This is not the first time I've addressed the health care reform package that President Obama is championing. However, today I feel a little bit torn about it.
The conservative and the economist inside of me knows that if this health care bill passes, it will dramatically change our health care system as we know it. As I have previously stated, a government option that offers health insurance with lower premiums than private insurance will eventually lead to the end of private insurance as we know it.
And that's where I'm torn. Private insurance companies, by design, were intended to help individuals obtain health care when they need it most and not avoid bankruptcy for doing so. But recently, it seems that health insurance companies are more worried about their bottom line profitability.
And that's what has always scared me (and maybe even you) about health insurance companies and the health care system. It's part of the reason I avoid hospitals at all costs and minimize my dealings with health insurance companies. I'm always afraid of something being considered a "pre-existing condition" or a procedure not being covered by insurance.
As much as I despise the rhetoric of the Obama administration and the Democrats who are fighting for this health care bill, I have to admit I have heard these horror stories more than once; people being dropped from health insurance coverage or being denied a life-saving surgery because a health insurance company considers such a procedure as "experimental".
Some pressure needs to be put on these insurance companies, but not so much that it will cause them to fall like a house of cards. Insurance companies are essential to health care. Without insurance companies, who pay for the full cost of health care (minus premiums and out-of-pocket costs), essential medical advancements will discontinue. Scientists don't research and develop advancements in health care because it makes them feel better about themselves, they do it in part because the procedure will net them a return on their investment (as well as recognition and fame).
Some action does need to be taken to correct the problems with insurance companies addressed in Part I of this column. One of the first steps in correcting this problem is to introduce a national not-for-profit (NFP) health insurance company. This company will not be publicly traded and will not seek to exclude the "uninsurable" to retain profitability. In essence, it would act much like heath insurance companies were originally intended to act.
This national NFP insurance company would have lower premiums (due to a minimized focus on profit) and would entice individuals (both healthy and sick) to obtain coverage with this new company. This would increase competition with other health insurance companies, making private insurance companies decrease their premiums to appear more attactive to consumers.
There are currently local NFP health insurance companies. All I'm arguing for is a national NFP insurance company that everyone could be insured with. Have the government provide this company with additional tax breaks (more than the traditional 501(c)(3) not-for-profit) so a local NFP establishes itself nationally to compete with the private insurance companies. This government investment would be a considerable amount less than the current price tag of the bill in the Senate. With this private solution to the market problem, a government solution would not be needed (i.e., the proposed health care bill). Let me be clear, this is not a government run health insurance company, this is a government incentivized private health insurance company.
If the government still wanted to mandate health insurance coverage, they could. If the government mandates that all insurance companies have to accept applicants, regardless of pre-existing conditions, it would probably just mean more business for the NFP health insurance company.
With an NFP insurance company that has lower monthly premiums, more individuals with less income would be able to afford coverage. The government could even further incentivize the success of the NFP health insurance company by offering individuals that take out coverage with the NFP a tax break or rebate for their coverage. The government could go further and still create a government run option so long as the option was designed only for those individuals who fit between the gap of those covered by Medicaid and Medicare and those who can afford the NFP insurance company premiums (an even smaller subset of those estimated to benefit from the health care bill). This way, only these individual can obtain coverage under the government run plan and people could only obtain coverage if they meet income qualification criteria.
The point is, rather than push forward a bill that is very cumbersome and dramatically reforms our current health care system, our Legislature and President both need to look at incentivizing better health care rather than legislating it. The price we would pay for incentivized care is far less than we would pay for the heath care bill as it stands.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Part I: Incentivizing Health Care: The Problem with Health Insurance Companies
Let's face it; there's money in medicine. When was the last time you saw a doctor (not a medical student) driving anything other than a Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, Volvo, or another expensive car? We spend a great deal of our gross domestic product on health care; everyone knows that. But the problem is we have too many people trying to extract profit from our health care.
The biggest culprit today, and the focus of the health care bill, are the health insurance companies. The purpose of insurance companies is to allow people to pay a small premium so that if a qualifying event were to occur (auto accident, surgery needed), an individual would have that event covered.
People can provide insurance for themselves; it's called self-insurance. The problem is people are reluctant to self-insure but at the same time want to avoid risk.
One of the first things I learned in Economics 101 was about self-insurance. If people were to take the same amount of money they paid in health insurance premiums and just save it (or invest it), if a qualifying event were to occur, they would be able to cover themselves. The problem is (as mentioned above) people are reluctant to self-insure. The growing account balance is too much to resist and people are tempted to use that money for things other than health care. So people who are risk averse elect to pay health care premiums and essentially never see that money again until a qualifying event occurs.
But because health insurance companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to remain profitable, their best interests are not your best interests. Your best interest is to have that life-saving surgery or receive treatment for what they call a "pre-existing condition". Their best interest is to (1) extract the maximum amount of money from you without you dropping their health insurance or (2) cover your health care costs as long as the premiums you pay are greater than what you cost the company.
But insurance companies don't just charge monthly premiums; that was just not enough. Never mind you pay them anywhere from $100 to $1,000 in premiums every month, if you do get sick, need prescription medicine, or go to a doctor, you have to pay a co-pay. If, God forbid, something life-threatening happens to you, then you have an out-of-pocket expense that is paid in addition to your premiums. Even worse, if something else life-treatening happens to you in the same year, then you pay more money to hit your maximum out-of-pocket expense and then insurance benefits cover 100% of the remaining costs of health care. Exactly how much money should we pay to a company for our health care?
When you add that insurance companies drop the coverage of select individuals because they are "uninsurable" (which means they can't turn a profit on them) and do not cover some "experimental" procedures, it just adds more evidence that the insurance market has had a breakdown.
Insurance companies had to fight moral hazard (when people abuse insurance programs with the overuse of health care) by introducing co-pays and out-of-pocket costs. This was because there was no disincentive to seek medical care anytime someone thought they needed it. Introducing a co-pay makes people forfeit more money to seek medical care. Insurance companies made the co-pay small enough so that it wouldn't completely dissuade people from seeking needed medical care, and large enough to stop people from seeking medical care for trivial ailments). Since insurance companies were first created to help people insure themselves against bankruptcy in case of a medical emergency, their incentive changed to consistently being profitable once these health insurance companies became publicly traded (and had share holders to keep happy).
A capitalist government is supposed to step in and correct a market problem with either policy or incentive. But the incentives in the health care bill are the ones being discussed today. The health care bill will create an incentive for healthy individuals to switch from their private or employer provided health insurance to a government option because it will, no doubt, be cheaper than their current health insurance premiums.
Another main concern of the health care bill is that, much like the health care plan in Canada, a government run health insurance plan will result in long delays for care. Some estimates say it may take 6 months for someone to receive care for a pre-existing condition. However, emergency care will be provided on an emergency basis. That being said, healthy individuals will worry less about the long waits for health care, as select the government plan in order to capitalize on costs savings on health insurance premiums. The healthy individual will only care about the speed of which emergency care is administered (which will be the same as under any health care plan) as they will not require regular or frequent doctor's visits. Only (1) the individuals with pre-existing conditions and (2) the sickest individuals that have private or employer provided health insurance will avoid the government plan. This will cause the same death-spiral of health inurance discussed in one of my previous columns.
Previously, I argued that the best solution is to put the uninsured on an expanded Medicaid program. However, this may not necessarily address the problems we have with insurance companies. The biggest problem I've identified with insurance companies is that they are profit-seeking companies because they are publicly traded. My solution to this problem will be discussed in Part II of this column.
The biggest culprit today, and the focus of the health care bill, are the health insurance companies. The purpose of insurance companies is to allow people to pay a small premium so that if a qualifying event were to occur (auto accident, surgery needed), an individual would have that event covered.
People can provide insurance for themselves; it's called self-insurance. The problem is people are reluctant to self-insure but at the same time want to avoid risk.
One of the first things I learned in Economics 101 was about self-insurance. If people were to take the same amount of money they paid in health insurance premiums and just save it (or invest it), if a qualifying event were to occur, they would be able to cover themselves. The problem is (as mentioned above) people are reluctant to self-insure. The growing account balance is too much to resist and people are tempted to use that money for things other than health care. So people who are risk averse elect to pay health care premiums and essentially never see that money again until a qualifying event occurs.
But because health insurance companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to remain profitable, their best interests are not your best interests. Your best interest is to have that life-saving surgery or receive treatment for what they call a "pre-existing condition". Their best interest is to (1) extract the maximum amount of money from you without you dropping their health insurance or (2) cover your health care costs as long as the premiums you pay are greater than what you cost the company.
But insurance companies don't just charge monthly premiums; that was just not enough. Never mind you pay them anywhere from $100 to $1,000 in premiums every month, if you do get sick, need prescription medicine, or go to a doctor, you have to pay a co-pay. If, God forbid, something life-threatening happens to you, then you have an out-of-pocket expense that is paid in addition to your premiums. Even worse, if something else life-treatening happens to you in the same year, then you pay more money to hit your maximum out-of-pocket expense and then insurance benefits cover 100% of the remaining costs of health care. Exactly how much money should we pay to a company for our health care?
When you add that insurance companies drop the coverage of select individuals because they are "uninsurable" (which means they can't turn a profit on them) and do not cover some "experimental" procedures, it just adds more evidence that the insurance market has had a breakdown.
Insurance companies had to fight moral hazard (when people abuse insurance programs with the overuse of health care) by introducing co-pays and out-of-pocket costs. This was because there was no disincentive to seek medical care anytime someone thought they needed it. Introducing a co-pay makes people forfeit more money to seek medical care. Insurance companies made the co-pay small enough so that it wouldn't completely dissuade people from seeking needed medical care, and large enough to stop people from seeking medical care for trivial ailments). Since insurance companies were first created to help people insure themselves against bankruptcy in case of a medical emergency, their incentive changed to consistently being profitable once these health insurance companies became publicly traded (and had share holders to keep happy).
A capitalist government is supposed to step in and correct a market problem with either policy or incentive. But the incentives in the health care bill are the ones being discussed today. The health care bill will create an incentive for healthy individuals to switch from their private or employer provided health insurance to a government option because it will, no doubt, be cheaper than their current health insurance premiums.
Another main concern of the health care bill is that, much like the health care plan in Canada, a government run health insurance plan will result in long delays for care. Some estimates say it may take 6 months for someone to receive care for a pre-existing condition. However, emergency care will be provided on an emergency basis. That being said, healthy individuals will worry less about the long waits for health care, as select the government plan in order to capitalize on costs savings on health insurance premiums. The healthy individual will only care about the speed of which emergency care is administered (which will be the same as under any health care plan) as they will not require regular or frequent doctor's visits. Only (1) the individuals with pre-existing conditions and (2) the sickest individuals that have private or employer provided health insurance will avoid the government plan. This will cause the same death-spiral of health inurance discussed in one of my previous columns.
Previously, I argued that the best solution is to put the uninsured on an expanded Medicaid program. However, this may not necessarily address the problems we have with insurance companies. The biggest problem I've identified with insurance companies is that they are profit-seeking companies because they are publicly traded. My solution to this problem will be discussed in Part II of this column.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Breaking Down the Election Results
The election results from Tuesday have people on both sides of the political spectrum talking. The Right and Left are debating if the election results are a referendum on President Obama.
I initially thought the election results demonstrated the voters have shown their dissatisfaction with the President's policies. However, after doing my research, I've come to the conclusion that you can't make that conclusion from this past Tuesday's election results. Here's what I found.
I looked at the three major elections covered Tuesday night. They were the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia and the election in New York Congressional District 23. I first had to ask myself if these states were traditionally blue or red states (traditionally Democratic or Republican) as this should play a large role in each respective election.
New Jersey is a traditional blue state where Democrats over the past two decades have enjoyed a 10 to 15 percent advantage over Republican opponents. I must admit a Republican win in this state is a very impressive one. In New Jersey, Chris Christie (R) defeated John Corzine (D) with 49% of the popular vote to Corzine's 45%. This is the only election from Tuesday that may resemble a referendum of Obama.
Virginia traditionally slightly favors Republicans over Democrats, making Virginia a red state (or really, a pink state). Over the past two decades, Republican candidates in Virginia have experienced only a 1 to 5 percent advantage at the polls. But if you look at the 2008 Presidential election, you will see that Virginia was one of the states Obama won (with 52.7% of the popular vote). Obama's win in Virginia in the 2008 Presidential election marked the first time in 44 years that a Democratic Presidential candidate has carried the state. Obama's win in Virginia was more of a referendum (of former President Bush) than Bob McDonnel's (R) Gubernatorial win in Virginia could be considered a referendum of President Obama. In essence, McDonnel should have won this election and did so in landslide fashion (winning 59% to 41%). The recent elections results show me Virginia is moving from a slightly red to swing state status.
Lastly there is the election in New York's 23rd congressional district. In this race, Bill Owens (D) defeated Doug Hoffman (Conservative Party) for New York's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. This was a highly contested seat as the 23rd congressional district has been traditionally Republican since 1993. The only reason this seat was up for grabs was because President Obama appointed the sitting Congressman, John M. Hughes (R), as the Secretary of the Army leaving a vacancy.
New York is one of the most heavily fortified blue states in the nation. Democrats here enjoy an advantage of 20% at the polls. The fact that Secretary Hughes maintained this district for 16 years is very impressive and most likely a testament to the work he accomplished for New York. In one of the bluest of blue states, where Democratic candidates enjoy a 20% advantage in the polls (exception to Secretary Hughes), was it really a surprise that Bill Owens (D) won the race? He defeated his challenger with 52.03% of the popular vote (Doug Hoffman received 47.97% of the popular vote). The fact that Hoffman was so close to Owens does not necessarily hint towards a referendum of President Obama, but may mean the district kept some loyalty to the Republican party after Hughes vacated his seat.
Needless to say these three elections boast some referendum qualities, but the others do not. The data is so inconclusive, I wonder how some people can consider these elections a referendum on President Obama. I'm conservative and not even I can make that leap.
The point is, people have tried to read too much into this election and are making predictions as to the results of the 2010 midterm elections. Only time will tell what will happen and although I anticipate Republicans winning back some seats in Congress, using this election as a litmus test for President Obama's policies goes a bit too far in my opinion.
I initially thought the election results demonstrated the voters have shown their dissatisfaction with the President's policies. However, after doing my research, I've come to the conclusion that you can't make that conclusion from this past Tuesday's election results. Here's what I found.
I looked at the three major elections covered Tuesday night. They were the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia and the election in New York Congressional District 23. I first had to ask myself if these states were traditionally blue or red states (traditionally Democratic or Republican) as this should play a large role in each respective election.
New Jersey is a traditional blue state where Democrats over the past two decades have enjoyed a 10 to 15 percent advantage over Republican opponents. I must admit a Republican win in this state is a very impressive one. In New Jersey, Chris Christie (R) defeated John Corzine (D) with 49% of the popular vote to Corzine's 45%. This is the only election from Tuesday that may resemble a referendum of Obama.
Virginia traditionally slightly favors Republicans over Democrats, making Virginia a red state (or really, a pink state). Over the past two decades, Republican candidates in Virginia have experienced only a 1 to 5 percent advantage at the polls. But if you look at the 2008 Presidential election, you will see that Virginia was one of the states Obama won (with 52.7% of the popular vote). Obama's win in Virginia in the 2008 Presidential election marked the first time in 44 years that a Democratic Presidential candidate has carried the state. Obama's win in Virginia was more of a referendum (of former President Bush) than Bob McDonnel's (R) Gubernatorial win in Virginia could be considered a referendum of President Obama. In essence, McDonnel should have won this election and did so in landslide fashion (winning 59% to 41%). The recent elections results show me Virginia is moving from a slightly red to swing state status.
Lastly there is the election in New York's 23rd congressional district. In this race, Bill Owens (D) defeated Doug Hoffman (Conservative Party) for New York's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. This was a highly contested seat as the 23rd congressional district has been traditionally Republican since 1993. The only reason this seat was up for grabs was because President Obama appointed the sitting Congressman, John M. Hughes (R), as the Secretary of the Army leaving a vacancy.
New York is one of the most heavily fortified blue states in the nation. Democrats here enjoy an advantage of 20% at the polls. The fact that Secretary Hughes maintained this district for 16 years is very impressive and most likely a testament to the work he accomplished for New York. In one of the bluest of blue states, where Democratic candidates enjoy a 20% advantage in the polls (exception to Secretary Hughes), was it really a surprise that Bill Owens (D) won the race? He defeated his challenger with 52.03% of the popular vote (Doug Hoffman received 47.97% of the popular vote). The fact that Hoffman was so close to Owens does not necessarily hint towards a referendum of President Obama, but may mean the district kept some loyalty to the Republican party after Hughes vacated his seat.
