Abbreviated pundit roundup

Visual source: Newseum

The New York Times examines a study of Medcaid in Oregon to point out that the program does indeed work:

The Oregon study provides striking results for its first year. The group that gained Medicaid coverage was significantly more likely to have received care from a hospital or a doctor, or to use prescription drugs, belying the notion that enrollees could not find providers. The insured group was far more likely to get preventive care, like mammograms, and to have a regular doctor.

Those people were also more likely to report being in better physical and mental health. And they were better off financially: less likely to pay out of pocket, have unpaid medical bills sent to collection agencies, or need to borrow money or ignore other bills to pay for medical care.

Paul Krugman on the lack of accountability for the financial crisis:

Ever since the current economic crisis began, it has seemed that five words sum up the central principle of United States financial policy: go easy on the bankers.

This principle was on display during the final months of the Bush administration, when a huge lifeline for the banks was made available with few strings attached. It was equally on display in the early months of the Obama administration, when President Obama reneged on his campaign pledge to ?change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes.? And the principle is still operating right now, as federal officials press state attorneys general to accept a very modest settlement from banks that engaged in abusive mortgage practices.

Why the kid-gloves treatment? Money and influence no doubt play their part; Wall Street is a huge source of campaign donations, and agencies that are supposed to regulate banks often end up serving them instead. But officials have also argued at each point of the process that letting banks off the hook serves the interests of the economy as a whole.

It doesn?t. The failure to seek real mortgage relief early in the Obama administration is one reason we still have 9 percent unemployment. And right now, the arguments that officials are reportedly making for a quick, bank-friendly settlement of the mortgage-abuse scandal don?t make sense.

Julius G. Getman on proposed NLRB rules that would "streamline union representation elections and give unions greater opportunity to contact workers":

In a six-year study of union representation campaigns that I conducted with Northwestern University's Stephen B. Goldberg and Jeanne Brett, we found that employees were far more familiar with company arguments against unionization than with arguments in favor of unionization. And this difference was based primarily on the fact that almost all employees (83%) attended one or more company meetings during unionization campaigns, but only a fraction (36%) attended union meetings. [...]

The new rules the board is proposing will improve the balance between employer and union representatives, while staying within the limits imposed by the Supreme Court. They would make it easier for the union to get in touch with employees without entering company property. Currently, employers are required to furnish the union with the names and addresses of workers eligible to vote in the election. The new rules would require them to provide phone numbers and email addresses as well. The new rules would also speed up the process, primarily by postponing hearings on voter eligibility until after the elections.

USA Today on the Republican attempts to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution:

Reading between the lines, it's clear that many supporters care less about cutting the deficit than about rewriting the Constitution to embrace an economic theory that shrinks government and makes it almost impossible to raise taxes.

Certainly, balancing the budget is a sound goal. We've been supporting it in this space for more than 20 years. Congress and successive presidents have demonstrated an inability to match revenue and spending. Something has to be done to change the incentives.

But the fatal flaw in virtually any balanced budget amendment is that it ties the government's hands in times of economic distress.

Eugene Robinson on Herman Cain's prejudice towards Muslims:

It is time to stop giving Herman Cain?s unapologetic bigotry a free pass. The man and his poison need to be seen clearly and taken seriously.

Imagine the reaction if a major-party presidential candidate ? one who, like Cain, shows actual support in the polls ? said he ?wouldn?t be comfortable? appointing a Jew to a Cabinet position. Imagine the outrage if this same candidate loudly supported a community?s efforts to block Mormons from building a house of worship.

But Cain?s prejudice isn?t against Mormons or Jews, it?s against Muslims. Open religious prejudice is usually enough to disqualify a candidate for national office ? but not, apparently, when the religion in question is Islam.

Dana Milbank on a historic event that captured little attention:

The remarkable thing about what happened on the Senate floor Monday night was that it was utterly unremarkable.

The matter under consideration ? the nomination of the first openly gay man to serve on the federal bench ? would at one time have been a flashpoint in the culture wars. But Paul Oetken was confirmed without a word of objection on the Senate floor and with hardly a mention in the commentariat.

George Packer's piece on the debt crisis standoff is an absolute must-read:

The sociologist Max Weber, in his 1919 essay ?Politics as a Vocation,? drew a distinction between ?the ethic of responsibility? and ?the ethic of ultimate ends??between those who act from a sense of practical consequence and those who act from higher conviction, regardless of consequences. These ethics are tragically opposed, but the true calling of politics requires a union of the two. On its own, the ethic of responsibility can become a devotion to technically correct procedure, while the ethic of ultimate ends can become fanaticism. Weber?s terms perfectly capture the toxic dynamic between the President, who takes responsibility as an end in itself, and the Republicans in Congress, who are destructively consumed with their own dogma. Neither side can be said to possess what Weber calls a ?leader?s personality.? Responsibility without conviction is weak, but it is sane. Conviction without responsibility, in the current incarnation of the Republican Party, is raving mad.

Source: http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/tZ4MRzW-cAw/-Abbreviated-pundit-roundup

political contributions by corporations total politics political consulting firms politics blog