“Are we now in a world where there is absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of the majority?” [UPDATED]
Because that’s what we’ve just seen — the tyranny of the majority, eked out by bending rules, making deals, breaking arms, buying votes. As many problems as I have with parts of the health care reform bill, my major problem is with the way it was passed (not that the two are unrelated). “Majority rule” does not mean that 50.8% of the people(‘s representatives) can simply overpower the other 49.2% without real damage to the country. (And that’s if the representation were representative, which the polls indicate it is not.) McArdle spells out the form some of that damage is likely to take: Republican retaliation. I guarantee you, tonight’s exulting Democrats won’t like it when they’re on the short end.
As Toby Harnden puts it in the Telegraph:
Never before had landmark legislation – the bill reshapes one-sixth of the American economy – been passed without even a smidgen of bipartisan consensus.
And here are the consequences: “the beginning, not the end, of a grinding, all-out war.” Conservatives and tea partiers believe they’re fighting the second American revolution — against the narcotizing fate of a soft tyranny, an enervating European-style socialism — and that is a thrilling and energizing mission. They’re not going to be lulled out of it.
It so happens that in the course of a work assignment, I just reread James Madison’s Federalist X. Good timing! Read the whole thing, but listen to this! How utterly contemporary it is:
The latent causes of faction are […] sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. […]
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. […]
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. […]
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union. . . .
You’re going to laugh at me; but putting this together with what McArdle said, I just really got for the first time why the Democrats are called the Democrats and the Republicans are called the Republicans.
Ambiance 
Peter Hoh said,
March 21, 2010 at 11:15 pm
“the tyranny of the majority, eked out by bending rules, making deals, breaking arms, buying votes.”
Where have I seen that before?
El Pollo Real said,
March 21, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Franklin didn’t say: “A Democracy-if you can keep it”.
Maxwell said,
March 22, 2010 at 8:56 am
Cry me a river. By that definition, we’ve been witnessing the tyranny of the majority since roughly 1798. Or can I assume you were also decrying the use of reconciliation to pass Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003?
You know as well as I do that Madison was not talking about the filibuster in this paper. Republicans still have access to all the tools of divided and representative government, up to and including the Supreme Court. The Democrats simply chose to pass legislation using a party line vote; we’ll see whether or not that was a mistake in the next several months. My guess is it wasn’t.
Icepick said,
March 22, 2010 at 9:20 am
Yes, Bush’s tax cuts are exactly like this health care reform bill.
amba12 said,
March 22, 2010 at 9:22 am
I’m not saying they shouldn’t have the tools; I’m saying that the use of them for something this big, in a vote this close, in an economy this shaky, is damaging. As you say, time will tell. I haven’t started reading the blather yet, but I suspect there’s some sense of relief and even optimism in some sectors just because SOMETHING was DONE. Somebody had the balls to make something happen, despite the majority that thinks it was the wrong thing.
Where the f*ck are we going to get the money? Serious question. Icepick provided a link to a government chart that shows that we’re up to and past “debt saturation” — the point at which more than what we take in goes to debt service. I’ve experienced this in miniature and thought of it as a “debt/death spiral.” You can’t borrow and print money forever.
Was it you, though, who pointed out that Bush’s Medicare D had actually ended up saving money?
I realize that every idea for cutting costs is going to piss some powerful interest group off: unions, seniors, doctors, drug companies . . . Everyone is indignant about not getting more and about being expected to give more. As much as we think we’re all suffering (and as unequally as we are in fact suffering), we are, as a people, pretty spoiled. No one has managed to sell the notion of shared sacrifice to Americans for many decades.
But it’s true: the private sector is going about systematically reducing/getting out of debt (I am!) — one reason why we’re not hiring, investing and spending more. The government, meanwhile, is plunging ever deeper in. (The CBO numbers are most likely nonsense based on nonsense.) It’s the magic pot, Mary Poppins’s valise that never runs out. Until . . .
But you understand more about this than I do, Maxwell; you have an MBA. Please explain why this is not extremely dangerous.
wj said,
March 22, 2010 at 9:54 am
In some regards, this whole discussion puts me in mind of the behavior of a lot of my contemporaries. They ran up debts so they could go on cruises every year, have a big flat screen TV, get a new car every couple of years, etc., etc. Eventually the bubble burst, and they are now retrenching like mad, trying to get their financial houses in order. And that’s just the less profligate ones; the real abusers are losing their houses along with their jobs. (No, I am not saying that everyone who lost their job and/or home in this recession was among the most profligate. After all, I was one of them. But those who were most profligate were among those how lost.)