Needless to say these three elections boast some referendum qualities, but the others do not. The data is so inconclusive, I wonder how some people can consider these elections a referendum on President Obama. I'm conservative and not even I can make that leap.
The point is, people have tried to read too much into this election and are making predictions as to the results of the 2010 midterm elections. Only time will tell what will happen and although I anticipate Republicans winning back some seats in Congress, using this election as a litmus test for President Obama's policies goes a bit too far in my opinion.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
I Should Never Be A Sports Writer
Very rarely do politics and sports intercede (the last time was the Mitchel report about steroid use in baseball), but when they do, I sometimes feel the need to jump ship from politics and take my soap box in the sports arena.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently asked President Obama to investigate the Bowl Championship Series under the Sherman Anti-Trust law. This may be one of the first truly bi-partisan efforts that I can fully stand behind. Quite frankly, Senator Hatch might be a genius if he pull this off.
We all heard President Obama say that if he was elected President he would "throw [his] weight around a little bit" to influence a college football playoff system. Well, Mr. President, this is one campaign promise I do not want you to break.
Senator Hatch represents Utah, where his home school (the University of Utah) went undefeated last year, yet was passed over by the BCS system to play in the national championship. Instead, Florida and Oklahoma were invited to play in the national championship game.
There has always been a cloud of controversy surrounding how the BCS championship game is selected. There are "BCS conferences", conferences whose teams get automatic bids to participate in top-tier bowl games where non-BCS conference teams do not. Teams that play in the top-tier bowl games receive more exposure, revenue from ticket sales, and have a better advantage when it comes to recruiting and transferring ticket revenue to less popular sports.
Senator Hatch argues the BCS violates anti-trust law because the system "has been designed to limit the number of teams from non-privileged conferences that will play in BCS games". He adds the BCS system "artificially limits the number of nationally-relevant bowl games to five. The result is reduced access to revenues and visibility which creates disadvantages to schools in the non-privileged conferences."I completely agree with Senator Hatch's claims. The BCS system is inequitable by discriminating against schools from weaker conferences.
The call for change is nothing new. Some say the regular season acts as the playoff system in that every game is equally important to your post-season success, but in my opinion a playoff would show which teams can play better against better teams. Pretty much every major conference team schedules teams from weaker conferences, like the Sun Belt (a garbage conference) or even Division I-AA teams (like EKU and Morehead) to get more wins and become bowl-eligible. That's like Middlesboro and Bell County playing West Jessamine Middle School to get more wins and pad statistics. But because it's the norm and the culture of college football programs today, no one really questions it. [On a side note, as much as I dislike them, a big kudos to USC for playing both Notre Dame and Ohio State on the road and coming away with wins; watch them in the BCS bowl picture this year.]
In the BCS system, strength of a team's schedule determines better teams. This may be the case, but what about teams that get hot late in the season that could really do some damage in the playoffs? Sometimes it just takes a few games for a team to hit their stride. Does this mean that the teams that play the best football late in the season are less deserving to play in the title game if they have a loss or two? What about a good team that has a late season loss (which hurts the team more than an early season loss under the BCS computer system's analysis). A playoff allows any doubt as to the supremacy of a team to be removed.
If you make a playoff system for college football, that is a significant increase in funding for school athletics programs. Most people suggest a 16 or 8 team national championship playoff, which I support. Other teams that qualify for bowl games would still receive a bowl but, just not a bid to the national championship playoff. More games equal more money for schools and an uncontested national champion. None of this "split national champions" shenanigans that we've seen recently (LSU and USC in 2003-2004, for instance).
In America, sporting events and sporting merchanide is a major component of our economy. President Obama would be wise to start throwing his weight around now and call this his second "stimulus package". Instead of creating jobs by spending money, he would create jobs and stimulate some spending just by asking the BCS to abolish their current system and just add a few extra games to the post-season. I know I wouldn't mind a few more weeks of football season. In fact it might be one of the things I might praise President Obama for.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently asked President Obama to investigate the Bowl Championship Series under the Sherman Anti-Trust law. This may be one of the first truly bi-partisan efforts that I can fully stand behind. Quite frankly, Senator Hatch might be a genius if he pull this off.
We all heard President Obama say that if he was elected President he would "throw [his] weight around a little bit" to influence a college football playoff system. Well, Mr. President, this is one campaign promise I do not want you to break.
Senator Hatch represents Utah, where his home school (the University of Utah) went undefeated last year, yet was passed over by the BCS system to play in the national championship. Instead, Florida and Oklahoma were invited to play in the national championship game.
There has always been a cloud of controversy surrounding how the BCS championship game is selected. There are "BCS conferences", conferences whose teams get automatic bids to participate in top-tier bowl games where non-BCS conference teams do not. Teams that play in the top-tier bowl games receive more exposure, revenue from ticket sales, and have a better advantage when it comes to recruiting and transferring ticket revenue to less popular sports.
Senator Hatch argues the BCS violates anti-trust law because the system "has been designed to limit the number of teams from non-privileged conferences that will play in BCS games". He adds the BCS system "artificially limits the number of nationally-relevant bowl games to five. The result is reduced access to revenues and visibility which creates disadvantages to schools in the non-privileged conferences."I completely agree with Senator Hatch's claims. The BCS system is inequitable by discriminating against schools from weaker conferences.
The call for change is nothing new. Some say the regular season acts as the playoff system in that every game is equally important to your post-season success, but in my opinion a playoff would show which teams can play better against better teams. Pretty much every major conference team schedules teams from weaker conferences, like the Sun Belt (a garbage conference) or even Division I-AA teams (like EKU and Morehead) to get more wins and become bowl-eligible. That's like Middlesboro and Bell County playing West Jessamine Middle School to get more wins and pad statistics. But because it's the norm and the culture of college football programs today, no one really questions it. [On a side note, as much as I dislike them, a big kudos to USC for playing both Notre Dame and Ohio State on the road and coming away with wins; watch them in the BCS bowl picture this year.]
In the BCS system, strength of a team's schedule determines better teams. This may be the case, but what about teams that get hot late in the season that could really do some damage in the playoffs? Sometimes it just takes a few games for a team to hit their stride. Does this mean that the teams that play the best football late in the season are less deserving to play in the title game if they have a loss or two? What about a good team that has a late season loss (which hurts the team more than an early season loss under the BCS computer system's analysis). A playoff allows any doubt as to the supremacy of a team to be removed.
If you make a playoff system for college football, that is a significant increase in funding for school athletics programs. Most people suggest a 16 or 8 team national championship playoff, which I support. Other teams that qualify for bowl games would still receive a bowl but, just not a bid to the national championship playoff. More games equal more money for schools and an uncontested national champion. None of this "split national champions" shenanigans that we've seen recently (LSU and USC in 2003-2004, for instance).
In America, sporting events and sporting merchanide is a major component of our economy. President Obama would be wise to start throwing his weight around now and call this his second "stimulus package". Instead of creating jobs by spending money, he would create jobs and stimulate some spending just by asking the BCS to abolish their current system and just add a few extra games to the post-season. I know I wouldn't mind a few more weeks of football season. In fact it might be one of the things I might praise President Obama for.
Friday, October 9, 2009
This Nobel is "Prized" No Longer
On Friday, October 9th, 2009, it was announced by the Nobel Committee that President Obama was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. This is quite an accomplishment for anyone to achieve, especially our President.
But something is amiss here. How could a President who has been in office for less than a year receive an award that is based on the actual work of an individual to bring peace to the world? Did I miss something? Did President Obama help diffuse racial problems in East Chicago? Did he solve the conflict-diamond problem in Africa? Did he personally propose and champion legislation as a Senator that removed the United States from all foreign wars? Is he the reincarnation of Mother Theresa?
There's a lot that we don't know about President Obama, but I seriously doubt that we missed his appearance in the movie, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Quite frankly, I think Superman or even Christopher Reeve deserves the Nobel Peace Prize before President Obama does.
What has President Obama done to promote peace in his relatively short time as our Nation's leader? He may have traveled across seas to talk to some heads of state and walked out of a United Nation's address by President Ahmadinejad (so did a lot of other world leaders), but that's normal business for the President (even Bush). So surely these cannot be the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize!
President Obama is currently in two wars. Doesn't this seem to be a disqualifying characteristic for the Nobel Peace Prize. Granted they are inherited, but nonetheless, should you win a peace award when you are Commander in Chief of a nation at war?
When you look at Nobel Peace Prize Laurettes, one name that is missing and should be included is Mahatma Gandhi. He never won a Nobel Peace Prize and he starved himself for India's independence from Britain. That's a lot more work towards peace than just succeeding President Bush (which I assume is the reason Obama is receiving this award).
It has been publicized that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama based on the "potential" he demonstrates to bring peace. I'm sorry, I didn't know that awards were made based on how good you "might" be. I guess that means competitive sports are finished. We can just award a trophy/championship to the team that starts their respective season ranked above all other teams.
And what's more damning is that the Nobel Committee's deadline for Peace Prize candidates is February 1st. President Obama would have been in office for less than two weeks. That's hardly enough time for Obama to clean the Oval Office and settle in. This further justifies my believe he received the award simply because he succeeded Bush.
The point is, currently we don't know what type of legacy President Obama will leave behind, but I do know that there hasn't been enough done to justify him receiving this award. I don't care if he began making friendly with Muslims; he has just started his work and nothing has come of it. In my opinion, this is just proof that the Nobel Committee either has a severe Liberal bias or a severe Obama bias. Quite frankly it tarnishes the Nobel Peace Prize to award it based on the "potential" someone has to do good rather than the actual good he or she has performed.
I'm not saying that President Obama doesn't have the potential to win the award, I sincerely hope he is capable of establishing peace in the Middle-East. But until that work is done, awarding this prize to President Obama is disrespectful to the work of the men and women who received the award in years past.
But something is amiss here. How could a President who has been in office for less than a year receive an award that is based on the actual work of an individual to bring peace to the world? Did I miss something? Did President Obama help diffuse racial problems in East Chicago? Did he solve the conflict-diamond problem in Africa? Did he personally propose and champion legislation as a Senator that removed the United States from all foreign wars? Is he the reincarnation of Mother Theresa?
There's a lot that we don't know about President Obama, but I seriously doubt that we missed his appearance in the movie, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Quite frankly, I think Superman or even Christopher Reeve deserves the Nobel Peace Prize before President Obama does.
What has President Obama done to promote peace in his relatively short time as our Nation's leader? He may have traveled across seas to talk to some heads of state and walked out of a United Nation's address by President Ahmadinejad (so did a lot of other world leaders), but that's normal business for the President (even Bush). So surely these cannot be the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize!
President Obama is currently in two wars. Doesn't this seem to be a disqualifying characteristic for the Nobel Peace Prize. Granted they are inherited, but nonetheless, should you win a peace award when you are Commander in Chief of a nation at war?
When you look at Nobel Peace Prize Laurettes, one name that is missing and should be included is Mahatma Gandhi. He never won a Nobel Peace Prize and he starved himself for India's independence from Britain. That's a lot more work towards peace than just succeeding President Bush (which I assume is the reason Obama is receiving this award).
It has been publicized that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama based on the "potential" he demonstrates to bring peace. I'm sorry, I didn't know that awards were made based on how good you "might" be. I guess that means competitive sports are finished. We can just award a trophy/championship to the team that starts their respective season ranked above all other teams.
And what's more damning is that the Nobel Committee's deadline for Peace Prize candidates is February 1st. President Obama would have been in office for less than two weeks. That's hardly enough time for Obama to clean the Oval Office and settle in. This further justifies my believe he received the award simply because he succeeded Bush.
The point is, currently we don't know what type of legacy President Obama will leave behind, but I do know that there hasn't been enough done to justify him receiving this award. I don't care if he began making friendly with Muslims; he has just started his work and nothing has come of it. In my opinion, this is just proof that the Nobel Committee either has a severe Liberal bias or a severe Obama bias. Quite frankly it tarnishes the Nobel Peace Prize to award it based on the "potential" someone has to do good rather than the actual good he or she has performed.
I'm not saying that President Obama doesn't have the potential to win the award, I sincerely hope he is capable of establishing peace in the Middle-East. But until that work is done, awarding this prize to President Obama is disrespectful to the work of the men and women who received the award in years past.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Just the Facts, Mr. President
Politicians often rely on half-truths and blatant lies to sell their policy ideas. President Obama is no exception. After hearing his address to Congress regarding his health care plan, there are some half-truths and lies that need to be dispelled. Here is a list of them:
(1) President Obama will not sign a bill that "adds one dime to our deficit either now or in the future. Period." Verdict: Half-truth. First, there is no final version of the bill, just versions that are being kicked around and amended (probably as you're reading this). Second, the House Democrat's version would add $220 Billion to the deficit over 10 years as determined by the Congressional Budget Office (which is a non-partisan agency). Democrats say they don't have to claim $245 Billion dollars of the price tag because, and here's where it gets confusing, Democrats already decided to exempt the adjustment of the Medicare reimbursement rates from Congressional rules that require programs to be paid for. Simply put, they decided this doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.
(2) President Obama has pledged not to cut Medicare benefits under his plan, but reduce Medicare payments by more than $500 Billion over 10 years. Verdict: Half-truth. The cuts proposed would disproportionately hit Medicare Advantage (which is operated through private insurance companies). Experts believe that a cut of this magnitude will reduce benefits for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage. Supporters of Obama's plan counter that the cuts can be absorbed by improving how Medicare operates and would only reduce the waste, fraud, and abuse of the current system. Any overall affect is largely unknown.
(3) President Obama stated there are 30 Million people who cannot get coverage. Verdict: Close. Depending on which report you look at, the number of people who cannot get coverage varies. Previously, President Obama suggested there are 46 Million people who cannot get coverage, but this is probably an overestimate because it captures those young and healthy Americans who forgo getting health coverage to save money. The 30 Million individuals he used in his address come from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, whereas the 46 Million figure he previously used comes from census data. The 30 Million is the actual target of the program, because these are the individuals that cannot afford insurance because they are poor or near poor.
(4) President Obama argues that preventative medicine 'makes sense, saves money, and saves lives' (paraphrased). Verdict: Lie and a Truth. Not all preventative care saves money, but does save lives. Studies have proven that the specific types of tests mentioned during his speech (colonoscopies and mammograms) cost more money than they save. Detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in the early stages of the disease involve testing many people who would never develop the disease. The costs incurred for a large number of tests, even if they're cheap, outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up with the diseases without testing. The Congressional Budget Office even agrees that "... for the most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall". President Obama was right about saving lives, but was wrong about saving money.
(5) President Obama informed the people that changing jobs or starting your own business will not impede you from getting health coverage. Verdict: He phrased it wrong. In the President's speech, he endorsed mandatory health insurance coverage for all individuals (an approach he did not embrace as a candidate). Given his position, in his speech he should have stated, "If you lose your job or change your job, you will have to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will have to get coverage" (rather than using the words "will be able to get coverage" in his original speech).
(6) President Obama has stated that nothing in his plan will require us or our employer to change to coverage or the doctor we already have. Verdict: Correct at face value only. The current version does not guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers elect sponsor coverage for most families, but under the current bill, employers would be free to change health plans in ways that employees may not like or decide to drop health insurance benefits altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the House Democrat's version and decided that by 2016 that some 3 Million people with employer-provided health care would lose coverage when employers drop health insurance in order to save money.
(7) And lastly, the comment that stole the show. President Obama stated that his reforms would not apply to unauthorized aliens, to which South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" from his seat. Verdict: You decide. The bill specifically prohibits federal money to be spent on non-citizens. However, illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as some do now, but won't receive any tax benefits. However, it has been argued that the system proposed under the bill does not have appropriate citizenship verification requirements in place to ensure illegal immigrants do not capitalize on the program.
(1) President Obama will not sign a bill that "adds one dime to our deficit either now or in the future. Period." Verdict: Half-truth. First, there is no final version of the bill, just versions that are being kicked around and amended (probably as you're reading this). Second, the House Democrat's version would add $220 Billion to the deficit over 10 years as determined by the Congressional Budget Office (which is a non-partisan agency). Democrats say they don't have to claim $245 Billion dollars of the price tag because, and here's where it gets confusing, Democrats already decided to exempt the adjustment of the Medicare reimbursement rates from Congressional rules that require programs to be paid for. Simply put, they decided this doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.
(2) President Obama has pledged not to cut Medicare benefits under his plan, but reduce Medicare payments by more than $500 Billion over 10 years. Verdict: Half-truth. The cuts proposed would disproportionately hit Medicare Advantage (which is operated through private insurance companies). Experts believe that a cut of this magnitude will reduce benefits for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage. Supporters of Obama's plan counter that the cuts can be absorbed by improving how Medicare operates and would only reduce the waste, fraud, and abuse of the current system. Any overall affect is largely unknown.
