Greg Sanders

Snow on the ground, but no (Sen.) Snowe for health care reform

2009-12-19T14:29:00-05:00

Sorry for the terrible title joke, but as the picture shows I’ve really got to comment on the DC-area weather. Regardless, instead it appears that the 60th vote will be Sen. Nelson (D-[Nebraska]N.D.). The price is some limitations to abortion coverage but a better deal than Stupak’s:

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don't have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks - one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services.

Of these, the state opt out is more important I’d think. I wonder how that will interact with the provisions for nationwide insurance plans. The existence of nation-wide plans with the coverage should make the politics of fighting against those bans easier. There was also some weakening of cost-cutting measures and logrolling for [Nebraska]North Dakota that will probably be fiscally insignificant since almost no one lives there [the population is less than 2 million, less than 1% of U.S. pop]. Shame Sen. Snowe isn’t playing ball or we could instead be subsidizing Maine while providing with more abortion coverage. Sen. Landrieu didn’t muck around with the content too much and just got some giveaways for Louisiana which probably serve a legitimate policy purpose given ongoing recovery from Katrina.

Nate Silver rounds up the remaining challenges and from what Ezra Klein is reporting the conference committee should be highly expedited. I’ve long felt about this bill like I do when watching a film or TV series where there’s a major victory that risks being a false dawn. There’s so many distractions, so many risks, far too many sacrifices, but if we can just We are making the crucial first step here to providing a floor of health care coverage to all Americas. The Republicans are fighting so hard because they realize that so long as we achieve this in a fiscally sustainable way voters will become as protective of this entitlement as they are of the others. I’ll leave the final word to Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy:

The bill before Congress will finally deliver on the urgent needs of all Americans. It would make their lives better and do so much good for this country. That, in the end, must be the test of reform. That was always the test for Ted Kennedy. He's not here to urge us not to let this chance slip through our fingers. So I humbly ask his colleagues to finish the work of his life, the work of generations, to allow the vote to go forward and to pass health-care reform now. As Ted always said, when it's finally done, the people will wonder what took so long.

Cool new planetary discovery

2009-12-17T12:11:23-05:00

Via Dan Drezner, who kiddingly notes that the timing is convenient for James Cameron, scientists have discovered a "super-Earth" planet, 40 light years away, that is water-rich.

Here's CNN with the details:

The planet, named GJ 1214b, is 2.7 times as large as Earth and orbits a star much smaller and less luminous than our sun. That's significant, Charbonneau said, because for many years, astronomers assumed thatplanets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.

Because of that assumption, researchers didn't spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said. The discovery of this "watery world" helps debunk the notion that Earth-like planets could form only in conditions similar to those in our solar system.

It's atmosphere is probably too thick to support life like that on Earth, but it's still a fascinating discovery.

Also available on Next America.

Health care reform is still worth it without a public option

2009-12-16T19:34:08-05:00

Ezra Klein documents the fall of the public option and defends Sen. Reid's strategic logic. I think he's right, although I do believe that while Sen. Lieberman's vote may prove cheaper than Sen. Snowe's we need to be prepared for betrayal and be willing to take away his chairmanship if he supports the filibuster. This is a fight where winning the principle of a sustainable health entitlement is the most important thing. Thankfully liberal Senators seem to realize this and are willing to vote for a sub-optimal outcome.

That said, I'm not going to Sister Soulja those on the left who are not in Congress that are saying no bill is better than this. They're wrong in a very objective sense, there is no way we can hold out for more without upping the risk of loss (I saw a great post on this, but I'm posting this from my phone so I'll add it later Adam Green via Yglesias). That is a bad strategy, past experience has shown that each incarnation is weaker than the last one, wheras most European systems come about by building on partial successes.

However, being wrong doesn't mean that they aren't playing a constructive roll. That level of commitment was a good part of what got the public option this far. More over, as Ezra Klein noted, Sen. Lieberman's compromise is that the left has to lose. The left's acceptance of allowing people to buy into Medicare appears to have been a factor in losing that compromise. If Howard Dean was praising this final bill the Overton window may close again. We can all reconcile, hug, and sing Kumbaya when the bill is past. Until then, part of the left taking a dive means you need to fight until the end. This may mean some loss of enthusiasm in 2010 but even that is a small price to pay for victory.

Of course it's also critical to keep explaining the importance of this win, so I'm fine with the pragmatists fighting hard too.

In the future, in Congress, we will need to pick a fight, possibly a crazy fight so long as we've got popular support soon. The campaign against the filibuster should be part of that, and I think that a willingness to use primary challenges and cut off funds or else the culture of the Senate won't change. I don't think consistently getting 60 votes is an achievable strategy.

All and all we've almost got this, we can do this, and there's a lot of different roles to play. If we get it, it will be the most important liberal victory of my lifetime.

Sixty first place prize: You're fired

2009-12-14T12:22:58-05:00

At this point, the situation looks rather bad for health care reform. It's still worth doing if we don't get anything for the public option, but appearances do matter in politics. So do personalities.

How to handle this?

