John Stossel
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Washington never changes, no matter who's in power. Give a gang of politicians a chance to spend our money, and they will spend it -- the more the better. An economic downturn is hog heaven; for now they have a justification to spend big time: "economic stimulus." Anything and everything can be proposed as long as it can be said to "inject money into the economy" and "create jobs."
Does $819 billion sound like too much? Au contraire. It may not be enough. Ask Paul Krugman and the other Keynesians. The danger, they say, lies in spending too little. Not to worry. The Senate will probably throw in more money. And the Obama administration says this is just the beginning. "While many of the projects are a down payment on long-term goals, including energy policy reform, health-care reform and the expansion of infrastructure investment, the goal has never been to accomplish every legislative goal in one fell swoop," White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks that hundreds of millions of dollars for family-planning services will stimulate the economy. My colleague George Stephanopoulos of "This Week" was incredulous. But Pelosi was ready for him: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. ... The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now. ... [C]ontraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government".
Fortunately, the White House saw that as a stretch and distanced itself from Pelosi. "The principles of what he [President Obama] thought should be in the package -- that wasn't part of that," said Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton.
That glitch aside, an agreement has emerged on how Congress should "stimulate the economy." The final bill will contain spending on states and localities, roads and bridges, unemployment benefits, "green" technologies, etc..
President Obama has vowed that no earmarks -- special appropriations to benefit particular congressmen -- will sully the final package. But in the Wonderland called Washington, things are never what they seem: "The result, as The Associated Press learned in interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and state and local officials, is a shadowy lobbying effort that may make it difficult to discern how hundreds of billions in federal money will be parceled out".
What a surprise.
Even if the spending could give the economy a jolt, at what price? I don't mean the legislation's overt price tag. I mean the production lost because the money borrowed by the government won't be available for private investment aimed at satisfying consumers. Do we want politicians directing how scarce resources are used? I'd rather have those decisions made by entrepreneurs who must please consumers or go bankrupt.
It's perfectly clear that the recession is a license for politicians to do what they've wanted to do all along. All the usual checks on extravagance, weak as they are, have been washed away. Budgets? We'll worry about that later. Inflation? We'll worry about that later. After all, Keynes said: "In the long run we are all dead".
Keynes, at any rate, is dead, but we're stuck with his legacy of profligate, burdensome government. And now we are about to stick our children and grandchildren with even more -- intrusive government, more debt, higher taxes and price inflation.
We should be suspicious when politicians, economists and the media declare a "consensus" and marginalize dissent. President Obama says, "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
That's not true. Last week, the Cato Institute ran a full-page newspaper ad signed by more than 200 economists, including Nobel laureates stating:
"We the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s ... Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
Let's hear no more about "everyone" agreeing that politicians can spend the economy into recovery.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Why the Liberal View of Government is Wrong
John Hawkins
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Liberals view the government as a force for good that should be used at every possible opportunity to reorder people's lives. This is an outgrowth of the liberal belief that most people are stupid and unable to ascertain what's in their own best interests without the intercession of their superiors (liberals) to show them what's best. That makes government extraordinarily handy to liberals because they can use the power of government to force people to give up their money, force people to do things they don't want to do, and to try to reshape society into the utopian vision they have of how the world should work.
On the other hand, conservatives view the government as a necessary evil that should generally be used as sparingly, judiciously, and reluctantly as possible. This is not because conservatives believe people are angels, but because we believe Adam Smith was correct when he said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Furthermore, the conservative view says that the government is slow, inefficient, inordinately expensive, error-prone, and as likely as not to create problems worse than the ones it tries to solve with its bungling efforts. Hence Ronald Reagan's classic line, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
These contrasting views have a great deal to do with why liberals and conservatives seldom see eye-to-eye on a policy issue.
A liberal looks at the potential good he believes can come from forcing a business owner to comply with a new regulation and supports it. A conservative worries about the cost of the regulation, the unintended effects, and the cumulative expense and time of many regulations and opposes adding yet another burden on a small business owner's shoulders.
A liberal loves the idea of forcing businesses to pay workers more than what they're worth through the minimum wage. Conservatives see the minimum wage as more meddling in the free market that will have negative consequences. If you force the business owner to overpay, he will surely change his behavior as a response. Maybe he'll hire less people. Maybe he'll have less money to spend on equipment. Maybe he won't be able to give out Christmas bonuses to his best performing employees. Whatever the case may be, assuming a politician in DC can micromanage the salaries of a business owner better than he can seems to be incredibly arrogant.
A liberal looks at a failing business, usually one that has given quite a bit of money to liberal politicians, and wants to play the hero by "bailing out" that company with taxpayer money. That politician is making a determination that he is wiser than the market and can better decide whether a particular business should remain open. A conservative looks at the same company and declines to bail it out on the grounds that if it were a viable business over the long-haul, some private company would have already loaned it the money it needs. Furthermore, when a company goes out of business, its more successful competitors can then swoop in, buy up its assets, and put those resources to better use.
Examples like these could fill a dozen books, but they all come down to a collision between two world views: is government a necessary evil or is government a force for good?
