Tag Archives: Politics

The Chairman’s Weekly Radio Address: August 16, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, August 15th, 2009

This week, I’ve been traveling across our country to discuss health insurance reform and to hear directly from folks like you – your questions, your concerns, and your stories.

Nah, nah ya haven’t.  You’ve been making fun of guys like me.  Calling me a teabagger and a right wing nut case.  What you ARE doing is travelling across the country talking to folks like you!

Now, I know there’s been a lot of attention paid to some of the town hall meetings that are going on around the country, especially those where tempers have flared. You know how TV loves a ruckus.

Ahhwww, you folksy guy you!  But really, ’cause organizing is your bag I’m just ‘spossed to not have my say?

But what you haven’t seen – because it’s not as exciting – are the many constructive meetings going on all over the country where Americans are airing their hopes and concerns about this very important issue.

I’ve been holding some of my own, and the stories I’ve heard have really underscored why I believe so strongly that health insurance reform is a challenge we can’t ignore.

They’re stories like Lori Hitchcock’s, who I met in New Hampshire this week. Lori’s got a pre-existing condition, so no insurance company will cover her. She’s self-employed, and in this economy, she can’t find a job that offers health care, so she’s been uninsured for two years.

See, now that’s strange.  And while I’m not callin’ ya a liar, I AM sayin’ I don’t believe you.  See, I went on line, just now- right this very minute- and found a quote for health insurance that covers me after a 5k deductible for about $130 a month.  Now, I don’t have a pr-existing condition, the plan WOULD cover me 12 months after I had been paying premiums.  So, ya see, you CAN get coverage.  If you are willing to, you know, work.

Or they’re stories like Katie Gibson’s, who I met in Montana. When Katie tried to change insurance companies, she was sure to list her pre-existing conditions on the application and even called her new company to confirm she’d be covered. Two months later, she was dropped – after she’d already gone off her other insurance.

These are the stories that aren’t being told – stories of a health care system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people. And that’s why we’re going to pass health insurance reform that finally holds the insurance companies accountable.

Do you know what that means?  To hold an insurance company accountable?  Cause I don’t.  See, I have insurance and I see doctors and my kids see doctors and the insurance company pays the bills.  I don’t fight with ’em or have to call ’em or anything.  So, what are they doin’ that you don’t like?

But now’s the hard part. Because the history is clear – every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests with a stake in the status quo use their influence and political allies to scare and mislead the American people.

Strange of you to speak so poorly about your Union brothers.

As an example, let’s look at one of the scarier-sounding and more ridiculous rumors out there – that so-called “death panels” would decide whether senior citizens get to live or die.

Before you get on with what I am sure is a well thought out response to this concept—-it’s TRUE.

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

That rumor began with the distortion of one idea in a Congressional bill that would allow Medicare to cover voluntary visits with your doctor to discuss your end-of-life care – if and only if you decide to have those visits. It had nothing to do with putting government in control of your decisions; in fact, it would give you all the information you need – if you want it – to put you in control of your decisions. When a conservative Republican Senator who has long-fought for even more far-reaching proposals found out how folks were twisting the idea, he called their misrepresentation, and I quote, “nuts.”

So when folks with a stake in the status quo keep inventing these boogeymen in an effort to scare people, it’s disappointing, but it’s not surprising. We’ve seen it before. When President Roosevelt was working to create Social Security, opponents warned it would open the door to “federal snooping” and force Americans to wear dog tags. When President Kennedy and President Johnson were working to create Medicare, opponents warned of “socialized medicine.” Sound familiar? Not only were those fears never realized, but more importantly, those programs have saved the lives of tens of millions of seniors, the disabled, and the disadvantaged.

Those who would stand in the way of reform will say almost anything to scare you about the cost of action. But they won’t say much about the cost of inaction.

You’ve been down this road before; remember the Stimulus package?  Yeah, how’d THAT work for ya Sparky?

If you’re worried about rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage, or bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, then you should know that’s what’s happening right now.

We’re not worried about it; we get it.  It’s a concept that we are all familiar with.  It’s a concept that serves us well.  For example, when we ration on price we get healthy competition resulting in lower costs and higher quality.  Not that you would know about it however, so, just keep on pretending like you’ve ever had a job.