(3) President Obama stated there are 30 Million people who cannot get coverage. Verdict: Close. Depending on which report you look at, the number of people who cannot get coverage varies. Previously, President Obama suggested there are 46 Million people who cannot get coverage, but this is probably an overestimate because it captures those young and healthy Americans who forgo getting health coverage to save money. The 30 Million individuals he used in his address come from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, whereas the 46 Million figure he previously used comes from census data. The 30 Million is the actual target of the program, because these are the individuals that cannot afford insurance because they are poor or near poor.
(4) President Obama argues that preventative medicine 'makes sense, saves money, and saves lives' (paraphrased). Verdict: Lie and a Truth. Not all preventative care saves money, but does save lives. Studies have proven that the specific types of tests mentioned during his speech (colonoscopies and mammograms) cost more money than they save. Detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in the early stages of the disease involve testing many people who would never develop the disease. The costs incurred for a large number of tests, even if they're cheap, outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up with the diseases without testing. The Congressional Budget Office even agrees that "... for the most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall". President Obama was right about saving lives, but was wrong about saving money.
(5) President Obama informed the people that changing jobs or starting your own business will not impede you from getting health coverage. Verdict: He phrased it wrong. In the President's speech, he endorsed mandatory health insurance coverage for all individuals (an approach he did not embrace as a candidate). Given his position, in his speech he should have stated, "If you lose your job or change your job, you will have to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will have to get coverage" (rather than using the words "will be able to get coverage" in his original speech).
(6) President Obama has stated that nothing in his plan will require us or our employer to change to coverage or the doctor we already have. Verdict: Correct at face value only. The current version does not guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers elect sponsor coverage for most families, but under the current bill, employers would be free to change health plans in ways that employees may not like or decide to drop health insurance benefits altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the House Democrat's version and decided that by 2016 that some 3 Million people with employer-provided health care would lose coverage when employers drop health insurance in order to save money.
(7) And lastly, the comment that stole the show. President Obama stated that his reforms would not apply to unauthorized aliens, to which South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" from his seat. Verdict: You decide. The bill specifically prohibits federal money to be spent on non-citizens. However, illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as some do now, but won't receive any tax benefits. However, it has been argued that the system proposed under the bill does not have appropriate citizenship verification requirements in place to ensure illegal immigrants do not capitalize on the program.
September 11th, Never Forgotten
It has almost been a year since I've been writing columns for the Middlesboro Daily News and posting them to my blogspot account. My first column was targeted at providing correct information about the economic bailout package presented by former President Bush (in late September). I never had a chance to write a column that focused on the attacks on September 11th, 2001.
This date will live in infamy, much in the same way the attacks on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 resonates with a previous generation. It is a date, and an event, that will forever shape the minds of today's generation.
Much like the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, or when Neil Armstrong took those historic steps on the moon, we will all remember where we were at, what we were doing, and our first reactions to the attacks that fateful day.
Eight years later, we are a nation that has been propelled in a dramatically different way because of these attacks. We can only conjecture what our lives and our nation would look like had we never been victimized by religious extremists organized by Usama bin Laden.
What if we had never declared war on terror? What if we had not actively sought out those who were responsible for the attacks that day? What if we had never taken preventative measures to thwart terrorist attacks? Would the liquid bombers have been successful (the reason why you can't take liquids on a plane in large quantity)? Would New York City have made it this long without a large terrorist attack (the numerous planned attacks aimed at the NYC subway system)? Would Afghanistan and Iraq be uncontested breeding grounds for terrorism?
I can only speculate. But what I do know is that there has been a lot of sacrifice and a lot of tears shed since that day. Those who were lost to those unscrupulous acts of evil should never be forgotten. The bravery of the New York Fire Department, the New York Police Department, and all those servicemen and women who worked to restore order to the chaos should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women on United Airlines Flight 93 should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women in our armed forces should never be forgotten. The compassion and patriotism that we as a nation demonstrated that day should never be forgotten.
What we should also not forget are the actions of Former President Bush. The nation stood behind him, united after these attacks, as he began his new campaign based on the promises he made to the American people. President Bush promised us that the individuals responsible for these attacks would come to justice and that he would take all necessary actions to prevent a subsequent attack.
And I think we forgot that somewhere along the line. Did President Bush act inappropriately while trying to defend our nation? I personally don't think it's that black and white, but more shades of gray. I personally think that President Bush took up his cause and fought to protect us from other terrorist attacks, even when his methods lost popularity. President Bush sacrificed approval ratings for our safety in much the same way that a parent sacrifices the admiration of their children for their safety. Bush would rather have been a good President than a cool one.
So despite what the media says, and despite what other people say about him, I will never forget the protection that President Bush provided for this country during his eight years in office.
This date will live in infamy, much in the same way the attacks on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 resonates with a previous generation. It is a date, and an event, that will forever shape the minds of today's generation.
Much like the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, or when Neil Armstrong took those historic steps on the moon, we will all remember where we were at, what we were doing, and our first reactions to the attacks that fateful day.
Eight years later, we are a nation that has been propelled in a dramatically different way because of these attacks. We can only conjecture what our lives and our nation would look like had we never been victimized by religious extremists organized by Usama bin Laden.
What if we had never declared war on terror? What if we had not actively sought out those who were responsible for the attacks that day? What if we had never taken preventative measures to thwart terrorist attacks? Would the liquid bombers have been successful (the reason why you can't take liquids on a plane in large quantity)? Would New York City have made it this long without a large terrorist attack (the numerous planned attacks aimed at the NYC subway system)? Would Afghanistan and Iraq be uncontested breeding grounds for terrorism?
I can only speculate. But what I do know is that there has been a lot of sacrifice and a lot of tears shed since that day. Those who were lost to those unscrupulous acts of evil should never be forgotten. The bravery of the New York Fire Department, the New York Police Department, and all those servicemen and women who worked to restore order to the chaos should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women on United Airlines Flight 93 should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women in our armed forces should never be forgotten. The compassion and patriotism that we as a nation demonstrated that day should never be forgotten.
What we should also not forget are the actions of Former President Bush. The nation stood behind him, united after these attacks, as he began his new campaign based on the promises he made to the American people. President Bush promised us that the individuals responsible for these attacks would come to justice and that he would take all necessary actions to prevent a subsequent attack.
And I think we forgot that somewhere along the line. Did President Bush act inappropriately while trying to defend our nation? I personally don't think it's that black and white, but more shades of gray. I personally think that President Bush took up his cause and fought to protect us from other terrorist attacks, even when his methods lost popularity. President Bush sacrificed approval ratings for our safety in much the same way that a parent sacrifices the admiration of their children for their safety. Bush would rather have been a good President than a cool one.
So despite what the media says, and despite what other people say about him, I will never forget the protection that President Bush provided for this country during his eight years in office.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Our Social Security Blanket
One of the long debated public policy issues since it's inception has been the Social Security Program. This program was conceived as a way to both provide income for individuals late in life (who are less able to earn income) as well as provide some incentive for people to eventually retire and open up jobs to a younger generation.
I don't have to go over how the whole program works. But I do think it's important for people to know that Social Security is an unfunded program. When I say unfunded program, it means that the money you and I pay into Social Security (not like we have a choice, it's deducted from our paychecks) is not being set aside just for us when we retire, but is going to pay the benefits of current retirees. If Social Security were a fully-funded program, I would be paying into my own retirement and you into your own.
When this program was first conceived, an unfunded program seemed to be the best way to provide Social Security benefits as soon as possible. What the program's creator, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, did not (and could not) foresee was what effect a sudden "baby boom" would have on the Social Security program.
Ten years after Social Security was signed into law, the Second World War had just ended and American Soldiers returned to America with a promising and bright economic future ahead of them. There was a flood of new births in the United States and from 1946 to 1964, there was a large growth in the American birth rate.
Now let's fast forward to today. The earliest age to retire and collect Social Security benefits is 62 (with 65 for full benefits and 67 for increased benefits). So the earliest Baby Boomers (1946) are currently 63 years old and the latest Baby Boomers (1964) will reach early retirement age in 2026. The big fear is that there will not be enough current workers to pay the benefits of the current retirees.
Our nation has not since had another baby boom to rival that of the Baby Boomers. Now my thinking would be that the Baby Boomers would create a "Second Wave" of Baby Boomers (when the Baby Boomers began having children), and then that Second Wave would produce a "Third Wave", but this has not been the case. Demographically speaking, the increase in the American birth rate when the Baby Boomers hit reproductive age has in no way compared to that of the original Baby Boom. This the result of a cultural shift; people are having less children now, and later in life, than they would have in the 1940's through 1960's; which has further compounded the Social Security problem.
Analysts have already warned Congress that when the Baby Boomers begin to retire that the current surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund will eventually dwindle and bankrupt Social Security sometime after the year 2020. There will be too much money paid out in benefits than is being paid in by the current workers.
I myself am part of the "Second Wave". My mother and father are both Baby Boomers and they will soon be ready to retire. I am currently in my mid 20's and enjoying my adult life as well as contemplating having children with my wife. Social Security means a lot to me (as I may never see a cent of it but have definitely paid into it) and is an issue that is very near to my heart.
So what options do we have to save Social Security? Traditionally, the main options have been to (1) raise taxes and increase revenue to the Social Security Fund, (2) raise the retirement age, and/or (3) cut benefits. I agree there needs to be a short-term solution considered now, but there is also a long-term solution to the problem.
The Cash for Clunkers program and the First Time Home Buyers Tax Credit were successful programs, at least by economic consumption standards. These cash incentive programs achieved their intended purpose: they made consumers purchase cars and houses. A long-term solution to Social Security would be if President Obama created the "Bucks for Babies" program that provided a cash incentive (in addition to tax breaks) for people to have children who eventually will work jobs and pay into Social Security. This would help to change the reproductive strategies in America in much the same way Cash for Clunkers and the Tax Credit incentivized and influenced the consumption patters of Americans.
Of course this can easily backfire without the right restrictions. The wrong people could begin having children that they can't afford to take care of. The Bucks for Babies program would make jobs more competitive when the new wave of children reaches working age, potentially increasing unemployment. The idea needs some work, but can be considered another option to reform Social Security.
And it would be a lot less expensive than the other solution I advocate for; making Social Security a fully-funded system. This would require spending a LOT of money to fund the current retirees' benefits while the current workers begin saving for their own retirement.
Clearly something needs to be done and there are options available. It would just be nice to see Congress actually heed some of the warnings they have been given and take action on the issue rather than being so short-sighted and focused on reelection.
I don't have to go over how the whole program works. But I do think it's important for people to know that Social Security is an unfunded program. When I say unfunded program, it means that the money you and I pay into Social Security (not like we have a choice, it's deducted from our paychecks) is not being set aside just for us when we retire, but is going to pay the benefits of current retirees. If Social Security were a fully-funded program, I would be paying into my own retirement and you into your own.
When this program was first conceived, an unfunded program seemed to be the best way to provide Social Security benefits as soon as possible. What the program's creator, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, did not (and could not) foresee was what effect a sudden "baby boom" would have on the Social Security program.
Ten years after Social Security was signed into law, the Second World War had just ended and American Soldiers returned to America with a promising and bright economic future ahead of them. There was a flood of new births in the United States and from 1946 to 1964, there was a large growth in the American birth rate.
Now let's fast forward to today. The earliest age to retire and collect Social Security benefits is 62 (with 65 for full benefits and 67 for increased benefits). So the earliest Baby Boomers (1946) are currently 63 years old and the latest Baby Boomers (1964) will reach early retirement age in 2026. The big fear is that there will not be enough current workers to pay the benefits of the current retirees.
Our nation has not since had another baby boom to rival that of the Baby Boomers. Now my thinking would be that the Baby Boomers would create a "Second Wave" of Baby Boomers (when the Baby Boomers began having children), and then that Second Wave would produce a "Third Wave", but this has not been the case. Demographically speaking, the increase in the American birth rate when the Baby Boomers hit reproductive age has in no way compared to that of the original Baby Boom. This the result of a cultural shift; people are having less children now, and later in life, than they would have in the 1940's through 1960's; which has further compounded the Social Security problem.
Analysts have already warned Congress that when the Baby Boomers begin to retire that the current surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund will eventually dwindle and bankrupt Social Security sometime after the year 2020. There will be too much money paid out in benefits than is being paid in by the current workers.
I myself am part of the "Second Wave". My mother and father are both Baby Boomers and they will soon be ready to retire. I am currently in my mid 20's and enjoying my adult life as well as contemplating having children with my wife. Social Security means a lot to me (as I may never see a cent of it but have definitely paid into it) and is an issue that is very near to my heart.
So what options do we have to save Social Security? Traditionally, the main options have been to (1) raise taxes and increase revenue to the Social Security Fund, (2) raise the retirement age, and/or (3) cut benefits. I agree there needs to be a short-term solution considered now, but there is also a long-term solution to the problem.
The Cash for Clunkers program and the First Time Home Buyers Tax Credit were successful programs, at least by economic consumption standards. These cash incentive programs achieved their intended purpose: they made consumers purchase cars and houses. A long-term solution to Social Security would be if President Obama created the "Bucks for Babies" program that provided a cash incentive (in addition to tax breaks) for people to have children who eventually will work jobs and pay into Social Security. This would help to change the reproductive strategies in America in much the same way Cash for Clunkers and the Tax Credit incentivized and influenced the consumption patters of Americans.
Of course this can easily backfire without the right restrictions. The wrong people could begin having children that they can't afford to take care of. The Bucks for Babies program would make jobs more competitive when the new wave of children reaches working age, potentially increasing unemployment. The idea needs some work, but can be considered another option to reform Social Security.
And it would be a lot less expensive than the other solution I advocate for; making Social Security a fully-funded system. This would require spending a LOT of money to fund the current retirees' benefits while the current workers begin saving for their own retirement.
Clearly something needs to be done and there are options available. It would just be nice to see Congress actually heed some of the warnings they have been given and take action on the issue rather than being so short-sighted and focused on reelection.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Death Spiral of Health Care
I've been watching and waiting on what's going to happen with the health care legislation that is currently working it's way through congress. Along the way, here is what we've seen; town hall meetings gone awry, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi calling protestors "un-American", right wing propganda, and left wingers firing back with a "tattle-tale" website.
The town hall dissidents have been entertaining, but at the same time shameful. The anti-Bush protests should have taught the Right one thing; if you are going to protest, do so with some respect. But then again, did the Bush protestors really think those years of nasty demonstrations wouldn't lead to the same type of demonstrations against President Obama? If anything, those protestors left such an impression on the Right, they began using the same tact and tactics against President Obama.
And really, Nancy Pelosi? Calling the protestors "un-American"? Did you forget how you were "energized" by the same unruly and disruptive protesting tactis used in 2006 to demonstrate against the Iraq War? But I have a name for you, Nancy. "Liar". How patriotic and American are you to accuse the CIA of lying to Congress about the use of waterboarding? Why should the American people believe a word you say now considering just two examples of you speaking out of both sides of you mouth? Don't call these people "un-American" for exercising their first amendment right. These people are yelling at the top of their lungs for their representatives in Congress to hear them and act on their demands! Isn't that the way the representative Congress is supposed to act anyways? Or do you believe you are above the demands of your constituents?
There is so much information floating around right now about the health care bill that the only way to get the actual information is to read the bill itself. I'm hesitant to trust the website President Obama created to dispell rumors about the health care bill, fearing that it contains the same propoganda the Right has been shelling out.
And really, President Obama? A tattle-tale website? I understand there is a lot of propoganda out there right now, but do you have to resort to 2nd grade tactics to make your point? How about a national address where you explain in detail what the health care bill is intended to do? Oh wait, you tried that already. How did that end, again? With a beer summit because you commented on a local matter you had no business commenting on? Fantastic.
So why is there so much drama surrounding the health care issue? Is it because no one wants people to have health coverage? I doubt that. This is a very complicated matter that will harm more people than it will help.
The economics behind this legislation are far reaching. Opponents feel that a public health option would be too competitive with private insurance companies and eventually run the private companies out. The "insurance exchange" as the Obama Administration puts it, provides "low-cost, high-quality" health insurance to families that cannot currently afford health insurance. But if this program is low-cost and high-quality, won't that result in some people switching from private or employer provided health-insurance to save some money? This is the classic death spiral taught in Economics 101 that leads to the destruction of insurance companies.
Let me explain. With a government option that costs less money than private or employer provided insurance, the healthiest individuals will switch to the government option to save money. This will decrease the "risk pool" the health insurance companies have (the non-sick subsidizing the health care costs of the sickly). When this happens, insurance premiums must go up since the healthiest have left the pool and there is less subsidized money available for the sickly in the insurance risk pool. When the premiums go up, more healthy people leave the risk pool to capitalize on the lower premiums from the government plan. This continues to happen until the insurance companies can no longer afford to provide insurance, resulting in everyone transferring to the government option; the end result being socialized medicine. Quite frankly I'm shocked the Obama administration missed this day in Economics 101 and to date has ignored this possibility.
