Blue Mass. Group has MOVED!!

So, why did we elect him Governor... ?

Ah yes, to "clean up the mess on Beacon Hill", riiight. Although it would seem that MA voters are doing pretty well at that on their own (with a big assist from Tom Finneran's mouth.)

Sco at .08 Acres points to this bullet-pointed litany of failure (have I mentioned how I love bullet points?) and accompanying report card in the Herald. It takes Mitt to the woodshed for his lack of accomplishment on a number of issues: a still-shrinking labor force, people leaving the state (especially from the city of Boston: 19,000 over the last four years, a 3.4% exodus).

But the fascinating thing was to read the supposedly conservative Herald criticizing Mitt on underfunding education, home health care, and affordable housing. Gosh, isn't that why you elect a conservative Republican: slash spending, cut taxes, and otherwise tough luck, you're on your own? You know, encourage the "ownership society"?

I think there's a dirty little secret about politics: People actually really like big government, especially entitlements. Don't get me wrong, we don't like paying taxes -- especially not for outrages like the Big Dig and Iraq. But Social Security is still showing considerable amperage as the third rail, and people still generally like Medicare and Medicaid. Newt Gingrich knew that it was going to be 40 more years in the desert for the Republicans if ClintonCare passed in '94. (Cf. "The System" by Broder and Johnson, pg. 11). In our conference call a few months back, Teddy Kennedy bemoaned that Congress used to take up issues that actually matter to people. Not coincidentally, that was when Democrats were in power.

But all politics is still local: When we get away from the bluster and chest-thumping individualism of Washington Republicans (that's for you, OW), it turns out that people really do want teachers in the schools, good care for Grandma and Grandpa, and potholes filled. That takes tough decision-making and some elbow-grease administrative talents -- a bit more than Mitt's management-consulting-style PowerPoint shows. (See our Guv's latest résumé-padding exercise here. Too funny.)

So, it goes back to Deval Patrick's line: What do you want government to do for you?

Breaking: Time Inc. to hand over documents in Novak-Plame-gate

Time Inc. has issued a press release indicating that it has decided to comply with the order of federal judge Thomas Hogan requiring it to turn over documents, presumably including reporter Matthew Cooper's notes, sought by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in Novak-Plame-gate.  I thought that might happen - interesting that it happened so quickly.  The next move, of course, is the really big one.  Assuming that the documents are promptly handed over to Fitzgerald, the judge might give Fitzgerald a chance to review them to see whether they give him what he needs instead of requiring the parties to file papers tomorrow (which is the current schedule).  And expect the lawyers for Judith Miller and (especially) Matthew Cooper to argue that the reporters' testimony is no longer needed in light of Time's decision to hand over the documents.

Here is the key passage of the press release:

Time Inc. shall deliver the subpoenaed records to the Special Counsel in accordance with its duties under the law. The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity. The innumerable Supreme Court decisions in which even Presidents have followed orders with which they strongly disagreed evidences that our nation lives by the rule of law and that none of us is above it.

We believe that our decision to provide the Special Prosecutor with the subpoenaed records obviates the need for Matt Cooper to testify and certainly removes any justification for incarceration.

"The innumerable Supreme Court decisions in which even Presidents have followed orders with which they strongly disagreed evidences that our nation lives by the rule of law and that none of us is above it."  Well, none of us except Judy Miller.  She, alone amongst American citizens, apparently gets to defy court orders.  Please - get over yourself, Judy.

That said, let's hope that the notes give Fitzgerald what he needs.  Reporters in jail don't do anyone any good, and if the notes tell Fitzgerald what he needs to know, maybe this drama can finally be brought to its conclusion.

Novak-Plame-gate update: "The time has come, the Walrus said."

The federal judge in charge of Novak-Plame-gate, Thomas Hogan, spoke the quoted words in the title of this post in a hearing today in which he essentially told Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, the reporters whose testimony special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wants, that they will be in jail within a week unless they agree to testify before the grand jury.  (As you'll recall, on Monday the Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision rejecting their claims of a privilege not to reveal confidential sources, which brought them to the end of the legal road.)

The reporters have pretty much said all along that they'll go to jail before they reveal their sources (although Cooper has lately been somewhat more circumspect).  The really interesting wrinkle, though, is that Cooper's employer, Time Inc., is also on the hook because it has control of Cooper's notes which probably would reveal his sources.  And Judge Hogan has indicated that he intends to impose gargantuan fines on Time if it refuses to comply with his order.  Now, Cooper and Miller are individuals and can stand on principle 'til the cows come home.  But Time Inc. is a public corporation with fiduciary obligations to its shareholders who are likely far less interested in lofty principles than in getting good returns on their investments.  Debilitating fines imposed by federal judges tend to be bad for business, so methinks there's a good chance that Time Inc. will cave.  And if Time Inc. caves, that might get at least Cooper off the hook - maybe it'll help out Miller too.

I've blogged a lot about this case (here, here, here, and here, for instance).  In a nutshell, I think it's appropriate to force Miller and Cooper to testify, for the reasons I outlined here months ago (which ended up being quite similar to D.C. Circuit Judge Tatel's concurring opinion).  But the best result would be for Time Inc. to cave, which hopefully (a) gets Fitzgerald the information he needs; (b) avoids the spectacle of imprisoning well-known reporters for refusing to divulge confidential sources; and (c) finally nails the traitor who leaked Plame's identity to douchebag of liberty Bob Novak in the first place (and maybe nails Novak for perjury in the process).  Stay tuned - the parties have to file their next round of papers with the court by Friday, and will appear again in court next Wednesday.

UPDATE: Murray Waas has a different take on the bottom line than I do, but his report on today's events at the courthouse are well worth a read.

Blogroll maintenance

Last Friday was Dan Kennedy's last post over at Media Log, which has long been one of the more interesting reads around these parts.  We will miss him.

And now for some housekeeping.  The point of a blogroll is to provide links to sites that we, in our sole discretion, think offer interesting and up-to-date commentary on issues that we care about.  Since Media Log and Romney Is A Fraud have officially signed off from blogging, I am removing them from the blogroll.  Also, as I noted here, the MassDems blog seems to have become defunct - it's been over a month since the folks at the state party posted anything new over there.  In the same category, alas, must be placed Noho-missives, who has gone strangely silent [UPDATE: see the comments].

Any and all of these worthy bloggers will immediately be restored to the blogroll upon their return to the blogosphere.  But the clutter must be cleared.  Long lists of links are like shelves at the video store: too many options makes it impossible to choose from among them.

The lobbyists are coming! The lobbyists are coming!

