BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« Monumentally stupid decision | Main | Land of Linkin' »

Saturday, February 08, 2014

Open thread: The Weeks in Review

Connected to Chicago WLS-AM 890. Host Bill Cameron with Greg Hinz of Crain's Chicago Business, Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times, and Ray Long and Eric Zorn of the Tribune: Democrat v. Republicans on whether extending unemployment insurance saps people of the will to work. The issue is roiling in Washington and in the Illinois race for governor. "The truth is probably somewhere in the middle," says Hinz. Immigration reform appears to be at a standstill-- "seriously stalled," says Sweet. "There's got to be another strategy, and I don't see one....I see nothing happening in the short term now." The NATO 3 trial -- terrorists or slackers? Show taped before the verdict (if any) but there seems to be agreement that these men were "not the greatest threat to American security," says Cameron. The Koschman case and the report of Special Prosecutor Dan Webb. Horse-drawn carriages are under threat. Is there a compromise solution? Republican gubernatorial hopeful State Sen. Bill Brady's land deal in Gibson City -- will it imperil his run for governor? "Bags of gold tend to fall off trucks in front of politicians houses in this state," says Hinz. Zorn wonders if GOP primary voters are going to care. Rahm Emanuel's new big borrowing spree. "The city has big financial problems," says Hinz. "And it may have much worse problems if it doesn't get pension relief soon from Springfield." You may subscribe to the Connected to Chicago podcast at WLSAM.COM

CapitolView, WSEC-TV Springfield. Host Amanda Vinicky (IL Public Radio/WUIS) and guests Charlie Wheeler (UIS), Bob Gough (QuincyJournal.com), and Andy Maloney (Chicago Law Bulletin) discuss allegations against Dan Rutherford, Illinois State Treasurer and Republican candidate for Governor), news about the other candidates, and moving the Governor's Budget Address.

Chicago Newsroom CAN TV: Ken Davis is joined by Tony Arnold, WBEZ and Chris Fusco, Chicago Sun-Times. They discuss the homogeneity of the GOP field for governor, Gov. Quinn's State of the State address, and the Vanecko verdict. You may subscribe to the audio version of the Chicago Newsroom podcast on iTunes

Chicago Tonight: The Week in Review with guest host Eddie Arruza, the polar vortex rears its ugly head once again, sending Chicago into another deep freeze following a snowstorm. After little discussion or opposition, the City Council approves a plan to go almost $2 billion deeper in debt. Ald. Ed Burke (14th) puts his weight behind a proposal to phase out downtown horse-drawn carriage rides. State Treasurer Dan Rutherford blames fellow GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner for the mysterious allegations being leveled at Rutherford. Gov. Pat Quinn will deliver his state budget address at the end of March, five weeks later than previously planned. The start of the Sochi Olympics is marred by unfinished hotel rooms, stray dogs wandering, and security concerns. Web Extra: coverage of the Richard Vanecko manslaughter case, and how different media outlets covered it in different ways. Guests: - Bruce Dold, Chicago Tribune - Cheryl Scott, NBC-5 Meteorologist - Charles Thomas, ABC-7 News - Ed Sherman, ShermanReport.com & Chicago Tribune



--I can hardly contain my excitement at the news that Giordano's has been named the official pizza of the Chicago Cubs! This is just the sort of bold "hot-stove league" off-season signing that every true fan hopes for.

My favorite story of the day, quoting Sam Zell:

"The 1 percent are getting pummeled because it's politically convenient to do so," Zell said, an interview Wednesday on Bloomberg Television’s "In the Loop" with Betty Liu...People "should not talk about envy of the 1 percent, they should talk about emulating the 1 percent. The 1 percent work harder, the 1 percent are much bigger factors in all forms of our society."


I just love the comparison to the persecution of Jews under the Nazi Regime.

The Wall St. Journal had an excellent front page article today about how regulators are trying to get insurance companies to expand their networks (I'd link but subscription required). Apparently, the regulators are unhappy that insurance companies have narrowed their provider networks in order to make their plans affordable. Bloomberg has more here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-06/insurers-slash-specialty-hospitals-to-keep-premiums-low.html

The money quote in the Bloomberg article is this: "The insurers’ strategy, outlined in a report last month by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform, is an unexpected consequence as the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, kicks into gear."