And on top of that, is the Obama Administration anticipating a jump in the demand for the government run program? Republicans are correct to argue they didn't do such a great job with the "Cash for Clunkers" program and it's safe to assume they wouldn't with a government run health insurance program. A large increase in people joining the insurance exchange could further bog down the program and lead to long waiting times for benefit reimbursement. Government is inefficient enough as it is, let alone if program demand dramatically increases the benefit processing time.
Now I'm not saying that the Republican flow-chart detailing program benefits is necessarily correct, but I don't believe that the Democrats have taken all things into consideration. Am I saying that health care doesn't need reform? No. Health care desperately needs reform because it is entirely too expensive today. Do I think this particular plan is the best solution? Of course not. This alternative does more to harm health care today than it does to help it. Maybe with a little more work (and the Obama Administration backing off from deadlines to have the bill passed) Congress could come up with something that could minimize the death spiral of the insurance companies and at the same time provide health care to those who need it most and can't afford it.
The town hall dissidents have been entertaining, but at the same time shameful. The anti-Bush protests should have taught the Right one thing; if you are going to protest, do so with some respect. But then again, did the Bush protestors really think those years of nasty demonstrations wouldn't lead to the same type of demonstrations against President Obama? If anything, those protestors left such an impression on the Right, they began using the same tact and tactics against President Obama.
And really, Nancy Pelosi? Calling the protestors "un-American"? Did you forget how you were "energized" by the same unruly and disruptive protesting tactis used in 2006 to demonstrate against the Iraq War? But I have a name for you, Nancy. "Liar". How patriotic and American are you to accuse the CIA of lying to Congress about the use of waterboarding? Why should the American people believe a word you say now considering just two examples of you speaking out of both sides of you mouth? Don't call these people "un-American" for exercising their first amendment right. These people are yelling at the top of their lungs for their representatives in Congress to hear them and act on their demands! Isn't that the way the representative Congress is supposed to act anyways? Or do you believe you are above the demands of your constituents?
There is so much information floating around right now about the health care bill that the only way to get the actual information is to read the bill itself. I'm hesitant to trust the website President Obama created to dispell rumors about the health care bill, fearing that it contains the same propoganda the Right has been shelling out.
And really, President Obama? A tattle-tale website? I understand there is a lot of propoganda out there right now, but do you have to resort to 2nd grade tactics to make your point? How about a national address where you explain in detail what the health care bill is intended to do? Oh wait, you tried that already. How did that end, again? With a beer summit because you commented on a local matter you had no business commenting on? Fantastic.
So why is there so much drama surrounding the health care issue? Is it because no one wants people to have health coverage? I doubt that. This is a very complicated matter that will harm more people than it will help.
The economics behind this legislation are far reaching. Opponents feel that a public health option would be too competitive with private insurance companies and eventually run the private companies out. The "insurance exchange" as the Obama Administration puts it, provides "low-cost, high-quality" health insurance to families that cannot currently afford health insurance. But if this program is low-cost and high-quality, won't that result in some people switching from private or employer provided health-insurance to save some money? This is the classic death spiral taught in Economics 101 that leads to the destruction of insurance companies.
Let me explain. With a government option that costs less money than private or employer provided insurance, the healthiest individuals will switch to the government option to save money. This will decrease the "risk pool" the health insurance companies have (the non-sick subsidizing the health care costs of the sickly). When this happens, insurance premiums must go up since the healthiest have left the pool and there is less subsidized money available for the sickly in the insurance risk pool. When the premiums go up, more healthy people leave the risk pool to capitalize on the lower premiums from the government plan. This continues to happen until the insurance companies can no longer afford to provide insurance, resulting in everyone transferring to the government option; the end result being socialized medicine. Quite frankly I'm shocked the Obama administration missed this day in Economics 101 and to date has ignored this possibility.
And on top of that, is the Obama Administration anticipating a jump in the demand for the government run program? Republicans are correct to argue they didn't do such a great job with the "Cash for Clunkers" program and it's safe to assume they wouldn't with a government run health insurance program. A large increase in people joining the insurance exchange could further bog down the program and lead to long waiting times for benefit reimbursement. Government is inefficient enough as it is, let alone if program demand dramatically increases the benefit processing time.
Now I'm not saying that the Republican flow-chart detailing program benefits is necessarily correct, but I don't believe that the Democrats have taken all things into consideration. Am I saying that health care doesn't need reform? No. Health care desperately needs reform because it is entirely too expensive today. Do I think this particular plan is the best solution? Of course not. This alternative does more to harm health care today than it does to help it. Maybe with a little more work (and the Obama Administration backing off from deadlines to have the bill passed) Congress could come up with something that could minimize the death spiral of the insurance companies and at the same time provide health care to those who need it most and can't afford it.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The Only Thing Worse Than Beating A Dead Horse is Betting On One
Recently the Kentucky General Assembly voted not to allow slot machines and other gaming to accompany horse racing. This was a bad move in my opinion.
Kentucky has a proud heritage of horse breeding and horse racing. I can remember going to races at Keeneland Downs in Lexington, Kentucky and seeing the immaculate grounds at Church Hill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky. The Kentucky Derby is one of the most watched cultural-sporting events in the U.S.
However, the General Assembly's decision to not allow gaming at race tracks is hurting the purse winnings in Kentucky's horse racing and the overall talent that races in Kentucky. Our Kentucky tradition is under fire from neighboring states that allow facilities to offer horse racing as well as casinos.
Our neighboring states, most notably, Indiana and Pennsylvania, have what are called "racinos" (horse racing and casinos combined in one central location). These racinos divert winnings from their casinos to their horse races in order to offer better purses for the riders and horse owners. When horse owners, breeders, and experienced riders catch wind of these bigger purses, they leave Kentucky and follow the money. Kentucky horse racing officials have already began reporting losses from the migration of breeders and riders to other states.
Plain and simple, Indiana racinos attract business from Kentucky and Ohio is theatening to take some more business from us too if they open up their own racinos. These are dollars that help our state economy. The General Assembly is allowing these funds, the funds that Kentucky needs right now during the economic collapse, to go to our neighboring states. Instead of these dollars being reinvested in Kentucky, they travel across the Ohio river and are reinvested in Indiana or in whichever state these dollars are spent. Could you imagine if these dollars stayed here in Kentucky? How many jobs would they create? How much tax revenue would they generate to the state of Kentucky?
By allowing racinos in the state, Kentucky can better compete with Indiana and Ohio. Indiana is already beginning to fear the actions that neighboring states will take regarding gaming as their state revenue depends heavily on their government-sanctioned casinos. Indiana has long said that the state's loss of gaming revenue from state competition is not a matter of "if it will happen" but "when it will happen". Their prophecy is coming true as both Kentucky and Ohio have considered allowing racino legislation.
Most people who are opposed to allowing expanded gaming at horse racing facilities argue that gambling is regressive (disproportionately affects the poor) and that including gaming at such harrowed places like Keeneland and Church Hill Downs will compromise the beauty of these places.
In regards to the first argument, I personally don't feel that government should take a paternalistic approach to making laws. That is to say that government should not act like a parent and decide what is best for it's citizens. I have always appreciated the tenets of Social Darwinism (not to be confused with Darwinism); only the most resourceful survive in this world. In my opinion, if you are foolish enough to go out and gamble away all of your paycheck or wager and lose your house on a game of roulette or black jack, that is your decision and you should have to pay the consequences, not myself or anyone else for that matter.
I know that opens a Pandora's box of responses, especially if the actions of said addicted gambler also affect members his or her family. In this situation, I do not think those family members should be punished equally for the actions of the addicted gambler, otherwise warranting some form of assistance.
If people are concerned about the beauty of these historic racing sites, there are ways to provide gaming and horse racing at one location, but still not compromise these buildings. Establishing casinos on site (but not attached to) of these historic places will provide casinos near the horse racing action and at the same time leave the racing facilities fully intact and without alteration. And besides, at least gambling will save these historic horse racing sites by drawing back those breeders, owners, and riders that left in the first place.
I take pride in my Kentucky heritage, especially around Derby time. When people think "Kentucky", they think bourbon, basketball, and thorough-bred horses. Bourbon has remained unchanged since it was first created in Bourbon County, Kentucky in the 18th Century. With the addition of Coach John Calipari to the Kentucky basketball program, Kentucky basketball is back on track to being the dynasty it once was. With the addition of gambling at horse racing sites, Kentucky can work to preserve it's proud heritage of horse racing and take back what our neighboring states have stolen from us; our thorough-breds, our breeders, our riders, and our money. This is not an issue of gambling, this is an issue of Kentucky Pride.
Kentucky has a proud heritage of horse breeding and horse racing. I can remember going to races at Keeneland Downs in Lexington, Kentucky and seeing the immaculate grounds at Church Hill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky. The Kentucky Derby is one of the most watched cultural-sporting events in the U.S.
However, the General Assembly's decision to not allow gaming at race tracks is hurting the purse winnings in Kentucky's horse racing and the overall talent that races in Kentucky. Our Kentucky tradition is under fire from neighboring states that allow facilities to offer horse racing as well as casinos.
Our neighboring states, most notably, Indiana and Pennsylvania, have what are called "racinos" (horse racing and casinos combined in one central location). These racinos divert winnings from their casinos to their horse races in order to offer better purses for the riders and horse owners. When horse owners, breeders, and experienced riders catch wind of these bigger purses, they leave Kentucky and follow the money. Kentucky horse racing officials have already began reporting losses from the migration of breeders and riders to other states.
Plain and simple, Indiana racinos attract business from Kentucky and Ohio is theatening to take some more business from us too if they open up their own racinos. These are dollars that help our state economy. The General Assembly is allowing these funds, the funds that Kentucky needs right now during the economic collapse, to go to our neighboring states. Instead of these dollars being reinvested in Kentucky, they travel across the Ohio river and are reinvested in Indiana or in whichever state these dollars are spent. Could you imagine if these dollars stayed here in Kentucky? How many jobs would they create? How much tax revenue would they generate to the state of Kentucky?
By allowing racinos in the state, Kentucky can better compete with Indiana and Ohio. Indiana is already beginning to fear the actions that neighboring states will take regarding gaming as their state revenue depends heavily on their government-sanctioned casinos. Indiana has long said that the state's loss of gaming revenue from state competition is not a matter of "if it will happen" but "when it will happen". Their prophecy is coming true as both Kentucky and Ohio have considered allowing racino legislation.
Most people who are opposed to allowing expanded gaming at horse racing facilities argue that gambling is regressive (disproportionately affects the poor) and that including gaming at such harrowed places like Keeneland and Church Hill Downs will compromise the beauty of these places.
In regards to the first argument, I personally don't feel that government should take a paternalistic approach to making laws. That is to say that government should not act like a parent and decide what is best for it's citizens. I have always appreciated the tenets of Social Darwinism (not to be confused with Darwinism); only the most resourceful survive in this world. In my opinion, if you are foolish enough to go out and gamble away all of your paycheck or wager and lose your house on a game of roulette or black jack, that is your decision and you should have to pay the consequences, not myself or anyone else for that matter.
I know that opens a Pandora's box of responses, especially if the actions of said addicted gambler also affect members his or her family. In this situation, I do not think those family members should be punished equally for the actions of the addicted gambler, otherwise warranting some form of assistance.
If people are concerned about the beauty of these historic racing sites, there are ways to provide gaming and horse racing at one location, but still not compromise these buildings. Establishing casinos on site (but not attached to) of these historic places will provide casinos near the horse racing action and at the same time leave the racing facilities fully intact and without alteration. And besides, at least gambling will save these historic horse racing sites by drawing back those breeders, owners, and riders that left in the first place.
I take pride in my Kentucky heritage, especially around Derby time. When people think "Kentucky", they think bourbon, basketball, and thorough-bred horses. Bourbon has remained unchanged since it was first created in Bourbon County, Kentucky in the 18th Century. With the addition of Coach John Calipari to the Kentucky basketball program, Kentucky basketball is back on track to being the dynasty it once was. With the addition of gambling at horse racing sites, Kentucky can work to preserve it's proud heritage of horse racing and take back what our neighboring states have stolen from us; our thorough-breds, our breeders, our riders, and our money. This is not an issue of gambling, this is an issue of Kentucky Pride.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Playing Catch-Up
Since it's been so long since I've had the time to write, I thought I would briefly touch on some of the more important events that have taken place since my last column.
Sarah Palin is offering her services to any candidate who believes in the following; (1) limited government, (2) energy Independence, (3) strong national defense, and (4) budget restraint. School board elections may never be the same. Honestly, given her toxicity on the campaign trail, I honestly can't see her being hired by anyone in the near future. Don't get me wrong, she's a very noble woman, but I believe the overall sentiment is that she was a political experiment from the McCain campaign and would today hurt a campaign more than she would help it (depending on your constituency). I respect her and her achievements, but resigning from the state of Alaska (where the people love her) in order to play a national role for the GOP was just a bad strategy on her part. I doubt she will have any influence in helping the GOP win back some seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election.
Speaking of GOP leaders, there are none. Dick Cheney, maybe, but since he has been characterized as such a mysterious and evil man in the media, I would hardly consider him a leader for the party. Besides that, with the exception of his occasional rants about something the Democrats are doing, he is largely surreptitious and has already publicly stated he is not interested in holding office again.
And if people think Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, then please, wake up. Smell the coffee. Pull your heard out of your hind-quarters. This man is so radical and impractical in his thoughts and speech, he stands as much chance of leading the GOP as he does leading a mule to water. Rush, if you're reading, I know you have to kill a lot of time on your talk show, but do you have to always make such incendiary remarks as to ignite the entire Democratic party and even parts of your own party against you?
And then there is South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford. He was one of the best prospects the GOP had for a real leadership position, if not a 2012 run against President Obama. And then we all got to read (or hear) his love letters to his Argentinian mistress he described as his "sole mate". (Note: Intentionally spelled "sole mate" because he told his staff he was going hiking in the Appalachian Mountains and then turned up in Argentina.) So much for the party of family values. However, kudos to Governor Sanford to admit the affair publicly (even though he was caught) but we didn't need all the details he provided us. Simply put, he should just know when to shut up so as to not bore everyone with details.
So GOP leadership is few and in-between. But there has been talk of at least one last current politician who is in the running for the leadership position. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has a clean record when it comes to his personal life, has a state that has had a balanced budget (even this year during the economic collapse), won reelection this past November in a landslide victory during an election year when Democrats performed very well, and has demonstrated excellent executive budgeting. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bush and was given the nickname "The Blade" due to his tendencies to slash budgets.
But there's just one problem. He too has stated he will not run for the Presidency. However, he has began taking more of a leadership role for the party by speaking out against policies and laws introduced by President Obama and implemented by the Democratic controlled Congress. At least someone is starting to take on a leadership role, and who knows, maybe he will rethink the whole Presidency thing in the next year or two.
And now onto different things. Judge Sotomayor is currently undergoing her confirmation hearings to replace Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. These judges are required to act impartially when deciding on cases before the Court. There are no other courts to appeal to and the Supreme Court has been stereotyped as making law from the bench. Essentially, the rulings that are made on the court become precedent and subsequently law (at least until they are overturned later). This being the case, we should be trying to focus on appointing justices that are the definition of impartial, but President Obama stated he selected Sotomayor because she favors minorities, not because she is a minority herself (or a woman for that matter). This is further evidenced by her decision to uphold the New Haven, Connecticut case where promotions were denied to white firefighters because the promotion exam did not score enough promotions for minorities.
I know there are Justices on the court who decide cases based on their own political ideology (Justice Scalia, most notably). But if President Obama is the hope and change the nation needs, should he resort to the same practices previous Presidents have used? Shouldn't he be trying to place truly impartial judges on the highest court in the land? Had President Obama just said he selected Sotomayor to sit in Justice Ginsburg's spot in order to retain diversity on the Supreme court, I would have been 100% okay with that. Instead the whole comment about favoring minorities, in my mind, has discredited any impartiality Sotomayor might have previously had.
Lastly, President Obama is ready to veto his own defense spending bill. Why? He wants to stop additional acquisitions of the F-22 Raptor fighter planes. His reasoning behind the request; F-22's require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. President Obama has finally begun using some fiscal prudence, except he's exercising it on our defense. Now, here's what's wrong with this logic; the F-16's are an aging fleet. They require about as much, if not more, maintenance and money for their flight time because they are 30+ years old. Also, the F-16's just do not have the capabilities the F-22's have. The F-22's are made to meet the war fighter needs of today, not during the Cold War. War fighting has changed quite a lot since then.
