Cranky Hermit

Turn Out the Lights...

2010-01-02T20:53:00.000-08:00

Environmentalists are protesting construction of a new power plant in the Mojave Desert near the California-Nevada border.

On a strip of California's Mojave Desert within view of Primm, two dozen rare tortoises could stand in the way of a sprawling solar-energy complex in a case that highlights mounting tensions between wilderness conservation and the nation's quest for cleaner power.

[...]

The Sierra Club and other environmentalists want the complex relocated to preserve what they call a near-pristine home for rare plants and wildlife, including the protected tortoise, the Western burrowing owl and bighorn sheep.

"It's actually a good project. It's just located in the wrong place," said Ileene Anderson of the Center for Biological Diversity, a Tucson, Ariz.-based environmental group.

Environmental groups have for years been pushing us to develop more sources of renewable energy, yet they are protesting the very projects that will do just that. Virtually every area that is being considered for development of solar and other renewable sources is a "near-pristine" area. It makes one wonder if there is any project they would support.

A couple years ago there were 3 large coal-fired power plants planned for Nevada. Environmentalists and their political allies, notably Senator Reid, were able to exert enough pressure to force the power companies to shelve the projects. As our energy needs are increasing, we are actually reducing our ability to meet those increasing needs. We are not only not adding to our production capacity, we are decommissioning existing plants. Solar, wind and other renewables are not capable of satisfying all of the projected increases, much less make up for the capacity that is being taken offline.

I have a prediction, actually 2 predictions. One, some time in the next 10-15 years the lights in Las Vegas are going to start going off. Our energy needs are going to exceed our ability to supply and we are going to be subject to blackouts and brownouts. If the cap-and-trade bill passes this will happen even sooner.

Two, when this does happen, our politicians, including some of those who are currently opposing the construction of the coal-fired plants, will be condemning the power companies for not building sufficient capacity.

A Cold-Blooded Foreign Policy

2010-01-01T21:05:00.000-08:00

Fouad Ajami offered a devastating critique of Obama's foreign policy in yesterday's WSJ.

With year one drawing to a close, the truth of the Obama presidency is laid bare: retrenchment abroad, and redistribution and the intrusive regulatory state at home. This is the genuine calling of Barack Obama, and of the "progressives" holding him to account. The false dichotomy has taken hold—either we care for our own, or we go abroad in search of monsters to destroy or of broken nations to build. The decision to withdraw missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic was of a piece with that retreat in American power.

It is the liberal version of realpolitik.

In the time of Barack Obama, "engagement" with Iran's theocrats and thugs trumps the cause of Iranian democracy.

The world's tyrants rest easy and their enemies live in fear. Lebanon's Saad Hariri was forced to pay homage to his father's killers.

Everywhere there is on display evidence of the rogues taking the Obama administration's measure, and of America's vulnerable allies scurrying for cover. A fortnight ago, Lebanon's young prime minister made his way from Beirut to Damascus: Saad Hariri had come to pay tribute to the Syrian ruler.

[...]

No despot fears Mr. Obama, and no blogger in Cairo or Damascus or Tehran, no demonstrator in those cruel Iranian streets, expects Mr. Obama to ride to the rescue.

Throughout the campaign and after the election, Obama and his administration have seemed to harbor more animosity toward their domestic political opponents than to America's enemies. They have had harsher words for Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and "right-wing extremists" than for Islamic jihadists. They may even have been caught off-guard by the attacks at Fort Hood and on Northwest 253 because they actually believed their own pronouncements that if they were just nicer to our enemies they would leave us alone.

It is different today, there is a cold-bloodedness to American foreign policy. "Ideology is so yesterday," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed not long ago, giving voice to the new sentiment.

History and its furies have their logic, and they have not bent to Mr. Obama's will. He had declared a unilateral end to the "war on terror," but the jihadists and their mentors are yet to call their war to a halt. From Yemen to Fort Hood and Detroit, the terror continues.

But to go by the utterances of the Obama administration and its devotees, one would have thought that our enemies were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, not the preachers and masterminds of terror. The president and his lieutenants spent more time denigrating "rendition" and the Patriot Act than they did tracking down the terror trail and the latest front it had opened at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. Our own leaders spoke poorly of our prerogatives and ways, and they were heard the world over.

Under Mr. Obama, we have pulled back from the foreign world. We're smaller for accepting that false choice between burdens at home and burdens abroad, and the world beyond our shores is more hazardous and cynical for our retrenchment and our self-flagellation.

The world is a dangerous placeand in dire need of adult supervision. The US is the only nation capable of providing it. The lesser our role the greater that of the world's despots, tyrants and thugs.

Give 'Em Hell, Harry

2010-01-01T08:32:00.000-08:00

Senator Reid gives the construction industry, already hit harder than nearly any other by the downturn, a lump of coal for Christmas. And, as we have all been told, "coal makes us sick."

In an attempt to reduce the negative impact of the bill on small business, firms with 50 or fewer employers were exempted from the fines and penalties for not offering insurance to their employees. However, page 76 of Reid's "Manager's Amendment" removes those exemptions for companies in the construction industry that employ as few as 5 people.

It makes one wonder why Senator Reid would single out this one industry - one that has been left reeling from the recession. A possible answer is provided here.

(via Nevada Taxpayer Guide)

Flying In the Wake of the Pants Bomber - An Exercise in Bladder Control

2009-12-28T18:45:00.000-08:00

Once again, the government reacts to a terrorist attack by instituting rules that will do much to make air travel less bearable and little to make it safer. With each successive failure of our security apparatus, the response is to raise the burden and reduce the liberty of innocent travelers and increase the power and authority of those who failed. Heaven forbid we prevent known terrorists from boarding planes. No, in order to make our flights safe we must prohibit law-abiding passengers from using the restroom for 3 hours.

My family and I flew to visit family for Christmas. We experienced some of the differences in the security procedures first-hand on the two segments of the roundtrip. The flights were relatively short, about an hour, 45 minutes each. On the flight out of Las Vegas the fasten-seat-belt sign was on for the first 45 minutes after takeoff, until the drink service had completed and the flight attendants cleared the cart out of the aisle. During this time, passengers were not supposed to leave their seats for any reason.

On the return flight, just as I had suspected after hearing of the new rule prohibiting passengers from leaving their seats during the final hour, the fasten-seat-belt sign was on during the entire flight. Strict enforcement of the rules would have prevented passengers from using the restroom during the entire time on the plane, which, including all the time between boarding and de-planing could have been well over 2 hours. A few people got up to use the restroom in defiance of the sign. The flight attendants appeared to be accommodating but they didn't have to be. Luckily for us, our daughter slept through the whole flight. Had she needed to go I would have defied the ban myself.

