It's amazing what a $ 100 per day fine will get you -- the return of the missing Wisconsin Senate Democrats. They, the missing Senators, have agreed to return to Madison and vote on Governor Walker's bill to reign in the suffocating power of the union bosses. Populism and Progressivism is alive and well in Wisconsin!
That makes two states, so far, to begin to roll back the exhorbitant demands of the union movement -- Wisconsin and Ohio. There will be more to come.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Michael Moore Fights for the Rich
Yesterday, Michael Moore cheered on the highest paid workers in the state of Wisconsin in their fight to maintain their status as the richest folks in Wisconsin. This is consistent with Moore's other well known battles to defend rich people and tin horn dictators around the world. Moore's contempt for middle class Americans and taxpayers is palpable. Unfortunately, the poor and the middle class are tapped out and cannot indulge Moore's fantasy of furthering pampering the wealthiest workers in the state of Wisconsin.
Truth and the New York Times
The New York Times has absolutely no standards. Even the truth is not a prerequisite for their news reporting. The latest example of non-facts in the New York Times is today's article by Peter Lattman. In an article in today's Business section on the prosecution of the Rajaratnam insider trading case, he refers to "...when Rudolph Giuliani, the United States attorney, prosecuted Wall Street executives for insider trading crimes, including Ivan F. Boesky and Michael R. Milken....."
Boesky, indeed, pled guilty to insider trading, but Milken? Why is Milken mentioned in this article? Not only was Milken not convicted of insider trading, he was never charged by Giuliani or anyone else. Indeed no one ever alleged that Milken engaged in insider trading -- never, not once. Milken plead guilty to "parking" securities, a victim-less crime that no one else in history has ever been charged with, much less convicted. The government never alleged that Milken was an inside trader. So, why the slander by the New York Times or is it just a habit with them?
When will truth become a standard for news reporting by the New York Times? How does the New York Times justify reporting outright falsehoods as in today's article and claim to be a news organization?
Boesky, indeed, pled guilty to insider trading, but Milken? Why is Milken mentioned in this article? Not only was Milken not convicted of insider trading, he was never charged by Giuliani or anyone else. Indeed no one ever alleged that Milken engaged in insider trading -- never, not once. Milken plead guilty to "parking" securities, a victim-less crime that no one else in history has ever been charged with, much less convicted. The government never alleged that Milken was an inside trader. So, why the slander by the New York Times or is it just a habit with them?
When will truth become a standard for news reporting by the New York Times? How does the New York Times justify reporting outright falsehoods as in today's article and claim to be a news organization?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Standing Up for the Big Guy in Wisconsin
The protestors in Madison make, on average, three times what a typical taxpayer makes and have a benefit package for retirement and health care that the average Wisconsin citizen can only dream about. This is as if Marie Antoinette was out demonstrating in the streets of Paris for more champagne.
Students, of course, join in. There is no more privileged part of American society than college students, especially at elite schools like University of Wisconsin. The children of the average taxpayer in Wisconsin can't afford to attend University of Wisconsin, even if they could get in. But households headed by two public employees with income in the $ 200,000 plus area can certainly afford it .... and more, so long as taxpayers and bondholders are willing to pay for this largesse.
It is truly astounding that the wealthiest folks in Wisconsin, which, as a group, are the public employees, have such a "public be damned" attitude. Not since JP Morgan has the country witnessed such contempt for the average citizen as it evidenced by the demonstrators in Madison, Wisconsin.
Students, of course, join in. There is no more privileged part of American society than college students, especially at elite schools like University of Wisconsin. The children of the average taxpayer in Wisconsin can't afford to attend University of Wisconsin, even if they could get in. But households headed by two public employees with income in the $ 200,000 plus area can certainly afford it .... and more, so long as taxpayers and bondholders are willing to pay for this largesse.
It is truly astounding that the wealthiest folks in Wisconsin, which, as a group, are the public employees, have such a "public be damned" attitude. Not since JP Morgan has the country witnessed such contempt for the average citizen as it evidenced by the demonstrators in Madison, Wisconsin.
Palin is Right on Track
Sarah Palin is drawing attention to the real policy issues that the country faces by redirecting our attention to the entitlements and social security in particular. Social security is easy to fix, only courage is required. We need only tax social security to recoup it from higher income tax payers and move the age of retirement out (a similar strategy solves the problems of the enormous unfunded liabililties of state and local government pension plans).
