View From Down Under

Recently came across a paper by Eric Lawrence, John Sides, and Henry Farrell (from George Washington University).  (H/T The Monkey Cage).

From the abstract:

We find that blog readers gravitate toward blogs that accord with their political beliefs. Few read blogs on both the left and right of the ideological spectrum. Furthermore, those who read left-wing blogs and those who read right-wing blogs are ideologically far apart. Blog readers are more polarized than either non-blog-readers or consumers of various television news programs, and roughly as polarized as US senators.

The study discusses how blog authors of similar political persuasion tend to reinforce each other’s beliefs and push further from the center, with something similar occurring among blog readers.  Only 6% of those who read political blogs read both right and left wing blogs.  The remainder, 94%, read only left wing or right wing but not both.

Which fits in with a few earlier comments on polarization of the US electorate, but suggests the View From Down Under is unlikely to appeal to the majority of blog readers.

Which is fine by me.

UPDATE:  There is also a cool chart in the study showing how liberals watch PBS Newshour and conservatives watch Fox News.  We all knew that, but the graph is well presented.

Popularity: 19% [?]

Gallup has a cool app on their website allowing you to compare approval ratings across Presidents.

Here is Obama compared to the last two one-term Presidents – George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter.  So far, Obama is tracking pretty closely to Jimmy Carter’s trajectory.

Not looking so good for Obama, although I was also interested in the amazing collapse in popularity of Bush Sr.  His popularity in early 1991 was nearly 90%.  One year later he was below 40% and never recovered.  Perhaps he was better at being President than campaigning for it.

Let’s have a look at how Obama  is tracking against two very popular two-term Presidents: Reagan and Clinton.

Hmm.  Obama not looking too bad here.  Slightly more popular than Reagan at this point in the Presidency, slightly less popular than Clinton.

Clearly what counts for re-election is how popular a President is at day 1400, not day 400.

Final point of interest:  Obama v George W.  The Sep 11 attacks had an extraordinary impact on the popularity of the President (as well as Congress).  Interesting that at the 2004 election, W was down to just over 50% approval, and deteriorated pretty consistently after that.

Popularity: 14% [?]

As part of their health care rebuttal, Republicans have focused on tort reform as a way to dramatically reduce costs.  As Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said “Everybody knows that there is a huge amount of money that could be saved in health care delivery if we did something to reform this jackpot justice system.”  President Obama seems to agree, and has added some tort reform to his health care proposal – although stopping far short of what Republicans want.

The argument for tort reform is that  frequent malpractice claims and high awards have forced doctors into prescribing extra, and unnecessary, tests and procedures in order to reduce their potential exposure in a lawsuit.  Therefore reforming the malpractice system should reduce those unnecessary activities and reduce costs.

This assumes that these extra procedures are, in fact, unnecessary and add nothing to the value of health care received.  It also assumes that many malpractice claims are based on the desire of plaintiffs to ‘hit the jackpot’ and not on genuine malpractice.

Some on the left wing argue that this is far from proven.  Ezra Klein notes that Texas, which enacted tort reform in 2003, also has the city with the highest medicare costs per enrollee (McAllen).  Indeed Texas as a whole has one of the highest medicare reimbursement rates per enrollee, even adjusting for age, sex, and race.  (As a Texan who enjoys my vegetables battered and fried, I wonder if there is a bit of cultural self selection there).  So the link between tort reform and cost reduction looks tenuous.

In order for tort reform to have an impact on medical costs, it must either reduce the number (or type) of tests and procedures being prescribed, or reduce malpractice premiums (which would then be passed on to consumers).

This sounds like a theory that can be tested, and this afternoon I was wondering if there is any data which could tell us if tort reform has a meaningful impact on health care costs.