I understand President Obama has only asked that no additional planes be manufactured in his plan, but the F-22's just became operational in the mid 2000's. We don't yet have enough to sustain replacing the aged fleet of the F-16's. Essentially, the Department of Defense needs these planes. Cutting production on these planes will also cost Lockheed Martin and Boeing thousands of jobs as they have assembly plants that make F-22 parts in 40 of the 50 states. Granted, I know this will probably not pass Congress, but President Obama's logic is again flawed here. The last thing we should be doing is negatively impacting our military and cutting jobs.
Sarah Palin is offering her services to any candidate who believes in the following; (1) limited government, (2) energy Independence, (3) strong national defense, and (4) budget restraint. School board elections may never be the same. Honestly, given her toxicity on the campaign trail, I honestly can't see her being hired by anyone in the near future. Don't get me wrong, she's a very noble woman, but I believe the overall sentiment is that she was a political experiment from the McCain campaign and would today hurt a campaign more than she would help it (depending on your constituency). I respect her and her achievements, but resigning from the state of Alaska (where the people love her) in order to play a national role for the GOP was just a bad strategy on her part. I doubt she will have any influence in helping the GOP win back some seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election.
Speaking of GOP leaders, there are none. Dick Cheney, maybe, but since he has been characterized as such a mysterious and evil man in the media, I would hardly consider him a leader for the party. Besides that, with the exception of his occasional rants about something the Democrats are doing, he is largely surreptitious and has already publicly stated he is not interested in holding office again.
And if people think Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, then please, wake up. Smell the coffee. Pull your heard out of your hind-quarters. This man is so radical and impractical in his thoughts and speech, he stands as much chance of leading the GOP as he does leading a mule to water. Rush, if you're reading, I know you have to kill a lot of time on your talk show, but do you have to always make such incendiary remarks as to ignite the entire Democratic party and even parts of your own party against you?
And then there is South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford. He was one of the best prospects the GOP had for a real leadership position, if not a 2012 run against President Obama. And then we all got to read (or hear) his love letters to his Argentinian mistress he described as his "sole mate". (Note: Intentionally spelled "sole mate" because he told his staff he was going hiking in the Appalachian Mountains and then turned up in Argentina.) So much for the party of family values. However, kudos to Governor Sanford to admit the affair publicly (even though he was caught) but we didn't need all the details he provided us. Simply put, he should just know when to shut up so as to not bore everyone with details.
So GOP leadership is few and in-between. But there has been talk of at least one last current politician who is in the running for the leadership position. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has a clean record when it comes to his personal life, has a state that has had a balanced budget (even this year during the economic collapse), won reelection this past November in a landslide victory during an election year when Democrats performed very well, and has demonstrated excellent executive budgeting. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bush and was given the nickname "The Blade" due to his tendencies to slash budgets.
But there's just one problem. He too has stated he will not run for the Presidency. However, he has began taking more of a leadership role for the party by speaking out against policies and laws introduced by President Obama and implemented by the Democratic controlled Congress. At least someone is starting to take on a leadership role, and who knows, maybe he will rethink the whole Presidency thing in the next year or two.
And now onto different things. Judge Sotomayor is currently undergoing her confirmation hearings to replace Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. These judges are required to act impartially when deciding on cases before the Court. There are no other courts to appeal to and the Supreme Court has been stereotyped as making law from the bench. Essentially, the rulings that are made on the court become precedent and subsequently law (at least until they are overturned later). This being the case, we should be trying to focus on appointing justices that are the definition of impartial, but President Obama stated he selected Sotomayor because she favors minorities, not because she is a minority herself (or a woman for that matter). This is further evidenced by her decision to uphold the New Haven, Connecticut case where promotions were denied to white firefighters because the promotion exam did not score enough promotions for minorities.
I know there are Justices on the court who decide cases based on their own political ideology (Justice Scalia, most notably). But if President Obama is the hope and change the nation needs, should he resort to the same practices previous Presidents have used? Shouldn't he be trying to place truly impartial judges on the highest court in the land? Had President Obama just said he selected Sotomayor to sit in Justice Ginsburg's spot in order to retain diversity on the Supreme court, I would have been 100% okay with that. Instead the whole comment about favoring minorities, in my mind, has discredited any impartiality Sotomayor might have previously had.
Lastly, President Obama is ready to veto his own defense spending bill. Why? He wants to stop additional acquisitions of the F-22 Raptor fighter planes. His reasoning behind the request; F-22's require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. President Obama has finally begun using some fiscal prudence, except he's exercising it on our defense. Now, here's what's wrong with this logic; the F-16's are an aging fleet. They require about as much, if not more, maintenance and money for their flight time because they are 30+ years old. Also, the F-16's just do not have the capabilities the F-22's have. The F-22's are made to meet the war fighter needs of today, not during the Cold War. War fighting has changed quite a lot since then.
I understand President Obama has only asked that no additional planes be manufactured in his plan, but the F-22's just became operational in the mid 2000's. We don't yet have enough to sustain replacing the aged fleet of the F-16's. Essentially, the Department of Defense needs these planes. Cutting production on these planes will also cost Lockheed Martin and Boeing thousands of jobs as they have assembly plants that make F-22 parts in 40 of the 50 states. Granted, I know this will probably not pass Congress, but President Obama's logic is again flawed here. The last thing we should be doing is negatively impacting our military and cutting jobs.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Taxed Beyond Belief
President Obama announced plans this week to make national health care available to American families. He has worked with the House Democrats to begin crafting a bill that would finance the costs of his plan. The price tag on this plan is an estimated $1 Trillion to $1.6 Trillion dollars over 10 years.
How does he plan on financing his plan? Increases in taxes. During his campaign, he promised he would only increase taxes on the wealthiest families in the U.S.; but not even the proposed 2% income tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 alone will pay for his plan. The House Democrats have been throwing around additional revenue sources including (1) collecting a 10 cent per can soft drink tax, (2) collecting a 3% new employer payroll tax on health care expenditures, (3) collecting taxes on employer-provided benefits above specified levels, (4) increasing payroll taxes for Medicare and Medicaid, and (5) implementing a 1.5% national sales tax.
Aren't we taxed beyond belief already? The proposed taxes will affect everyone. Let me say that again; everyone, not just the wealthy. This bill will take more money out of everyone's pocket before the money is ever deposited into your account (with an increase in the Medicare and Medicaid tax) and then will take more money out of your pocket if you have to pay an additional 1.5% on everything you buy.
My wife does like her diet sodas. Should I really have to pay an additional 10 cents for each can of Diet Coke that we buy? That's an additional $2.40 per case. But I wont pay all of the tax. The tax will have the intended consequence of decreasing the amount of soft drinks people consume. So according to economics, this tax will decrease demand for soft drinks, which will also decrease the retail price of soft drinks in order to maintain pre-tax demand. Essentially, the consumer and the producer (Coca-Cola for example) of the product will both "eat" part of the tax. It's just another way to hurt business in America.
I assume with Middlesboro having it's own Coca-Cola plant, this will definitely have a negative impact on the local economy. I mean, how many baseball teams has Coca-Cola sponsored for the youth of the area? Countless. How much money have they reinvested in the community? Tons. So now with this potential additional tax on Coca-Cola's primary product, what will happen with their philanthropy in the area? Will it just decrease their overall charitable giving or will Coca-Cola no longer be able to afford to continue their philanthropy? What impact will this have on schools that rely on vending contracts with soft-drink companies to supplement their operating budget? A negative one, I assure you.
The tax on employer provided benefits will have a similar effect. Implementing a tax on employer-provided benefits (something that has never been done) will help to increase the costs of employer provided health care. Employers will not eat this tax, but rather pass cost increases to employees through higher health care premiums. This is a tax on those who were able to find a good job that included fringe benefits.
My biggest complaint with this plan is that President Obama and the Democratic party are planning on overhauling the total health care system to ensure those individuals who fit in the gap (between those covered by Medicaid and Medicare and those with employer provided benefits) have health insurance coverage. This is a very noble idea, but I think the President can utilize currently existing health care options to fill this gap.
There has already been talk in the Senate Finance Committee of making federal subsidies available to help families who are up to 300% above the federal poverty level purchase health insurance (an attempt to garner Republican support).
In my opinion, a brilliant alternative would be to provide federal incentives for states to work in conjunction with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand Medicaid coverage to those who fall somewhere in the gap (even up to 300 or 400% of the federal poverty level). Some states have already taken this initiative and moved close to the 300% FPL benchmark. Providing incentives for states to take this route will allow states to provide additional coverage through preexisting programs and help minimize any administrative costs for a completely new federal program. Costs would further be minimized for a national health care program when you include the states that already offer an expanded Medicaid program.
And a quick note about the program; much like the way private or employer-provider insurance companies operate, any expanded Medicaid program is normally partially financed with user fees and copays that are determined on a sliding-scale (or income-based) basis. This would also target the users of an expanded health care program rather than forcing non-users to fund the program. Further, states normally fund their expanded Medicaid programs by diverting Tobacco Master Settlement Aggreement dollars and implementing increases in sin taxes. This further helps to target those most likely to use the health care system.
And much like President Obama has been advocating, providing coverage to those without health care will help reduce the health care system's overall costs (specifically unpaid trips to the emergency room for basic health care needs).
We can't teach people how to better manage their money and provide for essentials first, but at least with an option like this we can make it easier for those with limited income to obtain coverage, reduce the costs of health care, and at the same time minimize the total costs to the American tax payers.
How does he plan on financing his plan? Increases in taxes. During his campaign, he promised he would only increase taxes on the wealthiest families in the U.S.; but not even the proposed 2% income tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 alone will pay for his plan. The House Democrats have been throwing around additional revenue sources including (1) collecting a 10 cent per can soft drink tax, (2) collecting a 3% new employer payroll tax on health care expenditures, (3) collecting taxes on employer-provided benefits above specified levels, (4) increasing payroll taxes for Medicare and Medicaid, and (5) implementing a 1.5% national sales tax.
Aren't we taxed beyond belief already? The proposed taxes will affect everyone. Let me say that again; everyone, not just the wealthy. This bill will take more money out of everyone's pocket before the money is ever deposited into your account (with an increase in the Medicare and Medicaid tax) and then will take more money out of your pocket if you have to pay an additional 1.5% on everything you buy.
My wife does like her diet sodas. Should I really have to pay an additional 10 cents for each can of Diet Coke that we buy? That's an additional $2.40 per case. But I wont pay all of the tax. The tax will have the intended consequence of decreasing the amount of soft drinks people consume. So according to economics, this tax will decrease demand for soft drinks, which will also decrease the retail price of soft drinks in order to maintain pre-tax demand. Essentially, the consumer and the producer (Coca-Cola for example) of the product will both "eat" part of the tax. It's just another way to hurt business in America.
I assume with Middlesboro having it's own Coca-Cola plant, this will definitely have a negative impact on the local economy. I mean, how many baseball teams has Coca-Cola sponsored for the youth of the area? Countless. How much money have they reinvested in the community? Tons. So now with this potential additional tax on Coca-Cola's primary product, what will happen with their philanthropy in the area? Will it just decrease their overall charitable giving or will Coca-Cola no longer be able to afford to continue their philanthropy? What impact will this have on schools that rely on vending contracts with soft-drink companies to supplement their operating budget? A negative one, I assure you.
The tax on employer provided benefits will have a similar effect. Implementing a tax on employer-provided benefits (something that has never been done) will help to increase the costs of employer provided health care. Employers will not eat this tax, but rather pass cost increases to employees through higher health care premiums. This is a tax on those who were able to find a good job that included fringe benefits.
My biggest complaint with this plan is that President Obama and the Democratic party are planning on overhauling the total health care system to ensure those individuals who fit in the gap (between those covered by Medicaid and Medicare and those with employer provided benefits) have health insurance coverage. This is a very noble idea, but I think the President can utilize currently existing health care options to fill this gap.
There has already been talk in the Senate Finance Committee of making federal subsidies available to help families who are up to 300% above the federal poverty level purchase health insurance (an attempt to garner Republican support).
In my opinion, a brilliant alternative would be to provide federal incentives for states to work in conjunction with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand Medicaid coverage to those who fall somewhere in the gap (even up to 300 or 400% of the federal poverty level). Some states have already taken this initiative and moved close to the 300% FPL benchmark. Providing incentives for states to take this route will allow states to provide additional coverage through preexisting programs and help minimize any administrative costs for a completely new federal program. Costs would further be minimized for a national health care program when you include the states that already offer an expanded Medicaid program.
And a quick note about the program; much like the way private or employer-provider insurance companies operate, any expanded Medicaid program is normally partially financed with user fees and copays that are determined on a sliding-scale (or income-based) basis. This would also target the users of an expanded health care program rather than forcing non-users to fund the program. Further, states normally fund their expanded Medicaid programs by diverting Tobacco Master Settlement Aggreement dollars and implementing increases in sin taxes. This further helps to target those most likely to use the health care system.
And much like President Obama has been advocating, providing coverage to those without health care will help reduce the health care system's overall costs (specifically unpaid trips to the emergency room for basic health care needs).
We can't teach people how to better manage their money and provide for essentials first, but at least with an option like this we can make it easier for those with limited income to obtain coverage, reduce the costs of health care, and at the same time minimize the total costs to the American tax payers.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Saving or Creating False Results
It was announced this week that President Obama would expedite stimulus spending to help our economy. However, the President has already began touting that his stimulus spending and actions have "saved or created" 150,000 US jobs.
This has become the President's catch phrase for what his stimulus is doing for America. In his most recent address this week, the President plans to expedite stimulus spending to "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs in addition to the 150,000 mentioned above. That's 750,000 estimated jobs! President Obama's goal for the recovery plan is to "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years". What an ambitious leader!
So that's the news we've been hearing from the media this past week. "Save and Create" has captured the hearts and minds of the American people and President Obama has emerged as the FDR of today's generation.
Except he hasn't. This standard, "save and create" is fiction. There is simply no way to measure how many jobs have been "saved" from stimulus spending. No one measures jobs saved; not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Greg Mankiw, a former Bush economic advisor, calls this term a "non-measurable metric". Here's why: You can measure job growth or losses between two points in time.
Tell me, how would you even begin to measure how many jobs have been saved? You can't. No one can. Not even the scholars know why the President has decided to use this term, well, all the scholars that are rooted in fact and metrics. Even the New York Times, one of the most blatantly liberal newspapers, has noted that Obama's claims are "...based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs".
The political scientists of the world think it's an act of political genius. President Obama has managed to create a metric where he cannot be wrong. And the worst part is, the media has yet to question it. The reason why? They swoon on every comment he makes and take it as the Liberal Gospel. So much for acting as a watchdog on government, right?
Even members of his own party are disturbed by his metrics. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula. He was quoted as saying, "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say... it would've lost 5.5 million jobs... You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
How does this work? Let me give you an example. Here is where we are at today. Since the passing of the stimulus, we have lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment hit 9.4% (but Obama told us that passing the stimulus would result in unemployment not exceeding 8%). So given how bad this period was, President Obama has instead spun the situation and claimed he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. Pretty good spin in my opinion. But I don't want to get too dizzy. That was just a small one. If we end up hitting 15% unemployment and lose 2.5 million jobs, will the President insist that had it not been for his actions, we would have surely lost 7 million jobs, thus saving 4.5 million American jobs? He can; using this measure at least.
Something is wrong when the President is using a formula that is pure fiction. It presents a double-standard because had former President Bush used the same measure, he would have surely been hounded by the media. Tony Fratto, a successful and well respected communication analyst who worked for the Bush administration has even stated, "You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts", but this has not been the case.
I remember studying the liberal media in college and thinking to myself, 'Surely it's not that bad'. Well I was wrong. I thank my lucky stars that there are conservative media outlets available out there because the press is supposed to act as a government watchdog. When the liberal media is too busy swooning over the President, some things (the things that often matter) are left to slip through the cracks. Whether or not you dislike a particular media outlet (or all media outlets) that are slanted opposite of your political ideology, they serve as a vital component of our government. I would be a fool to think they are always righteous in their pursuits because sometimes they can also take things a little too far or not perform as they should.
This has become the President's catch phrase for what his stimulus is doing for America. In his most recent address this week, the President plans to expedite stimulus spending to "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs in addition to the 150,000 mentioned above. That's 750,000 estimated jobs! President Obama's goal for the recovery plan is to "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years". What an ambitious leader!
So that's the news we've been hearing from the media this past week. "Save and Create" has captured the hearts and minds of the American people and President Obama has emerged as the FDR of today's generation.
Except he hasn't. This standard, "save and create" is fiction. There is simply no way to measure how many jobs have been "saved" from stimulus spending. No one measures jobs saved; not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Greg Mankiw, a former Bush economic advisor, calls this term a "non-measurable metric". Here's why: You can measure job growth or losses between two points in time.