Quite frankly, there are mountains of evidence for the former proposition while most of the evidence for the latter proposition hinges on only looking at half the equation.
Just to name perhaps the two most prominent examples for the "government is a force for good" way of thinking: Social Security and Medicare are certainly popular government programs, so popular in fact, that few conservatives would be willing to support ending them. However, the financial strain being created by those two programs is on track to bankrupt our country in the next 20-30 years. If that turns out to be the case, then all the good done by those programs will be very small indeed compared to the cataclysmic damage that they'll do to our nation. Now, is it possible that those horrifying consequences won't come to pass? Certainly, but the nation will have to be practically sliding into the abyss for the politicians in DC to risk seriously tampering with those programs. Thus we cannot, and should not, ignore the tremendous harm that even wildly popular government programs can potentially do to our country.
On the other hand, the best evidence for the "government is a necessary evil" school of thought is that almost every extremely serious problem our country has dealt with in the last 75 years has had at its root, actions taken by the government.
The Depression? It was an economic downturn turned into a lingering disaster by the government policies designed to fix it. Gas lines during the Carter years? That was caused by government price controls. Staggering out-of-wedlock birth rates? Welfare and no-fault divorce laws created that issue. A flood of illegal aliens? The government failed to secure the border and deliberately refused to enforce the laws. The mortgage crisis? The government forced businesses to give loans to bad risks. The deficit? The government spends too much year after year after year. It goes on and on, but you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, find government actions at trouble's core.
So, how does the government get by with this? By pointing out the good a policy does, or more often than not, the potential good it can do, while studiously ignoring the costs. As Thomas Sowell is wont to say,
But even in these limited areas, the government often does a poor job. We have bridges falling down because of poor maintenance. Our government does a mediocre job of securing our borders. The customer service at the post office, DMV, IRS and other government agencies is often poor, and regulations are often written to benefit companies that give the most campaign contributions to the government.
There's a lesson there for those that are willing to hear it. Whenever someone claims that government is the answer, your antenna should go up, you should make sure your wallet is safely secured, and you should evaluate every statement that person makes as if it were made by a professional con artist serving twenty years in a federal penitentiary. Then, and only then, are you ready to decide if the government should become further enmeshed in the lives of Americans.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Liberals view the government as a force for good that should be used at every possible opportunity to reorder people's lives. This is an outgrowth of the liberal belief that most people are stupid and unable to ascertain what's in their own best interests without the intercession of their superiors (liberals) to show them what's best. That makes government extraordinarily handy to liberals because they can use the power of government to force people to give up their money, force people to do things they don't want to do, and to try to reshape society into the utopian vision they have of how the world should work.
On the other hand, conservatives view the government as a necessary evil that should generally be used as sparingly, judiciously, and reluctantly as possible. This is not because conservatives believe people are angels, but because we believe Adam Smith was correct when he said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Furthermore, the conservative view says that the government is slow, inefficient, inordinately expensive, error-prone, and as likely as not to create problems worse than the ones it tries to solve with its bungling efforts. Hence Ronald Reagan's classic line, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
These contrasting views have a great deal to do with why liberals and conservatives seldom see eye-to-eye on a policy issue.
A liberal looks at the potential good he believes can come from forcing a business owner to comply with a new regulation and supports it. A conservative worries about the cost of the regulation, the unintended effects, and the cumulative expense and time of many regulations and opposes adding yet another burden on a small business owner's shoulders.
A liberal loves the idea of forcing businesses to pay workers more than what they're worth through the minimum wage. Conservatives see the minimum wage as more meddling in the free market that will have negative consequences. If you force the business owner to overpay, he will surely change his behavior as a response. Maybe he'll hire less people. Maybe he'll have less money to spend on equipment. Maybe he won't be able to give out Christmas bonuses to his best performing employees. Whatever the case may be, assuming a politician in DC can micromanage the salaries of a business owner better than he can seems to be incredibly arrogant.
A liberal looks at a failing business, usually one that has given quite a bit of money to liberal politicians, and wants to play the hero by "bailing out" that company with taxpayer money. That politician is making a determination that he is wiser than the market and can better decide whether a particular business should remain open. A conservative looks at the same company and declines to bail it out on the grounds that if it were a viable business over the long-haul, some private company would have already loaned it the money it needs. Furthermore, when a company goes out of business, its more successful competitors can then swoop in, buy up its assets, and put those resources to better use.
Examples like these could fill a dozen books, but they all come down to a collision between two world views: is government a necessary evil or is government a force for good?
Quite frankly, there are mountains of evidence for the former proposition while most of the evidence for the latter proposition hinges on only looking at half the equation.
Just to name perhaps the two most prominent examples for the "government is a force for good" way of thinking: Social Security and Medicare are certainly popular government programs, so popular in fact, that few conservatives would be willing to support ending them. However, the financial strain being created by those two programs is on track to bankrupt our country in the next 20-30 years. If that turns out to be the case, then all the good done by those programs will be very small indeed compared to the cataclysmic damage that they'll do to our nation. Now, is it possible that those horrifying consequences won't come to pass? Certainly, but the nation will have to be practically sliding into the abyss for the politicians in DC to risk seriously tampering with those programs. Thus we cannot, and should not, ignore the tremendous harm that even wildly popular government programs can potentially do to our country.
