I said they were subtly biased. ... 7:25 P.M.

___________________________

Hardy Perennial: Stuck in traffic this evening? Why the end of Daylight Saving Time invariably produces giant, gas-wasting jams on local freeways. ... 3:49 P.M.

___________________________

Shorter Nagourney (and you're not missing much): "Best outcome for Democrats: Win ... Worst outcome for Republicans: Losing ...."** ...

**--Those are direct quotes. I am not aware of all internet traditions. ... 3:46 P.M.

____________________________

This is not the market share we paid for: After a big ad campaign, General Motors gets an estimated 21% market share in October. Edmunds.com had predicted 22.4%. Kf analysts not impressed, await scathing TTAC take-apart. .. Update: TTAC punts to its readers, who note a) GM achieved this market share with lots of "incentives" (i.e. price cuts); b) GM introduced several new models, which is a good thing--but new models often produce a sales spike that evaporates within a few months. ... Bailout II still on track. ... 3:22 P.M.

___________________________

Daylight Saving Time - Election Day - Republican Party - Democratic Party - Fonts

NSFT--Not Safe For Twitter--Election Eve Special

Mickey Kaus — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:49:00 GMT

R, Robot: Could this be the election that validates automated polls as more accurate than regular polls conducted by humans? Robopollster Rasmussen may have more riding on the New Jersey results than Obama. Mark Blumenthal (citing Nate Silver) discusses whether the reluctance of some potential voters to answer automated surverys eerily replicates the reluctance of some potential voters to ... vote--in effect giving robo-polls an effective screen for "likely" voters.** .. Also, in an especially exciting development, the Incumbent Rule may make a comeback ... P.S.: If robopolling really does focus accurately on "likely" voters, this latest Rasmussen-heavy health care chart will terrify wavering Democrats. ...

**--Post Election Update: Rasmussen and the other robopollsters were more accurate, but Blumenthal now attributes this to their "simulating a secret ballot, thus pushing voters harder to make a choice" between anti-Corzine candidates Christie and Daggett." Does this mean the robots' "likely voter" screen wasn't any better? ...10:30 P.M.

___________________________

Bonus Conditional CW: If conservative insurgent Doug Hoffman defeats the Democrat in New York's 23d District (after Republican party candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out)--

Old CW: Sure, Scozzafava is a moderate Republican but that's what her constituents want.

New CW: It's a conservative district, what did you expect?

9:49 P.M.

___________________________

kf--Always the Positive Spin: The UAW's Ford workers have rejected contract concessions that would have almost-but-not-quite lowered Ford's labor costs to match GM and Chrysler's new costs, which are said to almost-but-not-quite match Toyota and Honda's. But is that really so bad? It means pattern bargaining is broken. The UAW strategy was always to take labor costs out of the auto industry's competitive equation by making basically the same deal with each of the Big Three. Yet Ford's workers obviously saw that their company was doing better than Chrysler or GM, and they refused to get in line. It's now clear that the fate of even unionized auto workers will vary with the success or failure of their individual employers. They're back to competing against each other, not just against the "bosses." ... P.S.: Too bad the GM and Chrysler bailouts, with their minimal UAW contract concessions, may have given Ford workers an excessively rosy impression of what it really means to have a failed employer. Were Ford workers scared enough to avoid the UAW's too-little-too-late tradition of concessions? Obama has short-circuited bankruptcy's shock-and-awe function. ... And not just in this case. [via RCP] ... 3:33 P.M.

___________________________

That Mid-term CW in Full:

Old CW: Wow, Corzine's a goner. Voters are pissed.

New CW: Mixed message! Mixed message!

Next CW: What do midterms mean, anyway?

2:21 P.M.

___________________________

Uncensored Twitter Vitriol Unleashed! Someone calls Stephen Fry "a bit ... boring." Can't have that. ... More evidence that many celebrities have skins of pre-Internet thinness. It seems plausible that they would have to be insulated--or have their public insulated--from what's really tweeted about them. ... 2:21 P.M.

___________________________

Hostages to Fortune: Mid-term Edition [E.A.]

[NPR Host: ...[N]ext week, the off-year election could be a political weathervane for the Obama administration. ... E.J., what do you - what do you find of interest in next Tuesday's elections?]

