Monthly Archives: July 2017

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Democrats came out Monday with their agenda for the 2018 election, and to everyone's surprise, it's not terrible. In fact, it's sorta half-decent!

The slogan is "A Better Deal," and the agenda includes anti-trust reforms, cheaper prescription drugs, and a plan to create 10 million jobs with infrastructure spending and tax credits. There's a lot to like here, particularly in the clever and true way Democrats cast anti-trust reforms as a way to increase Americans' freedom. But Democrats are also missing the chance to sell universal social programs this way. These programs also increase freedom the freedom to not have to choose.

Republicans (and a significant fraction of neoliberal Democrats) often fetishize choice. They use blatantly circular reasoning to present any free-market system as evidence of free choices being freely made. But this is nonsense. Market concentration often reduces freedom.

A deep market with lots of independent sellers is one thing. But a market with just a few or one seller is quite another. (For cable internet at my apartment in D.C., for example, I have the "choice" of Comcast or nothing.) The Better Deal agenda presents this quite nicely, showing that monopolies and oligopolies are not just economically inefficient, but also a sharp abridgment of individual liberty. People are forced not only to pay whatever the monopolist demands, but also to accept its (generally horrible) regulations of service.

Worse, unlike a government-run monopoly like the Post Office or a power utility, people have no democratic say in the operation of a monopoly. Its corporate management gets to invoke the violent authority of the state to enforce its (invariably foot-thick) contracts getting cops to drag a paying customer off a plane if the airline decides he doesn't get to fly, for example while making no concession to democratic oversight. It is, in essence, statist authoritarianism.

But another aspect of valorizing market choices as the fountainhead of freedom is how it implicitly leaves out non-market options in particular, the freedom to not choose. As anyone who has tried to corral a pack of millennials trying to figure out which bar to attend for happy hour can attest, making decisions takes work and the more complicated the decision, the more work it requires. Americans today are constantly forced to make staggeringly complex decisions about the most important issues of life health care, education, retirement, and more.

Even for people with good health insurance, simply accessing it properly is often a dreadful chore. You've got to make sure you've got the right program, correctly navigate the rapidly shifting coverage networks, and schedule an appointment all done under the looming knowledge that one screwup could cost thousands as the provider seizes the opportunity to mercilessly price-gouge an out-of-network patient. Afterwards, there's a good chance you're in for a prolonged battle with the provider and the insurer about who will pay and how much.

Wouldn't it be better and simpler to just have straightforward health coverage ensured by the government and not have to make all these frustratingly complex choices?

The experience of investing for retirement is even worse (though the potential negative consequences not as bad). Which mutual fund to select? What portfolio balance? How much to contribute? Answering these questions cleverly would be extremely challenging for average people even without the associated industry of swindlers who make their money tricking people into high-fee plans.

Then there is the sheer fact of having to interact with financial companies at all. Like many in my generation, coming of age precisely when Wall Street crooks blew up the world economy instilled a strong dislike for and suspicion of the financial system. Those feelings strengthened exponentially as I did more research and discovered the role of Big Finance in skyrocketing inequality, monopolization, and asset-stripping thousands of American companies as well as immense crimes like systematic mortgage fraud, money laundering for drug cartels and terrorists, and market rigging. The fact that retirement tax benefits are thinly disguised tax shelters for the rich, and that banksters invariably get off with, at worst, a wrist-slap fine, added fury to my dislike.

Wouldn't it be better and simpler to just make Social Security more robust and spare most Americans from dealing with these crooks?

Private monopolies that rob consumers of choice obviously limit Americans' liberty. Democrats are right to crack down on corporate America with aggressive anti-trust reform. But not all choice is good. Indeed, for the basics of life education, health care, retirement, and so on people don't want to waste away precious hours and days navigating needlessly complex choices, many of which are deviously engineered to screw over normal working stiffs. Most of us just want decent schools for our kids, good health care for ourselves and our families, and a retirement that won't leave us starved and forgotten. We don't want to make endless choices every step of the way.

