|
Joe Biden Was Right
Joe Biden is often ridiculed for making gross misstatements
about history, current events, etc. However, for once he was absolutely
right about one thing. He predicted that our enemies would try this new
administration, and that we - the citizens of this country - would probably not initially agree with the
response of the administration. Thus far his prediction that we would not
like the reaction of the administration is right on. Disagreement involves
not just reactions to our enemies, but many of the actions of this
administration.
Let me count the ways:
1. Our enemies: a known jihadist reported by his own father
is called an isolated extremist. Iran supports killers of American troops
and has rebuked every approach made to try to limit its nuclear
capability, yet this administration keeps setting new deadlines for
compliance with "demands" to curb its nuclear efforts.
2. Our economy: Financial institutions and car companies were
essentially taken over through bailouts. They are now hamstrung by mandates,
such as limitations upon salaries for senior executives, which will make
them less competitive. For the car companies, structured bankruptcies
rewarded friends of the government - unions - while secured lenders with
rightful claims were humiliated into accepting substantial limitations on
their claims. A stimulus package intended to save jobs has in fact done the
opposite because it ignores the basic fact that the private sector creates
new jobs while the government merely shifts money and thus jobs from
productive areas of the private sector. Now the proposal is to tax financial
institutions which have repaid the government with interest effectively in
order to make good the losses from the bailout of the car companies which
are now effectively run by the unions.
3. Our health care system: This administration insists upon
going ahead with a health care proposal that cannot be sustained
financially, is not wanted by a majority of the country and is supported by
a relatively small minority of the population. It is being cobbled together
by backroom deals, many of which may be unconstitutional, but at the very
least are reprehensible in how they buy votes and favor political allies
while punishing others. The supposed bases for the change - to reduce costs
and cover the uninsured - are false. The proposals will do neither.
4. Our government: Obama claimed that he would change the
climate in Washington. The administration and Congress would be more
transparent. His administration would be bipartisan and post racial. None of
these promises have been kept. As noted above, the health care proposal is
being put together in back room meetings. At an early meeting with
Republican and Democrat leaders in Congress, Obama is reported to have said
to a Republican, "Get over it. I won."
5. Our country: The proposals for a budget and the new
proposals for health care and cap and trade may effectively bankrupt the
country and at the very least will hobble it financially for generations to
come. The level of expenditures cannot be maintained. As noted above, in
dealing with out enemies, Obama is essentially trying tactics which are
proving not to work - and when tried in the past by others had already been
proven not to work. Terrorist enemy combatants are being provided
constitutional rights which are for United States citizens or criminals
within out borders, not our enemies who should be detained indefinitely and
questioned to attempt to obtain useful intelligence. In the process he is
making our country much less safe.
Sad to say, Joe Biden was right. When looking at the above litany of
actions, I cannot agree with the actions of this administration.
|
|
The Most Divisive
Election
Health Care Cost Cuts?
More Tax Nonsense
Another Class Action
Scam
|
|
The Most Divisive
Election; 1/16/10
Before
the 2008 election, I told several acquaintances that I believed the election
would be the most divisive in our country's history. My thinking was thus:
If McCain won, it would be blamed upon racism, but, if Obama won, his
policies and practices would substantially divide our country.
Obama won, and our country is increasingly divided by the
policies of this administration and Congress. A majority of people do not
want the proposed health care plan, and yet the President and Congress are
going ahead anyway because they can. This pigheadedness by the rulers has
led to extremely low approval numbers for both the President and Congress.
People do not want cap and trade. Climate change as being mad
made is almost thoroughly debunked. Yet this President is pushing ahead.
We cannot afford the proposed expenditures and expansions of
government. Government cannot produce wealth, but only transfers it from
productive people and uses to preferred government - in this case liberal
and socialist - uses. Yet this government is forging ahead regardless of the
will of the people.