I think the weathervane is going to be going in circles in the end. I mean, what you're looking at in New Jersey, an embattled Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, on today's numbers is likely to squeak out a narrow victory. He's run a very, very tough campaign against Republican Chris Christie. It's as if Corzine lost the referendum on himself, then he turned it into a referendum on Christie, and Christie lost that one. And there's a third party candidate called Chris Daggett who's drawing off enough votes that Corzine will come through. And Corzine has hugged Barack Obama.

--E.J. Dionne, All Things Considered, Friday Oct. 30

John Corzine by all estimation is going to be reelected Governor of New Jersey.

--Walter Shapiro, KCRW's Which Way L.A.?, Thursday, October 22 **

Reader submissions accepted. (Email to Mickey underscore Kaus at MSN dot com). ...

P.S. I was sure this Bob Shrum column would yield a potentially embarrassing quote, riddled as it was by the assumption that Gov. Corzine was headed to unexpected victory (because unlike Creigh Deeds he "refuses to yield on core Democratic values.") But it's worded very carefully. ...

**--Maybe Shapiro left out the qualifiers speaking on a radio show? Here's the written version: "Aided by a superior Democratic get-out-the-vote drive, Corzine is now widely expected to prevail ..." 2:16 P.M

___________________________

Too Catty to Twitter--The mask of adopted authority slips: Someone who admits he thought the Ford Fiesta was "already out" --i.e. being sold in the U.S.--is maybe not the go-to expert to explain the "5 Reasons Ford Bounced Back." ... 2:14 P.M.

___________________________

"[M]ore people read the Newark Star-Ledger than watch Anderson Cooper": Jerry Skurnik claims I've failed to see the forest for the lede (about CNN's last place finish). The real story is how few people watch CNN and MSNBC and FOX combined:

And it’s not like the bigger names in Cable are reaching a vast audience either. The “giants” of cable news do much better but still reach a puny number of viewers (O’Reilly, Beck & Hannitty reach 2-3 million a night) in a country where 130 million voted for President last year.

Skurnik claims this reinforces his theory of the growing gap between the "two electorates"--the tiny minority of super/faster informed politicos and the vast mass of less up-to-speed voters. But the driver of the two-electorate phenomenon isn't so much the increased knowledge of the superinformed, its the decrease (or leave-it-until-the-last-minute delay) in the common knowledge of the less informed, no? Sure, cable news' audience is tiny in a nation of 130 million voters. It's small compared to the 20 million who watch broadcast network news. But even that 20 million is small in a nation of 130 million voters! What about the other 110 million? There's your lede! (They used to watch Walter Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley. Now they don't. Do they remain relatively uninformed, or inform themselves at the last minute--and if so, how? On the Web? If so, where? ... Word of mouth from neighbors? Neighbors in the first electorate? Neighbors who watch cable news? ...)

P.S.: I'm not so sure about Skurnik's near-CW point that

Cable news does sometimes play an important role in our politics. But that’s only when a story they report gets picked up by those parts of the media that bloggers & cable news say is dead or dying.

I suspect Dede Scozzafava might disagree. Did the conservative rebellion in her district gain unstoppable momentum because of coverage in the broadcast and newsprint MSM? ... Update: No! It was New Media! [via Insta] ... 2:12 P.M.

___________________________

Jon Corzine - New Jersey - Barack Obama - United States - New Jersey Governor

Help! I Don't Like Obama!

Mickey Kaus — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:26:00 GMT

Freud 1, Zombies 0: When it comes to ghosts, "the line between believing and not believing is not so firm." Ellen Ladowsky searches for paranormal activity in London. ... 2:21 P.M.

___________________________

Howie's Choice: WaPo ombudsperson Andrew Alexander looks up from his desk and notices that ~~East German figure skating judge~~ press critic Howie Kurtz, who is paid by CNN and covers CNN, has

an inescapable conflict that is at odds with Post rules.

Who knew? ... Next question: Does a weakened WaPo Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli have the ... um, clout to make Kurtz change his beat? Maybe--CNN fame isn't what it used to be! Meaning the chances that Kurtz would quit are probably lower. ...

P.S.: Kurtz says

"My track record makes clear that I've been as aggressive toward CNN -- and The Washington Post, for that matter -- as I would be if I didn't host a weekly program there ... "

BS, BS [several items], BS [4th item], BS, BS, BS [4th item]. ... 12:39 A.M.

