Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Y'all are kinda letting me down lately.

cnn

ha!

[Replaced_Texan]

Pretty much where I'm at these days.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Pretty much where I'm at these days.

Republicans do care about other people. They care about other Republicans. And they believe that people should be able to care about other people through churches and charities and other voluntary organizations. And perhaps through local government, which serves mostly people like them and can be controlled by them. Just not the federal government, which can be taken over by people not like them, and serves everybody, not just people like them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Republicans do care about other people. They care about other Republicans. And they believe that people should be able to care about other people through churches and charities and other voluntary organizations. And perhaps through local government, which serves mostly people like them and can be controlled by them. Just not the federal government, which can be taken over by people not like them, and serves everybody, not just people like them.

Does the Senate Health Care not have enough R votes because it is too drastic, or not drastic enough?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And they believe that people should be able to care about other people through churches and charities and other voluntary organizations.

Or at least they say that. They also say in opposition to rail transit investments that they support buses, but when they get the chance, they slash funding for buses because poors and why doesn't everyone just get a car.

And perhaps through local government, which serves mostly people like them and can be controlled by them.

Again, when given control, all they do is cut, so no.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Does the Senate Health Care not have enough R votes because it is too drastic, or not drastic enough?

Yes.

Collins and Heller are no because it's too drastic.

Cruz, Johnson, Paul and the other guy I'm forgetting are no because it's not drastic enough.

ETA: And Johnson may not be firmly no even though he wrote a NYT op-ed laying out why he's a no.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Does the Senate Health Care not have enough R votes because it is too drastic, or not drastic enough?

Both. And also because Senators are worried that it won't have enough votes. It will either get fifty votes or maybe thirty-five, as Lindsey Graham said. Fifty if McConnell has the votes to pass it and can let two moderates vote against to try to get re-elected. Thirty-five if it doesn't, and other Senators can vote against to try to protect themselves in upcoming elections.

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes.

Collins and Heller are no because it's too drastic.

Cruz, Johnson, Paul and the other guy I'm forgetting are no because it's not drastic enough.

ETA: And Johnson may not be firmly no even though he wrote a NYT op-ed laying out why he's a no.

None of them have actually voted yet. It's hard to imagine the conservatives voting against the bill in the end -- they are just trying to push it to the right, or posturing. One thinks McConnell could call their bluff. He also could win a vote without Collins and Heller. So the key action is with other Senators, probably not in public. Even if they are inclined to vote for it anyway, they may be able to get more out of McConnell for their vote. If they are disinclined to vote for it, they might stay quiet to avoid pissing off conservatives.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, when given control, all they do is cut, so no.

Tyler Cowen, from a longer and worthwhile post:

At the state and local level, the governments controlled by Republicans tend to be better run, sometimes much better run, than those controlled by the Democrats (oops). And a big piece of how American people actually experience government comes at the state and local level.
This superior performance stems from at least two factors. First, Republican delusions often matter less at the state and local level, and furthermore what the core Republican status groups want from state and local government is actually pretty conducive to decent outcomes. The Democrats in contrast keep on doling out favors and goodies to their multitude of interest groups, and that often harms outcomes. The Democrats find it harder to “get tough,” even when that is what is called for, and they have less of a values program to cohere around, for better or worse.
Second, the states with a lot of Democrats are probably on average harder to govern well (with some notable Southern exceptions). That may excuse the quality of Democratic leadership to some degree, but it is not an entirely favorable truth for the broader Democratic ethos. Republicans, of course, recognize this reality. Even a lot of independent voters realize they might prefer local Republican governance, and so in the current equilibrium a strong majority of governors, state legislatures, and the like are Republican.
Think on those facts — or on the state of Illinois — the next time you hear the Democrats described as the reality-oriented community. That self-description is “the opium of the Democrats.”
If you wish to try to understand Republicans, think of them as seeing a bunch of states, full of Republicans, and ruled by Republicans, and functioning pretty well. (Go visit Utah!) They think the rest of America should be much more like those places. They also find that core intuition stronger than the potential list of views where Democrats are more reasonable or more correct, and that is why they are not much budged by the intellectual Democratic commentary. Too often the Democrats cannot readily fathom this.
At some level the Republicans might know the Democrats have valid substantive points, but they sooner think “Let’s first put status relations in line, then our debates might get somewhere. In the meantime, I’m not going to cotton well to a debate designed to lower the status of the really important groups and their values.” And so the dialogue doesn’t get very far.

