Archive for the 'Barack Obama' category

Obama’s UPS/FedEx/USPS Analogy

Aug 13 2009 Published by under Barack Obama, Congress, Legislation, Politics

In trying to quell the uproar over the government takeover of medical care in the US, Obama made a point that I think is really worth exploring. He said:

[I]f the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining — meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do — then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about — if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems. (emphasis mine)

This argument really breaks down on a number of levels, and it’s worth a look at all of them.

First, let’s start with the fact that Obama’s comparing the most advanced medical care system in the world with the job of moving a package from Point A to Point B. Any schmuck can take a package – which has your name and address right on it – and get it from here to there. If I gave anyone reading this post an addressed package, you could jump in your car and drive it to the destination with minimal failure (allowing for flat tires, the recipient having moved and left no address, random explosion of the house, whatever).

The fact is, shipping isn’t a teribly complicated business. Yet even Obama admits that the Government option is the one that gets it wrong. He points out that FedEx and UPS are doing it right, but the USPS isn’t.

So that raises the next point of failure in his argument. It’s not like FedEx and UPS were doing it first, and the government created a new mail delivery vehicle to force FedEx and UPS to lower their costs. FedEx and UPS, to the contrary, sprung up in response to a near complete failure of the government option. They arose from the ashes of countless lost packages, and inefficient government bungling. They recognized a market for reliable package delivery.

Let us imagine, however, that we treat package delivery the way we treat medical care. In the package delivery business, you must a) declare the value of your package, and b) acknowledge that should it be lost or damaged, you will be entitled to only that amount.

In May of 1996, a man cut off his own hand believing it to be evil. He refused to let doctors reattach the hand, then sued them for not doing so. He claimed they should have known he was nuts and forced him to accept the reattachment of the hand. While this is an extreme example, this sort of frivolous suit is filed every day. Malpractice suits and insurance contribute a staggering amount to the costs of health care. The total amount can be debated, but a Congressional Budget Office Brief looking at malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors rose twice as fast as medical spending between 2000 and 2002 – roughly 15%. For general surgeons the hike was even greater running at 33%.

In package delivery, the cost of package breakage doesn’t rise dramatically year over year. If it did, the companies would look at ways to reduce breakage and loss. Yet our government has ignored the skyrocketing costs of malpractice and malpractice insurance as a part of the reform debate.

Costs are a huge problem. We get that. But that raises another key difference between the healthcare debate and the President’s chosen analogy of package delivery. Research into package delivery technology isn’t a dramatic portion of the package delivery costs. Do they buy equipment? Yes. Do they invest in dfferent ways to scan barcodes and create shipping labels? Of course. Are they handwritten package slips a huge pain in the ass versus the barcoded, Internet-generated slips? I imagine they are. But unlike, for instance, pharmaceutical companies, the amount they spend on R&D is fairly constrained. They don’t spend a decade or longer trying to figure out a way to move ONE particular size and shape of package.

As a result, comparing the amount of money invested in drug research and clinical trials to the box moving industry is probably a silly thing to do. Yet their was POTUS, telling us that the two are somehow equivalent.

Looking at his argument, the one part of the example the President got right was when he said, “It’s the [Government] that’s always having problems.” If you think the same people that brought you Katrina, the US Postal Service, the missing $400 million dollar Mars Global Surveyor, the $600 hammer and the $900 toilet seat, and countless other blunders will do a better job with health of every American, look no further than the countless stories of Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.

The fact is, Obama’s example probably gives us more to think about as an example of why we shouldn’t let government manhandle our health care system. As Obama points out, and as the famed economist Milton Friedman said, “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”

Comments

The Case for Using the Word “Socialist”

Oct 27 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Craziness, Democrats, Government, Political Parties, Politics, Socialism

There is a lot of chatter on the wires today about the 2001 radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the Supreme Court’s role in addressing “political and economic justice” and redistribution of wealth. Taken together with his “spread the wealth around” comments to Joe the Plumber, a lot of people are seeing a pattern. Many have begun to suggest that Obama is a closet socialist just waiting to spring a trap on an unsuspecting America.

Well, let’s look at this analytically beginning with an accepted definition of Socialism. For sake of a common source, I’ll use Wikipedia. I’m not a big fan of it for discussions like this, but since the people have collectively “spoken” and regard it is sound, it’s common ground, I guess. It’s definition of socialism includes this:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Many people equate socialism with communism and Marxism, but those are really false analogies. Communism is predicated on a classless society with no government. To that extent, what we call communist nations are not actually communist at all. There have been countries that attempted to create a communist state, but most ended up totalitarian regimes. Even China, one of the stalwart adherents to communism, has realized they need to open the door to capitalism more and more.

