Those involved in marketing know that every product has a life cycle. Some of those cycles are short (pet rocks) and some are long (Twinkies). A study reported last month found that life cycles of cultural items are affected by how rapidly they rise to popularity. In general, a quick rise to popularity will mean an equally rapid drop, while a slow rise translates to a gradual drop. We call the former phenomenon a fad.
During the 2008 campaign season I wrote five posts that mentioned Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whom Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) selected as his vice presidential running mate. Only one of those posts discussed Palin in any detail. I steered clear of advocacy, because I wasn’t happy about McCain and I wasn’t quite sure what to make of Palin.
2½ years after becoming Alaska’s Governor, Palin announced last week that she will resign the post later this month. It would appear that Gov. Palin’s rapid rise to fame is following the standard model of product popularity discussed above. That is, she appears to be a fad.
The WSJ’s Peggy Noonan says good riddance to Palin in this article. While Noonan offers some very worthwhile insights, the overall article comes across as rather harsh. I have read Noonan for years. She is a staunch Catholic and Republican. Sometimes it seems to me that she holds these two organizations in similar regard. Perhaps this helps explain the hard words Noonan has for Gov. Palin.
Palin, writes Noonan, “hurts … the Republican brand …. Really, she is the most careless sower of discord since George W. Bush, who fractured the party and the movement that made him.” Although Palin is “a gifted retail politician,” she “wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough” and she “never learned how the other sides think, or why.” Moreover, Palin promoted this lack of insight as a badge of “authenticity.”
It seems that Palin is such a heretic to Noonan’s style of Republicanism that Noonan would like nothing better than to have Palin excommunicated from the party. Does Noonan feel the same way about Palin’s supporters? Her article seems to imply as much.
One of the things that bothered me about Palin from the outset was that she seemed to be little more than a pawn in the game of identity politics — a game which many conservatives decry as un-American. It was Noonan that wrote last September about conservatives viscerally sensing that Palin “is really one of them.” But the fawning, protective approach that some conservatives took to Palin creeped me out as much as did the Obamaton cult worshippers.
In the same article, Noonan pretty much said that Palin was nothing more than a useful cog in the McCain campaign’s political machinations. She wrote, “Palin's friends should be less immediately worried about what the Obama campaign will do to her than what the McCain campaign will do.” Noonan’s prescience on this matter seems to have been quite accurate.
Speculation as to the ‘real’ reason for Palin’s resignation is omni-available, so you can go elsewhere for that kind of salaciousness. But I think that it is completely preposterous to assume that Gov. Palin will ever be able to win any statewide or national election for the rest of her life. It’s even questionable as to whether residents of her home town of Wasilla would re-elect her to her former mayoral or council position. So I hope her reasons for resigning are pretty good.
Whether Ms. Noonan likes it or not, there are a lot of people in the GOP whose brand of Republicanism is more in line with Sarah Palin’s than with John McCain’s or Noonan’s. There’s not enough of them to bring a candidate in their mold to national office on their own, but there’s enough of them that the GOP can’t win a national office without them.
Interestingly, this statement could be turned around and applied to all of the major factions in the GOP. That ought to be food for thought as the members of various inquisitions within the party run around attempting to excommunicate heretics from the party.
Read more ...
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Unprofitable Health Care
Health care, some contend, is too special to be driven by a profit motive. As one person grappling with serious health issues and the corresponding costs asked, “Who can put a money value on a life?” Health care, it is said, should not be reduced to consumerism.
We all understand this sentiment. It is especially poignant when life circumstances demonstrate the cruelty of a system of care based on costs. Such sad stories frequently steer the course of public and private policy, as well as legal outcomes.
Unfortunately, many of these decisions are based in the concept of the free lunch. The harsh reality of the matter is that there is always a profit motive in every health care situation, with the possible exception of individual acts of pure charity, which usually can occur only within a tight group such as a family or a small community.
The profit of which I speak is not always plainly visible as financial gain. It can come in the form of power or fame, for example. But if you follow the trail far enough, you will ultimately find the money motive.
Health care is not an unlimited commodity and it always has a cost. Like every other scarce commodity, health care must be rationed. Many want to deny this fact, but in reality, the question is simply which form the rationing ought to take. The laws of economics cannot be repealed even when life is at stake. Someone has to foot the bill.
Most that decry the profit motive call for altruistically collectivizing health care costs. Moreover, they desire health care providers that mainly want to help people rather than those wanting to make money.
Collectivizing anything removes some choices from individuals and transfers them to an administrative bureaucracy of technical experts and bureaucrats that are quite removed from the actual providers and consumers. This inserts a third party into the provider-patient relationship.
The basic nature of all such organizations is to demand uniformity by limiting choice. This is unavoidable because it is the very nature of such a structure to produce such results. Yet, health care is a field that cries for specialty work in almost every interaction, since the needs and responses of humans vary so greatly. Enforcement of uniformity in health care is one of the worst mismatches of needs and solutions in any modern market.
Those clamoring today for increased collectivization of health care should consider the Utah State Liquor Store system. Speaking of government run liquor stores, Manhattan Institute fellow Regina Herzlinger explains in this article:
Moreover, it doesn’t even matter if government doesn’t run the whole system. Government only needs to have a significant stake in the market to effectively control all of the players in the market. This is what currently happens with Medicare. Is it any wonder that health care is one of the few areas of life where real costs have increased while satisfaction has decreased over the past 30 years?
For those that are fans of government mandated health insurance competition plans, such as the current Massachusetts system, Herzlinger has additional warnings. “Such markets limit competition, do not control costs, discourage entrepreneurial efforts, and thus cause consumer dissatisfaction.” Additionally, they are proven to be effective in moving people from private health care plans to the plans directly run by government.
Nor do you free yourself from profiteers when moving to a government centric model. Herzlinger writes:
Herzlinger notes that Swiss citizens are required by law to have health insurance, but they have broad latitude in the coverage they choose and they can buy it from any private health insurance company. It works much as does automobile or homeowner insurance. It turns out that the Swiss “are demonstrably price sensitive.” There is no reason to believe that this would be different for Americans or anyone else.
Health care will be rationed in any system. Period. How do you want that to happen: through individual health care consumer choice that fosters competition and innovation and incentivizes providers to profit by meeting your needs, or by the faceless bureaucracy bean counters that limit choice and stifle competition in the name of altruistic but unobtainable fairness?
Government has a role to play in health insurance, but Herzlinger says that the appropriate role is “is to help subsidize those who cannot afford health insurance; to enable transparency so that people can shop intelligently; and to prosecute fraud, abuse, and anti-competitive behavior. It’s not the government’s job to run markets.”
One recently retired fellow praised government for covering the high cost of his cancer treatments. He opined that proponents of such plans merely want to help care for the sick without a perverse profit motive that doesn’t care at all about the ill.
As we have seen, the profit motive still exists, even in government plans. There are still politicians and heavy lobbying firms and groups that seek to profit by limiting your choices and providing higher cost inferior services and products. That translates into more draconian rationing and loss of life, as is currently being demonstrated in the UK. (Unlike the US model where some lack insurance coverage but everyone has health care access, in the UK everyone has insurance coverage but many lack adequate access.)
Moreover, the man mentioned above seems to have failed to learn over a lifetime that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for his treatments, even if he is not paying for them himself. This means that someone is going without something they could otherwise have. Perhaps that includes the lady I met who is scrambling to make ends meet while covering much of the cost of her own cancer treatment or the single mom that took a job at a different grocery store with fewer benefits so that she could have more take home pay to meet more immediate needs. When government mandates health coverage, no one advocates for the faceless masses that pick up the costs — the forgotten Americans.
Like it or not, health care is a consumer market. Attempting to disguise the harshness of this reality will not make it go away. The current heavy push for choice limiting systems seeks to bring under the heavy hand of government what little personal liberty remains in the health care system.
If politicians really cared about the uninsured, they would sponsor solutions that expand the freedom to purchase cost effective health insurance rather than ‘remedies’ that mainly seek to expand government power. They would promote fair competition in the health care industry and they would offer ways to help those that can’t afford adequate care without trying to usurp control of a massive chunk of the economy.
But I’m not holding my breath while waiting for that to happen. As I said, there is a profit motive….
Read more ...
We all understand this sentiment. It is especially poignant when life circumstances demonstrate the cruelty of a system of care based on costs. Such sad stories frequently steer the course of public and private policy, as well as legal outcomes.
Unfortunately, many of these decisions are based in the concept of the free lunch. The harsh reality of the matter is that there is always a profit motive in every health care situation, with the possible exception of individual acts of pure charity, which usually can occur only within a tight group such as a family or a small community.
The profit of which I speak is not always plainly visible as financial gain. It can come in the form of power or fame, for example. But if you follow the trail far enough, you will ultimately find the money motive.
Health care is not an unlimited commodity and it always has a cost. Like every other scarce commodity, health care must be rationed. Many want to deny this fact, but in reality, the question is simply which form the rationing ought to take. The laws of economics cannot be repealed even when life is at stake. Someone has to foot the bill.
Most that decry the profit motive call for altruistically collectivizing health care costs. Moreover, they desire health care providers that mainly want to help people rather than those wanting to make money.
Collectivizing anything removes some choices from individuals and transfers them to an administrative bureaucracy of technical experts and bureaucrats that are quite removed from the actual providers and consumers. This inserts a third party into the provider-patient relationship.
The basic nature of all such organizations is to demand uniformity by limiting choice. This is unavoidable because it is the very nature of such a structure to produce such results. Yet, health care is a field that cries for specialty work in almost every interaction, since the needs and responses of humans vary so greatly. Enforcement of uniformity in health care is one of the worst mismatches of needs and solutions in any modern market.
Those clamoring today for increased collectivization of health care should consider the Utah State Liquor Store system. Speaking of government run liquor stores, Manhattan Institute fellow Regina Herzlinger explains in this article:
“Despite their ability as the single payer to extract better volume discounts from wholesalers than private liquor chains can, their prices are not lower than private stores’. Additionally, they slight consumers through shorter operating hours, inconvenient locations, limited brand availability, and inadequate advertising. By forcing consumers to adjust their shopping habits, they raise prices through loss of time. Although some advocates hope that these features limit liquor consumption, this is not the case.”Although some will cry that you can’t compare liquor stores to health care, I beg to differ. The state-run stores provide a good view of what happens in any government controlled market: restriction of choice and increased costs with no reduction of consumption.
Moreover, it doesn’t even matter if government doesn’t run the whole system. Government only needs to have a significant stake in the market to effectively control all of the players in the market. This is what currently happens with Medicare. Is it any wonder that health care is one of the few areas of life where real costs have increased while satisfaction has decreased over the past 30 years?