Turns out there is.  A recent study looked at the differences in tort reform enacted by various states and correlated that against the costs of employer sponsored health insurance plans over an eight year period.  They looked at four different kinds of tort reform:

• caps on pain and suffering awards;
• collateral source reforms (reducing payouts if plaintiffs have already received insurance or other payments);
• joint and several reforms (limiting ability of plaintiffs to sue a deep pocket for the full amount even if they are only partly at fault); and
• caps on punitive damages.

The authors concluded that the first three types of reform lowered insurance premiums of self insured plans by 1-2% (caps on punitive damages had no impact).  That sounds like a good outcome and should provide encouragement for further tort reform by the states.

However, for fully insured plans (HMOs) there was no decrease in premiums as a result of tort reform.  The authors conclude that HMOs are already doing a good job of monitoring care and avoiding unnecessary activities.

The Congressional Budget Office looked at this study as well as a number of other studies done in the last decade, and have concluded that enacting the four reforms above would likely reduce the total health care costs of the government by 0.5%.

It is not a silver bullet for solving the problems in the US health care system, but is definitely worth pursuing as part of any comprehensive reform.

Popularity: 17% [?]

As I have written before, the outcome of the health care summit was never in doubt.  The President staked out his position, and he apparently believes he has enough votes to get it through via reconciliation.  Republicans had a chance to state some alternatives and score some political points (with their supporters).  I’d be interested to see the ratings, but I would guess the Olympics drew more viewers.

The view from down under is that this kind of theatre is necessary to govern in the US, which is kind of sad in a way, and kind of scary in another.

One thing is clear, it is not about policy – only politics.  As Ezra Klein pointed out, if McCain had been elected, and a similar plan were in front of Congress (like the one McCain championed in his campaign), would Democrats support it?  Would Republicans?

Popularity: 24% [?]

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, on Face the Nation last Sunday, showed once again why he commands respect.  In response to criticism by former VP Dick Cheney that the US is ‘less safe’ under President Obama, Powell said:

“The point is made, ‘We don’t waterboard anymore or use extreme interrogation techniques.’ Most of those extreme interrogation techniques and waterboarding were done away with in the Bush administration. They’ve been made officially done away with in this current administration.”

“The Transportation Security Administration created by George Bush is still in action working in our airports; they take care of me every day that I go to an airport.  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was also created under President Bush, and it is still under President Obama working hard. Our counterterrorism authorities and forces are hard at work. Our law enforcement officials are hard at work. We have gone after the enemy in Afghanistan with 50,000 more troops, more predators are striking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Pakistan. We have continued the policies that President Bush put in place with respect to Iraq.

“The bottom line answer is the nation is still at risk. Terrorists are out there. They’re trying to get through. But to suggest that somehow we have become much less safer because of the actions of the administration, I don’t think that’s borne out by the facts.”

Despite Mr Cheney’s rhetoric, Colin Powell recognizes that the US is actually much closer to being safe from Al-Qaeda than it was during Mr Cheney’s administration.

Popularity: 25% [?]

The Republicans are painting Obama as being soft on terror, or having a blind spot when it comes to the war on terror.  Once again, the right wing is dismissing facts in favor of surprisingly effective rhetoric.

First, the facts.  The Obama administration has reached out to other countries, particularly Muslim countries, in a way that previous administrations have not.  He has already visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.  He will be visiting the world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia, in March.

These trips are part of a concerted effort to change America’s image abroad, and Obama has been extremely successful at this.  He has restored America’s soft power (for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize).  Perceptions of the US around the world have been enormously improved, particularly in Islamic countries.

The policy of the United States living up to its own values by stopping torture and closing Guantanamo, strongly supported by General Petraeus and other high ranking officers, has been instrumental in this change in perceptions.

Iraq is starting to stabilize, largely due to the surge and other strategies implemented by Robert Gates.  The December 09 quarter saw the lowest US casualty rate of any quarter since the war began in 2003.

Pakistan has been aggressive in pursuing the Taliban within its tribal areas.  With Pakistanis viewing the US more favorably, the Pakistani government is able to take these kinds of initiatives.

In 2009, more Al Qaeda fighters and senior leaders have been killed than in 2008. 

