The Heritage Foundation didn't repudiate the individual mandate until long after the Tea Party did

Ramesh Ponnuru here in March 2012 in the wake of both Romney and Gingrich putting the finger on Heritage for the individual mandate in October 2011:

"So yes, conservative opinion on the mandate has changed. But I don’t think it’s right to suggest that most conservative voters or conservative policy thinkers ever supported it. I think what happened is that as soon as grassroots conservatives focused on the mandate, they hated it—and they were right to hate it, in my view–and both the politicians and that one outlier think tank responded to their sentiment."

Timothy Noah pointed out here in 2013 that it wasn't until 2011 that Heritage formally opposed its own idea, meaning it took Heritage two years to join the Tea Party in opposing ObamaCare:

'Heritage, in a 2011 amicus curiae brief submitted in support of the legal challenge to Obamacare, stated, “Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.” Heritage also said it had come to believe the individual mandate was unconstitutional—an interpretation later rejected, of course, by the Supreme Court.'

The New Republic fired Tim Noah over a year and a half ago: the canary in the coal mine?

Tim Noah, as true a liberal as you'll ever find, has since landed at Politico, which tells you a lot about one Chris Hughes, the new owner of TNR since 2012. Evidently Hughes, a Facebook co-founder, couldn't abide the likes of Tim Noah.

Noah was fired under the new Hughes ownership already in early 2013. And now in late 2014 it appears the top editor and the veteran literary editor also have been forced out, and in protest more than two dozen additional editors and staffers have quit the magazine, which celebrates its centenary this year. The former employees have met instead to conduct the magazine's funeral.

The damn thing has literally blown up. Leave it to a 31-year old rich kid to wreck something so storied.

Politico reports here.

TNR Blames And Credits JK Galbraith For Contemporary Financier Fascism

It would be nice if liberals could make up their mind.

The New Republic's Tim Noah here traces TARP, Dodd-Frank and ultimately the general state of regulatory capture (Stigler) of the government by the banks to John Kenneth Galbraith's vision in his 1967 The New Industrial State:

Galbraith (who died in 2006) argued that big U.S. corporations had become immune to competition. Any effort to break them up into smaller companies would neither succeed nor—given the complex challenges of a modern economy—be especially desirable. Better to keep them in harness through a partnership with government. “Planning,” Galbraith wrote (in a sentence you could probably get arrested for writing today), “must replace the market.”

Galbraith was writing about manufacturing giants like General Motors and U.S. Steel. These seemed indestructible at the time, but of course they would soon prove all too susceptible to competition from abroad. Still, Galbraith’s vision of the regulatory state comes pretty close to describing today’s relationship between the federal government and a different oligopoly: the Big Six megabanks. ...

When the 2008 financial crisis hit, the feds went into Galbraithian planning mode. They bailed out the banks through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), arranged mergers, and, through the Dodd-Frank bill, required big banks to prepare “living wills” showing how they would dismantle themselves in orderly fashion should the need arise. ...

Conservatives were wrong to oppose the government’s bank rescue . . ..

For conservatives who feel queasy advocating the breakup of private enterprises, MIT’s Johnson offers this consolation: Remember George Stigler. Stigler, a conservative economist who died in 1991, won the Nobel for a theory that basically said Galbraith’s partnership approach didn’t work because of “regulatory capture,” i.e., the various ways corporations tame their minders—for example, by maintaining a revolving door between industry and government. Rather than try to control powerful corporations, Stigler thought government should use antitrust law to break them up and let competition rein them in.

What's wrong with this analysis is that banking is not a private enterprise and hasn't been since 1913. The then new partnership of banking with government in 1913 failed in less than 20 years, requiring Glass-Steagall in 1933, which was reactionary liberalism at work. And what we have just witnessed is an instant replay of that debacle, only in faster motion. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 overturning Glass-Steagall took only 9 years to blow up. But unlike Glass-Steagall, the grotesque of interventions in the wake of this latest panic has done nothing to demarcate clearly the public vs. the private in banking, and consequently keeps the public, and the country, at risk while insuring advantage to those closest to the printing presses at the Treasury. Money goes to money, as they say out in the sticks.

