| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Friday, July 31, 2009
Whoa... Obama claims that the United States spends $6,000 MORE per person on health care than any other industrialized country?
If there are a bit over 300 million people in the United States (as of 2008) and we're spending in total about $2.2 trillion on health care (in 2007), then we're only spending about $7,200 per person in TOTAL. So according to Obama, every other industrialized country spends only $1,200 per person on health care? Not according to these various reports (here, here) (some are dated, but health costs have only increased in the meantime, so I think they bear out my point)....
It isn't the same thing as Bush's botched reaction to Katrina, but reports that the 'Cash for Clunkers' program is running out of cash just days after it started is bad news for Obama's attempt to show the public that he is capable of running the government... and by extension, Obama's attempt to rework the health care system.
Yes, Obama isn't directly responsible for the program, but neither was Bush directly responsible for the fouled up response to Katrina... what is important is that public attention be focused on this as yet another example of how government can be pretty much counted on to screw up whatever it gets involved in. If government can't be trusted to have enough money for a simple program as this, how is anybody supposed to have confidence that there would be enough money for a government takeover of health care? Thursday, July 30, 2009
I don't drink but even if I did, I wouldn't be in much of a mood to have a beer with someone who in effect called me stupid and implied that I was racist. Drinking is something I do with friends... and my friends may call me lots of things but stupid ain't one of them.
If the guy who called me stupid wanted to apologize, he doesn't need me to drag myself down to DC, he could call me up and apologize. Heck, if he had the phone number of a newspaper reporter or a network anchor, he wouldn't have to call me himself, he could just ask them to pass along his apology. And if doesn't want to apologize for calling me stupid, then what's the point of getting together? So I could listen to him defend his saying what he did? Does he think he's going to convince me he was right, that I am stupid? Ain't gonna happen. Or does he expect to not talk about his comments? That I'm just some guy he somehow decided to have over to have a beer with? I may not be the smartest guy, but even I could figure out the guy has plenty of other people that would just love to be invited over for a beer, so I would have to figure I was being used for some kind of photo op so could rehabilitate himself with the public for his stupid comment. All in all, I would pass. And I am not a black Harvard professor who feels he was wrongly arrested by a racist cop, but if I were, I wouldn't be in much of a mood to have a drink with the policeman who arrested me. In fact, that would be last person I would want to have a beer with.
I hoped this line of attacking the Democratic health care plans was on the horizon, so it's nice to see Mitch McConnell finally get around to claiming that the Democrats will finance their new insurance program at the expense of the Medicare program...
There's not much that Obama can muster up that can overcome a bunch of angry and worried seniors. They're the reason no politician has dared tamper with Social Security. They're the ones who Bush tried to pamper with his wildly expensive Medicare drug coverage. They're the ones who harassed Rostenkowski into nullifying the (relatively minor) changes the then-Democratic controlled Congress made to Medicare reimbursements. Politicians learn early to not f**k with the seniors. In fact, I believe their power is even greater than is thought: piss off the seniors and you run the risk of losing more than just their vote, you run the risk of losing the votes of their kids who aren't going to be thrilled about having Mom and Dad asking them to help cover for what gets taken away from their aging parents.
Let's not get too excited by polls showing a drop in public support for Obama, the Democrats and their policies.
The reason is that polls pose only indirect pressure on a politician. They're not obligated to vote according to the polls, no matter how much the public as a whole may not like something, a politician is free to ignore those polls when voting for or against a given piece of legislation. Politicians pay attention to polls only to the extent they believe the polls foretell problems in getting themselves re-elected. And to this, Obama isn't concerned about polls (not that he wouldn't use favorable polls as an argument for enacting his policies) as he doesn't face re-election for close to three years and, as we've seen with previous presidents, a lot can and probably will change between now and then. Furthermore, even if Obama's ratings don't rebound, there's no guarantee that his GOP opponent will be any more popular with the public (guaranteed if the GOP stupidly nominates Palin). Most Democratic senators aren't at risk. Only a relative handful are up for re-election next year, most are safe until 2012 or 2014, and these Senators aren't going to be overly worried about a vote today coming back to haunt them years down the road. And neither are most Democrats at risk as they represent pretty blue districts. It isn't as if Pelosi or Barney Frank fear losing their seats to Republicans. There are some Democrats in Congress who are exposed, these are Democrats representing purple/reddish districts and who won their seats by portraying themselves as right of the traditional liberal Democrat. These represetatives know they can't go too far to the left and expect to hold on to their seat. Thus, they're the ones between the rock that is Nancy Pelosi and the hard place of losing their seats next year because their constituents perceived them more sympathetic to Pelosi's wishes than to the concerns of their constituents. These are the Democrats who are worried about the polls. And these are the people the GOP needs to target. They are the ones the GOP needs to isolate, they're the ones the GOP needs to put on the record as supporting the liberal agenda. If they do it effectively enough, the GOP might be able to peel away enough Democratic votes to keep Obama and Pelosi and Reid away.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor seems to be a nice guy and reliably conservative but what was he thinking in devoting his column in the Washington Post to complaining about the number of 'czars' Obama has?
Cantor wrote for an inside Washington audience when he should have been writing to the American people as a whole and, in particular, the moderates whose votes the GOP needs in both this fall's elections as well as in 2010. Hint: moderates don't care - or vote - on the basis of how many unelected czars Obama has... nor do they care - or vote - on whether the Obama Administration is as 'transparent' as Obama said it was. It's not that Cantor is wrong on the issue, it is just that he's not going to get any traction with it. So why waste precious space on an issue that pretty much nobody outside the beltway cares about? Why not use the space to attack Obama on health care, his bloated and ineffective stimulus and/or Obama's stupidly going after the Cambridge cop, the issues on which Obama is losing ground? Cantor had an opportunity and he blew it. It is not a good sign when the GOP leadership picks the wrong battles.
Another of Bush's mistakes was going after the Taliban instead of focusing his attention on Al Qaeda. While I certainly wouldn't want to live under Taliban rule, unlike in Iraq where we felt Hussein himself was taking action detrimental to our security, the Taliban weren't out organizing attacks on the United States; our beef with them was that they were allowing Al Qaeda to operate in Afghanistan.