[update: I'm an idiot. I've linked the Globe story now.]

... and it seems it was an inside job. Halliburton and Exelon annexed Faneuil Hall for a day:

Faneuil Hall, a national landmark for American democracy and one of the city's most popular destinations, was sealed off yesterday, to the disappointment of tourists and wanderers from the Freedom Trail. But the doors were flung open to the Republican Party's corporate donors, including representatives of Halliburton and Exelon, who held a secret huddle inside with Governor Mitt Romney and other GOP governors.

It seems that Mitt was taking special interest bucks and trading health care advice with Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri -- he of the 57% disapproval rating. Now, Gov. Blunt has dug that hole for himself in part by chucking poor people off Medicaid because he doesn't want to raise taxes. So... maybe there is a political limit to the "no new taxes", "ownership society" idolatry. We'll see when it comes to our health care discussion over the next year.

---

Speaking of which, on the front page of the City/Region section was a peculiar article by Scott Greenberger with two accounts of women who don't have health coverage, juxtaposed with the number of uninsured in MA (460,000) in red, and supposed facts and figures of Mitt's supposed plan -- supposed because we don't actually have any details forthcoming from the Gov. Will these two women actually be helped by the Governor's plan? Substantially? Not at all? What about the Health Access and Affordability Act? Would that be a better deal for them? TravCare?

Look, it's good to put a human face on the policy, but come on, Globe, let's start asking some tough questions.

So, I will take a stab at one of the two situations as regards HA3 -- I'm certainly open to other folks with expertise chiming in here as well:

''There really doesn't seem to be any reason why there can't be a health plan that people who work in small businesses or who are self-employed can buy through the federal government," Bullett said. [She makes $34k/year, two kids.]

From GBIO's handy Health Care Proposal Comparison sheet, HA3 will:

• Create a “re-insurance” program that takes the most expensive cases out of the individual/small group market. Firms with up to 50 workers are eligible.
• This program will reduce the cost of insurance for individuals and small businesses by as much as 30%, without reducing the quality of coverage or increasing co-pays/deductibles.
• No creation of stripped-down insurance products.
• Expands Insurance Partnership Program which subsidizes small businesses that offer health coverage to low-income employees.

So, in other words, HA3 does pool resources of small business and the uninsured, and will make insuring yourself a heck of a lot cheaper.

The other woman's situation I'm not totally clear on:

"The state government, without reviewing her case in detail, says she should qualify for MassHealth, but she insists that she isn't eligible... When she is really sick, she goes to hospital emergency rooms for free care. She says she understands that ''there is a segment of the population that needs some coverage," but she insists she isn't part of it."

It would seem to me that it would be better if she were on MassHealth as opposed to using the Free Care Pool, because of the potential preventative benefits. By using Free Care, she's using taxpayer money anyway, and it seems that most analyses think that would be better put to expanding MassHealth. Supposedly Mitt's plan deals with getting eligible folks onto MassHealth (how?), but he seems to be saying that it won't cost anything more. I wonder how that works.

Ten Commandments update

As I predicted, the Supreme Court upheld the Texas display of the Ten Commandments, but struck down the display in Kentucky.  I didn't quite get the votes right, though - both cases were 5-4, with Justice Breyer the only one in both majorities.  Here is a lineup of how the Justices voted:

Voting that both displays should be STRUCK DOWN:
Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg

Voting that both displays should be UPHELD:
Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas

Voting that the Texas display was OK but the Kentucky display was not:
Breyer

Based on some of Justice Kennedy's opinions in this area, especially Lee v. Weisman (a school prayer case), I had guessed that he would find at least the Kentucky display unconstitutional.  I also guessed that Justice O'Connor would vote with Justice Breyer to split the difference.  It's an interesting lineup: O'Connor voted with the "liberals" in both cases; Kennedy with the "conservatives," and Breyer - rather than Kennedy or O'Connor, the usual "swing" Justices - decided both cases.  Does this represent a sea change in the Court's Establishment Clause lineup?  We may know sooner rather than later - tomorrow the Court should tell us whether it will take up one or more of three significant Establishment Clause cases currently pending before it involving the Ten Commandments and school buildings. [UPDATE (6/28): Nope - the Court has denied review in all three cases.  Apparently the Court has said all it intends to say on the Ten Commandments for now.]

One more thing: don't be fooled by careless press reports that describe the results of these cases along the lines of "Supreme Court disallows Ten Commandments in courthouses."  The results in these cases were dictated by their particular facts, which in both cases are somewhat unusual - the Texas monument is part of a large (several acre) outdoor monument garden, and the monument has been there unchallenged for 40 years, a fact that Justice Breyer placed some reliance on, while in the Kentucky case it is difficult to imagine a better set of facts in which to demonstrate religious motivation on the part of the officials putting up the display.  The real, and perhaps unfortunate, lesson here is that these cases will continue to be decided in a fact-intensive, case-by-case way without resort to broad, overarching rules.

There's more than you could possibly want to read about these cases here.

Why Romney's lousy proposal may be a good sign, continued

LeftCenterLeft holds forth on Romney's health care proposal:

And he does have a knack for co-opting progressive initiatives, much like he did in taking Robert Reich's proposal to combine the Turnpike and the DOT. It almost doesn't matter for him that the initiatives fail in the Legislature – he gets to look like the one with bold, reform ideas, and the left branch of the Democrats no longer can get traction on their goals. With health care, for instance, the road to employer-based mandatory health insurance may be harder.

Well... I'm not so sure. Perhaps he's admitted that there is space in the public arena for big ideas. That's not an easy admission for a "conservative" to make, and I think that the ACT! Coalition (which includes Health Care for All, GBIO and others), Sal DiMasi, Travaglini and others can take some credit for forcing this discussion upon him.

As HCFA blogs (hey, what happened to the permalinks?), give the Governor credit for coming up with a big, fat, ambitious, comprehensive, and as it turns out, lousy and detail-free idea. Yes, it's sucked up a lot of the oxygen in the last week regarding health care. But HCFA has highlighted some of the reaction: "I resent the implication in the article that my intention is to defraud the healthcare industry by seeking out medical care and then refusing to pay."  Insofar as Romney's idea gets beat up by just about everyone (thanks David!), I'm hoping that more people will be looking for a reasonable -- and suitably ambitious -- alternative. We got one.

I hope that we didn't think that he was just going to out-and-out endorse HA3 (although that would be great), or a universal care constitutional amendment, or something like that -- that's just not realistic. But insofar as he joins the conversation, talking about big steps that we can take to get everyone insured, I welcome it. This is the discussion we should be having. Big ideas, a lot at stake -- because people's lives are at stake.