Although I thought nothing of it at the time I did notice the pilot did not mention when we were approaching Las Vegas. I wasn't aware that one of the new rules, a truly asinine one by the way, prohibited this.

While going through security on the return flight, my wife was patted down after clearing the metal detector. Because everyone knows that 30-something Lutheran women with 5-year olds in tow pose a huge security threat.

It is not the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA that make me feel safe when I fly. It certainly isn't the fact that I know they are all federal employees. Don't get the wrong idea, though. I don't blame the TSA agents, they are just doing as they are instructed. (Well, most of them, anyway.) Any system in which my wife garners more scrutiny than Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab doesn't engender much faith. Even less so when they respond to failure by (initially, at least) claiming success and instituting ridiculous, stupid new rules and restrictions. I feel safe when I fly because of people like Jasper Schuringa.

Health Care Deform II

2009-12-20T16:32:00.000-08:00

Advocates of health care (insurance?) reform have engaged in a staggering level of deception, dishonesty and deceit. Add pay-offs (with your money, by the way) to fence-sitting Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson and it's hard to imagine a more corrupt process.

One of the most egregious examples of deception is their trumpeting of the CBO assessment that this bill will reduce the budget deficit. This legislation will increase the deficit significantly. The CBO knows this but is constrained by the rules that require it to score the bill exactly as written - if the bill claims the moon is made of green cheese, the CBO must evaluate the proposal as if the moon were made of green cheese. Furthermore, the authors of the legislation know it but they also know the limitations the CBO and intentionally designed the bill to game the CBO scoring system.

Bill Kristol identifies one area where the reality is certain to differ from the world the legislation required the CBO to operate in.

CBO is explaining that the legislation's claim to fiscal responsibility requires cutting in half the rate of growth of per capita Medicare spending. And, according to CBO, absent magical greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care, accomplishing those fiscal goals might well require reducing access to health care and/or diminishing the quality of health care. So less access and lower quality is a very real possible consequence of this legislation.

In this instance, as has often been the case with this "reform", the claims of its supporters are only possible if the impossible happens. But perhaps the most blatant deception concerns Medicare payments to health care providers.

[T]he sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration in the Congress...Under current law and under the proposal, payment rates for physicians’ services in Medicare would be reduced by about 21 percent in 2010 and then decline further in subsequent years.

Reform supporters are using a reduction in payments to doctors as a means of decreasing the impact this legislation has on the deficit while, at the same time, promoting a separate bill that would reverse this very same reduction. To make matters worse, the dollar amount of this one single provision is more than the total of the Democrats' claimed reduction in the deficit. If it is possible to be more deceptive I certainly can't conceive of how.

If anyone thought that the last Senate incarnation was as bad as it could get regarding tort reform, well, think again. Overlawyered.com quotes an anonymous Capitol Hill source,

Sen. Reid’s bill spends 50-million taxpayer dollars on a grant program run by trial lawyers for the benefit of trial lawyers. The money will be spent to establish “alternatives to litigation” that are even more lucrative for trial lawyers and costly for doctors than the current broken system.

This bill will raise the cost of health care and health insurance, destroy innovation, drive doctors and hospitals out of business and reduce access to health care. As the WSJ wrote in an editorial today, which is well worth reading in its entirety,

So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.

These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.

UPDATE: CBO estimates that tort reform "would reduce federal budget deficits by about $54 billion during the 2010–2019 period." (via ShopFloor via Overlawyered)

Reid Makes His Case

2009-12-13T20:19:00.000-08:00

Senator Harry Reid takes to the pages of the Review-Journal today to defend his health care, I mean, health insurance reform bill. He claims “[t]his bill will save lives, save money and save Medicare.” But this bill will definitely not do the first two and is unlikely to accomplish the third.

Reid doesn’t offer a single idea in his piece that would address the cost of health care. His entire discussion is founded on the flawed, false and, frankly, fabricated premise that insurance company profits are a major driver of health care costs. Every suggestion involves attacking insurance companies – forcing them to cover more people and more procedures while reducing their ability to either pass those costs on or to charge people who consume more health care more for health insurance.

In fact, some of the measures he discusses are certain to increase the cost of health care. According to Reid,

The bill provides protection from unfair out-of-pocket costs, and restricts arbitrary limits on the amount of coverage you can receive. We end discrimination based on gender and limit insurers' ability to charge more based on age. We will also allow young adults to stay on their parents' insurance. The bill also eliminates co-pays and deductibles for preventive services, putting an emphasis on wellness and prevention.

Each of these items is designed to shift costs from the health care consumers to health insurance providers. This will force insurance providers to charge all of their customers higher rates to cover the increased outlays since they will be largely prohibited from charging more to those on whom they are forced to spend more. In addition, it will exacerbate the problems caused by insulating health care consumers from the actual costs of care. This increases demand for these services, thus further driving up costs. (This effect was discussed in this presentation by then-CBO director, Peter Orszag, who is now President Obama’s Budget Director, and we noted it in an earlier post here.)

Several other measures within the proposed legislation will necessarily raise the cost of health care and health insurance. Beginning on p. 2010, the proposal imposes taxes on a series of industries essential to the delivery of life-saving and life-improving goods and services.

Section 9010 of the bill, entitled “Imposition of Annual Fee on Health Insurance Providers” (p. 2026), socks health insurance providers with an additional $6.7 billion in annual taxes simply for the privilege of offering health insurance coverage. We're interested to hear an explanation of how these additional taxes will reduce the cost of health insurance, or health care for that matter.

Section 9009 (p. 2020) imposes $2 billion in taxes annually on companies that manufacture and import medical devices, while Section 9008 (p. 2010) hits pharmaceutical companies with $2.3 billion in new fees every year. These added levies are certain to increase the costs of the very devices and medicines that are critical to improving life spans and quality of life.

The bill offers nothing but lip service to tort reform, something that may actually reduce health care costs. In its 2000+ pages only a single 109-word section entitled “Sense of the Senate Regarding Medical Malpractice” (see * below) even remotely involves the idea. Reining in runaway lawsuit costs might detract from the vital task of crushing private insurance carriers.

Reid touts the supposed transparency of the process, asserting “[t]he bill has also been posted numerous places online for all to read, including on the front page of my own Web site: http://reid.senate.gov.” (This is, in fact, where we accessed it to find the sections referenced above.) Either someone needs to inform his Number 2 in the Senate of this or the bill he submitted to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring is not the same bill he’s talking about. So much for transparency.

