July 1-4, 2009
Jul 01 01:55 Fatally Flawed Logic Jul 01 02:53 Tom Friedman: Just Another Useful Idiot Jul 01 04:26 Tom Bakk & the Perils of Speaking the Truth Jul 01 12:21 Save The Planet vs. Job Growth Jul 02 03:09 Matt Entenza, Wind Energy & Economic Philosophy Jul 02 21:45 Deconstructing More Health Care Myths Jul 03 08:52 If Ellie Mae Can't Find Them... Jul 04 01:52 We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Fatally Flawed Logic
Steve Findlay's op-ed in Tuesday's USA Today contains a fatal flaw in it. Let's see if you spot it:
Socialized medicine. Government-run health care. Rationing. Bureaucrats in charge. "Cookbook" medicine. Waiting lines. It'll break the bank.Here's the fatal flaw that I'm refering to:
Welcome to the health care debate 2009. Sound familiar? These notions aim to instill fear. And once again, they bear no more relation to the reality of what is being debated in Washington than was the case when the Clintons had a go at health reform in the 1990s. Don't be misled this time. In fact, far more bipartisan agreement exists on many core elements of reform than you might think.
Socialized, government-run health care? Nothing President Obama or Congress is proposing would replicate the Canadian, British, or French systems or remotely resemble nationalized medical service. Rather, the proposals offer repairs to an American system that is both broken and going broke. Those proposals build on our current private system where most people younger than 65 get coverage through their employers and treatment through private-sector doctors and hospitals.
What would be new is that people who don't have access to such coverage (and some who do) would be able to get coverage through insurance "exchanges." They'd be able to choose from a batch of private plans and policies that would have to accept all comers, offer comprehensive coverage, and be barred from "cherry-picking" only healthy people.
Guess what? Democrats and Republicans embrace the idea of exchanges and broad new federal insurance rules. They also agree that this new proposed system would be a boon to private insurers, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and drug companies. That's because tens of billions of dollars of government funds would help many of the 46 million uninsured get coverage.
Those subsidies are one big reason insurers are so opposed to the idea of a "public plan" being offered in the exchanges; they don't want to lose any of those new customers to a government-run plan.
Guess what? Democrats and Republicans embrace the idea of exchanges and broad new federal insurance rules.Consensus doesn't mean that the majority is right. A perfect example of that is global warming, now fashionably called climate change because people tune out when they hear the term global warming.
The point I'm making is that there are too many GOP senators who willingly play the go-along-to-get-along game. That they're willing to be spineless doesn't mean that they're making the right decisions. It just means that they don't have a set anymore.
Findlay's right about one thing, though. I'm trying to 'put the fear of God' in people. If you haven't read Jim Hoft's latest column for the American Issues Project, then you should read it ASAP. Here's a portion of Jim's column:
Ava Isabella Stinson was born at St. Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton, Ontario on Thursday of last week. Ava was 13 weeks premature. She weighed only two-pounds, four-ounces at birth. Ava needed special care and equipment to keep her alive. Unfortunately, there were no open neonatal intensive care beds for her at St. Joesph's Hospital. In fact, there were no open neonatal care beds in her entire Canadian province. Ava had to be transferred to the United States.If that isn't enough information by itself to change your opinion of government-run health care, then you're more heartless than people accuse conservatives of being. What's worse is that this isn't an isolated happening.
If people attempt to say that this isn't relevant, that this couldn't happen in the United States, I'll simply direct people's attentions to this post . Last week, King Banaian and I sat down with Dave Borgert to talk about health care. What Dave told us about Medicare is slightly less disturbing than the case involving Ava Isabella Stinson.
Dave told us what I've often suspected: that Medicare payments to clinics, hospitals and doctors aren't based on whether their payment covered the cost to clinics, hospitals and doctors. I knew they didn't cover that. That's why cost-shifting is one of the biggest problems haunting health care these days. What I didn't know prior to last Friday was that their payments were solely based on a budget passed by politicians.
Dave confirmed for us that Medicare bureaucrats don't negotiate with hospitals, clinics and doctors. They simply set prices. How long can a system function efficiently if they're losing money on a daily basis? How long before hospitals, clinics and doctors start begging for a federal bailout?
I'd point out to Mr. Findlay that if something isn't scary, it isn't possible for Republicans to scare people. It's that simple.
