Recently in National Politics Category

The most disappointing thing about debating new or expanding government programs is that the question of how well similar programs have worked in the past is rarely discussed or understood.  We can go around and around about the healthcare debate and talk systems, policies, prices, etc.  At the end of the day, the idea of a single-payer/government provided health care system is so that people down on their luck are not condemned to death because they don't have enough money to pay for a given service.  One could argue that there will always be disparity between the rich and poor and the level of healthcare offered to each group.  One would be absolutely right assuming that the more money you have, the better care to which you will have access.  This is a truism.  It is true because it is true.  The same could be said for people in power, particularly our legislative representatives.  The sad irony is that the leaders in Washington, DC are not debating healthcare of the nation as a whole, as they are exempt from all of the rules being discussed.  They are debating what your system will look like, not theirs.

The crux of this whole debate goes missing, though.  I have yet to hear people explain the reason why we are in the situation we have today.  That situation is constantly rising healthcare costs and a system whose transparency is that of a wet bedsheet.  No one knows what is going on.  The patient doesn't know what type of costs he will incur when visiting the doctor.  The doctor doesn't know what a procedure will charge when he orders it done.  The administration of the health care organization only worries about how and whether they will be paid.  In the mean-time, no one gets the entire story - least of whom, the patient. 

Let's talk for a short moment about health insurance.  Why is it so expensive?  Why can't we start to deal with those costs?  Yes... why?

"American health insurance is more expensive because private insurers compete within state markets, not regional or national markets.  The easiest way to encourage competition [and immediately lower costs] is to let the general public choose from competing private plans in a national market, just as federal employees do.  To make this so-called national "Health Insurance Exchange" work, Congress is exploring new rules to increase the reliability and transparency of private insurance plans.
However, many of these new rules are likely to make health inflation worse, not better.  Health-policy analysts call these regulations mandates.  Mandates are the earmarks of the health-policy world.  In the past, state lawmakers added insurance mandates to various laws, forcing plans to cover specific services and providers.
Thanks to mandates, insurers in one state (New Mexico) must cover oriental medicine in every insurance policy.  Two states (Washington and Minnesota) require coverage for "port wine stain elimination."  Three states have mandates for athletic trainers.  Twelve states force insurers to cover acupuncture.  Fifteen states force insurers to cover in vitro fertilization.  In these and hundreds of similar cases, insurance mandates distort prices upward to reward different political agendas - and consumers pay.
Consider Wisconsin and New York.  New Yorkers pay $12,000 for a basic insurance plan that would cost $3,000 in Wisconsin.  The difference?  Wisconsin has 34 mandates.  New York has 51.  By one estimate, mandates and other health regulations drive up the cost of premiums by 20 to 50 percent." (emphasis mine, p. 16 "Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster" by David Gratzer)

As I write this, Wisconsin is considering (or may have already voted on) another mandate: coverage of mental health care.  So, if I don't care about the cost of mental health care and want a plan that doesn't offer it (so I can save money)?  Too bad.  I have no choice.  I am forced to pay a premium that I don't value and am not interested in using.  Thank you Wisconsin legislators.

The frustrating element of these debates is a lack of introspection.  There is a perverse lack of understanding as to why costs are what they are.  Instead, we are focused on outcome.  Changing the outcome of a misunderstood problem is like taking a bat to the golf course.  Sure, you'll be able to hit the ball.  I doubt, however, you will do so effectively.

I've spent far too much time away from writing. (Mostly because of ongoings this year way out of my own control.) Today, however, is simply too much. If no one else is reading this, I at least want a memory for myself of how outraged I am at our leaders in Washington, D.C. Not just because of the current healthcare debate before Congress, but because of the general attitude of our elected officials. In an article at WSJ.com on $4 billion in earmarks in the latest defense bill, the following commentaries are made:

"Member of Congress in both parties defend the use of earmarks and say that they are often for worthy projects.

Among the earmarks in the Defense bill: $18.9 million for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate sponsored by Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.); a $23 million item for the Hawaii Healthcare Network, sponsored by Senate appropriations chairman Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii); and a $20 million appropriation for the National World War II museum in New Orleans, by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana.

Ms. Landrieu said she was "proud" to secure the museum funding, which will pay for a new wing for aircraft, tanks and landing vehicles used during the war.

One of the larger spending items is a $300 million appropriation touted by Reps. Jim Moran (D., Va.) and Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) to improve their region's overstressed transportation system. The road widenings are justified by expanding operations at area military facilities, including new hospital facilities."

Even if I were ok with the type of spending that takes place, I question the reasoning behind putting any of this in a defense spending bill. By its very name, one would expect that a defense spending bill is on defense, right? Apparently one can fund healthcare facilities, museums, airports and roads and jobless benefits and rent seeking companies and... Through defense spending.