Reid and his allies are scrambling in an attempt to salvage this legislation. If they actually supported proposals that would reduce health care costs rather than bashing health insurers they might be more successful. Kind of makes you think that reducing the cost of health care isn't really the point after all.

P.S. - And you say you want transparency? Here’s some transparency for you. Page 869 contains a section entitled “Subtitle C – Provisions Relating to Part C; Sec. 3201 Medicare Advantage Payment.” It begins as follows (I've changed the formatting somewhat):

(a) MA BENCHMARK BASED ON PLAN’S COMPETITIVE BIDS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1853(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–23(j)) is amended—
(A) by striking ‘‘AMOUNTS.—For purposes’’ and inserting AMOUNTS.—‘‘
(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes’’;

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and indenting the subparagraphs appropriately;

(C) in subparagraph (A), as redesignated by subparagraph (B)—
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting the clauses appropriately; and

(ii) in clause (i), as redesignated by clause (i), by striking ‘‘an amount equal to’’ and all that follows through the end and inserting ‘‘an amount equal to—
‘‘(I) for years before 2007, 1/12 of the annual MA capitation rate under section 1853(c)(1) for the area for the year, adjusted as appropriate for the purpose of risk adjustment;

And it goes on from there. Clear as mud, right?

* - The entire text of the section “Sense of the Senate Regarding Medical Malpractice”:

It is the sense of the Senate that—health care reform presents an opportunity to address issues related to medical malpractice and medical liability insurance; States should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives to the existing civil litigation system as a way of improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes, and improving access to liability insurance, while preserving an individual’s right to seek redress in court; and Congress should consider establishing a State demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the existing civil litigation system with respect to the resolution of medical malpractice claims.

So much for tort reform.

The Right to Regulate Your Breathing

2009-12-07T21:51:00.001-08:00

As expected, the EPA today declared CO₂ a pollutant subject to regulation by the agency under the Clean Air Act. As the WSJ opines, this is a dangerous and undemocratic ruling. It allows the administration to impose regulations through the EPA and existing laws, sidestepping the legislative process.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday that her ruling that greenhouses gases are dangerous pollutants would "cement 2009's place in history" as the moment when the U.S. began "seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform." She's right that this is an historic decision, though not to her or the White House's credit, and "seizing" is the right term. President Obama isn't about to let a trifle like democratic consent impede his climate agenda.
With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot.

As the editorial reports, this ruling is loaded with political cynicism. As the Cap and Trade bill has stalled, the administration has used this backdoor to impose draconian restrictions on businesses, who, it apparently hopes, will acquiesce to their demands for legislation limiting carbon emissions.

The administration realizes how ridiculous the limits are, as evidenced by its stated intention to raise the barrier from 250 tons per year to 25,000 tons. This is unlikely to survive for long as green groups almost certain to sue to force the EPA to enforce the more restrictive standards. As the law is explicit and clear these challenges have a good chance of succeeding.

For now, this decision moves into the courts, and years if not decades of litigation. Yet the decision really is historic: The White House has opened a Pandora's box that will be difficult to close, that is breathtakingly undemocratic, and that the country, if not liberal politicians, will come to regret.

We will all come to regret this. There is nothing that any of us do that does not in some way involve the release of CO₂. This ruling allows the EPA to literally regulate every single aspect of every single activity engaged in by every single person every single day, including breathing. As if there were any doubt it was dead already, we can chisel today's date on the tombstone of limited government.

Congressman Heller Addresses Panel on Issues and Politics

2009-12-07T16:39:00.000-08:00

“I like to tell people I’m a low tax, small government, reasonable regulation, free-market capitalist,” two-term Republican Congressman Dean Heller told a gathering of bloggers, talk-radio hosts and others sponsored by the Nevada News Bureau. “There’s not very many of us left in Washington, D.C.,” he added.

Heller commented on the propensity of Congress to exempt itself from the laws it passes. For example, he noted that there is a provision in the Cap-and-Trade bill “that exempts Congress from that act...We even exempt ourselves from hiring practices. We’ve exempted ourselves from some of the OSHA rules. We’d exempt ourselves from gravity if we thought we could get away with it.”

During a committee debate on health care reform, Heller related, “a member on the other side said, ‘If I went home and told my wife that we were going to have the same health care as everybody else, she wouldn’t be very happy with me.’”

Addressing the complaint of the Republicans as the “Party of No” Heller responded, “It works well politically, but I don’t think it’s fair.” He noted that Republicans have submitted over 40 proposals on health care, mentioning two of his own – forgiving some student loans from doctors and nurses who agree to practice in underserved areas and allowing doctors to write off expenses for indigent care. The latter he claimed would allow the uninsured to avoid the more expensive treatment at hospitals and emergency rooms but it was opposed by even his fellow Republicans, who cited the fear that lawyers would then be able to deduct their pro bono work.

He expressed his belief that tort reform must be central to any health care reform, claiming that “you can reduce the cost of health care in this country by 20-25% by having meaningful tort reform.” But he isn’t optimistic about the chance of any such provision being included. “The trial lawyers are helping write this piece of legislation,” he said. “You’ve got 3000 trial lawyers right now that are camped in Washington, DC writing this health care bill for 300 million Americans. That’s what’s going on and that’s why you see no tort reform in the bill.”

He believes this is an example of the Democrats repaying their supporters. “This is just payback time for trial lawyers, environmentalists and unions right now. With card check with cap and trade and with health care – they’re paying those 3 groups back.”

Health care was far from the only area with which Heller expressed disagreement with the administration. “I’m almost convinced that nobody in this administration has gone west of the Mississippi. You know all we’re hearing in the beltway right now…is that this economy’s turning around. We’re hearing that we’ve reached bottom and we’re well on our way.” He continued, “Boy, they need to spend some time here in this town. They need to talk to some developers; they need to talk to some of the planners, the city people, some of the gaming people and find out what’s really going on out here in the West...I don’t think they have a full grasp right now of the extent of how deep this recession really is.”

As for last week’s White House Jobs Summit, “There were some private sector people there but you know the bulk of those who attended that meeting, they were government employees, they were trial lawyers, they were environmentalists and they were unions.”

Its purpose was to reach a pre-determined conclusion, in Heller’s view. “[Obama] brought the people in who would tell him, ‘We need a second stimulus.’ When he did actually talk to…people who own small businesses, those who own manufacturers, they’re telling him just the opposite,” such as to abandon many policies that the President favors. “[Obama]’s all for a second stimulus. The second stimulus is going to be a bailout to states.”

