Where Did We Go Wrong?
The following contribution of humor to Catharsis Week (which formally ends today) is a guest post by Jim Hufford, a lawyer in Atlanta and the author of the blog Organon.
Why did everything fall apart? Was it the wasted months negotiating in the Finance Committee? Was it the August recess? Was it Martha Coakley’s colossal choke? Lieberman’s double-cross? Olympia Snowe’s snow job? Nelson’s Medicaid deal? Was it too much inside game? Too little party discipline? Was it Stupak? The recession? The excise tax? Cannibalism? Panic? Death panels? Jobs? Mammograms? Pirates?
Tempting, but no. None of these explanations can capture the truly historical dimensions of the force that now has health reform throttled in its clutches. That force finds its expression in the burgeoning activism and civil disobedience of the tea party movement. The anger of these largely libertarian conservatives began to surface in June and was clearly noticed in August. But one day in December, their movement grabbed hold of the public imagination and assumed a new prominence on the American political landscape. It was on that day that things really started going south for health reform in the 111th Congress. That day was December 16, 1773.
Let me explain. The greatest obstacles to passage of health reform legislation have been institutional and ideological forces traceable to the colonial rebellion. The original tea party, fittingly, took place in Massachusetts—a fact which adds a sort of literary depth to the otherwise meaningless and politically suicidal depression liberals are now experiencing in the wake of the Bay State’s stunning disavowal of (or obliviousness to) the centerpiece of Teddy Kennedy’s life’s work. Consider how the folklore and doctrinal innovations of the revolutionary era have shaped the healthcare debate:
First, there is our anti-tax zealotry, steeped in an ideal of heroic patriotism. The Boston Tea Party was of course an act of political vandalism in protest of a tax. It happened to be a tax on tea, but colonial agitators—like many of their latter-day namesakes—denied the constitutional authority of the government to impose any tax levied for the purpose of raising revenue without the colonists’ consent. And now members of the modern day tea party movement from Waco to Wasilla think they’re Samuel freakin’ Adams incarnate when they protest all (non-military) government expenditures—because, you see, every dollar spent is a dollar raised by taxation.
Second is our distrust of “big government” and irrational preference for state and local government, no matter how corrupt, over geographically distant, “central” government, no matter how effective.
Third is the structural bias toward small states in the Senate and electoral college. The framers’ exaltation of the arbitrary geography of statehood was one of their most profound and insidious innovations. As James Fallows recently observed, citizens of smaller states are vastly over-represented in the Senate—putting 532,668 Wyomingites on equal footing with 36,756,666 Californians. That means that individual Wyomingites have 69 times more influence in the U.S. Senate than individual Californians. (Sort of.)
Next there is a whole series of crackpot notions that took hold during the time of anti-tea hysteria: separation of powers, federalism, bicameralism, and so forth. Let me just say that, in combination if not individually, these half-baked doctrines have really screwed us. I mean, it is actually the point—not a regrettable side effect, but the point—of bicameralism to impede the legislative process and make it difficult to enact popular measures.
And then there’s the filibuster—which you can read about here, here, there, here, and, well, just about anywhere else. Now, the filibuster is not a direct product of the revolutionary era, but I would note two things: it is made possible by the constitutional architecture of bicameralism and separation of powers, and its emergence is a predictable result of bicameralism’s motivating principle of ambition counteracting ambition. (See Federalist No. 51.) Oh, and did you know that ‘filibuster‘ basically means pirate?! Arrrrggghh!
Last, but indeed not least, is the matter of the tea itself. Centuries of unease with this versatile and healthful beverage have plagued Americans as a result of the symbolism of the harbor incident. Instead we have turned to coffee and carbonated “soft” drinks. The latter’s Orwellian moniker (the stuff is basically high-fructose rust remover) has cleverly disguised the degree to which these misbegotten concoctions are contributing to an epidemic of obesity, rotting our teeth, and burning holes in our GI tracts. Conversely in Britain, as Ray Davies once observed, they have:
Tea in the morning, tea in the evening, tea at supper time. You get tea when it’s raining, tea when it’s snowing, tea when the weather’s fine. You get tea as a mid-day stimulant. You get tea with your afternoon tea. For any old ailment or disease, for Christ’s sake have a cuppa tea. [Video here.]