For those that are fans of government mandated health insurance competition plans, such as the current Massachusetts system, Herzlinger has additional warnings. “Such markets limit competition, do not control costs, discourage entrepreneurial efforts, and thus cause consumer dissatisfaction.” Additionally, they are proven to be effective in moving people from private health care plans to the plans directly run by government.
Nor do you free yourself from profiteers when moving to a government centric model. Herzlinger writes:
“Why do government-controlled markets require insurance plans that people may not want and prohibit others they may want? The reason is simple: Legislatures that run government markets respond to lobbyists financed by providers and insurers. These interests prefer to sell expensive policies rather than cheap ones; and no one lobbies for consumers. Also, the politics of empathy play a role: People with uncovered conditions often lobby, through the government and media, to force insurance companies to cover their maladies.”The costs imposed by such mandates are not itemized so as to keep them hidden to the premium payers. But in Massachusetts, the requirement to cover in vitro fertilization alone (for a very few) raises “everybody’s family insurance prices by as much as $900” annually. Ouch.
Herzlinger notes that Swiss citizens are required by law to have health insurance, but they have broad latitude in the coverage they choose and they can buy it from any private health insurance company. It works much as does automobile or homeowner insurance. It turns out that the Swiss “are demonstrably price sensitive.” There is no reason to believe that this would be different for Americans or anyone else.
Health care will be rationed in any system. Period. How do you want that to happen: through individual health care consumer choice that fosters competition and innovation and incentivizes providers to profit by meeting your needs, or by the faceless bureaucracy bean counters that limit choice and stifle competition in the name of altruistic but unobtainable fairness?
Government has a role to play in health insurance, but Herzlinger says that the appropriate role is “is to help subsidize those who cannot afford health insurance; to enable transparency so that people can shop intelligently; and to prosecute fraud, abuse, and anti-competitive behavior. It’s not the government’s job to run markets.”
One recently retired fellow praised government for covering the high cost of his cancer treatments. He opined that proponents of such plans merely want to help care for the sick without a perverse profit motive that doesn’t care at all about the ill.
As we have seen, the profit motive still exists, even in government plans. There are still politicians and heavy lobbying firms and groups that seek to profit by limiting your choices and providing higher cost inferior services and products. That translates into more draconian rationing and loss of life, as is currently being demonstrated in the UK. (Unlike the US model where some lack insurance coverage but everyone has health care access, in the UK everyone has insurance coverage but many lack adequate access.)
Moreover, the man mentioned above seems to have failed to learn over a lifetime that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for his treatments, even if he is not paying for them himself. This means that someone is going without something they could otherwise have. Perhaps that includes the lady I met who is scrambling to make ends meet while covering much of the cost of her own cancer treatment or the single mom that took a job at a different grocery store with fewer benefits so that she could have more take home pay to meet more immediate needs. When government mandates health coverage, no one advocates for the faceless masses that pick up the costs — the forgotten Americans.
Like it or not, health care is a consumer market. Attempting to disguise the harshness of this reality will not make it go away. The current heavy push for choice limiting systems seeks to bring under the heavy hand of government what little personal liberty remains in the health care system.
If politicians really cared about the uninsured, they would sponsor solutions that expand the freedom to purchase cost effective health insurance rather than ‘remedies’ that mainly seek to expand government power. They would promote fair competition in the health care industry and they would offer ways to help those that can’t afford adequate care without trying to usurp control of a massive chunk of the economy.
But I’m not holding my breath while waiting for that to happen. As I said, there is a profit motive….
Read more ...
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Housing Crisis Remedies Driven By Political Whim
Economist Stan Liebowitz says in this WSJ op-ed that “most government policies being discussed to remedy woes in the housing market are misdirected” because they are based on a misunderstanding of “the actual causes of the mortgage crisis.”
Using real (and readily available) data Liebowitz shows that most of the causes of the housing crisis being promoted by the media and the political class — subprime mortgages, so-called “liar loans,” poor creditworthiness, unemployment, upward reset of interest rates, and under regulation — are only contributory factors rather than the meat of the matter.
To avoid future problems, it is important to correctly understand the basic causes of the crisis. Implementation of all of the “suggestions being put forward by the administration and most media outlets -- more stringent regulation of subprime lenders -- would not have prevented the mortgage meltdown regardless of their merit otherwise.”
The central issue in the current foreclosure crisis is people having no skin in the game. That is, they owe more than their property is worth. Much ado has been made in some corners about people that are “upside down” on their mortgage. It turns out that this is not only a major problem; it is THE major problem. Yet none of the remedies being offered address this matter.
Liebowitz asserts that a “significant reduction in foreclosures will happen when and only when housing prices” reach true market levels “and unemployment stops rising.” He asserts that “current [home] prices are approaching their long-term, inflation-adjusted pre-bubble level,” but he warns that many of the policies aimed at helping could actually derail this natural progression and exacerbate the problem.
In his final sentence, Liebowitz cites “fictitious causes that fit political agendas and election strategies” as the basis for most of the policies presently being advanced as solutions to the housing crisis.
When dealing with political matters it is essential to understand that politics has its own economy. It is the nature of that economy for politicians to publicly hide behind a mask of altruism while responding to political incentives. Political maneuverings are chiefly designed to increase the power of the individual politician or select groups. All the better if this can be done while simultaneously promoting (or appearing to promote) an ideological agenda with which the politician or group is aligned, or while increasing the power of political allies.
Wise citizens should gain a healthy appreciation for the political economy. They must realize that it is necessary adroitly work within this system — though often unpleasant — to advance their own causes, even when those causes are just. The trick is to pull that off while remaining unsullied.
Read more ...
Using real (and readily available) data Liebowitz shows that most of the causes of the housing crisis being promoted by the media and the political class — subprime mortgages, so-called “liar loans,” poor creditworthiness, unemployment, upward reset of interest rates, and under regulation — are only contributory factors rather than the meat of the matter.
To avoid future problems, it is important to correctly understand the basic causes of the crisis. Implementation of all of the “suggestions being put forward by the administration and most media outlets -- more stringent regulation of subprime lenders -- would not have prevented the mortgage meltdown regardless of their merit otherwise.”
The central issue in the current foreclosure crisis is people having no skin in the game. That is, they owe more than their property is worth. Much ado has been made in some corners about people that are “upside down” on their mortgage. It turns out that this is not only a major problem; it is THE major problem. Yet none of the remedies being offered address this matter.
Liebowitz asserts that a “significant reduction in foreclosures will happen when and only when housing prices” reach true market levels “and unemployment stops rising.” He asserts that “current [home] prices are approaching their long-term, inflation-adjusted pre-bubble level,” but he warns that many of the policies aimed at helping could actually derail this natural progression and exacerbate the problem.
In his final sentence, Liebowitz cites “fictitious causes that fit political agendas and election strategies” as the basis for most of the policies presently being advanced as solutions to the housing crisis.
When dealing with political matters it is essential to understand that politics has its own economy. It is the nature of that economy for politicians to publicly hide behind a mask of altruism while responding to political incentives. Political maneuverings are chiefly designed to increase the power of the individual politician or select groups. All the better if this can be done while simultaneously promoting (or appearing to promote) an ideological agenda with which the politician or group is aligned, or while increasing the power of political allies.
Wise citizens should gain a healthy appreciation for the political economy. They must realize that it is necessary adroitly work within this system — though often unpleasant — to advance their own causes, even when those causes are just. The trick is to pull that off while remaining unsullied.
Read more ...
Monday, July 06, 2009
Drowning In Information
My kids and their friends do not remember the days before the Internet. But it really wasn’t very long ago that the hippest people started adding an email address to their business cards. As email became more common, a weird business culture developed where the number of emails in a person’s in-box became some kind of status symbol.
Then came the days when everyone with an email account ended up with overflowing in-boxes. That’s when the rest of us realized that most email is superfluous garbage, and that having a lot of unread email is simply a sign of poor personal management skills. Some people haven’t gotten the memo yet. They apparently can’t read their colleague’s eye-rolling body language when the martyr’s sigh of unread email is uttered.
I still know people that feel duty bound to pore over every single piece of electronic junk that survives the filtering process to arrive in their in-box. The number of hours these people spend watching soaring PowerPoint presentations is truly mind boggling. But that’s nothing compared to the time they spend taking in and forwarding the ever proliferating incredible hoaxes that can’t withstand two seconds of thoughtful scrutiny.
Many in the sub-25 generation can’t understand why ‘old’ people are still so reliant on email. They continue to use the mature technology of cell phone texting while they simultaneously use Facebook and Twitter. But they see these technologies as THEIR domain.
One of my teenagers complained that it was “creepy” when a middle age neighbor added him as a friend on Facebook. It’s one thing to have a parent connection on Facebook, he said, but “old people” should otherwise stay off.
But another son dislikes Twitter’s logo. He thinks it kind of looks like a guy sitting on the can reading the newspaper.
We are becoming a society of the continuously connected. Some boys freaked out at a recent meeting when the scoutmaster told them that there would be no cell phones allowed at Boy Scout camp. (It’s OK. There’s no coverage up there anyway.) Many of these boys are simply imitating their parents.
We suffer from information overload, says WSJ tech editorialist L. Gordon Crovitz. He asks, “What does it mean that for the first time, information is no longer scarce?” Some complain that we have lost depth as the breadth of information access has increased. “The current trend” says economist Tyler Cowen, “as it has been running for decades -- is that a lot of our culture is coming in shorter and smaller bits.” That explains why today’s newspaper contains only a fraction of the content the same paper contained 30 years ago.
“Humans adapt” writes Crovitz, “so we'll learn how to live with information overabundance.” Tools are already developing for this purpose. As is usually the case with new technologies, the young will be the first to become adept at judiciously using such tools, he says.
The image of an older fellow struggling to swim in heavy waves comes to mind. As the man fights to keep his head above water, an agile teenager rips by on a surfboard being propelled forward by the very waves that are threatening to take the man down.
Actually, I much more optimistic about information management than that. Glub … bubble ….
Read more ...
Then came the days when everyone with an email account ended up with overflowing in-boxes. That’s when the rest of us realized that most email is superfluous garbage, and that having a lot of unread email is simply a sign of poor personal management skills. Some people haven’t gotten the memo yet. They apparently can’t read their colleague’s eye-rolling body language when the martyr’s sigh of unread email is uttered.
I still know people that feel duty bound to pore over every single piece of electronic junk that survives the filtering process to arrive in their in-box. The number of hours these people spend watching soaring PowerPoint presentations is truly mind boggling. But that’s nothing compared to the time they spend taking in and forwarding the ever proliferating incredible hoaxes that can’t withstand two seconds of thoughtful scrutiny.
Many in the sub-25 generation can’t understand why ‘old’ people are still so reliant on email. They continue to use the mature technology of cell phone texting while they simultaneously use Facebook and Twitter. But they see these technologies as THEIR domain.