How is this unexpected by anyone with an IQ over 10? How else did they expect insurance companies to contain costs?

Look, you can have affordable care or you can have high-quality care. If the regulators want the insurance companies to expand networks the premiums will increase and ObamaCare enrollments, particularly among the young and healthy, will decrease. If the regulators want lower costs, the insurance companies will take cost-cutting measures that reduce access and quality. How else would one expect this to work?

@Greg J: To link to a WSJ article, just copy & paste its headline into Google & you'll get results that take you to the full article without having to subscribe.
It's not "stealing" as the WSJ knows about it, doesn't change the policy & has been quoted that they're perfectly OK with it.
More page views means a possibility of more ad revenue.

"I just love the comparison to the persecution of Jews under the Nazi Regime."

I don't think it's that far-fetched. Here is an excerpt from Ruth Wise in the WSJ:

"The German political activist Wilhelm Marr, originally a man of the left, organized a movement in the 1870s that charged Jews with using their skills "to conquer Germany from within." Distinguishing the movement that he called anti-Semitism from earlier forms of anti-Judaism, Marr argued on professedly rational grounds that Jews were taking unfair advantage of the emerging democratic order in Europe, with its promise of individual rights and open competition, in order to dominate the fields of finance, culture and social ideas. Though some of Marr's rhetoric and imagery was based on earlier stereotypes, he was right to insist that anti-Semitism was a new response to new conditions, channeling grievance and blame against highly visible beneficiaries of freedom and opportunity.

"These were some of its typical ploys: Are you unemployed? The Jews have your jobs. Is your family mired in poverty? The Rothschilds have your money. Do you feel more insecure in the city than you did on the land? The Jews are trapping you in factories and charging you exorbitant rents.

Anti-Semitism accused Jews of undermining Christian authority and corrupting the German legal system, the arts and the press. Jews were said to be rabid internationalists spreading Bolshevism—and ruthless capitalists exploiting for their own gain the nation's natural and human resources. To ambitious politicians seeking office, to rulers of still largely illiterate populations, "the Jews" became a convenient catchall explanation for deep-rooted and sometimes intractable problems."

Substitute "the 1%" for "Jews" in the above.

How about Governor Quinn requesting to push back his budget speech until after the primaries (which would be against the law), so he doesn't have to talk about making the "temporary" tax increase permanent?

Aha! It works if you Google the title but if you try to link it, it takes you back to the subscription page. That's really smart. Google it yourselves, Googlers.

Moses Farrow commented further in the Allen-Farrow matter:


To hear him tell it, Farrow was the abuser and all the children were victims of her abuse. He also claims to remember Allen's visit to the CT home where the alleged abuse occurred. He has some things to say about that visit that are worth considering.

Still, I don't know if his memories are accurate and I don't know whether Allen is guilty or innocent. What I do know is that those who have anything approaching certainty in the matter don't appreciate how much they don't know about evaluating and judging these cases. Moreover the tactics they've employed to dismiss those of us who are uncertain have missed the mark in every instance I've encountered.

One view is that men don't want to believe that child sex abuse is widespread, so they can't bring themselves to believe Farrow was abused. Well this man has dealt with more child sex abuse victims and abusers than most people will deal with in a lifetime. I've had no problem believing in guilt the overwhelming majority of cases.

Another claim is that some people can't believe that a celebrity they like is guilty. First, I don't like Woody Allen. Haven't liked him since the Soon Yi thing. Second, I branded one celebrity a probable pedophile years before a word was spoken publicly about that possibility. I liked that celebrity until I began to do evaluations of pedophiles and those who abuse minors. At that point I couldn't ignore the many obvious signs.

@Greg J: But when that link takes back to the subscription page, you now have the title you can Google & then get the correct link to the article.
Convoluted? Yes, but nothing like the insane multi-step process to needed to save a photo on a page that has been designed so you can't right click to save it.

Did somethings get deleted in 'Open thread' in the last hour?