We didn't need to overthrow the Taliban to be able to attack Al Qaeda. We didn't need to install a new leadership in Afghanistan to be able to attack Al Qaeda. And we don't need to waste American lives policing Afghanistan to be able to attack Al Qaeda. We could have gone after Al Qaeda regardless of whether the Taliban liked it or not, just as we've gone after Al Qaeda in Pakistan despite the Pakistani government's dislike of our doing so. We could have used drone attacks, we could have had boots on the ground seeking out Al Qaeda training facilities and hideouts... and we could have done so without turning the Taliban into an active opponent. And now Obama is following in Bush's footsteps by diverting attention from going after Al Qaeda to going after the Taliban. Wednesday, July 29, 2009
If any more nails needed to be hammered into the coffin that is Bush's ill-fated adventure in Iraq, it comes with news that the Iraqi government has moved against an Iraqi-based Iranian opposition group.
More than getting rid of Hussein and more than getting rid of whatever WMDs Iraq had, Bush justified the incursion (and especially so after Hussein was caught and it was determined that there were no active WMD programs) with the rationale that installing a democracy would be better for us than leaving Iraq in the hands of unelected dictators. Give the Iraqi people a democracy, Bush argued, and America would have another friend in the region, a counterweight to Iran. Unfortunately, and as has been argued here and elsewhere previously, Bush confused democracy and shared values; one doesn't lead to the other. So.... after the wasting of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, what exactly does America have to show for its efforts? A democratically elected Iraqi government that sides with our enemy. America would have more pull with an unelected dictator who was dependent on America for support... someone who would only ask 'how high' when we told them to jump. And by the way, the Iraqi move against the Iranian opposition group also demonstrates the folly of placing faith in the strategy of putting popular pressure on the Mad Mullahs in hopes they would be replaced with a new Iranian government that was less antagonistic to our friend (singular, not plural) in the region. It's just one more nail into the coffin of Bush's presidency... I dare say we're in danger of running out of room for all the nails. Monday, July 27, 2009
Other than mouthing off because he can't help but mouth off, does Terrell Owens think his comments are helping Michael Vick? Does Owens think that Roger Goodell was going to keep Vick out of football but is going to change his mind because the all-wise Terrell Owens has said that wouldn't be right?
Friday, July 24, 2009
One of the proposals is to, in effect, make people start buying their own health insurance in hopes that they "will be more sensitive to the price of care, more willing to shop around, and less willing to spend on unneeded treatments".
Great in theory, fantasy in real life. There are three components to the costs of health insurance: the upfront premiums, the co-pay for treatment, and the extent to which heavy claims lead to an increase in the next year's premiums. Looking at them in order: The upfront premium could be an influence but only if the individual was able to choose from plans with sliding coverages. An individual could choose a plan without coverage for X or Y and, all other things being equal, the premiums would be less than if such coverage was included. So, in theory, an individual would balance coverage versus cost and could possibly choose a less expensive plan than what they're now receiving through their employer-provided coverage. But... why should anyone believe such plans with a reduced level of coverage would be available? Who thinks Congress (or the new health insurance commission) would allow plans without coverage, for example, abortions, maternity care or mental health care? They don't allow those plans now, employers have very little flexibility in picking a non-gold plated insurance plan, so why should we think that with all the money flowing to Congress from interest groups determined to retain such coverage, that Congress will do anything that is different from what they're doing now? As for co-pays, individuals now have to decide whether they want to pay $20 or $50 or whatever in co-pays to go see a doctor for whatever is bothering them at the time... and they lay out the money anytime they are worried enough to justify in their minds the cost. So why assume that individuals would be any less likely to seek medical care, the dynamics are going to be the same: is it worth $20 to go to my doctor to find out if my cough is just a cough or a symptom of something more serious? I score this as no different whether I am getting coverage from my employer or buying it myself. And as far as whether someone facing higher premiums would seek to minimize their doctor visits, this could work to lower health costs... but for the fact that Congress will never allow an insurance company to hit an individual for their heavy usage. Congress will insist that these individual plans are pooled together with millions of other individually purchased plans, with the net effect that each person's usage - whether heavy or light - will be offset by everybody else in the plan. There may be some benefit to someone who doesn't use the system and there may be some hit to someone who uses it a lot, but the changes will be nowhere near the actual impact of their usage. As a result, people would know that they're not going to pay a real price if they go to a doctor all the time just as people would know they wouldn't get much of a price break if they hold off... so they'd revert back to deciding to go or not go based on whether they thought the issue was severe enough to warrant spending the co-pay. All in all, no difference between what is now going on and what will go on if Congress de-links insurance from employers.... so why bother? Thursday, July 23, 2009
Is the Gates/Cambridge cop kerfuffle Obama's Sister Souljah moment... but in reverse?
Presumably, some number of Obama's white voters voted for him in part because he convinced them he wasn't a graduate of the Jesse Jackson school of racial grievances, that he wasn't someone who instinctively thought in terms of black-v-white, that he could represent 'their' interests. And now Obama, after saying he didn't know the facts of the case, proceeds to take the black guy's side of the story and labels the officer, if not racist, as stupid (Obama's spokesman disputes that this is the conclusion one should draw from Obama saying the police acted 'stupidly'). And Obama even goes beyond the specifics of this case to offer up his views on black/police relationships in general. Note Obama didn't frame his answer as simply defending a friend accused of wrongdoing, his response directly hit on the race of those involved. So... does this leave some of Obama's supporters wondering just how post-racial Obama really is? And if they conclude that he isn't, does their support for him and what he is trying to do whither away? Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or Staff is appalled at even the "suggestion that someone in an American uniform would behave in such a way"... speaking of course, of the pictures of American soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
C'mon Admiral, are you joking? There have been plenty of bad apples in the military over the years. Soldiers have been accused of rape, murder, robbery and drug trafficking. Do you think the military is comprised only of people who always play by the rules? You can be - and should be - disappointed that soldiers acted in such a way. But surprised? No way. In any organization as large as the military, and even in organizations where the employees aren't subjected to anywhere near the same stress as are our soldiers, there are going to be bad apples who do bad things. It would be a surprise - pleasant to be sure - if there weren't. And what is with the 'appalled at even the suggestion'? You do realize that there are plenty of people who don't think very highly of the military, surely it should come as no surprise that there are people who very much would make suggestions along those lines. Heck, Murtha even accused (which, by the way, is stronger than a mere suggestion) that people in the military were guilty of cold-blooded murder. You want to be appalled? Be appalled at those who disobeyed orders and made things a lot tougher for everyone else over there. But not at the suggestion that there are some in the military who don't behave the way you'd like them to. That's naive.