On the other hand, the best evidence for the "government is a necessary evil" school of thought is that almost every extremely serious problem our country has dealt with in the last 75 years has had at its root, actions taken by the government.
The Depression? It was an economic downturn turned into a lingering disaster by the government policies designed to fix it. Gas lines during the Carter years? That was caused by government price controls. Staggering out-of-wedlock birth rates? Welfare and no-fault divorce laws created that issue. A flood of illegal aliens? The government failed to secure the border and deliberately refused to enforce the laws. The mortgage crisis? The government forced businesses to give loans to bad risks. The deficit? The government spends too much year after year after year. It goes on and on, but you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, find government actions at trouble's core.
So, how does the government get by with this? By pointing out the good a policy does, or more often than not, the potential good it can do, while studiously ignoring the costs. As Thomas Sowell is wont to say,
"Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs...is a viable political strategy, so long as the goose doesn't die before the next election and politicians can avoid leaving their fingerprints on the weapon."That's not to say that we should NEVER rely on government. If that were the case, it would simply be called an "evil," not a "necessary evil." Sometimes there are tasks that the government is best suited to take on: defending our nation, delivering mail, building and maintaining roads, regulating industries, breaking up monopolies, etc.
But even in these limited areas, the government often does a poor job. We have bridges falling down because of poor maintenance. Our government does a mediocre job of securing our borders. The customer service at the post office, DMV, IRS and other government agencies is often poor, and regulations are often written to benefit companies that give the most campaign contributions to the government.
There's a lesson there for those that are willing to hear it. Whenever someone claims that government is the answer, your antenna should go up, you should make sure your wallet is safely secured, and you should evaluate every statement that person makes as if it were made by a professional con artist serving twenty years in a federal penitentiary. Then, and only then, are you ready to decide if the government should become further enmeshed in the lives of Americans.
Rendition Issue is Resolved, For Now
William Rusher
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
There has been a good deal of controversy over renditions -- moving captured terrorists to countries where they might be tortured. Human-rights activists have complained that this has led to abuses, and the European Parliament has gone so far as to condemn renditions as "an illegal instrument used by the United States."
But under executive orders issued recently by President Barack Obama, it is clear that the CIA, while no longer imprisoning detainees indefinitely, will retain the authority to move them as necessary. This is very definitely a step in the right direction.
Under the Bush administration, the problem of what to do with accused terrorists was a constant issue. Obviously, they couldn't simply be turned loose to possibly resume plotting attacks against the United States. At the same time, trying them for conventional crimes was often impossible because the evidence of their culpability couldn't be disclosed without revealing vital intelligence sources. So they were simply imprisoned without the conventional rights to a fair trial or an opportunity to confront their accusers.
This was obviously open to serious constitutional objections, and these objections have now prevailed. One possible solution was to return them to their native countries, which could deal with them as they wished. But it was not always possible to be sure that they wouldn't be subjected to torture, or otherwise abused, in their homelands. So the tension has continued, and there has been a lively interest in the policy that the Obama administration would adopt.
Now, that question has been answered. Terrorists will not be held indefinitely in American prisons. Instead, the Bush administration's rendition policy will remain an option, though presumably, efforts will be made to ensure that prisoners moved to other countries will not be abused.
As an anonymous Obama administration official told a reporter, "Obviously, you need to preserve some tools. (Rendition) is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."
Moreover, the new rules do not prohibit the CIA from holding prisoners "on a short-term, transitory basis." In other words, while terrorists are not to be imprisoned in the United States indefinitely, they can be detained and perhaps even interrogated here pending their transfer to foreign custody.
Thus far, even human-rights activists have been cautiously cordial toward the new policy. Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, told the Los Angeles Times that "under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured." Fair enough.
Resolving the problems involved in this matter of terrorists has been difficult and probably isn't over yet. Obviously, we must abide by our own constitutional provisions. But, equally obvious, we cannot allow terrorists committed to our destruction to go about their business uninterrupted. The policies described above strike a reasonable balance between individual rights and our obligation to protect our country.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
There has been a good deal of controversy over renditions -- moving captured terrorists to countries where they might be tortured. Human-rights activists have complained that this has led to abuses, and the European Parliament has gone so far as to condemn renditions as "an illegal instrument used by the United States."
But under executive orders issued recently by President Barack Obama, it is clear that the CIA, while no longer imprisoning detainees indefinitely, will retain the authority to move them as necessary. This is very definitely a step in the right direction.
Under the Bush administration, the problem of what to do with accused terrorists was a constant issue. Obviously, they couldn't simply be turned loose to possibly resume plotting attacks against the United States. At the same time, trying them for conventional crimes was often impossible because the evidence of their culpability couldn't be disclosed without revealing vital intelligence sources. So they were simply imprisoned without the conventional rights to a fair trial or an opportunity to confront their accusers.