In the past three years, over 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies due to a preexisting condition, or saw their coverage denied or dropped just when they got sick and needed it most. Americans whose jobs and health care are secure today just don’t know if they’ll be next to join the 14,000 who lose their health insurance every single day. And if we don’t act, average family premiums will keep rising to more than $22,000 within a decade.

On the other hand, here’s what reform will mean for you.

First, no matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it.

Right…..until ya need to change.  Then, then ya can’t keep it.  But just go right ahead and skip that part.

If you don’t have insurance, you’ll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that’s missing today.

Who can’t afford insurance today?  Really?  Who?  And why not?  I swear to you…when you buy ANYTHING before you buy insurance, it means that you can buy insurance you simply choose not too.

Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying you coverage because of your medical history, dropping your coverage if you get sick, or watering down your coverage when it counts – because there’s no point in having health insurance if it’s not there when you need it.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or lifetime, and we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses – because no one in America should go broke just because they get sick.

Finally, we’ll require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be saving lives and dollars by catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end.

Pssst, over here.  You mentioned above that the normal tactics were being used to fight this, cough cough, reform bill of yours?  Well, far be it from you to go down that road.  Cause, ya know, insurance companies cover that today already.  But shhhh, better for you if no one calls ya on that!

That’s what reform means. For all the chatter and the noise out there, what every American needs to know is this: If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. And we will deliver this in a fiscally responsible way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  What kinda mooch do ya think I am?  No government bureaucrat, fiscally responsible.  Rich!

I know there’s plenty of real concern and skepticism out there.

Ya think?  Even you Democrats are eating your young on this one.

I know that in a time of economic upheaval, the idea of change can be unsettling, and I know that there are folks who believe that government should have no role at all in solving our problems. These are legitimate differences worthy of the real discussion that America deserves – one where we lower our voices, listen to one another, and talk about differences that really exist. Because while there may be disagreements over how to go about it, there is widespread agreement on the urgent need to reform a broken system and finally hold insurance companies accountable.

Nearly fifty years ago, in the midst of the noisy early battles to create what would become Medicare, President Kennedy said, “I refuse to see us live on the accomplishments of another generation. I refuse to see this country, and all of us, shrink from these struggles which are our responsibility in our time.” Now it falls to us to meet the challenges of our time. And if we can come together, and listen to one another; I believe, as I always have, that we will rise to this moment, we will build something better for our children, and we will secure America’s future in this new century.

Jeez!

The Price of a Stamp

So, in my last post I spoke some about the minimum wage and the buying power associated with it.  I used a concept shown to my by Mark Perry.  That is, comparing the cost of goods from 50 years ago to that price today.  I added a little twist and included the price of that good had it too kept up with inflation.

I thought it would be interesting to do the same thing with the cost of government controlled goods.  Like a postage stamp.

Here goes.

Cost of a stamp in 1958:  $0.04

Inflation Price:  $0.30

Real Price Today:  $0.44

So, while the price of products today is going down relative to it’s 1958 inflation price, the cost of postage is going up.  By almost 50%.

The Power of the Non-Minimum Wage

The argument for the minimum wage is that, without it, people will be unable to keep up with the essentials of life.  Let’s check that out.

In 1956 the minimum wage was $1.00 American.  One WHOLE dollar.  However, that translates into a whopping $7.93 today.  Which, by the way, is more than than current minimum wage set forth by the Federal Government; $7.25.

Let’s see how we compare:

Comparison of Prices:  1958 and 2008
Product Price in 1958 Inflation Price Real Price Today
Automatic Toaster $12.95 $95.39 $15.88
8 Cup Coffee Maker $15.50 $114.17 $19.99
AM Table Radio $13.95 $102.75 $29.00
Starter Guitar $17.95 with case $132.22 $99.99
Globe of the World $12.95 $95.39 $39.97
Flash Camera $5.90 $43.46 $45.88
Child’s Bicycle $18.45 $135.90 $59.00
Pup Tent $13.92 $102.53 $38.88

So, what does this tell us?  It tells us, that while wages have not kept pace with inflation, the cost of goods has also not kept pace with inflation.  In fact, the real price of goods has actually become cheaper, much cheaper, in terms of today’s dollars.