John Avlon gets it wrong, the Obama 'birthers' (those who persist in arguing that Obama isn't an American citizen and thus isn't eligible to serve as President) aren't pushing this because they're bigoted nativists, they're doing so because they don't like Obama and what he is doing and are grasping at every last straw to in a desperate attempt to make him go away... and they're not opposed to him because he was born in Kenya, but rather because they don't like his policies.
I'm not meaning to pick on the good professor (who once upon a time threw a few thousand readers my way) but surely he ought to know that Chevy auto dealers are not 'Chevy' just as 'Chevy' is not the same as Chevy's network of independently owned dealers.
And he ought to know that an auto dealer refusing to bend over backwards to accommodate a potential customer is not the same as refusing to sell a car to said prospect.
Not that you will read this anywhere in the story, but there is a big difference between being forced to buy auto insurance and being forced to buy health insurance.
Auto insurance consists of two (major) components: liability coverage and comprehensive coverage. The former, which all drivers are required to have, protects other drivers if you don't have the money to pay for accidents you cause. In mandating that drivers have liability coverage, society is saying that you're allowed to drive only if you can prove that your stupidity or carelessness will not result in a financial loss to other drivers. However, there's no requirement that you purchase comprehensive coverage that pays to repair your own car if you're at fault, society leaves it up to individuals to decide whether or not they want to accept that risk. And for those that don't buy that coverage, if and when they're in an at-fault accident, they have to dig into their own pocket to fix their car. Health insurance is the equivalent of comprehensive auto insurance, you pay premiums in return for a promise to pay for fixing you when you get sick or injured. There's no health insurance component that is comparable to liability insurance. So people who equate the two are being either devious or ignorant. Society trusts individuals to decide whether they want to buy comprehensive coverage for their cars, why not trust individuals to decide whether it is in their best interests to buy comprehensive coverage for their bodies? And I'm opposed to this requirement even though I personally would probably benefit. A big chunk of people without health insurance are relatively healthy, and forcing them to buy insurance would subsidize those with higher medical costs... in the same way forcing people with great driving records to buy comprehensive insurance would likely result in lower premiums for people with worse driving records. But it would be wrong. Tuesday, July 21, 2009
I learned in sales that 'cost' is usually not a real objection to overcome, that while there are some people who just don't have X amount of money, most of the people who claim something is too expensive are really saying the value of the product isn't commensurate with the price they're being asked to pay.
And I reckon the same holds for those who responded that 'cost' is the biggest health care problem facing the nation today. People know a lot of money is spent on health care, they know what they're paying for premium contributions and co-pays and for stuff that ain't covered under their insurance. And they've all seen stories about hundred thousand bills to deal with this medical problem or cure that disease. And they just don't think it is right that it ought to cost that much for the results they're getting. It isn't that they're generally unhappy with the results (the poll shows that only 10% think quality of care is the biggest problem), people generally think that doctors and hospitals do a better than decent job. They just don't know why it costs them $80 for a prescription or why their doctor charges $300+ for an office visit or why it costs thousands of dollars for a trip to the emergency room... especially when not so long ago it didn't cost anywhere near that much. And when someone can't connect the price of something to the value of the services being provided, then unless we're talking negligible amounts of money (which we're not), then the default position is to think that something costs too much.
In today's episode of "Republicans can be just as stupid as Democrats", NY state assemblyman Jim Tedisco (fresh off his loss to take over a vacant Congressional seat from a right-leaning district) is proposing a 'Madoff' bill whereby rich criminals would have to pay for the costs of keeping them in prison.
According to this clown, "this is a great way to further deter criminals from committing crimes". Yeah, people who aren't deterred by the thought of spending time in prison are going to be deterred because they might have to cough up somewhere around $25,000 a year to pay for their time in prison. And how much money does he think the state is going to save? Not much, given that the vast majority of people in prison don't have the net worth that would obligate them to pay. In fact, (if this bill ever passed), I would bet NY would spend more money administering this program than they would collect in payments from those in prison. Tedisco is also pissed off because a prisoner allegedly held a bar mitzvah for his son at a NYC jail. For the record, I agree that is ridiculous, but how is charging prisoners for their upkeep going to keep this from happening? If Tedisco is pissed off, wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier to change the jail regulations to keep such things from happening than to come up with this whole cockamamie scheme? And finally, Tedisco says he was motivated by Madoff, whose sentence in federal prison was the 'tipping point'. But Tedisco's bill doesn't cover federal prisoners such as Madoff... and even if it did, Madoff ain't rich, having had all his assets seized to help pay back victims of his ponzi scheme. Monday, July 20, 2009
Interesting that, even today, with government running up deficits in the trillions of dollars, there are some people bemoaning the fact that we're not spending hundreds of billions more dollars on the sequel to landing on the moon.
The story of an Englishman who died after being denied a liver transplant is supposed to be an example of the horrors of socialized medicine... but I for one am quite okay with the result... if not the process.
