Monthly Archives: October 2009

Poor Democrats: Responsibility

As we are beginning quarter 4, 2009, it is becoming clear that what we already knew was going to happen is, ahem, going to happen. That is, we are most certainly going to see the end of the recession between April and September of this year. Further, the unemployment rate is going to continue to rise and rise for quite some time.

As I mentioned, this is not surprising or new information.  What IS surprising, however, is that there is a group of people who find themselves in an uncomfortable position; the Democrats.

Job losses are expected to continue at least into the middle of next year, likely driving the unemployment rate above 10 percent from 9.8 percent last month. It could take three or four more years for it to fall to normal levels.

The longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression has claimed 7.2 million jobs since it began in December 2007. Analysts figure 750,000 more jobs could disappear over the next six months.

And why is this?  It’s a perfect storm of sorts for the Democrats.  They are dealing with both long term and short term trends.  On the one hand, we are now paying the piper for the incentives given to banks, lenders and individuals to buy/sell houses to people who couldn’t afford them.  That’s the long term.  The short term?  The whole stimulus package including, to be fair, the Republican led TARP disaster.  And the medium term?  The rise of the minimum wage, which, by the way, is coinciding with a very bad labor market.  Right when we should be trying to incent people to hire other people, we instead are raising the cost of labor; even beyond what that labor is worth.

And what are the Democrats going to do to try to help us through this period of adjustment?  Why, a second stimulus perhaps?  Some are even considering raising that minimum wage even higher.  And the doubly whammy?  Cap and Trade along with Universal Health Care.

If you wanna implement policies that promise to rise the people up but in reality strip those same people of economic health and vibrancy?  Hire a Democrat; just remember that when their policies fail, it’ll get harder and harder to hire them in the next election.

Alan Colmes: Is a Capitalist

Saturday afternoon, Alan posted on the emerging news media; citizenry media.

With newspapers folding and many denizens in the old media not understanding the new media, the young entrepreneurs at metrojacksonville.com are on the edge of the curve.  Locals, including officials, can’t wait to post there, knowing their messages will be read by an engaged citizenry.  They are using the web the way it is meant to be used, incorporating a level of interactivity that most newspapers haven’t grabbed onto.

I couldn’t help but being impressed by Ayn Rand reaching to us from the past:

Creative destruction. Even as a reliable icon like the delivered print newspaper makes it’s way into the the same museum as the rotary telephone, VCR and horse drawn buggy, we see the beautiful effects of ingenuity, creativity and the capitalist way. More and more people are finding that the old way of receiving news is no longer meeting their needs, so they “vote” with their wallets. Given the fact that news print and printing presses and journalists and editors are “rationed by price” we are seeing the release of these resources due to people purchasing other forms of news delivery.

Certainly the impact of the loss of their jobs will be hard for those journalists, editors and print specialists, but society overall will benefit and become more productive. Net/net, everybody wins. We see a less efficient form of media fall away, we see competition in the new forms that we are allowed to choose from and, even better, they are cheaper than the $0.75 a day it costs to purchase the local fish wrapper. In short, life is good, even great.

Imagine the lack of progress if the government stepped in, stole your money right from your pocket and propped up an industry that no one wants to see succeed? I would think we would be upset that the progress of a nation would be halted in it’s steps. Impossible? Nope:

blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/09/24/how-to-subsidize-news-without-feeling-dirty/

Posted by John Galt
October 10th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Who knew that Ayn lives?

When "They" say "We" then "You" are "Them"

So, Obama wins the Nobel Peace prize.  And for no good, or even existing, reason.  After all, he was nominated only 12 days[!] into his Presidency.  Which begs the question:

When a group of devout Socialists hands this prestigious award to a 12 day old leader, it seems pretty clear that those Socialists feel he is a Socialist.

Yikes.

Changing of the Guard

Well, for better or for worse, it happened.  The folks in Wake County who have opposed the Diversity Plan won.  And they won big.  I can only imagine that this means they are going to try and break down the work that has been done to ensure that schools maintain a balance of economically challenged families and non-economically challenged folks.

I have been torn in the days leading up to this election.  I am almost totally Libertarian.  Therefore I mostly disagree with the folks on the left when it comes to the economy and those on the right when it comes to things related to the social issues.  Schools always get me.  Every time.  And so it was this time as well, though even harder.

