We are recreating the Gilded Age of income concentration. While Scott Fitzgerald told us the rich are different, those who represent the interests of the rich are doing all possible to get the rest of us to identify with them.

Oh, I do hope Erskine Bowles wins.

Good show. An upward battle for Erskine, though. I just hope that pharma-shill Nancy Johnson (R-CT) is kicked out on her money-grubbing arse.

In other words, you want to tax the McDonald's order taker to provide free drugs to Warren Buffett and Ross Perot. As you must know, the old are the wealthiest group in our society. Why should they get free drugs, at the expense of everyone else?

Jim Miller,

What Erskine Bowles said was "the richest one percent of Americans." If McDonald's order takers are the richest one percent, I'm reviewing my career options.

BTW, my Dad passed away this year. He was a retired civilian employee of the Army. In addition to Parkinson's Disease (which killed him) he had a number of other ailments as did my mom. In 2001 they spent over $18,000 on prescriptions. Not everyone in the world is Warren Buffett or Ross Perot.

Jim Miller,

What Erskine Bowles said was "the richest one percent of Americans." If McDonald's order takers are the richest one percent, I'm reviewing my career options.

BTW, my Dad passed away this year. He was a retired civilian employee of the Army. In addition to Parkinson's Disease (which killed him) he had a number of other ailments as did my mom. In 2001 they spent over $18,000 on prescriptions. Not everyone in the world is Warren Buffett or Ross Perot.

So Bowles wants to freeze the tax rate instead of offering a prescription drug benefit? That's how I'm reading the sentence.

Perhaps the sentence was meant to read "presented with a choice of freezing the tax rate for the richest one percent of Americans to pay for a prescription drug benefit . . ."

Or I'm misreading the sentence, which is possible as well.

I'm with Bill. I thought that Bowles was calling for a static tax code with few new (and necessary) services.

My father died of a neurological disorder, similar to Parkinson's, although somewhat more rare, and thus not receiving nearly as much public or private capital for research. It sucks. I don't believe, however, that Buffett, Gates, or anyone else had a responsibility to purchase drugs for my father.

I strongly believe that we all have a responsibility to purchase drugs for you father if he can not afford them for himself. I do believe we all have the responsibility to be so humane.

Bowles wants to freeze the tax rate in order to pay for the prescription drug benefit. I.e., defer scheduled reductions. See e.g. http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/politics/4089816.htm

I would rather have a portion of my tax dollars go to payment of someone's prescription drugs than have it go to subsidize mohair and honey growers or any other wasteful special interest form of government spending. The $18,000 they spent in 2001 represented about a third of my parents retirement income for that year.

It's a disgrace.

Once upon a time, the good professor posted the results of some research into happiness across countries and income levels. One way of reading the results, as I recall, was that a sense that society was fairly arranged was more important than one's personal income level (above a certain minimum) or the average income of one's nation in determing happiness. Just about every political debate seems, on its face, to hinge on that. All this who ought to pay for what debate seems pretty much keyed to just that point. Is it fair to allow suffering when society has resources to mitigate that suffering? Is it fair to take from society in general, or any segment of society, for the benefit of some other segment of society, rather than only for public goods? It would be interesting, once we know that perceived fairness leads to happiness, to figure out what governs perceptions of fairmess.

Somehow, debates that begin on the point of fairness seem to devolve into debates about honesty very quickly (see responses to today's Krugman post), as soon as political parties are involved. Must say, though, the Bowles responses are pretty mannerly so far.

I would prefer that the Republicans control the Senate, but Elizabeth Dole may be too high a price to pay for that privilege. At least Bowles is a substantive person--Dole has always seemed to me to be an empty suit, unprincipled and a bit dim. It seems to me that there's a kind of carnivorous cunning, but not much intelligence, behind those eyes.

I have no preference between Dole or Bowles, and the sound and fury expended as to which major party is more nefarious is patently absurd. Large political factions are inevitably populated by significant numbers of craven opportunists who would sell their mothers in return for the slightest political advantage; the opportunity to exercise tremendous power (and all bleating about evil corporations aside, no entity can begin to match the brutal power of the state) over fellow human beings is far too tempting for many to exercise restraint. This isn't to say that anyone involved in politics is rotten , merely that any who seek to gain access to the power of the state should be viewed with great circumspection, and the longer they attempt to maintain that access the more their behavior should be closely watched. How anyone could have an emotional attachment to a politcal party is beyond me.