There was one area in which Heller agreed, although with reservations, with President Obama – Afghanistan. “I hope he’s right. I want this President to be right,” Heller declared. His concern was that last week’s address by President Obama “was a very different speech. Everyone in here has heard this President speak. That was a very different style because I got the feeling that he didn’t believe what he was saying.”

He cautioned against half measures in prosecuting the war. “I will tell you from the data and information I get in Washington, DC that the troops on the ground felt and believed that they needed 80,000 troops and they got 30 [thousand]. So are we handicapping their ability to win this war? If we are, then we ought to bring them home, just bring them home right away...It’s either all in or get out.”

Later, he said, “What’s not realistic is telling them we’ll be out in 18 months.” He claimed Obama was trying to “split the baby with that speech. He knew that we needed to go in there, that there needed to be a surge. But he knew the left wouldn’t support that and so he put a timeline in there trying to make everybody happy.”

When asked to define victory in Afghanistan, Heller stated it would be when American troops were “able to come out of that country with [the Afghans] being able to police themselves – be able to govern themselves.” He expressed little faith in the current Afghan government. “I have a hard time thinking that we are going to release a country to a corrupt government.”

Heller expressed his opposition to trying suspected terrorists captured abroad in civilian courts and to torturing them as well. However, he was hesitant to define torture other than to defer to the judgment of the military. Heller also was reluctant to endorse a definite course when asked about the fate of the Navy Seals charged with mistreating terrorist suspect Ahmed Hashim Abed, saying that the President “needs to step in” and request all of the information but stopping short of advocating dropping charges against them without knowing all of the facts.

Heller expressed confidence in Republicans’ chances of defeating Senator Harry Reid. Referring to a recent poll in the Review-Journal, Heller stated, “I think it’s very clear we have candidates who can beat Senator Reid.” But he declared it’s very early in the race and a lot could happen, including changes in the mix of candidates, although he rejected a suggestion that he would be one. “I have no doubt it’s going to be a very typical Harry Reid race. It tightens, it gets close, it’s going to be ugly and it’s going to come down to a few thousand votes.”

The key, according to Heller, is exploiting Reid’s weaknesses. He explained, “I think health care is a weakness for him, I think Cap-and-Trade is a weakness for him, I think Cash for Clunkers is a weakness for him, I think bailouts are weaknesses for him, I think stimulus is a weakness for him, I think omnibus spending, huge spending bills is a weakness for him.”

Regarding the scandal surrounding Nevada’s other Senator, Republican John Ensign, Heller declared, “I haven’t asked for his resignation.” He did, however, state that if an investigation reveals that Senator Ensign violated any laws, “I think it’s a different thing if we start getting into things that are legal.”

As for the political fallout of the scandal, Heller said, “I don’t think there’s any doubt” that his scandal will have a negative impact on conservative candidates in next year’s election. Of his own campaign, Heller said, “I have not asked for his support in my campaign for reelection in Nevada. I’ll run on my own merits. I’ll run on my own…record.”

Heller predicted that the upcoming election cycle will “be anti-incumbent.” Although much sentiment runs against the Democrats because they are in power, this does not necessarily translate into support for Republicans. “There are some Republicans that the Ron Paul people won’t support. There are some Republicans out there that [the] Tea Party people won’t support. And they’re going to get” challenged in the primaries.

“It isn’t necessarily pro-Republican,” he continued. “I think that they kicked the Republicans out. They were tired of Bush; they were tired of the majority Republicans. Now they’re sick of the Democrats but I don’t think” that means they want Republicans back in power.

Steve Sebelius and NNB have reports on the gathering.

Good News! Now Let's Squander It

2009-12-06T20:48:00.000-08:00

Because TARP recipients are repaying the money they've received from the program, the Treasury estimates the program will cost $200 billion less than previously thought. But, since Washington can't stand prosperity, they're looking for another way to squander it.

The Obama administration, buoyed by a resurgent Wall Street, plans to cut the projected long-term cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program by more than $200 billion, in a move that could smooth the way for the introduction of a new jobs program.
The White House and leaders in Congress are debating whether to use any of the remaining TARP funds for other domestic efforts, such as a jobs bill. Congress authorized $700 billion for the program during the height of the financial crisis.

The Treasury now estimates that over the next 10 years TARP will cost $141 billion at most, down from the $341 billion the White House projected in August. The reduction stems in large part from faster-than-expected repayments by some of the nation's largest banks, as well as less spending on programs to help shore up the financial sector.

Rather than use the money to reduce the debt, the administration believes that it can be put to use on another Keynesian fantasy of government job creation. There is a reason that government programs to create jobs inevitably fail.

Like many in Las Vegas I have a lawn with no grass. The landscaping at our house is a combination of trees, shrubs and landscape rock.

I get up one morning determined to do my part to stimulate the economy. So I head off to my local hardware store and spend $500 on a brand-new lawnmower. According to Keynesian theory, I've just stimulated the economy with my purchase. That $500 I just spent will go to employees and suppliers, who will spend it on other items, multiplying its economic impact. But what have I really done?

The hardware store has exchanged a mower worth $500 for an equal amount of cash. What about my side of the ledger? I now have $500 less cash than I had before. In exchange I have something that's worth absolutely nothing to me. In fact, it's going to cost me time and money to store and maintain. I've reduced my net worth by $500.

This transaction, meant to stimulate the economy, has not stimulated anything. The reality is that it has actually reduced the combined net worth of the parties involved.

This is the problem with Keynesian stimulus. The idea that government spending can stimulate the economy results in the government doing the equivalent of buying a lot of lawnmowers for people without grass to cut, with the net effect of reducing the combined net worth of the country.

If It Sounds Too Good to be True

2009-11-27T13:22:00.000-08:00

It probably is. Through all of the townhall meetings, Tea Parties, demonstrations and debate, this is the root of the flagging support for the Democrats' health care reform proposals.

As leftists often do while trying to sell their agenda, they're attempting to claim that there are no trade-offs; that you can have everything, if you'd just follow them. Their supporters are claiming that we can cover everything and everybody and it will be cheaper, too! Most people realize implicitly that this can't all be true - that in the real world there are trade-offs and that those pushing this reform are selling a fantasy.

The ad here and the other ads by this organization, many of which have run on local TV, are some of the worst offenders. They simply repeat the Democratic talking points but from an ostensibly independent organization.

"Keep the coverage you have" if you like it. Except that in an employer-based system employees don't have that choice. If the employer changes or drops coverage, the employee is forced to change. If the reform plan the ad supports passes, people who are in high-deductible plans and/or have Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) will have to change because those plans will no longer be available. While the plan doesn't explicitly make these illegal it does make them infeasible. HSA contributions are subject to increased taxes and those who selected high-deductible plans would still be subject to the tax (excuse me, fee) for not having health insurance.