See, the left always wants to throw more money at the problem and protect the teachers in a Union kinda way.  And that NEVER works.  Ever.  You always get the lowest common denominator and the “enterprise” suffers.  But jeez, this Diversity thing has legs.  I really think it makes better schools.  The kids are better off and they learn more and we just don’t end up failing as many kids as we otherwise would.  So I sided with the Dems on this one.  Not because I think more money is the answer; or teachers unions [I hate ’em], but because the diversity strategy is an awesome tool in the toolbox.

Jindalcare

Alan Colmes is talking about the new health care plan proposed by New Orleans governor Bobby Jindal.  Jindal outlined his plans in a Washington Post article. Now, I have been saying for a long time that the Republicans need to step up and stand out.  For sure the plans offered by the Democrats are in huge need of being said “No” too, but at some point, you simply have to bring a plan to the table.  A vibrant plan.  A plan that’s marketed and jazzed and finally sold to the public.

Jindal is doing that; or trying to.  He correctly points out that Washington’s plan is dead and going no where.  In fact the public is tired of see Obama and his administration rehashing the same old talking points over and over again.  Even The Chairman himself is no longer able to “Shine the sun of his personality” to make this problem of his go away.  So, Jindal is trying to seize the opportunity and stand out.  Announce his own plan and see if he can get the Conservatives to back him.

I’m guessing they won’t.  And hoping.

I get the fact that there has to be some compromising in this.  I understand that a world run exactly as I want is as bad a place as a world run exactly as you see fit.  It takes the best of both of us to build what we have.  Key word; Best.  Not worst.  And that’s what Jindal is suggesting.  He wants to take one of the two worst aspects of Obamacare, roll it in some Jindal speak and sell it as a better package.  It ain’t.

Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.

You can not guarantee coverage disregarding preexisting conditions.  Because if the government does that, the government  HAS to make it affordable.  And if you do THAT, you break the system and you have a plan no better than Medicare/Medicaid.  Broke and getting broker.  By the day.

According to their own auditors, Medicare knowingly overpays for almost everything it buys.

Jindal is right in a lot, but wrong where it counts.

The Price of Free Health Care

See, that’s not fair.  Everyone knows there’s no such thing as free health care.  Heck, we know there isn’t free anything.  So, what has to happen for health care to be made available to every citizen in America?  Well, it has to be paid for.  And who would pay for it?  Well, we would simply raise taxes to cover the costs.  And could we do this?  Yes, almost for sure.  To be equally sure, we would have to raise the taxes so high that even Democrats would puke.  So instead we’ll raise them just some.  And what does this get us?  A system in debt.

We have all heard that America is ranked something like 37th in the world [based on the metrics used to determine this, I think that we are really ranked #1, but why quibble].  The club that we are beaten with is “If we spend all this money on health care, why do we only get a return that ranks us 37th?  The other club, my second favorite, is “We are the only industrial nation that doesn’t have some form of universal health care.”

Let’s look at the cost those other nations have to pay.  I like GDP PPP [that is purchasing power parity].  Basically, this is a measure of the “quality of economic life” in a given country or State.  Using this measure you can compare the purchasing power of people living in North Carolina and Minnesota for example.  Of of people living in Sweden and Germany.

So, these nations that are providing medical care to all of their citizens–how do they rank in GDP PPP?  Poorly.  Very poorly.  In fact, according to one study, if you took the nations of Spain, Portugal and Greece and granted them statehood in the United States, they would immediately become the 1st, 2nd and 3rd poorest states in the Union.

Italy, Finland, Denmark, France and the UK?  Make them states instead?  They would become the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th poorest States in America.  In fact, you could take the whole of the European Union and make it a State.  It would be the 5th poorest State right behind Arkansas and Montana.

Why?

When we turn to consider the impact of economic policy on growth, it is hard not to
notice that one particular factor above all is essentially different in large parts of Europe
compared with the USA, namely the expansion of the political sphere in general and
taxes and the size of the public sector in particular.

Taxes.

So, if we simply worked at letting medical care exist like any other commodity, we would find that America would:

  1. Have more money than any other nation to spend on health care.
  2. See the real cost of that care go down.