ZORN REPLY -- nope. I was stuck in traffic. NOthing in spam except spam.

Attacks against the Jews were based on race, not concentrated wealth at the top or anything else despite the propaganda used to carry them out. It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise or justify the nonsense in the story I linked to in my first comment.


Please excuse Greg as he's obviously a novice at preempting paywalls when possible. Something he obviously doesn't have to resort to very often.

In addition to Greg J.'s article about how regulators are trying to force insurers into expanding their networks (did ANYONE read this bill before it became a law?) there's also word out there that the administration may now allow people to keep non-compliant plans. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/admin-said-be-eyeing-insurance-extension

(Isn't that against the law, by the way?)

--@Dr X,

Isn't often the view of close family members and friends to deny child sexual abuse, rather than face the possibility it exists? I don't much give a damn about Woody Allen, let him say he's without sin. But, I find it hard to believe Dylan would stand by a false accusation of abuse years later (that she somehow imagined the attack after supposed suggestions by her mother), while I find it easy to believe other close friends and relatives would deny Allen could be capable of the act.

Sure. But that's not the only factor you have to consider when you're evaluating abuse. In most cases I've dealt with I've believed the abuse occurred, but there are a few cases I've doubted. You can't treat denial as incriminating evidence otherwise no one could refute false charges. You've got to look at the content of the denials and the position of the person making the denials. There are many red flags besides the statement from Moses.

I heard Rahm Emanuel on the radio today saying that nobody who works should have to live in poverty. The 2013 poverty line for a family of four is $23,550 a year. If a single breadwinner for a family of four works 52, 40-hour weeks (paid vacations, doncha know) that works out to a minimum wage of $11.32 an hour. But, the poverty line for a single person is $11,490, which a person working those same 2080 hours would be able to reach on $5.52 an hour. So:

Should the minimum wage vary based upon the worker's personal situation, if the goal is to lift him and his family, if any, out of poverty? Or,

Should the minimum wage be different if more than one person in the household works?

Since the leftish posters on this board have decried the idea that a person's wage should be based upon the value of his contribution, I've not taken that into account at all in this analysis!

I have a relative who was sexually abused as a child and even testified in court. The perpetrator was found not guilty, though he truly WAS guilty. A close friend experienced this (though not to the extent of a sister of hers, who suffers from the after-effects to this day.) I say this only to lay the groundwork for saying I nearly always believe the victim. In this case -- well, I don't know nearly enough. I certainly believe Dylan herself believes it, but that doesn't make it true. And it's not because of some overwhelming love for Woody Allen, and I, unlike many DO believe it's possible of many fine, and upstanding individuals who are despicable in real life. I'm another person who went, EWWWWWWWW, when he took up with his partner's/ex-partner's daughter. I just found it creepy. But there are just all kinds of conflicting things going on here. I don't think anyone other than Woody Allen himself (and to himself) can say with any certainty what did or did not happen.


"The 2013 poverty line for a family of four is $23,550 a year. If a single breadwinner for a family of four works 52, 40-hour weeks (paid vacations, doncha know) that works out to a minimum wage of $11.32 an hour." - What if there are TWO breadwinners, I guess $5.66/hr cuts it. Nice job Rahm. I guess that's why they call him Mayor 1%.


I think the value of transfer payments needs to be added to that income analysis. (The person making $11.32 an hour is well above the poverty line when you count government assistance.).

Earlier this week, the CBO came out with a study saying ObamaCare will lead to 2.5 million lost jobs.... and some celebrated


Barry3 - Obamacare is not perfect. But 40 million people now have health care that didn't before.

Is anybody out there as exorcised as I am about the City Council (pronounced, "con-sel") passing this big debt authorization with hardly any debate and hardly any disclosure about what we'll borrow the money for, and then Ald. Burke introduces a proposed ban on horse-drawn carriages so he can get the debate started on whether we ought to have them?

I mean, where are our priorities?

Once again Waguespack speaks truth to power. Draft Waguespack to challenge the mayor. Just give us an alternative please.

ZORN REPLY -- Though what's said in the editorial board room stays in the editorial board room, I think I can safely disclose that Kristen McQueary, like me a city resident, nearly required sedation and restraints today when this topic came up.