This statement is another thing that Findlay said that can't go unchallenged:
Nothing President Obama or Congress is proposing would replicate the Canadian, British, or French systems or remotely resemble nationalized medical service.This video says that Mr. Findlay isn't telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth :
How can anyone view that video and say with a straight face that the goal isn't single-payer? It's intellectually insulting to hear Findlay say something that dishonest.
The debate over the public plan also puts the distorting rhetoric on full display. Opponents say the idea is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent toward a European-style "single-payer" system. But the reality is that it wouldn't be that difficult to design a public option that abides by the same rules as private insurers and has no competitive advantage.First off, yes, it's difficult to design a public option that abides by the same rules as private insurers. Yes, it's impossible to picture a public option that didn't have a serious competitive advantage.
I've stated elsewhere that Medicare doesn't negotiate prices. It sets prices. There's no back-and-forth. There's no reaching consensus. It's negotiation at gunpoint. It's totally a my-way-or-the-highway situation.
I've said in numerous posts that Medicare and Medicaid set payment schedules without consideration of whether the payment covers the cost of the test or operation. It's based on a budget passed by politicians. Supply and demand have practically nothing to do with the payment structure.
Can we afford reform? This is the real toughie. Proponents insist that not reforming the system is the real financial risk. On the current trajectory, medical costs will soar to 28% of the U.S. economy by 2030 , from 18% today, and the average family will have to pay about $25,000 for insurance by 2025, from $12,000 today.This isn't a justification for reform. It's just proof that our population is aging. The prices, from premiums to out-of-pocket expenses, rise as more baby boomers move into their maximum usage years. This is something that actuaries have talked about for the past 15+ years.
The only way prices will stabilize while keeping the quality of our care high is if we limit the cost-shifting that Medicare causes. That means that providing seniors with more private options is needed to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt. It's also what's needed to prevent Medicare from bankrupting the U.S.
The medical industry must be challenged to cuts costs; its bloated General Motors gas-guzzler mindset must be radically re-engineered (just as GM is being). Enforceable targets on reducing waste must be set. New, more efficient care systems must be invented. Government must use its buying clout more assertively as it pays for the care of millions of Americans enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs.That's another fatally flawed paragraph. Findlay is arguing for the public option while insisting that "more efficient care systems must be invented." If ever there was a paradox, this is it. Even after they've been streamlined, government bureaucracies aren't efficient. More importantly, goverment bureaucracies aren't flexible enough to adjust to constantly changing health care realities because government bureaucracies are intentionally cumbersome.
If a company becomes aware of a better way to do things, all it takes is a directive from management to change how it does things. If government becomes aware of a better way to do things, it literally takes an act of Congress. All too often, it requires the herding of cats and getting them pointed in the right direction.
That's assuming that bureaucrats even think about looking for opportunities to change things for the better, something I'm not willing to do.
It's intellectually dishonest to say that the Kennedy-Dodd legislation or the Baucus legislation won't induce rationing of health care because government is utterly inefficient. If government is efficient, why is Medicare going broke?
Posted Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:08 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 01-Jul-09 02:40 PM
It's curious that one of the biggest reasons given for GM's failure and the need for the takeover was because of "excessive retiree health care costs." Wait a minute. Every one of them is on Medicare-- it's mandatory-- so why should it cost GM anything at all to insure the health of its retirees? Right now, care is being rationed to Medicare patients. Not every doctor will treat them, not every treatment is available to them, and some unnecessary treatments are given just to get Medicare to pay a reasonable amount for the necessary service. The simple fact is that every government system is a one-size-fits-all system and cannot possible work for everybody, especially in a complex and individualized area like health care where every patient is different. They should stop.
Tom Friedman: Just Another Useful Idiot
If there's anything that Tom Friedman's article does, it's to clarify that Tom Friedman is as clueless about climate change as anyone in the media.
There is much in the House cap-and-trade energy bill that just passed that I absolutely hate. It is too weak in key areas and way too complicated in others. A simple, straightforward carbon tax would have made much more sense than this Rube Goldberg contraption. It is pathetic that we couldn't do better. It is appalling that so much had to be given away to polluters. It stinks. It's a mess. I detest it.I'm tempted to tell Friedman to interview Bob Weisman on the realities of the effect Waxman-Markey would have on climate change. Here's what Professor Weisman said in April about the National Energy Tax:
Now let's get it passed in the Senate and make it law.
Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as America voting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.