So what’s the difference between communist/Marxist, and socialist societies? Well, the answer to that is long enough to earn you an advanced degree in most colleges, but let’s define it as a question of two things – revolution and control.

Under Marxist theory, a revolution would be necessary to wrest control of the means of production from the hands of the upper class. That would be followed by a period of control by a type of revolutionary council, and then eventually the abolition of government in favor of the collective. This latter period is where most Marxist states have gone wrong. They get caught up in the fervor of being in power, and end up inviting a revolution.

Socialism, by comparison, doesn’t necessarily require revolution. In fact, many argue that despite the fear of an Obama administration, the US is already well on the road to socialism thanks to the collapse of Wall Street and the intervention of the Bush economic team.

All socialism requires, per the definition above, is either “complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange or state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.”

It is in the latter framework that we need to address the question of “Obama’s socialism”. Obama’s team has reiterated, ad nauseum, their claims that Obama is committed to the free market. In response to the 2001 radio interview, his team had this to say.

In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of ‘redistributing’ wealth. Obama’s point — and what he called a tragedy — was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better.

Actually, that’s not what he said. If you listen to the interview, he said that he could easily develop an argument that the court’s could carry out the task of ordering redistributive policies, but that the administrative overhead would be too great for the courts so such change must come through Congress.

He also, quite specifically, never said he opposed redistributive policies, only that they must originate in legislation, not court doctrine.

So where is Congress on this? Even Nancy Pelosi, a devout liberal, is on the free market bandwagon, right?

We are all believers in the free market — it’s part of our democracy. We know that the free markets create jobs, create capital, and create wealth — that’s very important. But recently, left unregulated and undisciplined and unsupervised, they create chaos.

Well, frankly we don’t know if that’s true because we don’t have a free market. We have a regulated market. “Free markets” by definition, are free of outside influence. All transactions are between buyer and seller. When you introduce even basic constraints – say fraud protection, lemon laws, etc. – you no longer have a free market. Pelosi’s comments seem to indicate that she’s in favor of a regulated market.

So which does Obama favor? A free market or a regulated market? From his statement about the plan for government taking ownership stakes in banks, it appears to be the latter:

[T]he plan appears to extend a broader set of guarantees to banks without requiring any additional regulation, which represents more of the same failed philosophy that got us into this mess.

Ok. So Obama wants government regulation. So what’s wrong with that?

Well, let’s look back at that “widely accepted” definition of Socialism.

[O]thers advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

We now have government with a sizable ownership interest in banks, insurance, and securities. We’re also heavily involved in an automotive bailout. You can argue the current wave of nationalization started under Bush – which is true – but it’s not like Obama has opposed it.

Further, I suspect we’ll start to see justifications for expanding that reach into energy and telecommunications. The government is encroaching more and more on the people.

While it is not yet the complete nationalization of the means of production, it’s getting a lot closer.

Obama is in support of the government role in banks, wants more regulation (read: control) of the market. His cheerleaders in Congress want the same. He has talked openly of using government power to “spread the wealth” around. He has made coherent arguments that redistributive policies must come from government. (That alone leads me to believe he has spent a good deal of time thinking about it.)

With all that, I ask you, is there honestly anyone alive who can make that claim that the term “socialist” doesn’t apply here?

Comments

<sarcasm>More Good News: Obama’s Tax “Cut”</sarcasm>

Oct 14 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Congress, Craziness, Democrats, Elections, Government, Pandering, Political Parties, Politics, Taxes

(Cross posted at The Next Right)

The Washington Times reports on the fuzzy numbers behind Obama’s tax “cut”. WashTimes looks at the rather questionable assertion that you can give a tax cut to people who already pay no taxes. To achieve their goal of “cutting” taxes for 95% of America, it seems Team Obama will simply take $500 or $1000 from some people, and give it to somebody else – no questions asked.

That idea caught the attention of AFP’s Phil Kerpen (a very bright guy):

It’s got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes.

Obama’s folks are justifying this wealth redistribution scheme by suggesting that Social Security taxes paid are now “refundable” through income tax rebates even if no income taxes were paid.

Unlike conservatives who have consistently pointed to the cumulative amount of taxes, the Democrats have suddenly discovered the “total tax burden”. They will use income taxes paid by some to rebate back Social Security taxes paid by others.

How exactly will that work, given that the Social Security trust is broke and about to start paying out far more that it takes in? Well, I suspect we’ll soon see another “soak the rich” campaign removing the social security cap so “the rich” will see dramatic increases in Social Security taxes to make up for the gap created by Obama’s rebates.

If you doubt that, you should read the quote from Obama’s campaign advisor. It may be the scariest thing you’ll ever see in print.

“Senator Obama believes that the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of ‘welfare’ or ‘redistribution’ – they think it is only fair to reward work,” said Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s chief economic adviser.