I have no preference between Dole or Bowles, and the sound and fury expended as to which major party is more nefarious is patently absurd. Large political factions are inevitably populated by significant numbers of craven opportunists who would sell their mothers in return for the slightest political advantage; the opportunity to exercise tremendous power (and all bleating about evil corporations aside, no entity can begin to match the brutal power of the state) over fellow human beings is far too tempting for many to exercise restraint. This isn't to say that anyone involved in politics is rotten , merely that any who seek to gain access to the power of the state should be viewed with great circumspection, and the longer they attempt to maintain that access the more their behavior should be closely watched. How anyone could have an emotional attachment to a politcal party is beyond me.

I have no preference between Dole or Bowles, and the sound and fury expended as to which major party is more nefarious is patently absurd. Large political factions are inevitably populated by significant numbers of craven opportunists who would sell their mothers in return for the slightest political advantage; the opportunity to exercise tremendous power (and all bleating about evil corporations aside, no entity can begin to match the brutal power of the state) over fellow human beings is far too tempting for many to exercise restraint. This isn't to say that anyone involved in politics is rotten , merely that any who seek to gain access to the power of the state should be viewed with great circumspection, and the longer they attempt to maintain that access the more their behavior should be closely watched. How anyone could have an emotional attachment to a politcal party is beyond me.

Sorry about the poor mouse control. I appreciate the sentiment that others had a responsibility to purchase drugs for my father, but I cannot agree, particularly while my father had sufficient assets to obtain any available drugs himself, or I had anything to contribute. Why is it disgraceful that someone would use $18,000 of a $54,000 income to purchase that which is most valuable to them, and no, citing examples of more illegitmate coercion via state subsidy does not suffice? Fairness is a virtue, but it is a hopelessly nebulous one, entirely dependent on the vantage of the observer. Furthermore, fairness is a virtue, like all subservient virtues, that is dependent on a far more objectively quantifiable virtue, liberty. Coerced behavior cannot be virtuous, for it is merely the residue of violence, although violence is an inherent element of human relations, given human imperfection. It is an element that must me minimized, however, if virtues, like fairness, are to be given full opportunity to flower. It is a difficult balance to strike, in that a society which is insufficiently coercive may eventually be threatened with the most pernicious forms of violence, tyranny or anarchy. It is not sufficient, though, to advocate coercion simply on the basis of perceived unfairness, even by a majority. In order to make coercion legitimate, it must be reasonably argued that the abscence of coercion would lead to far greater levels of violence. This isn't a bright line test, and it leaves large areas for legitimate disagreement, but to simply say that citizen A should be physically forced to do citizen B's bidding only because B has more votes in his camp is to advocate tyranny by mob.

>>Why is it disgraceful that someone would use $18,000 of a $54,000 income to purchase that which is most valuable to them, and no, citing examples of more illegitmate coercion via state subsidy does not suffice?

The idea that any of this is "state coercion" is solely your opinion and I'm certain you know the old saying about opinions.

To begin with, I have never said that anyone should have to pay 100% of the cost of medication for my parents. On the other hand, when research on drugs is done very often via federal grants for research at universities and the drug companies license the fruits of this research, why can't a reasonable accomodation be made? Means testing for example. Reduced rates for senior citizens so that they don't have to spend a vast amount of their total income (the $54,000 figure, by the way, was gross, not net income) to stay alive. It is unreasonable in my opinion (please note I qualify my statements) to present this as an all or nothing proposition.

If you are lucky, someday you will be elderly. I hope that your health remains well and that you don't have to make the decisions my Dad did.