This was obviously open to serious constitutional objections, and these objections have now prevailed. One possible solution was to return them to their native countries, which could deal with them as they wished. But it was not always possible to be sure that they wouldn't be subjected to torture, or otherwise abused, in their homelands. So the tension has continued, and there has been a lively interest in the policy that the Obama administration would adopt.
Now, that question has been answered. Terrorists will not be held indefinitely in American prisons. Instead, the Bush administration's rendition policy will remain an option, though presumably, efforts will be made to ensure that prisoners moved to other countries will not be abused.
As an anonymous Obama administration official told a reporter, "Obviously, you need to preserve some tools. (Rendition) is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."
Moreover, the new rules do not prohibit the CIA from holding prisoners "on a short-term, transitory basis." In other words, while terrorists are not to be imprisoned in the United States indefinitely, they can be detained and perhaps even interrogated here pending their transfer to foreign custody.
Thus far, even human-rights activists have been cautiously cordial toward the new policy. Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, told the Los Angeles Times that "under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured." Fair enough.
Resolving the problems involved in this matter of terrorists has been difficult and probably isn't over yet. Obviously, we must abide by our own constitutional provisions. But, equally obvious, we cannot allow terrorists committed to our destruction to go about their business uninterrupted. The policies described above strike a reasonable balance between individual rights and our obligation to protect our country.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Quiet Victory in Iraq
National Review Online
Monday, February 2, 2009
Iraq held provincial elections in an environment of calm that would have been unimaginable two years ago. That the elections came off in such an orderly, peaceful manner is further testament to the success of the surge and suggests that the change American efforts have achieved in Iraq’s security environment may be sustainable over the long run.
We won’t know the final results of the elections for weeks, but early reports are that Sunni and Shiite secular parties have fared relatively better than their religious counterparts. If this is the case, it will be a step toward empowering Iraqis locked out of the current power structure and making Iraqi politics more truly representative.
In Sunni areas, the Iraqi Islamic party appears to have lost out to new tribal parties that arose in the aftermath of the “Awakening,” the Iraqi revolt against al-Qaeda. If these parties gained, it will give representation to the Sunni players initially opposed to the U.S. occupation who swung our way as the Awakening swept the country—but who did not gain the voice they thought they deserved in representative institutions. In unstable Nineveh Province, which is riven by strife between Arabs and Kurds, the Sunnis may have won a majority on the provincial council. This important development would help give them the clout to curb Kurdish expansionism without resort to the insurgency, which is still alive in places like Mosul and attempts to capitalize on Sunni resentment of the encroachments of the Kurds.
In the south, the party list of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appears to have eaten into the support of Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the major Shiite religious party. Maliki’s political position has strengthened with his successful crackdown on the militias over the last year and his shrewd outreach to tribes in the south. Meanwhile, the political forces of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr have lost ground. All this creates the possibility that Maliki will be able to form a new political coalition in advance of national elections later this year, one that is less dependent on the Supreme Council and instead relies more on the new, more practical political players coming to the fore in the provinces.
A scrambling—and refreshing—of Iraqi politics is welcome in theory, but shifts in power carry the potential for renewed violence. That’s why American troops—the most politically neutral and proficient security forces in the country—remain vitally important. The danger is that the same people who wanted to declare defeat and leave now want to declare victory and leave, although they remain allergic to the word “victory.”
The United States must continue to provide the basis of security in Iraq, even if there has been extraordinary progress in the country. Sunnis who had boycotted the 2005 election participated in this one, and, for the first time, Iraqis voted not just for an anonymous party list but for individual candidates. All of this happened in a country that only a few years ago suffered under one of the most repressive political systems on earth. Once again, Iraqis proudly brandished their ink-stained fingers after voting. May it become a national tradition.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Iraq held provincial elections in an environment of calm that would have been unimaginable two years ago. That the elections came off in such an orderly, peaceful manner is further testament to the success of the surge and suggests that the change American efforts have achieved in Iraq’s security environment may be sustainable over the long run.
We won’t know the final results of the elections for weeks, but early reports are that Sunni and Shiite secular parties have fared relatively better than their religious counterparts. If this is the case, it will be a step toward empowering Iraqis locked out of the current power structure and making Iraqi politics more truly representative.
In Sunni areas, the Iraqi Islamic party appears to have lost out to new tribal parties that arose in the aftermath of the “Awakening,” the Iraqi revolt against al-Qaeda. If these parties gained, it will give representation to the Sunni players initially opposed to the U.S. occupation who swung our way as the Awakening swept the country—but who did not gain the voice they thought they deserved in representative institutions. In unstable Nineveh Province, which is riven by strife between Arabs and Kurds, the Sunnis may have won a majority on the provincial council. This important development would help give them the clout to curb Kurdish expansionism without resort to the insurgency, which is still alive in places like Mosul and attempts to capitalize on Sunni resentment of the encroachments of the Kurds.
In the south, the party list of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appears to have eaten into the support of Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the major Shiite religious party. Maliki’s political position has strengthened with his successful crackdown on the militias over the last year and his shrewd outreach to tribes in the south. Meanwhile, the political forces of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr have lost ground. All this creates the possibility that Maliki will be able to form a new political coalition in advance of national elections later this year, one that is less dependent on the Supreme Council and instead relies more on the new, more practical political players coming to the fore in the provinces.