One of my teenagers complained that it was “creepy” when a middle age neighbor added him as a friend on Facebook. It’s one thing to have a parent connection on Facebook, he said, but “old people” should otherwise stay off.
But another son dislikes Twitter’s logo. He thinks it kind of looks like a guy sitting on the can reading the newspaper.
We are becoming a society of the continuously connected. Some boys freaked out at a recent meeting when the scoutmaster told them that there would be no cell phones allowed at Boy Scout camp. (It’s OK. There’s no coverage up there anyway.) Many of these boys are simply imitating their parents.
We suffer from information overload, says WSJ tech editorialist L. Gordon Crovitz. He asks, “What does it mean that for the first time, information is no longer scarce?” Some complain that we have lost depth as the breadth of information access has increased. “The current trend” says economist Tyler Cowen, “as it has been running for decades -- is that a lot of our culture is coming in shorter and smaller bits.” That explains why today’s newspaper contains only a fraction of the content the same paper contained 30 years ago.
“Humans adapt” writes Crovitz, “so we'll learn how to live with information overabundance.” Tools are already developing for this purpose. As is usually the case with new technologies, the young will be the first to become adept at judiciously using such tools, he says.
The image of an older fellow struggling to swim in heavy waves comes to mind. As the man fights to keep his head above water, an agile teenager rips by on a surfboard being propelled forward by the very waves that are threatening to take the man down.
Actually, I much more optimistic about information management than that. Glub … bubble ….
Read more ...
Thursday, July 02, 2009
America's Great Anniversary Festival
Our Independence Day celebrations have thrilled me since I was a child. On July 3, 1776, John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail:
At the time Adams was writing his letter to his wife, many Americans openly feared the prospect of war with England. But, like Adams, many Americans were quite certain that they would triumph because their cause was just. The next five years were probably harsher than most had anticipated. American support for the revolution waxed and waned depending on how battles went. There were many times that the cause appeared to be lost.
It seems clear that without George Washington’s complete personal devotion to the revolution, the cause would have failed. As Lafayette was later to say of Washington, “He was the revolution.” In many respects this is true. He held the cause together by the sheer force of his personality and character and Americans responded. Various British and Hessian officers remarked that they were often amazed by these provincials that would defy kings, lose battles, and yet keep on fighting. One remarked that when he looked upon the Americans they seemed to be “a new breed of men.”
Although the British kept winning battles, they proved unwilling and/or unable to do what was necessary to win the war. On the other side of the Atlantic, the initial overwhelming enthusiasm for the war waned as it impoverished the treasury, impaired trade, and spawned new wars with France. After Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown, the English felt it was best to let the Americans go their own way, although, a formal treaty took nearly two more years to complete. Due to this and the subsequent adoption of the Constitution, we still celebrate Independence Day each July 4th.
My town has been hosting official Independence Day celebrations since its incorporation over half a century ago. Each year there is a sunrise flag raising ceremony, a community breakfast, a 5K run/walk, a children’s parade, a formal parade, an arts and crafts show, live entertainer performances, baseball games, a golf tournament, a volleyball tournament, a beauty pageant, a rodeo, a small fair, a Dutch oven cook-off, a car show, a concert, a scavenger hunt, and fireworks. It’s a pretty full day. (Actually, some of the events run during the days running up to the 4th.) It would be difficult to attend all of the various events.
Although the town’s population has grown during my lifetime, the community Independence Day celebration still has a very hometown feel to it. It’s a nice time to relax with neighbors and friends. I’m not sure that I see much in the way of “solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty,” but I think that Mr. Adams would find our community’s celebration otherwise quite in line with his 1776 forecast, were he to visit this year.
Here’s wishing you and yours a glorious 4th of July celebration.
Read more ...
“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not. (The Book of Abigail and John: Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784, Harvard University Press, 1975, 142 [original spelling and punctuation] as quoted at http://www1.american.edu/heintze/Adams.htm).”Adams turned out to be off by two days. Although the Continental Congress had formally (and narrowly) voted for independence from Britain on July 2, the actual wording of the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was not approved until July 4. Although annual formal celebrations of independence began the following year on July 4, 1777, it appears to have been nearly a century later that Congress officially designated July 4 as the Independence Day holiday (see Wikipedia article).
At the time Adams was writing his letter to his wife, many Americans openly feared the prospect of war with England. But, like Adams, many Americans were quite certain that they would triumph because their cause was just. The next five years were probably harsher than most had anticipated. American support for the revolution waxed and waned depending on how battles went. There were many times that the cause appeared to be lost.
It seems clear that without George Washington’s complete personal devotion to the revolution, the cause would have failed. As Lafayette was later to say of Washington, “He was the revolution.” In many respects this is true. He held the cause together by the sheer force of his personality and character and Americans responded. Various British and Hessian officers remarked that they were often amazed by these provincials that would defy kings, lose battles, and yet keep on fighting. One remarked that when he looked upon the Americans they seemed to be “a new breed of men.”
Although the British kept winning battles, they proved unwilling and/or unable to do what was necessary to win the war. On the other side of the Atlantic, the initial overwhelming enthusiasm for the war waned as it impoverished the treasury, impaired trade, and spawned new wars with France. After Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown, the English felt it was best to let the Americans go their own way, although, a formal treaty took nearly two more years to complete. Due to this and the subsequent adoption of the Constitution, we still celebrate Independence Day each July 4th.
My town has been hosting official Independence Day celebrations since its incorporation over half a century ago. Each year there is a sunrise flag raising ceremony, a community breakfast, a 5K run/walk, a children’s parade, a formal parade, an arts and crafts show, live entertainer performances, baseball games, a golf tournament, a volleyball tournament, a beauty pageant, a rodeo, a small fair, a Dutch oven cook-off, a car show, a concert, a scavenger hunt, and fireworks. It’s a pretty full day. (Actually, some of the events run during the days running up to the 4th.) It would be difficult to attend all of the various events.
Although the town’s population has grown during my lifetime, the community Independence Day celebration still has a very hometown feel to it. It’s a nice time to relax with neighbors and friends. I’m not sure that I see much in the way of “solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty,” but I think that Mr. Adams would find our community’s celebration otherwise quite in line with his 1776 forecast, were he to visit this year.
Here’s wishing you and yours a glorious 4th of July celebration.
Read more ...
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Public Official Privacy
The media loves anything that smacks of salaciousness because it sells well. Demand for titillating and scandalous content is obviously quite high among news consumers. Fortunately for these consumers, people that have chosen to live in the public light frequently supply plenty of this kind of material.
Among those that have made recent headlines is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. While Sanford said this week in AP interviews that he was witnessing his “own political funeral,” he seemed to be doing everything in his power to keep his extramarital affair — the impetus for his professional demise — front and center in the national news cycle until this afternoon when it was announced that he was done baring his soul.
The man claims he is trying to “fall back in love with his wife” even while wistfully recalling his love affair with his “soul mate” mistress. This kind of talk makes me want to vomit. Sanford appears determined to depict himself as a caricature of a figure in a cheap romance novel.
The more Sanford talks about this matter, the more bizarre he looks. Some guys go out on the town with ‘the boys’ to carouse. Sanford admits to taking trips outside of the country with ‘the boys’ to do so. The whole world now knows that among the ways Sanford unwinds is to dig holes in his property with heavy excavating equipment and to leave the country to flirt with foreign women.
Yes, lots of powerful men philander and adulterate. But this is more than a simple boys-will-be-boys story. This kind of behavior is not close to normal. That’s one of the reasons that it makes news. But the fact that this guy is a powerful politician — a governor that until recently appeared to have a shot at the presidency — enhances its newsworthiness. The fact that he’s an unabashed conservative piques the interest even more.
Sanford has earned the ire of just about every stripe of conservative out there because his behavior reflects badly on their various causes. Fiscal conservatives are upset because Sanford has of late been perhaps the strongest advocate for fiscal conservatism in the nation. Sanford also seemed the image of a religious social conservative. Since adultery runs counter to such principles, social conservatives feel violated. As a captain in the Air Force reserves, Sanford appeared to be a strong supporter of national security, so security hawks feel betrayed.
Bob Lonsberry opined on his radio program this morning that it was none of the public’s business what Sanford or anyone else does behind bedroom doors, even if they are public officials. President Clinton’s peccadilloes, for example, should have been a purely private matter, said Lonsberry. The segment where Lonsberry mentioned this wasn’t very long, so he avoided mentioning any qualifiers. For example, would he still hold his assertion of privacy if said behavior involved illegal or unethical behavior? What if an underage person were involved?
I’ve heard others express a similar line of thought. The people of South Carolina are Sanford’s employer. The people of the U.S. were until recently his prospective employer. Does your employer or prospective employer have any right to know what goes on in your personal relationships? Do they have a right to know if you cheat on your spouse?
The law generally thinks not. Most of us have had co-workers whose job performance suffered through a period of relationship problems. In such cases, employers can address the performance issues, but bringing up the personal issues is usually off limits unless the employee asks for help. And then employers are required to keep the matter confidential.
Equating political leaders with employees, however, is problematic. One of the main reasons for rules restricting employers is the power differential between employer and employee. That dynamic is quite dissimilar when it comes to public officials. In this case, the governor holds far more power than any of his individual ‘employers.’
Even if the employee paradigm is accepted, there is a question about whether Gov. Sanford broke any laws or violated ethical constraints regarding the use of official resources. The people of SC have a right to question whether he is sufficiently fit to perform the duties of his office.
In most workplaces, any employee that engages in (even consensual) sexual conduct on company premises can expect to be fired. That’s one reason that Pres. Clinton’s misuse of the Oval Office raised problems. Similarly, there are also grounds for considering whether Sen. Ensign’s (R-NV) liaisons with one of his employees who was the wife of another of his employees exceeded ethical limits.
The world has changed a lot since the days of high profile philanderers like JFK. Historians can dig up many examples of leaders that performed their assignments well despite their personal infidelity. Consider Benjamin Franklin, for example. Is Lonsberry right? Does the public really have no right to information about the personal lives of public officials?
Like it or not, media access to people’s personal lives is more pervasive (and invasive) than ever. Couple this with the fact that some politicians use features of their personal lives as campaign material. Sanford certainly did so, as did John Edwards. Having chosen to deliberately insert personal relationship factors into the public debate, it is difficult to argue that they should be excluded from the public forum when they no longer work in the person’s favor.
The reality is that today’s job description for people embarking on a public career includes lack of privacy for the individual and his/her family and associates. This cost must be weighed when considering such a high profile occupation.
Does this cost us the service of individuals that could potentially do a great job? Undoubtedly. But more significantly, is there anything we can do about it? If so, is it something we should do?
Read more ...