No, it is not my opinion that subsidies by the state involve coercion. It is a fact. If a citizen fails to supply the property to produce the subsidy, the state has the power to incarcerate that citizen, and if incarceration is resisted, the state has the power to kill that citizen. There is no entity that approaches the state in the ability to brutalize people, and no, the fact that the brutalization takes place with majority consent does not render the action less brutal. Now, before any straw-men are erected, let me note that violent brutalization, or the threat thereof, is an inherent component of human relations, and it is better that such a process take place via government formed through representaive democratic processes. I simply believe that such a process should be kept to a minimum, and I also concede that there will be wide legitimate disagreement as to what that minimum is. The proper level of protection that should be afforded intellectual property rights, and the effect such rights have on availability of needed drugs, is one such very complex area of potential legitimate disagreement. Let us not be so disingenuous, however, to suggest that when the state compels citizens to subsidize each other, coercion, albeit coercion via majoritarian processes, is not involved.

It is your choice of words to view it as coercion and that is where it is your opinion and nothing more.

I live in New York City and don't own a car. I don't choose to view the fact that money is spent on new roads to subsidize car owners as coercion. A portion of my tax dollars goes to pay for roads, many of which I don't use. You make a choice to view spending with which you don't agree as coercion. I don't make that choice.

You can define anything you want as coercion or not (that sure doesn't look spelled right, but you guys seem to have agreed on it). I'd like to live greener but with cheap energy supported thru my coerced taxes and roads everywhere also coerced likewise I don't see why I should be the martyr.

However, anybody who just bends over and takes it when an industry heavily subsidized by said coerced taxes charges his Dad ALMOST HALF THE NATIONAL MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME just to stay alive, I gotta wonder about.

A different chris:

Just to be clear, I'm not the one accepting what I perceive to be the coercive costs of drugs. I'm all for a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. It was my folks who had to pay $18,000 out of pocket for medication in calendar year.

In sum, I agree with you.

Bye bye Bowles! I'm no Dole fan, but I'm glad the "soak the rich" technique failed for once. Tax cuts do not "cost" billions, they simply return peoples' own money. Democrats, of course, think it's all theirs to give out as they please.

Tell ya' what, Randy, stop paying taxes, ignore all communication from the state that follows, resist being taken into custody, or having your property taken, and in short order the somewhat psychotic (what voices do you hear?) notion that the state undertakes ANY activity via non-coercive measures will encounter empirically measurable evidence which strongly indicates otherwise. The purpose of ANY state is to force people to do , or to refrain from, that which they will not do by moral suasion alone, although different states undertake this task with varying degrees of moral legitimacy. You may make a choice to believe that the Earth is at the center of the solar system, but your belief does not prove Copernicus wrong. Now, if you wish to have a discussion that doesn't involve a willfull break from reality, let me know.

Will Allen:

I have a good friend who bought a house in New Jersey three years ago in a town that has high property taxes. His son has special needs and he deliberately sought out this community. He and many of the others in his community have no problem with paying the property taxes as the quality of the public schools makes the community a desirable place to live and improves the quality of life in the community. That is the same thought I have regarding the roads that I don't drive on in the car I don't have because the quality of the roads improves the quality of my community. Just as I don't mind paying property taxes for the public schools for the children my wife and I don't have. Just as I wouldn't object to having some of my tax dollars go toward a prescription drug benefit because it improves the quality of life n my community. It's called enlightened self-interest.

Disabuse yourself of the notion that you and those who share your views hold a monopoly on the moral high ground or on "reality." I certainly don't feel that I do.

Randy, that you, and perhaps a majority of your fellow citizens, don't mind that coercive measures are taken to pay for things you approve of, does not lessen the reality that those things are paid for by obtaining property by coercive measures. Legislative bodies pass, and executive bodies enforce, "laws", not "suggestions", or "requests". Why is accepting this reality so difficult, and why is it so important for you to deny it? You wish to employ the state to physically force others to do your bidding, as all except anarchists do. True enough, you seek to enlist majorities to assist in this effort, which I favor also, democratic processes being generally preferred to autocracies. Don't be so disingenuous, however, to suggest that you and me, and whatever majority we are part of, are not coercing those who do not agree with us.

Because some matters are for a larger good and society (i.e. all of us) benefit from it. You have to pay for things like roads, etc.

Laws are the basis of a civilized society. By your "logic" the fact that we have laws against nurder, arson, rape, robbery, fraud, extortion, etc, are acts of coercion.