An interesting experiment conducted by Mark Perry in a post found here shows how many hours a worker would have to work to afford a defined set of products.

Again,we can do the same:

Comparison of Hours Worked: 1958 and 2008
Product Hours Worked in 1958 Hours Worked in 2008
Automatic Toaster 32.375 2.19
8 Cup Automatic Coffee Maker 38.75 2.75
AM Table Radio 34.87 4
Starter Guitar 44.87 13.8
Globe of the World 32.4 5.5
Flash Camera 14.75 6.3
Child’s Bicycle 46.1 8.1
Pup Tent 34.8 5.4

And again, we see that it’s not even close.  Not only have the products that we have to choose from expanded, but the cost of those products, in terms of real dollars AND hours worked have plummeted.

You Know They Are Desperate When

Check this post out over at alan.com.  In it, a commenter is responding to Alan’s post that a woman on Medicare is opposing Obamacare, or Universal Health Care.

In the post, Alan is quoting an article in The Washington Monthly, which in turn is speaking about an article in the Wall Street Journal.  In that article is a story of a woman whose mother is on Medicare and whose sister is also on Medicare.  The family is attending Town Hall meetings to express their opinion on Medicare.  Alan and Co are just shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you that someone on the government dime would protest anything the government suggested.

The reporter from the Washington Monthly saeth thusly:

Government-run, taxpayer-financed health care has kept her mother alive. Government-run, taxpayer-financed health care provides treatment and care to her sister. Based on the descriptions, it’s safe to assume the costs associated with treatments for Campbell’s mother and sister are enormous, but taxpayers and a socialized health care system pick up the tab. What’s wrong with that? Not a thing.

Except, of course, that Diane Campbell is now trying to convince people that health care reform is both radical and dangerous.

So, once a person is on government assistance, they are no longer able to, or at least shouldn’t, offer objection to further plans made by the government.  “Shut up citizen, listen and obey” is the message here.  There may be a whole host of reasons that these women don’t want this program pushed through.  Lord knows there are enough of those reason to fill a book.  But we couldn’t be bothered with those details.

But it gets even better.  See, Alan and The Washington Monthly go even further and bring up images of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

No offense to Diane Campbell, who must be suffering greatly.  But she has bought the right-wing meme that Obama is akin to Hitler and that health care reform will liken America to Nazi Germany.

So, now, not only is the Left offended that a sick grandmother would object to Obamacare, they bring up Hitler and the Nazi’s.

But the best is saved for last.  In the comments, in fact, the first one, we have a reader who claims that this woman MUST be a racist.

The only conclusion I can reach here is she’s a racist.

Awesome.  The bad news is that we have to continue to manage our way through this kind of nonsense.  The good news, when the Left resorts to this, you know we have won the hearts and minds.

Minimum Wage Increase

Well, we’ve done it again.  Though this time, to be fair, we knew it was coming.  The minimum wage increased another $0.70 and is now at $7.25.

I have several personal stories from friends of mine explaining how hard it is for their teen child to find a job.  I suspect that it’s only going to get harder.  Employers are already struggling to make ends meet and now they’re forced to make due with a 10% higher labor force.  If this were any other commodity, experts would understand that somewhere the employer would have to cut.  For example, if the price of electricity went up by 10%, the businessman would be forced to make up for that cost somewhere else.  Or, if the price of milk went up by 10%, again, he would make up for it in other places.

I’ve been awfully hard on the minimum wage proponents and have done some thinking.  As one of the core pillars of my argument, raising the minimum wage may actually impact only a very few.  Only a very small percentage of Americans actually make the minimum wage.  Next, the employer may react not be cutting workers, but by reducing hours.  If done perfectly, that is each worker would see a 10% decrease in hours worked, he comes out ahead; he gets the same pay as before, but does so at a 10% discount in his time.  And last, labor may only be a small part of an individual employers expenses.  For those businesses with small labor costs, the increase will be negligible.

Last, before I walk away from this for a bit, is my favorite question for the pro-minimum wage folks.  If raising the wage 70 cents is a good idea, why not raise it to 20 bucks?

The Michigan Democratic Party is considering asking voters to raise the state’s minimum wage from the current $7.40 an hour to a national high of $10 an hour, increase unemployment benefits and require all employers to provide health coverage.