So the real question on this particular bill (interesting word, that; could mean either a piece of legislation or a charge for goods or services; hmmm) would be: Is this an investment in something actually worthwhile? Or is it spending on a luxury that we want, but really don’t need? Because even when money is tight, spending on an investment can make sense, even though spending on luxuries is right out.
As far as I can see, support and opposition to Health Care Reform (which is actually mostly Health Insurance Reform, but that’s a different story) come down to differing opinions on just that question. Because everyone with at least two brain cells to rub together, on both sides of the question, know (whether they admit it to themselves, let alone out loud to anyone else, or not) that the government is in much the same unsustainable situation with regards to the balance between revenue and spending.
amba12 said,
March 22, 2010 at 10:20 am
Here are some interesting figures about Americans’ household debt, including the following:
“Over a lifetime, the average American will pay over $600,000 in interest.”
If this average American household took what it spent on debt service each month and invested it, they could be millionaires in 15 to 20 years.
Maxwell said,
March 22, 2010 at 10:28 am
amba,
I agree with you that we have a long-term debt problem. But the healthcare bill is not debt-financed! It is financed through a combination of new taxes and cuts to existing programs.
So I don’t really understand your question. Do you not believe that the taxes will actually increase revenue as stated? Or do you not believe that Congress will actually implement the cuts?
Personally, I approve of raising taxes for this purpose. Our economic outlook suggests that we may be looking at a long period of structural 10% unemployment and substantially more underemployment, and frankly I don’t see a way out of that. If you’ve got ideas for growing the economy right now, please share them – but I’ll note that we had 8 years of the lowest top-rate marginal taxes in decades, and that got us jack in terms of sustainable growth.
With an employment-based insurance system for most people under 65, that means more and more people will be uninsured in the years to come. I think that’s a real and pressing social problem, and one that the healthcare bill would meaningfully address. I’ll add that the subsection of our population that is gainfully employed often benefit from being insiders of either the corporate or government variety. That means that they are the people whose taxes will go up. I am all in favor of that, even though I am one.
It’s a long way from being a perfect bill, and I agree with your skepticism about its cost containment measures. But as you note, with even Republicans opposing cuts to Medicare the market for cost containment is pitiful. This bill will at least try some experiments that will point us in a better direction.
By the way, my MBA has been spectacularly useless in terms of understanding this debate. What I know – and I definitely don’t claim to be an expert – I know through simple reading.
amba12 said,
March 22, 2010 at 10:35 am
I fear Rick Moran has it about right:
At bottom, it isn’t the fact that the numbers have been fudged, smudged, and mutilated to massage them into a PR pablum that would help the bill go down easier with the American people. It’s the breathtaking irresponsibility inherent in the notion that we are creating this out-of-control entitlement at a time when the federal budget will be running deficits of more than a trillion dollars a year almost as far as the eye can see. […]
What madness has gripped Democrats in Congress who have already shown an enormous reluctance to deal with our current deficit and a willingness to add untold billions of dollars to it that has the real potential to bankrupt us?
Others may wish to exaggerate and claim that this is the “death of freedom” or that the bill places us on the road to a Marxist dictatorship. Instead, I agree with Matthew Yglesias, who proudly states that health care reform is the completion of the American welfare state.
Maxwell said,
March 22, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Oh, and yes: it was me who posted the link about Medicare Part D. Discussion here.
Charlie (Colorado) said,
March 22, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Maxwell, frankly, those numbers are nonsense, and pretty well everyone who looks at them knows it. Start with the fact that the CBO estimates contain ten years of revenue enhancement and only six years of expenditures. Then add the “doc fix”, which will get done because not even Congress can make doctors treat patents for less than their cost.
Charlie (Colorado) said,
March 22, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Not to answer for Annie, but he’s how I’d answer your quesations, Maxwell:
Do you not believe that the taxes will actually increase revenue as stated?
Yes, exactly.
Or do you not believe that Congress will actually implement the cuts?
That too; if Congress actually implements the cuts, doctors will drop Medicare and Medicaid patients in droves. Congress can’t force doctors to lose money.
If you’ve got ideas for growing the economy right now, please share them – but I’ll note that we had 8 years of the lowest top-rate marginal taxes in decades, and that got us jack in terms of sustainable growth.