I do not accept that these are coercive acts. It is not disingenuous for me to find your position unacceptable, no more than it is disingenuous for you to find my positon unacceptable. It is my opinion and it is no more or no less valid than yours.

People agree to disagree all the time. That;s where I intend to leave this.

Randy, I have tried to avoid an insulting tone, but I can only conclude that you are in need of either a dictionary or a stiff dose of thorazine. Yes, laws are a component of civilization. They are also coercive, even (or especially) the ones against murder. If you doubt this, you may wish to consult a certain John Muhammed. He is currently being coercively held in a small room due to his unfortunate habit of shooting strangers with a rifle. You may have heard something of this, but one shouldn't assume too much. Hell, who knows? Perhaps Muhammed is staying in that small room voluntarily, having grown bored with shooting strangers, and enjoying the prospect of free, institutionally prepared food.

C-ya Erskine - You should be tarred and feathered for your unfailing support of idiot-boy Clinton as his Chief of Staff. I could not sacrifice my principles, but you did - defending the indefensible. Along with costing the state of CT 100 million in pension funds, I would close the door and hang my head in shame - shame? A word the Clinton Adminsitration couldn't comprehend. Shame on you Erskine Bowles - I so GLAD you LOST. (Along with $4 million of your own cash)

>Randy, I have tried to avoid an insulting tone, but I can only conclude that you are in need of either a dictionary or a stiff dose of thorazine.

The above speaks volumes about you. If someone disagrees with you, you have to insult them.

There are people, believe it or not who actually obey laws not because they feel coerced, but because they feel that it is the right thing to do, because it promotes a larger good; a good larger than their own immediate self-interests. Some of us find such things as murder, rape and robbery to be morally repugnant.

As far as dictionary definitions go, read this:

co·erce Pronunciation Key (k-ûrs)
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
1.) To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.

2.) To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.

3.) To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

No one has to coerce me to obey the law.

Because you abandoned a polite tone, go talk to the walls. I'm through with this.

When one engages in massive intellectual dishonesty, an insulting tone is often appropriate. To state that laws are not coercive measures because you personally would obey them regardless of threat of incarceration, is simply silly. Why does one suppose prisons are constructed, and police forces funded? Because a great many people WOULD disobey, without such coercive measures. If laws are not coercive in nature, then it logically follows that no sanction need take place for failure to obey. It is painful to have to point out the obvious, but it sometimes cannot be avoided.

Randy: I don't know what you're trying to argue -- that the state does not compel the payment of taxes by force of law? That's coercion. Will's post above is spot on and I can't fault him for his frustration.

Health care costs: the argument that the US gov't funds much basic research and therefore has a right to impose price controls is bogus.

1) The gov't funds a lot of research which leads to competing products which lowers prices. I realize the patent system imposes some monopoly costs but the arguments backing price controls don't address the patent issue and how it can be modified and improved.

2) The gov't funds a lot of research into materials science, too. Does that mean it should impose price controls on cars (which benefit from this research) and construction work?

3) The Democratic attempt to impose price controls on a major US industry like pharma has to be one of the most nefarious portions of its agenda. We are supposed to sharply limit future research -- research that will probably benefit all of humanity far into the future -- to reap some benefits for the current generation (mostly of already wealthier-than-average seniors). This is proposed instead of an alternate program where certain seniors below a given income threshold receive public cash assistance in an effort to improve their lives? The prescription benefits plan advocated by Dems by itself is reason enough to rejoice in their defeat.

As far as I know there is no Democratic Party policy to impose price controls on drugs. What rubbish. Still, there is a need to assist medicare patients with drug costs and both parties must work on legislation to do just that.

I believe JT is saying that price controls are implicit in a prescription drug benefit: the goernment would want to pay only a certain amount for drugs in a given year, but would want to cover all drugs, no matter what their "market" cost, it would control the prices of those drugs to avoid having the budget of that program spiral out of control.
However, I do have one question:
How would price controls hurt pharmaceutical research if most of that is done either at the publicly-funded National Institutes of Health or at public universities?

--James W.

P.S. I am a liberal, but I disagreed with Gore's
unwillingness to add a means test to his
prescription drug benefit plan in 2000.