I see Romney's proposal in the context of a big political tennis game: for the moment, we've forced him into taking the shot that we wanted him to take. It's still up to us to take that lob and put it away.

Rick Santorum: Because he can

Well, this article written by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) three years ago is making the rounds in the blogosphere today. Of local interest, it includes this hilariously vile howler:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Wow ... I didn't know whether to be angry, or laugh, or throw up. That's worthy of the pathetic rambling of some drunk AM radio talk-show caller -- or maybe Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove. But instead it's the considered, published thoughts of a U.S. Senator -- someone who is referred to as "The Honorable".

Of course, we know about Santorum's weird tendency towards rhetorical free-association: "man-on-dog", anyone? This comment reveals a constellation of so many ideological neuroses that it's really hard to pick apart. So let's start with this: it's cognitive dissonance, i.e. an attempt to rationalize an opinion that's at odds with the facts. In other words, Santorum thinks: Catholic Church = good. Child rape and coverups = bad. Therefore the Church must not be wholly responsible for that bad thing that happened, and therefore there must be another culprit: Liberalism! And how conveeeeenient that the Seat of Liberalism is the "center of the storm": Boston!

So, why do Santorum, Karl Rove, and others feel free to say rotten, slanderous things about liberals -- and even putatively liberal cities? Why do dogs lick their balls? Because they can. Look, until Rick Santorum gets his hat handed to him by the voters of Pennsylvania, until liberals tar Karl Rove with all of the disgusting things he's done over the years, until liberals start sticking up for themselves in the media and at the ballot box, this will continue.

Rick Santorum needs to apologize to Boston. I want to hear demands from Mitt Romney, Tom Reilly, Deval Patrick, Menino, Travaglini, DiMasi, and all the local mayors that Santorum apologize.

And by the way, if anyone from the beautiful state of Pennsylvania is reading this: This is a matter of self-respect for you guys. Is anyone proud of this clown? (Not that many, it would seem.)

Update: Here is a fine post that points out that most importantly, Santorum has insulted and trivialized the victims of clergy abuse by treating them as a political football.

Another update: Speaking of Karl Rove and his continuing exploitation of 9/11 for power, see 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser's extensive takedown at Huffington Post:

It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?

Thanks to Liberal Oasis for the steer.

Reporters lose in Novak-Plame-gate

The Supreme Court denied review of the D.C. Circuit's determination that reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper must either testify in the Novak-Plame-gate affair or be held in contempt of court.  This is the end of the road for these reporters - they are out of legal options and will either have to testify or go to jail.  More on this later - I have to catch a train now!

A big day at the Supreme Court

Today is the last day of the Supreme Court's 2004-2005 term, and as always, several really big cases will be announced.  The ones that will probably get the most attention, and yet will have only minimal impact on the everyday lives of most Americans, are the two Ten Commandments cases.  I've posted before on these cases, along with a prediction that I will now repeat: in the Texas case (Van Orden), the public display of the Ten Commandments will be upheld, by a vote of 6-3 or 7-2 (Stevens, Ginsburg, and maybe Souter dissenting), and in the Kentucky case (McCreary County), the public display of the Ten Commandments will be struck down by a vote of 6-3 (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting).

The other really big case is called (amusingly enough) "Grokster."  It's about internet file-sharing, specifically, whether the manufacturer of technology that is widely used to pirate music and movies online can be sued for copyright violations (the manufacturer does not participate in the theft, but is aware that its product is mostly used for illegal purposes).  I am not an intellectual property lawyer, but a lot of people in that world are very excited about this case.  The rest of the cases are less earth-shattering; a brief roundup is here.

Of course, the REALLY big question is whether Chief Justice Rehnquist, or any other Justice, will announce his or her retirement today.  That news (or lack of it) is unlikely to be known before later this afternoon; it will probably not be announced at the 10 a.m. public session at the Court, but rather will take the form of an announcement by the Court's public information office once the President has been officially informed.

The opinions will be public knowledge within the hour, although it will take a little while for them to become available online.  The best source I know of to stay up to date on what happened, what didn't happen, and what it all means, is SCOTUSblog.

Home Sweet Home

Devoted readers of this page have noted that for the past two months my girlfriend and I have been traveling from Hong Kong to Istanbul through Central Asia: China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Interest in Willard's 2008 ambitions was slight in Turfan; Massachusetts health care policy was not the talk of the town in Bishkek; and U.S. takings policy was little discussed in Istanbul, so my postings dropped off.

What? You didn't notice? Well, surely the fact that BMG's commentary has tightened to laser fineness and our signal-to-bloviation ratio has plunged in the last 60 days did not escape your attention. Welcome back to the Good Old Days.

The first thing I have to report is that U.S. citizens should feel free to hop on a jet and travel to any of these delightful countries. Fox News would have you believe that the reservations clerks at Kyrgyz Airways will take your measurements for orange jumpsuits when they book your ticket, and Tiny Donald and his cohorts at the Department of Fear urge patriotic Americans to spend their lives in homes sealed with duct tape, emerging only to work for large corporations and vote Republican. In fact, however, if you travel -- even to Muslim nations on the front lines of the WOT -- you will likely find, as we did, that you can freely identify yourself as a U.S. citizen and will be treated with the utmost of hospitality.

More, perhaps, on current goings on in these countries, from post-revolutionary Bishkek, still gutted in parts from the violence of a few months ago; to the U.S. airbase with 1,200 airmen at Kyrgyzstan's main airport; to the anti-Soros movement in Tbilisi; to the abandoned Cold War watchtowers on Turkey's eastern border, at a later date. Let me know if you are interested.

On to first impressions of our sunny summery Olde Towne after a few months in the Second  and Third Worlds. First, the relative wealth of this country is stunning. In much of the world ordinary people struggle to get enough to eat every day. No one appeared to be starving in the countries we visited, but a lot of people were spending a very large amount of time and effort for a pittance -- by which I mean enough to buy carbohydrates for the next 24 hours. In Xinjiang, for example, many break rocks into gravel by hand for their daily noodles; in Georgia farmers use hand scythes to cut hay. It makes one feel a bit twisted inside, in this context, to step into a pet laundromat the first day back where the starting price for a self-service dog wash is $15. I don't fault the proprietors or the customers of this fine establishment, but I can understand how the father of four breaking rocks all day in the blazing sun for $0.75 might feel a bit resentful.

Second, the degree to which the U.S. is obsessed by race is unique. Newspaper headlines blare examinations of racial differences, racial healings, racial tensions, racial crimes, convictions, cures ... Most other countries, by circumstance, neglect, oppression, or homogeneity, avoid these discussions entirely. Their lines form around other expedients.