Despite disagreeing with him "100 percent, politically," Weisman said he agreed with Horner that the Obama administration's cap-and-trade program likely won't do anything to effect climate change. " Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. "You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."Let's summarize what Waxman-Markey will and won't do. It won't affect climate change one iota. We'd need a dramatic drop in greenhouse gas emissions to accomplish that, something that won't happen with China dramatically increasing their greenhouse gas emissions. Something that Waxman-Markey is is a huge job-killing tax increase. People living in America's heartland understand that this is destructive legislation that doesn't have anything to do with improving the environment.
Only those people who are insulated by the Beltway echochamber think that the Democrats' legislation is worthwhile. That's because everyone in their echochamber tells them it's important. If I hear that a journalist, perhaps even Mr. Friedman, actually asked a why question about how the Democrats' legislation will affect the Earth's climate, I'll faint straightaway.
Now that the bill is heading for the Senate, though, we must, ideally, try to improve it, but, at a minimum, guard against diluting it any further. To do that we need the help of the three parties most responsible for how weak the bill already is: the Republican Party, President Barack Obama and We the People.HINT TO MR. FRIEDMAN: We The People think this legislation stinks. We The People don't want our utility bills to skyrocket. We'd prefer that we could keep more of our money. We The People don't want the Democrats' National Energy Tax to cause groceries to skyrocket like they did last summer when gas hit $4 a gallon. More We The People types are rejecting the premise that we're destroying the planet with greenhouse gases.
Finally, We The People understand that this is just the Democrats' latest attempt to control our lives. Especially as we approach Independence Day, We The People reject the Democrats' attempt to control yet another portion of our lives.
Posted Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:58 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 01-Jul-09 07:34 AM
I've learned something about liberal thinking in the last few weeks. I have learned that they have absolutely no interest in public policy and even less interest in the details of it. The ONLY thing that matters in any piece of legislation is the good intentions behind it, and if the Republicans oppose it, it is expected to do twice as well as intended. By this magical thinking, a bill which promises to reduce global warming, create millions of "green jobs" and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil will do exactly that. How could it not, since that is what we intend?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 01-Jul-09 07:40 AM
Jerry, I'll respectfully disagree with this statement:
The ONLY thing that matters in any piece of legislation is the good intentions behind it...The only thing that matters to Democrats is that the legislation gives government more authority over We The People.
If it doesn't pass that criteria, then the legislation isn't acceptable.
Comment 3 by eric z at 01-Jul-09 08:23 AM
Gary, you and Angry Arab disagree about Friedman.
You use the word "useful" but As'ad never has characterized him that way.
And I suspect he'd use the word "subversive" or "perverted" or "hack" rather than "idiot."
How many ways and reasons can different people with different world views have for disliking one individual and what he writes?
It goes to show something; what, I am not sure.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 01-Jul-09 12:51 PM
I used to think that Democrats were simply lustful for power, as you say, but no more. I believe they only want the power so they can "do good." They are so confident in their moral and intellectual superiority that they believe the world would be better if they could tell us all how to live. Since they do not actually know HOW to do such things, they are completely able to pass legislation without reading, because the INTENTIONS are good, and the details do not matter to them. I've heard far too many people say that the government must "fix health care," for example, but when questioned haven't even the foggiest of details of how that would, should, or could work. They don't care. Everybody should have all of the top quality health care they want, for free, and government can provide it. That is the extent of their thinking process, if you can even call it that.
The Democrats, of course, accrue power from "We the People" because there are so many willing to give it to them, fools that they all are.
Tom Bakk & the Perils of Speaking the Truth
The last time the DFL elected their candidate as governor, I was still young.The year was 1986. Since then, pundits have pontificated on why the DFL hasn't elected another governor. Recently, Sen. Tom Bakk asked former Gov. Wendy Anderson for his opinion on why the DFL has had such a long dry spell . Here's what Windy Wendy said:
Sen. Tom Bakk, a 2010 gubernatorial candidate, said he asked former Gov. Wendell Anderson why he thinks that is so. Bakk said Anderson's answer was that [DFL] candidates over the past two decades haven't appeared genuine enough to Minnesotans.There's truth to that opinion. DFL candidates can't appear real because they'd never get elected if they told people what they really believe. While DFL activists wouldn't hesitate in voting for a candidate that refuses to say no to the DFL's special interest allies, John Q. Public won't. Another thing that John Q. Public won't vote are politicians who vote to increase spending to unsustainable levels.