"But 40 million people now have health care that didn't before" - Provide the link that shows that.

@ Barry3 -

Nonsense. What the report says is, "The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor."


And what Obamcare will do is subsidize these 2.5 million dropouts ar our expense.

"And what Obamcare will do is subsidize these 2.5 million dropouts ar our expense."

Right. I agree that old and disabled people should have to work until they drop no matter how miserable they are just to pay for their insurance. We would never want to separate work from insurance. Next thing you know, people will get the crazy idea that they could start a business or write a book or become independent artists or musicians or something if they're not chained to their day jobs by insurance concerns.

I also think, BTW, that poor people convicted of minor offenses should spend time in jail if they can't pay exorbitant fees to private, for-profit probation "services" because that's a great use of our taxpayer dollars. http://www.thenation.com/blog/178271/skip-meals-or-go-jail-how-profit-probation-industry-preys-poor#disqus_thread

As far as Sam Zell, yeah, the Nazis thought the Jews were persecuting them too.

(And don't Godwin me - Zell started it).

Dienne -- Apparently in the world you live in, no one ever stays on unemployment because in a cost-benefits analysis getting money for no work beats working for money. And in your world, no one will figure out that by working one less day a week, they'll get a big subsidy to buy health insurance. No one will simply choose to work a whole lot less, or not at all, because someone else is providing health insurance. When I had young kids, I figured out a way to work less -- it was to work less and received a much smaller paycheck, and to make do with less. (Yes, we had my husband's medical insurance to provide insurance -- but it suddenly also cost quite a bit more -- we paid for that, too.)

Greg J. is a font of information on the disentanglement of work and insurance. But I fail to see why those of us who ARE working should be subsidizing those who want to start a dance company, write a book or sit on the couch. ObamaCare creates vast disincentives not to work, or to work less, which means less wealth and a less robust economy.


What both of you wrote really gets to the heart of this debate.



By all means, start a business, write a book, become an artist or musician. If you want to use meth, or have a sex change, or buy birth control, or undergo gay conversion therapy, or get an uzi, or marry a yak, then go for it. I go a lot further than even the most liberal among us when it comes to believing people should do what they want without interference from the government.

But I don't want to pay for it. Beth is exactly right. It's none of my business and not my problem. Again, if it's a poor person, that's a different story. We're not talking about poor people here.

The people who will be incentivized to stop working are those who can afford to buy things for themselves. Maybe their budgets are thin, maybe they'd rather have other things, maybe a lot of things. I want a lot of things too. We all do. I support a negative income tax for insurance for people earning below a certain amount. However, I don't support funding the leisure activities of people who are earning enough to get by.

The thing about Obamacare subsidies is that they operate on a sliding scale, so it makes no financial sense for someone to reduce their hours in order to qualify for a subsidy. Let's consider a family of four, with one full-time worker (age 40) who gets insurance through work, one part-time worker (age 40) who does not, and two children (ages 5 and 10). Their household income is $50,000 a year.

The cheapest gold plan this family can get (for the part-time worker and the two children) would cost $348.63 a month, including subsidies. But let's say the part-time worker gets the bright idea to cut down on her hours in order to qualify for a more generous subsidy. If the household income dropped to $45,000 a year, the monthly premium would drop to $289.04 a month. Who would voluntarily reduce their income by $5,000 in order to receive an additional $715.08 in subsidies?

That said, there are certainly non-financial reasons why someone might want to cut back on their hours or leave the workforce entirely, and Obamacare might offer some people the flexibility they need to take that financial hit. But will this really be a net drain on the productive capacity of our economy? Only if you believe that a) the workers who are voluntarily dropping out will not be equally productive in their new endeavors, and b) the workers who are replacing them will be less productive than their predecessors.

It's easy to dismiss people who are poised to leave the workforce as dreamers who are following their bliss or layabouts who are sitting around all day watching Netflix. More likely is that they'll be leaving jobs or reducing their hours in order to raise children or care for elderly relatives. If someone really wants to be home raising their kids, as opposed to holding onto a job solely for the health benefits, won't they be more productive doing the former? And won't their employer benefit from having someone else in that position; someone who really wants to be there?