Tell me, how would you even begin to measure how many jobs have been saved? You can't. No one can. Not even the scholars know why the President has decided to use this term, well, all the scholars that are rooted in fact and metrics. Even the New York Times, one of the most blatantly liberal newspapers, has noted that Obama's claims are "...based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs".
The political scientists of the world think it's an act of political genius. President Obama has managed to create a metric where he cannot be wrong. And the worst part is, the media has yet to question it. The reason why? They swoon on every comment he makes and take it as the Liberal Gospel. So much for acting as a watchdog on government, right?
Even members of his own party are disturbed by his metrics. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula. He was quoted as saying, "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say... it would've lost 5.5 million jobs... You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
How does this work? Let me give you an example. Here is where we are at today. Since the passing of the stimulus, we have lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment hit 9.4% (but Obama told us that passing the stimulus would result in unemployment not exceeding 8%). So given how bad this period was, President Obama has instead spun the situation and claimed he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. Pretty good spin in my opinion. But I don't want to get too dizzy. That was just a small one. If we end up hitting 15% unemployment and lose 2.5 million jobs, will the President insist that had it not been for his actions, we would have surely lost 7 million jobs, thus saving 4.5 million American jobs? He can; using this measure at least.
Something is wrong when the President is using a formula that is pure fiction. It presents a double-standard because had former President Bush used the same measure, he would have surely been hounded by the media. Tony Fratto, a successful and well respected communication analyst who worked for the Bush administration has even stated, "You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts", but this has not been the case.
I remember studying the liberal media in college and thinking to myself, 'Surely it's not that bad'. Well I was wrong. I thank my lucky stars that there are conservative media outlets available out there because the press is supposed to act as a government watchdog. When the liberal media is too busy swooning over the President, some things (the things that often matter) are left to slip through the cracks. Whether or not you dislike a particular media outlet (or all media outlets) that are slanted opposite of your political ideology, they serve as a vital component of our government. I would be a fool to think they are always righteous in their pursuits because sometimes they can also take things a little too far or not perform as they should.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Chrysler-Gate
GM and Chrysler have been the two automotive companies that have come under heavy government scrutiny since receiving bailout money. The companies are running out of time to offer a restructuring plan to the Obama administration. The two seem destined for government controlled bankruptcy and closings.
Since March, President Obama has said that these companies would not be "wards of the state", but would be forced to stand on their own. But getting this far has cost the American taxpayers close to $28 Million. Needless to say, the federal government has invested quite a deal into the restructuring of GM and Chrysler and would have over 70% control of the company.
The President seems to be making a lot of decisions about the future and direction of these two companies. President Obama has already asked the CEO of GM to step down, whereas Chrysler's CEO volunteered to step down. President Obama has asked the restructured GM and Chrysler to implement tougher fuel standards.
Capitalism allows businesses to be free from government control and allows for survival of the fittest (only those companies that are profitable will continue to exist, whereas inefficient companies will close down). By coddling these companies, President Obama and President Bush have violated the basic rules of capitalism. If these companies were that inefficient, they should have been allowed to close regardless of how many workers would have been affected. Their closings would have allowed other businesses to capture more of the market share and employ workers displaced by the closings of GM and Chrysler when the economy rebounded.
Our founding fathers put in place a very elaborate political system because they knew that absolute power corrupts, absolutely. President Obama's Automotive Task Force, heading the Chrysler restructuring, has engaged in some less-than-honorable practices of patronage.
There are an estimated 789 dealerships that are set to close by June 9th which will result in approximately 38,000 jobs lost. This during a time when President Obama has been trying to create jobs to alleviate the high unemployment (which, as of Thursday, unemployment benefit requests dramatically decreased; a welcomed sign of the recession's end).
Chrysler President, Jim Press, has said that the decision on which dealerships to close and which would remain open "really wasn't Chrysler's" as the company is under pressure from President Obama's Automotive Task Force. Many of the closing dealers have been reported to donate large amounts of money to the Republican party. One particular dealer "conveniently" having his dealership closed is U.S. Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL), whereas Mack McLarty (former Clinton White House Chief of Staff) and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television), both strong Democratic supporters, have been allowed to keep their dealerships.
U.S. Representative Aaron Shock (R-IL) has called for an investigation into the Obama Administration's methodology in determining which dealerships stay open and which close.
There is also a strong correlation between dealership closings and the congressional voting districts that President Obama did not carry in the 2008 Presidential election. Texas and West Virginia are getting hit hard, whereas the Republican districts in Florida are also seeing some of their dealerships close. The blue states Obama carried during the 2008 election seem to be receiving the better end of the deal.
There is no doubt in my mind that Chrysler needs to close some dealerships, but if the report from Chrysler President Jim Press is true, then the Obama Administration has unethically began closing dealerships in areas that are traditionally Republican. He may have done so out of spite for these Republican districts or to increase the unemployed that can benefit from some of his programs, helping him fair better in the 2012 election.
To me, this is the primary reason to keep the government out of business, no matter what the cost. When the President's friends start to make out better than enemies, the whole market is at a disadvantage (regardless of who is in office). And once again, President Obama, you have managed to show us that you are more of the same, and the promise of "Hope" and "Change" was just a ruse. The liberal media has yet to catch onto this story, and I doubt they ever will.
So, you heard it here first. I beat Fox News to it. And I know I'm going to catch flack for it on the online edition, but that's okay. I have always found it amazing how people will write such negative and nasty things online when they get to use an anonymous screen-name to hide their identities. I'm just reporting the truth, whether or not you want to hear it.
Since March, President Obama has said that these companies would not be "wards of the state", but would be forced to stand on their own. But getting this far has cost the American taxpayers close to $28 Million. Needless to say, the federal government has invested quite a deal into the restructuring of GM and Chrysler and would have over 70% control of the company.
The President seems to be making a lot of decisions about the future and direction of these two companies. President Obama has already asked the CEO of GM to step down, whereas Chrysler's CEO volunteered to step down. President Obama has asked the restructured GM and Chrysler to implement tougher fuel standards.
Capitalism allows businesses to be free from government control and allows for survival of the fittest (only those companies that are profitable will continue to exist, whereas inefficient companies will close down). By coddling these companies, President Obama and President Bush have violated the basic rules of capitalism. If these companies were that inefficient, they should have been allowed to close regardless of how many workers would have been affected. Their closings would have allowed other businesses to capture more of the market share and employ workers displaced by the closings of GM and Chrysler when the economy rebounded.
Our founding fathers put in place a very elaborate political system because they knew that absolute power corrupts, absolutely. President Obama's Automotive Task Force, heading the Chrysler restructuring, has engaged in some less-than-honorable practices of patronage.
There are an estimated 789 dealerships that are set to close by June 9th which will result in approximately 38,000 jobs lost. This during a time when President Obama has been trying to create jobs to alleviate the high unemployment (which, as of Thursday, unemployment benefit requests dramatically decreased; a welcomed sign of the recession's end).
Chrysler President, Jim Press, has said that the decision on which dealerships to close and which would remain open "really wasn't Chrysler's" as the company is under pressure from President Obama's Automotive Task Force. Many of the closing dealers have been reported to donate large amounts of money to the Republican party. One particular dealer "conveniently" having his dealership closed is U.S. Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL), whereas Mack McLarty (former Clinton White House Chief of Staff) and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television), both strong Democratic supporters, have been allowed to keep their dealerships.
U.S. Representative Aaron Shock (R-IL) has called for an investigation into the Obama Administration's methodology in determining which dealerships stay open and which close.
There is also a strong correlation between dealership closings and the congressional voting districts that President Obama did not carry in the 2008 Presidential election. Texas and West Virginia are getting hit hard, whereas the Republican districts in Florida are also seeing some of their dealerships close. The blue states Obama carried during the 2008 election seem to be receiving the better end of the deal.
There is no doubt in my mind that Chrysler needs to close some dealerships, but if the report from Chrysler President Jim Press is true, then the Obama Administration has unethically began closing dealerships in areas that are traditionally Republican. He may have done so out of spite for these Republican districts or to increase the unemployed that can benefit from some of his programs, helping him fair better in the 2012 election.
To me, this is the primary reason to keep the government out of business, no matter what the cost. When the President's friends start to make out better than enemies, the whole market is at a disadvantage (regardless of who is in office). And once again, President Obama, you have managed to show us that you are more of the same, and the promise of "Hope" and "Change" was just a ruse. The liberal media has yet to catch onto this story, and I doubt they ever will.
So, you heard it here first. I beat Fox News to it. And I know I'm going to catch flack for it on the online edition, but that's okay. I have always found it amazing how people will write such negative and nasty things online when they get to use an anonymous screen-name to hide their identities. I'm just reporting the truth, whether or not you want to hear it.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Remembering Memorial Day
For many Americans, Memorial Day is first long weekends of the summer. Friends and families will gather to celebrate with a barbeque. People may take camping trips. Others may elect to use the extra day for a home-improvement project. In Bell County, Memorial Day also coincides with the time-honored tradition of the Kentucky Mountain Laurel Festival.
But lets not get wrapped up in all the celebrations and forget the reason we celebrate Memorial Day; to honor fallen war heroes. This has not ever been a issue in Bell County. People in Bell County have some of the strongest, if not the strongest overall, sense of patriotism I have ever known. This day is, and rightfully should be, sacred to all Americans.
The sentiment I have knowing the sacrifice of my forefathers, relatives, and loved ones can be overwhelming at times. I have sense of pride to know people who have served their country honorably and faithfully. I feel reverence and admiration when I see their names engraved on a stone dedicated to the sacrifice of the few, for the many. Those names, seemingly just inscriptions, are the names of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, cousins, aunts, uncles, and friends.
Memorial Day was originally named Decoration Day, because mourners decorated soldiers' graves from the Civil War. Approximately 5,000 mourners, including orphans and widows, placed flowers and flags on the 20,000 Union and Confederate war heroes' graves buried in Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. To show their respect, supporters gathered, recited poems, sang hymns and marched.
However, since the Civil War, there have been many wars since this time. We are still currently at war. There are victims everyday.
No matter your view on war, it is important to honor those soldiers who have paid the ultimate price and honor those who continue to defend us to this day. There have been several occassions where I have seen a man or woman in uniform and I thanked them for their service. Their sacrifice is unlike any other.
So before we light up our grills, get dressed up for the Queen's Coronation, start that do-it-yourself home improvement project, or take our tents out to the camp grounds, let us remember those who died to protect our freedom.
Find a soldier and thank him or her for their service. If you know someone who has been experienced the loss of a loved one serving in the military, offer your condolences and thank them for the sacrifice of their loved one. Mail a simple thank you note to someone serving overseas. They'll appreciate it more than you might think.
And above all else, thank you, veterans for your service and your sacrifice. It will not go unnoticed or unappreciated.
But lets not get wrapped up in all the celebrations and forget the reason we celebrate Memorial Day; to honor fallen war heroes. This has not ever been a issue in Bell County. People in Bell County have some of the strongest, if not the strongest overall, sense of patriotism I have ever known. This day is, and rightfully should be, sacred to all Americans.
The sentiment I have knowing the sacrifice of my forefathers, relatives, and loved ones can be overwhelming at times. I have sense of pride to know people who have served their country honorably and faithfully. I feel reverence and admiration when I see their names engraved on a stone dedicated to the sacrifice of the few, for the many. Those names, seemingly just inscriptions, are the names of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, cousins, aunts, uncles, and friends.
Memorial Day was originally named Decoration Day, because mourners decorated soldiers' graves from the Civil War. Approximately 5,000 mourners, including orphans and widows, placed flowers and flags on the 20,000 Union and Confederate war heroes' graves buried in Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. To show their respect, supporters gathered, recited poems, sang hymns and marched.
However, since the Civil War, there have been many wars since this time. We are still currently at war. There are victims everyday.
No matter your view on war, it is important to honor those soldiers who have paid the ultimate price and honor those who continue to defend us to this day. There have been several occassions where I have seen a man or woman in uniform and I thanked them for their service. Their sacrifice is unlike any other.
So before we light up our grills, get dressed up for the Queen's Coronation, start that do-it-yourself home improvement project, or take our tents out to the camp grounds, let us remember those who died to protect our freedom.
Find a soldier and thank him or her for their service. If you know someone who has been experienced the loss of a loved one serving in the military, offer your condolences and thank them for the sacrifice of their loved one. Mail a simple thank you note to someone serving overseas. They'll appreciate it more than you might think.
And above all else, thank you, veterans for your service and your sacrifice. It will not go unnoticed or unappreciated.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Once You Stop Learning, You Start Dying
This is a follow up to the article, "A Penny Saved is a Government Oversight".
One reader questioned if I thought that people chose to be poor. I took some extra time to think about this while I was traveling over the week. A good car ride allows my thoughts to ferment to fruition.
I arrived at the following conclusion: Not everyone chooses to live in poverty. This, albeit simple, conclusion is the product of knowing there are disadvantaged individuals from birth and will never prosper by the American standard of "success". But it's this definition of "disadvantaged" that will prove to be the line in the sand.
When I think of someone who is disadvantaged and lives in poverty, I think of those who are unable to gain employment and independently sustain living. Most often these individuals are disabled, whether from birth or by accident. My definition of the disadvantaged are the people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own and have subsequently suffered economically as a result of that disadvantage.
In contrast, there are individuals who are poor yet lack any physical disadvantages discussed above. If you were to compare the individuals without a physical disadvantage (both poor and rich), I believe you would find that the main difference between these groups is not the amount of income they have, but the choices they made that led them to where they are now.
Every day we are faced with a plethora of choices. Some small, some monumentally life changing. Sometimes we make bad decisions, but hopefully we make good decisions most of the time. But making too many bad decisions can lead to our undoing.
It is my belief that regardless of our socio-economic status at birth, we can all achieve success. That is the essence behind the American dream; it is the appeal that has made America the leading nation in immigration. Our forefathers came to America because America is the land of opportunity; the place where a person can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps to achieve success. To sum up; anyone can succeed, but success is determined by hard work and the decisions we make everyday.
Inherently, those who have succeeded make it easier to pass that success onto their offspring. Those who come from families where success has not been established will find it harder, but it is still possible to achieve.
Now I can fluff on this column from here on out and tell you that success is measured by your own personal drive and say other feel good things that will excite you for a total of 5 minutes. But I won't do that. I won't act like those "get-rich-quick" schemes on late night television. The truth I want to give all the readers is that every decision you make affects where you will be for the rest of your life.
We can choose premarital sex when we're young, and increase your chances of a pregnancy. Having an additional mouth to feed makes it more difficult to achieve successl; if you don't have very supportive parents you have to take whatever job you can get to put food on the table.
We can choose drugs that can ultimately lead to deadly consequences or the missed opportunity at a good career. It's hard to think straight if you're brain is fried from severe drug use. It's hard to land a good job if you have a criminal record.
We can choose to look for a job where we currently live or we can uproot and locate someplace where there are good jobs. It's hard to get a good job in Bell County when there are none and it's hard to uproot and leave friends and family behind. Sometime's it's necessary though to succeed. I feel bad when I see someone working a dead end job, especially when it's the only job they can get in Bell County. But that may be the key; it's the only job they can get in Bell County, not elsewhere. To use an old expression; "It's easier to bring Muhammed to the Mountain than the Mountain to Muhammed".
But the biggest factor in determining one's success is education. Hands down. We can choose to slide by in our education. We can choose to accept a C or a D as acceptable and do just enough to ensure we graduate from high school and never go any farther. It's extremely hard to get a job in today's economy without a higher education and this is the primary reason college enrollment has dramatically increased during the recession. The better the education you have, the more irreplacable you are in the workforce. The education we receive/have will directly influence our income and subsequently, our success.
We've heard this from guidance counselors, teachers, and if we're lucky enough, our parent(s). I was lucky enough to have a father and a mother that pushed me to excel in the classroom and always reminded me that my success was linked to my academics.
I understand there are people who just naturally understand course material in school and there are others that don't. But if I didn't understand the material at first, I took the extra time to learn it. I had to spend a lot of extra time on Chemistry, World Civilizations, and History but I was still successful in those courses.
If we choose to do the work, we learn the material. When we learn the material, we do better on exams. When we do better on exams, we make better overall grades. When we make better overall grades, we increase our chances of being accepted to a good university. When we get graduate from a good university, we increase our chances of getting a good paying job. Today anyone can attend college if you have the necessary grades. There are numerous financing options available. Scholarships may be decreasing in supply (Pell Grants, KEES money), but anyone can get a student loan and the return on investment from that student loan is priceless.