___________________________

I realized the other day that I don't really like President Obama. I try to explain here. Maybe it will pass. ... Lack of 'likeability' isn't necessarily a big problem in a President. But if a President thinks he's more or less beloved, it could be. ... 12:35 P.M.

___________________________

Castro: Penn, Si! Hitchens, No! Ann Bardach on how Hitch got bumped while a useful celebrity got the story. ... She also reports that stars like Jack Nicholson and Leonardo DiCaprio are routinely spied on "with sophisticated listening devices and hidden video cameras" when they visit Havana. Do they know? Bardach sees potential blackmail: "Be careful what you say; we may have compromising data on you." ...12:35 P.M.

___________________________

Sponsored Topics: President - Fonts - United States - Presidential - Society and Culture

Anita Dunn's Alibi: The Case of the Confusing Chinese?

Mickey Kaus — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:48:00 GMT

Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn says she was only cribbing from Lee Atwater when she approvingly quoted from Mao Tse-Tung in a graduation speech. ... Funny thing, though. I can't find a place where Atwater cited Mao. I can find lots of places where Atwater referenced Sun Tzu, whose Art of War he supposedly carried around in dog eared form. ... Hmmm .... [Thanks to D.W.] ... Backfill: Commenters here were onto this possibility days ago. ... 5:52 P.M.

___________________________

The Monitor Lies: I thought this time it would look like I had hair. ... 7:18 P.M.

___________________________

Sponsored Topics: Anita Dunn - White House Communications Director - Mao Tse-Tung: Four Essays on Philosophy - Sun Tzu - Art of War

Night of the Goolsbee!

Mickey Kaus — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:29:00 GMT

Good News for Hyundai: It looks as if UAW workers are rejecting the proposed contract that would not-quite give Ford the same concessions the union gave GM and Chrysler. After all, Ford is still losing fewer billions than the other two were losing before the government helped them slash their debt in bankruptcy. So Ford clearly needs to be bled a bit more. The near-certain prospect that Ford will in response ship more work out of the country may not matter if you are a UAW veteran 2 years away from retirement. ... P.S.: Is Obama aide Austan Goolsbee's prediction--that saving Chrysler would cripple Ford's comeback attempt--coming true? ... [via TTAC] 5:41 P.M.

___________________________

Titans of Spin: Chickaboomer on CNN CEO Jon Klein's hypocrisy. (He used to think the 25-54 demographic segment that CNN's now losing was crucial.) ... Mediaite makes the same point--more respectfully, alas. ... P.S.: Remember what CBS veteran Bernard Goldberg said of his former colleague Klein:

"[A]t CBS news he had a reputation as the kind of guy who thought people who tell the truth do it mainly because they lack imagination.

5:40 P.M.

___________________________

Fisker also announces upcoming "Seppuku" two seater: Why would electric luxury car maker Fisker decide to build its new model in a UAW shop in Delaware that only recently turned out some of the least reliable cars GM made? TTAC suspects federal dirigisme. ... 5:39 P.M.

___________________________

Sponsored Topics: General Motors - Chrysler - Ford Motor Company - United Auto Workers - CBS

Paranoid's Corner: Does Twitter Semi-Censor to Protect Celebrities?

Mickey Kaus — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:06:00 GMT

Paranoia Strikes Tweet: [UPDATED] After learning that CNN President Jon Klein had rejoined Twitter, I decided on Monday to post a "tweet" teasing him for killing "Crossfire":

@JonKleinCNN You axed Crossfire, sucked up to Jon Stewart + MSM! Don't you wish you had Crossfire back now? http://bit.ly/27TDat Just askng!

To be honest, this was as nasty an item as I thought I could write and not come off like a total prick. Perhaps I failed at that last task. But it was also an experiment to see if ~~nastiness~~ pointed criticism worked on Twitter. Maybe there could be a productive, or at least entertaining, debate.

A few hours later I checked to see if there was any response from Klein or one of his defenders. But my hostile twitter didn't show up in a search for "Jon Klein," or his twitter handle "JonKleinCNN." In fact it didn't seem to turn up in a search for any of the terms used in the item, like "MSM" or "Jon Stewart."