But Greg J, you're ok with "us" subsidizing huge corp profits while many of their employees earn so little that they require govt benefits to survive. I'm not speaking of many smaller businesses, of course, but cos where the CEO or owner is a billionaire & profits have soared but many employees are paid less than what it costs to live in the area they service.

And next time you go to a club to hear some music, or to the symphony to hear the chorus sing, I'm sure you'd be happy if the best singers were unable to perform there because of their "real" job.

I also thought that we were all eager that many "oldies" - the most experienced teachers, for example, or that person hanging on in the mailroom because they need the insurance - would be able to retire to leave a job open for some newbie employee.


I'm for maximizing the efficiency of the welfare system. As a taxpayer, I want to pay the least amount in to help the most people. That's all I care about. You continue to compare executive salaries to the salaries of other workers even though I've explained how they aren't related. For the last time, when you reduce executive salaries the savings go into the hands of the investors - not the other workers.

I'm not for subsidizing any corporation and I've been adamant about opposing corporate welfare (unlike many liberals who favor the internet sales tax, for example, which is nothing but disguised corporate welfare). However, when people are making less than they need to live, I've shown mathematically that direct welfare is the best solution.

Welfare in the form of the minimum wage is sub-optimal because although it can achieve the same results for the worker, it creates other externalities (e.g., price increases) that are bad for those same low-income workers. You don't seem to get the idea that when a corporation is taxed or regulated, it passes those costs on to other people - often its customers. So when the minimum wage goes up for a low-income worker, the price of the hamburger that he has for lunch goes up too. Awesome; he's back at square one. And you wonder why we have income inequality?

I have no idea what your second paragraph means. If someone wants to play music, that's great. If he can't support himself then we need a welfare system that requires him to find ways of doing so (including finding a job or moving) in order to get benefits. Freedom of occupation is still subject to the laws of supply and demand. If you can't support yourself as a singer, the market has told you that you need to find another job.

I agree that we don't want people hanging around jobs for the insurance. That's why I agree with Sen. McCain that insurance should be deductible for the individual instead of the corporation such that it's portable. Unfortunately, he didn't win in 2008 so we get Obama's clown car pile-up instead.

Greg J, I spent years singing with choruses for money. In my case, it was the best part-time job in the world, because I didn't have the desire to ply that trade full-time. But I did know many people who tried to make a living as singers, which can be done but isn't really easy, but they were forced to go without health insurance due to the cost of an indvidual policy & no availability of a group plan, which essentially is what the ACA provides - group rates & the "employer" subsidy, like I get from the place I work. I also was familiar with the fund-raisers that were thrown for people who got really sick without health insurance. I think that this is better. They can sing all they want, and get health insurance so that they can apply their talents to something where they will be valued (a truly skilled choral singer is like gold).

And if someone wants (or needs ) to cut their hours to take care of a sick parent, for example, or a small child (factor in child care with the insurance, and they might make similar money with less hours & more time to spend with their child), they are able to do that & I bet they are more productive without the stress of having to work enough hours to keep that full-time job.

Dienne Liz & others:
I see this theme played often here on CoS, I would love to know 'who' these corporations are, I have no idea how to search for them, how do I go about getting a list of say the top 10 or 20 of these companies we pay welfare to?

@Edge of the 14th Ward,

In your example, it may or may not make sense. You are leaving out a whole lot of variables that you need to know if you want to perform a real world calculation of costs/benefits. I bet you think I'm going to tell you what they are in detail. You're right (hey, it's Friday and I just got back from lunch).

Let me give you another example contained here (http://keithhennessey.com/2014/02/05/obamacares-trap/): a family of four with one working parent, making $35,300 a year. Under the ACA, if they don’t have access to a health plan, they can buy a silver-level insurance plan (a little more expensive than the cheapest they can get, but a popular choice) for about $1,410 a year.

If the second parent decides to take a part-time job that will pay her $12,000, their premium will rise by about $1,500, to around $3,000.