Option one: reconciliation. It's a way around the filibuster but is dependent on the reading of the Senate parliamentarian. Better than nothing.

Option two: Take out the filibuster. Nate Silver discusses the a way to do that, don't do it via health care reform, go for it when we've got public backing, say on financial reform. I don't think

Option three: Make a deal with Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe. This probably means no public option or a pathetic trigger. So what does the left get? Sen. Lieberman's committee positions. Ezra Klein lays it out, he presently seems to be making decisions based solely on pique. We can rely on him for nothing, not even to engage in good faith negotiations. Dropping to 59 votes hurts, but we don't have a 60th vote so give the leadership positions to someone with an interest in governing and not payback. If Olympia Snowe wants to join us, great, if not, so be it.

CBO as Referee

2009-12-12T00:44:24-05:00

Peter Suderman has a good piece up in Reason magazine about the CBO. I think he does a great job telling its story and describing the role it is playing in the current health care reform debate. That said, I do disagree with the subhead describing the CBO as Obama-care’s chief obstacle (see comments). Suderman was kind enough to respond to my questioning of that point:

But I think it’s a good enough subhead: part of the point of the piece (not the only point!) was that, during the summer, the bill lived and died by the CBO — it exercised a strong pass/fail authority over the bill’s life. And it proved a lot of trouble for Democrats. Indeed, if you look at where the debate’s at today, there’s still a lot of that going on — the sorta-kinda deal they put together last night is contingent upon the CBO’s analysis.

All true. That said, the chief obstacle is the fact that the filibuster has become a de facto 60 vote minimum on everything. Absent that consideration, the CBO wouldn’t be playing nearly as prominent a role. Moreover, having the CBO validate the public option as a deficit reducer didn’t bring any “fiscal hawks” around.

As the title indicates, I think the CBO is best seen as a referee. The President and Sen. Baucus both wanted to get to 60 votes by emphasizing deficit reduction, the CBO made the call as to whether they played fair while doing so according to its sometime idiosyncratic rules. As Suderman notes, we do complain some about the calls, generally speaking, liberals argue that the CBO underestimates various saving measures and we have some cases to back us up. That said, the CBO is also required to be credulous that Congress will implement certain provisions they consistently vote against, so the idiosyncratic bits can cut both ways. However, even if we don’t like some of the calls, playing with a referee is conducive to good policy. I believe it is vital that we find ways to undermine the pernicious and unprecedented impact of the filibuster, but I think we should celebrate the prominence of actual accounting brought by the CBO even if it sometimes makes our lives hard. After all, health care reform has gotten further under this set of conditions than it ever has before.

Can more resources solve Afghanistan's problems?

2009-12-08T23:32:09-05:00

After attending an off the record briefing, not with an administration official, I heard a way of thinking on Afghanistan that I believe illuminates the new American approach to Afghanistan. To be clear, I have the benefit of others ideas here, but am speaking for myself, credit errors to me and insight to others.

Between the increases earlier this year and the planned 30,000 troop escalation, the Obama administration has dramatically increased the resources going to Afghanistan while making comparatively small adjustments in policy. The approach to rural Afghanistan seems to be shifting from anti-drug efforts to rebuilding the agricultural sector. At the same time, there's talk of working around President Karzai rather than continuing the past policy of flowing all funds through him. Finally while counterinsurgency thinking was not mentioned by name during the speech is being endorsed through population-centric efforts and increasing restraint when it comes to possible civilian casualties.

These changes sound more incremental than revolutionary and no harsh trade-offs were made explicitly. This doesn't mean that more is not going on behind the scenes, but it does seem consistent with the critique of recent Afghan policy that the main problem is that the war was dramatically under resourced. This is certainly accurate, relative to Iraq, when it comes to contract spending and a range of other metrics. On the other hand, critics will note that we are spending more per year than Afghanistan's total GDP, which bespeaks both Afghanistan's remoteness and the expense of military measures in treasure, let alone blood.

So what happens if this view is wrong? If a lack of resources wasn't the main problem or equally likely more resources could well have stabilized the country in the early calm period but are no longer enough. That's where the withdrawal date could come in. There are many caveats to it and strictly speaking we're just supposed to begin the transition to Afghan authority. Even so, I suspect the date will be compelling for our allies and if the situation does not improve may have substantial political support domestically from the President's own party. In essence setting the date puts Afghanistan in the category of a limited war. If the occupation proves unworkable we can dramatically reduce our role even if that means failing to meet key objectives. Looked at another way, there is a level of resources we aren't willing to deploy to "win," the draft is not on the table and the main nation the President is interested in nation building is our own.

It's important to remember that we will see a lag in any results from implementing this new resource level. Sending more people to the country and getting them in action takes time. That said, we can now begin to judge the results of the first troop hike and test the hypothesis that implementation and not strategy is the main problem we face that can be directly controlled from the U.S. end (unlike local corruption).

Next America Repost: Defense-Industry Haikus

2009-12-08T00:24:11-05:00

In a silly experiment, with help from Matt Zlatnik, I present the following seven haikus inspired by defense-related newsletters. There’s a bit of a contest involved with these with a prize of a Lockheed Martin toiletries kit, see the Next America page for details.