Third, the weight. Our country, through genetics, diet, or sloth, contains an unusual number, relative to many countries, of very large people. It is only when one travels that one realizes the degree to which the obesity epidemic has permeated our entire society. We went to many supermarkets on our trip, for example, and in not one did I spot any low-calorie, low-fat or sugar-free foods -- except for Orbit gum by Wrigley's of Chicago.

Finally, the cars. Private cars were little used in most of the places we visited, except in relatively affluent Almaty and Istanbul, and the cities on China's coast. Buses, trucks, taxis and trains were plentiful but single-driver sedans infrequent. The result? Not a single traffic jam for us from one end of Asia to the other.

Et tu, NY Times?

The fallout from yesterday's Supreme Court decision on eminent domain continues (Kelo v. City of New London).  Today the NY Times editorial page weighs in, describing the Court's action as "a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest."

In light of the scathing and surprisingly universal condemnation of the case from the left and the right, the Times is remarkably sunny about it - actually, the Times's commentary is the most positive I've seen other than the lawyer who argued the case for the city.  The Times gives what the city was doing every possible benefit of the doubt, and dismisses the dissenters' worries of transferring property from less influential folks to more influential folks as "exaggerated."

Gosh, what do you think might account for the Times's attitude here?  Doesn't the "liberal" NY Times usually stand up for the little guy in the face of aggressive governmental action?  Here's a clue: the Times notes in its editorial that it "benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land" for its new building near the Port Authority terminal.  What actually happened was a lot worse than that.

The short version is this (the Village Voice has the long version here): a couple of years back, the NY Times decided it wanted to build a big shiny new headquarters.  And it wanted to built it on Eighth Avenue near the Port Authority terminal in Manhattan.  Unfortunately, other people owned some of the land - Scot Cohen, for example, who owned B&J Fabrics, a family business that had been there for almost 50 years.  To get the land owned by Cohen and others, the Times resorted to what is now apparently the Supreme Court approved American way: it used its political influence, and that of its developer, to work a deal with the city and state whereby New York's economic development agency would take the land and reconvey it to the developer on extremely favorable financial terms.  Sound familiar?  The Times got slammed by the left, the libertarians, and the right for its conduct.

Here's the hilarious part: at the time, a communications professor noted that the Times's involvement might "undermine the Times' ability to criticize similar arrangements between government and business."  The Times, of course, insisted that its journalistic and editorial operations were pristine and could not possibly be influenced by what its business folks were up to: "This real estate transaction does not compromise the independence or credibility of the Times editorial voice or the integrity of the Times reporting in any way. Our business and news functions operate separately."  Oopsie.

This issue is not about "liberal" or "conservative" politics.  It's about big corporations with a lot of money and influence - like Pfizer in New London or the NY Times in Manhattan - deciding they want property held by people or businesses with less money and influence.  Does it serve the cause of "economic development"?  Sure, because the big guys will always build bigger buildings, or bigger houses, and that will always result in bigger tax payments.  So the city gets more money in its coffers, the big guys get the land they want, and everybody wins - except anyone who thought that there might, somewhere, be a limit to how badly the government can treat its citizens.

IMHO, this is a hugely important decision, maybe the most important since Bush v. Gore.  The Ten Commandments cases set to come down on Monday may get more attention, but really, who cares whether some stupid city council wants to post the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or not.  It pisses people off (including me), but it doesn't really hurt anyone.  This eminent domain business, in contrast, is about EVERYONE.  Your home, or mine, could be next.  So with Bush v. Gore, the Court is 0 for 2 in recent cases that truly affect the lives of everyone in the Unites States.  Not too impressive.

UPDATE: The Washington Post also editorializes in favor of the Kelo decision, although in much more muted tones that the NY Times.  The Post's position is that, yeah, this sucks, but there's no way to draw a line, so the Court had no choice.  To which I say: what a cop-out.  Anyone can decide the easy cases.  We pay judges nice salaries, build them nice buildings, and give them large amounts of power so that they can decide the hard cases, bringing their years of learning and accumulated wisdom to bear on the difficult questions that come before them.  So don't give me this "oh, we can't figure out how to draw the line, so let's just let the government do anything it wants" crap.  The line Justice O'Connor proposes in her dissent (OK to take "blighted" property, but not OK to take property just for "economic development") seems like a reasonable start, and I'm sure there are other possibilities.  If the "public use" portion of the Fifth Amendment is to have any meaning (and most people agree that it should), courts will have to draw the line, difficult task though that may be.  If they shirk from that responsibility, they are simply not doing their job.

When good judges go bad

Today the Supreme Court decided, by a 5-4 vote, that your city council can decide that it would rather have a Wal-Mart occupying the land that your home and the homes of your neighbors currently occupy because Wal-Mart will generate more tax revenue.  And if you don't want to sell, the city can "take" your land, and then give it to Wal-Mart to do with it what it pleases (of course, you will receive someone's version of "fair market value" for your trouble).  And there's not a thing you can do about it.  (The case is called Kelo v. City of New London.)

Here is the Court's description of the property at issue in the case:

Petitioner Susette Kelo has lived in the Fort Trumbull area since 1997. She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life. Her husband Charles (also a petitioner) has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago.... There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area.

And yet, the Court concludes, the city's determination that the cause of "economic development" would be served by transferring this land to different private owners - namely, Pfizer Corporation - was "rational," and "economic development" is a traditional function of government, so it's OK to force these people to sell their homes.

Excuse me, but WHAT COUNTRY ARE WE LIVING IN??  Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion is excellent, and (to me) totally convincing.  Go read it - she explains why the Court's decision is wrong better than I could.  Money quote:

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

Amen.  Scary stuff, but you know it's true.

Oh - the title of this post.  One of the saddest things about this case is that the five-member majority consists of Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer - traditionally the "liberal" votes - along with Justice Kennedy.  Those four Justices are usually the ones we lefties expect to stand up for our side.  How horrifying that not one of them could see how wrong this decision is.

UPDATE: A commenter at Daily Kos has this totally hilarious take on the decision: "Ownership Society?  Nah, call it the OwnershiT society, because after this ruling, we don't own shit."  Interestingly, though there's some disagreement, I'd say the majority of the comments over at Kos (most of which are presumably written by liberals) are clearly against this decision.  And many of them are stunned to find themselves in agreement with the "conservative" Supreme Court Justices.  Labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are not particularly useful when it comes to jurisprudence, and we'd all be better off finding a different vocabulary to talk about judges.

Who wasn't at yesterday's health care forum?