The reduction of the second earner's tax credit is effectively a 13 percent tax on the $12,000 in income she earns on the side.

The problem is that when you add that 13 percent tax rate to the effective marginal rate this family already faces: 37 percent (due, in part, to other credits that phase out at that level — i.e., other "traps" that affect middle class folks), they lose big-time as half of every extra dollar they earn is taxed, and one-quarter of those losses are due to Obamacare.

Will the second parent take the job if she's taxed at a 50 percent effective rate? I don't know of a whole lot of people who take second jobs if they are going to be taxed at 50%. Who does this affect? We know that a lot of women are secondary earners. Maybe this is a nice comeback to the "war on women" narrative but I'll put the politics aside for now.

Who else is affected? How about a lot of the middle class for starters. Just about 40 percent of Americans earn too much to receive Medicaid, but earn less than the income limit for ObamaCare subsides, which is $94,000 for a family of four. Everyone in that range of income who doesn't get employer insurance is getting hit with this marginal tax increase. Therefore, ObamaCare is at least indirectly responsible for them not trying to earn more income.

It gets worse. Check out this example - http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/watch-out-obamacares-subsidy-cliff-earn-1-more-wages-and-you-could-pay-20000-more-insurance_778743.html.

We have to be careful with the numbers because: (a) there are a lot of variables and every situation is different; and (b) it's easy to show what happens at the extremes. However, there is no doubt that there are some powerful disincentives here.

The effects of this law discourage many women and middle class people from working even if the decision is voluntary. Therefore, it only increases income inequality when we have the divide widening due to other factors.


I still don't get it. "They can sing all they want, and get health insurance so that they can apply their talents to something where they will be valued (a truly skilled choral singer is like gold)."

That's just a value judgment. To others, a skilled choral singer is a worthless nuisance and a truly skilled stripper is like gold. So what? Do we use taxpayer money to subsidize based on the talents that a small percentage of the population finds are "like gold." I'd be very careful making that argument around my group of friends because I hate to think of who we'd be voting to subsidize.


Again, that's great but why I'm I subsidizing someone else's stress? When is somebody going to subsidize my stress? This touchy-feely approach to laws is out-of-touch with economic reality but it also feeds into a mentality that, based on our prior conversations, I know you don't like.

You and a lot of other commenters on here often lament the me-first mentality when it comes to corporations making profits, CEOs getting bonuses, and the wealthy minimizing taxes so they pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries. Subsidizing people who can get afford to pay their own way only encourages this mentality. When some group sees another group getting a subsidy then the second group clamors for a subsidy too, and so on and so on. The result of this is that we have a tax code and subsidy system that is truly every man for himself - in other words, take as much as you can and pay for as little of it as you can. I'm happy to continue to play that game because I'm pretty good at it, but be careful what you wish for. Again, I can't believe that you can't see the connection between what you're endorsing and our increasing income inequality.

@Greg J: First things first - your links appear to be broken. But beyond that, I'd take issue with your conclusion here:


I actually do know a number of women who've taken jobs that barely pay for day care, which has the same impact on take-home pay, just so they can have a little bit of extra income for their family. To use round numbers, someone could stay home to raise their kids, thereby paying nothing for day care. Or they could take a job that pays them $3,000 a month but, because of the hours required, obligates them to put their kids in day care at a cost of $2,000 a month. Who would take that job? Lots of people.

But beyond that, when you calculate a 50% "tax" on the second earners' job, you're tossing in all sorts of other things - presumably higher marginal rates and lower or completely cut-off benefits - to get to that number. I don't think it's all that controversial to think that a family making $47,300 should receive less in benefits than a family making $35,300. Is the drop-off too sudden and too sharp? Maybe, but that seems to me like an argument to adopt a more gradual sliding scale for those other benefits and tax credits, along the lines of the sliding scale that exists for Obamacare subsidies.

Bottom line: In a world without Obamacare, the woman in your example would be free to take a job for $12,000 a year, she would take home roughly $7,600 after adjusting for all the various changes in benefits and tax credits and marginal rates, and she would be without health insurance. In a world with Obamacare, she would be free to take a job for $12,000 a year, she would take home roughly $6,000 after adjusting for everything (including a lower Obamacare subsidy), and she would have health insurance for her entire family of four. And the latter is the worse deal?