Livers don't grow on trees. And as such, there are going to be more people who need one than there are donor livers to be had. And as such, I like that donor livers go to people who aren't total alcoholic f**kups. I would much prefer the liver go to some kid who didn't do anything wrong than a not-so-young kid who started drinking 9 years ago and only recently decided to stop. And somebody has to determine who gets ranked high on the list and who needs to get their affairs in order because there's no way that they're ever going to get a liver. I don't have a problem with the people who make the effort to recruit donors being the ones to decide on who gets a liver. Yes, I know there's no guarantee that they're going to do so in a way that I approve but if they're going to do the work they get to call the shots. But I do have a problem with the government being the decision makers, as is the case in England. Not only aren't government workers the ones doing the heavy work of persuading people to let their bodies be cut up and their insides passed out, government isn't supposed to be in the business of valuing some of its citizens as being more deserving than others. It's one thing - and ok - if a private organization - whether it be a country club or a medical donor association - decides that some people just ain't worthy, it is another thing altogether - and not ok - for government to do the same thing.
I know I'm nitpicking but aren't military troop levels by definition 'temporary' in that they are what they are until they aren't that anymore? Does Gates think the liberals in Congress aren't going to object as long as he doesn't refer to the increase as 'permanent'?
In fact, isn't pretty much everything coming out of Washington 'temporary', at least in theory if not in practice? Yes, some programs and people seem to go on forever, but that isn't because they're 'permanent', it's because not enough people care enough to change what has evolved into the status quo.
RNC head Michael Steele is a doofus. Obama and the Democrats are pushing reform that has a scent of socialism, so Steele is probably on factual solid ground... but he is missing an opportunity to criticize the plan in a way that resonates among the American public.
Most Americans don't know what socialism is. And my hunch is that half of the people who don't know what socialism is would, for whatever reason, be okay with it while the other half, for whatever reason, would instinctively be against it. And neither group, not knowing what socialism is, is extremely unlikely to take to the streets either in favor or in opposition. And of the people who do know what socialism is, a not insignificant number - if for no other reason than they're stupid people, are going to support the concept. Adding up the numbers, we're left with a relatively small number of Americans who are so opposed to socialism to the point where they're going to light up the switchboards (a somewhat anachronistic metaphor) calling their Congressmen and Senators in protest. And this is why Steele is a doofus. He gets a limited amount of airtime, just enough so the MSM can say they're not completely ignoring the out of power Republicans. And he wasted this opportunity by making a point that just isn't going to generate a big uproar. He could have used this shot to protest Obama's plan to raise health insurance costs for everybody who is now insured, to cut benefits, to squeeze doctors to the point where they're not going to take care of their patients. Tell someone their health care costs are going to go up and they're going to be far more upset than they would be by saying the sponsors are pushing this thing called socialism. Steele could have framed this issue in terms that resonate with EVERYBODY... and he passed. Thursday, July 16, 2009
Obama is getting some flak for naming as many as three dozen 'czars' to manage everything from closing down Guantanamo to dealing with the automakers to dealing with Darfur.
In their rush to criticize Obama for 'threaten(ing) the Constitutional system of checks and balances', his critics, and especially those on the Republican side, are missing that this is undeniable evidence of a dysfunctional Executive Branch. Think about this: Cabinet secretaries are tasked with overseeing a particular slice of government life: education, defense, the interior, foreign relations and so on. Yet the boundaries of where one department's oversight starts and where another one ends is pretty fuzzy... and the result is a clash between departments over everything from setting policy in that area to implementing the policy and taking credit if it works and passing blame if it doesn't. Defense and Intelligence argue, Defense and State argue, Commerce argues with Labor and so on. And the problems don't stop there. Except for the Secretary and a few political appointees (and sometimes not even them), these departments march to their own beat. They pride themselves on not 'letting' political appointees dictate what they do and don't do (it's less of a problem for Democrats as government workers and Democrats are usually of a like mind). And the end result is that Presidents have a hard time seeing their agenda advanced through the ranks of government... and nothing gets done smoothly... if at all. And Obama, to his credit, realized this. In a perfect world, Commerce would be tasked with formulating and implementing the auto rescue (yes, I know, in a perfect world, the government wouldn't have gotten involved with the automakers), State would be tasked with handling our response to Darfur, Defense would handle closing Guantanamo Bay and so on. But that ain't the way it happens in real life. And Obama figured that the only way he could exercise some control over the process was to bring his own folks in to handle specific tasks and to take away responsibility and control from the dysfunctional executive branch departments. If the GOP was smart, they'd go after this, they'd argue that Obama's actions are evidence of a need to revamp the Cabinet and their hundreds of thousands of employees in a way that was more streamlined, less ineffective and inefficient. After all, when a government loving Democrat admits government is screwed up, why argue with him? And the GOP would - if they were smart - use this to oppose Obama's health care plans... which would be administered by the same dysfunctional departments that Obama himself doesn't trust. Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A HUGE problem with making health care a 'right' is that, unlike other 'rights' that people have, it will lead to people expecting - and getting - for free the same level and quality of health care as enjoyed by those with money to pay for quality health care.
While there may be somewhat of a 'right' to housing or food, society doesn't guarantee - or pay - so everyone can live in the same size house as Donald Trump. Society doesn't cough up the money so everyone can eat as well as or as often as Trump. Nor does society guarantee that everybody can petition Congress as often or as effectively as big campaign donors. Society doesn't guarantee that everybody gets to pray in churches or synagogues that are as nice as those frequented by rich folks who spend money building really nice places to worship. Society doesn't guarantee that every kid gets to go to a school that has the same quality of teachers and computer equipment as kids who have parents that make a lot of money. In fact, I can't think of a single 'right' that society guarantees that every citizen can exercise that right to the same extent as those with money or connections. Society doesn't guarantee that everyone who wants to defend themselves have firearms at all, let alone firearms of the same quality as are owned by people who have the money to buy top quality firearms. Society doesn't guarantee that every criminal defendant gets an attorney as good as those that are able to be retained by those with a lot of money to their name. But health care is going to be different. Congress isn't going to (not for long, if they even try) tell folks that their 'right' to health care doesn't entitle them to get access to the same diagnostic tests that people with money can get. They're not going to tell people that their 'right' to health care doesn't entitle them to get treated for cancer or respiratory distress or whatever else someone who is paying for their own health care can get. They're not going to provide people with less health care than they enjoy as Members of Congress. And the reason is that, with the other 'rights' there is a sense that what people are being provided is 'good enough'. It's good enough to give people a room at a rat infested shelter. It's good enough to give people a handful of food stamps that doesn't allow them to buy steaks and champagne. Providing a base level of health care to Americans may be a worthwhile idea, in the same way society has agreed to pay for a base level of housing and food. I doubt even the most uncompassionate conservative would object to providing emergency treatment for a woman giving birth or for a kid who's broken their arm or for someone suffering a heart attack. But Congress isn't going to be able to get away (again, if they even try) with doing just this, with paying for less health care than is available. They're not going to tell people that, sorry, but we're not going to pay to diagnose and treat whatever it is that ails them. And that is going to open the spending floodgates wider than for any thing else in the history of America... a level of spending that is so high that taxing away everything the rich make isn't going to be enough to pay the bills. And as we've seen with every other 'right', the gates only swing in one direction... once opened, they never shut, they only are pushed open wider and wider. Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Obama is part right in that hiring lags other signs of economic recovery... employers do wait for signs of recovery before they put up the 'Now Hiring' signs.