Among those that have made recent headlines is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. While Sanford said this week in AP interviews that he was witnessing his “own political funeral,” he seemed to be doing everything in his power to keep his extramarital affair — the impetus for his professional demise — front and center in the national news cycle until this afternoon when it was announced that he was done baring his soul.
The man claims he is trying to “fall back in love with his wife” even while wistfully recalling his love affair with his “soul mate” mistress. This kind of talk makes me want to vomit. Sanford appears determined to depict himself as a caricature of a figure in a cheap romance novel.
The more Sanford talks about this matter, the more bizarre he looks. Some guys go out on the town with ‘the boys’ to carouse. Sanford admits to taking trips outside of the country with ‘the boys’ to do so. The whole world now knows that among the ways Sanford unwinds is to dig holes in his property with heavy excavating equipment and to leave the country to flirt with foreign women.
Yes, lots of powerful men philander and adulterate. But this is more than a simple boys-will-be-boys story. This kind of behavior is not close to normal. That’s one of the reasons that it makes news. But the fact that this guy is a powerful politician — a governor that until recently appeared to have a shot at the presidency — enhances its newsworthiness. The fact that he’s an unabashed conservative piques the interest even more.
Sanford has earned the ire of just about every stripe of conservative out there because his behavior reflects badly on their various causes. Fiscal conservatives are upset because Sanford has of late been perhaps the strongest advocate for fiscal conservatism in the nation. Sanford also seemed the image of a religious social conservative. Since adultery runs counter to such principles, social conservatives feel violated. As a captain in the Air Force reserves, Sanford appeared to be a strong supporter of national security, so security hawks feel betrayed.
Bob Lonsberry opined on his radio program this morning that it was none of the public’s business what Sanford or anyone else does behind bedroom doors, even if they are public officials. President Clinton’s peccadilloes, for example, should have been a purely private matter, said Lonsberry. The segment where Lonsberry mentioned this wasn’t very long, so he avoided mentioning any qualifiers. For example, would he still hold his assertion of privacy if said behavior involved illegal or unethical behavior? What if an underage person were involved?
I’ve heard others express a similar line of thought. The people of South Carolina are Sanford’s employer. The people of the U.S. were until recently his prospective employer. Does your employer or prospective employer have any right to know what goes on in your personal relationships? Do they have a right to know if you cheat on your spouse?
The law generally thinks not. Most of us have had co-workers whose job performance suffered through a period of relationship problems. In such cases, employers can address the performance issues, but bringing up the personal issues is usually off limits unless the employee asks for help. And then employers are required to keep the matter confidential.
Equating political leaders with employees, however, is problematic. One of the main reasons for rules restricting employers is the power differential between employer and employee. That dynamic is quite dissimilar when it comes to public officials. In this case, the governor holds far more power than any of his individual ‘employers.’
Even if the employee paradigm is accepted, there is a question about whether Gov. Sanford broke any laws or violated ethical constraints regarding the use of official resources. The people of SC have a right to question whether he is sufficiently fit to perform the duties of his office.
In most workplaces, any employee that engages in (even consensual) sexual conduct on company premises can expect to be fired. That’s one reason that Pres. Clinton’s misuse of the Oval Office raised problems. Similarly, there are also grounds for considering whether Sen. Ensign’s (R-NV) liaisons with one of his employees who was the wife of another of his employees exceeded ethical limits.
The world has changed a lot since the days of high profile philanderers like JFK. Historians can dig up many examples of leaders that performed their assignments well despite their personal infidelity. Consider Benjamin Franklin, for example. Is Lonsberry right? Does the public really have no right to information about the personal lives of public officials?
Like it or not, media access to people’s personal lives is more pervasive (and invasive) than ever. Couple this with the fact that some politicians use features of their personal lives as campaign material. Sanford certainly did so, as did John Edwards. Having chosen to deliberately insert personal relationship factors into the public debate, it is difficult to argue that they should be excluded from the public forum when they no longer work in the person’s favor.
The reality is that today’s job description for people embarking on a public career includes lack of privacy for the individual and his/her family and associates. This cost must be weighed when considering such a high profile occupation.
Does this cost us the service of individuals that could potentially do a great job? Undoubtedly. But more significantly, is there anything we can do about it? If so, is it something we should do?
Read more ...
Monday, June 29, 2009
Scratches and Dents
In the first four parts of this series (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4) I presented the concept that our current employer provided health care system is accidentally designed to reduce liberty, increase costs, and reduce satisfaction. I also explained the paradox that our competing private and public health care subsidy systems raise costs more than would having a single system one way or the other. I briefly mentioned what a more ideal system would look like. In this final segment I will explore this in a bit more detail.
David Miller’s 6/19/09 Pursuit of Liberty post highlighted a Downsize DC post that simplifies the health care issue down to two questions:
I once knew a family that lived in an area where it was determined that the properties in the area had been required to install private septic systems due to an error by the municipality. To bring the city into compliance with state requirements, the city agreed to pay to hook these few homes to the sewage system. The contractors hired by the city did the job per the city’s specifications. But the families were unexpectedly left without water for several days and their yards were left a mess. Every interaction between the families and the contractors turned into problems because the contractors were working for the city, not for the families.
The Downsize DC post aptly states, “If your doctor tailors his or her care to the policies of your insurance company, or some government program, then you don’t really have a doctor who works for you….” While your health care providers may be sympathetic to you, they respond to the incentives offered by their paymasters in the insurance companies and in the government. This limits innovation, cost cutting, and customer service incentives.
How often do you make claims to your homeowner insurance? Quite rarely, I’ll wager. Shouldn’t it be that way with health insurance? Wouldn’t it be better to be free of the oppressive rules that require you to carry a heavy health insurance burden so that you can buy the coverage that suits you best? Wouldn’t it be better to deal directly with health care providers instead of every interaction occurring through a bureaucratic screen? Downsize DC says:
But isn’t it true that people’s physical bodies are not created equal? Some have health problems due to no fault of their own. As far as I know, nothing I did contributed to the fact that I have Multiple Sclerosis. Wouldn’t the healthy bear much lower expenses than those with problems? And what about the elderly? Don’t we all generally have more health problems as we age, regardless of how well we care for ourselves? What about the poor or sick that can’t find affordable insurance?
There are parallels to this in housing. Even poor people somehow manage to carry homeowner insurance policies, even if it occurs through paying rent. In a freer system we could develop myriad ways of helping the poor and dealing with those with greater health care needs without hamstringing an entire industry. Greater liberty does not necessarily translate into fewer people having their needs met and meeting people’s needs does not require coercive policies.
The U.S. today seems intent on creating a health care system that is even worse than what we currently have. Instead of continuing to shackle themselves to coercive systems that promise security, Americans should instead consider how to increase individual liberty for all parts of our health care system.
Read more ...
David Miller’s 6/19/09 Pursuit of Liberty post highlighted a Downsize DC post that simplifies the health care issue down to two questions:
- For whom does your doctor work?
- Do you pay for your health insurance directly?
I once knew a family that lived in an area where it was determined that the properties in the area had been required to install private septic systems due to an error by the municipality. To bring the city into compliance with state requirements, the city agreed to pay to hook these few homes to the sewage system. The contractors hired by the city did the job per the city’s specifications. But the families were unexpectedly left without water for several days and their yards were left a mess. Every interaction between the families and the contractors turned into problems because the contractors were working for the city, not for the families.
The Downsize DC post aptly states, “If your doctor tailors his or her care to the policies of your insurance company, or some government program, then you don’t really have a doctor who works for you….” While your health care providers may be sympathetic to you, they respond to the incentives offered by their paymasters in the insurance companies and in the government. This limits innovation, cost cutting, and customer service incentives.
How often do you make claims to your homeowner insurance? Quite rarely, I’ll wager. Shouldn’t it be that way with health insurance? Wouldn’t it be better to be free of the oppressive rules that require you to carry a heavy health insurance burden so that you can buy the coverage that suits you best? Wouldn’t it be better to deal directly with health care providers instead of every interaction occurring through a bureaucratic screen? Downsize DC says:
“It’s really that simple. As long as insurance policies and/or government programs fund most of your health care, doctors will work for them and not for you.Since we are in charge of most of our home and auto maintenance issues, we are incentivized to take care to reduce the chance of making an insurance claim. We take steps to keep the kids from breaking windows with baseballs, for example. We try to avoid getting dents and scrapes. Shouldn’t our approach to our own health be like that?
“The same holds true for health insurance. As long as our health care coverage comes mostly from employer controlled insurance or the government, we won’t have a competitive health insurance market, and the cost of both insurance and health care will grow constantly.
“When Americans care about the impact that their use of health care has on their insurance premiums in the same way that they care about the impact that speeding tickets and minor scrapes have on their car insurance, you’ll know that our health care system has really been reformed.”
But isn’t it true that people’s physical bodies are not created equal? Some have health problems due to no fault of their own. As far as I know, nothing I did contributed to the fact that I have Multiple Sclerosis. Wouldn’t the healthy bear much lower expenses than those with problems? And what about the elderly? Don’t we all generally have more health problems as we age, regardless of how well we care for ourselves? What about the poor or sick that can’t find affordable insurance?
There are parallels to this in housing. Even poor people somehow manage to carry homeowner insurance policies, even if it occurs through paying rent. In a freer system we could develop myriad ways of helping the poor and dealing with those with greater health care needs without hamstringing an entire industry. Greater liberty does not necessarily translate into fewer people having their needs met and meeting people’s needs does not require coercive policies.
The U.S. today seems intent on creating a health care system that is even worse than what we currently have. Instead of continuing to shackle themselves to coercive systems that promise security, Americans should instead consider how to increase individual liberty for all parts of our health care system.
Read more ...
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Mixed Costs
In the previous three segments of this series (part 1, part 2, part 3) I put forward the argument that employer provided health care has some bad features that are inherent in the very structure of the program. I alluded to what some of these problems are. Now I will discuss them in greater detail.
Celebrated economist Milton Friedman explains in this 2001 article that employer provided health care has two cost-increasing effects.
Friedman says in the 2001 article that while his research is incomplete, he is led to believe that much of this unaccounted cost increase is attributable to a mixed system. That is, overall health care would cost less if we had a fully private third-party subsidized system or a fully government provided system. Having two systems, he thinks, causes significant cost increases. This is an inconvenient theory for those that want to continue with both systems. The proponents of solely government paid (run) care are correct that it would lower costs somewhat.
Of course, there is a tradeoff. Access to services and products is currently greater than it would be under a single system either way. While the competition between the two rival health care subsidy systems has the perverse effect of driving costs up instead of driving costs down as competition does in the regular market, it has the effect of increasing access.