"Medical decisions by you and your doctor." That is, except when they're not.

That's not all but you get the idea. Claim after claim that is either demonstrably false or that can be shown to be unrealistic by anything other than the most shallow analysis.

This is as to be expected since their entire concept of reform is founded upon a myth based upon a lie. The myth is that health care costs can be controlled by reining in health insurance costs. This is based upon the lie that the profits of health insurance companies are major drivers of health care costs. There are no legitimate studies that reveal this to be true, although there are some flawed and bogus ones that do (one of which I addressed here and here).

The reality is just the opposite - health insurance costs are increasing because health care costs are increasing. So the Democrats and their supporters are left with trying to sell a fantasy - you can have it all and it will cost less, to boot!

The Cost of Decadence

2009-11-26T22:08:00.000-08:00

New York City tells its starving that it's better to go hungry than eat food with trans fat.

When a small church comes to the Bowery Mission bearing fried chicken with trans fat, unwittingly breaking the law, they’re told “thank you.” Then workers quietly chuck the food, mission director Tom Bastile said.

“It’s always hard for us to do,” Basile said. “We know we have to do it.”

Such is the inevitable cost of government do-gooderism.

What I Have to be Thankful For

2009-11-26T09:16:00.000-08:00

The last year has been a notably interesting one for us, to say the least. Our lives have changed in so many ways and much of what we had taken for granted was lost. Through all the tumult and change there are many things for which I am thankful on this Thanksgiving.

I am thankful for my family. I married the most gorgeous, caring, thoughtful, understanding, forgiving woman in the world and we have the most beautiful, intelligent, kind-hearted daughter. My parents, brother, in-laws and stepfamilies, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews, nieces and all the rest are a wonderful group of people. They have overlooked my numerous faults and have continued to love and support me through every bad decision and wrong turn I've made along the way.

I am thankful for my friends - for those whom I've known for years and those I've recently met. I am thankful to our military, police and others who put their lives and safety at risk to protect us and our freedoms. I am thankful to be living in the United States of America. I am thankful to be working. Having spent some time without a job and knowing so many people who are not employed now, I feel especially fortunate to be working.

I am thankful for all that I've experienced in the last year, much of which would not have happened but for the tumult and upheaval in our lives. I met many people whom I would not have met and became involved in many things that I would not have done. We began attending church, something we should have done years ago. Our daughter is enrolled in kindergarten at the school at our church and is getting an education (both academic and spiritual) that is superior to what she would get nearly anywhere else.

I thank God for all of these things and everything else He has given me and my family.

Teach Your Children Well

2009-11-14T09:37:00.000-08:00

Child: I know lots of big numbers. I know thousands. And after thousands comes millions.

Right-wing nut job: Very good.

Child: Daddy, what comes after millions?

RWNJ: Billions.

Child: I know what comes after billions - trillions!

RWNJ: That is excellent!

Child: Daddy, what comes after trillions?

RWNJ: The Obama administration.

al Qaeda's Soapbox

2009-11-13T21:23:00.000-08:00

I am absolutely flabbergasted by the Obama administration's colossally bad decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists (no "alleged" here) in civilian courts. In defending the indefensible decision, Attorney General Holder tried to allay fears that the bloodthirsty murders would be acquitted by doing his best Joe Namath and guaranteeing a conviction. As Charles Krauthammer put it tonight on Special Report (no transcript online that I could find),

Holder is telling us that he wants to uphold the high standards of justice but he’s guaranteeing a conviction in advance. Well, that’s a helluva way to do it.

I don't see how a fair trial with the presumption of innocence is consistent with a guaranteed result. There is no possible way that Holder can know how the judge will react to the litany of motions the defense is destined to present and which evidence will and will not be admitted and what sensitive information will have to be revealed.

In his press conference, Holder admitted that there was evidence that he had seen that was not public. How much of how, where, from whom, etc. will have to be disclosed and what the effects of those disclosures will be no one can know.

In addition, we will be providing KSM with a platform from which to spew jihad propoganda - in the shadow of his greatest triumph, no less. It's virtually certain that he and the others will attempt to put the US on trial. We will actually be assisting our enemies in waging their war against us.

Andrew McCarthy, who, unlike Holder, has actual experience in prosecuting terrorists in court, has a very cynical take.

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

What happens in the event of an acquittal? Who believes the Obama adminstration would let KSM, for instance, go free? On the same Special Report, Stephen Hayes predicted that, in that case, the administration would continue to file a series of charges in order to keep KSM locked up. But what if some judge ordered him released? This is hardly out of the question. Does anyone believe they would continue to hold him in defiance of a judicial order, especially after all of their posturing about the rule of law and the need to be true to our values?

Beyond the potential for secrets being revealed and one of the terrorists being acquitted and freed inside the US there is also the possibility of terrorist attacks in conjunction with the trials. There is so much harm that could result from this decision it is insane to even consider it. I guess there is no price that is too high to pay to make leftist lawyers feel better about themselves and less ashamed of their country.

Land of the Greed and Home of the Slave

2009-11-02T21:46:00.000-08:00

Jeremiah Wright's description of America. Not surprisingly he has much higher praise for Marxism in the same speech.

One of the greatest political moves of all time was Obama’s successful deception regarding Reverend Wright. Barack and Michelle sat in his parish for more than 20 years listening to his vile, racist rants yet Obama was able to convince Americans that he had never heard Wright utter such things.

Whether Obama shares Wright’s beliefs or merely attended his church to bolster his street cred one can only guess. But the idea that he knew nothing of Wright’s views simply defies credulity.

The truth is that Obama knew of Wright from the very beginning – even before he began attending his church. Obama’s decision regarding where to worship was not one that was taken lightly or made in haste.

Just a few weeks before the election, PBS Frontline aired a program called The Choice 2008 (video here), in which they interviewed reporters and others familiar with both Obama and John McCain. A portion of the program discussed Obama’s relationship with Wright.

NARRATOR: There was, inside black Chicago, another place Barack Obama wanted to put down roots, the church.

RYAN LIZZA: Obama was very sort of meticulous about going to the various pastors, interviewing them, talking to them about their churches and their reputations. So he was- he was on a sort of quest to find a church home.

This hardly sounds like someone who would have been as unfamiliar with Wright’s thinking as Obama portrayed himself to be. Despite Obama's protestations to the contrary it is much closer to the truth that he and Michelle chose to attend Wright's church because of who Wright was and what he preached than that they were ignorant of it. And they were not the only the only young upper-middle class African-Americans attracted to Wright.

