FactCheck.org President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits

The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for ”pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.

But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings — if any — would be relatively small.

Republicans often fume about trial lawyers. The President snarled twice in the State of the Union Address about ‘frivolous’ lawsuits. How about a little indignation over unsafe products and malpractice? mjh

Op-Ed Contributor: The Dead Center By ROBERT B. REICH, NYTimes

Self-styled Democratic centrists, like those who inhabit the Democratic Leadership Council, attribute the party’s difficulties to a failure to respond to an electorate grown more conservative, upscale and suburban. This is nonsense. The biggest losses for Democrats since 1980 have not been among suburban voters but among America’s giant middle and working classes — especially white workers without four-year college degrees, once part of the old Democratic base. Not incidentally, these are the same people who have lost the most economic ground over the last quarter-century.

Democrats could have responded with bold plans on jobs, schools, health care and retirement security. They could have delivered a strong message about the responsibility of corporations to help their employees in all these respects, and of wealthy elites not to corrupt politics with money. More recently, the party could have used the threat of terrorism to inspire the same sort of sacrifice and social solidarity as Democrats did in World War II — including higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for what needs doing. In short, they could have turned themselves into a populist movement to take back democracy from increasingly concentrated wealth and power.

But Democrats did none of this. So conservatives eagerly stepped into the void, claiming the populist mantle and blaming liberal elites for what’s gone wrong with America. The question ahead is whether Democrats can claim it back. …

As we head into the next wave of primaries, the Democratic candidates should pay close attention to what Republicans have learned about winning elections. First, it is crucial to build a political movement that will endure after particular electoral contests. Second, in order for a presidency to be effective, it needs a movement that mobilizes Americans behind it. Finally, any political movement derives its durability from the clarity of its convictions. And there’s no better way to clarify convictions than to hone them in political combat.

A fierce battle for the White House may be exactly what the Democrats need to mobilize a movement behind them. It may also be what America needs to restore a two-party system of governance and a clear understanding of the choices we face as a nation.

Robert B. Reich, former United States secretary of labor, is a professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis University and the author of the forthcoming “Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America.”

CNN.com – Rumsfeld allows more troops in Army – Jan. 29, 2004

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has granted the U.S. Army permission to add 30,000 troops temporarily to its congressionally approved limit of 482,000, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The increase will last about four years, the Army chief of staff said.

The Army is already above that limit by 11,000 troops because of “stop-loss” orders keeping soldiers from leaving the service during military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those troops count toward the newly authorized 30,000, which will bring Army troop strength to 512,000.

Mark Fiore captures Scalia
Duck Season 1/28/04

mjh’s Weblog Entry – 04/23/2003: ‘Most of the rights that you enjoy go away’

”The Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.” — Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, 03/18/03

Search blog for Scalia (and Impeach the Bastard!)

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

President Proposes to Make Tax Benefits of Health Savings Accounts More Lucrative for Higher-Income Individuals – Revised 1/26/04

The President’s proposal to permit individuals with Health Savings Accounts to deduct their health insurance premium costs would do little to help low- and moderate-income uninsured families obtain health insurance, would primarily benefit the higher-income individuals who can already use HSAs as a lucrative tax shelter, and would further weaken comprehensive employer-based coverage.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has plenty of wonkish article — check it out. mjh

CBO Figures Indicate Lower Revenues, Not Higher Spending, Account For The Large Deficit – 1/26/04
New CBO estimates show revenues in 2004 will be exceptionally low, falling to their smallest share of GDP since 1950. Spending won’t be particularly high; as a share of GDP it will be lower than throughout the administrations of Presidents Carter and Reagan, and the first President Bush.

The advocates of ”starve the beast” (kill the federal government by cutting off funds) are still demanding less spending, and in this they are a bit frustrated with Bush and the Republicans in Congress. mjh

Op-Ed Columnist: Red Ink Realities By PAUL KRUGMAN, NYTimes

According to cleverly misleading reports from the Heritage Foundation and other like-minded sources, the deficit is growing because Mr. Bush isn’t sufficiently conservative: he’s allowing runaway growth in domestic spending. This myth is intended to divert attention from the real culprit: sharply reduced tax collections, mainly from corporations and the wealthy.

Is domestic spending really exploding? Think about it: farm subsidies aside, which domestic programs have received lavish budget increases over the last three years? Education? Don’t be silly: No Child Left Behind is rapidly turning into a sick joke.

In fact, many government agencies are severely underfinanced. For example, last month the head of the National Park Service’s police admitted to reporters that her force faced serious budget and staff shortages, and was promptly suspended.

A recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities does the math. While overall government spending has risen rapidly since 2001, the great bulk of that increase can be attributed either to outlays on defense and homeland security, or to types of government spending, like unemployment insurance, that automatically rise when the economy is depressed.

Why, then, do we face the prospect of huge deficits as far as the eye can see? Part of the answer is the surge in defense and homeland security spending. The main reason for deficits, however, is that revenues have plunged. Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950.

Mr. Cheney, Meet Mr. Kay NYTimes Editorial

Vice President Dick Cheney continued to insist last week that Iraq had been trying to make weapons of mass destruction, apparently oblivious to the findings of the administration’s own chief weapons inspector that Iraq had possessed only rudimentary capabilities and unrealized intentions. The vice president’s myopia suggests a breathtaking unwillingness to accept a reality that conflicts with the administration’s preconceived notions. This kind of rigid thinking helped propel us into an invasion without broad international support and, if Mr. Cheney is as influential as many say, could propel us into further misadventures down the road.