Some links won't work but it's easy to use the title in the url to Google the article.

Some people will choose to work even if the marginal rate is 75% on their marginal pay. Many more will not. The point is, the higher the rate, the more disincentive to work more hours.

In Hennessey's example, the value of the lost subsidy is added to the 37% to get to 50%. We're not comparing ObamaCare vs. No ObamaCare there. Rather, we are showing how the subsidy system discourages many, but not all, from seeking to earn more income. In other words, there is no doubt that the subsidies are a benefit to the taxpayer in dollar terms but they do not benefit the macroeconomy because they discourage people from working more. You can give me a taxpayer subsidy for something and I'll be happy, but from a policy perspective it's useful to think about how that changes my incentives. If it makes me less productive, that's not a good answer because you've redistributed income to someone who can afford to provide for himself and received lower output in return. If that's a good thing then why don't we hand out money to everyone?


I hit send before making my last point. You correctly point out that the lost subsidy "tax" won't discourage everyone from working to earn more income (and I conceded that individual circumstances are always different in my initial comment) but I'm sure you concede that it discourages some, and has an overall discouraging effect. If that's the case, it only increases income inequality. Maybe you don't care because you factor in the benefit of the health insurance but in salary terms, the wealthy have the same incentives to earn as much as they can and the middle overall have less of an incentive to earn the next dollar.

Another steelar month of unemployment statistics came out today - just over 100,000 jobs created and the unemployment rate drops due to people just giving up.

Republicans are treating Christie like he's got the plague:

"The governor was in Texas on Thursday to raise money for the RGA, and the nature of his visit demonstrated everything that need be said about the current state of his political dis-union. The events in Dallas and Fort Worth were held behind closed doors, with no press coverage allowed. The state’s presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee, Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott, chose to be elsewhere during Christie’s visit, as did outgoing Republican Gov. Rick Perry."


And locally it's just as bad:

"I asked spokesmen for the four Illinois rivals in the March GOP governor’s primary on Thursday whether they would attend any of the fundraising events Christie will headline in Chicago on Tuesday.

Wes Bleed, a spokesman for state Sen. Kirk Dillard R-Hinsdale said, “no, we won’t be attending any Christie events.”

Brian Sterling, a spokesman for Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford, said “he knows nothing about the event and is not involved in any way.

”Dan Egler, a spokesman for state Sen. Bill Brady R-Bloomington, said “right now, no.”

Mike Schrimpf, a spokesman for investor Bruce Rauner — and a former RGA spokesman — told me, “We don’t have his schedule completely finalized for next week yet.”


Liz H. makes a lot of sense. Greg J. admits he doesn't get it, but that's because he equates wealth with money.

If the ACA allows a parent to be at home with the children more, and raise a better family, that is good for them and society. If the ACA allows someone to choose a vocation that provides a better outlet for their God-given talent, that is good for them and society. If the ACA encourages someone to shun a "drone" job and develop their entrepreneurship and start a small business, that is good for them and society.

These people are not less productive. They are more productive.

...poster children of the Democratic Party....why work when you can let others pay for cheaper insurance

1. Studies show that at least 20% of people stay in jobs they hate because they don't want to lose company paid for healthcare. When we get single payer & we certainly will as soon as Obamacare collapses. Mostly from right wing & extreme religious attacks on it, single payer will eliminate all those religious objections & those 20% of the workforce will quit their jobs & look for new ones.

That's why so many Republicans, who are business owners & CEOs are against single payer, even though they know it will save them money on taxes.

2. As for the Woody Allen allegations.
I don't know if he did or didn't molest any children. Because of the following, we will never know.
But what I do know is that Mia Farrow is a proven liar, because she cheated on Allen with her ex-husband, Frank Sinatra, while she was involved with Allen [they never married], but told Allen that the son, named Satchel Ronan O'Sullivan Farrow at birth was Allen's.
But that son, now going by just Ronan Farrow is so very obviously the son of Frank Sinatra & we definitely don't need them to go on Maury Povich for a DNA test to nail that one down!
So we have to start with Mia Farrow being a liar & proceed to a high probability that she coached the daughter to say these things.
Plus, the timing of these accusations appears to have been done to screw up Allen's chances of winning an Oscar for his latest movie, along with the chances of Cate Blanchett winning an acting one.
Farrow is obviously mentally ill!