Unbelievable.

Two Parallels in One Article

I’ve admitted before that I am no economist.  Fact is, I haven’t even ever taken a class in economics.  However, I did major in mathematics and work significantly with statistics at my current job.  As I tell my boss, “I’m nifty with numbers”.

So, as I wax poetic on all of these economic issues I do so with a bit of trepidation.  See, really, from an “expert’s” point of view, I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Which makes seeing two of my most often repeated mantras in text at one time very exciting.  This article from Mises.org just made my morning:

Mandating benefits for employees imposes costs on employment. The would-be worker bears the cost. It makes the worker more expensive to hire. The employer has to pay not only a salary but also a benefit. If you make it more expensive to hire people, fewer people will be hired.

It is no different from eggs at the supermarket. If they are $2 each, you will purchase fewer of them — you will economize. This is nothing but the law of demand: consumers will demand less of a good at a higher price than of a good at a lower price. A salary plus benefits amounts to a price that the employer must pay to purchase the work of a laborer. At a higher price, less work will be purchased by the employer.

You should read the whole article; it’s fantastically simple.  And for once, I see in print, what I seem to intuit.  And furthermore, it is verbalized with economic expertize that I simply can’t claim:

There is no real reason to prove these assertions empirically since they flow from the logic of economics.

The article is entitled  “The Jobs Program” and deals with health care:

Sadly, there is no way that free health care can be granted to all living things with the stroke of a pen. Broadening availability will require that the entire sector be turned over to the private sector, so that it can be controlled through the price system like everything else.

But while Mr. Rockwell is speaking about the current health care bill, his article could easily be speaking about the new minimum wage increase slated this month.

How to Raise Unemployment

Raise the cost of labor.

See, labor, like copper or plastic, oil or stamps, is a commodity.  Businesses need commodities to operate.  Businesses see how much a thing costs, calculates value analysis and then buys some.  How much depends on that analysis.  For example, if copper becomes too expensive, business will try to find a way to use less of it.  Perhaps substituting for something else; a batter value.  Stamps too high?  Go to bulk mailing, or e-mail services.  So it goes with labor.

Why people don’t see this is beyond me.  For example, if we are interested in reducing unemployment, why don’t we mandate that all McDonalds have twice the current number of workers on each shift?  If one McDdude is good, certainly two McDudes is better?  Yes?

No.

See, at some point, more labor doesn’t mean more revenue or profits.  Now, at some point it does.  If I have to wait 20 McMinutes for my McBurger, I am going to walk out the McDoor.  Here, more labor would be worth it to the store.  However, once McDonalds has reached the point that it is servicing the clientele adding more labor doesn’t add up.  The cost doesn’t justify the return.  The simple truth is that the amount of labor someone buys is limited to the business model.  Raising the unit cost of labor reduces the units.  Or, increases the price of the widget.?

So, does raising the minimum wage increase or decrease employment?  In an article from the Wall Street Journal, it seems that studies show jobs will be lost:

There’s been a long and spirited debate among economists about who gets hurt and who benefits when the minimum wage rises. But in a 2006 National Bureau of Economic Research paper, economists David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Bank reviewed the voluminous literature over the past 30 years and came to two almost universally acknowledged conclusions.

First, “a sizable majority of the studies give a relatively consistent (though not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects.” Second, “studies that focus on the least-skilled groups [i.e., teens, and welfare moms] provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects.”

Now, let’s continue to pretend that we don’t know, for sure, that raising the minimum wage will result in job loss.  Let’s instead use the Global Warming argument.  What if it’s just possible that it does?  Why raise it?  What is the upside?  And there, gentle reader, is the rub.  As far as I can see, there is no upside.  Very very few people actually make the minimum wage or less.  Almost none of them will be making the minimum wage in a year.  Most of them are from families with annual family incomes well well above poverty.  The fact is, there just aren’t that many people making the minimum wage.  And for those that do, they would rather make that amount than make the true minimum wage: $0.00.

Fruits of Our Labor – II

Some time ago I wrote about the impact of the new consumer protection measures.  In fact, I was keyed onto this by a post from Dave Ribar on the subject.