I think part of the problem today is the devaluation of education. This devaluation existed when I was in school and exists still today. Those who were considered "smarter" were teased by classmates, thereby helping to ingrain the idea that education is undesirable. As an example, African American males tease each other for academic accomplishments and in order to win favor with their peers, will intentionally stop learning material. At some point, these individuals hit a point of no return as they are too far gone to catch up.
So our choices directly impact the success that we have in our lives. To say otherwise is ignorance. People do not consciously wake up one morning and say to themselves, "I think I want to be poor for the rest of my life". I never suggested that. But poor decisions yield poor results. So be it as it may, the best path to success is to make the best decisions possible to secure your future success; but start first with your education. Outside of that, those daily decisions are up to you.
One reader questioned if I thought that people chose to be poor. I took some extra time to think about this while I was traveling over the week. A good car ride allows my thoughts to ferment to fruition.
I arrived at the following conclusion: Not everyone chooses to live in poverty. This, albeit simple, conclusion is the product of knowing there are disadvantaged individuals from birth and will never prosper by the American standard of "success". But it's this definition of "disadvantaged" that will prove to be the line in the sand.
When I think of someone who is disadvantaged and lives in poverty, I think of those who are unable to gain employment and independently sustain living. Most often these individuals are disabled, whether from birth or by accident. My definition of the disadvantaged are the people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own and have subsequently suffered economically as a result of that disadvantage.
In contrast, there are individuals who are poor yet lack any physical disadvantages discussed above. If you were to compare the individuals without a physical disadvantage (both poor and rich), I believe you would find that the main difference between these groups is not the amount of income they have, but the choices they made that led them to where they are now.
Every day we are faced with a plethora of choices. Some small, some monumentally life changing. Sometimes we make bad decisions, but hopefully we make good decisions most of the time. But making too many bad decisions can lead to our undoing.
It is my belief that regardless of our socio-economic status at birth, we can all achieve success. That is the essence behind the American dream; it is the appeal that has made America the leading nation in immigration. Our forefathers came to America because America is the land of opportunity; the place where a person can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps to achieve success. To sum up; anyone can succeed, but success is determined by hard work and the decisions we make everyday.
Inherently, those who have succeeded make it easier to pass that success onto their offspring. Those who come from families where success has not been established will find it harder, but it is still possible to achieve.
Now I can fluff on this column from here on out and tell you that success is measured by your own personal drive and say other feel good things that will excite you for a total of 5 minutes. But I won't do that. I won't act like those "get-rich-quick" schemes on late night television. The truth I want to give all the readers is that every decision you make affects where you will be for the rest of your life.
We can choose premarital sex when we're young, and increase your chances of a pregnancy. Having an additional mouth to feed makes it more difficult to achieve successl; if you don't have very supportive parents you have to take whatever job you can get to put food on the table.
We can choose drugs that can ultimately lead to deadly consequences or the missed opportunity at a good career. It's hard to think straight if you're brain is fried from severe drug use. It's hard to land a good job if you have a criminal record.
We can choose to look for a job where we currently live or we can uproot and locate someplace where there are good jobs. It's hard to get a good job in Bell County when there are none and it's hard to uproot and leave friends and family behind. Sometime's it's necessary though to succeed. I feel bad when I see someone working a dead end job, especially when it's the only job they can get in Bell County. But that may be the key; it's the only job they can get in Bell County, not elsewhere. To use an old expression; "It's easier to bring Muhammed to the Mountain than the Mountain to Muhammed".
But the biggest factor in determining one's success is education. Hands down. We can choose to slide by in our education. We can choose to accept a C or a D as acceptable and do just enough to ensure we graduate from high school and never go any farther. It's extremely hard to get a job in today's economy without a higher education and this is the primary reason college enrollment has dramatically increased during the recession. The better the education you have, the more irreplacable you are in the workforce. The education we receive/have will directly influence our income and subsequently, our success.
We've heard this from guidance counselors, teachers, and if we're lucky enough, our parent(s). I was lucky enough to have a father and a mother that pushed me to excel in the classroom and always reminded me that my success was linked to my academics.
I understand there are people who just naturally understand course material in school and there are others that don't. But if I didn't understand the material at first, I took the extra time to learn it. I had to spend a lot of extra time on Chemistry, World Civilizations, and History but I was still successful in those courses.
If we choose to do the work, we learn the material. When we learn the material, we do better on exams. When we do better on exams, we make better overall grades. When we make better overall grades, we increase our chances of being accepted to a good university. When we get graduate from a good university, we increase our chances of getting a good paying job. Today anyone can attend college if you have the necessary grades. There are numerous financing options available. Scholarships may be decreasing in supply (Pell Grants, KEES money), but anyone can get a student loan and the return on investment from that student loan is priceless.
I think part of the problem today is the devaluation of education. This devaluation existed when I was in school and exists still today. Those who were considered "smarter" were teased by classmates, thereby helping to ingrain the idea that education is undesirable. As an example, African American males tease each other for academic accomplishments and in order to win favor with their peers, will intentionally stop learning material. At some point, these individuals hit a point of no return as they are too far gone to catch up.
So our choices directly impact the success that we have in our lives. To say otherwise is ignorance. People do not consciously wake up one morning and say to themselves, "I think I want to be poor for the rest of my life". I never suggested that. But poor decisions yield poor results. So be it as it may, the best path to success is to make the best decisions possible to secure your future success; but start first with your education. Outside of that, those daily decisions are up to you.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Intaxication: A Penny Saved is a Government Oversight
Tax day has come and gone for us all. Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you heard about the tax day tea parties that were held around the nation.
On the Fourth of July, 1776, America declared ourselves liberated from unfair British taxation. On the Fifth of July, 1776, we then started our own system of taxation. I am, of course, embellishing on the actual date, but for the most part we declared freedom from British rule because of taxation without representation. In the almost 233 years of American sovereignty, our system of taxation has largely been left unchecked and has escalated out of control. Today, it's hard to believe that America was founded to avoid high taxation.
We all dislike taxation. However, we have a responsibility to pay some taxes in order to maintain essential government services (national defense, social security, schools, trash collection, maintenance of roads, etc.). However there are some inherent problems with the American tax system as it stands.
First off, our tax system is progressive. The more money you make, the more in taxes you pay. This stems from the economic argument that individuals with less money value a dollar more than others with more moeny. But as my wife so eloquently puts it (and I'm paraphrasing here), 'The world will try to take that dollar away with everything it has, but it's still your dollar and you should fight to keep it that way'. (Warning: Tangent Rant Ahead) So I understand that a person with $10,000 has less than someone with $100,000; but to me, that's not a valid reason to take the $1 and give it to the person with $10,000. Both individuals made decisions on how to live their lives and subsequently have reaped their rewards. Government should not have a role in redistributing wealth in the land of opportunity; if you want to make more money, get a good education and/or get a better job.
A better taxation system would be one where tax payers get to chose how much they want to pay in taxes. This is the liberatarian argument of a national sales tax. This sales tax is implemented in lieu of a personal income tax and other forms of taxation. This way, people pay taxes based on how much goods they consume rather than how much money they make. It's also a flat tax so everyone is impacted the same (the only distinction between rich and poor here is the wealthy's ability to consume more goods). And for those of you who worry about this tax being regressive in nature (affecting the poor more than others), the liberatarian taxation model exempts the poor from paying all or part of the national sales tax. This tax system is more equitable and helps to keep the government out of our paychecks.
We also pay too much in taxes and are taxed from too many levels. I would go as far to say that there are very few things in America that are actually tax-exempt. We pay different taxes on almost everything and pay taxes to multiple levels of government (city/town, county, state, federal). Escaping taxes is almost impossible. Tax law is written in such a confusing manner that no one understands it, and the ones that do understand it know enough about it to find the right loopholes to avoid paying taxes.
And I think that's the main reason there were widespread national protests on tax day; the current tax system is grossly unfair. But CNN didn't want you to think that. CNN wanted you to think that it was a conservative protest against President Obama. These protests have been going on for years now, but this was the first year that the protests received media attention and promotion.
One reader commented (online) that I should watch more CNN to balance me out. Why would I do that after the sickening "story" CNN aired on the tax-day protests? I was able to watch a video of what CNN didn't air thanks to some protestors who had their camera-phones handy. One protestor confronted CNN reporter, Susan Roesgen, about her unfair portrayal of the Chicago tea-party. She was correct when she accused Roesgen of unfairly selected a member of the protest who obviously held an extreme viewpoint of the Obama Administration. She informed Roesgen (1) the protest was non-partisan in nature, (2) demonstrated against unfair taxation, and (3) Roesgen could have picked any normal member of the rally to get those points.
Roesgen tried to get the woman to admit that the protest was made popular through promotions by Fox News, but the woman retorted that the information was available to everyone; not just through one particular medium. And who cares if Fox News provided promotion and coverage of the event? Who cares what Rush Limbaugh says? Limbaugh and Fox News are just two mediums of thousands for getting information. I don't even watch Fox News at all. I get my information from many different sources; primarily from reading the newspaper or online editions. Just because my opinions come more from the right doesn't mean I subscribe exclusively to the thoughts and sentiment of Limbaugh and Fox News.
I, like most Americans, am smart enough to form my own opinions from information received from any source; whether it is biased left or right. So will I be watching CNN to balance out my opinion after these tax-day shenanigans? Absolutely not. Thanks for the suggestion, though.
And Roesgen should have known that we are all smart enough to not be steered by Fox News and Limbaugh. Now she does. We are smart enough to be free thinkers and actually act in our own best interests. The only agenda behind the tax protests was the agenda for lower taxes. There will always be kooks that come out with their own agenda and piggy-back off the crowd. How many times has there been an Iraq War protest that a kook in there with their own agenda? Answer: All the time. Is that indicative of that particular protest as a whole? No.
So kudos to the tax protestors that exercised their right to assemble peacefully to ask the government for redress (still remember that one in the Bill or Rights?). It's your patriotic right.
On the Fourth of July, 1776, America declared ourselves liberated from unfair British taxation. On the Fifth of July, 1776, we then started our own system of taxation. I am, of course, embellishing on the actual date, but for the most part we declared freedom from British rule because of taxation without representation. In the almost 233 years of American sovereignty, our system of taxation has largely been left unchecked and has escalated out of control. Today, it's hard to believe that America was founded to avoid high taxation.
We all dislike taxation. However, we have a responsibility to pay some taxes in order to maintain essential government services (national defense, social security, schools, trash collection, maintenance of roads, etc.). However there are some inherent problems with the American tax system as it stands.
First off, our tax system is progressive. The more money you make, the more in taxes you pay. This stems from the economic argument that individuals with less money value a dollar more than others with more moeny. But as my wife so eloquently puts it (and I'm paraphrasing here), 'The world will try to take that dollar away with everything it has, but it's still your dollar and you should fight to keep it that way'. (Warning: Tangent Rant Ahead) So I understand that a person with $10,000 has less than someone with $100,000; but to me, that's not a valid reason to take the $1 and give it to the person with $10,000. Both individuals made decisions on how to live their lives and subsequently have reaped their rewards. Government should not have a role in redistributing wealth in the land of opportunity; if you want to make more money, get a good education and/or get a better job.
A better taxation system would be one where tax payers get to chose how much they want to pay in taxes. This is the liberatarian argument of a national sales tax. This sales tax is implemented in lieu of a personal income tax and other forms of taxation. This way, people pay taxes based on how much goods they consume rather than how much money they make. It's also a flat tax so everyone is impacted the same (the only distinction between rich and poor here is the wealthy's ability to consume more goods). And for those of you who worry about this tax being regressive in nature (affecting the poor more than others), the liberatarian taxation model exempts the poor from paying all or part of the national sales tax. This tax system is more equitable and helps to keep the government out of our paychecks.
We also pay too much in taxes and are taxed from too many levels. I would go as far to say that there are very few things in America that are actually tax-exempt. We pay different taxes on almost everything and pay taxes to multiple levels of government (city/town, county, state, federal). Escaping taxes is almost impossible. Tax law is written in such a confusing manner that no one understands it, and the ones that do understand it know enough about it to find the right loopholes to avoid paying taxes.
And I think that's the main reason there were widespread national protests on tax day; the current tax system is grossly unfair. But CNN didn't want you to think that. CNN wanted you to think that it was a conservative protest against President Obama. These protests have been going on for years now, but this was the first year that the protests received media attention and promotion.
One reader commented (online) that I should watch more CNN to balance me out. Why would I do that after the sickening "story" CNN aired on the tax-day protests? I was able to watch a video of what CNN didn't air thanks to some protestors who had their camera-phones handy. One protestor confronted CNN reporter, Susan Roesgen, about her unfair portrayal of the Chicago tea-party. She was correct when she accused Roesgen of unfairly selected a member of the protest who obviously held an extreme viewpoint of the Obama Administration. She informed Roesgen (1) the protest was non-partisan in nature, (2) demonstrated against unfair taxation, and (3) Roesgen could have picked any normal member of the rally to get those points.
Roesgen tried to get the woman to admit that the protest was made popular through promotions by Fox News, but the woman retorted that the information was available to everyone; not just through one particular medium. And who cares if Fox News provided promotion and coverage of the event? Who cares what Rush Limbaugh says? Limbaugh and Fox News are just two mediums of thousands for getting information. I don't even watch Fox News at all. I get my information from many different sources; primarily from reading the newspaper or online editions. Just because my opinions come more from the right doesn't mean I subscribe exclusively to the thoughts and sentiment of Limbaugh and Fox News.
I, like most Americans, am smart enough to form my own opinions from information received from any source; whether it is biased left or right. So will I be watching CNN to balance out my opinion after these tax-day shenanigans? Absolutely not. Thanks for the suggestion, though.
And Roesgen should have known that we are all smart enough to not be steered by Fox News and Limbaugh. Now she does. We are smart enough to be free thinkers and actually act in our own best interests. The only agenda behind the tax protests was the agenda for lower taxes. There will always be kooks that come out with their own agenda and piggy-back off the crowd. How many times has there been an Iraq War protest that a kook in there with their own agenda? Answer: All the time. Is that indicative of that particular protest as a whole? No.
So kudos to the tax protestors that exercised their right to assemble peacefully to ask the government for redress (still remember that one in the Bill or Rights?). It's your patriotic right.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Reality of Reality Television
For almost a decade, we have been watching the reality television programming that the major broadcasting corporations have been subjecting us to. The explosion in popularity of reality tv started in the early 2000's and since that time we have been bombarded with numerous spin-offs and sequels. What I find more disturbing than the sheer stupidity of these shows is our interest in them.
Simply put, there is no reality in reality tv. I think most of us have realized that these "unscripted" shows are certainly not "unscripted", let alone real. Former cast members have told the media producers utilize many tool to make these shows work. Story lines are manufactured by "ghost script writers". Directors order "takes" to get good footage for production. Advanced editing techniques are sometimes used to create story lines and plots when formerly one did not exist. Shows cast individuals whose are picked solely on the anticipation they will create strain between characters, thereby establishing a pathetic attempt at a "plot" and "resolution". Reality is basically not an ingredient in the recipe.
With reality dating shows (specifically The Bachelor), for instance, the ending is far from reality. I was unfortunately subjected to watching the particularly hapless season finale of The Bachelor with my wife and was shocked (sarcasm) when I found out that the Bachelor had changed his mind about his final selection and instead decided to marry the first runner-up. Come to find out, the producers of the show told the Bachelor to select his number 2 at the final rose ceremony and then change his mind on the show to both (1) raise ratings and (2) create a spin-off for the Bachelorette. Bogus. I felt dumber for having wasted the time watching this God-forsaken excuse for "prime-time programming". Shame on you ABC.
These shows are not only falsified, they also depict examples of how not to act. I was also subjected to watching "The Hills", an MTV reality tv show. The demeanor and sense of self-entitlement these young adults (and I use that term very loosely judging by their behavior) demonstrate is sickening. I'm not sure if it's (1) a "Southern-California" thing, (2) a "my-mommy-and-daddy-are-super-rich-and-I-can-do-anything-I-want" thing, or (3) an "I-have-my-own-spot-on-a-popular-show-on-MTV" thing that makes these people act the way they do. The actions portrayed on this show wouldn't be considered civil/acceptable in the animal kingdom.
Essentially, each "character" is trying to outstage the other in order to get more air-time and exposure. These tactics have resulted in the show's characters evolving into nothing more than a bunch of 20-something prima donnas throwing fits when they don't get everything they want just the way they want it. So much for character development, right? When I was 5 years old and acted like these "celebrities" do, I got a good spanking (and thank God I did).
Yet what worries me about 99.9% of the reality programming on MTV is that teenagers and pre-teenagers are watching these shows at alarming rates and viewing the actions exhibited as acceptable ways to behave in public and interact with others. This coupled with parents' declining use of discipline has created a generation filled with snot-nosed-whiney brats that have the moral integrity, civil attitude, and public awareness of a 5-year-old throwing a temper-tantrum in Toys-R-Us. Taking heed from the examples on MTV would only create a generation of self-fulfilling adults who crave everyone's attention by making a public spectacle, labeling the coming generation the "look-at-me" generation.