A scrambling—and refreshing—of Iraqi politics is welcome in theory, but shifts in power carry the potential for renewed violence. That’s why American troops—the most politically neutral and proficient security forces in the country—remain vitally important. The danger is that the same people who wanted to declare defeat and leave now want to declare victory and leave, although they remain allergic to the word “victory.”
The United States must continue to provide the basis of security in Iraq, even if there has been extraordinary progress in the country. Sunnis who had boycotted the 2005 election participated in this one, and, for the first time, Iraqis voted not just for an anonymous party list but for individual candidates. All of this happened in a country that only a few years ago suffered under one of the most repressive political systems on earth. Once again, Iraqis proudly brandished their ink-stained fingers after voting. May it become a national tradition.
Does SCHIP Work?
Obama wants to expand the program, but eliminating it would be best for all involved.
By Michael F. Cannon
Monday, February 2, 2009
Pres. Barack Obama proclaimed in his inaugural address, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” If he was serious, he should veto the $115 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that is soon to reach his desk—and insist that Congress eliminate the program entirely.
For two years, SCHIP has been mired in an ideological standoff. Republicans described the Democrats’ proposed expansions—which were more moderate than those in the current bill—as “socialized medicine.” SCHIP supporters, like Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman and columnist E.J. Dionne, claim the program works.
Researchers who actually study the program find that SCHIP does help uninsured children find coverage, but at great expense. They find no evidence that SCHIP actually improves health outcomes, or that the program addresses the systemic quality problems that confront even insured children.
SCHIP’s great expense stems from the fact that in many cases, it simply enrolls children who were already insured privately. Economists Jonathan Gruber and Kosali Simon estimate that out of every ten children added to the SCHIP rolls, six already had private coverage. Only in government is a program deemed to “work” when it covers four uninsured children for the price of ten.
The current proposal will only exacerbate this problem. Congressional Democrats want to expand SCHIP to children in families of four earning up to $80,000 per year. The Congressional Budget Office reports that 77 percent of such children already have private health insurance.
In terms of actually improving health outcomes, SCHIP looks even worse. Economist Robert Kaestner and his colleagues conclude, “The proposition that health insurance is the cure for adverse health outcomes among poor and near-poor children has not been adequately demonstrated.” About SCHIP specifically, they write, “It is remarkable that there is so little empirical evidence to support so large an expenditure.”
Economists Helen Levy and David Meltzer write that there is “no evidence” that SCHIP and similar programs are a cost-effective way of improving children's health. They observe that targeted health programs, policies that increase incomes, or even improved educational opportunities could deliver greater health improvements per dollar spent.
It’s not even clear that SCHIP’s method for improving children's health—expanding insurance coverage—is the right one. The New England Journal of Medicine reports large gaps between the quality of care children receive and what they should receive, even if the children have insurance. That study’s authors conclude, “Expansion of access to care through insurance coverage, which is the focus of national health care policy related to children, will not, by itself, eliminate the deficits in the quality of care.”
One thing SCHIP does accomplish is to discourage work. SCHIP and similar programs create enormous disincentives to climb the economic ladder. A single mother of two earning minimum wage in New Mexico who increased her earnings by $30,000 would find no change in her net income: She would pay an additional $4,000 in taxes and lose $26,000 in SCHIP and other government benefits, according to data compiled by the Urban Institute for the federal government.
Expanding SCHIP would pull even more families into that low-wage trap. Since income is an important determinant of health outcomes, expanding SCHIP could actually harm many children’s health.
The one positive thing that can be said of SCHIP is that, for all the inefficiencies and perverse incentives it creates, it does insure some children who wouldn’t have had coverage otherwise. But oddly enough, eliminating SCHIP could have this effect to an even greater degree.
When Congress eliminated Medicaid benefits for non-citizen immigrants in 1996, opponents predicted an explosion in the number of uninsured immigrants. But according to Harvard economist George Borjas, that didn’t happen: Immigrants sought out jobs that provided benefits, and were so successful that the employer-provided insurance completely offset the loss in government benefits. In fact, in the states that offered the fewest benefits, the immigrant insurance rate rose.
SCHIP families, which are more affluent than the families affected by the 1996 policy, would likely fare even better.
If President Obama wants to cover more uninsured children, he should set ideology aside and repeal SCHIP. After all, you can’t argue with what works.
By Michael F. Cannon
Monday, February 2, 2009
Pres. Barack Obama proclaimed in his inaugural address, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” If he was serious, he should veto the $115 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that is soon to reach his desk—and insist that Congress eliminate the program entirely.
For two years, SCHIP has been mired in an ideological standoff. Republicans described the Democrats’ proposed expansions—which were more moderate than those in the current bill—as “socialized medicine.” SCHIP supporters, like Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman and columnist E.J. Dionne, claim the program works.
Researchers who actually study the program find that SCHIP does help uninsured children find coverage, but at great expense. They find no evidence that SCHIP actually improves health outcomes, or that the program addresses the systemic quality problems that confront even insured children.
