Political Violence

Charles Krauthammer does a good job of responding to Paul Krugman's outrageous attack on conservatives. He points out that the killer first began being obsessed with Rep. Giffords in 2007, a year before Palin became a national figure and before Glenn Beck had moved to Fox News. Krugman claims that extreme rhetoric is more of a problem with the right and points to Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. O'Reilly's sin was in joking about beheading Michael Moore. I don't even when Glenn Beck allegedly joked about killing someone. Of course, both these guys are talk show hosts, not public officials. Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic candidate for president, joked about killing President Bush on the Bill Maher show in October 2006. Of course, Krugman does not mention this. He doesn't care about facts or evidence, only demonizing the right.

A more factual approach does appear in the New York Times in this article which describes the much more violent and heated political atmosphere in the nineteenth century where congressmen often brought weapons to the House floor. In 1850, Senator Henry Foote pulled a gun on Senator Thomas Hart Benton. In 1856, Represenative Preston Books severely caned Senator Charles Sumner. Many commentators are historically illiterate and ignore much more violent periods in the past when they claim that heat rhetoric is out of control. Even Sarah Palin's statement shows more historical awareness than many of the demented and obsessed commentators who criticize her. As she points out, in the past, political figures literally settled disputes by duels. In 1803, the Vice-President of the United States shot and killed the former Secretary of the Treasury in a duel in Weehawken, NJ.

To use this horrible crime as a political weapon is indeed appalling. The killer was a deranged madman and the political environment of the present day is far from the most heated in history.

Health Care Costs

Ezra Klein claims that repealing health care reform would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and cites CBO studies which have shown that the reform law will save money over 10 years. I find this totally unconvincing. By contrast David Brooks points to how things have actually started out for the new law. The number of people signing up for high risk pools have been far lower than projected. Cost projections have been way off. Some claim it could cost twice as much as originally thought. Many employers have decided it's too expensive to offer health insurance under the new law. Big companies like McDonalds have gotten waivers so they can be exempt from the new regulations. So, citing some studies by the CBO which doesn't have a good track record of predictions and has to accept assumptions that are unrealistic is far less convincing than pointing to the mounting evidence that the plan won't work and will end up costing a fortune.