SALIM MUWAKKIL: [Wright] had the reputation of a militant guy who could- he provided kind of a vicarious militance for Chicago's black elites and so they could get a dose of militance on Sunday and go back home and feel pretty good about doing their part for the black movement.

Obama basked in the glow of Wright when it was in his political interest to do so but was willing to shun him when it might be harmful to be seen as too close to the pastor. Wright was disinvited to the ceremony announcing Obama's candidacy.

BEN WALLACE-WELLS, Rolling Stone: Obama's scheduled to deliver this big event in Springfield. And that was going to be in Springfield, home of Abe Lincoln. It's, like, a very big deal for the campaign.

[...]

NARRATOR: They had even invited his minister from Trinity Church, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to deliver the invocation. But there was a problem. A story in Rolling Stone quoted some of the pastor's fiery sermons.

[...]

DAN BALZ, The Washington Post: On that cold, cold morning, not to have Reverend Wright give the invocation was certainly a sign that they knew there was some problem brewing. I think the question was, how big a problem was it, how could they deal with it if it erupted, and could they just kind of keep it in the back?

Obama and his advisers knew that Wright could be a huge political liability.

MARK HALPERIN, TIME Magazine: His advisers knew that Wright was a big problem, that if people went back and mined what he had said, if they looked at Obama and looked at Wright and their relationship that it could change the impression that people had of Obama.

BEN WALLACE-WELLS: What Axelrod told me later is that the campaign became worried that Fox News would blast these quotes from Obama's crazy pastor, so they yanked Wright. They basically told him that he couldn't be part of this event and Wright got very mad.

Is Wright now getting his revenge? Or is he simply being Jeremiah Wright? Will Obama be able to continue to distance himself from his radical associates? That is becoming more and more difficult for him to do - especially as his own radical agenda is revealed.

In Pelosi's Health Care Bill

2009-10-29T22:05:00.000-07:00

States are eligible to receive incentives for enacting effective medical liability alternatives. (p. 1431)

IN GENERAL.--To the extent and in the amounts made available in advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary shall make an incentive payment, in an amount determined by the Secretary, to each State that has an alternative medical liability law in compliance with this section.

Of course, there's a catch.

CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LIABILITY LAW.--The contents of an alternative liability law are in accordance with this paragraph if--

(A) the litigation alternatives contained in the law consist of certificate of merit, early offer, or both; and

(B) the law does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages.

Can't do anything to harm the trial lawyers.

Why Don't We Just Make Them Provide a Babysitter with Every Sale?

2009-10-25T19:39:00.000-07:00

Since ultimately it is product manufacturers, not parents, who should be responsible for children's safety.

According to trial testimony, the accident occurred after Kurt Norton went outside to mow his backyard despite no other adult being home to supervise five children ages 9 and younger that he left inside the house watching television.

In his closing argument Wednesday, Deere’s attorney said another child who witnessed the accident reported that Norton accidentally backed over Isabelle, not knowing she’d come outside, as she was apparently trying to climb up onto the back of the machine.

Eugene attorney Dwight Purdy, who filed the suit as guardian for Isabelle, expressed “incredible disappointment” on behalf of the girl and her family.

“We strongly disagree with the jury’s verdict,” he said. “John Deere must be held accountable for product safety, especially the safety of children.”

As parents we should be free to leave our children unsupervised, safe in the knowledge that the manufacturers of every product we own have designed their wares to prevent every possible use or misuse that may result in harm.

via Overlawyered

Al Gore Proves Himself Wrong

2009-10-11T19:58:00.000-07:00

Don Surber mocks Al Gore. Then delivers this.

Yes, one generation survived the Depression, won World War II and grappled with and ultimately resolved America’s shame of 100 years of second-class citizenship for blacks after 200 years of slavery.

Al Gore’s big question is paper or plastic.

I don’t have time for this fool.

Al Gore has forever been one utterly convinced of his own self-importance.

Just In Case You Might Be a Little Confused

2009-10-10T21:28:00.000-07:00

Che Guevara was a sadistic, blood-thirsty murderer.

The Nobel Hope Prize

2009-10-10T09:59:00.000-07:00

The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was more than a little shocking. The idea that someone who had been in office for less than 9 months with no foreign policy accomplishment, other than a few speeches apologizing for his own country, would be considered worthy of such an award is quite a head-scratcher. There are many very worthy people who have worked tirelessly and who have suffered at the hands of brutal tyrants who are much more deserving.

Although an American won the award it was not a victory for America. As this WSJ editorial explains, it is Obama's apparent rejection of American exceptionalism that was most persuasive to the committee.

[T]he Nobel citation declares that Mr. Obama's "diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Now, the world is a big place, much of it run by despots and crooks, each of whom gets the same vote in the U.N. General Assembly as America. The Europeans are applauding that at long last there is an American President willing to let himself and his country mingle as equals with this amorphous global "majority."
The Norwegians are on to something. In a mere nine months, the President has promulgated a vision for the U.S. role in the world that breaks with both Republican and Democratic predecessors. Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, called America the "indispensable nation" a decade ago. Ronald Reagan called it a "city on the Hill," an example to the world.

Mr. Obama sees the U.S. differently, as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger, and so he calls for a humbler America, at best a first among equals, working primarily through the U.N. The world's challenges, he emphasized yesterday, "can't be met by any one leader or any one nation." What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called "American exceptionalism." This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary.
Put in this context, we wonder if most Americans will count this peace-of-the-future prize as a compliment.

The award says not as much about President Obama as it does about the Nobel committee itself. It merely confirms that the committee believes that a weaker America serves the interests of peace. This is a very dangerous notion.

The world is a big and dangerous place. There are many nations in which the most ruthless and charismatic are able to steal, intimidate and murder their way to the top. And many of these "leaders" have aspirations beyond the borders of their own countries. The United States is the only nation that is morally and militarily capable of controlling, deterring and defeating these regimes. The weakening of the US does not bode well for either our nation or for the rest of the world.

"It's A Major Award"

2009-10-09T20:29:00.001-07:00

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle celebrate the arrival of the Nobel Peace Prize.

For a more serious and intelligent analysis, see Orrin Johnson.

The Myth of the Public Option

2009-10-06T22:44:00.000-07:00

While supporters of Obamacare constantly accuse their opponents (often wrongly) of spreading misinformation they have themselves very frequently been guilty of that very offense. Many arguments in favor of a public option have been characterized by much misinformation.

Contrary to the assertions of its supporters, the existence of a public option will neither reduce the costs of health care nor slow the increases. Evidence suggests, in fact, that a public option will likely raise health care costs, especially if introduced in conjunction with a slew of mandates on private providers, which is virtually certain to be the case.