SCHIP’s great expense stems from the fact that in many cases, it simply enrolls children who were already insured privately. Economists Jonathan Gruber and Kosali Simon estimate that out of every ten children added to the SCHIP rolls, six already had private coverage. Only in government is a program deemed to “work” when it covers four uninsured children for the price of ten.
The current proposal will only exacerbate this problem. Congressional Democrats want to expand SCHIP to children in families of four earning up to $80,000 per year. The Congressional Budget Office reports that 77 percent of such children already have private health insurance.
In terms of actually improving health outcomes, SCHIP looks even worse. Economist Robert Kaestner and his colleagues conclude, “The proposition that health insurance is the cure for adverse health outcomes among poor and near-poor children has not been adequately demonstrated.” About SCHIP specifically, they write, “It is remarkable that there is so little empirical evidence to support so large an expenditure.”
Economists Helen Levy and David Meltzer write that there is “no evidence” that SCHIP and similar programs are a cost-effective way of improving children's health. They observe that targeted health programs, policies that increase incomes, or even improved educational opportunities could deliver greater health improvements per dollar spent.
It’s not even clear that SCHIP’s method for improving children's health—expanding insurance coverage—is the right one. The New England Journal of Medicine reports large gaps between the quality of care children receive and what they should receive, even if the children have insurance. That study’s authors conclude, “Expansion of access to care through insurance coverage, which is the focus of national health care policy related to children, will not, by itself, eliminate the deficits in the quality of care.”
One thing SCHIP does accomplish is to discourage work. SCHIP and similar programs create enormous disincentives to climb the economic ladder. A single mother of two earning minimum wage in New Mexico who increased her earnings by $30,000 would find no change in her net income: She would pay an additional $4,000 in taxes and lose $26,000 in SCHIP and other government benefits, according to data compiled by the Urban Institute for the federal government.
Expanding SCHIP would pull even more families into that low-wage trap. Since income is an important determinant of health outcomes, expanding SCHIP could actually harm many children’s health.
The one positive thing that can be said of SCHIP is that, for all the inefficiencies and perverse incentives it creates, it does insure some children who wouldn’t have had coverage otherwise. But oddly enough, eliminating SCHIP could have this effect to an even greater degree.
When Congress eliminated Medicaid benefits for non-citizen immigrants in 1996, opponents predicted an explosion in the number of uninsured immigrants. But according to Harvard economist George Borjas, that didn’t happen: Immigrants sought out jobs that provided benefits, and were so successful that the employer-provided insurance completely offset the loss in government benefits. In fact, in the states that offered the fewest benefits, the immigrant insurance rate rose.
SCHIP families, which are more affluent than the families affected by the 1996 policy, would likely fare even better.
If President Obama wants to cover more uninsured children, he should set ideology aside and repeal SCHIP. After all, you can’t argue with what works.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Prison or Versailles?
Debra J. Saunders
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Of course California's prison inmates are entitled to reasonable 21st-century health care. Unfortunately for taxpayers, Clark Kelso, the federal receiver in charge of California's prison health care has, as state Attorney General Jerry Brown noted at a news conference last week, a "gold-plated wish list" for California's prison health care system.
His Receivership wants to spend $8 billion to build seven new hospitals, each the size of 10 Wal-Marts, which would create "a holistic environment," with "music therapy, art therapy and other recreation therapy functions," a music room, stress-reduction room, game room and "therapy kitchen," with lots of natural light and high ceilings. A gymnasium would feature a "full-size high school playing court with basketball hoops and built-in edge seating up to four rows deep. Various floor striping allows for other games, such as volleyball, etc. Other sport activities include handball courts, exercise, and (a) workout room."
"The overarching value" of Plan Kelso is to create "a health care facility that cares for prisoners as patients and not a prison that cares for health care needs as inmates." No surprise: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation estimates the annual cost of operating these facilities to be between $170,000 and $230,000 per inmate.
The amazing part: California politicians were going along with the plan until Wednesday, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Brown filed a motion asking U.S. District Court Judge Thelton E. Henderson to replace Kelso with a special master.
Like hell, His Receivership's plans were paved with good intentions. When Henderson stepped in, he wrote in 2005, California's prison medical care system was so broken that "an inmate in one of California's prisons needlessly (died) every six to seven days." Henderson found that in some facilities, hygiene was optional and staffers were substandard. A San Quentin dentist wouldn't even wash his hands or change gloves between patients. I'm tough on crime, but that's criminal and unacceptable.
Henderson's remedies, however, have had their problems, as well. The first receiver, Robert Sillen, once threatened to "back up the Brinks truck" to the state's treasury to bankroll better inmate care -- and he clearly meant it. Sillen was paid $775,790 in the 15 months, ending in June 2007. An audit found no fraud, but it found that Sillen authorized $218,790 in overpayments to staff members for such benefits as health insurance and retirement that they already had received.
Henderson fired Sillen and then hired Kelso, who set his own annual salary at $224,000 -- plus a possible bonus. The Schwarzenegger-Brown motion complains that Kelso's "large staff and $74 million in administrative expenses" are duplicative and amount to a full-scale takeover of the state prison health care system.