I believe JT is saying that price controls are implicit in a prescription drug benefit: the goernment would want to pay only a certain amount for drugs in a given year, but would want to cover all drugs, no matter what their "market" cost, it would control the prices of those drugs to avoid having the budget of that program spiral out of control.
However, I do have one question:
How would price controls hurt pharmaceutical research if most of that is done either at the publicly-funded National Institutes of Health or at public universities?

--James W.

P.S. I am a liberal, but I disagreed with Gore's
unwillingness to add a means test to his
prescription drug benefit plan in 2000.

I believe JT is saying that price controls are implicit in a prescription drug benefit: the goernment would want to pay only a certain amount for drugs in a given year, but would want to cover all drugs, no matter what their "market" cost, it would control the prices of those drugs to avoid having the budget of that program spiral out of control.
However, I do have one question:
How would price controls hurt pharmaceutical research if most of that is done either at the publicly-funded National Institutes of Health or at public universities?

--James W.

P.S. I am a liberal, but I disagreed with Gore's
unwillingness to add a means test to his
prescription drug benefit plan in 2000.

I believe JT is saying that price controls are implicit in a prescription drug benefit: the goernment would want to pay only a certain amount for drugs in a given year, but would want to cover all drugs, no matter what their "market" cost, it would control the prices of those drugs to avoid having the budget of that program spiral out of control.
However, I do have one question:
How would price controls hurt pharmaceutical research if most of that is done either at the publicly-funded National Institutes of Health or at public universities?

--James W.

P.S. I am a liberal, but I disagreed with Gore's
unwillingness to add a means test to his
prescription drug benefit plan in 2000.

Sorry about the multiple redundant posts--I'm writing this on an old iMac in a section of a network with quite limited bandwidth, so I wasn't sure if it had gone through.

BTW, I am a North Carolina citizen who did not vote for Bowles. For one thing, I thought, while he did not sound "Ted Kennedy"-ish in philosophy, he did at least in partisanship.

James W: You are correct -- my polemic about the imposition of price controls is related to presecription drug coverage. I think it is fairly obvious that the imposition of price controls (inevitably below the market price) will cause either (or both) of a) price controls across all drug buyers; b) the hiking of prices for the buyers represented by the federal gov't. Both of those results point to the nefarious and underhanded nature of the policy. I do disagree with you about "most" research: private industry conducts a serious amount of research and invests serious money in bringing drugs to market.

"The Democratic attempt to impose price controls on a major US industry like pharma has to be one of the most nefarious portions of its agenda. We are supposed to sharply limit future research -- research that will probably benefit all of humanity far into the future -- to reap some benefits for the current generation (mostly of already wealthier-than-average seniors)." Could Americans please begin to understand they are not the only nation in the world and start to think of what is in their national interest? The present situation is unfair because the rest of the wealthy world - in particular the Europeans - have limited drug prices in their countries. This means that it is the American consumer who is paying for the research which benefits everyone in the North (I'll leave out the South, which may need different drugs for their "poor-man's" diseases.) I guess it's just another case of ignorance and pride being taken advantage of.

>>Still, there is a need to assist medicare patients with drug costs and both parties must work on legislation to do just that.<<

No, there's a need to assist people with initials of MB with drug costs.

Why do Medicare patients somehow deserve prescription drug coverage, such that other people--people with initials MB, for example--don't also get to have the Constitution violated for their personal gain?

Mark Bahner (only looking for my fair share of other people's money)

"I would rather have a portion of my tax dollars go to payment of someone's prescription drugs than have it go to subsidize mohair and honey growers or any other wasteful special interest form of government spending."

The choice is between two wrongs? Why not avoid subsidies for prescription drugs, *and* stop the mohair and honey subsidies (not to mention sugar and corn)?

"I would rather have a portion of my tax dollars go to payment of someone's prescription drugs than have it go to subsidize mohair and honey growers or any other wasteful special interest form of government spending."

The choice is between two wrongs? Why not avoid subsidies for prescription drugs, *and* stop the mohair and honey subsidies (not to mention subsidies for sugar and corn...and AMTRAK)?