It's not much solace that liberalism's fingerprints have been and continue to be all over the inception and development of financier fascism in the United States. There don't seem to be any conservatives smart enough to understand the advantage it presents to them, and to the country. Or maybe it's just that they've been captured, too.

TNR Notices Obama's Recovery Benefitted Only Elites

Well, what else would you expect from a national socialist? (Obama silly, not TNR).

Tim Noah, here:

"The biggest gainers in 2011 were the bottom half of the top one percent, i.e., those making between $358,000 and $545,000. They saw their incomes increase, on average, by 1.70 percent (not much to write home about, but you've got to put a weak recovery somewhere)."

Fewer than 1 million Americans earned net compensation for Social Security purposes in that range in 2011.

Progressive Lefties At TNR Recognize Senate Deal Is "Crappy" For Them

So says Tim Noah, here:

"Nevertheless, this is still a crappy deal, and Democrats should still reject it--or be quietly pleased if House Republicans reject it (as they're threatening to do)."

I agree that the deal is crappy for Democrats, really crappy, but the objective of Obama is only political. What's good for the country is meaningless. He's counting on the right in the House to reject the deal, doing for Obama what he cannot do by himself. It is the extremists of both the left and the right which cannot see how Obama is playing them. If the House had any brains they'd take the tax deal, but I don't think they will, unlike how under Pelosi the House progressives swallowed hard and took the Senate healthcare plan instead of opposing it. Better than anyone they know that ObamaCare is not the end game, but the next step to the single payer idea for which they originally stood.

Politically Obama needed to look like a compromiser, and appear reasonable and "balanced", to match his rhetoric played out over a long period, which is now very familiar to everyone. Later he can use the political capital gained thereby to appear like a genuine savior when he swoops in to offer a tax cut to the poor to relieve these unfortunate souls victimized by Republican "intransigence" over spending cuts. Obama has been telegraphing this for what seems like forever. This lousy deal for Democrats gives all the appearance of compromise, but it is intended rather to go to the heart of the split between the more conservative House Republican caucus and the more liberal Senate Republican caucus.

Once those two groups are split publically over a vote on a bill which will wreck the lives of millions, Obama is in the strongest position ever to appear the benefactor of "the middle class", the group he most wants out of his way in his attempt to level American society. In order to really screw them, he's got to get their complete confidence first. To do so he'll throw them a tax cut bone, which the doofusses will be very thankful for and will repay their master for with grateful support when he goes after their real enemy, the rich. You know, the Romneys and Buffetts of the world who look like the guys who fire them from their jobs.

The problem with true believers is that they are true. It blinds them to the way power shifts, which is why they never succeed.

Let's Face It, Republicans Helped Create "The Takers"

It's time for a reality check. Republicans bear heavy responsibility for creating "the takers", the infamous 47% of households who pay no taxes.

The real reason Mitt Romney lost the election is because he couldn't get Reagan Democrats to turn out for him enthusiastically, people for whom dissing the whole idea behind the tax credit programs expanded by Reagan and Bush 43 to subsidize working families just like them sounded foreign coming from the mouth of a Republican candidate for president. I refer to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit.

Reagan had made the former his answer to welfare dependency, and George W. Bush further expanded it and also doubled the latter, to the point that now, as the Tax Policy Center says here:

[T]he Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit . . . are the major reason many low-income working families avoid the income tax. About one-third of those who don’t pay are families with kids.

This New York Times graphic, using Tax Foundation data, shows how the percentage of non-taxpaying filers had grown by over 50% since 1986 through the end of the Bush presidency, and now under Obama has really ramped up another 50% so that since the time of the 1986 tax reform twice as many filers have no federal tax liability as did twenty-five years ago. If Obama has doubled down on anything, they were Republican ideas to begin with. To paraphrase an old saw, We sold them the rope they're hanging us with. 

What once seemed like benign Reagan era social props have grown into major federal welfare transfer payment programs for the lower and middle classes in America, which is why liberals like Tim Noah here deliberately don't focus on them in analyzing the takers, "the 47%". To do so mutes their point that these people still pay the regressive payroll tax, which the EITC offsets. But practiced long enough, these lower wage workers getting EITC payments every year until retirement will collect Social Security without having really contributed to it themselves, transforming it, for them, from a contribution based pension into pure welfare.