Experience from other countries shows that once a single system is selected; focus shifts from better quality and access to cutting costs, since the people are captive and no longer need to be sold on a ‘single payer’ system. At this point rationing of health care by the bureaucracy increases and becomes inescapable (see here for a sampling of what to expect).
So what would Friedman suggest? He writes:
You may ask why we don’t simply extend the same tax benefit to individuals that is currently available only through employers. For one thing, it would only help those that actually pay federal income taxes. Since nearly half of all ‘taxpayers’ pay no federal income tax, they would not be helped much. But isn’t it true that they are already not helped much if they have employer provided health insurance? So perhaps that is a red herring. Friedman says:
It should be abundantly clear that almost every argument that applies against the employer provided third-party health care system applies at least equally to any system provided by the government. Hold on, we’re not quite done yet.
Next time: Scratches and Dents
Read more ...
Celebrated economist Milton Friedman explains in this 2001 article that employer provided health care has two cost-increasing effects.
“First, it leads employees to rely on their employer, rather than themselves, to make arrangements for medical care. Yet employees are likely to do a better job of monitoring medical care providers—because it is in their own interest—than is the employer or the insurance company or companies designated by the employer. Second, it leads employees to take a larger fraction of their total remuneration in the form of medical care than they would if spending on medical care had the same tax status as other expenditures.”Friedman’s research shows that fully one-third of the increase in medical costs during the last half of the 20th Century are attributable to publicly subsidized employer provided health care. Another one-quarter of the rise is attributable to Medicare. That leaves about 42% of cost increases unaccounted for.
Friedman says in the 2001 article that while his research is incomplete, he is led to believe that much of this unaccounted cost increase is attributable to a mixed system. That is, overall health care would cost less if we had a fully private third-party subsidized system or a fully government provided system. Having two systems, he thinks, causes significant cost increases. This is an inconvenient theory for those that want to continue with both systems. The proponents of solely government paid (run) care are correct that it would lower costs somewhat.
Of course, there is a tradeoff. Access to services and products is currently greater than it would be under a single system either way. While the competition between the two rival health care subsidy systems has the perverse effect of driving costs up instead of driving costs down as competition does in the regular market, it has the effect of increasing access.
Experience from other countries shows that once a single system is selected; focus shifts from better quality and access to cutting costs, since the people are captive and no longer need to be sold on a ‘single payer’ system. At this point rationing of health care by the bureaucracy increases and becomes inescapable (see here for a sampling of what to expect).
So what would Friedman suggest? He writes:
“If the tax exemption were removed, employees could bargain with their employers for higher take-home pay in lieu of medical care and provide for their own medical care either by dealing directly with medical care providers or by purchasing medical insurance. Removal of the tax exemption would enable governments to reduce the tax rate on income while raising the same total revenue. This hidden subsidy for medical care, currently more than $100 billion a year, is not included in reported figures on government health spending.”So Friedman is not advocating a tax increase. Rather, he’s advocating taxing the current employer provided health care benefit and lowering general tax rates to achieve revenue neutrality. The salutary effects would be increased liberty, decreased medical costs, and higher satisfaction.
You may ask why we don’t simply extend the same tax benefit to individuals that is currently available only through employers. For one thing, it would only help those that actually pay federal income taxes. Since nearly half of all ‘taxpayers’ pay no federal income tax, they would not be helped much. But isn’t it true that they are already not helped much if they have employer provided health insurance? So perhaps that is a red herring. Friedman says:
“Extending the tax exemption to all medical care—as in the current limited provision for medical savings accounts and the proposals to make such accounts more widely available—would reduce reliance on third-party payment. But, by extending the hidden subsidy to all medical care expenditures, it would increase the tendency of employees to take a larger portion of their remuneration in the form of medical care.”Hearkening back to my last post, subsidized systems to help pay for home maintenance or food would have similar effects. People would be incentivized to spend more of their household income on these things than they do today, leaving them less for other things like charitable donations, furniture, clothing, and family vacations. The subsidy road always misallocates resources and produces higher costs in the long run.
It should be abundantly clear that almost every argument that applies against the employer provided third-party health care system applies at least equally to any system provided by the government. Hold on, we’re not quite done yet.
Next time: Scratches and Dents
Read more ...
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Cost of Shackles
Does it really make sense to hold tenaciously to our current system of employer provided health care?
In the first segment of this series I introduced the concept of the company store and offered some explanation as to what was bad about it. In the second segment I explained how employer provided health insurance has become today’s version of the company store and I suggested that it would be good to explore whether its continuance was merited. In this segment, I will investigate this question.
We have lived in our current home for a number of years. During those years we have cut the lawn and cleared the snow many times. We have built a cedar fence, poured concrete pads and borders, finished our basement, added rooms onto the home, replaced shingles, replaced roof sheathing, replaced part of the driveway, fixed leaks, planted trees and ornamentals, had trees removed, done some rewiring, replaced floor coverings, repainted, had major renovations done to the exterior walls, installed new windows, built permanent shelving, and done numerous other maintenance and upgrade projects.
Shelter is one of life’s essentials. Why isn’t it possible for my employer to offer a tax free plan that would cover the costs of home repair and upkeep — in exchange for a lower taxable salary, of course? Just think how wonderful it would be if I could just make a $25 co-payment and have a preferred roofing provider come in and replace the shingles every 15 or 20 years? Wouldn’t that save potentially larger future costs, since I might be so remiss as to let the roof go completely to pot before doing something about it?
The faucet in my main shower has been giving me fits. Despite my attempts to fix it, the thing continues to leak. I’m going to have to call in a plumber. Wouldn’t it be great if I could just make a $25 co-payment and have a plan approved plumber come and fix my leaky shower? We haven’t had a professional tree trimming service in for a long time. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if that could be done with a $25 co-pay?
What kind of incentives would such a system engender? How would people respond to those incentives? How would the plan’s administrative bureaucracy turn a profit? Where would the money come from? What would your local Home Depot look like once it jumped through the hoops that allowed it to become a preferred provider of the various plans out there? Since it would then owe much of its existence to tax subsidies, it would be subject to all kinds of new regulations developed by ever inventive politicians and bureaucrats. What do you think your shopping experience would be like once two levels of bureaucrats are inserted between you and every handyman, contractor, and hardware store? What would happen to the cost of plumbers, roofers, tree trimmers, etc? Does this look like a good picture to you?
Even more essential to life than shelter is food. Maybe we should just go back to the days of the company store. We could authorize employers to provide tax free grocery buying plans. Your taxable wages would be reduced accordingly. But you could go to any store — any approved store, that is — and get whatever you want for a $25 co-pay, as long as the product is covered by the plan. Don’t expect the plan to cover that glitzy shampoo you use. Ice cream and snack chips are definitely out of the question. You’re going to have to hit the black market for stuff like that.
Now picture what the supermarket is going to look like under this plan. Which products will be on the shelf and which will be locked away and accessible only after pre-approval. Make sure you don’t try to buy food for a gathering with friends until you get the larger-than-usual expenditure pre-approved by a bureaucrat. What will the costs of the latest foods on the market be? Will you even be able to get them before they go generic? What would happen to the prices of groceries in general? Have you ever had a claim disputed by your health insurance? Perhaps you’d like that same experience when it comes to groceries?
It would seem obvious that the downsides of programs such as I have mentioned would outweigh the benefits. Any such system would serve to further bind you to your employer and limit your freedom. Besides, why would anyone think that some bureaucrat somewhere is better able to manage your home maintenance and food purchases than you? Who would assume that the layers of plan bureaucracy would come free of charge?
If this kind of plan is a bad idea for housing and food, as it proved to be during the era of the company store, what is different about health care that makes this a good system for dealing with your health issues? You can argue all you want that health care decisions are simply too complex for the average individual but I absolutely reject such ridiculous claims. We constantly make decisions about very complex matters. Health care is not in some magically special class, except for how we have come to treat it.
Am I arguing for higher taxes or for government run medicine? Well, that’s getting the cart ahead of the horse. This story isn’t done yet.
Next time: Mixed Costs
Read more ...
In the first segment of this series I introduced the concept of the company store and offered some explanation as to what was bad about it. In the second segment I explained how employer provided health insurance has become today’s version of the company store and I suggested that it would be good to explore whether its continuance was merited. In this segment, I will investigate this question.
We have lived in our current home for a number of years. During those years we have cut the lawn and cleared the snow many times. We have built a cedar fence, poured concrete pads and borders, finished our basement, added rooms onto the home, replaced shingles, replaced roof sheathing, replaced part of the driveway, fixed leaks, planted trees and ornamentals, had trees removed, done some rewiring, replaced floor coverings, repainted, had major renovations done to the exterior walls, installed new windows, built permanent shelving, and done numerous other maintenance and upgrade projects.
Shelter is one of life’s essentials. Why isn’t it possible for my employer to offer a tax free plan that would cover the costs of home repair and upkeep — in exchange for a lower taxable salary, of course? Just think how wonderful it would be if I could just make a $25 co-payment and have a preferred roofing provider come in and replace the shingles every 15 or 20 years? Wouldn’t that save potentially larger future costs, since I might be so remiss as to let the roof go completely to pot before doing something about it?
The faucet in my main shower has been giving me fits. Despite my attempts to fix it, the thing continues to leak. I’m going to have to call in a plumber. Wouldn’t it be great if I could just make a $25 co-payment and have a plan approved plumber come and fix my leaky shower? We haven’t had a professional tree trimming service in for a long time. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if that could be done with a $25 co-pay?
What kind of incentives would such a system engender? How would people respond to those incentives? How would the plan’s administrative bureaucracy turn a profit? Where would the money come from? What would your local Home Depot look like once it jumped through the hoops that allowed it to become a preferred provider of the various plans out there? Since it would then owe much of its existence to tax subsidies, it would be subject to all kinds of new regulations developed by ever inventive politicians and bureaucrats. What do you think your shopping experience would be like once two levels of bureaucrats are inserted between you and every handyman, contractor, and hardware store? What would happen to the cost of plumbers, roofers, tree trimmers, etc? Does this look like a good picture to you?
Even more essential to life than shelter is food. Maybe we should just go back to the days of the company store. We could authorize employers to provide tax free grocery buying plans. Your taxable wages would be reduced accordingly. But you could go to any store — any approved store, that is — and get whatever you want for a $25 co-pay, as long as the product is covered by the plan. Don’t expect the plan to cover that glitzy shampoo you use. Ice cream and snack chips are definitely out of the question. You’re going to have to hit the black market for stuff like that.
Now picture what the supermarket is going to look like under this plan. Which products will be on the shelf and which will be locked away and accessible only after pre-approval. Make sure you don’t try to buy food for a gathering with friends until you get the larger-than-usual expenditure pre-approved by a bureaucrat. What will the costs of the latest foods on the market be? Will you even be able to get them before they go generic? What would happen to the prices of groceries in general? Have you ever had a claim disputed by your health insurance? Perhaps you’d like that same experience when it comes to groceries?