You heard that right. Work that results in someone not getting ahead is to be rewarded with money taken from those whose work results in them actually making money (which is apparently work that needs to be punished).

An Obama administration will first absolve a huge segment of taxpayers from any tax responsibility at all, and then shift that obligation to those who create jobs and get ahead. The wealth redistribution schemes the Obama team wants to put in place should scare the bejeezus out of anybody with one ounce of grey matter in their brain case.

Comments

Guilt By Association And The Left’s Hypocrisy

Oct 07 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Craziness, Democrats, Elections, John McCain, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans, Terrorism, War

On the same day that the Obama defenders are rallying to his side and suggesting that years of working alongside a domestic terrorist don’t make Obama a bad person, the left is also trying to attach the actions of random crowd members at a rally to McCain-Palin.

Now, I’ll first repeat my firmly held position that John McCain is no great shakes, but come on. How do you, with a straight face, suggest that Obama, who even CNN admits largely owes his political career to someone who targeted his fellow Americans with explosives, should be held harmless for that association? How do you then, in the very next breath, suggest that McCain and Palin are somehow responsible for what one or two unhinged nutbags say or do while attending a rally?

Further, when most of the Democratic party online has spent the last five years calling Bush a war criminal, a traitor, or worse, how do you feign indignation when someone suggests that calling our military a bunch of baby killers is tantamount to treason? Here is Obama’s exact quote in context:

Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan], and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages, and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

Compare that to John Kerry’s now infamous winter soldier testimony:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

This portrayal of our military as a bunch of mongols ravaging the countryside with little regard for “killing civilians” and “air raiding villages” is epidemic in the Democratic Party. It is part of the anti-military talking points. You can’t possibly act surprised that people take Obama’s remarks as an attack on our military.

Yet we’re supposed to look the other way when a man who wishes to be Commander in Chief denigrates our troops?

At the same time, we’re supposed to give a candidate a pass for associating with a man who apparently believed, and remains without remorse for the belief, that the only appropriate use of military power should be against civilians working in our own government? A man who, after bombing his countrymen, still says he wishes he could have done more for his cause.

Honestly? You will defend Barack Obama’s associations with that man, and his own disdain for our troops, yet you will try, with flimsy reasoning, to connect the GOP ticket with some random crowd members?

What if the roles were reversed. What if John McCain had spent 15 years cuddling up to Tim McVeigh? What if Terry Nichols had held a campaign kickoff event for J-Mac in his home? What if McVeigh had worked to secure tens of millions of dollars for an initiative that John McCain ran? Would you give him a pass? I doubt it.

While I am shocked by the Democrats’ indifference to Ayers, I also think the events of the Vietnam war were, as Obama says, 40 years ago. People have moved on.

However, I do not see how you can ignore that, also ignore your candidates defamation of our military’s service on behalf of our nation, and then try, laughably, to make McCain and Palin responsible for some random nutjob in a crowd of thousands.

It makes you look hypocritical and ridiculous.

Comments

Are Obama-Biden Good for Women?

Aug 28 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Democrats, Jobs, John McCain, Pandering, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans

Not on equal pay and glass ceiling issues. After Biden’s cry for equal pay in his acceptance speech last night, I took a look at equal pay in his office and posted the following thoughts at The Next Right.

One of Joe Biden’s major applause lines tonight came when he demanded equal pay for women. That’s a worthy cause to be sure. But is Biden practicing what he preaches?

Maybe not.

Despite the fact that Biden employs 27 women and only 14 men (could that be a Clinton problem?), very few of the women and men share common titles. The one job where there is overlap is staff assistants. These are traditionally entry level low-wage jobs in congressional offices.

So how do Biden’s salaries stack up?

The average male staff assistant in Biden’s office (based on the most recent salary figures) made $39,162 in the time period.

The average woman in that position made $21,323.

Hey Joe! Before you demand something of others, maybe you should lead by example. Why not start by giving the women in your office a raise?

Update: It also looks like the highest salaries are reserved for men, despite their minority status. 4 out of 14 men made more than $40,000 in the period, but only 5 of 27 women cleared that mark. Two of the men earned $70k, but the highest paid woman made only $46,000

Update 2: Does Obama walk the walk? It looks like he’s certainly better than Biden. A review of his staff for the same period at least shows remarkable consistency in pay for the jobs carrying the same title. Although of the twenty highest salaries in his office, 13 are men and 7 are women.

Update 3: It also works going the opposite direction. Of the 20 lowest salaries in Obama’s office, 13 are women and 7 are men. (And please note, there is no overlap between those two lists, and I have not included anyone that worked less than the full time period.)

Update 4: For those who asked, one final note before I do some real work. Of the 20 highest salaries on John McCain’s staff, 13 are women, and 7 are men.

Comments

Older posts »

Livefyre Not Displaying on this post