Most importantly, John Q. Public won't vote for politicians whose first instinct is to raise taxes. With Sen. Bakk's fingerprints all over the DFL's proposed tax increases, it's my opinion that he's fighting uphill into a hail storm.
Based on this information, I think it's appropriate to say that Sen. Bakk is fighting uphill against hurricane-force winds:
The 1999 tax cuts are no longer sustainable, he said. And he says it won't be enough to tap the state's wealthiest earners with more taxes.A tough sell? No, no, no. A tough sell is trying to sell people on tax increases during a severe recession. Sen. Bakk telling John Q. Public that he'll raise taxes on everyone is the equivalent of Walter Mondale's promise to raise taxes during a debate in 1984. The term that most accurately describes that admission is political suicide.
"We can't solve a problem this big on the backs of 80,000 people," Bakk said of so-called "soak the rich" plans. He said that means all taxpayers sharing in the pain. "I understand it's a tough sell," Bakk said of the plan. "Are people going to be willing to listen to the tough medicine? I don't know."
That's before we start talking about how Sen. Bakk's promise will sell in a Tea Party world. I'm not alone with that opinion:
University of Minnesota-Morris political science professor Paula O'Loughlin doesn't think that approach will pack as much punch as some suspect it will. Guts, she said, don't score political points. "That's not the way politics works, even in the 21st Century," she said. "Being honest and forthright about what is needed does not always serve your political interests."Unless political realities change, expect DFL delegates to return Sen. Bakk to the Senate.
And a pro-tax stance will be risky, O'Loughlin said. "They're not going to like it - even the DFLers," said O'Loughlin, who named Entenza, a former DFL House minority leader, and former U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad, a Republican, as leading contenders in their respective parties.
Posted Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:27 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Jul-09 08:37 AM
Gary, this "John Q. Public" is that just another way to refer to yourself, and "We the People" to refer to you and J. Ewing?
Have a nice day.
PS - As to that Baak thing, and the opinion of the guy who appointed himself to a place he did not ever belong; I viewed Roger Moe as far more legitimate and real and less artificial than Pawlenty and I expect many did - Hatch and Pawlenty were closer in ways and means but I liked Mike; so not all the people are among your "We."
Baak and Moe are leagues apart in one sense, although not geographically. Baak is not going anywhere but back to the legislature, I agree entiely with that.
I do find your views interesting and I am amazed by how much you are able to write, day in and day out, without writing poorly. I try to review what you are thinking and writing regularly. But I will jump on a phrase or two now and then. However - You're a good blogger. I like your efforts.
It would be interesting to see if you feel it will be Entenza, and why, on the DFL side. Also interesting, if you'd go out on a limb this early on the GOP bunch.
Just a suggestion. I doublt you'll do that, other than about Entenza.
Comment 2 by Larry at 01-Jul-09 12:21 PM
Interesting that this article starts out with the comment that John Q. Public won't vote for a DFL that "can't say no" to its special interests, then ends with a quote from a Poli Sci professor who implies that DFLers can't be "honest and forthright" because "what is needed does not always server...[their]...political interests."
There's no indication in this article that Mr. Friedman understands that these two statements are completely contradictory in their explanations of why the DFL cannot or should not (depending on which explanation you accept) be "honest and forthright" about their views.
Save The Planet vs. Job Growth
According to Scott Rasmussen's polling , "Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming." Here's more of the details on Scott's polling:
- Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.
- A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.
- Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.
- Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important.
Let's be clear about something: This legislation isn't about climate change. I think many of the people polled haven't bought into the climate change hyperbole that Rep. Waxman and former VP Gore have been yapping about. That's speculation on my part. What isn't speculation is that this polling proves that people are significantly more worried about keeping money in their wallets than they are about saving the planet.
By a 3:1 margin, 63% to 22%, voters put a higher priority on policies that create jobs than on 'save the planet' issues. If Republicans want to win this issue and draw big blocs of independent voters, they should stand firmly against the Democrats' National Energy Tax.
I believe that this position is this year's expression of last year's anxiety over $4 a gallon gas prices. People haven't stopped worrying about how high fossil fuel prices affect huge parts of their budget, whether it's the gas they pump, their electric bills or higher grocery prices.
Democrats are painting themselves into a difficult corner with this. By passing this bill, Democrats are saying that they're opposed to fossil fuels, that they're ok with high gas prices and that they're willing to pass legislation that drives companies from the United States and into China, Mexico and South Korea.