I see you're buying into the Woody Allen's narrative this is all Mia's fault; she's a lousy parent, a slut and forced her children to suffer negative delusions about their father. Right? Dylan's just as crazy as her bitch of a mother? Her bastard brother Ronan can't be believed because of a question about his true father? Does Allen have proof he's not his son? Why didn't he demand DNA evidence as to avoid the child care support he's now complaining about?

I'm not surprised Allen has expressed zero sympathy towards his children, rather it's still all about him, and his claim they're sick, he's not.

Garry -- Again, I don't care how people find job fulfillment. I care that I am expected to help pay for it. You know we are ending job lock at my house? My husband, who is eligible for pension now, is looking forward to retirement and perhaps teaching. (Not until the youngest is out of college!) I just started a new job, full-time, with benefits, for the first time in many years (I cut back and we made do with less, so I could be with our girls more). This way, assuming benefits stay the same (a BIG assumption with ObamaCare), I can carry the benefits for our family. We're not expecting others to pay for us.

As for the Woody Allen mess: I'm very much bothered that this letter was published by someone who is friends with Mia Farrow, particularly after learning the LA Times and the NY Times edit page both had turned it down. He is way too involved. And now Woody has written a response, and Dylan has written a response to that. These people need to keep their family squabbles to themselves.

@Wendy C: I never said Ronan can't be believed because he's the "bastard brother". I said Mia can't be believed because she lied as to who the father was.
Plus, Mia committed perjury, when in a 1992 child support hearing she stated that Allen was the father.
As to why he didn't demand DNA evidence, my guess would be embarrassment.
I/m also not saying Dylan is as crazy as her mother, but that she's been convinced by her molestation happened, even though Yale's child psychologists stated it didn't happen. There have been numerous cases of this over the years.
People in extremely acrimonious splits regularly lie about physical, emotional & sexual abuse in the custody & child support hearings.
The judge rejected the molestation charges then, when everyone's statements were fresh, not 22 years later.

But it all must start with what came first: Mia Farrow is a proven liar.


Wealth can be measured in terms of money or whatever metric you'd like to use. There is truth in what you write and, as I stated above, I'm all for people pursuing happiness in their own ways.

What you can not do, however, is simultaneously make the case for government giving handouts to increase leisure time and make the case that we have a wealth inequality problem.

If people don't want to maximize income, that's fantastic. There are plenty of better goals in life. I don't make as much as I could if I truly maximized my work potential because there's so much more out there. But there's a trade-off and people have to realize they can't have it all. If you are making less money than you could, don't ask for taxpayer subsidies and do not complain about income inequality. Those who want to maximize personal wealth are trying to achieve their goals and you are trying to achieve yours.


I've always enjoyed Woody Allen's movies, and complained about the short shrift EZ gave this matter on the most recent "Land of Linkin'" thread, where he posted Dylan's open letter on Monday.

It would seem that, between Mia Farrow and Mr. Allen, there's plenty of lying and dissembling to go around. Regardless, the judge didn't "reject" the molestation charges at the time. Here are a couple of his conclusions:



I thought Allen made a forceful case for his innocence in his NYTimes piece today. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?_r=0

However, that piece didn't do much to address some of the disturbing aspects of the case recounted here by the writer who brought this matter back into the public eye with her November "Vanity Fair" article -- points 4, 5 and 6, in particular.


@Wendy C: BTW, I don't call the child of two unmarried people a bastard.
I reserve the use of that word to extremely rotten people & a type of hand file that woodworkers & metalworkers use, such as a mill bastard.


Posted by: George | Thursday, February 06, 2014 at 08:16 PM

George, did you make that number up? The high number I've heard is 9 million, and even that is an exaggeration.


Washington Post gave Durbin's claim yesterday of 10 million 4 noses.

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group