Obama's policies, if enacted, will be successful in both
ruining the country and dividing it in a manner unseen in modern times.
Health Care Cost Cuts; What They Really Mean; 9/7/09
Obama is claiming that the health care plan which will be
passed will, among other things, cut costs of health care. This claim defies
logic when you ask just one simple question: How can adding another layer of
administration, namely government oversight of all insurance, possibly cost
less? The answer is it cannot.
Added to the additional layer of administration are all of
the promises to be met: there will be no pre-existing conditions - added
costs; preventive care will be covered - added costs; you cannot lose
insurance if you are sick and lose your job - added costs. The promises go
on and on.
How do you cut costs with these requirements? There are only
two ways to cut apparent costs: (1) have government provide coverage to all
persons at the same costs which would be lower than the costs of private
insurance and (2) ration care. Neither of these actually reduce costs. They
just shift costs.
Having government provide all coverage may be done with a
lower premium, but, as indicated above, you cannot add a layer of
administration and reduce overall costs. Instead the costs will be shifted
by increasing taxes or cutting other programs. Already the cost of the
program is high as indicated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the
answers being proposed are to raise taxes and cut other programs. Medicare
is proposed to be cut by $500 billion. Taxes were going to be imposed on
high value employer plans, but the suggestion has shifted to taxing
insurance companies. The problem is that taxes on insurance companies will
just be passed through in one way or another to individuals. Reducing
Medicare also involves rationing.
Rationing, while possibly reducing the costs of the care
provided under the plan, increases costs in one of two ways: there will be
direct costs by individuals paying more out of pocket, or there will human
costs by persons not getting the care they otherwise would and having a less
fulfilling life or being less productive.
Thus, ultimately a government program will likely both cost
more and provide less actual care as would be the case given the funding
proposals now on the table.
Taxes and Obesity;
8/23/09
The Daily Progress published an interview with Dr. Tim
Garson of the University of Virginia concerning the proposed health care
bills. There is much with which I would disagree in the article, but one
thing which I found most intriguing is the mention of Dr. Garson's book in
which he proposes, among other things, a 10% on various foods which
supposedly contribute to obesity. As a basis for indicating that such tax
would be useful, he indicates that the World Health Organization has stated
that taxes have been the most effective means of stopping smoking.
Statistics from the Center for Disease Control indicate that
smoking use has decreased steadily since 1965. The first warning from the
Surgeon General on cigarette packages appeared in 1966. Taxes did not go up
until 1982, and the large tax increases did not occur until after 1998. Yet
the major decrease in cigarette use had occurred well before 1998 with over
1/2 of the decrease having occurred by the early 1980's. This would suggest
that, at least in the United States, education and peer pressure are more
important than taxes.
Education in the area of obesity has just become popular over
the last few years. Obesity is a choice based upon over eating and lack of
exercise. If the history with smoking is any guide, educating people about
these matters should have a positive impact. It is nonsense to suggest
complicating our tax code with obesity taxes until we see if education has
an impact.
Another Class Action
Scam; 5/6/09
At the office we use Symantec's Norton's Antivirus. We
recently received notice of a proposed settlement of a class action claim
against Symantec. The claim is that the software, when upgraded, removed
remaining time on the then active subscription. The award to class members
is that they can get a $15.00 coupon for each subscription affected or $2.50
for each such subscription.
It costs more to complete the paperwork than the return to us
for completing it.
For this fine, but useless, effort on our behalf, the
wonderful attorneys looking out for us propose to receive $2,275,000. Each
of the lead plaintiffs, who do little but have their names attached to the
pleadings, will receive $5,000.
The people who make out in these sorts of suits are the
lawyers, the lead plaintiffs and, to some extent, the company since it gets
protected by having a court approved class settlement. Meanwhile, we who are
consumers and cannot take advantage of this wonderful benefit because of the
costs of doing so, only get higher prices later because of this sort of
litigation and its costs to the company.
|