A Medicare-for-all health-care system or expanded Social Security benefits (which have increasing support among Democrats, but are not contained in their Better Deal plan) would allow citizens to not bother. Instead of being forced to "take responsibility" for such things individually, they would simply always be there, paid out of taxes. The motivation is not to get "free" benefits from the government. I, for one, would be happy to pay a large premium in taxes to get such benefits, if only to save myself from multiple future stress-induced heart attacks.

I might be somewhat out of the ordinary in just how much I dislike being rammed into Neoliberal Decision Hell. But I think it's safe to assume the percentage of people who actually enjoy figuring out insurance networks or poring over mutual fund packets is small. People have better things to do than become amateur experts in a dozen different white-collar professions. Democrats should realize this. A Better Deal ought to mean saving Americans from ever having to deal with this maddening nonsense.

Continue reading here:

Democrats should embrace the freedom to not choose - The Week Magazine

GENEVA After months of violence and anti-government protests, Venezuela is approaching the political precipice. President Nicols Maduros push toward autocratic rule culminates on July 30, with the planned election of a constituent assembly to rewrite the countrys constitution. And while there is still time to change course, the path back toward democracy is quickly fading from view.

In May, when Maduro announced his plan to establish a constituent assembly, he presented it as a way to restore confidence in his government, which has struggled to recover from economic decline amid collapsing oil prices. But as the vote has drawn closer, it has become clear that Maduros intent has always been to consolidate his power, and impose on Venezuelas 31 million people an authoritarian, pseudo-socialist system. By rigging the vote with handpicked candidates, the president appears willing to use any means to maintain power.

The world got a taste of Maduros true aims earlier this month. On July 5, government- backed paramilitary forces, in collusion with the National Guard, attacked the opposition-controlled National Assembly. For six hours, politicians and employees were held at gunpoint; one hostage, Assembly President Julio Borges, described the siege as evidence of the countrys descent into complete anarchy.

That brazen assault preceded a national referendum, organized by opposition parties, to gauge support for Maduros plan to redraft the constitution. If the prevailing sentiment wasnt clear to the president before the July 16 plebiscite, it was after: more than seven million people participated, with an astonishing 98% rejecting the proposal a clear repudiation of Maduros government.

To carry out the plebiscite, Mesa de la Unidad Democrtica (MUD), the oppositions umbrella organization, activated a network of voting centers, operating with full transparency, in just a few days. And by holding the referendum, MUD has managed, with one vote, to do what Maduro has failed to do during his entire presidency: unite the country.

In contrast to government-organized electoral initiatives, every Venezuelan, regardless of political affiliation, was invited to participate and express their views. For those of us who observed the voting, it was a reminder that, while Venezuela is currently being mismanaged, the public remains prepared to fight for their country and its democratic institutions.

MUDs referendum set the stage for the crisis that will come to a head this week. Opposition groups and protesters are boycotting the constituent assembly election, but the consolidation of presidential power that Maduro is seeking will not be the only issue on their minds. Protesters are also calling on the government to release political prisoners, uphold the current constitution, and establish a government of national unity to restore economic and political stability.

Given the stakes, it is no surprise that the Maduro government immediately sought to discredit the July 16 referendum. Votes were still being counted when the head of the National Electoral Council, Tibisay Lucena, dismissed the process as invalid and legally irrelevant.

But just as the attack on the National Assembly failed to quell public anger, so, too, will the governments dismissal of the referendums results. Venezuelans preferred option is to move ahead peacefully, along the lines proposed last year by the Vatican, which called for early presidential elections, a more autonomous parliament, and other measures. For its part, the National Assembly has already begun to put together a precise roadmap for implementing similar demands endorsed in the July 16 referendum.

Moreover, Maduro faces mounting pressure to cancel the constituent assembly election. Colombia, France, Spain, the European Union, and the United States have called on him to back down, and US President Donald Trump has threatened new sanctions if the voting goes ahead. The solidarity is welcome, but it will not be enough to alter the current trajectory. More regional pressure is needed and quickly if further violent disorder is to be averted.