Private security
Cost six billion through ‘09
More in subcontracts

Big 3Q spend bump
The supplement arrived late
Not conspiracy

Cost-plus contracting
Now buys many more services
McCain not pleased

Six hundred million
Meant for small businesses
Went to the big boys

Europe does research
But Americans sell stuff
Thank you big budget!

Big helicopter
Spend lots on fancy add-ons
Save the President!

Large trade surpluses
Show the U.S. still produces
When it comes to arms

Again, go here for the source newsletters.

This entry also available at CSIS’s Next America Blog.

Watched and enjoyed Pentagon Wars

2009-12-07T01:23:58-05:00

Recommended my friend Calc, I’m rather surprised I haven’t seen it before. It’s quite enjoyable and I’m highly sympathetic, although generally speaking it doesn’t seem to present the strongest argument for the defense or show the way that actors other than generals screw up the acquisition process.

The two counter-arguments I’d have liked to have seen addressed were to compare the Bradley to the prior armored personnel carrier and the larger trade-offs in the advantages of a light vehicle and survivability[/heavy armor (they do raise the point that the original lower profile may have raised survivability without adding armor]. Guess I’ll have to read the book and see if it’s addressed there.

Avatar season 2 special features

2009-12-06T00:57:00-05:00

They were fairly good. There was a bit on the martial arts used for the bending choreography. This was actually covered some in the special features of the first season but they add a bit to it. There were also three cute super-deformed cartoons; the best was shipping school which put all the characters in a school setting and screw with the shippers. Good times.

Third feature was an “animated graphic novel.” The animation was just transitions between stills but I’ll take that over manual page flipping No voice acting but does have some back-story for the past four Avatars.

Finally there was an interview with M. Night Shyamalan about the live-action film. It doesn’t address the casting controversy, namely that despite the Asian martial arts and cultural touchstones they went Caucasians for the heroes and Asians for the baddies (although not all the supporting Fire nation characters are necessarily villains or extras). Apparently there’s an intention to do three films, season 2 does have an additional hero so that will be a chance to partially remedy things. Here’s hoping they take it. For now, I’ve still got an attitude of deep skepticism towards the film.

Good news: There may be a Mirrors Edge 2; Bad news: They havent figured out the strengths of the original.

2009-12-05T00:34:07-05:00

Stephen Totilo has an interview with the head of EA, John Riccitiello, who sounds some good notes on innovation and who is supporting another Mirror’s Edge. Key quotes:

I think Mirror's Edge was a fascinatingly original world.Fascinatingly original art direction. Music and sound design was great. I think the gameplay mechanic was a blast, but was intermittent and the levels didn't work. You found yourself scratching at walls at times, looking for what to do. Sometimes you had a roll going, downhill, slide, jump, slide, jump and then you just got stopped. It sort of got in the way of the fun.

It was like we couldn't quite decide if we were building Portal or a runner. And I don't think the consumer was ready to switch it up quite that way…

You could say: This thing needs to be more traditional. It's first-person game. There's a lot of successful FPS products out there that do really well. We could move in that direction.

Or [you could say]: This was never about guns. It was about its stark originality. Maybe we can back away from some of those [older] things… and emphasize the smooth play and puzzles and move it toward, if you will, a Portal.

Neither really makes sense to me. Going in the FPS direction is obviously a terrible idea, FPS’s with more acrobatic movement may be worthwhile, but that entirely defeats the point of the original. Perhaps tighten up the gun mechanics a bit, I never used them, or better yet de-emphasize combat some. Slow stealth doesn’t make sense, but taking crazier routes to avoid people works. Going for Portal is nominally more laudable, but Mirro'r’s Edge really isn’t a mechanic based puzzler either. That gets to the wall scratching phenomenon.

I think Iroquis Pliskin, of VersusCluCluLand gets it right, the key is momentum (I found that blog through Brainy Gamer podcasts, for the record. I was more of a fan of the game although based on some quick googling I just seemed to have reviewed the demo, but I think the execs should listen to Pliskin, encourage the player to go fast, be more forgiving, and avoid other things that slow down the gameplay. The commenters over at Kotaku seem to have it by and large right as well.

I was also glad to hear the mentions of open world gaming by other people. I think sticking with linear could be okay, but I’d much prefer more runs through some of the same areas with escalating threat levels and less of some of the inside levels. I actually rather liked the subway, mall, and much of the last level, and other beautiful interiors. I did not like navigating sewers, crawlspaces, and the such as they’re overdone and not really well suited to free running. I got bored of some of the roofs after a while for the same reason. If going for either linear or open world level reputation maybe look at racing games, from what I’ve heard of Burnout: Paradise it has a fair number of potentially relevant ideas.

I also wonder if Jet Grind Radio, which I haven’t played but rather enjoyed watching a friend play, would have any helpful ideas. That game was similar in its feeling about authority, but since it was graffiti oriented it allowed for a wider range of mission objectives. That said, that game may have to wait until Beyond Good and Evil 2 comes out.