There's a couple of reasons why that's a difficult position to see, the biggest being that people care more about their wallets and the opportunity for prosperity than they care about 'the environment'. Another reason why the Democrats' position is a difficult position to defend is because driving businesses to other countries gives voters additional reasons for questioning the Democrats' commitment to prosperity-inducing policies.
Simply put, this Democrat administration and this Democrat-controlled Congress are giving voters lots of reasons to question the Democrats' economic stewardship.
Isn't that the only question that voters will remember in November, 2010?
Posted Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:26 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 01-Jul-09 01:28 PM
Even though this poll is better than many, it still suffers from the same two inescapable deficiencies as other opinion polls. First of all, polls generally present a clear and concise but false choice. That is, would you pay more to save the planet, or not? If the planet were truly endangered, no amount of money would be too great, but the planet is in no danger. Nor does the current legislation save the planet at the expense of jobs. It costs jobs and does nothing for the environment. Where is /that/ choice in the poll?
And that points to the second problem, which is that most poll respondents would need to buy two vowels in order to get a clUE. They don't have enough information about what the question is trying to measure, let alone an understanding of the complexities of the underlying issue or legislation. The poll often ends up more an expression of their feelings about something than their carefully reasoned opinion.
I like the poll results, on the positive side, and I agree with your conclusion, but I must warn against overconfidence. After all, no informed voter in their right mind would vote for Obama.
Comment 2 by Julie Coletti at 02-Jul-09 09:54 AM
I think everyone would agree that we all want to do our part to making sure the planet is taken care of. However, in this economic environment, the priority is JOBS - unemployment is creeping up to 10%.
Government Support Jobs is a new career site that specializes on connecting job seekers with employers in the government support industry. The government is hiring. There are jobs available. Log in today and create a profile. Employers can post jobs and browse the candidate database for free.
Matt Entenza, Wind Energy & Economic Philosophy
DFL gubernatorial candidate Matt Entenza thinks that "wind industry and alternative energy will be a source of economic development for southwest Minnesota and the entire state..." In making this statement, Entenza also took the obligatory shot at Gov. Pawlenty, albeit a mild one:
The wind industry and alternative energy will be a source of economic development for southwest Minnesota and the entire state, Entenza said. But the present administration is doing little to lead Minnesota in the development of wind energy and other alternative jobs, Entenza said.Here's the part that thinking people will question Entenza about:
The wind industry and alternative energy will be a source of economic development for southwest Minnesota and the entire state, Entenza said. But the present administration is doing little to lead Minnesota in the development of wind energy and other alternative jobs, Entenza said.If it's a great investment, shouldn't capital flow freely to it? Isn't the best role that state government can play in any private enterprise is to get out of the investors' way?
"This is next big push in the economy for Minnesota, and the state government needs to play a role," Entenza said.
There's a bigger question that Mr. Entenza hasn't answered about state government involving itself in the building of wind farms. Specifically, why should government determine which industries get preferential treatment and which industries get stuck with higher taxes? Shouldn't state government policy be that we'll get out of the way for all industries?
Shouldn't state policy avoid favoring industries that liberal special interest groups push?
Let's have Mr. Entenza explain why it's good to keep taxes low for industries that the DFL's special interest allies support but it isn't good policy to cut taxes on all businesses. Let's remember that the last DFL legislature went tried creating a new income tax bracket this session.
Most importantly, let's ask the biggest question: Shouldn't small business owners across the state, whether they're in St. Cloud, Brainerd, Alexandria, Forest Lake Eden Prairie or Jordan, demand the same treatment that Mr. Entenza is proposing to give wind energy-related businesses?
Finally, shouldn't Mr. Entenza's statements be interpreted as an admission that tax cuts would have a significant impact on Minnesota's economy?
Posted Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:09 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 02-Jul-09 07:18 AM
Worse than that, it's hard to imagine how there is much "economic development" involved in putting up a few windmills every month. Sure, that employs a dozen people or so, and you'll create maybe a dozen jobs maintaining the things, but much of the money goes to the outstate manufacturers and the utilities selling "our" wind power. I mean, if we own the "public airwaves," shouldn't we get paid when somebody extracts energy from them? :-)
The other fallacy is that Pawlenty has done far more to build renewable energy-- signing off on the ridiculous and impossible requirement of 20% by 2020-- than he should have done.