I solicited some comments from the GBIO folks who went to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation's health care forum yesterday. This is from Brother Jack Rathschmidt:

Once again, the poor, the uninsured, people of color and cultures other than our own were not represented at today's gathering at JFK library. An important, informative meeting, but lacking the people who are most effected by today's meeting.  I was very impressed with the quality of the research from the Urban Center folks, nevertheless, there is little input evident from the people most effected. That our Governor continues to suggest that we won't need new revenues to fund health care for all is getting very old.

The folks where I live in Jamaica Plain tell me that that are 40 to 50%
of Latinos that are uninsured.  Where were they today?  Who is listening
to them?

Br. Jack

---
By the way, the whole point of the forum yesterday was the release of part II of the BCBS Foundation's Roadmap to Coverage series. You can get the pdfs from here and wonk out.

Does this post make my thumbs look big?

So... David described my post last night about Our Gov's "Insure Yourself or Else" health care plan as a "big thumbs up!". Uh... I don't know how many more commas, dependent clauses, and umms or errrs I can add to make clear my ambivalence and conditional-ness about one small aspect of his plan ... but I guess it wasn't enough for my esteemed lawyer co-blogger. (That's a joke, folks -- and David can handle it. Try him!)

And look, who could get enthusiastic about statements like this from the Governor:

''No more 'free riding,' if you will, where an individual says: 'I'm not going to pay, even though I can afford it. I'm not going to get insurance, even though I can afford it. I'm instead going to just show up and make the taxpayers pay for me,' " Romney told reporters after a healthcare speech at the John F. Kennedy Library.

I might have a finger up for that remark, but it ain't my thumb. "Out of touch" doesn't really begin to describe it, does it? You think Mitt knows what milk costs these days?

My point about Romney's mandate for individual coverage  was very, very limited -- no big thumbs up or dopey grin here:

It was only that mandating coverage for individuals is indeed one way to pool risk, which is a critical part to making insurance work for everybody. (Ed's comment in David's thread is on-target and also happens to be funny. Oops, looks like I didn't understand it correctly. Well, read it anyway.)

Of course, as worldcitizen commented, it's also a big old unfunded mandate. And as I said, if Mitt thinks he's going to get everybody insured without new funds, he's dreaming. The fact is, that money's going to come from somewhere: either from employers plus cigarette taxes (which I would prefer, as with the HA3 plan), or right out of our pockets, as Mitt would prefer. Look, I'll take whatever costs less and does the job: I'm not doctrinaire about wanting to pay an insurance company instead of the state, or vice-versa.

But people who don't have insurance (and employers who don't offer it) cost the rest of us money, through our tax dollars going to the Free Care Pool. We're already paying for these folks -- and as social investment, we don't even get good value for our money, since they don't get good preventative care, stay healthy and create the economic value they ought to. Maybe it's paternalistic to require people to be insured (by whatever mandate), but the current Free Care system exists because we've decided -- as a society -- that you don't keep someone that's had a heart attack out of the ER because they don't have insurance. That's a mandate. Well, if we're taking care of the uninsured anyway (in a half-assed and inhumane way), why not take care of them well, save ourselves some bucks long-term and create some economic value in the process?

As far as the auto insurance analogy goes: it's an example of mandated "universal" coverage. Sure, not everyone has a car (although many/most people need one), but everyone has health -- good, middling, or bad. And I think it's pretty clear that an individual's health has a significant effect, economic and otherwise, on people around him. Where we draw the line on personal vs. communal responsibility is a tough question, but I'm not really sure that Justice Holmes' bright line of personal sovereignty really applies here. By the way, through taxation, we have mandates for all kinds of things: schools, cops, highways, Social Security, corporate welfare, Gitmo, etc. etc. So I don't think it's necessarily "a significant departure from the usual role of government in our lives".

Other than that, David's points are right on regarding means-testing people ("adequate savings" for a medical emergency??) and the potential enforceability of an individual mandate. But there's going to be a mandate, either for employers or jes' folks, and whoever gets it may not like it much.

By the way, compare Ted Kennedy's comments...

US Senator Edward M. Kennedy described Romney's call for an individual mandate as ''a healthy step forward," but added that ''details of the benefits offered and the level of cost-sharing individuals will face are crucial to understanding this proposal."

... to John McDonough's of Health Care for All:

I'm old fashioned -- and I long for the days when gubernatorial initiatives were accompanied by legislation and detailed policy briefs that spelled out assumptions, numbers, and details.  This governor accompanies his pronouncements with zero details, making it impossible to evaluate.  So the Gov. says we're spending about $947 million now for care for the uninsured, and his plan will spend -- voila -- $947 million.  Believable?  Who knows because the Administration keeps its numbers to itself.  The Gov. embraces the fashionable notion of "transparency" in health care.  A little "policy transparency" would set a good example.

My emphasis in both, of course. They seem like the same words, different tone.

Respectfully, I must dissent

Charley and I agree on a lot of things.  That's why we co-founded this blog a few months back.  And apropos of nothing in particular, I'm pleased to report that within the last couple of hours Blue Mass. Group welcomed its 50,000th unique visitor, according to our friends at statcounter.com.  Not exactly a Daily Kos level of traffic (he gets that every couple of hours! geez!), but it's a start!  Thanks so much to everyone who reads what we put up here.

Like any good Democrats, though, Charley and I disagree on occasion.  Sometimes it's on little stuff.  But sometimes the issues are bigger, in which case I think a separate post rather than a comment on an existing post is appropriate.

So it is today.  Charley gives His Excellency a big thumbs-up for pushing a plan that will include compulsory health insurance.  I am not so sure that this is such a great idea.  Read on...

Here is what Mitt says in his Herald op-ed announcing his plan:

Everyone must either become insured or maintain adequate savings to cover their medical expenses. We cannot expect some citizens to pay for others who can afford to pay some or all of their own way. With Commonwealth Care and Safety Net Care, there would be no reason not to be insured.

So Mitt is giving everyone two choices: "become insured," or "maintain adequate savings to cover their medical expenses."  I have no idea what the second choice means.  Is the government going to start monitoring families' savings accounts to make sure their balance is big enough to cover some measure of medical expenses?  I, for one, really hate that idea.  And what will the measure of "adequate savings" be?  Obviously, almost nobody can maintain savings sufficient to deal with cancer treatment, or open-heart surgery, or almost any other major medical procedure, yet those are the procedures that put real strain on the health care system.  So this choice makes little sense, and I think it should be disregarded in any serious discussion of this topic.

