Hat-tip to the always entertaining and informative Kalli Joy Gray and her midday round-up for the link.
This diary deals with "Budget Hero", one of several new "balance the budget" games that are out. Here's a link through Mother Jones.
I don't really know much about American Public Media's Public Insight Network, who made the game, so I'm not gonna attack them as inherently biased or anything like that. Also, the game is actually pretty well-made; it's about as "fun" as a balance budgeting game can be (I mean that sincerely). So no offense to the game creators. And I recognize the difficulties inherent in trying to make a budget game accessible to the average news reader.
But there's some problems here.
The game opens up with choosing some "badges" to indicate your goals (i.e. "tea party", "energy independence", "safety net"); your eventual choices will either earn or not earn you the badge. These don't affect the available options. You are positioned 10 years in the future to see the effects of your budget choices now.
There's 10 separate sections of 'the budget': defense & diplomacy, schools & kids, science & nature, housing & living, misc., infra-structure, health care, social security (let's just ignore the debate of whether this even belongs here, to prevent head explosions), interest on debt, and taxes. All have choices available for dealing with the deficit, with the exception of interest.
My first issue is with the "Pro" and "Con" sections for each section which falls into the "objectivity" trap: present both sides of the issue, even if one side isn't backed by anything. One of the options available in the "health care" section is the inclusion of a 'public option', which is scored as taking $104 billlion off the deficit.
Here are the pros:
Data and cost projections suggest the government could efficiently run health care while covering more Americans. You'd also be cutting the deficit and putting competitive pressure on private plans to reduce their premiums.
Okay. Now the cons:
You'd get the federal government even more involved in providing health insurance. The public option could end up becoming a magnet for high-cost enrollees who require spending far higher than can be covered by premiums. It will kill American innovation in health care and deliver a socialized medicine that leads to long lines and fewer choices, like in Canada and England.
Do I really have to argue that the mere inclusion of an alternative public option isn't "socialized medicine" by any non-teabagger logic (or, put simply, logic), and that health innovation will be able to prevail with some competition in the insurance monopoly? In their haste to include "both sides" of an issue, they might've forgot to filter through reality.
A similar piece of weirdness is seen in the "Repeal Obamacare" option. It's scored in the game as reducing the deficit by $234 billion; then, as it's noted in the "Cons" section:
You can't kill a bill that promises to make health coverage affordable to 32 million Americans who otherwise couldn't afford it. Plus, CBO says you'd actually be increasing the deficit.
Keep in mind the CBO is the source for the game's scores, or so they claim. But hey, maybe this is the objectivity trap I just mentioned; let's look at the "Impact" section, on the side:
Repealing Obamacare would "probably" increase federal budget deficits by about $210 billion through 2021, CBO estimates. House Republican leaders, however, don't buy it. But there's little middle ground when it comes to the health care law or its repeal. Those who want repeal don't believe any of the projected benefits and see it as a blow to business that will hamper the economy for decades. Supporters see it in just the opposite light: a deficit cutting plan that will bring health coverage to millions and ultimately strengthen the economy.
Uh...great. So where the hell is $234 billion coming from? By
this game's own wording, it's certainly not the CBO.
But the biggest issue of all isn't so much what's in the game; it's what ISN'T.
- When it comes to social security, the incredibly mainstream/logical/non-controversial option of lifting the contribution cap above $106,000 is nowhere to be found.
- When it comes to prescription drugs, there's no option for reimportation from other countries (something Americans overwhelming want!), and nothing about increasing the power of Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Oh, and nothing about destroying the trust exemption that enables the insurance industry to become a racket; in fact, the idea that health care costs are going to keep rising insanely is just kind of assumed; you sorta have to deal with it. Single-payer or Medicare-for-all as an option? Not in this game, sucker!
- The defense spending section avoids discussing our massive military-industrial complex, and directly mentioning the defense contractor welfare system. Admittedly, there's SOME options about ineffective projects, but it's not done in this fashion.
- They really gloss over the taxes issue. You get the necessary Bush tax cuts choices (credit to the game: they recognize continuation is a deficit increaser), and have the option to "simplify and reform" the tax code based on the bipartisan commission's recommendations. There's a lot of arguments to be made here so let me just make this point: in a game with a lot of attention to various spending ideas, they kind of gloss over the whole "revenues" side of thing without getting into the same amount of specifics. Capital gains are regular income? Millionaire's bracket? Foreign earnings loophole?
- The vacuum of money that is the Drug War is left untouched.
- I know there's a lot more, tell me/call me out in the comments if you'd like. =)
But what the game DOES have is all the conservative solutions to these problems! Make seniors pay more for their drugs to reduce the government's cost? YEP! Cut social security benefits? YEP! You can even cut Amtrak funding! Can't forget to include that when discussing the deficit!
My biggest concern in the deficit debate is how successful the conservatives (I specifically don't use the term "Republicans" here) have been in this into a matter of "how do we limit benefits and dismantle all programs" as opposed to "how do we do things more efficiently".
Again, I don't want to attack APM, but I worry they've fallen into this trap. The options for giving Social Security recipients less and making grandma pay more for drugs and destroying our infrastructure/education/etc are all there; basic progressive strategies that work in the opposite direction are notably absent. And it's all presented with that wonderful 'objectivity' style.
Bleh.