An excellent series of questions

Kevin Drum asks something that I've been asking for years:

I'm not quite sure what accounts for this. Opposing regulation I get. No one wants to be regulated. Ditto for higher taxes, even if they're pretty modest. But why do corporate chieftans oppose true national healthcare even though it would almost certainly make their lives easier and make them more globally competitive? Why do they oppose cap-and-trade even though its effects are modest and the alternative is more intrusive EPA regulations? Why do they oppose fiscal stimulus even though it would spur the economy and be good for business?

And I think I know the answer. It is because of a foul mix of self-interest that trumps the interest even of the company they work for or lead with a powerful sense of entitlement that they have earned certain rights to which others less fortunate are not entitled. Of course, national health care would benefit their company. But that would also mean a leveling of the playing field (even if they will still be able to afford much better health care insurance). Of course, foreclosures are bad for the economy. But why should some Lucky Ducky be allowed to modify the terms of his mortgage that he can no longer afford? They work for companies that profit from stimulus spending but support politicians who vow to "cut the deficit."

I see this every day.

Friday night lights

I reckon there have been approximately 312 Friday nights over the last six years of the Bush/Cheney administration, give or take a leap year or two. Here's the latest.

The administration’s new policy is explained in a letter that was sent about 7:30 p.m. on Friday to state health officials from Dennis G. Smith, the director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations. The policy would continue indefinitely, though Democrats in Congress could try to override it.

Bush's new testament is different than the one I used to read. Mine said "suffer little children," his edition is apparently translated as, "make their parents suffer."

Silencing the surgeon general

Why should that post be any freer from the political manipulation of the Bush administration than, say, Commerce Secretary?

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the nation's top doctor from 2002 until 2006, told a House of Representatives committee.

"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds. The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party," Carmona added.

Carmona said Bush administration political appointees censored his speeches and kept him from talking out publicly about certain issues, including the science on embryonic stem cell research, contraceptives and his misgivings about the administration's embrace of "abstinence-only" sex education.

Public health, you say? Why should ideology not get in the way of good public policy?

But Carmona's statement does call to mind a question: why did he serve four years in a job the administration repeatedly undermined? This seems to a pattern among Bush appointees. At least Todd-Whitman had the good grace to get outta there, although it would have been more helpful if she had told the truth about why at the time.