Which leaves the first choice: everyone must "become insured."  I have some practical objections to this.  How will it be enforced - will police officers hand out tickets to people who cannot produce a valid health insurance card when stopped at random on the streets?  What will be the penalty for disobeying this new law - jail time? a fine? harassing phone calls from some state insurance administrator? If someone who is in violation of this law has an accident and requires emergency medical care, what will happen?  I'm not just trying to be clever here (well, maybe a little) - I think these are real issues with any kind of mandate like this, and they are not so easily resolved.

More importantly, though, I have some philosophical objections to requiring people to buy health insurance.  To start, let's debunk this silly idea that it's just like car insurance.  It is in fact very different in at least two respects.  First: obviously, no one has to have a car, so car insurance isn't truly compulsory.  In contrast, apparently under Romney's plan every human living in Massachusetts will have to have health insurance.  Second, and perhaps more important: people are required to carry car insurance because a driver of a car can impose huge costs on another individual, either by harming the individual physically or by damaging the individual's property.  It is therefore a reasonable, and I would say correct, policy choice to require all drivers to carry liability insurance so that innocent people harmed in car accidents should be guaranteed to be compensated instead of having to sue the driver (who may well have no assets anyway) - it is a variant on the Holmesian principle that "my right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."  But that justification simply does not exist with health insurance, which is essentially a way of protecting people from the cost of their own health care needs, not from the claims of others that they have harmed.  The difference between compulsory car insurance and compulsory health insurance is the difference between the state requiring you to ensure that your actions do not harm others and the state requiring you to ensure that you take adequate steps to protect yourself.  That, to me, is a very big difference.  Remember the hullaballoo about the seat belt law?  Same principle, only the stakes are much bigger - it doesn't cost anything to fasten a seatbelt.

This is a very large topic that I cannot possibly cover in one post.  Also, it's late and I'm getting sleepy.  My basic point is this: of course, I am in favor of everyone being able to have health insurance.  But the reason I feel that way is that I imagine that most people want health insurance.  I have a hard time seeing why government is justified in saying to people who would prefer to spend their money on something else - e.g., better housing, or maybe sending money to their poor relatives back home - "no, you must buy health insurance, because if you don't the profile of our risk pool will not look right.  And besides, it's good for you."  I recognize that there's a possible moral hazard problem here.  But if we really work at making health insurance affordable and available, I would think that pretty much everyone who wants it will be in, and I would further think that that will include a lot of people.  I would like to see whether that would be good enough before taking what strikes me as quite a significant departure from the usual role of government in our lives.

UPDATE (6/22, 9:30 am): Today's Globe has some details of how Romney's proposal would work, as well as some interesting reactions to the mandate idea.  I would note this: if the only time you force people to sign up is when they show up at the hospital needing care (as the article suggests), it's not going to work, because at that moment the patient needs care that is much more expensive than the cost of the policy.  So you're doing exactly the wrong thing: throwing someone into the risk pool who is by definition a bad risk.  To get this to work, you have to get people who aren't sick into the pool.  Can we, and do we really want to, force those people in?  That's the difficult practical and philosophical problem.

Also, today's editorial reaction is interesting.  The Globe likes the individual mandate idea, adopting the flawed analogy to car insurance.  The Herald likes the new insurance proposals, but says nothing about the mandate.

Into the pool, everybody!!

I never thought I'd say it ... I mean, it hurts ussss, really, but mixed in with the non-news that Our Guv is testing the muddy waters for a Presidential run, Mitt did something -- not enough, but something -- right today. He called for universal --therefore compulsory -- health insurance:

... Everyone has a responsibility to have health insurance; for those who cannot afford it, government will help, but only to the extent needed - not as an entitlement.

Not bad, insofar as it goes -- EconBlog (Jay Fitzgerald of the Herald) compares it to car insurance -- everyone who's got a car has to have it by law. And you've simply got to pool risk (i.e. include everyone, the sick and the healthy, old and young) in order to make insurance work properly.

Now, the Misanthropy Institute, er... the Hands-Off-My-Stuff Institute, er, I mean... the Am-I-My-Brother's-Keeper Institute, um, I mean ... the libertarian CATO Institute folks almost had a coronary. Hope they're covered for that:

   "He said what?'' remarked an astonished Michael Cannon, director of healthcare policy at the free-market Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. "It sounds like he's running for the (liberal) wing of the Democratic Party.''

Unfortunately, Mitt seems to think he's going to do it without raising new revenues, not even from smokes. Bless his heart, but he's dreaming. John McDonough of Health Care for All has the proper response to that:

If the plan does not contain significant subsidies for low and moderate income persons, the individual mandate will be completely unworkable;

If the plan contains unaffordable cost sharing [hello Commonwealth Care™!]-- copays, deductibles, premiums -- it will also be unworkable;

An individual mandate could become a major incentive for employers now providing coverage to workers to stop doing so -- a huge cost shift from businesses to individuals and to taxpayers.

So ... we're not quite there yet. But keep in mind that the Governor is only one center of power in this discussion, and especially since he has eyes on higher office, he actually becomes less relevant to us in MA. Us? We're sticking around, and sticking it out.

Momentum: Ours.

Romney considering a run for President! Who'd 'a thunk it?

In news that should surprise exactly no one, Mitt Romney has publicly acknowledged that he's testing the presidential waters.  He still says he's "planning on running for Governor" and will make a final decision in the fall.  Translating: "It'll take me a few months to figure out whether I have any shot at the presidency, and if I don't, oh, OK, I guess I'll run for Governor again as sort of a crappy consolation prize."  Nice - exactly what we need running our state.

In response, Deval Patrick fired off a statement to Blue Mass. Group (and, we suspect, to others!) noting that Romney's presidential aspirations were "no surprise," that Romney's "heart has never been in the job," and that too many of Romney's 903 days in office had been spent "traveling across the country making fun of Massachusetts to score political points," which "does nothing to help the people" of the Commonwealth.  Seems about right to me.

Herald tells it like it is

Good for the Boston Herald.  The opening line of a news story in today's paper, reporting the vile Westboro Baptist Church's plans to start protesting at soldiers' funerals, describes the so-called "Church" as a "radical midwestern hate group."

Exactly.  And yet, perhaps because most of the bile being spewed by these disgusting people is directed at homosexuals, we haven't often seen media reports of this group using those kinds of words.  More often they are called a "religious group," or a "congregation," or just a "church." 

But they are a hate group.  Just like the Herald said.  It's too bad that it took this group's insane decision to start harassing the grieving families of dead soldiers to bring out the truth about who they really are, but better late than never.  Let's hope that future media reports about these hatemongers follow the Herald's lead.

UPDATE (6/22): The Herald's editorial page also gets it.