It would seem obvious that the downsides of programs such as I have mentioned would outweigh the benefits. Any such system would serve to further bind you to your employer and limit your freedom. Besides, why would anyone think that some bureaucrat somewhere is better able to manage your home maintenance and food purchases than you? Who would assume that the layers of plan bureaucracy would come free of charge?
If this kind of plan is a bad idea for housing and food, as it proved to be during the era of the company store, what is different about health care that makes this a good system for dealing with your health issues? You can argue all you want that health care decisions are simply too complex for the average individual but I absolutely reject such ridiculous claims. We constantly make decisions about very complex matters. Health care is not in some magically special class, except for how we have come to treat it.
Am I arguing for higher taxes or for government run medicine? Well, that’s getting the cart ahead of the horse. This story isn’t done yet.
Next time: Mixed Costs
Read more ...
Today’s Company Store
In my previous post I discussed the ‘truck system’ that offered workers employment, food, and housing, but that kept them bound to a poorer way of life. An infamous element of this system was the company store. I said that a similar feature is at work today and is at the center of one of today’s hottest issues. Let’s take another history trip.
During WWII the U.S. economy was turned into a command economy, where the government took control of as many resources as possible to focus on defeating the Axis. This functioned well and accomplished the goal because most Americans were fully on board with the goal. The myriad war policies included wage controls.
While wage controls seek to hold down costs, they cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand. In order to attract workers, some employers began offering health insurance. It took a while for the federal government to figure out what was going on. When it did, the IRS sought to tax this benefit, as it is obviously just a substitution for actual wages. But the practice had become so widespread that there was a huge outcry that resulted in Congress exempting employer provided health insurance from taxation.
In the space of a few years, government planners, employers, employees, and politicians had participated in creating a ‘company store’ for health insurance, even while the evils of the old company store were dissipating throughout the U.S. This system amounts to a subsidy that ‘costs’ taxpayers somewhere north of $100 billion annually.
During the recent presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) suggested taxing this benefit. He was strongly taken to task by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), who said that this should not be an option. Of course, once he was President, Obama signaled as early as last March that it is an option. (No, he’s not the first politician to do an about face once in office. They all do it to one degree or another.)
Democrats that want to push through a heavily government centric health insurance system need a lot of money to pay for it. Although they know that taxing employer provided health insurance is highly unpopular, there is simply no other bucket from which they can quickly pull the amount of money that this tax would provide. Besides, taxing this benefit as income while offering a tax free government supplied option would rapidly entice employees (or more accurately, employers) into the government system and away from employer chosen private plans.
Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail. A number of Democrats are also skittish. Not to mention the fact that the health insurance companies that owe much of their livelihood to the entrenched subsidy are lobbying up a storm on this front. This tax might make it through the House, but I’d be surprised to see it survive the Senate (this year, at lest).
While the Republicans are fighting to keep the popular status quo and Democrats are simply looking for a way to finance their plan to further their championed cause of socialized medicine, few on either side seem to be stopping to ask whether the employer provided health insurance subsidy is a good idea in and of itself.
Next time: The Cost of Shackles
Read more ...
During WWII the U.S. economy was turned into a command economy, where the government took control of as many resources as possible to focus on defeating the Axis. This functioned well and accomplished the goal because most Americans were fully on board with the goal. The myriad war policies included wage controls.
While wage controls seek to hold down costs, they cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand. In order to attract workers, some employers began offering health insurance. It took a while for the federal government to figure out what was going on. When it did, the IRS sought to tax this benefit, as it is obviously just a substitution for actual wages. But the practice had become so widespread that there was a huge outcry that resulted in Congress exempting employer provided health insurance from taxation.
In the space of a few years, government planners, employers, employees, and politicians had participated in creating a ‘company store’ for health insurance, even while the evils of the old company store were dissipating throughout the U.S. This system amounts to a subsidy that ‘costs’ taxpayers somewhere north of $100 billion annually.
During the recent presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) suggested taxing this benefit. He was strongly taken to task by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), who said that this should not be an option. Of course, once he was President, Obama signaled as early as last March that it is an option. (No, he’s not the first politician to do an about face once in office. They all do it to one degree or another.)
Democrats that want to push through a heavily government centric health insurance system need a lot of money to pay for it. Although they know that taxing employer provided health insurance is highly unpopular, there is simply no other bucket from which they can quickly pull the amount of money that this tax would provide. Besides, taxing this benefit as income while offering a tax free government supplied option would rapidly entice employees (or more accurately, employers) into the government system and away from employer chosen private plans.
Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail. A number of Democrats are also skittish. Not to mention the fact that the health insurance companies that owe much of their livelihood to the entrenched subsidy are lobbying up a storm on this front. This tax might make it through the House, but I’d be surprised to see it survive the Senate (this year, at lest).
While the Republicans are fighting to keep the popular status quo and Democrats are simply looking for a way to finance their plan to further their championed cause of socialized medicine, few on either side seem to be stopping to ask whether the employer provided health insurance subsidy is a good idea in and of itself.
Next time: The Cost of Shackles
Read more ...
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Sixteen Tons
In 1955 Tennessee Ernie Ford’s recording of the song Sixteen Tons hit the top of the charts. Even two generations later this song continues to be included in popular media, so even my children are somewhat familiar with it. I always knew the song was about coal mining, but for years I didn’t understand what was meant by the phrase, “I owe my soul to the company store.”
It turns out that the company store was part of an oppressive system of bondage. Men with fewer prospects (such as new immigrants and people living in chronically poor regions) were enticed into going to work for a large employer who would offer them food and shelter. This system spread through many industries during the industrial age.
Bill Bennett explains in his books America the Last Best Hope Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 that many of the wealthy men at the head of these companies earnestly thought they were part of God’s plan to help the less fortunate. Some even felt they had a divine right to control the lives of others, although, they seemingly were oblivious to the parallels with the European aristocracy that they so disdained. Is it any wonder that this “businessman’s gospel” had a dark side?
Rent was automatically deducted from the workers’ salary. The homes provided for them and their families were often little more than shanties. Men were usually paid in scrip that was only redeemable at the company store. Of course, the store offered only those products permitted by the bosses at prices set by the bosses. This hardscrabble life left workers with no surplus and often perpetually in debt to the company store.
Workers felt trapped. If they were caught looking for other employment, they were fired and they immediately lost their homes and nearly all of their belongings (which were considered company property). With a captive work force that seemed to self perpetuate as workers’ sons came of age, companies had little incentive to ensure worker safety and could compete (for a while) with other firms that implemented newer labor saving technologies. Sufficiently subservient workers were guaranteed a job, food, and a place to live. But at what cost?
It was in these circumstances that the organized labor movement began to develop in order to demand rights for workers. But employers weren’t about to give up their supposedly cheap labor easily. Some labor strikes turned into literal battle zones and some strikes seriously impacted the economy. It was an evolutionary process that took some time. I’ve long appreciated the sidelight view offered of one point along this road that is depicted in the movie October Sky. Within my lifetime the ‘truck system’ and its company store have largely become relics of history.
Strangely, even as the company store was going by the wayside in the U.S., our nation chose to implement a similar feature that finds itself at the center of one of today’s most hotly debated issues. It happened by fluke as the result of government meddling in the economy. It has had a dramatic impact on our nation that I believe is more negative than positive. And yet many workers and politicians are determined to keep this shackle firmly in place until you pry it off of their cold dead bodies.
Next time: Today’s Company Store
Read more ...
It turns out that the company store was part of an oppressive system of bondage. Men with fewer prospects (such as new immigrants and people living in chronically poor regions) were enticed into going to work for a large employer who would offer them food and shelter. This system spread through many industries during the industrial age.
Bill Bennett explains in his books America the Last Best Hope Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 that many of the wealthy men at the head of these companies earnestly thought they were part of God’s plan to help the less fortunate. Some even felt they had a divine right to control the lives of others, although, they seemingly were oblivious to the parallels with the European aristocracy that they so disdained. Is it any wonder that this “businessman’s gospel” had a dark side?
Rent was automatically deducted from the workers’ salary. The homes provided for them and their families were often little more than shanties. Men were usually paid in scrip that was only redeemable at the company store. Of course, the store offered only those products permitted by the bosses at prices set by the bosses. This hardscrabble life left workers with no surplus and often perpetually in debt to the company store.
Workers felt trapped. If they were caught looking for other employment, they were fired and they immediately lost their homes and nearly all of their belongings (which were considered company property). With a captive work force that seemed to self perpetuate as workers’ sons came of age, companies had little incentive to ensure worker safety and could compete (for a while) with other firms that implemented newer labor saving technologies. Sufficiently subservient workers were guaranteed a job, food, and a place to live. But at what cost?
It was in these circumstances that the organized labor movement began to develop in order to demand rights for workers. But employers weren’t about to give up their supposedly cheap labor easily. Some labor strikes turned into literal battle zones and some strikes seriously impacted the economy. It was an evolutionary process that took some time. I’ve long appreciated the sidelight view offered of one point along this road that is depicted in the movie October Sky. Within my lifetime the ‘truck system’ and its company store have largely become relics of history.
Strangely, even as the company store was going by the wayside in the U.S., our nation chose to implement a similar feature that finds itself at the center of one of today’s most hotly debated issues. It happened by fluke as the result of government meddling in the economy. It has had a dramatic impact on our nation that I believe is more negative than positive. And yet many workers and politicians are determined to keep this shackle firmly in place until you pry it off of their cold dead bodies.
Next time: Today’s Company Store
Read more ...
Monday, June 22, 2009
Channeling Reagan
Ramesh Ponnuru says that the GOP has a Reagan problem. Not that Reagan is a problem for the GOP. But that many members of the party seem to have derived the wrong lessons from Reagan’s political life.
Ponnuru notes that some Republicans that want to be done with the memory of Reagan, others hail him as some sort of saint, and various stripes of Republicans that all paint a picture of Reagan as supporting their particular world view. Ponnuru notes that most GOP presidential contenders in the recent round tried to paint themselves as the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.
Perhaps somewhat due to Reagan’s relative success, certain conservative policies become orthodoxy in the GOP. The accepted understanding among those seeking national office appears to be that garnering GOP votes requires paying homage to these conventions. But this, asserts Ponnuru, is the opposite of Reagan’s approach.
Reagan, says Ponnuru, “did not advertise his conformity to a school of thought even when he did, in fact, conform. He did not, that is, sell his policies on the basis of their conservatism. Rather the reverse: He used attractive policies to get people to give his conservatism a look.” This is how he cobbled together a supportive coalition and “managed to lead both parties simultaneously.”