Largely as a result of these efforts, Al Qaeda and fellow organizations have increasingly turned to attacking Muslim civilians.  As these attacks continue, and the perception of the US improves, the number of Muslims supporting Al Qaeda continues to plummet.

As Peter Beinart put it recently:  In countries like Pakistan and Jordan, where al Qaeda keeps slaughtering innocent Muslims, its public support has fallen off a cliff. During the Bush years, the only thing that kept al Qaeda from complete ideological collapse was Muslim hatred of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our unblinking support for Muslim dictatorships and for Israel, and our use of torture at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Now Obama, by pledging to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and close Gitmo, and by eschewing torture … is cutting al Qaeda’s throat.

In short, the US is much closer to winning the war against Al Qaeda now than when Obama took office. 

But apparently, the Republicans would rather have tough talk and less progress.

Popularity: 41% [?]

A great friend of mine is not only quite well travelled, but also an extraordinary wordsmith.  While on a recent trip to France, she wrote this:

Having decided not to move here, I moved on in my head to attempting to describe all the countries I’ve been to in a few words.

…

America is brazenly self-confident, often irritatingly cheerful, and utterly naive in a very aggressive way. It carries within itself the full knowledge of its own superiority, as well as a creeping fear that this brings horrible dangers. It’s deeply caring and sympathetic, but lacks empathy for cultures incongruous with its own. In many ways, it is a 19 year old, charging around the world full of passion and idealism while doing everything it can to fill its room with as much stuff as it can fit in there. It covers itself in self-confidence like cheap cologne, and all the while doubt that maybe not everything can be fixed is eating at its insides.

…

Australia is young too, but it’s a rougher kind of young than America. Similar creation stories at similar times, but Australia is so much less idealistic than America. Our creation story has no Independence War, or Civil War or Thanksgiving myth. We made for ourselves myths and heroes out of Ned Kelly and the jolly swagman rather than Washington and Lincoln. Our heroes are people subverting the world around them simply to survive, America’s heroes are idealists who took radical action to make their ideals reality, and subverted reality for a “higher purpose”. America grew a nation out of a rich land, a land of brown loam and mountains, bountiful prairies and huge forests. Australia grew out of red dirt that was dead long before we got there, and forests of gum trees too crooked to build with.

We’re (Australians) a broad, rough, honest people. Irreverent and coarse, blunt and loud. Cynical without bitterness, sarcastic without meanness. Practical with a “that’ll-do” approach to that which we don’t think is that important. A hard creation myth that makes us feel as though we’ve weathered something, a weird cultural love of ‘larrikinism’ and a mass buying into of the myth of ‘mateship’. But buying into those myths makes them real in their outworking, so there’s a kind of glowing pride associated with surviving in a mostly dead country, and a love for the underdog, and a feeling of responsibility to each other as long as you’re ‘mates’. We have a fascination for other places, but never lose sight of our own personal sense of superiority. We’re young but like to think we’re old, and pretend to be less idealistic than we are or want to be. As wonderful as it is to not have to respect something simply because everyone else does, it is sad that we find it hard to respect anything at all. Irreverence as a habit isn’t always the best policy.

Very honest and perceptive descriptions, in my opinion.  Maybe some day, I’ll be able to write that well.

Popularity: 70% [?]

Over that last few years the percentage of Americans who believe in human caused global warming has shrunk, even as the evidence for it has grown.  If the heat and noise of the debate has got you questioning, here is a small sample of the evidence.

First, the things we can know with certainty.

The global climate system has warmed over the last 100 years.  This is unequivocal, and supported by increases in global air and water temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.  Yes there are yearly variations around the trend line, and some years are cooler than the previous year, but the trend is real.  (This data comes from NASA Goddard Institute)

The levels of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased dramatically in the last 100 years.  CO2 levels have increased roughly 35% over the last 50 years.  Methane has increased 48%, and nitrous oxide has increased 18%.  All of these are substantially above the natural range over the last 650,000 years as determined by ice core analysis.