What's happening is delightful. The DFL seems determined to run their candidate for Governor against Tim Pawlenty, who will still be very popular through next year, instead of the actual Republican candidate. And if they plan to run on "saving the planet" instead of "live within your means" they've got a losing battle.
Comment 2 by Jack Smith at 30-Apr-10 07:05 PM
Wind power is a good source of electricity but it also takes up lots of space just like solar power plants.,`;
Deconstructing More Health Care Myths
If you've been following the health care reform debate but you haven't read George Newman's WSJ article , it's time you did. In his article, Newman obliterates a number of the Democrats' talking points, starting with this important one:
"The American people overwhelmingly favor reform."This poll suggests otherwise. What the "American people overwhelmingly" support is the concept of health care reform. The minute the details start getting filled in, especially including the pricetag, support drops pretty dramatically. When everything is known about the particulars of health care reform, support settles in at the 30-35% range.
If you ask whether people would be happier if somebody else paid their medical bills, they generally say yes. But surveys on consumers' satisfaction with their quality of care show overwhelming support for the continuation of the present arrangement. The best proof of this is the belated recognition by the proponents of health-care reform that they need to promise people that they can keep what they have now.
Compare that with the fact that 80+ percent of people with insurance like their insurance and you're really dealing with a tiny fraction of the population that want dramatic change to the system. I'd further argue that many of the people advocating the dramatic overhaul of the current 'quality first' system don't understand the things that they'd lose if a dramatic overhaul happened.
Here's something that the Democrats don't want you to know about:
Shifting funds from health care to education would make for a better society.If we're getting great value for an important item, isn't it wise to pay more for it? can you picture people saying this:
These two services have a lot in common, including steadily rising cost. What is curious is that this rise in education costs is deemed by the liberal establishment smart and farsighted while the rise in health-care costs is a curse to be stopped at any cost. What is curiouser still is that in education, where they always advocate more "investment," past increases have gone hand-in-hand with demonstrably deteriorating outcomes. The rising cost in health care has been accompanied by clearly superior results. Thus we would shift dollars from where they do a lot of good to an area where they don't.
I got crappy health care and I had to wait too long to get care but I got it for a cheap price.Isn't it more likely that people agree with this statement:
Yes, I paid alot but the quality was first class, the service level was very good and the procedures, the prescription medication and the timely testing produced a great outcome.Who cares if you're guaranteed health insurance if that insurance buys you long waiting lines, refusals of treatment and 23 hour waits in ERs?
Yesterday, I criticized Steve Findlay's op-ed in which he accused Republicans of fearmongering. I said then that fearmongering isn't possible if there's nothing scary about your policies. Unfortunately for Mr. Findlay, there's lots of scary condequences that his favorite policies will cause.
Does Mr. Findlay think that people should sit silent just so his policies get enacted? Shame on him if that's what he wants.
I strongly urge you to read the entire WSJ article. It's filled with important information.
Posted Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:45 PM
No comments.
If Ellie Mae Can't Find Them...
The House GOP has put a great video highlighting how the stimulus bill hasn't created any jobs. Check this video out but be prepared to laugh a bit:
Despite the latest unemployment report, a report that shows another dramatic jump in unemployment, President Obama continues to put a positive spin on things.
President Barack Obama says he's confident the economy will turn around in the short term and the nation will prosper in the long term despite another dose of bad unemployment news.It's true that he didn't cause this recession. Bit by bit, though, people don't care that he didn't cause it. He got elected because people wanted him to fix the mess he inherited. Bit by bit, people are noticing that Obama's solutions have been worthless. They're noticing that his policies, especially his pork-infested, less-than-stimulating stimulus bill and his bailout of the UAW and his budget, have given Wall Street and Main Street alike reasons to not trust his economic policies.
Obama spoke Thursday in the Rose Garden shortly after a meeting with chief executives from energy companies. Earlier, the government reported that employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June.
The unemployment rate climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent. Obama called that report sobering news. He said that while it is better than the last economic quarter, it is little comfort for those who have lost their jobs. He said it took years to create the economic mess and it will take time to reverse the downward slide.
The Ellie Mae ad is a great touch. Mocking President Obama's and the congressional Democrats' policies will highlight their ineptitude and cause a shift in who the American people vote for in 2010. In 2006, the Democrats' slogan was that we needed "to change direction." In 2010, a potent argument can be made for changing directions away from the Democrats' disastrous direction.