Democrats are more than happy to have Republicans do this dirty work for them in expanding the federal welfare state instead of just acting as they do in more somnolent times as mere tax collectors for it. During the next five years, these direct subsidies to families are projected to cost the Treasury over $90 billion each year. In 2011 alone there were over 26 million EITC claims costing the taxpayers nearly $59 billion. 

This issue goes to the heart of Mitt Romney's problem with the Republican Party: He had the temerity to point out the dependency practiced by too many Republicans. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney and the country, he had no constituency for this message, or at least not enough of one to get him over the top.

More than ever I suspect that this way of thinking is what was behind Mitt Romney's interest in "rectitude" in "equalizing" taxes when he was governor of Massachusetts, but also accounts for his statements distancing himself from the Reagan record in the 1990s when he ran against Sen. Ted Kennedy, just when Rep. Newt Gingrich was about to unleash The Contract With America. Reagan might have been an anti-communist conservative, but a fiscal conservative he was not, at least not in practice. That's what was really important to Romney at the time and obviously still animates him. But not his party which has made zero progress toward fiscal conservatism and has gone the other way.

Say what you will about Romney's social liberalism, it was his fiscal conservatism which alienated him not just from Democrats, but also from anyone receiving a big tax refund every spring.

A famous Democrat once said, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me." But a fiscal conservative can't say the same of the Republican Party . . . in living memory it's never been there.

(graphic here)

One's a Creep, the Other a Monster

Tim Noah of The New Republic (who admits Edward Kennedy was "criminally irresponsible" in 1969) helps you decide which is the creep, and which the monster, here.

Progressivism can only be said to be making progress, however, when people such as these are flailed while they are alive and still in power.

The New Republic's Tim Noah Is A Crapy Spellur, For The Sure

Seen here:

New Republic Article by Timothy Noah on Rick Santorum's Healthcare Mandate Views is False

The evidence cited in Timothy Noah's article for The New Republic most certainly does NOT prove that Rick Santorum once favored a healthcare mandate. Noah lazily reads today's debate about compulsory coverage back into a 1994 debate that was about private vs. employer-provided coverage.

In one article here from 1994, the emphasis is clearly on drawing a contrast between privately purchased coverage by individuals vs. the common practice of employer purchased coverage for employees. A mandate to purchase coverage is not in view:

"Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits. ... Santorum introduced the idea of a medical savings account, called Medisave, which has become part of the Gramm bill. Under it, workers would buy major medical insurance and could make tax-free contributions to a Medisave account, from which they would pay for preventive services."

It is insane to press this language to prove Santorum supported government compulsion to purchase insurance in a 1994 race against an incumbent Democrat who was running away from Hillarycare at the time.

The same is true of this story:

"Wofford supports a modified version of President Clinton's call for health coverage for all Americans, funded largely by requiring employers to pay most of the premiums, as many do today.

"For several years, Santorum has promoted a Republican alternative. It would require workers to buy their own health insurance and allow monthly tax-free contributions into "Medisave" accounts to pay for routine medical services."

The context of the debate as presented is entirely within the world of work and employer provided health plans. The issue of compulsory coverage, and of coverage for individuals NOT employed, is wholly unaddressed.

But if Noah had actually bothered to read this article which he also cites (conveniently with a broken link), it should have been crystal clear to him that Santorum was operating in a healthcare environment which "offered," not "compelled," and that Santorum explicitly declined to offer the marginally employed person coverage of the type he was advocating at the time. Santorum's idea of healthcare restructuring was not universal, not compulsory, and wholly confined to the world of work:

U.S. Rep. Rick Santorum, R-Pittsburgh area, and Joe Watkins, a Philadelphia businessman who worked in the Bush White House, are seeking the Republican Senate nomination, creating the only true Senate primary race. ...

Santorum and Watkins both oppose having businesses provide health care for their employees. Instead, they would require individuals to purchase insurance. ...

They also oppose government-run health care and disagree with controls on doctor or hospital fees. They would cap malpractice awards. ...

The candidates split on offering health care for "marginally employed" people, with Watkins supporting it. Both oppose federally funded abortions.