These increases are due primarily to human activity.  Use of fossil fuels, agriculture, and change in land use are the primary contributors to the increase.

The levels of greenhouse gases are highly correlated with increasing global temperatures – and have been for millennia.  The data below comes from analysis of Antarctic ice cores.

These are facts regardless of whether you or I believe them to be facts.

There are other things we can know with a very high degree of certainty.

Climate models have been around for nearly 50 years, and are continuously getting more accurate as more data arrives.  These models are developed both independently and collaboratively by scientists in many countries.  None of these models are able to predict the current increase in global temperatures and sea levels without taking into account the man-made increases in greenhouse gases.  There is a very high degree of certainty that global warming is the result of human activity.

The big unknown is how much more the climate will change in the future.  As you can imagine, this will depend on the level of greenhouse gases we emit.  Estimates for temperature change by the end of this century range from alarming (1.8°C assuming global population peaks mid century and a rapid shift to clean technologies) to catastrophic (4.0°C if economic growth continues to be driven primarily by fossil fuels).

Despite all the certainty surrounding global warming,  the impact of continued climate change on human endeavours is unknown.  Scientists can estimate impacts on sea levels, precipitation, surface temperatures, and more, but calculating the cost of global warming in economic, social, or environmental terms has so far proven to be very difficult.  As has estimating the cost of avoiding further climate change.

But there is no doubt that global warming is real and will continue for some time.

Popularity: 81% [?]

Is smoking a leading cause of lung disease?  Do El Nino episodes cause weather changes?  Did widespread use of DDT cause major reduction of bird and fish populations in affected areas?

If a survey asked these questions today, the results would show an overwhelming majority of people in agreement.  Among scientists, there would be almost no doubters.  However, each of these propositions was initially met with strong, vocal, and emotional reactions from skeptics – many of whom owed their livelihoods and reputations to denying them.

Today, there is virtual unanimity among scientists about global warming.  The National Academy of Sciences, American Chemical Society, Crop Science Society, and many other scientific organizations have issued public statements confirming that global warming is occurring and is the result of human activity.

In spite of this, a recent survey by the Pew Research Center shows the number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence of global warming has actually dropped in the last three years.  A majority of Americans simply do not believe the scientific organizations.

Here is the data by political affiliation.  Belief in global warming has declined across the board, but the decline has been dramatic among Republicans.  Nearly half of the Republicans who in 2006 believed the earth was warming no longer believe so.

Just shows what can happen when a scientific issue becomes a political and emotional one.  It is clear there are a number of highly effective communicators in the US whose livelihood and reputation depend on debunking global warming.  As Upton Sinclair wrote:  ”It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”.

In the midst of the Copenhagen climate change meetings, I’ll be posting a few thoughts on climate change.  Next post will be fairly heavy on data.  In the meantime, I encourage you to look at some data yourself.  A couple of good places to start are the IPCC Summary and the National Academy of Sciences climate change report.

Popularity: 70% [?]

Worthwhile reading from Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Key sentences come at the end:

“The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services. That fundamental disconnect will have to be addressed in some way if the budget is to be placed on a sustainable course.”

The accompanying slides of his speech highlight two converging trends.  The first is the rising cost of health care, particularly for those over 65.  No end in sight for this trend.

The second trend is demographic.  At the moment (according to his slides) the population age 65 or older is about 20% of the population aged 20 – 64. In 20 years, this grows to nearly 40%.  With a labor force participation rate of about 65%, this means there are now about three workers for every person over 65.  In 20 years this will be less than two workers for every person over 65.

In my view, the US has four options:

• less spending (particularly on health care for seniors);
• more taxes (falling heavily on the young);
• increase the number of working age residents (which means much higher immigration); or
• further expansion of public debt (which at some point simply becomes unsustainable).

Unfortunately, if you are a member of Congress today, the first three options carry significant personal career risk.

Popularity: 53% [?]