The public option has little to do with reducing costs and much to do with driving private insurance companies out. Recently, Washington Senator Maria Cantwell attempted to tie health insurance company profits to the rise in health care costs, a charge that was parroted by one of our local papers, as I commented on earlier.

“While individual wages may have gone up 24 percent, health care costs, as I have said, have gone up 120 percent over a 10-year period of time.

"But insurance profits have gone up 428 percent over that ten year period of time. So, obviously, there's something going on here, where they're making a lot of money and not driving down costs.

"And competition from a public option would help do that. I think, as we get to the heart of the debate, we can make this point . . ."

The claim that “insurance profits have gone up 428 percent” is meaningless, misleading and simply wrong. It derives from this “study” from Health Care for America Now, a coalition of left-wing activist groups created to advance the left’s version of health care reform.

First, these profits don’t represent the entire insurance industry, just the 10 largest publicly-traded companies (let’s call them the Terrible 10). Second, the calculation used to arrive at the 428% figure is dubious. HCAN merely compared the profits each company reported in its SEC filings in 2007 with those it reported in 2000. This produces very deceptive results.

For example, say Behemoth Health Care reported $1 billion in profits in one year and Mega Health Care $500 million the same year. The two companies combined for $1.5 billion in profits. The following year Behemoth purchased Mega and the combined company reported $1.25 billion in profits in that year. In reality, there was a $250 million reduction in profits (from $1.5 to $1.25 billion). But using the HCAN method, profits increased $250 million since Behemoth reported $1 billion one year and $1.25 billion the next. As the Terrible 10 engaged in a flurry of merger and acquisition activity during this time period, that effect had a substantial impact on the increase in total profits reported by HCAN.

As the chart* below shows, while total profits for the Terrible 10 have tended to increase, profit margins (the percentage of revenues that constitute net profits) have remained relatively stable and low. They have generally been between 2% and about 6% and were even negative during one year. This is hardly in the price gouging range.

Something else interesting about the information in the chart above: Notice that both the total profit and profit margin plummeted in 2008. The HCAN study was released in May 2009. All of the companies had filed their annual SEC reports for 2008 by March of this year, which should have allowed plenty of time for HCAN to update its report. Yet the 2008 figures, which would have significantly impacted the percentage increase in a manner not supportive of HCAN’s thesis, were not included.

A further look at the numbers reveals that the claims that health care costs are rising because insurance companies are pocketing large rate increases while refusing to pay claims is specious as well. The portion of premiums that The Terrible 10 expend on health care has fluctuated between about 81%-87% of the premiums they take in (increasing over the last few years) while health care costs have continued to climb.*

Despite the shrieking of those on the left there is no evidence that health insurance costs cause health care costs to rise (at least not in the way Obamacare proponents would like you to believe, as we will show). In fact, exactly the opposite is true – insurance costs are driven by health care costs. The reason health care is expensive is because health care is expensive. Health insurance costs rise because health insurance providers are forced to spend increasing amounts of money to pay for the health care of their insured.

Before he became President Obama’s Budget Director, Peter Orszag was the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In this capacity, he testified before the Senate Budget Committee in January 2009 about the growth of health care costs. He identified several factors that served to increase the cost of health care.

Most analysts agree that the most important factor driving the long-term growth of health care costs has been the emergence, adoption, and widespread diffusion of new medical technologies and services by the U.S. health care system.

[…]

Advances in medical science have made available to patients and physicians a wealth of new medical therapies, many unheard of in even the relatively recent past. Some medical advances permit the treatment of previously untreatable conditions, introducing new categories of spending. Others, relative to older modes of treatment, improve medical outcomes at added cost, expanding existing spending. Available empirical estimates suggest that approximately half of all long-term growth in health care spending has been associated with the expanded capabilities of medicine brought about by technological advances.

It is not health insurance profits but the technological advances (the advances that increase the length and quality of life) that are the largest driver of health care cost increases. This is not really something that we want to skimp on. Absent greater government control of the health care system it may also be extremely difficult for policymakers, both politically and morally, to address as a Kaiser Family Foundation report notes.

Over the long run, bringing health spending growth closer to the rate of overall economic growth would likely require finding ways to slow the development and diffusion of new health care technologies and practices. Developing ways to explicitly assess and weigh the benefits and costs of new technologies is one promising approach, although such evaluations present serious challenges. The sheer volume and pace of medical advances would make it difficult to assess important changes before they are incorporated into medical practice; focusing on the most expensive new treatment options might be more practical and could have a meaningful impact on cost growth.

Health technology assessment may also involve difficult decisions about whether a medical benefit is worth the cost and whether it should be covered by a public or private insurance program. For example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the U.K. authority charged with approving medical treatments, received widespread criticism when it excluded beta interferon to treat multiple sclerosis from the list of publicly-covered treatments. Other ways of potentially reducing the development and diffusion of new health care technologies, such as much higher cost sharing that could reduce the ability of many to afford expensive treatments (which in turn would dissuade their development), are no less controversial. Recent legislation provided federal funding for the development and dissemination of comparative effectiveness research, specifying that the funding be used to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, risk, and benefits (but not the costs) of various technologies and treatments, and not be used to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for public or private payers.

Considering some of the other factors (aside from lifestyle-related) driving health care costs upward, it would seem counterproductive to adopt a system that further insulates the health care consumer from the costs of care. Essentially, we spend more on health care because we can. Orszag:

Other examples of factors contributing to spending growth include the growth in personal income and the rising share of health care costs paid by third-party insurers over recent decades; both of those trends contributed to spending growth by increasing demand for medical care. Because medical care is a desired service, people naturally purchase more of it as their income increases. And health insurance, as economists are fond of pointing out, effectively drives down the cost of care from the consumer’s perspective, resulting in a higher quantity of services demanded than would otherwise be the case. [Emphasis mine]

The Kaiser document echoes the point that third-party payer systems increase demand for health care, which serves to push up costs.

Insurance coverage has increased. Government subsidies for health coverage also affect cost levels and potentially cost growth. Tax subsidies for health insurance and public coverage for certain groups (poor, disabled, and elderly) reduce the cost of health care to individuals, encouraging them to use more of it. Some argue that the high prevalence of health insurance encourages health technology development because those developing new technologies know that insurance will bear a substantial share of any new costs

Americans pay a lower share of health expenses than they used to. Another factor that may help explain rising health spending is the falling share of health care expenditures that Americans pay out-of-pocket.16 Between 1970 and 2007, the share of personal health expenditures paid directly out-of-pocket by consumers fell from 40 percent to 14 percent. Although consumers faced rising health insurance premiums over the period which affected their budgets, lower cost sharing at the point of service likely encouraged consumers to use more health care, leading to expenditure growth.