Mr. Obama promised transparency and promised an end to this type of childishness. I understand that changes in long standing practices are not made overnight. On the other hand, many families in our country have found themselves without any income to speak of. Weren't they, by nature of their situation, required to make drastic changes in their practices and behavior? Apparently their representatives think it unnecessary to follow through on pledges, let alone act in a responsible manner.

If the spending is so necessary and so justified, bring it before Congress and the people in an open and transparent manner. Vote on it as it stands alone and let it live or die on its own merit.

(via Defense Bill Earmarks Total $4 Billion )

My good friend, Kendra, wrote a great article that I finally took the time to read today. She nails a number of points that I would have made myself it it weren't that she is simply a better writer than I.

"One of the irritating things about Klein and her ilk is their hypocritical behaviour. They gain personal wealth because their best-selling books are published and distributed by large multinational businesses (HarperCollins, Costco) and are funded by risk-taking investors.

Similarly, their newspaper columns are funded by advertising revenue from companies. They make their way around the world by buying and using the modern technologies (computers, the internet, Boeing 777s and Airbus A380s) supplied to consumers through globalisation and markets.

They live in political regimes which protect freedom of speech and association. Yet the end result of their ideas, were they to become reality, would be to deny these markets, technologies and ideas to the people of the world." (link to article)

It never ceases to amaze me how prophetic the statists are and their Orwellian double-speak - oh wo are the people who operate under the iron fist of liberal markets and minimal government. Klein and her ilk talk of the doom and gloom of commercialism and free markets and yet so much of what they do and the luxuries they enjoy depend directly upon the largess of a free culture. Klein's absurd notion that Friedman's philosophy can only be enacted through coercion is typical for her peers. There are days when I can't believe we are still fighting against such patent lies.

I take issue with the following from Watch for Hidden Taxes (The Boston Globe):

Under the circumstances, actions that impose sizable hidden taxes on American citizens should be put on hold, or at least exposed to much more careful evaluation to be sure their merits outweigh their costs and burdens on our struggling economy.

It doesn't surprise me that Dudley and Rosen were former members of White House budgetary staff. My comment is simple: Americans are already under far too much regulatory and tax burden. We should be subject to no more. Ever.

We revolted against King George III over a 3% tax in the 1700s (yes, it was far more complicated, but many argue that that was the straw that broke the camel's back). Serfs to the monarchy and feudal ruling class were subject to what we view to be abhorrent taxes up to 25% of their income. Those paying income taxes in the US (remember, there is a whole class of citizenry who doesn't pay income taxes - and I am not speaking of the IRS defined poor) can pay upwards of 52% of their income in taxes (that does not include sales, property and any local taxes).

Those who pay, pay too much and we need to stop making excuses as to why more is not necessarily bad. It is bad and it ought to stop.

I'm working hard on understanding what is going on around us, but I can't. A majority of us voted for change. What we got was a lot of the same. We were told there would be limits on pork barrel spending and that the public would be given an opportunity to read proposed laws (and comment) before they were passed.

Mr. Obama, you promised a lot of things. Many of these things I wanted nothing to do with. These two things, though, are ideals that I not only support you on, but strongly believe are the cornerstone to a good democracy and a strong republican government (small 'r' not big). (Surprisingly, there were many other things that I support you on, but these two took front and center of attention because they seemed to be a common cause between friend and foe in the political arena.)

Neither of these things have happened. We have seen some of the largest pork-barrel laden bills passed in your first 100 days. These were called stimulus packages meant to help the economy. I don't see how earmarks and a public fountain for a park in some city in Missouri is supposed to help the economy. The mess we are in is because of reckless spending on the back of reckless borrowing. Borrowing more to spend more recklessly doesn't seem to me to be the solution.
And the transparency - in the form of waiting periods so that public input could be given before bills were passed by you and Congress - doesn't seem to be gaining any traction. I thought an informed public was the most equitable way to govern.

Maybe I misunderstood what change meant. I thought it meant different than things are or were. It doesn't seem to me that much has changed. Maybe someone can tell me where I went wrong.

I met the other day with a group of individuals on a project to better the state of politics in Wisconsin and perhaps the national agenda in some small way. One of the persons was concerned with anonymous participation in the group and this got me thinking this evening. The person was concerned with what I assume to be a connection between a strong stance in politics and the potential repercussions such a stance can have. I can relate. Until recently, I was very cautious about voicing specific opinions because I didn't want to ruin the possibility of being able to receive the necessary permission to do something business related from such and such bureaucracy just because the person in charge heard or found out what I said and decided to use it against me. I know this is a very real possibility and becomes more onerous the more one must work with regulatory agencies to achieve their goals. (It is sad but true that there is very little we can pursue today in the US that doesn't involve getting permission in some sort or other. I know it is better than many other places, but it is still worse than it once was.)