Bullshit. Do the math: we had eight years of growth at five-ish percent, followed by a couple of quarters of decline at a max rate of about -8 percent. Unless your definition of “sustainable growth” is “and never ever have another recession ever again” — in which case I’d recommend you investigate moving to Cloud-Cuckoo Land with the Unicorns — we did quite well with the growth.
In any case, there’s little better guaranteed to prevent or slow adding new jobs than making it more expensive to hire.
realpc said,
March 22, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I love the way Madison thought, and what he said about factions is so true. He had such a wonderfully profound distrust of human nature. And that generic distrust is exactly what progressive Democrats do not have. Progressives distrust non-progressives, but they have a grand and unhesitating trust in themselves. And now they re the majority in congress and at last they can fix everything up and make everything right. And they know is’t all possible, because just look at the Scandinavian countries.
If the Democrats (or the more progressive Democrats anyway) didn’t have Denmark and Sweden, etc., to point to, they wouldn’t know what to say about health care. Every advanced nation makes health care a universal right, except us. I don’t know if that’s true, but it is what they always say.
So now we have a smart president and a Democratic congress and there is no reason on earth they can’t straighten things out. Supposedly.
I don’t know what Madison would say about all this, but here is my guess: The most dangerous person of all is the one who knows he is smart. And the reason he is dangerous is because he trusts his own judgement, as do the people around him.
The financial crisis was caused primarily by faith in human intelligence. Democrats blame it on greed, corruption, etc. They never look at the basic cause, which was the clever financial products and schemes that removed the risk from risk-taking.
So we are now drowning in the results of all that cleverness, and our answer is yet more cleverness.
Just as almost no one knew what was inside those complex derivatives, almost no one knows what’s inside that health care reform bill.
Maxwell said,
March 22, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Charlie,
Start with the fact that the CBO estimates contain ten years of revenue enhancement and only six years of expenditures
This is standard practice for the creation of new entitlements – the taxes always start a few years before benefits begin getting paid out. See Social Security.
But let’s say you’re right – the CBO projects $55B of deficit reduction in those first four years. For the last six, it projects $63B of total reduction (I’m using the $118B figure, as I can’t find the charts for the most recent $138B recalculation). Still in the black.
Then add the “doc fix”
I agree that it will get done, which is a damn shame, since the docs have been setting their own “costs” for the last two decades. They’ve got us by the balls, to put it mildly. But of course the doc fix was in before HCR was even started. Still, let’s grant you that it’s somehow part of the bill – that’s another $208b over 10 years, or $21 per.
So even with your questionable assumptions, that’s $42B in the black, with savings projected to grow in the next decade.
Now, let’s look on the other side of the ledger. First, the CBO has a history of underestimating the savings from healthcare legislation, most notably for Medicare Part D. It was conservative enough in this case to not score any of the experimental cost-saving measures at all. Certainly if one wanted to “game” the score those would be a prime target.
Second, Congress has a considerably better history of implementing Medicare spending cuts than it is commonly given credit for.
All that said, I am skeptical of the cost-saving arguments presented by the CBO and supporters of the bill. I expect it will probably be more expensive than predicted. But as wj alluded, I think the benefits are worth the increased taxes – especially given our long-term unemployment situation.
I’ll respond to your other comments later.
Maxwell said,
March 22, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Lost a link there – here’s the article on CBO cost overestimates.
amba12 said,
March 22, 2010 at 2:08 pm
realpc wins the thread — at least to my ambivalent heart!
Maxwell said,
March 22, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Bullshit. Do the math: we had eight years of growth at five-ish percent, followed by a couple of quarters of decline at a max rate of about -8 percent.
Oh, okay, you caught me exaggerating. It didn’t get us “jack” for growth – what it got us was anemic growth, one of the worst expansions since WWII, well below average in terms of median wages and job growth, and impressive only in terms of corporate profits (much of which were found to be illusory during the financial crisis). While also adding significantly to the deficit that “conservatives” nowadays love to decry.
What’s funny to me is that the historical case for tax cuts as a stimulator of growth is actually quite weak. Most of its continued relevancy is actually dependent on econometric models, not unlike the models used by Wall Street… or the CBO. When actual historical data is used, the results tend to be underwhelming (PDF).
Stephanie said,
March 22, 2010 at 4:03 pm
So republicans are Republican because they “….. sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction,….”?