Palin is not distracted, as Obama and the Congress seem to be, by worrying about the current $ 60 billion spat between House Republicans and the Obama White House. $ 60 billion isn't even two weeks of the current deficit at the federal level (not to mention the horrendous situation in state budgets). Palin was right when she referred to "death panels" in Obamacare and she is right to redirect our attention to social security and the health care entitlements.
Check out Paul Johnson's take on Sarah Palin in today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Palin, like Reagan and Thatcher before her, has had to to deal with the media hate mongers, but has maintained her focus and vision. If you want to see how the press treated Ronald Reagan, go to archives of the NY Times in the 1970s and you will read about Reagan characterized in essentially the same terms as Palin is today. Something about Sarah Palin's courage and forthrightness strikes a raw nerve with the left and with the most arrogant of the right (Peggy Noonan, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, etc.). America doesn't need more arrogance. What America needs is more people that are forthright about our debt situation, forthright about the need for free markets and less interested in demagoguery. In short, America needs more Sarah Palins.
Palin is not distracted, as Obama and the Congress seem to be, by worrying about the current $ 60 billion spat between House Republicans and the Obama White House. $ 60 billion isn't even two weeks of the current deficit at the federal level (not to mention the horrendous situation in state budgets). Palin was right when she referred to "death panels" in Obamacare and she is right to redirect our attention to social security and the health care entitlements.
Check out Paul Johnson's take on Sarah Palin in today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Palin, like Reagan and Thatcher before her, has had to to deal with the media hate mongers, but has maintained her focus and vision. If you want to see how the press treated Ronald Reagan, go to archives of the NY Times in the 1970s and you will read about Reagan characterized in essentially the same terms as Palin is today. Something about Sarah Palin's courage and forthrightness strikes a raw nerve with the left and with the most arrogant of the right (Peggy Noonan, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, etc.). America doesn't need more arrogance. What America needs is more people that are forthright about our debt situation, forthright about the need for free markets and less interested in demagoguery. In short, America needs more Sarah Palins.
Health Care -- First Principles
Americans are now facing the staggering first glimpses of sticker shock associated with Obamacare. Insurance companies are ratcheting up fees to meet the new burdens of Obamacare and hospitals are doing the same. There is really no limit to where these costs are headed. Even absent Obamacare, health insurance costs would be rising, but, with Obamacare, they are escalating out of sight. Meanwhile more and more doctors and hospitals are backing away from servicing medicare and medicaid patients, which replaces expensive health care with no health care. These are the fruits of Obama's ambitious health care vision and we are just at the beginning of this nightmare.
What is wrong with this picture?
First and foremost, health care should be expensive if it is important. Consumers of the service should pay a lot to get it. That principle underlies any reasonable allocation of a scarce resource. You can't promise inexpensive luxuries on a grand scale. The numbers will never add up. So, even if you are unlucky and your genes lead to an expensive-to-treat disease, you should not have a free ride financially.
Second, it is important to recognize the role of incentives in the provision of health care. Any system of provision of health services that does not require patients to pay for the bulk of their own health care means that patients will be less likely to take steps necessary to prevent future health problems. Why are older Americans among the most obese humans on the planet? The reason is that Americans see no connection between their own financial situation and how obese they are. They assume that other people (the government) will finance their future health care woes, so why worry? Why do low income Americans smoke in such large numbers? Because they assume that they will not be paying for the resultant health care problems (and they are right)! By taking away the financial burden of future health care costs (or convincing the public that you are taking away the financial burden of future health care costs), you are eliminating the incentives for individuals to take actions that improve their future health care. Some folks may do the right thing anyway, absent any financial incentives, but it very obvious that most do not.
Third, by setting up a system that will eventually require cost controls on hospitals, doctors and other health care providers, you guarantee a reduction in the supply in the quantity and quality of these services. If you want good health care, those who work in the industry must have financial incentives. These incentives are broadly under attack with current belt tightening in medicare and medicaid and the clear direction of Obamacare.
Only the free market supplemented with charity and a public safety net of modest proportions for the indigent can supply a truly efficient and quality health care system. The systems in Europe and other developed countries are notorious for inefficiencies and rationed care. The best health care in the world is to be found in the USA for those that can afford it. Medicare, medicaid and Obamacare will guarantee that fewer and fewer Americans will be able to afford good health care. Only a free market in health care and a free market in health care insurance can produce top quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
What is wrong with this picture?
First and foremost, health care should be expensive if it is important. Consumers of the service should pay a lot to get it. That principle underlies any reasonable allocation of a scarce resource. You can't promise inexpensive luxuries on a grand scale. The numbers will never add up. So, even if you are unlucky and your genes lead to an expensive-to-treat disease, you should not have a free ride financially.