In the meantime, health care spending per inmate rose from $7,601 per inmate in 2005-06 to $13,778 per inmate in 2007-08 -- an 81 percent increase and far above the average of $4,600 spent on health care per Californian. Kelso boasts of "an influx of new physicians and nurses" -- including 172 board-certified physicians, 488 registered nurses and 533 licensed vocational nurses -- in part because of big salary increases. The number of inmate deaths has fallen dramatically, from 124 in the first quarter of 2006 to 87 in the second quarter of 2008. The number of "preventable" deaths fell to three in 2007. At the news conference, California's corrections secretary, Matt Cate, credited the receiver for such improvements.
With all those gains, I wondered, doesn't that mean His Receivership can drop the building plans? Kelso thinks not. He told me over the telephone Thursday that he believes the $13,778 number is inflated by the inclusion of correctional officer salaries. Also, he argued that costs for dental and mental health -- which he took on to help the Corrections Department -- drove up the costs. If he eliminated mental health, he could reduce the up-to-$230,000-per-inmate estimate substantially. And come to think of it, maybe he'll throw mental health back to the state.
While mortality and preventable deaths are down, "possibly preventable deaths" are up. "We're up about 15 to 20 percent through our Turnaround Plan," he said, which suggests his plans are too ambitious.
I think the "holistic" language was a mistake. He countered, "You're right about that." Kelso rightly closed in noting, "These people are not animals" -- and doctors should treat them as patients. But his operation is completely out of touch with fiscal realities. As state Finance Director Mike Genest noted, with Schwarzenegger trying to fill a $41.6 billion budget hole, "We're having to cut back everywhere." But Kelso is all plus signs.
And His Receivership doesn't quite understand the population he serves. The yoga/music therapy/handball/landscaping -- that's right, I forgot to mention the landscaping to give facilities that retreat feeling -- approach fails to recognize that 47 percent of California's inmates are repeat violent offenders.
They aren't animals, but they aren't entitled to facilities that far exceed those available to the average law-abiding taxpayer. As Brown noted, California is spending "almost three times what the federal government is spending, more than two times what the average Californian gets. When is enough enough?"
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Of course California's prison inmates are entitled to reasonable 21st-century health care. Unfortunately for taxpayers, Clark Kelso, the federal receiver in charge of California's prison health care has, as state Attorney General Jerry Brown noted at a news conference last week, a "gold-plated wish list" for California's prison health care system.
His Receivership wants to spend $8 billion to build seven new hospitals, each the size of 10 Wal-Marts, which would create "a holistic environment," with "music therapy, art therapy and other recreation therapy functions," a music room, stress-reduction room, game room and "therapy kitchen," with lots of natural light and high ceilings. A gymnasium would feature a "full-size high school playing court with basketball hoops and built-in edge seating up to four rows deep. Various floor striping allows for other games, such as volleyball, etc. Other sport activities include handball courts, exercise, and (a) workout room."
"The overarching value" of Plan Kelso is to create "a health care facility that cares for prisoners as patients and not a prison that cares for health care needs as inmates." No surprise: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation estimates the annual cost of operating these facilities to be between $170,000 and $230,000 per inmate.
The amazing part: California politicians were going along with the plan until Wednesday, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Brown filed a motion asking U.S. District Court Judge Thelton E. Henderson to replace Kelso with a special master.
Like hell, His Receivership's plans were paved with good intentions. When Henderson stepped in, he wrote in 2005, California's prison medical care system was so broken that "an inmate in one of California's prisons needlessly (died) every six to seven days." Henderson found that in some facilities, hygiene was optional and staffers were substandard. A San Quentin dentist wouldn't even wash his hands or change gloves between patients. I'm tough on crime, but that's criminal and unacceptable.
Henderson's remedies, however, have had their problems, as well. The first receiver, Robert Sillen, once threatened to "back up the Brinks truck" to the state's treasury to bankroll better inmate care -- and he clearly meant it. Sillen was paid $775,790 in the 15 months, ending in June 2007. An audit found no fraud, but it found that Sillen authorized $218,790 in overpayments to staff members for such benefits as health insurance and retirement that they already had received.
Henderson fired Sillen and then hired Kelso, who set his own annual salary at $224,000 -- plus a possible bonus. The Schwarzenegger-Brown motion complains that Kelso's "large staff and $74 million in administrative expenses" are duplicative and amount to a full-scale takeover of the state prison health care system.
In the meantime, health care spending per inmate rose from $7,601 per inmate in 2005-06 to $13,778 per inmate in 2007-08 -- an 81 percent increase and far above the average of $4,600 spent on health care per Californian. Kelso boasts of "an influx of new physicians and nurses" -- including 172 board-certified physicians, 488 registered nurses and 533 licensed vocational nurses -- in part because of big salary increases. The number of inmate deaths has fallen dramatically, from 124 in the first quarter of 2006 to 87 in the second quarter of 2008. The number of "preventable" deaths fell to three in 2007. At the news conference, California's corrections secretary, Matt Cate, credited the receiver for such improvements.