I have loathed the 2008 election to no end. It started way too early and has been a pissing match mostly between people whose interest is only furthering a governmental agenda and not ensuring the freedom (and subsequent responsibility) of the people. As I commented on Twitter this morning: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you..." Regardless of which party (i.e. Democrat or Republican), that is what you were casting a vote for. I didn't want either candidate to win, so I can't really say that I'm more disappointed in Obama winning. I'm disappointed in both parties and that is it.

The flip side to this story is that of two events that have truly made me smile. The first is a simple one: people voted... and a lot of them. (I'm sure there were plenty of duplicate and dead voters, but I guess no system is perfect.) I've always been raked over the coals by my German friends at the lack of voter turnout in our presidential elections. Thank you American friends for actually going to vote! Now I have something to brag about. Sure, we could do better than 60% (I hope the real numbers - once all of the votes are counted - are higher), but that is pretty amazing, considering I've read that turnout has been as low as 30% in the past few decades. And that's just sad... So, despite having to chose between two left leaning senators, I'm happy people tried to make the choice.

The second thing that really, truly made me smile was this: A. voted. I gave an employee (who is a contemporary) shit yesterday because I heard him say that he doesn't vote. I badgered him ... I even offered money ... not to vote a particular way, but to simply vote. I really didn't think much of it. I thought he'd take his raspberries and shake them off. This morning I was left with the following note on my desk:

"Steve,

Here's your sticker buddy, and if you need any questions answered ask away!

For real - I just wanna say thanks for pushing me to vote. I never had in my life, so I just felt a 'lil weird. Now that I have, it felt pretty good. So, for it being my first time I just wanna' say thank you.

A.

And it really wasn't hard at all & only took 5 min of my time!"

If that's all it takes to get people out to vote, I should have given everyone in the shop a hard time... That would have been at least 100 more people at the polls. There's always next election.

I started reading economic and political rags around the time I turned 12. It was an early interest in a wide range of topics that eventually landed me in the hands of Dr. Thomas Sowell over 18 years ago. The first article of his that I read was published in Forbes Magazine (and I still have a copy somewhere buried in my basement). From the first paragraph on, I have been fascinated with Dr. Sowell's insight and narrative style. I wish more people would read his works... Even if you were limited to two articles a year, you would be much more educated and wise from heeding his commentary.

I realized that while it would be illegal for me to try to post his articles in whole on my weblog (besides screw him out of the deserved royalties from his work), I realized that I can do something. One of his more recent books, Ever Wonder Why? And Other Controversial Essays, (click the link to go to Amazon and see what it is about) is an quick and easy read - and is really a compilation of a bunch of articles that made me look forward to his articles so many years ago. So, here's the deal. I know there are all of four of you who read my blog... but perhaps we can start a mini reading revolution at that. I want to give away 100 copies of Dr. Sowell's book. In order to get your free (shipping and all) copy, all you need to do is write me at snfettig@gmail.com with "Free Sowell Book" in the subject line and your FULL address in the body of the email. That is all you need to do. You don't even need to say hi. Just send me an email with that information. (Oh... and I sincerely promise that I will NOT give away any of your address information. Frankly, I don't have the time nor energy to do anything with it other than send out the books.)

If this works out, I'll give away 500 more copies over the course of the remaining portion of this year and next year. I will keep track of the numbers given away here. I might be embarrassed and find that no one requests a copy. How unfortunate would that be? We'll see.

I don't understand Jarvis's statement:

"I believe in the market but I also believe that the government must decide when to regulate it just enough. (That is the essence of why I am a Democrat.)" (The moral imbalance of bailouts)

My personal understanding of a general Democrats' opinion is that there is rarely a reason not to involve the government in our lives as long as it passes the litmus test of "helping" a given segment of the population. And this is exactly what makes me not a Democrat (and these days, less and less of a Republican).

The past few days have been so depressing for me. Every time I opened a browser to peruse the news, my heart sank deeper and deeper. Article after article has been written about the current financial turmoil and a very, very small minority have shown the author to have any understanding of basic economics and the interaction between markets and government regulations. I haven't been over to the Wall Street Journal for some time. No reason in particular... I sometimes lose interest in writing in the WSJ because it has slowly degraded in quality over the past two decades. (I started reading the WSJ and Economist when I was twelve. Soon after, I added a number of university review magazines that I found at Barnes and Noble and other financial mags that I was able to get my hands on. I have continued to read many of these over the years and the only publication that seems to have kept up the quality of writing and reporting - i.e. how good the writing itself is and how thorough the reporting is - is the Economist. I guess I should add that I started reading Reason Magazine 10 years ago and [thankfully] haven't seen a decline there, either.)