Health care: Pollin', pollin', pollin

Health Care for All points us to more evidence of MA residents' big, juicy brains:

University of Mass. poll (6/6 to 6/12/05) for MassInsight:  (a little squirrel gave them to us.)

How much responsibility do you think state government has for keeping the state's health care system financially stable?
A lot: 47%;  Some:  37%;   Not Much:   9%;   None: 4%

One proposal to increase access to healthcare coverage for the uninsured required increasing the cigarette tax by 50 cents a pack.  How strongly would you support such a proposal?
Very Strongly:  63%;   Somewhat Strongly:  13%; Not Very Strongly:  5%; Not at All: 17%

Today, many companies like Stop & Shop, CVS, and Home Depot do not offer health insurance to their part time workers.  When these employees become ill, they use hospital emergency rooms and the state pays the bill.  How strongly would you support the state assessing a tax on companies which do not offer health insurance for those employees who use the state's Free Care Pool?
Very Strongly:  55%; Somewhat Strongly:  26%; Not Very Strongly: 7%; Not at All: 10%.

(HCFA: hope it's OK that I just stole your post in its entirety... it doesn't make much sense otherwise.)

So yeah, put it the right terms, people want the government to help out with health care. "Market-based" razzle-dazzle will only excite free-market purists and special interests -- who thankfully do not seem to comprise a majority of voters in this state. Most folks just want to see a doctor when they need to, without going bankrupt in the process. Pretty simple.

And a cigarette tax hike seems to be pretty uncontroversial: 76% support. As one GBIO-affiliated minister/wag said, "We're going to go encourage people to smoke so that we can pay for health care." Ha. Ironic ... and yet fitting.

Bubble bubble toil and trouble: ForeARMed is foreclosed

Continuing the train of thought about foreclosures, here's a  real estate agent, John Keith, who compares the increase in condo sales to foreclosure rates, and therefore doesn't see a problem. (Hat tip to Universal Hub.) I have some honest questions about that: What do the foreclosures have to do with the sales? Are they necessarily related?

He helpfully admits, "Now, of course, I realize, people going into foreclosure this year may have bought their homes in the past year, but very well could have bought them two, five, ten or twenty years ago. But, I think it is still a good comparison to use."

Why is it still a good comparison? Is there a typical year-to-year correlation between sales and foreclosures? Or are the two similar-seeming jumps caused by different things? Just because the data points seem to move nearly in tandem this year doesn't mean that they always do.

It seems unlikely to me that folks are buying properties and immediately facing foreclosure. In fact, my hypothesis would be that the foreclosures are mostly people who have bought in the last few years at relatively inflated prices, possibly using risky credit products, and have run into financial/personal/health problems in the meantime. (That hypothesis is much the same as the Globe article, I suppose.)

If John (or anyone) has more data on this, I'd be interested to see it. But his use of the one-year data point doesn't convince me that there isn't a big problem afoot.

By the way, see blogger Ben Day's thorough response here. (I don't see it as a blog war, BTW -- just a chance for folks to subject their ideas to scrutiny.)

And as for the Globe's reporting: There is a real human-interest story here, and it's typical for a reporter to find individual stories that fit the analysis. The story of the pizza-shop owners is anecdotal evidence, and as such it probably deserves John's caveats. But people are really suffering; and when I hear stories of foreclosure, I feel a lot of "There but for the grace of God go I." Just sayin'.

Pass the duchie and turn on NOVA

On the subject of drugs, here's a juxtaposition for you ...

Massachusetts is ranked as the smartest state in the nation.

"The Boston area is the nation's capital for marijuana use."

Hrm... Correlation is not causation ... or is it?

Truth: being stingy with the Anti-drug

Another article in the Economist, this one about methamphetamines. This is not an issue one hears much about in New England, perhaps because we've got our own problems with heroin. But this is a huge issue all over America, especially rural areas; it seems kind of like the crack epidemic that hit inner cities in the 80's. And we've known that meth is an unbelieveably destructive drug: from first hit to the grave can be a matter of months:

VISITORS to a county court in Salt Lake City, Utah, are shown photographs of a woman in her late 20s who has been arrested several times for dealing in methamphetamine, a notoriously addictive and increasingly common street drug. She used the drug herself, and the photos show her ageing some 30 years over a five-year period: cheeks sinking, eyes turning glassy, teeth rotting.

Awful stuff, which makes the anti-marijuana posturing and propaganda that we see every day on the MBTA posters ("#1 Hypocrite") all the more comical. Have you ever, ever seen a pothead with teeth like "rotting fruit" and otherwise at death's door? Have you ever heard of someone dying from a pot overdose? No? Well, that's because it doesn't happen.

I'm not suggesting that pot is harmless -- honestly, I don't know what the long-term health effects are (aside from the hysteria peddled by the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy), and I'm open to responsible studies about its effects. (The correlated effects listed by the ONDCP are so riddled with confounding variables that it's really difficult to say what its long-term effects are.) But as with sex education, you've simply got to give people -- even and especially children -- all the facts, including what you know and what you don't know.

Yet, despite the evident dangers of increased methamphetamine use, the federal government's anti-drug focus is once again on marijuana. Newspaper advertisements are warning teenagers that marijuana users risk depression, suicidal tendencies and schizophrenia. But Mitch Earleywine, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, thinks the campaign may backfire once teenagers see little evidence that marijuana causes such things. “We lose credibility,” he says. “Then we tell them that meth causes your brain to shrink—which it really does—and they don't believe that, either.”

Truth isn't the anti-drug -- credibility is. The ONDCP would do well to be a little more generous with the truth, and to direct it against things that we know hurt and kill people with terrifying swiftness. It's a question of priorities.
 

Bubble bubble toil and trouble: Not too subtle

The Economist has a front page article and an opinion piece (you may have to click through a commercial) about the world-wide housing bubble. If you don't want to read all that text, they have purty pictures: a falling brick on the cover, a sandcastle being washed into the sea on the inside. Bubble, brick, castle made of sand: Even a five-year-old can understand what's going on here. When people buy an investment  based on the circular logic of: "It will go up, because it always has", you've pretty much got a textbook bubble. Or brick. What have you.