Dave’s main point was that credit card companies won’t raise the annual fees they are charging their best companies; so far he is right.   But those credit card companies ARE doing other things.  According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, we are seeing:

Credit-card issuers increasingly are moving consumers into variable-rate cards rather than fixed-rate ones, due in part to the new credit-card law slated to go into effect in phases starting in August.

What this means is that credit card companies are simply determining that government regulation is correctly seen as “damage” and they are routing around it.  See, by definition, the variable rate cards are not subject to the new law passed by Congress.

The new law limits creditors’ ability to raise interest rates, but it can’t control changes in the prime rate – the index that’s the basis for most variable-rate cards. So even after the new law starts to limit rate increases, variable-rate cards will still change if and when the index they’re based on changes.

Again, this law is another example of the government stepping in to rescue people who are simply demonstrating irresponsible behavior.  If I have money to borrow, and I determine that Pete is less trust worthy than Sally, there is only on way in which I borrow to Pete; charge him more.  If Pete would like to enjoy better terms, he could accomplish that by proving that he is more trustworthy.

Again, if a certain group of people feel tha high risk borrowers should be afforded credit, they are free to do this with their own money.  Forcing others to do it by rule of law is ignoring basic laws of economics as well as going against human decency.

Obama’s Advice: Don’t Do What I Do

President Obama recently returned from his overseas trip.  A trip in which he paid a visit to Ghana to deliver a speech to the Ghanian Parliment.  Now, don’t get me wrong, I think that it’s perfectly acceptable, recommended in fact, that Presidents travel the world and deliver speeches like this.  Further, I actually enjoyed the message that he gave early:

We must start from the simple premise that Africa’s future is up to Africans.

I love it.  In fact, it’s what is at my Libertarian heart.  Personal Liberty-Personal Responsibility.

Most of the speech was as you would expect, but I did have to laugh at Obama’s advice on creating wealth:

No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top … or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery.

So, lemme get this straight.  Obama’s advice to Ghana is for the government NOT to take a cool 20% off the top.  But his advice to America is to increase the skim we are already taking off the top?

Nice.

Hope and Change

Look, by now you should know that I am no fan of Obama.  However, I am a BIG fan of me.  And when it comes to me, I like to apply the concept of “value” in my life.  In fact, I was describing just such a concept to my 1st grader this afternoon.  We were discussing haircuts and price.  See, I don’t like to spend money on haircuts AND I don’t like crappy haircuts.  So, this means that I often times don’t get haircuts even when I need ’em.  Further, because I will only purchase cheap haircuts, Ii have to drive to where they further reducing how often I get them.  Anyway, we priced a trim right next door to the grocery today and we began discussing value.

Back to the point–energy.  Look, I am a market believer AND I am a environment believer.  I enjoy both.  And so it is that I don’t like to pollute and destroy the nature that we live in [at the same time that I have a decent sized piece of property in rural Wake county that maybe isn’t very environmentally sound] AND I enjoy low energy bills.  What this means is that I like to spend less on gas and electricity than I do spending more.  And, according to almost everyone, you can’t have both.

See, we are stuck in the new “Don’t Pollute” meme.  In the past, you had the Indian riding the horse with a tear in his eye as he surveyed the land around him being destroyed.  Now, now you have the polar bear floating away on melting ice as he becomes extinct.  And I wonder how it works that these things are bought into every time.  I don’t know–maybe it’s because the young watch more tv and are more vocal than the elders?  Not sure.

But here ya have it.  Because of global warming, we have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.  And, and if that doesn’t work, then we have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because we import oil from countries that hate us.  And, again, if that doesn’t work, then we have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because we’ll run out.  Wow.  It’s tiring.

I guess the point of all of this is this story by WRAL:

Imagine your power bill going up by $200 a month.

Progress Energy spokesman Mike Hughes said Thursday that it’s a possibility under President Barack Obama’s energy plan that narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week.

The bill, which Obama has said will reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and clean the air, calls for a reduction of carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020, and for 20 percent of the nation’s energy to be renewable – such as wind and solar – by 2020.

In the end, Liberals are not so much about doing much of anything on their own, they are more interested in dictating to others who they should spend THEIR money.  As such, I don’t suspect that this will actually come to fruition, but if it does, can you imagine what the impact would be on our economy?