What's worse is that these reality programs have effectively lowered the standard by which we judge programming. When was the last time a great series like Cheers or Seinfeld made its way into the programming line up? Reality programming is so prevalent and popular that its stronghold on prime-time time slots has crowded out the introduction of new, possibly award-winning shows. How many new, good shows can you think of? I can only name a few off the top of my head.
I can understand why major networks continue to make these shows; they are cheap to produce and the American viewing public has become addicted. But seriously, how many seasons of Dancing with the Stars does America need? Does America really need another Idol? Will every bachelor and bachelorette get their own shot at finding love in front of millions of viewers? How many more reality tv shows can they produce? How long until all reality has been filmed?
The traditional benefit and appeal from television was that it presented an opportunity for people to escape from reality into a land of fantasy, comedy, action, suspense, etc. But this option has been severely depleted for almost a decade and I don't know if I can see an end in sight.
I can only hope that eventually network producers move away from reality television so I can finally watch something either mentally stimulating or entertaining for that matter. As long as there is demand for these shows, unfortunately the networks will continue to run them. Subsequently, you won't find me at home watching as well (if I can help it); you'll find me reading a good book or catching up on world events.
Simply put, there is no reality in reality tv. I think most of us have realized that these "unscripted" shows are certainly not "unscripted", let alone real. Former cast members have told the media producers utilize many tool to make these shows work. Story lines are manufactured by "ghost script writers". Directors order "takes" to get good footage for production. Advanced editing techniques are sometimes used to create story lines and plots when formerly one did not exist. Shows cast individuals whose are picked solely on the anticipation they will create strain between characters, thereby establishing a pathetic attempt at a "plot" and "resolution". Reality is basically not an ingredient in the recipe.
With reality dating shows (specifically The Bachelor), for instance, the ending is far from reality. I was unfortunately subjected to watching the particularly hapless season finale of The Bachelor with my wife and was shocked (sarcasm) when I found out that the Bachelor had changed his mind about his final selection and instead decided to marry the first runner-up. Come to find out, the producers of the show told the Bachelor to select his number 2 at the final rose ceremony and then change his mind on the show to both (1) raise ratings and (2) create a spin-off for the Bachelorette. Bogus. I felt dumber for having wasted the time watching this God-forsaken excuse for "prime-time programming". Shame on you ABC.
These shows are not only falsified, they also depict examples of how not to act. I was also subjected to watching "The Hills", an MTV reality tv show. The demeanor and sense of self-entitlement these young adults (and I use that term very loosely judging by their behavior) demonstrate is sickening. I'm not sure if it's (1) a "Southern-California" thing, (2) a "my-mommy-and-daddy-are-super-rich-and-I-can-do-anything-I-want" thing, or (3) an "I-have-my-own-spot-on-a-popular-show-on-MTV" thing that makes these people act the way they do. The actions portrayed on this show wouldn't be considered civil/acceptable in the animal kingdom.
Essentially, each "character" is trying to outstage the other in order to get more air-time and exposure. These tactics have resulted in the show's characters evolving into nothing more than a bunch of 20-something prima donnas throwing fits when they don't get everything they want just the way they want it. So much for character development, right? When I was 5 years old and acted like these "celebrities" do, I got a good spanking (and thank God I did).
Yet what worries me about 99.9% of the reality programming on MTV is that teenagers and pre-teenagers are watching these shows at alarming rates and viewing the actions exhibited as acceptable ways to behave in public and interact with others. This coupled with parents' declining use of discipline has created a generation filled with snot-nosed-whiney brats that have the moral integrity, civil attitude, and public awareness of a 5-year-old throwing a temper-tantrum in Toys-R-Us. Taking heed from the examples on MTV would only create a generation of self-fulfilling adults who crave everyone's attention by making a public spectacle, labeling the coming generation the "look-at-me" generation.
What's worse is that these reality programs have effectively lowered the standard by which we judge programming. When was the last time a great series like Cheers or Seinfeld made its way into the programming line up? Reality programming is so prevalent and popular that its stronghold on prime-time time slots has crowded out the introduction of new, possibly award-winning shows. How many new, good shows can you think of? I can only name a few off the top of my head.
I can understand why major networks continue to make these shows; they are cheap to produce and the American viewing public has become addicted. But seriously, how many seasons of Dancing with the Stars does America need? Does America really need another Idol? Will every bachelor and bachelorette get their own shot at finding love in front of millions of viewers? How many more reality tv shows can they produce? How long until all reality has been filmed?
The traditional benefit and appeal from television was that it presented an opportunity for people to escape from reality into a land of fantasy, comedy, action, suspense, etc. But this option has been severely depleted for almost a decade and I don't know if I can see an end in sight.
I can only hope that eventually network producers move away from reality television so I can finally watch something either mentally stimulating or entertaining for that matter. As long as there is demand for these shows, unfortunately the networks will continue to run them. Subsequently, you won't find me at home watching as well (if I can help it); you'll find me reading a good book or catching up on world events.
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Political Court Jester
Carrot Top and Ron White called in sick today, so instead you're stuck with me. And that's the beauty of politics; it is serious subject matter that makes for fantastic comic fodder.
John Stewart realizes this and provides something that no other major television news media does today; truth. And that's the real joke of it all; CNN, MSNBC, and other news stations rarely ask the hard-hitting questions and hold politicians accountable for speaking from both sides of their mouth.
So it's a comedian that does a better job of holding politicians (of all parties) accountable for their actions and statements, with a dash of humor mixed in to make the "news" bearable to the viewers. What does it matter so long as the source of the comic fodder is the horse's mouth?
It shouldn't matter. We live in an new age of "information osmosis" in which we get "news" from any and every possible media source.
I attempt to inject some humor in my opinion of our current events, but realize sometimes I fail. I can get pretty energized and worked up and forget about the humor that can be found in the story.
But that's just my nature; sometimes I can be all business, but at other times I can use some whit to bring the humor of a bad situation to the top.
For instance, President Obama has said that he inherited a large deficit from former President Bush. This is true for the most part. Former President Bush did increase the national debt during his administration. However, comparing the spending patterns of the past to Obama's current spending plan is hilarious considering Obama's plan in one month spends what it took Bush 5 years to achieve. If there is a supplemental appropriations measure this year and revenue continue to decline, Obama's deficit spending will equal all 8 years under Bush. It shouldn't matter if Obama inherited the deficit or not, Bush inherited one as well. Obama could try to promote real "change" by spending less than his predecessor, but instead he suprised us all by spending more; but it's "change" nonetheless. Consequently we have less and less change in our pockets. (Joke 1) Maybe that's what he meant by "change"; the government actually needs "change" to pay it's bills?
(Joke 2) A "C" student at Yale so far has managed to do a better job balancing his checkbook than a Harvard Magna Cum Laude graduate.
Something else to think about is that the Treasury Department, under Obama, has made $3 Trillion (with a T) in tax-free Treasury Bonds available to cover our nation's debt. This will only crowd out private business borrowing by decreasing the amount of money available to lend to businesses that want to expand. When Treasury Bonds are tax-free, this means that any interest earnings on these Bonds are exempt from taxes (something the well-off would like to do right now under the current administration). The government policy during this recession is to unthaw the frozen credit markets, which cannot happen if those with money are locking that money into these bonds.
Additionally, Obama plans on increasing taxes on small businesses and individuals with more than $250,000 of income. These people are the only people right now (given the recession) that actually have the money to invest! So the government wants to take more money away from those people who can actually afford to keep money in the bank that can be used to make loans necessary to unfreeze the credit market?
(Joke 3) If the federal government has policies that restrict credit and access to capital, borrows trillions of dollars with tax free incentives that compete in attracting capital, and on top of that adds large tax increases on the individuals that actually have capital, how does the administration hope to fix the recession? The actions of the administration seem counterproductive to the point of hilarity.
I hope you're laughing like I am at all of this mess. If not, I'd like to close with a couple of quotes that best fit the American situation today:
"In our desire to have government become our benefactor and sustainer, we have allowed it to become our taskmaster and overlord. As a result, we have become little more than well-fed, well-entertained slaves to the state. Freedom, as envisioned by our forefathers, is gone." – Chuck Baldwin.
"The difference between death and taxes is, death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets." – Will Rogers.
John Stewart realizes this and provides something that no other major television news media does today; truth. And that's the real joke of it all; CNN, MSNBC, and other news stations rarely ask the hard-hitting questions and hold politicians accountable for speaking from both sides of their mouth.
So it's a comedian that does a better job of holding politicians (of all parties) accountable for their actions and statements, with a dash of humor mixed in to make the "news" bearable to the viewers. What does it matter so long as the source of the comic fodder is the horse's mouth?
It shouldn't matter. We live in an new age of "information osmosis" in which we get "news" from any and every possible media source.
I attempt to inject some humor in my opinion of our current events, but realize sometimes I fail. I can get pretty energized and worked up and forget about the humor that can be found in the story.
But that's just my nature; sometimes I can be all business, but at other times I can use some whit to bring the humor of a bad situation to the top.
For instance, President Obama has said that he inherited a large deficit from former President Bush. This is true for the most part. Former President Bush did increase the national debt during his administration. However, comparing the spending patterns of the past to Obama's current spending plan is hilarious considering Obama's plan in one month spends what it took Bush 5 years to achieve. If there is a supplemental appropriations measure this year and revenue continue to decline, Obama's deficit spending will equal all 8 years under Bush. It shouldn't matter if Obama inherited the deficit or not, Bush inherited one as well. Obama could try to promote real "change" by spending less than his predecessor, but instead he suprised us all by spending more; but it's "change" nonetheless. Consequently we have less and less change in our pockets. (Joke 1) Maybe that's what he meant by "change"; the government actually needs "change" to pay it's bills?
(Joke 2) A "C" student at Yale so far has managed to do a better job balancing his checkbook than a Harvard Magna Cum Laude graduate.
Something else to think about is that the Treasury Department, under Obama, has made $3 Trillion (with a T) in tax-free Treasury Bonds available to cover our nation's debt. This will only crowd out private business borrowing by decreasing the amount of money available to lend to businesses that want to expand. When Treasury Bonds are tax-free, this means that any interest earnings on these Bonds are exempt from taxes (something the well-off would like to do right now under the current administration). The government policy during this recession is to unthaw the frozen credit markets, which cannot happen if those with money are locking that money into these bonds.
Additionally, Obama plans on increasing taxes on small businesses and individuals with more than $250,000 of income. These people are the only people right now (given the recession) that actually have the money to invest! So the government wants to take more money away from those people who can actually afford to keep money in the bank that can be used to make loans necessary to unfreeze the credit market?
(Joke 3) If the federal government has policies that restrict credit and access to capital, borrows trillions of dollars with tax free incentives that compete in attracting capital, and on top of that adds large tax increases on the individuals that actually have capital, how does the administration hope to fix the recession? The actions of the administration seem counterproductive to the point of hilarity.
I hope you're laughing like I am at all of this mess. If not, I'd like to close with a couple of quotes that best fit the American situation today:
"In our desire to have government become our benefactor and sustainer, we have allowed it to become our taskmaster and overlord. As a result, we have become little more than well-fed, well-entertained slaves to the state. Freedom, as envisioned by our forefathers, is gone." – Chuck Baldwin.
"The difference between death and taxes is, death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets." – Will Rogers.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Chinese Democracy
Is it just me, or is anyone else concerned about China buying large amounts of US debt? This absolutely scares the heck out of me. Considering how much money China has currently bought from us, if they ever decided to ask for their money back, it would absolutely cripple our nation financially.
China has historically owned large amounts of US debt. The idea of them taking on more debt would only help further solidify their interests in having the US succeed economically. Our success is vital to China getting their money back.
In our global economy the economy of other nations is directly tied to the success of the US. If we fail economically, then as we have most recently seen, the economies of other nations fail as well. This is why it might be argued that buying US debt is in the best interests of foreign nations. If we can't pay our bills, and spend money in the global economy, then we can't buy foreign goods. America is a consumer nation; if our demand drops off signifantly (or entirely) because we don't have any money to spend, then other nations suffer as well.
So America is essentially becoming one large publicly traded company. Think about that. We have foreign investors who have bought a large stake in "America Co".
The other fear that I have regarding China's new purchase of US debt, is that they may use this debt as a bargaining chip in foreign relations negotiations. Just the other day, the media reported that China had began increasing their military. For what? What could China possibly have planned?
I would think that China's purchase of more US debt could be used either as (a) leverage to keep the US at bay or (b) would indirectly influence negotiations between Secretary of State Clinton and Chinese diplomats. That's just my take on it. But like I said earlier, one reassuring point is the the US must succeed in order for China to get their money back.
In my opinion, we could be in a precarious position to negotiate with China to stop their military build-up, especially if China decided recall the loans they have provided the US. We would be financially bankrupt and there are no other nations in a position to absorb that kind of debt. This also provides some solace because at least China knows that no other nation could provide us a loan to pay China back.
And that's a great reason to push our legislators for fiscal responsibility. We have made ourselves entirely too vulnerable to outside economic threats. The "War on Terror" is scary enough without adding the possible threat of national bankruptcy. Simply put, we should not be spending the kind of money that are in the bailout package, the current budget, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
We have spent so much money and have such a large deficit that currently we can't even make payments on the principal of those loans. Our entitlement spending continues to grow as the Baby Boom generation reaches retirement and requires more medical treatment from Medicare. Coupled with our defense spending, entitlement program spending and interest on foreign loans makes up most of our budget. If we want to see our taxes go down sometime, we need to make radical adjustments to the way we construct and execute our budget.
What would John Maynard Keynes think regarding our "free economy"? What about Alexis de Tocqueville? What happened to the idea of a free market where the businesses that were inefficient were replaced by ones that were? I know it's been argued that we should not allow these companies to fail because it would be detrimental to the US. But to be honest, allowing these companies to fail would mean that we use less deficit spending and wane our foreign investment. The more foreign investment we have, the more likely the chances are of the US failing; and the US cannot (emphasis) fail. Ever. If we do fail, it would most certainly mean "Chinese Democracy" for us all.
China has historically owned large amounts of US debt. The idea of them taking on more debt would only help further solidify their interests in having the US succeed economically. Our success is vital to China getting their money back.
In our global economy the economy of other nations is directly tied to the success of the US. If we fail economically, then as we have most recently seen, the economies of other nations fail as well. This is why it might be argued that buying US debt is in the best interests of foreign nations. If we can't pay our bills, and spend money in the global economy, then we can't buy foreign goods. America is a consumer nation; if our demand drops off signifantly (or entirely) because we don't have any money to spend, then other nations suffer as well.
So America is essentially becoming one large publicly traded company. Think about that. We have foreign investors who have bought a large stake in "America Co".
The other fear that I have regarding China's new purchase of US debt, is that they may use this debt as a bargaining chip in foreign relations negotiations. Just the other day, the media reported that China had began increasing their military. For what? What could China possibly have planned?
I would think that China's purchase of more US debt could be used either as (a) leverage to keep the US at bay or (b) would indirectly influence negotiations between Secretary of State Clinton and Chinese diplomats. That's just my take on it. But like I said earlier, one reassuring point is the the US must succeed in order for China to get their money back.
In my opinion, we could be in a precarious position to negotiate with China to stop their military build-up, especially if China decided recall the loans they have provided the US. We would be financially bankrupt and there are no other nations in a position to absorb that kind of debt. This also provides some solace because at least China knows that no other nation could provide us a loan to pay China back.
And that's a great reason to push our legislators for fiscal responsibility. We have made ourselves entirely too vulnerable to outside economic threats. The "War on Terror" is scary enough without adding the possible threat of national bankruptcy. Simply put, we should not be spending the kind of money that are in the bailout package, the current budget, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
We have spent so much money and have such a large deficit that currently we can't even make payments on the principal of those loans. Our entitlement spending continues to grow as the Baby Boom generation reaches retirement and requires more medical treatment from Medicare. Coupled with our defense spending, entitlement program spending and interest on foreign loans makes up most of our budget. If we want to see our taxes go down sometime, we need to make radical adjustments to the way we construct and execute our budget.
What would John Maynard Keynes think regarding our "free economy"? What about Alexis de Tocqueville? What happened to the idea of a free market where the businesses that were inefficient were replaced by ones that were? I know it's been argued that we should not allow these companies to fail because it would be detrimental to the US. But to be honest, allowing these companies to fail would mean that we use less deficit spending and wane our foreign investment. The more foreign investment we have, the more likely the chances are of the US failing; and the US cannot (emphasis) fail. Ever. If we do fail, it would most certainly mean "Chinese Democracy" for us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