Here's the dire warning from the accompanying opinion piece:

This boom is unprecedented in terms of both the number of countries involved and the record size of house-price gains. Measured by the increase in asset values over the past five years, the global housing boom is the biggest financial bubble in history (see article). The bigger the boom, the bigger the eventual bust. [my emphasis]

And in Massachusetts, we're one of the epicenters. If and when -- and I think it's when -- the bubble bursts, there's going to be a lot of wealth that's destroyed and tax base that evaporates. Not good, but on the other hand, no one's just entitled to 10%+ annual appreciation on their investment, so for current homeowners, perhaps there are worse things that could happen. Unlike tech stocks or tulips, housing has inherent value, and folks can usually stay put instead of selling. And perhaps we'll be able to lure more young people and employers to the area if housing costs come back down to earth. And perhaps there will be more disposable income freed up by lower housing costs: perhaps we'll buy more lattes and less equity.

But really, it's the folks who bought recently and are counting on their assets continuing to appreciate that are going to be in trouble. They often use risky mortgage products like adjustable-rate mortgages (here's a sad story of that); interest-only loans; and "negative-amortization" loans, in which the buyer actually pays less than the interest due and counts on the appreciation outpacing the extra interest charges. All these innovative products have been called the "democratization of credit" ... I sincerely hope it's not just a bigger net for suckers.

In related news, foreclosures are up 27% this year in three MA counties:

The number of people undergoing foreclosure has been on the rise across Massachusetts. Foreclosure filings are up across Middlesex, Norfolk, and Worcester counties...

Analysts attribute the rise in foreclosures to several factors, including sky-high housing prices, people buying houses beyond their means, and job loss. Personal misfortunes such as illness, death, or divorce can also be factors.

(This makes the bankruptcy bill that Congress recently passed all the more obscene.)

Is there a role for state and local governments to play in 1. making housing more affordable for everyone, 2. softening the landing for those who have taken bigger risks than they could handle, and 3. protecting the tax base? And how do we balance the need to preserve wealth with the desire to help younger (and less-rich) people get their own equity?

Good riddance to bad legal rubbish

So Rhode Island is considering getting rid of the last vestiges of its colonial era "blue laws," which used to prohibit most commerce on Sundays, but which now restrict most retailers to operating between 12 noon and 6 pm, and which still prohibit automobile sales all together, to the great consternation of Rhode Island's car dealers.  Those who have lived in Massachusetts as long as I have will recall that we, too, used to be unable to transact business on Sundays, but recently, with the opening of liquor stores on Sundays, almost all of our blue laws have been eliminated.

The sooner Rhode Island gets rid of these dreadful laws, the better, IMHO.  I have always hated these things - they strike me as a particularly clear example of writing religious dogma (namely, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," often shown as number 4 of the 10 Commandments) into law, thereby imposing it on everyone, believers and non-believers alike.  Yes, yes, I know, the Supreme Court said in 1961 that blue laws do not constitute an "establishment of religion."  They were wrong.

So go forward with righteous purpose, o ye legislators of Rhode Island!  Free your auto dealerships from the yoke of religious oppression!

The cost of nothing

Let's take a magical journey into Hypothetical Land (cue wind chime sound...):

Massachusetts Governor ToMittDev PatReilHealNey announced a proposal that would increase health care costs by 41% by the year 2009. In addition, he/she proposed that fewer employers would offer coverage; that co-pays and deductibles would rise sharply; the numbers of uninsured will grow by about 25%.

"Well, you can always declare bankruptcy -- oops, guess that's off the table, too," laughed PatReilHealNey. "The people of Massachusetts are getting a strong message: We're prepared to sacrifice human lives and your pocketbook to keep your taxes low."

At the hearing for the Health Access and Affordability Act (HA3), it was clear that lawmakers are concerned about the cost of such an expansion of access. That is a reasonable concern. However, let's be clear about this subject: We're paying for it now, with huge increases every year, and we're not getting a proportionally better product or greater access for all the extra cash that is flowing out of our pockets -- or just never showing up in our take-home pay.

HA3 would help to lower premiums by essentially making the state a "co-payer" for catastrophic cases. This has worked fairly well in New York State so far -- premiums dropped after adopting what they call a cost-sharing "corridor" -- that is, the state picks up an increasing percentage of insurer's costs above a certain amount. That makes the insurers happy, since it limits their risk; and it makes consumers happy, since it allows insurers to lower their premiums.

So there's a chance to actually keep more money in your pocket by allowing the state to administer such a program. But it's an investment -- we've got to put a little money on the table to enable this money-saving device. HA3 pays for it through a 50 cent tax increase on cigarettes, and there may be some other "revenue enhancements" necessary. But let's be clear: if your premium drops $2 and your taxes go up $1, then you're ahead. That's more money in your pocket. Let's not let the pols be spooked by tax hike hysteria: let's do a real cost-benefit analysis. I don't care if I have to pay the state, or an insurer: I just want to keep more of my money and have better health. Sounds pretty normal to me.

(I wrote more on the "Return on Investment" in public health here.)

Romney allies himself with James Dobson

As a brief follow-up to Charley's post below: the so-called "grass roots group" pushing the new anti-marriage amendment is calling itself "VoteOnMarriage.org." The text of the new proposal is as follows:

When recognizing marriages entered after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

I don't know who (if anyone) resides at the Newton Upper Falls address that "VoteOnMarriage" lists as its contact address, but I do know this: there are seven links on the "VoteOnMarriage" website under "arguments" regarding same-sex marriage.  Four of the seven link to articles published at "family.org," the website of the nefarious James Dobson's "Focus on the Family," including one by Dobson himself.  The others are to an article at the D.C.-based Family Research Council, run by Tony Perkins (as bad as Dobson), an article published in the Weekly Standard by Maggie Gallagher, another D.C.-based pundit and a recipient of Bush administration financial largesse in the form of cash-for-opinion; and a pdf of an article that appears to have nothing to do with same-sex marriage (it is about reducing divorce rates).

From the "arguments" that they have adopted, it seems clear that the VoteOnMarriage crowd, whoever they are, are not particularly interested in advocating the principle that the people, rather than the legislature or the judiciary, should set marriage policy.  What they want, rather, is to bring the views of James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and the rest of the wingnuttocracy into Massachusetts.  So I certainly hope it will be widely noted that VoteOnMarriage is far from a "grass roots" organization (where the Globe got that characterization I cannot imagine).  They are a Massachusetts branch of a Washington DC- and Colorado Springs-based movement that, increasingly, seems to represent the "base" of the national Republican party.  Gosh, do you think there's any connection between that fact and Mitt Romney's embrace of their activities here?

Muddy ol' Mitt

Mitt continues to kick up dirt as he veers right:

Governor Mitt Romney yesterday endorsed a grass-roots effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2008, abandoning his support for what he called a ''muddied" compromise measure that would also ban gay marriages but allow gays to enter into civil unions.

... Reflecting the uneasiness among politicians over same-sex marriage, last spring the Legislature passed the Travaglini-L