But what he doesn't acknowledge is that an increase in the number of unemployed workers is more a function of employees losing their jobs than it is a lack of hiring... and layoffs and failing businesses are a leading indicator of the lack of confidence employers have in the economy and Obama's ability (or willingness, you be the judge) to do anything about it. An employer isn't going to lay off valued employees if the employer anticipates that the revenues will be there to pay the salaries, employers reduce staff out of fear that future revenues will be insufficient to cover salaries, pay the bank, the IRS and other vendors... and it is their lack of confidence in the economy that makes them project lower revenues. If businesses were more confident that the economy was turning around, they'd hold on to their staff (it's much less expensive to hold on to someone for a month or so than it is to lay them off and then have to replace them)... but they're not confident and they're not holding on to staff. And that's why the unemployment rate is going to increase over the next months... not because employers are waiting to hire, but because they're not waiting to fire.
Radley Balko goes off on yet another rant against police raids... which is in itself really a rant against the war on drugs. He doesn't like the latter, so he faults everything done pursuing drug dealers and users.
In this particular rant, he faults police for being "obstinate and unapologetic... even (or especially) when they're clearly in the wrong". Even if we stipulate the police are wrong, apologizing exposes the taxpayer to a larger payout from the inevitable lawsuit... and given the choice between publicly acknowledging fault and keeping my taxes low, I - and likely most taxpayers - would choose the latter. I think it's safe to say that the police would be much more willing to acknowledge the occasional error if they weren't so scared of being sued... does Balko want to give up the right to sue in return for an apology? He cites a number of times where a pet was killed by police during a supposedly improper search or where nothing criminal was discovered during the search. But as I've pointed out previously, the supposed legality of the raid and whether something is or isn't found is irrelevant in judging the actions of the police during the raid. The standard should be whether the police responded appropriately during the raid. If a dog is deemed a threat to the safety of the officers, they can - and ought to - shoot the dog and regardless of whether there was a mistake in filling out the paperwork requesting approval for the raid and regardless of whether they discover whatever it was they were looking for. Note: I'm not saying that the police were justified in killing the dogs in all these cases, they very well may have shot the dogs without sufficient cause. I do agree with Balko (surprise, surprise) that police departments ought to pay for damage they do during a search if they don't discover something criminal. I understand mistakes can be made, but if the police trash my house looking for drugs and they don't find any, then they ought to make me whole. Having said that, I recognize a (more than slim) possibility that police departments, anxious to avoid having to pay repair bills, may be more likely to 'discover' something improper... and given the choice, I think I'd prefer to eat the damages to my house than have to defend myself against planted evidence; with the former, it's only money, the latter can cost me my freedom.
Going after the Bush Admin/CIA (whether for setting up a program to kill terrorists, torture or whatever) is the Democrats version of the GOP and immigration: it appeals to their core, and guaranteed to alienate the general public. Whatever the underlying merits of the respective sides are, just as the GOP can't convince the public they're not a bunch of racists, the Democrats can't shake the image of being soft on our enemies.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Nationwide Insurance is touting the value of their 'Accident Forgiveness' program where they promise to not raise rates following an at-fault accident.
But only some drivers will benefit, others will pay more... not after an accident but before. Insurance is a numbers game, and drivers are usually charged rates based on an assessment of the likelihood they will be in an at-fault accident. And the statistics have historically shown that once someone is in an at-fault accident the odds of them being in a second at-fault accident are higher than people who haven't (yet) been in an at-fault accident. Interestingly, it isn't that the odds of that particular driver being in an accident have gone up, they're pretty much the same driver they've been, it is that the insurance company is now able to identify them as a higher risk, as prior to their accident, those higher risk drives have blended in among the pool of people who haven't had an at-fault accident. Anyway, back to Nationwide. By promising to not raise rates on people who, by being in an at-fault accident, have identified themselves as higher risk, Nationwide is spreading the costs of insuring these drivers among all of their insured drivers. Put another way, instead of the pool of drivers who haven't had an at-fault accident paying a low rate (based on the statistical presumption that, not having had an at-fault accident in the past, they are less likely to have one in the future) and drivers who have had an at-fault accident paying a higher rate (based on the statistically based assumption that they're more likely to have another at-fault accident), the increase in rates Nationwide would have assessed on the latter group has to be borne by drivers in both groups, thus leaving drivers in the former group having to pay more for insurance than they otherwise would have. Now this doesn't mean that it is a bad move on Nationwide's part. One of the big fears among drivers - even among those who haven't and aren't likely to have an at-fault accident - is that their rates will go up if they cause an accident. Nationwide is betting that all drivers are willing to pay more up front for insurance in return for an assurance that they won't face higher rates in the future. For drivers who are likely to be in an at-fault accident, this is likely a great deal... for drivers who behave themselves and aren't likely to cause an accident, it's not such a good deal. Thursday, July 09, 2009
Tony Stewart caused Kyle Busch to crash at Daytona only to the extent that Stewart didn't lift off the gas or move away when Busch swerved in front of Stewart.