I guess I missed where the Republicans were any better than the Democrats in that regard when they had control. But then maybe I just imagined the tax cuts, the Iraq War, and the Patriot Act, to name a few recent examples.
amba12 said,
March 22, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Stephanie,
The Iraq war was utterly bipartisan. I believe only one Democrat dared to vote against it. That vote was won by a combination of the lingering unity and fear after 9/11 plus the trumped-up case for Saddam’s WMD.
The polarization has been getting more and more extreme with each swing of the pendulum, but never before has every trace of bipartisanship vanished, and never before has such a slender majority been determined to overpower such an utterly opposed minority without the assurance of any popular mandate on the subject at all.
Icepick said,
March 22, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Charlie wrote: Bullshit. Do the math: we had eight years of growth at five-ish percent, followed by a couple of quarters of decline at a max rate of about -8 percent. Unless your definition of “sustainable growth” is “and never ever have another recession ever again” — in which case I’d recommend you investigate moving to Cloud-Cuckoo Land with the Unicorns — we did quite well with the growth.
I call bullshit.
Much of that “growth” in the middle was accomplished by blowing up a huge residential real estate bubble. People used their houses like ATMs to drive demand. But that debt has to be paid eventually, which is why some places are looking at 25%+ rates of 90 day delinquencies and foreclosures on mortgages. (The 60+ day figures are even more sickening.) It was real easy to see in living in Florida, unless your were getting paid to not see it, like the bankers and the developers and the government types and the people who were flipping houses every 18 months and … and … and ….
“Ought for the Oughts” is the summary of job growth in the 2000s. We have fewer jobs at the end of the decade than we had at the start. That is a staggering situation for a country with an increasing population, and it puts the lie to the claim that we had good economic growth for all but a couple of quarters. What growth we had was fueled by a giant asset bubble.
Charlie (Colorado) said,
March 22, 2010 at 6:01 pm
This is standard practice for the creation of new entitlements – the taxes always start a few years before benefits begin getting paid out. See Social Security.
Yeah, and Social Security is broken too. Which side were you trying to argue again?
Read around a little bit — it’s clear the CBO estimates were heavily gamed, and ewven the Administration’s own chief actuary for Medicare says they’re wildly under-estimated.
What’s funny to me is that the historical case for tax cuts as a stimulator of growth is actually quite weak. Most of its continued relevancy is actually dependent on econometric models, not unlike the models used by Wall Street… or the CBO. When actual historical data is used, the results tend to be underwhelming (PDF).
You’d probably be best off, if you’re going to cite a paper, to read it first. Note the last paragraph of the abstract:
Now, let’s consider the numbers. That’s a 0.2 to 0.3 increase in growth rate. In other words, what would have been, for example, a 3 pct growth rate becomes a 3.3 pct growth rate, a ten-percent increase. All else being equal, that implies something like a 10 percent increase in rate of growth of jobs.
Charlie (Colorado) said,
March 22, 2010 at 6:02 pm
I call bullshit.
Go ahead, The numbers are on my side.
Icepick said,
March 22, 2010 at 6:06 pm
well below average in terms of median wages and job growth
I distrust the median wage figures. Do those figures include employee healthcare coverage? If they don’t they only capture part of the picture.
Icepick said,
March 22, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Sorry, I exagggerate – we did have job growth in the Oughts. From the BLS:
Total Employment (in thousands)
1999 128,993
2009 130,920
So there was job growth. The next column doesn’t look so good:
Total Private Employment (in thousands)
1999 108,686
2009 108,371
Take out government sector growth, and we’re negative. That is not good.
Icepick said,
March 22, 2010 at 7:12 pm
The GDP numbers may be on your side Charlie, but that isn’t the sole measure of economic health. At the end of those good years you cite we end up in a situation with high sustained unemployment, several sectors of the economy wrecked and massive amounts of new federal government debt. Not to mention the partime for economic reasons, the discouraged workers and the marginally attached. This appears to be a systemic shift, too, and not merely a business cycle recession. That isn’t the result of two bad quarters, that’s the result years and years of mismanagement. (I would say decades of mismanagement, but various partisans will try to place all blame on Republicans or Democrats and will cherry-pick dates and policies.)
You’re partially correct, though. It’s unlikely lower marginal tax rates had more than a minimal impact on the current crisis. Bad oversight of the financial sector and stupid interventions into the housing sector are the driving factors.