The regime can still stop Venezuelas downward spiral, and Venezuelans have shown clearly that they are determined to fight for their countrys future. To ensure a return to democracy in Venezuela, the international community must stand up as well.

Link:

Venezuela's Freedom Fighters - Project Syndicate

Demonstrators outside Istanbuls courthouse, where 17 journalists are on trial. Cumhuriyet is a symbol of fearless journalism and its staff should be honoured, not treated as criminals. Photograph: Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images

Putting journalists on trial for doing their job, for informing the public or conveying opinion, is never acceptable. Like the canary in the mine, journalists can serve as an early alert to the erosion of the rights of every citizen. Where media freedom is curtailed other freedoms invariably follow. This may be stating the obvious, especially to those of us who enjoy the liberty and protection of democracy. But it is not an uncontested truth.

Freedom of the press is restricted wherever governments claim its exercise might run counter to political imperatives or what they define as national security. Itis a freedom enshrined in UN texts, but it is far from universally recognised as a basic right. It might be tolerated, but only within boundaries subject to whim, in jeopardy whenever those in power feel their interests might be threatened.

Totalitarian regimes (think North Korea) make no claim to upholding media freedom they dont even bother. But semi-dictatorships do pay lip service, at least formally. Regimes that claim to be democracies, and hold elections, often also work methodically to undermine the fundamental tenets of government by the people and for the people; essential pillars, like freedom of information, are gradually dismantled. Turkey today provides a strong example of just this pattern of behaviour.

On Monday, 17 journalists and executives of the independent newspaper Cumhuriyet were put on trial in Istanbul for no other reason than having done their jobs: for writing articles, publishing pictures, using social media, or even just making phone calls. Cumhuriyet is a flagship media organisation, Turkeys oldest daily, founded in 1924 shortly after Ataturk took power. It is the same age as the Republic and it is deeply committed to its founding promise of pluralism, minority rights, peace with the Kurds and investigating corruption; and it has been a harsh critic of Turkeys slide to autocracy in recent years.

It includes some of the best known and respected names in Turkish media, such as the columnist Kadri Gursel, the editor-in-chief Murat Sabuncu, the cartoonist Musa Kart and the investigative reporter Ahmet Sik. On Monday they were all in court, charged with having links to various terrorist groups. They face prison sentences of up to 43 years. Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, wants to crush this newspaper, just as he is ruthlessly stamping out dissent everywhere that he suspects it exists. Since last years failed coup attempt, 160 journalists have been detained across Turkey, and more than 150 media outlets shut down. At the Hamburg G20 earlier this month, Mr Erdoan warned that journalists also committed crimes and needed to be punished. No evidence has been produced against these journalists to suggest terrorist connections. Cumhuriyet is a symbol of fearless journalism and its staff should be honoured, not treated as criminals.

Mr Erdoan may seem impervious to external pressure, but Europe could shout louder. As one of the defendants, Kadri Gursel, told the court on Monday: I am not here because I knowingly and willingly helped a terrorist organisation, but because Iam an independent, questioning and critical journalist. Its not too late for retreat, even as the country lurches ever more towards dictatorship: the journalists must be set free. The Guardian stands in solidarity withCumhuriyet.

See the original post:

The Guardian view on Turkish press freedom: standing up for democracy - The Guardian

Conservative hard-liners in the House are hoping to gut the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeeper whose analysis has recently bedeviled Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, by amending a massive spending bill set to be debated later this week.

An amendment filed Monday by Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) would eliminate the agencys Budget Analysis Division, cutting 89 jobs and $15 million of the CBOs proposed $48.5 million budget. A separate amendment filed by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) would also eliminate the same division and specify that the CBO instead evaluate legislation by facilitating and assimilating scoring data compiled by four private think tanks the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Urban Institute.