Articles like Larry Kudlow's don't give people confidence in the economy:
Donald Marron, a former senior economist with the Council of Economic Advisors and the CBO, calls it "a grim jobs report." Marron, digging deep into the Labor Department Statistics, says the continued decline in hours worked by private-sector employees, now 7 percent over the past year, is especially troublesome. He writes, "The economy is thus losing jobs and, for the jobs that remain, is losing hours worked. That double-whammy is bad news for the economy."The average length of a deep recession is approximately 17-19 months. I'm guessing that, right now, we're 6 months past that with at least another 6 months to go before bottoming out.
I would add that along with manufacturing and construction, the service sector continues to shed jobs, with a 244,000 drop in June. Inside that category, the important professional-and-business-services sector lost 118,000 jobs. The wage data is equally disconcerting. Over the past three months, average hourly earnings barely rose at 0.7 percent annually.
Predictably, here's Kudlow's prescription for recovery:
As an old-fashioned supply-side guy who is out of date with contemporary Washington policies, I would add that Obama's biggest mistake was not cutting marginal tax rates for individuals, businesses, and investors. Instead of the fiscal profligacy that is driving spending and borrowing sky-high, lower tax rates with true incentive-reward effects would have reignited the animal spirits that are sagging so badly.Until President Obama learns that capitalists need incentives to do things, this economy will stagger along. While I think it's likely that we'll have some economic growth along the way, I think it's far more likely that we won't have a noticeable, sustained jump in economic growth.
Until that changes, Ellie Mae will have her work cut out for her.
Posted Friday, July 3, 2009 8:54 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-Jul-09 03:33 PM
The only flaw in your Hope for Change is that Obama doesn't care about capitalists or capitalism. He thinks that a command economy where the misery is shared equally is the best way to go. Except for him and his, of course.
We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident
Perhaps because Independence Day is my birthday, I've always been inspired by the founding principles upon which this great nation is built upon. Of the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence necessarily plays an indispensible role in declaring what the United States of America held most dear. For that reason, this paragraph is especially powerful to me:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Hubert Humphrey frequently reminded people during his Independence Day speeches that our's is the only nation in human history that declares happiness as a national goal. Hubert Humphrey's statement is as fitting today as it was when he said it. As important as that is, it's more important that we know why that's an inalienable right.
Throughout history, the model of governance was top-down. It's as if nations said that God gives authority to the government, which then loans parcels of it to the people. Our Founding Fathers rejected that theory. It wasn't just that they disagreed with this or that part of the European theory. It's that they saw nothing worthwhile about it.
Their belief was that liberty was the most important quality to be strived for. They believed this because they knew that oppressed people couldn't be happy for anything more than a fleeting interval of time.
The only proof I need for believing that liberty was the most important thing to these men was the final paragraph of the Declaration:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.This wasn't a pledge from one peasant to another. Many of the men who signed the Declaration were men of stature and wealth. They knew that if they were captured, they likely would be dead a short while later. Despite that possibility, they pledged their their lives to creating a new nation founded on the principle that liberty was worth giving their lives for.
Put another way, longterm liberty for our nation was infinitely more important to our Founding Fathers than was their fortunes or even life itself. They counted it as privilege to pledge their sacred honor for this goal.
Though it's important to remember the lessons of the past, it's equally important that we live out those lessons in the present. If we believe that liberty is a principle worth fighting for, then we must ask whether it's something that we passionately believe in. The test of that is whether liberty is worth fighting for or if it's just a quaint notion. If we believe that the pursuit of happiness is the right goal for this nation and its people, what are we doing to fight against the things that stand in the way of that pursuit?
A few object lessons are in order.
When five justices ruled (in Kelo v. New London) that private property rights were transient and conditional, didn't that inhibit this nation's pursuit of happiness?
When our government said that it was taking control of the car manufacturers, didn't it say that they objected to the concept of us giving power, in limited amounts for limited periods of time, to the government?
When all of governments say that they'll give us something as long as we'll do what they tell us to do, isn't that a way of buying off our liberty?
The answer to all three questions is a resounding yes.
During the past quarter century, new countries have learned about, and embraced, liberty. In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. In 2004, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine was one of the first things I blogged about. A little more than a month after the election do over had ousted Viktor Yanukovych, Putin's hand-picked successor to Leonid Kuchma, Iraqis went to the polls despite threats from terrorists. That, in turn, ignited the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. That's without talking about the liberation of Afghanistan.