El Pollo Real said,
March 22, 2010 at 7:32 pm
If the Democrats (or the more progressive Democrats anyway) didn’t have Denmark and Sweden, etc., to point to, they wouldn’t know what to say about health care. Every advanced nation makes health care a universal right, except us. I don’t know if that’s true, but it is what they always say.
@Real (Hey I just realized that our “names” are related): I love it when any leftie throws around the canard about how much better healthcare is over in Scandinavia or Europe in general. I know that some of Amba’s readers have lived in Europe, but I sincerely wonder whether any have had a relative die there recently?
My wife’s uncle in Holland is dying of metastasized prostate cancer. He’ll probably be dead in a week or so. There are no heroic life-extending miracles under their system. You get cancer, you’ll get a little chemo or something to tide you over, but in general, when you time comes, you go home and die. Under the American system (if he had insurance, he would be living at least a couple more years). Nobody is bitching and complaining. The NL government will set you up with a nice webcam so that you can say goodbye to the loved ones who for what ever reason can’t be there, or for those you want to be there in the end but not “there there”.
As a rule, people do not/will not die in hospitals under universal care (unless of course you are somebody special with private insurance). And, if I’m to believe my wife, who works every day with the terminal and the dying as a nurse, dying in a hospital for many is a profoundly sad and lonely thing. There is nothing sadder or more wasteful than a family that can’t or won’t let go in some situations. There is no protocol in place for anyone of authority to step in and end that sort of waste. But there will be soon enough in a couple of years now- just in time for the onslaught of the many aged and dying. I have it on pretty good authority.
El Pollo Real said,
March 22, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Coincidentally, Instapundit linked to this story with photos about French hospitals and the “future” of our healthcare. Actually, I wouldn’t be to concerned if I were dying about these alleged conditions because as I said, most people in Europe die (and are born!) at home or in a nursing home and those conditions will of course vary.
Icepick said,
March 22, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Oops, typos in the 6:25 comment. Corrected below.
Sorry, I exagggerate – we did have job growth in the Oughts. From the BLS:
Total Employment (in thousands)
1999 128,993
2009 130,920
So there was job growth. The next column doesn’t look so good:
Total Private Employment (in thousands)
1999 108,686
2009 108,371
Take out government sector growth, and we’re negative. That is not good.
Maxwell said,
March 23, 2010 at 9:53 am
Charlie,
Listen: in my native stomping grounds of Cloud Cuckoo Land with the Unicorns, we have a special name for the range of numbers between 0.2 and 0.3 percent. We call it “the underwhelming interval.”
If you want to cling to that figure to claim that something happened, hey, be my guest. I will simply point out that the promises of growth proposed by the GOP and its think tanks have always been higher by an order of magnitude or so. For instance, from the first paragraph after the abstract:
Incidentally, I recommend reading the the rest of the paper, too – it is both interesting and balanced, if underwhelming.
To reiterate my original point: on their own, tax cuts show dismal promise for solving our economic doldrums. The GDP growth during the Bush years was anemic, and as Icepick points out the job growth was even more so. The recession that followed was severe, the financial problems and housing bubble that led to it have not been dealt with in any serious way, and in my opinion the chance of a double dip is high. I think we’re stuck in the same rut as the Japanese, and this lost decade will be followed by another.
And no, I don’t think the healthcare bill is a magic pony that we will all ride to a land of eternal economic sunshine. I think it’s the classic horse designed by a committee, then infused with a heavy dose of Chemical X for good measure. I just happen to think it’s the only horse we’ve got for the time being, and if we’re going down we’ll all go down together.
Nor do I think a return to Clintonville is the answer; as far as I’m concerned, the economic growth in the 90’s was entirely due to the long-dormant investments in IT. I don’t see anything like that coming around the corner either. Any plans for restoring growth are in all likelihood going to have to be entirely new, and to come from someplace wholly unexpected.
Maxwell said,
March 23, 2010 at 9:59 am
Icepick,
I distrust the median wage figures. Do those figures include employee healthcare coverage? If they don’t they only capture part of the picture.
Thanks for calling that out – that slipped my mind. Of course, the rise in premiums is a major component of what’s wrong in our economy. And no, I don’t know how to solve that problem, either.
Icepick said,
March 23, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Maxwell, I vacilate between thinking the increase in spending in healthcare in recent decades has been terribly destructive on the one hand and that it is a wonderful way to spend money on the other.
I think it’s the classic horse designed by a committee, then infused with a heavy dose of Chemical X for good measure.
Only the Power Puff Girls reference spares you my wrath! “You’re harcore!“