Nobody likes taxation without representation. Okay. But in retrospect, I think the weight of the evidence is that we totally overreacted on that one. Look what it’s gotten us: malrepresentation, an accountability crisis, holds, senators, bicameralysis, a pesky written constitution, and the procedural bizarro-world of the filibuster that lets the minority decide if the majority’s proposals get voted on. And look what we’re missing in Great Britain: tea and its aforementioned benefits, PM’s Questions, majoritarian legislative procedure, knighthood, cool accents, and…I’m forgetting something…oh yes: universal healthcare.
Therefore, it is seriously time we consider undeclaring our independence from Britain. Or we could just pass the sodding bill, already.
Sweet Frugality: Lessons in a Cup of Tea
This post originally appeared on The Finance Buff and has been cited in the 207th edition of the Carnival of Personal Finance.
I like the efficiency and frugality of bulk purchasing. My volume purchasing includes various jumbo multi-pack paper goods and five pound sacks of my favorite non-caffeinated tea (hazelnut Teeccino). After a recent, particularly large Costco run that included many bulk purchases I felt like I’d just finished a large meal. After consuming so much I could not imagine ever needing or wanting more. It seemed inconceivable that I would ever run out. Of course, I was wrong.
About one year ago I purchased a ten pound bag of sugar to be used for tea at work. Hauling the bag into work wasn’t trivial as my commute includes a lengthy walk from train stop to desk. To take my mind off my heavy burden I contemplated how long it would take me to consume that quantity of sugar. I didn’t read the package to see how many teaspoon servings there were (960) or really think much about it. I just took a WAG. My guesstimate was 18 months. Of course, I was wrong.
It turns out that the average American consumes about 140 pounds of sweetener per year, including refined sugar, corn-based sweeteners, honeys, and syrups (source: USDA, Table 50). Upon learning this I reacted like any healthy apple-pie eating American would, “Not me!” I was certain I consumed far less sugar than this. I eat well: lots of vegetables, few fats. I could not imagine consuming more than a few tens of pounds of sugar per year. Of course, I was wrong.
The moment after I dropped the ten pound sack of sucrose on my desk I marked it with the current date and the date upon which I expected to use the last crystal. I mark the date of first use of bulk items sometimes, just to help me determine how long they last. It’s just plain, good, old-fashioned, penny-pinching fun. (I also mark the installation date in a concealed spot on my large home appliances: washing machine, dryer, furnace, hot water heater, etc.) My new sack of sugar was now adorned with, “start-6/16/08, end-12/16/09 (est.).” Surely it would last that long. Of course, I was wrong.
Approximately eleven months after my first, sweet scoop from the bag it was empty. Accounting for vacation days and holidays, eleven months at the office is about 205 work days. Since a ten pound bag of sugar has 960 teaspoons, that’s 4.7 teaspoons per day. I drink two very large mugs of tea every work day, each one about 18 ounces or 2.25 cups. Thus, I used almost exactly one teaspoon of sugar per 8 ounces of tea. Nevertheless, I used 10 pounds in 11 months, which is equivalent to nearly 11 pounds per year. And that’s just for tea, modestly sweetened, at work, on work days only. And I believed I didn’t consume much sugar. Of course, I was wrong.
Since sugar is in nearly everything (see this for an amusing illustration), it is not hard to imagine I consume vastly more than a few tens of pounds of sugar per year. While I have not done (nor will I do) a careful dietary analysis, a reasonable extrapolation from my sugar consumption via at-work tea (another WAG) suggests I do indeed consume much closer to 100 pounds of sugar per year (or more) than I do to a few tens. I really was wrong.
I love my tea. It is tasty and makes a few moments of work feel special and relaxing. It has also taught me two valuable lessons. I’m not as different from the average American as I thought. And, in sugar consumption, as in saving, little things add up. In this, I am confident, I am not wrong.
Subscribe