Another useful lesson, per Ponnuru, is Reagan’s sincere respect for constitutionalism and for “our political inheritance from the Founders.” This “provided a connective thread, a coherence, a seriousness, and even a nobility to his politics that it might otherwise have lacked.”
Finally, Reagan was pragmatic about his conservative principles. “Reaganism succeeded as statecraft” says Ponnuru, “because it applied characteristically conservative insights to the challenges of his time.” Rather than being stuck on specific policies, Reagan focused his attention on the things that were most important at the time. Instead of trying to continually repeat the policies of the Reagan administration, the GOP should apply conservative principles to the challenges facing the nation today, focusing on those points that will garner the most bang for the buck.
Bill Bennett, who served as Education Secretary under Reagan, is fond of reminding people that the Ronald Reagan of the 1980s was not the Ronald Reagan of earlier decades. The Reagan of 1980 was not even the same Reagan as that of 1976. Reagan continued to develop during his presidency. Thus, suggests Bennett, casting about today for another Ronald Reagan of 1988 to break on the scene is a fool’s errand.
Both Ponnuru and Bennett remind that the Reagan years were fractious for the GOP. There were many Republicans of assorted inclinations that thought Reagan was too far from their ideological preferences. Bennett also notes in his book, America, the Last Best Hope, Vol. 2 that Reagan’s successes didn’t necessarily help many Republicans win political office during his terms.
It is natural that Republicans would want to emulate, as Ponnuru says, “the most successful Republican president of the last century, and the president most associated with the conservative movement.” But in doing is, it is important to understand which lessons to emulate and how to apply those lessons to the issues of the present day.
It is possible to respect and even revere Reagan without holding fast to the same policies he successfully championed. I suppose that if he were still around today the policies he’d be promoting would likely be different than the ones he promoted back in his day. He’d still be advocating a conservative and constitutional approach, but I assume he’d be a lot more flexible than many of those that invoke his memory suggest. Of course, since I just did the same thing, I could be wrong.
Read more ...
Ponnuru notes that some Republicans that want to be done with the memory of Reagan, others hail him as some sort of saint, and various stripes of Republicans that all paint a picture of Reagan as supporting their particular world view. Ponnuru notes that most GOP presidential contenders in the recent round tried to paint themselves as the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.
Perhaps somewhat due to Reagan’s relative success, certain conservative policies become orthodoxy in the GOP. The accepted understanding among those seeking national office appears to be that garnering GOP votes requires paying homage to these conventions. But this, asserts Ponnuru, is the opposite of Reagan’s approach.
Reagan, says Ponnuru, “did not advertise his conformity to a school of thought even when he did, in fact, conform. He did not, that is, sell his policies on the basis of their conservatism. Rather the reverse: He used attractive policies to get people to give his conservatism a look.” This is how he cobbled together a supportive coalition and “managed to lead both parties simultaneously.”
Another useful lesson, per Ponnuru, is Reagan’s sincere respect for constitutionalism and for “our political inheritance from the Founders.” This “provided a connective thread, a coherence, a seriousness, and even a nobility to his politics that it might otherwise have lacked.”
Finally, Reagan was pragmatic about his conservative principles. “Reaganism succeeded as statecraft” says Ponnuru, “because it applied characteristically conservative insights to the challenges of his time.” Rather than being stuck on specific policies, Reagan focused his attention on the things that were most important at the time. Instead of trying to continually repeat the policies of the Reagan administration, the GOP should apply conservative principles to the challenges facing the nation today, focusing on those points that will garner the most bang for the buck.
Bill Bennett, who served as Education Secretary under Reagan, is fond of reminding people that the Ronald Reagan of the 1980s was not the Ronald Reagan of earlier decades. The Reagan of 1980 was not even the same Reagan as that of 1976. Reagan continued to develop during his presidency. Thus, suggests Bennett, casting about today for another Ronald Reagan of 1988 to break on the scene is a fool’s errand.
Both Ponnuru and Bennett remind that the Reagan years were fractious for the GOP. There were many Republicans of assorted inclinations that thought Reagan was too far from their ideological preferences. Bennett also notes in his book, America, the Last Best Hope, Vol. 2 that Reagan’s successes didn’t necessarily help many Republicans win political office during his terms.
It is natural that Republicans would want to emulate, as Ponnuru says, “the most successful Republican president of the last century, and the president most associated with the conservative movement.” But in doing is, it is important to understand which lessons to emulate and how to apply those lessons to the issues of the present day.
It is possible to respect and even revere Reagan without holding fast to the same policies he successfully championed. I suppose that if he were still around today the policies he’d be promoting would likely be different than the ones he promoted back in his day. He’d still be advocating a conservative and constitutional approach, but I assume he’d be a lot more flexible than many of those that invoke his memory suggest. Of course, since I just did the same thing, I could be wrong.
Read more ...
Friday, June 19, 2009
Note to Conservatives: Obama Is a Natural Born Citizen
A contention continues to be expressed among some conservatives that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, and is therefore ineligible to serve as President. They note that the President’s father was not an American citizen. They conjure up tales of Obama being born outside of the U.S. and assert that he has no actual U.S. birth certificate.
The claims of nonexistent or falsified birth certificate continue despite the fact that they have been debunked by reliable sources (as explained here) and courts have thrown out as groundless challenges based on these claims. But even if you assume that these people are right and that Obama was born outside of the U.S., it still would not mean he fails the “natural born citizen” test.
No one seriously (or at least effectively) disputes the fact that Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Wikipedia makes it clear that case law is unsettled about the term “natural born citizen,” but it has long been the practice of the U.S. government to recognize as natural born citizens the natural children of any U.S. citizen regardless of where in the world those children are born.
When I lived in Norway, I knew two families where the wife was a U.S. citizen and the husband was Norwegian. The children born to these families in Norway were recognized as U.S. citizens. They had Social Security numbers and citizenship papers. The sons had to register with Selective Service at age 18. If any of these children ended up living at least 14 years in the U.S. and reached at least 35 years of age, they would not be barred from running for the office of President or Vice President, despite the facts that their father was not a U.S. citizen and they were born in a foreign country.
The weight of evidence is against those that believe that Obama is rendered ineligible to serve as President due to the natural born citizen clause. There are only two ways for these people to achieve their goal of ousting the President from office on this basis. Since the courts have refused (and will likely continue to refuse) such challenges, that leaves only the avenue of impeachment.
Impeachment requires that the House of Representatives create a case and vote to impeach the President. Then representatives selected by the House present the case to the Senate, which must then vote to convict the President. How likely is this to happen, given the current formulation of Congress? Besides, even this method is questionable, because this issue may not rise to the level of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” codified in Article II Section 4 of the Constitution.
Those that claim that the election of President Obama flouts the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause are not on a firm legal footing. They frequently claim that they are trying to save the Constitution when they are simply trying to narrowly interpret the document in a way that pleases them but is not reflected in actual law.
It would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to prove in a way that settles U.S. law that President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. Those that buy the line that Obama is ineligible because of this and those that go around trying to sell this message off to others are wasting their time and talents, which could and should be used on something actually worthwhile.
Why do I care whether the anti-Obama-ites continue to rage about this non-issue? Because pretty much all of them are identified as conservatives and their rhetoric on this matter serves to discredit the cause for which they purport to stand. They are distracting from real conservative issues. They are giving conservatism a worse name and driving people away when they should be working to attract people to conservative principles. So, please lay off the Obama citizenship thing. It serves no good purpose.
Read more ...
The claims of nonexistent or falsified birth certificate continue despite the fact that they have been debunked by reliable sources (as explained here) and courts have thrown out as groundless challenges based on these claims. But even if you assume that these people are right and that Obama was born outside of the U.S., it still would not mean he fails the “natural born citizen” test.
No one seriously (or at least effectively) disputes the fact that Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Wikipedia makes it clear that case law is unsettled about the term “natural born citizen,” but it has long been the practice of the U.S. government to recognize as natural born citizens the natural children of any U.S. citizen regardless of where in the world those children are born.
When I lived in Norway, I knew two families where the wife was a U.S. citizen and the husband was Norwegian. The children born to these families in Norway were recognized as U.S. citizens. They had Social Security numbers and citizenship papers. The sons had to register with Selective Service at age 18. If any of these children ended up living at least 14 years in the U.S. and reached at least 35 years of age, they would not be barred from running for the office of President or Vice President, despite the facts that their father was not a U.S. citizen and they were born in a foreign country.
The weight of evidence is against those that believe that Obama is rendered ineligible to serve as President due to the natural born citizen clause. There are only two ways for these people to achieve their goal of ousting the President from office on this basis. Since the courts have refused (and will likely continue to refuse) such challenges, that leaves only the avenue of impeachment.
Impeachment requires that the House of Representatives create a case and vote to impeach the President. Then representatives selected by the House present the case to the Senate, which must then vote to convict the President. How likely is this to happen, given the current formulation of Congress? Besides, even this method is questionable, because this issue may not rise to the level of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” codified in Article II Section 4 of the Constitution.
Those that claim that the election of President Obama flouts the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause are not on a firm legal footing. They frequently claim that they are trying to save the Constitution when they are simply trying to narrowly interpret the document in a way that pleases them but is not reflected in actual law.
It would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to prove in a way that settles U.S. law that President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. Those that buy the line that Obama is ineligible because of this and those that go around trying to sell this message off to others are wasting their time and talents, which could and should be used on something actually worthwhile.
Why do I care whether the anti-Obama-ites continue to rage about this non-issue? Because pretty much all of them are identified as conservatives and their rhetoric on this matter serves to discredit the cause for which they purport to stand. They are distracting from real conservative issues. They are giving conservatism a worse name and driving people away when they should be working to attract people to conservative principles. So, please lay off the Obama citizenship thing. It serves no good purpose.
Read more ...
Thursday, June 18, 2009
How Should the U.S. Deal With North Korea?
Analysts think that North Korea will fire a ballistic missile toward Hawaii in a couple of weeks, reports the AP. Although the missile wouldn’t be able to reach Hawaii’s main islands and the firing is labeled a test, this would clearly be an act of international aggression, aimed at poking Japan, the U.S., and their allies in the eye.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is quoted as saying something that comes across as rather ridiculous. “If we acknowledge North Korea possessing nuclear programs, other non-nuclear countries in Northeast Asia would be tempted to possess nuclear weapons and this would not be helpful for stability in Northeast Asia,” said Lee.
So, if South Korea officially admits what everybody in the world already knows to be true — that North Korea has nuclear weapon capacities — every other country in the region will also want nuclear weapons. But presumably, as long as South Korea refuses to officially acknowledge NK’s nuclear capabilities other countries in the region will refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons. It is difficult to see how this makes much sense.