Second, it is important to recognize the role of incentives in the provision of health care. Any system of provision of health services that does not require patients to pay for the bulk of their own health care means that patients will be less likely to take steps necessary to prevent future health problems. Why are older Americans among the most obese humans on the planet? The reason is that Americans see no connection between their own financial situation and how obese they are. They assume that other people (the government) will finance their future health care woes, so why worry? Why do low income Americans smoke in such large numbers? Because they assume that they will not be paying for the resultant health care problems (and they are right)! By taking away the financial burden of future health care costs (or convincing the public that you are taking away the financial burden of future health care costs), you are eliminating the incentives for individuals to take actions that improve their future health care. Some folks may do the right thing anyway, absent any financial incentives, but it very obvious that most do not.
Third, by setting up a system that will eventually require cost controls on hospitals, doctors and other health care providers, you guarantee a reduction in the supply in the quantity and quality of these services. If you want good health care, those who work in the industry must have financial incentives. These incentives are broadly under attack with current belt tightening in medicare and medicaid and the clear direction of Obamacare.
Only the free market supplemented with charity and a public safety net of modest proportions for the indigent can supply a truly efficient and quality health care system. The systems in Europe and other developed countries are notorious for inefficiencies and rationed care. The best health care in the world is to be found in the USA for those that can afford it. Medicare, medicaid and Obamacare will guarantee that fewer and fewer Americans will be able to afford good health care. Only a free market in health care and a free market in health care insurance can produce top quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The New Normal on Unemployment
The pundits cheered today's unemployment rate, which was reported to be 8.9 percent. After adjustments for January, net job creation was an anemic 180,000 -- a pitiful number for this stage of an economic recovery. The fact that a number this bad was greeted with applause says a lot about how low expectations for the economy have become since the Obama presidency began. Obama was quick to note that 1.5 million jobs have been added since last year -- an abysmal record for the second year of a recovery by any standard. If Obama is proud of this number, he must have given up hope for any kind of serious growth in employment levels or economic recovery.
To create jobs, it is crucial to make labor affordable. Everything the Obama Administration and its Congressional allies have done so far has made labor much more expensive. That's the failed European strategy, an area of the world that thinks that double digit unemployment is perfectly acceptable. Young folks in Europe have no real future -- the rich get richer and the young have lost hope. Most European children stay in their families' homes until they reach mid 30s. The wealthiest families in Europe are the same families that dominated European wealth 50 years ago. There is no economic mobility in Europe. Is that where we are headed?
Don't forget that in the "bad old days," that Obama doesn't want to see returned, unemployment dipped below 4 percent at times and was typically below 6 percent during the preceding 25 years. Gee, we certainly don't want to return to that, do we?
Booms and busts are part of life. Trying to eliminate busts by the heavy hand of government with bailouts, excessive regulations and payoffs to public employee supporters is absurd policy. But, it is the Obama way. What Obama means by "investments" is to spend money to reward his supporters. That's basically what the stimulus package was all about. Obama's proposed budget proposes more of the same.
Lets go back to booms and busts. They were certainly a lot better than this. The opportunities that were abundant in the 1980s and 1990s have vanished with the new normal of the Obama era. We need to go back to the bad old days.
To create jobs, it is crucial to make labor affordable. Everything the Obama Administration and its Congressional allies have done so far has made labor much more expensive. That's the failed European strategy, an area of the world that thinks that double digit unemployment is perfectly acceptable. Young folks in Europe have no real future -- the rich get richer and the young have lost hope. Most European children stay in their families' homes until they reach mid 30s. The wealthiest families in Europe are the same families that dominated European wealth 50 years ago. There is no economic mobility in Europe. Is that where we are headed?
Don't forget that in the "bad old days," that Obama doesn't want to see returned, unemployment dipped below 4 percent at times and was typically below 6 percent during the preceding 25 years. Gee, we certainly don't want to return to that, do we?
Booms and busts are part of life. Trying to eliminate busts by the heavy hand of government with bailouts, excessive regulations and payoffs to public employee supporters is absurd policy. But, it is the Obama way. What Obama means by "investments" is to spend money to reward his supporters. That's basically what the stimulus package was all about. Obama's proposed budget proposes more of the same.
Lets go back to booms and busts. They were certainly a lot better than this. The opportunities that were abundant in the 1980s and 1990s have vanished with the new normal of the Obama era. We need to go back to the bad old days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)