A driver is under no obligation to move out of the way of another car. They often do, but more out of courtesy (which evaporates the later the race goes) or a desire to not have their own car damaged than because they are rules-bound to avoid contact. In this particular incident, Stewart held his line, and Busch didn't have enough room to swerve as he did. Sometimes it is the driver in Stewart's position who crashes, sometimes it is the driver in Busch's position who takes the hit and sometimes both cars suffer (bestowing a welcome and unexpected gift on the then-third place car). In this case, Busch suffered the consequences... and it is ridiculous for him to blame Stewart when the whole accident (as well as all of the subsequent crashes that were triggered by this crash) could have been avoided if Busch was content with second place. He wasn't, he moved to block Stewart and he crashed.
According to Obama, "There is no contradiction between environmentally sustainable growth and robust economic growth".
Sounds good, right? Too good, right? He might have a chance of someone believing him if, throughout recorded history, he could point to a single example of a country that grew its economy in a 'environmentally sustainable' way. But he can't. Being 'nice' to the environment invariably results in less economic growth than if one wasn't interested in being nice... for the simple reason that playing nice requires resources that can't be used to generate further economic growth. Money spent on cleaning waste water is money that can't be used to pump more oil out of the ground. Money spent on installing air filters on a factory is money that can't be spent producing more of whatever the factory produces. Being 'nice' to the environment is something that people may choose to do if/when they feel the costs of doing so (easy to quantify) are less than the benefits of doing so (much harder, if not impossible, to quantify... but for developing countries, and especially in times of economic turmoil, the choice between additional production and an intangible environmental benefit, the choice is pretty easy. And on a somewhat related note, it was allegedly Bush's arrogance that led other countries to go their own way... so how does Obama explain away the refusal of developing countries to jump on the global warming scare bandwagon? Tuesday, July 07, 2009
A pet peeve of mine is someone claiming some new breakthrough in thinking when in fact all they're doing is recycling and sometimes, repackaging, material that has been around as long as I have been (not quite as long as dirt, but close)... and I get even more ticked off when the breakthrough they're claiming to have discovered isn't all they're claiming it is.
And today's example is WIRED Magazine's Chris Anderson who claims that 'free' is the new 'plastics', that giving away stuff is the future of business, that companies which 'ignore the shift risk getting blindsided' and, presumably, suffering from a loss of sales and profits. And he cites Google as an example of a company that makes lots of money 'giving away' its product. Sure, Google makes a lot of money, but Google's business model isn't new, it is simply an electronic version of the Yellow Pages. The phone companies never charged for the Yellow Pages, they gave it away to millions of customers and made billions of dollars from companies wanting to advertise. Even his supposed examples don't support his claims. He cites the band Radiohead, which gave away songs over the Internet and which went on to make lots of money selling its album on line and from tour. All true, but does Anderson figure the band could have made even more money had it NOT given away its album? He seems to link the revenues they got (supposedly an average of $6 per sale) with their giving away the album... but that is silly, as it presumes that someone who paid money would otherwise not have done so if they didn't have the opportunity to download the album for free ("let's see, I really like Radiohead, I can't wait for them to come out with their new album, but I'm not going to buy it unless they let me download it for free"??? Yeah, right.) There have always been companies that have given away product and/or services in some form in order to attract customers. Anderson cites Linux as an example (Linux is free but some companies pay consultants for assistance in setting it up) of this new development in business strategy, but that too is nothing new, all sorts of services-based companies have long given away 'free' services as an enticement; mechanics giving away 'free' diagnostics is but one example of how 'free' predates the so-called change Anderson touts (heck, it predates Anderson himself). And Anderson compounds his arrogance (in thinking that he's discovered some new breakthrough) if he doesn't acknowledge that 'free', like every other marketing strategy ever invented, has its limits, that it doesn't work for every company in every instance. I'd love to see him try to come up with the way that GM is supposed to use 'free' to help restore itself to profitability (actually, if GM could get its employees to work for 'free', that would go a long way, but that isn't what Anderson has in mind). Or how a home builder is supposed to use 'free', at least the way Anderson frames it (which excludes giving away incentives, which is something builders have done since there were builders building houses). Are they to give their houses away, in hopes that they could make up the cost of the house in revenues from fixing all the defective crap in the house? Giving something away can work... for some companies and some of the time. For other companies, it is the worst thing they can do. And it is consulting malpractice to suggest otherwise.
By definition, if you quit, you are a quitter... even if you claim that you're not. It doesn't mean that Sarah Palin isn't a fighter, as one can be both a fighter and a quitter, just as one can be both a fighter and someone who can walk and talk and chew game at the same time, but saying 'I quit' irrevocably bestows upon you the tag 'quitter'.
Like Peter King, I shake my head at the coverage of Michael Jackson's death... but my complaint is not with the media; they're chasing viewers (as they should be doing). What I find sad is that so many people are so wrapped up in Michael Jackson.
Jackson was a singer... period. He wasn't family, he wasn't a friend. Liking his music doesn't create a relationship between singer and listener. He wasn't someone who would loan you money if you needed to borrow a few bucks. He wasn't someone you would ask to watch your kids. He wasn't someone who would bring over a meal if you were laid up with a broken leg. In other words, he wasn't family and he wasn't a friend (not that family and friends always do what I describe above... and not that there are some strangers who might). And the outpouring of grief ought to be reserved for friends and family. Heck, I'd bet there are some people who have cried more for Jackson than they have or will for a member of their own family.... and that is so wrong on so many levels. And it isn't just Jackson, it's the entire hero/celebrity worship that I find so sad. Whether a singer... or an actor.... or an athlete... getting all wrapped up in worshiping these people is prima facie evidence that you don't have your head on right. These people don't know you.... they don't want to know you... and all they want from you is your money. There's nothing wrong with thinking that a particular actor is a decent guy... or that a particular pro athlete is someone you might like to sit next to at dinner. But when you get to the point where you're signing a wall to express your sadness at Jackson's death... or writing into PEOPLE magazine to defend celebrity X against charges that she is exploiting her 8 kids... or glued to the TV watching coverage of a celebrity princess's funeral after her driver drove her into the side of a Paris tunnel... you need help. Monday, July 06, 2009
I don't know why Obama's trip to Russia is being touted as a test of his skills of diplomacy... after all, why should Obama be viewed as failing when he is unable to persuade Putin to do things that Putin doesn't want to do?