The liberty we hold dear is attempting to break out across the world. Only time will tell if it's successful.
If ever there was a time when we need to return to this nation's founding principles, it's now. In fact, it's important that we remain vigilant and steadfast in standing for these important principles. It's important because we need to protect our freedoms just as we need to teach future generations that freedom is never more than a generation away from disappearing.
The best birthday present I could get this year would be the rekindling of passion for the foundational principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. In fact, if we return to passionately defending these principles, it would be the gift we give to future generations.
What an awesome gift that would be to give and to receive.
Posted Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:52 AM
Comment 1 by Janet at 04-Jul-09 07:36 AM
As usual, well-written and accurate. Since the 1960's, the "right of free speech" and protest have been the only side of the freedom equation people have used. The other side, responsibility, has been ignored - to our detriment and that of the planet. We now have a president who appears to not understand this "freedom" thing. His appeasement of thuggish dictators works against free people everywhere.
Reading Gary's post should remind all that freedom isn't free. I believe it is our duty as Americans to make sure we do all we can to help people attain that inalienable right of liberty. Properly taught, the pursuit of happiness and life will follow.
Comment 2 by Lars at 04-Jul-09 10:41 AM
Most countries in the world had a perspective of some sort of destruction to get where they are now. We the people of the U.S. should never take for granted what preceding generations have gifted us and never take for granted what we need to do to remain a beacon of freedom to good citizens.
Comment 3 by Always On Watch at 04-Jul-09 08:40 PM
The last several months under BHO have seen violation after violation of the principles of our Declaration of Independence.
Please, Americans, wake up! Something critical is on the line!
Comment 4 by Americaneocon at 04-Jul-09 11:26 PM
Hope you had a wonderful 4th of July!
Comment 5 by Suanne at 27-Aug-09 01:21 AM
The foundation of this country is Christianity. Freedom is only transient unless it is sustained by moral laws and biblical principles, on which this liberty rests. "...only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."-Benjamin Franklin. "To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper."-Daniel Webster
Comment 6 by Suanne at 27-Aug-09 01:26 AM
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports... In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens..." George Washington, 1796
"The great pillars of all government and of social life are virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor...and this alone, that renders us invincible."- Patrick Henry,1799
"...if the study of the Bible is to be excluded from all state schools; if the inculcation of the principles of Christianity is to have no place in the daily program; if the worship of God is to form no part of the general exercises of these public elementary schools; then the good of the state would be better served by restoring all schools to church control." -National Education Association (NEA) ,1892
"Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore lay Christ at the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning." -Harvard's Rules & Precepts, 1636 and Motto- "Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae"(Truth for Christ and the Church)
"Cursed is all learning that is contrary to the Cross of Christ" -Princeton's founding statement 1746
"Yahweh (in Hebrew), Psalm 36:9 in Latin (in thy light we see light), Psalm 37:1 (God is my Light), 1 Peter 2:1-2 (desire the pure milk of God's Word)- Columbia University Seal, present today
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God." Gouverneur Morris,1832
"In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible."- Benjamin Rush, 1798
"Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity... in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."-Samuel Adams,1790
"In my view, the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed...no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."-Noah Webster 1836
Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. Revelation 2:5
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."-John Adams 1776
"The only foundation for... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican government."-Benjamin Rush, 1798
"...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."-George Washington, 1796
"The only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion." and "...Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy."-Benjamin Rush, 1798
"Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."-Charles Carroll,1800 (signer of Declaration of Indep.)
"Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness."
-Samuel Adams, 1778
"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive one without the other. The religious atmosphere of the country was the first thing that struck me upon my arrival in the U.S. In France, I had seen the spirits of religion and freedom almost always marching in opposite directions, in America, I found them intimately linked together and joined and reigned over the same land...Religion should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions. From the start, politics and religion have agreed and have not since ceased to do so."- Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835
"...the moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws... All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."-Noah Webster, 1833
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams, 1798
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..."
Comment 7 by dan at 04-Sep-09 08:29 PM
The car makers were bankrupt!
This is not a chritian nation, it is a nation where you are free to practice your religion`!
BHO has held up the consittuion better than the bush.
Comments like the one from Suanne scare me.
Yes I must be vigilent or else I will being living under the Taliban, only it will have a different name.