This morning, I did get a response from Klein, and the item briefly turned up in one of my searches, only to seemingly disappear again.** It hasn't vanished entirely--it's at least still in the list of items I've posted, and presumably in the general river of tweets that flows by everyone who "follows" me. It just doesn't turn up if you search for twitters about Jon Klein.

People tell me I shouldn't read a lot into this incident--twitter search engines are notoriously flaky--so I won't. But it did get me thinking. Why do the searches for "tweets" that mention various twitter celebrities-- Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, and Alyssa Milano, and even CEOs like Klein--almost invariably turn up such pleasant comments? Here's a search for @Jon KleinCNN.. With one or two relatively mild exceptions, it's a tame (and lame) series of attaboys, welcome-backs, and this-is-what-he-saids. Don't a few more people have criticism of Klein, or CNN, on the weekend it hit last place in the ratings? Are twitterers that polite and deferential?

I mean, this is America. If you really opened up a line of communication where every horny 20-year old dude sitting on a couch in a basement typed 140 characters about Alyssa Milano for the world to see ... well, would you really want to see that stream of tweets? People would ... criticize her acting! They'd bring up her famous ex boyfriends. They'd say she looked bad in that dress and otherwise comment on her appearance. Perhaps approvingly! I'm keeping it clean here. But it wouldn't be pretty.

And yet it is. If you actually search for @Alyssa Milano, this is the sort of thing you get:

Last night @AlyssaMilano asked: How do you want to be remembered in this life? I ask you, my followers, how do you want to be remembered?

Haha I saw @AlyssaMilano RT'd u. She's so chill...and hot too!

: @alyssamilano describe yourself in 3 words. Describe your husband in 3 words.

<----watching a rerun of @alyssamilano in who's the boss :)

You get the idea. Something doesn't add up. Does Twitter maybe ~~censor~~ "curate" the search results for its celebrity Twitterers?

This thought would be too paranoid even for me, if I hadn't read Nicole LaPorte's article in The Daily Beast on how celebrity publicists have connections at Twitter HQ:

[V]irtually every publicist in Hollywood has a go-to person at Twitter—the equivalent these days of having an “in” with famed MGM publicity chiefs-cum-fixers Eddie Mannix and Howard Strickling during Hollywood’s Golden Age.

“We’ve had a relationship with Twitter for quite some time,” said one. “We have contacts at most of the sites, so that they can help us out and give us quick tech support.”

(Perhaps journalists are shown less love? Twitter did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this article.)

Hmmm. Questions:

Would it even be technically feasible to delete nasty items from searches? Having once met a top Twitter tech guy who seemed incredibly competent, I'd have to guess yes.

Why would Twitter want to sanitize celeb tweet searches? That one's easy: Celebrity Twitterers like Milano, Moore and Kutcher have been very important to Twitter's growth. They take care of Twitter. Twitter takes care of them. At least that would be the equation--a familar one to anyone who has ever tried to round up bold-faced names for a party. The job of actually weeding out hostile tweets could be delegated to the celebrity's "social media director." Or the social media director's assistant. But presumably there are also Twitter staffers whose job is celebrity troubleshooting.

(Is Jon Klein such a celebrity? You might not think so--though he's listed as one. In this paranoid theory he might qualify under a Bigwigs-at-Media-Companies-Who-Might-Buy-Twitter-One Day loophole.)

It woudn't even be all that sinister--certainly less sinister than, say, the typical roped-off VIP section at a party. Web sites police comment sections all the time, after all. Alyssa Milano does talk with ordinary people on Twitter, and her twitstream or whatever you call it--which she seems to write herself--is quite informative on a fairly wide range of topics. When Obama threw out the first pitch at the All Star game, Milano's twitters gave a better account of where it landed than the Fox telecast, which had a bad camera angle..

On the other hand, if Twitter sanitized searches, that would make the site a more fake and less democratic place than it initially appears to be. Here we thought we were meeting bigshots in a virtual public square, and really it was maniuplated like the Truman Show.

Is my paranoid suspicion right? Anyone with answers--including people at Twitter--can tweet a response to @kausmickey or email me at Mickey underscore Kaus at MSN dot com.

Update: Responses on Twitter from Milano

Interesting. cc: @ev RT @kausmickey: Does Twitter protect celebrities? http://bit.ly/4vIHld (via @atomsareenough) about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

and from Twitter CEO Evan WIlliams

@Alyssa_Milano I think that guy has a pretty dire outlook on humans. :) about 1 hour ago from web in reply to Alyssa_Milano

Oracular! A non non-denial denial non-denial ...