People who place their faith in 'diplomacy' are in effect saying that a nicely crafted and delivered message ought to be sufficient to convince someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't have wanted to do (if they did want to do X, then there's no need for diplomacy, is there?). And that is the textbook definition of ego, naivete and arrogance (yes, a combination of all three). If we presume that Putin is doing what Putin thinks makes sense for him, why would Obama - or any other 'diplomat' - think they possess the magic combination of words that can persuade Putin to admit that he is wrong? Do they believe they have information that Putin lacks that would lead Putin to change course? Do they think Putin is misreading the situation and that they'll help Putin see the error of his ways? The only things that could make Putin change his mind is (1) a bribe, sufficient that Putin can get more from the bribe than he could from doing whatever he's been doing, or (2) a threat, and sufficient and credible to the point where Putin thinks he would lose more by continuing with doing whatever he has been doing. Now Obama isn't one for the latter, which leaves him only with the first option. And because Obama has put so much faith in the art of 'diplomacy', he can't accept the failure of not obtaining Putin's agreement on something (note: this isn't an issue for grownups who realize that diplomacy ain't what it is cracked up to be). He is thus under incredible pressure to not come home without something to show for his efforts. So when Obama comes back with an 'agreement', I'd bet dollars to donuts that Obama gave up something pretty valuable for Putin to go along. Saturday, July 04, 2009
Two words for those thinking that Sarah Palin has a future in national politics: Dan Quayle.
Quayle, like Palin, was criticized mercilessly. He was blamed for things he didn't do and things he wasn't, he was ridiculed for being in over his head. He did far better against Lloyd Bentson in the 1988 debate than will ever be remembered thanks to the 'you're no John Kennedy' and he mopped the floor with Al Gore during their debate in 1992. And Quayle, like Palin might choose to do, worked diligently with the base in hopes of launching a run for President. But the impression (however unfair) of him as a lightweight was set, there was no way he or anyone else could have persuaded the public to change their mind of him. And as such, he went nowhere... at least not in politics; he's done very well for himself in business. And the same fate lies for Palin. No one can go from butt of late night jokes to the stature needed to win the votes needed to become President.... heck, despite the urgings of the rabid right, she won't even be able to win the nomination, she's carrying just too much baggage. Thursday, July 02, 2009
A lot of people are arrogant to the point where they think their words are sufficient to get someone to change his or her behavior.
Obama's arrogance is showing itself again, this time with his planning on telling Putin the 'Cold War is over' and thinking that this is going to lead to Putin doing anything differently than whatever it is that Putin has been doing. Let's break this down. Does Obama think that Putin is doing things that he knows aren't in his best interests? If so, on what planet must Obama be living if he thinks that Putin is going to stop doing something that Putin feels is in his best interest because Obama tells him 'the Cold War is over'? This isn't a case of staging an intervention with an alcoholic or drug addict, where deep down they know they're engaging in self-destructive behavior. There is no way that Putin doesn't believe his actions aren't in his best interests. Or does Obama think that Putin is stupid, that he isn't aware that what he is doing isn't in his best interests? Actually, that's a trick question, as it doesn't matter if Putin's actions are or aren't in Putin's best interest, what is important is that Putin thinks he is acting in his best interests... and accordingly, isn't going to stop. The fact of the matter is that people don't stop doing what they think is in their best interests unless and until they are given irrefutable evidence that another path of action will yield them more of a benefit than whatever it is that they've been doing. But what can Obama offer to Putin that will make Putin amenable to changing his ways? Obama isn't the guy who is going to put serious pressure on Putin. And by pressure, I mean something that actually hurts Putin. Obama isn't going to impose economic sanctions on Russia. He isn't going to threaten to boost American defense spending in hopes of bankrupting Russia a second time. Heck, he won't even put diplomatic pressure on Putin because Obama is afraid that he would come across as just as bad as Bush. The twist in all this is that Obama delivering this message actually encourages Putin to continue doing whatever it is that he is doing. It reveals (to the extent it already hasn't been revealed) that Obama is in way over his head. It reveals that Obama really doesn't have a clue how the world works. To the extent that Putin has been wondering if Obama could really be as naive as he's appeared so far, Obama's not so great adventure is going to remove whatever doubts Putin has. And when Putin decides that Obama really is clueless and easily manipulated, that can only lead to Putin doing more of whatever it is that Obama doesn't like.
With unemployment continuing to rise and the stock market not showing any reason sign of optimism, it is nice to see that the GOP has finally started to go after Obama for the sorry state of the economy... and, in particular, how his and his fellow Democrats' much-touted stimulus plan has done nothing.
Obama promised us that if he got his stimulus plan that unemployment would top at at 8%... well, the unemployment rate is now well over 9 percent and shows no sign of dropping anytime soon. And Obama's incompetence at formulating an effective stimulus plan absolutely positively has to be a component of the GOP fight against Obama's crazy health care plans. Here a few suggestions for taglines: "Obama spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the economy and has absolutely nothing to show for it... what's going to happen when he starts spending money on 'fixing' health care?" "Don't let the guy who screwed up the economy screw up your health care..." "Obama fooled us once when he promised to fix the economy...shame on us. Now he's asking us to believe him when he says he can improve health care... do we look stupid?" "Millions of people have lost their jobs since Obama took it upon himself to rescue the economy... how many millions of people will lose their health care coverage if he is able to push his health care rescue package through Congress?" Keep in mind that no amount of pressure is going to get Obama to back off, he's too arrogant to think that he may just not be the right guy for the job. And as he's a liberal, he will ignore factual proof that his policies are screwing things up. The pressure needs to be put on the Congressmen and Senators who aren't, like Nancy Pelosi, representing the bluest of the blue districts and states. Not every Democrat has the freedom to screw the country without fear of losing their seat. These are the people who need to be pressured... without their votes, Obama and Pelosi can't push their agenda on the rest of us. Spending time blasting Obama for his ridiculous stances on Iran and Honduras may score some rhetorical points but doesn't lessen his power domestically. Blasting him for making the economy worse - worse than even he claimed it would be - will hurt him... and what hurts Obama politically helps the rest of us. Going after Obama is just what the doctor ordered.... and it is nice to see the GOP finally starting to listen.