With these facts in mind, it would be foolish to adopt a system that further removes the consumer from the direct costs of care. Yet this is exactly what the public option and the increased mandates on insurance companies associated with Obamacare would do. Orzsag’s testimony hints that increasing cost-sharing by consumers may be a successful means of reducing costs, although with a caveat.

On the consumer side, a landmark health insurance experiment by RAND showed that higher cost sharing reduces spending—particularly when compared with a plan offering free care—with few or no adverse effects on health.15 However, compared with more typical health insurance plans (which do not offer free care), high-deductible designs have more modest effects on health care spending; such approaches also raise concerns about the financial burden on individuals with significant health problems (again reflecting trade-offs between providing insurance protection and maintaining incentives to control costs).

Proponents of Obamacare often point to the high cost of health care in the US compared to other countries as evidence of the need for drastic change. The implication is that we can better control rising costs by adopting systems more like those of other countries in which the government is much more involved. Orzsag’s testimony seems to refute this.

Although the level of spending per capita in the United States contrasts sharply with that of other wealthy countries, the growth rate of spending in the United States is less unusual. Most industrialized countries—even those with a financing system quite different from that in the United States—have experienced a substantial long-term rise in real spending on health care.[Italics in original, bold mine]

Many proponents of the left’s version of health care reform claim that the inclusion of a public option to compete with private insurers is essential to controlling health care costs. This assertion is based upon the flawed premise that health care costs can be controlled by further involving the government and further removing the consumer from the costs of care. The reality is that insulating the consumer from the actual cost of health care serves to increase demand which drives costs upward. Despite their false claims and misinformation the public option would move us in precisely the wrong direction.

* - Data for charts obtained from companies' SEC filings (10-K and Annual Reports)

Note: The two paragraphs directly above the first chart have been altered slightly since the post was originally published.

Michael Moore is a Big Tub of...

2009-10-04T14:23:00.000-07:00

Hypocrisy. Some things

MICHAEL MOORE made a name for himself pointing cameras at cruel corporate executives and other enemies of the people. He stalked the chairman of General Motors, sent people in Puritan costumes to Ken Starr's home and set up a Web site with a camera trained on a window of Lucianne Goldberg's apartment.
But Mr. Moore does not appreciate being bothered himself, as Alan Edelstein discovered. After he was fired by Mr. Moore, Mr. Edelstein tried borrowing the technique Mr. Moore had applied to G.M.'s Roger Smith in the film ''Roger & Me'': showing up uninvited with a camera and trying to get an answer from a boss who has decided to downsize.
Mr. Moore responded by filing a complaint with the New York police accusing Mr. Edelstein of aggravated harassment, menacing and criminal trespassing. As a result, Mr. Edelstein was arrested in March and spent nine hours in a cell at the Midtown North police station.

never change.

The funniest moments of all in the movie, though, may just be in the opening and closing credits. We see that the movie is presented by "Paramount Vantage" in association with the Weinstein Company. Bob and Harvey Weinstein are listed as executive producers. If Mr. Moore appreciates any of the irony here he sure doesn't share it with viewers, but for those members of the audience who are in on the secret it's all kind of amusing. Paramount Vantage, after all, is controlled by Viacom, on whose board sit none other than Sumner Redstone and former Bear Stearns executive Ace Greenberg, who aren't exactly socialists. The Weinstein Company announced it was funded with a $490 million private placement in which Goldman Sachs advised. The press release announcing the deal quoted a Goldman spokesman saying, "We are very pleased to be a part of this exciting new venture and look forward to an ongoing relationship with The Weinstein Company."

Personally, I'm looking for more from America's most-talented documentary filmmaker.

Solar Blemishes VIII

2009-10-01T18:29:00.000-07:00

Or Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

This morning the Sun presented yet another editorial advocating for a public option in health care reform (or is it health insurance reform? I can't keep up with all of the semantic games). They included some statistics to help make their case.

As Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., explained so well to her committee colleagues, the reason to approve a public option is this: Over a 10-year period, she said, insurance company profits soared by 428 percent and premiums rose 120 percent while the average wage of an American worker nudged upward only 29 percent.

428%? When you've actually done some research, as I have, and know that the largest health insurers profit margins are in the low- to mid-single digits a number that large just seems too good (or bad) to be true. Turns out that it is.

The figure originates from this report from Health Care for America Now (HCAN). The claim that "insurance company profits soared by 428 percent" is very misleading. The information is contained on p. 8 of the report. HCAN merely took the 10 largest publicly-traded health insurance providers in 2007 and compared each company's net profit in 2007 to their net in 2000.

This is not an accurate representation of the growth of profits of the industry as a whole, or even how the profits of the 10 largest insurance companies in 2000 compared to the 10 largest in 2007. It is merely a reflection of how these individual companies grew during this time (many of them from relatively small firms). This "study" is rougly equivalent to saying that, since the New England Patriots won 5 games in 2000 and 16 games in 2007, that wins in the NFL increased by 220% during that time. It is an absolutely meaningless statistic.

When you look into who HCAN is or, rather, who comprises HCAN, it's easy to see why they would present such a misleading study. HCAN is a coalition of left-wing organizations, including ACORN, AFSCME, MoveOn.org, National Council of La Raza, SEIU, Center for American Progress Action Fund and many more. This is a conglomeration of leftist activist groups that was created for the very purpose of pushing the left's version of health care reform. The left dismisses their opponents as shills for Big Insurance and Big Pharma but an organization whose very reason for being, its raison d'être, is to advocate for a particular policy is considered beyond reproach.

Once again, the Sun editorial board simply parrots the assertions of liberal/leftist politicians, media and activist groups without even a cursory check of the facts. It's one thing for a politician to do this but quite another for journalists.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

2009-09-28T21:26:00.000-07:00

The federal government has loaned a company backed by Al Gore over a half-billion dollars to make status symbols for rich Europeans.

A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000.
The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive Inc. follows a $465 million government loan to Tesla Motors Inc., purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Tesla is a California startup focusing on all-electric vehicles, with a number of celebrity endorsements that is backed by investors that have contributed to Democratic campaigns.
The awards to Fisker and Tesla have prompted concern from companies that have had their bids for loans rejected, and criticism from groups that question why vehicles aimed at the wealthiest customers are getting loans subsidized by taxpayers.

"This is not for average Americans," said Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, an anti-tax group in Washington. "This is for people to put something in their driveway that is a conversation piece. It's status symbol thing."