I don't agree with all of it, but think there's some value here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Republicans do care about other people. They care about other Republicans. And they believe that people should be able to care about other people through churches and charities and other voluntary organizations. And perhaps through local government, which serves mostly people like them and can be controlled by them. Just not the federal government, which can be taken over by people not like them, and serves everybody, not just people like them.

Where's that leave those of us who'll happily give time and money directly to those in need, but don't want to give more of it to state, fed, or muni govt, and would sooner spend it on fidget spinners than give it to any religious organization?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Or at least they say that. They also say in opposition to rail transit investments that they support buses, but when they get the chance, they slash funding for buses because poors and why doesn't everyone just get a car.

Again, when given control, all they do is cut, so no.

I'll bet I spend time with more Republicans than most people here, and this is spot on. They use the church and charity thing as cover for selfishness. Collapse the fed govt tomorrow and they'll complain about state taxes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Tyler Cowen, from a longer and worthwhile post:



I don't agree with all of it, but think there's some value here.

Note the use of "more correct."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Tyler Cowen, from a longer and worthwhile post:



I don't agree with all of it, but think there's some value here.

Yeah, I read that at the time and am highly dubious about the central factual claim. Sure, Utah's great and all, but Wisconsin is most definitely not better run than Minnesota while the two states share a whole bunch of similarities, aside from Minnesota managing to elect Dem governors and majorities from time to time to clean up the mess the GOP made.

Meanwhile, do we really think Louisiana or Mississippi or Alabama are any worse run than Illinois, even granting that Illinois is a mess? And if you're tempted to answer "yes" do you think their black residents would agree?

(As an aside, The Blood of Emmett Till had some interesting comparison on that front, including some that did not shed favorable light on some of Chicago's black politicians.)

Also, how well do you think the 2012 rankings he linked to stand up a few years and an energy collapse later? North Dakota is definitely not one of the best run states, for example.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yeah, I read that at the time and am highly dubious about the central factual claim. Sure, Utah's great and all, but Wisconsin is most definitely not better run than Minnesota while the two states share a whole bunch of similarities, aside from Minnesota managing to elect Dem governors and majorities from time to time to clean up the mess the GOP made.

Meanwhile, do we really think Louisiana or Mississippi or Alabama are any worse run than Illinois, even granting that Illinois is a mess? And if you're tempted to answer "yes" do you think their black residents would agree?

(As an aside, The Blood of Emmett Till had some interesting comparison on that front, including some that did not shed favorable light on some of Chicago's black politicians.)

Also, how well do you think the 2012 rankings he linked to stand up a few years and an energy collapse later? North Dakota is definitely not one of the best run states, for example.

I think the survey that he links to is hardly worth reading. E.g., a state's economy will depend on things that have nothing to do with how the government is run, though the opposite may not be true.

That said, you're focusing on states, not municipalities, and smaller governments will appear better run than larger governments. But also, when government funds your own group, it doesn't look like a transfer or subsidy, and when government funds other people, it does. So more heterogenous populations will appear to have less efficient governments.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That said, you're focusing on states, not municipalities, and smaller governments will appear better run than larger governments.

Hm. I do not think that's at all true. I mean, the residents of Blue Earth, MN (pop. 3,269) might have a better view of their city government that residents of Minneapolis, but without saying anything specific about Blue Earth, I'd suggest that's almost certainly because its residents know all the people in city government, not because they are objectively better at it.

Or, to put it another way, my experience is that with few exceptions, the quality, capability and efficiency of government shrinks with the size of entity governed.

But also, when government funds your own group, it doesn't look like a transfer or subsidy, and when government funds other people, it does. So more heterogenous populations will appear to have less efficient governments.

Right. Appear. People like their government better when it's only governing people they identify with. That's not the claim Cowen made, which was that state and local government are better run when run by the GOP.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Both. And also because Senators are worried that it won't have enough votes. It will either get fifty votes or maybe thirty-five, as Lindsey Graham said. Fifty if McConnell has the votes to pass it and can let two moderates vote against to try to get re-elected. Thirty-five if it doesn't, and other Senators can vote against to try to protect themselves in upcoming elections.



None of them have actually voted yet. It's hard to imagine the conservatives voting against the bill in the end -- they are just trying to push it to the right, or posturing. One thinks McConnell could call their bluff. He also could win a vote without Collins and Heller. So the key action is with other Senators, probably not in public. Even if they are inclined to vote for it anyway, they may be able to get more out of McConnell for their vote. If they are disinclined to vote for it, they might stay quiet to avoid pissing off conservatives.

Three more retroactive "no" votes.