Both Griffith and Meadows are members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, but complaints about the CBO have been widespread among Republicans in recent months after the agency found that various iterations of the partys health-care legislation would result in an increase of more than 20 million uninsured Americans over the coming decade. Critics have attacked the CBOs analysis and pointed to its projections on the Affordable Care Act as evidence that the office, now led by a Republican-selected director, cannot be trusted to accurately analyze complex legislation.

The criticism compelled the eight former directors of the CBO, which was created in 1974, to sign a letter Friday objecting to recent attacks on the integrity and professionalism of the agency and on the agencys role in the legislative process.

But conservatives say the CBOs scorekeeping function is best left to other outlets.

Theyre the one group that makes a weathermans 10-day forecast look accurate, said Meadows, the Freedom Caucus chairman, during a Monday appearance at the National Press Club. Theres plenty of think tanks that are out there. And so we ought to take a score from Heritage, from AEI, from Brookings, from the Urban Institute and bring them together for a composite score that would represent a very wide swath of think tanks and their abilities. We think thats a pragmatic way to use the private sector and yet let Congress depend on a score that is accurate.

The White House has also attacked the CBOs credibility as the health-care repeal effort has languished. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) at times has criticized the agencys health-care estimates, but he also defended it from attacks last month, telling reporters that its important that we have a referee.

It is important that we have a scorekeeper, he said. We can always complain about the nature of the score.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, slammed theamendments Monday. The CBO is a long-respected institution whose rigorous analysis and reports are critical resources for Congress as we consider legislation that affects the lives of the American people, he said. These attacks should be beneath Congress. They need to stop.

The amendments are being offered to a $790 billion spending bill that combines appropriations for the military, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Energy and for Congress itself that is scheduled to come to the House floor for debate on Wednesday. The bill was largely written by Republicans and is not expected to garner support from Democrats, meaning that even if it passes the House, it is unlikely to emerge from the Senate intact. But the CBO provision could become subject to negotiations if it is adopted in the House.

Both amendments take advantage of a recent change to House rules pushed by Griffith that allows any member to target discrete programs or even individual employees for reduction or elimination. The provision, known as the Holman rule, was in effect from 1876 until 1983.

When someone gives you bad advice again and again, why would you trust them to help you make big decisions? Griffith said in a statement explaining his amendment. I believe Congress would be better served if CBO becomes an aggregator of predictions made by third-party public policy groups across the political spectrum, from left to center to right.

See the original post here:

Congressional Budget Office is Freedom Caucus's target in spending bill - Washington Post

Its probably safe to say that philosophy is to psychology as the body of a beer is to its head. That being true, then we live in an age in which its fashionable to swim in the foam bubbles of psychology. And thats true because people are fascinated with the subconscious, which has the unpredictability and energy of an untied balloon: In the context of the daily routine of modern life the subconscious adds excitement.

For example, the subconscious is unpredictable and energetic when it answers Socrates very conscious observation that to know the good is to do the good with now wait just one minute ... not always.

But psychology doesnt answer the larger questions of philosophy. For Americans, a large philosophical question is the scope of freedom; Americans love freedom.

Freedom in America has been defined as the freedom to conform to ones religion, freedom from discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom from colonialism, freedom of choice.

Today, the reigning definition of freedom in America is found in economics: the freedom of choice in the marketplace, the freedom to choose among a variety of products. Other concepts of freedom are not as discussed because over the last 17 years theres been a psychological tension between freedom and security: greater freedom, less security; greater security, less freedom.

This tension is not new in America the 1950s Red Scare, McCarthy hearings and Cold War represented a time when Americans reduced the scope of their freedoms to consumerism. Americans in the 1950s referred to each other as hollow man and hollow woman of the consumerist age; Richard Nixon was the hollow man of the 1960 presidential election.

But the 1950s narrow conception of freedom gave way to the larger one of the 1960s, reconstituting the psychology of freedom in the American.

Original post:

Americans' conception of freedom changes - LancasterOnline