Keep in mind that while hiring is a lagging indicator, as employers tend not to hire more people until there's a proven need for additional staff (and until there's money in the bank to pay for more staff), layoffs are a leading indicator of how employers view the economy.
Yes, layoffs often follow a business suffering a decline in revenue and profits... but, having already paid for the staff during those declines, the decision to lay off staff is an indication that the employer thinks the future will be as bad - or worse - than it is now. In fact, plenty of companies have laid off people even though sales and profits haven't dropped, they've laid off staff because they think sales will drop and they want to get their expenses in line with the anticipated decline in revenues. Thus, news that the unemployment rate continues to climb, with another 467,000 jobs being cut last month is indicative of just how little confidence employers have in Obama's economic policies. Employers don't think Obama's policies are going to work, at least not in the immediate future. If they did, they wouldn't be laying off people they've spent money to train, they wouldn't be causing disruption to their remaining workforce as employees have to redeploy to pick up the work that was done by employees who have been laid off. If employees thought Obama's policies were going to work, they would have held off laying off employees. At worst, they would have cut far fewer workers than they did.
An under the radar example of judicial activism can be found in a federal judge keeping NASCAR from keeping (alleged) meth user Jeremy Mayfield off the racetrack.
So what that the judge thinks the "harm to Mr. Mayfield significantly outweighs the harm to NASCAR"? It isn't for the judge to decide who gets hurt worse. Mayfield agreed to drive by NASCAR's rules, no one is forcing him to drive a race car for a living. In doing so, he agreed that NASCAR would be the judge and jury with regards to the administration of drug tests. And now he doesn't like the results so he sues. In doing so, Mayfield is like those idiots who move under the flight path of a nearby airport then complains about the noise. And on what basis does a judge have from keeping NASCAR from proceeding, other than his own desire to stick his nose where it doesn't belong? What law is being broken b NASCAR? What contract is NASCAR breaking? There may in fact be a high chance of the results being wrong, but it doesn't matter. In this case, 'unfair' doesn't apply to the chance that Mayfield could be punished on the basis of faulty test results, changing the rules after the fact because you don't like the result is what is unfair. If I were running NASCAR, I would ignore the judge, I wouldn't let Mayfield race. Write him a check for his likely 38th place finish and keep him off the track. The purpose of the drug testing is to keep drug users off the track and away from the other racers. If NASCAR believes Mayfield used drugs, they have an obligation to the other drivers and to the sport as a whole to keep Mayfield away. Don't throw in the towel. By instituting the drug policy, NASCAR was standing up for principle. Don't let the actions of a out-of-line judge deter you from doing what is right. Wednesday, July 01, 2009
It's not just liberals who have no clue when it comes to dealing with the so-called health care crisis, conservatives can be just as clueless.
For example, John Hawkins has a column in which he touts four ways of reducing health care costs. Unfortunately, his ideas will do nothing of the sort. John confuses 'prices' paid by patients with the 'costs' incurred by doctors and hospitals in providing that care. He also mixes up the costs of 'health care' with the costs of 'health insurance'; as I've said many times, they are not one and the same. Allowing people to buy health insurance from out of state insurers (his first suggestion) might result in lower health insurance costs for some people but does nothing to lower the costs of providing the health care those people will receive. My doctor will incur the same costs treating me regardless of whether the payment comes from an in-state or an out-of-state insurer. In fact, the costs incurred in treating a patient are the same regardless of whether the payment comes from an insurer, out of my pocket or from the government. The only thing that varies is how much of those costs the doctor receives in payments from whomever is writing the check. An insurance company can offer lower rates only by doing one of three things: it can administratively more efficient (for example, if it figures out a way of needing fewer people to process claims), two, by accepting a lower profit margin, or, three, by paying out less in claims. The first does lead to less money being spent on health care, but chasing administrative savings has limited upside (there are only so much in efficiencies that can be wrung out of the claims process). Likewise with the second. There may be some insurance companies willing to work for less but there's a limit (zero profit), beyond which a company goes out of business. And the third option, paying less in claims, just shifts dollars from one pocket to another. John also proposes fixing Medicare (a common recipe from both the right and left). John's complaint is that Medicare doesn't reimburse anywhere near the full costs of the treatment thus costing people outside Medicare more money. But while increasing the Medicare reimbursement rate might lead to lower costs for non-Medicare patients, it does nothing to lower the overall costs of medical care, it simply shifts the burden of paying for those services from one group to another. John's on more solid ground with his call for tort reform. To the extent that so-called unnecessary tests are being performed, eliminating these would bring down the costs of medical care. However, medical malpractice does impose a cost on the affected patient and society as a whole; cutting back a patient's ability to be made whole doesn't reduce the costs of medical care, just as with John's other suggestions, it simply shifts the costs of medical screw ups from the doctor who screws up to the patient who has to bear the costs of those screw ups without reimbursement. His final point, giving tax credits to individuals rather than businesses for buying health insurance would result in less money being spent on health care... but only in the short term. To the extent that individuals spent their 'own' money on health care, they would likely spend less... but at the cost of deferring basic care, choosing on the basis of price rather than quality and so on... all of which is going to come back to bite them in the form of a lot more money spent later fixing all of the things that weren't taken care of the first time around (think of the old FRAM oil filter commercials: 'you can pay me now or you can pay me later'). As I've said before, there are really two issues: how much money should be spent on health care and who pays for those costs? To the extent it is possible to spend less money for the same (or better) level of health care, great.... but John's suggestions don't get us there.
|