It seems to me that few Americans are itching for war with the testy North Korean communists. Any war with NK would end up being either direct or indirect war with China and Russia. Nobody wants that. Besides, the last Korean War killed 36,940 Americans and wounded 92,134 more, while more than 15,000 went missing or ended up as POWs. Internationally, the war left hundreds of thousands dead and millions wounded. Nobody wants a repeat of that. But the question arises as to how the U.S. should deal with NK’s hostile actions.
Despite what some suggest, simply minding our own business would not make the threat go away. Most Americans seem at least somewhat favorable (even if uncomfortably so) to diplomacy efforts that involve China and Russia. It is no secret that NK is a vassal state of China and also of Russia to a certain degree.
China alone could bring North Korea to heel at the snap of its fingers, so to speak. China obviously has its reasons for not doing so. The game of gaining concessions from the West and distracting the West from China’s own ambitions can probably be played for a long time before it becomes too dangerous. Russia is not as tightly tied into the situation as is China, but it has enough skin in the game to play along as well.
We have a long history of providing direct aid to North Korea in exchange for less hostile activity. We have provided the aid, but NK has done little to actually comply with the provisions of the agreements, although, they’ve occasionally made a show of doing so. This begs the question of why we should bother to pursue additional worthless agreements.
Although the missile NK plans to fire next month would not reach the main Hawaiian Islands, it would apparently reach the outer islands. Americans could perhaps be excused for calling to mind the Dec. 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. The AP article also states that “Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would take at least three to five years for North Korea to pose a real threat to the U.S. west coast.” The Korean War never actually threatened the U.S. homeland, so NK’s current aggression is qualitatively different.
Should the U.S. sit idly by while a rogue nation demonstrates its ability to drop missiles on the U.S. and prepares missiles that could strike the U.S. mainland? Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that missile defense systems are in place in Hawaii. Using our anti-ballistic missiles would not be without risk. There are concerns that the program is not quite ready for prime time. National and international regard for the program would diminish if we missed. But a successful strike would provide critical program information to NK, China, Russia, and others, allowing them to work on developing weapons that could outmaneuver our anti-missile missiles.
NK’s missile firing would only be the latest in a recent spate of aggressive actions by the communist nation that routinely has difficulty feeding its people. Some analysts think the purpose of this activity is to bolster the image of NK’s 68-year-old dictator, Kim Jong-il, who has appeared somewhat weak recently due to illness. Others suggest that it is a setup to bolster the dictator’s son and heir apparent Kim Jong-un, who supposedly oversees these programs. Using this latter angle, some have suggested that this is a temporary flare up that will subside once the leadership transition is cemented, so that the U.S. should take a somewhat passive position until it all blows over.
It seems clear that taking a live and let live posture in relation to NK will not achieve acceptable national or international security. Diplomatic efforts seem to be very nearly worthless. Limited military anti-missile involvement has its risks. Direct war with NK is unthinkable for most Americans. Are there other options that would be feasible, morally acceptable, and have some prospect of being effective?
Read more ...
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is quoted as saying something that comes across as rather ridiculous. “If we acknowledge North Korea possessing nuclear programs, other non-nuclear countries in Northeast Asia would be tempted to possess nuclear weapons and this would not be helpful for stability in Northeast Asia,” said Lee.
So, if South Korea officially admits what everybody in the world already knows to be true — that North Korea has nuclear weapon capacities — every other country in the region will also want nuclear weapons. But presumably, as long as South Korea refuses to officially acknowledge NK’s nuclear capabilities other countries in the region will refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons. It is difficult to see how this makes much sense.
It seems to me that few Americans are itching for war with the testy North Korean communists. Any war with NK would end up being either direct or indirect war with China and Russia. Nobody wants that. Besides, the last Korean War killed 36,940 Americans and wounded 92,134 more, while more than 15,000 went missing or ended up as POWs. Internationally, the war left hundreds of thousands dead and millions wounded. Nobody wants a repeat of that. But the question arises as to how the U.S. should deal with NK’s hostile actions.
Despite what some suggest, simply minding our own business would not make the threat go away. Most Americans seem at least somewhat favorable (even if uncomfortably so) to diplomacy efforts that involve China and Russia. It is no secret that NK is a vassal state of China and also of Russia to a certain degree.
China alone could bring North Korea to heel at the snap of its fingers, so to speak. China obviously has its reasons for not doing so. The game of gaining concessions from the West and distracting the West from China’s own ambitions can probably be played for a long time before it becomes too dangerous. Russia is not as tightly tied into the situation as is China, but it has enough skin in the game to play along as well.
We have a long history of providing direct aid to North Korea in exchange for less hostile activity. We have provided the aid, but NK has done little to actually comply with the provisions of the agreements, although, they’ve occasionally made a show of doing so. This begs the question of why we should bother to pursue additional worthless agreements.
Although the missile NK plans to fire next month would not reach the main Hawaiian Islands, it would apparently reach the outer islands. Americans could perhaps be excused for calling to mind the Dec. 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. The AP article also states that “Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would take at least three to five years for North Korea to pose a real threat to the U.S. west coast.” The Korean War never actually threatened the U.S. homeland, so NK’s current aggression is qualitatively different.
Should the U.S. sit idly by while a rogue nation demonstrates its ability to drop missiles on the U.S. and prepares missiles that could strike the U.S. mainland? Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that missile defense systems are in place in Hawaii. Using our anti-ballistic missiles would not be without risk. There are concerns that the program is not quite ready for prime time. National and international regard for the program would diminish if we missed. But a successful strike would provide critical program information to NK, China, Russia, and others, allowing them to work on developing weapons that could outmaneuver our anti-missile missiles.
NK’s missile firing would only be the latest in a recent spate of aggressive actions by the communist nation that routinely has difficulty feeding its people. Some analysts think the purpose of this activity is to bolster the image of NK’s 68-year-old dictator, Kim Jong-il, who has appeared somewhat weak recently due to illness. Others suggest that it is a setup to bolster the dictator’s son and heir apparent Kim Jong-un, who supposedly oversees these programs. Using this latter angle, some have suggested that this is a temporary flare up that will subside once the leadership transition is cemented, so that the U.S. should take a somewhat passive position until it all blows over.
It seems clear that taking a live and let live posture in relation to NK will not achieve acceptable national or international security. Diplomatic efforts seem to be very nearly worthless. Limited military anti-missile involvement has its risks. Direct war with NK is unthinkable for most Americans. Are there other options that would be feasible, morally acceptable, and have some prospect of being effective?
Read more ...
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Re-Thinking Utah's Government Four-Day Work Week
“No, you can’t go down there today,” I recently heard my wife tell my mother. “Remember, Utah government offices aren’t open on Fridays anymore.”
Last summer, Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. forced most state employees to adopt a four-day work week, working 10 hours per day. One of the chief arguments for doing so was that closing down state facilities one additional day per week would result in significant savings. So now most state buildings are closed on Fridays.
Regardless of what proponents think of this measure, it is exactly the opposite of good customer service. Yes, offices are open later Monday through Thursday so that people have more availability outside of many people’s standard working hours, but being closed for business three days in a row is not a good way to serve customers.
When you’ve got a monopoly, you have little incentive to satisfy customers. Your main goal is to erect barriers high enough that competition is prevented. You may notice, for example, that most serious battles in the public education industry involve thwarting competition. Making the federal government a competitor in the health insurance market (the so-called public option) would quickly force private insurers out of the market and would result in a de facto monopoly that would have even less incentive to serve its customers than does today’s odd health insurance model.
Utah Policy’s LaVarr Webb says in this editorial that his hunch is that the four-day work week isn’t even achieving its energy and money saving goals. At any rate, he thinks soon-to-be-Governor Gary Herbert and the legislature “ought to conduct a good study” that “should take a good, hard look at the four-day work week and see if it's fulfilling the intent of Gov. Huntsman who implemented it.” Webb notes:
In the absence of competition, it is important for elected officials to make sure that their constituents — who happen to be both the source and the customers of government — are being well served. I suspect that in the case of the four-day work week, Webb is correct in his hunch that Utah’s citizens are ill served, both as providers and consumers of government. Will any of our elected officials do anything about this?
Read more ...
Last summer, Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. forced most state employees to adopt a four-day work week, working 10 hours per day. One of the chief arguments for doing so was that closing down state facilities one additional day per week would result in significant savings. So now most state buildings are closed on Fridays.
Regardless of what proponents think of this measure, it is exactly the opposite of good customer service. Yes, offices are open later Monday through Thursday so that people have more availability outside of many people’s standard working hours, but being closed for business three days in a row is not a good way to serve customers.
When you’ve got a monopoly, you have little incentive to satisfy customers. Your main goal is to erect barriers high enough that competition is prevented. You may notice, for example, that most serious battles in the public education industry involve thwarting competition. Making the federal government a competitor in the health insurance market (the so-called public option) would quickly force private insurers out of the market and would result in a de facto monopoly that would have even less incentive to serve its customers than does today’s odd health insurance model.
Utah Policy’s LaVarr Webb says in this editorial that his hunch is that the four-day work week isn’t even achieving its energy and money saving goals. At any rate, he thinks soon-to-be-Governor Gary Herbert and the legislature “ought to conduct a good study” that “should take a good, hard look at the four-day work week and see if it's fulfilling the intent of Gov. Huntsman who implemented it.” Webb notes:
“The four-day work week was instituted hastily, with little study or analysis. Since then, no really good examination has been done regarding how much energy is actually being saved, and whether state productivity and customer service have suffered.”Usually when government decides and implements something “hastily,” it creates more problems than it solves. As I have often said, our Founders created a system of government that is supposed to get plenty of input, and then debate and deliberate in order to adopt the most broadly acceptable course of action. This process is not intended to occur rapidly. It can be a rather ponderous and lethargic course. But when we circumvent this process we usually cause long term problems. Webb opines:
“Currently, many state buildings are sitting empty three of seven days each week (while still consuming a certain amount of energy even when empty). By contrast, private industry attempts to make more efficient and productive use of facilities and infrastructure, not less. That's why a manufacturing company, for example, adds a graveyard shift and runs its facilities around-the-clock, getting more efficient use from its facilities. We certainly ought not to be constructing new state buildings when many of them are sitting empty three days a week.”Private business stifles competition either by providing superior service to customers or by conniving to keep competitors from entering their market. This latter course usually requires the collusion of government. Government stymies competition by fiat — by force. It can use its considerable muscle to pass laws and to implement newly minted executive powers to take control of entire market segments at the drop of a hat, as we have recently discovered. Customer service doesn’t even enter the equation here.
In the absence of competition, it is important for elected officials to make sure that their constituents — who happen to be both the source and the customers of government — are being well served. I suspect that in the case of the four-day work week, Webb is correct in his hunch that Utah’s citizens are ill served, both as providers and consumers of government. Will any of our elected officials do anything about this?
Read more ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