Update II: Gawker ... a cartoon ...

__________

**--An earlier anti-Klein tweet that I myself deleted does turn up on one site's search of "Jon Klein." 1:28 A.M.

___________________________

Sponsored Topics: Twitter - ashtonkutcher - Alyssa Milano - demimoore - Eddie Mannix

Why Does the "Public Option" Have to Lower Costs?

Mickey Kaus — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:11:00 GMT

The Curve Has To Want to Bend: Like Steven Pearlstein, Robert Samuelson more or less assumes the purpose of a "public option" is to control costs (as opposed to providing the security of a guaranteed fall-back plan). In an Un-Samuelsonesque fashion, he also assumes that there is some solution that will control costs in a manner agreeable to patients.

It's not insurers that cause high health costs; they're simply the middlemen. It's the fragmented delivery system and open-ended reimbursement. Would strict regulation of doctors, hospitals and patients under a single-payer system provide control? Or would genuine competition among health plans over price and quality work better?

That's the debate we need, but in truth, doctors, hospitals and patients don't want to be limited, whether by government or markets. Congress reflects public opinion. Fearing a real debate, we fake it.

a) Maybe none of these options--single payer, competition among health plans--will significantly lower costs, and we'll simply have to pay the increasing bill. Just a thought. b) If, as Samuelson says, "doctors, hospitals and patients don't want to be limited," it sounds like the debate over our system of "open-ended reimbursement" isn't a "debate we need." It's a debate we've had. Samuelson's side lost. Nobody wants to bend the curve.

Maybe it won't be bent. 8:38 P.M.

___________________________

Give Him a Fifth Chance! After completely misreading the zeitgeist and-- in a series of self-servingly ostentatious steps ("storytelling," emo)--leading his network into a ditch, is CNN's Jon Klein really going to keep his job? He doesn't seem even to be "embattled." ... 8:34 P.M.

___________________________

The Federalist Capers: A federalism compromise on the "public option" always seemed more promising to me than a "trigger" based compromise. But I'd been viewing the issue through a welfare-reform prism, in which states would either be in or out as discrete statewide units. Josh Marshall points out that the virtue of Harry Reid's plan is it allows states to join a single nationwide federal plan rather than set up their own plans. That lets you create a big--or big enough--pool of insured. It's like letting states opt out of (or in to) Medicare. ... That said, the federalist approach still offers a giant menu of possible compromises, from 1 to 50. You can have opt-out, opt-in, opt-in with a numerical limit, opt-out with incentives not to opt-out, opt-in with incentives to opt-in if regional distribution isn't achieved, even opt-out with a trigger that offers the incentives only if too few states stay "in." ... Update: Sam Stein has more. ...

P.S.: Note also that the federalist solution means at least one "juice" vote in every state legislature, as health insurance lobbyists seek to use campaign contributions to ~~bribe~~ gain access and thereby influence the "opt out" or "opt in" vote. Another source of federalism's appeal! And bipartisan appeal at that. ... 8:34 P.M.

______________________________

Sponsored Topics: Single-payer health care - United States Congress - Government - CNN - Hospital

Kausfiles

Does Harry Reid's Health Care Bill Create a "Fed" for Medicare?

When GM says 'Here's your money back,' they really mean it!

Amnesty's Last Chance?

Suckers of the Week

Did Fox Win the War?

Health Care Reform: Got Id?

Scozzafava and the Feiler Faster Thesis

Health Care Reform: Reich Overboard!

Zombie Orszagism Returns to Kill Health Care Reform For Good?

Why Are the Health Care Polls Going South?

Conservatives Against "Spiritual Health"

Mineola Man Survives N.J. Nuclear Holocaust!

Dem score congressional victories in California, N.Y.

Election 2009: Some Winners, Losers,

Election 2009: Were the Exit Polls Wrong Again?

NSFT--Not Safe For Twitter--Election Eve Special

Advertisement:

Help! I Don't Like Obama!

Anita Dunn's Alibi: The Case of the Confusing Chinese?

Night of the Goolsbee!

Paranoid's Corner: Does Twitter Semi-Censor to Protect Celebrities?

Why Does the "Public Option" Have to Lower Costs?