With all those gains, I wondered, doesn't that mean His Receivership can drop the building plans? Kelso thinks not. He told me over the telephone Thursday that he believes the $13,778 number is inflated by the inclusion of correctional officer salaries. Also, he argued that costs for dental and mental health -- which he took on to help the Corrections Department -- drove up the costs. If he eliminated mental health, he could reduce the up-to-$230,000-per-inmate estimate substantially. And come to think of it, maybe he'll throw mental health back to the state.
While mortality and preventable deaths are down, "possibly preventable deaths" are up. "We're up about 15 to 20 percent through our Turnaround Plan," he said, which suggests his plans are too ambitious.
I think the "holistic" language was a mistake. He countered, "You're right about that." Kelso rightly closed in noting, "These people are not animals" -- and doctors should treat them as patients. But his operation is completely out of touch with fiscal realities. As state Finance Director Mike Genest noted, with Schwarzenegger trying to fill a $41.6 billion budget hole, "We're having to cut back everywhere." But Kelso is all plus signs.
And His Receivership doesn't quite understand the population he serves. The yoga/music therapy/handball/landscaping -- that's right, I forgot to mention the landscaping to give facilities that retreat feeling -- approach fails to recognize that 47 percent of California's inmates are repeat violent offenders.
They aren't animals, but they aren't entitled to facilities that far exceed those available to the average law-abiding taxpayer. As Brown noted, California is spending "almost three times what the federal government is spending, more than two times what the average Californian gets. When is enough enough?"
Rush Rattles Obama the Whiner’s Cage
Doug Giles
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Evidently Obama the Whiner can’t work his socialistic voodoo if Rush Limbaugh keeps free thinking and running his mouth off. Dammit, Rush, you’re ruining Obama’s ability to cast his spell! Barack’s aversion to Rush reminds me of how my brother never liked using the Ouija board when I was around because my presence always “grieved the spirits.”
Yep, if Limbaugh unleashes his First Amendment rights, the President cannot make manifest his mucked-up machinations he learned as a pup sitting in Saul Alinsky’s literary lap (which means that Obamaland cannot be built). This would be too funny if it wasn’t so pathetically sad and a prophetically bad precursor of the mitigating muzzle Obama would like to strap on the conservative mouth.
In contrast to Obama’s bleat last week, hearken back to days of yore when 43 was in office. Dubya got some “work done,” if I’m not mistaken, and he had everybody and their rabid dog railing against him 24/7 from every conceivable sector of the MSM. Please note: Bush didn’t whine about it and call on the carping clods to cease and desist their vitriol because he couldn’t “kill terrorists if Keith keeps complaining.”
Matter of fact, when GW was attacked the most viciously and the reporters asked what he thought about the rancor, he routinely said that his enemies’ ability to spew their insanity on their ubiquitous, poorly-rated sucky “news” shows is exactly what makes America great, i.e. the freedom to be an ass if you insist. Bush, for all his foibles, played a true cool hand with his critics, laughed when shoes were thrown at him and reveled in this thing that is about to go on the endangered species list in our nation—namely our freedom.
Socialists like Obama, however, cannot work in an environment in which leaders and citizens do not do-si-do when he says so. Geez, the press corps can’t even toss him a question during a meet and greet without Barack getting testy. Therefore, Limbaugh, and all dissenters like him, must bow and kiss the ring or suffer vilification and marginalization for not being “bipartisan and tolerant.”
I would rather bikini wax a sensitive and livid grizzly sow than be a “tolerant bipartisan” toward the bloated government, pro-death, anti-free market, crap on traditional values, socialism squared, nanny state policies Obama has floated in the last few days.
For Barack and his buddies to accomplish the creation of Obamaland, they must level critics, rewrite records, become judge and jury of all things everywhere, homogenize cultures, pimp style over substance and deify power while they prop up the “victims of the system” to run their Circus Maximus.
In Obamaland where truth is dead, muscle power becomes the operative standard of speech. The results are cultic conformity and group bullying. The chief orgasmic goal of the elders of Obamaland is to create a rock-solid environment of political correctness—with the intended end being the cowing of people who might rustle their feathers by not parroting their already tried (and been found wanting) opinions. They can’t allow people to speak and think freely because the realist and the truth dealer would pee on their little party. That’s exactly what Rush is doing, and I’ll think I’ll join him. Howzabout you?
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Evidently Obama the Whiner can’t work his socialistic voodoo if Rush Limbaugh keeps free thinking and running his mouth off. Dammit, Rush, you’re ruining Obama’s ability to cast his spell! Barack’s aversion to Rush reminds me of how my brother never liked using the Ouija board when I was around because my presence always “grieved the spirits.”
Yep, if Limbaugh unleashes his First Amendment rights, the President cannot make manifest his mucked-up machinations he learned as a pup sitting in Saul Alinsky’s literary lap (which means that Obamaland cannot be built). This would be too funny if it wasn’t so pathetically sad and a prophetically bad precursor of the mitigating muzzle Obama would like to strap on the conservative mouth.
In contrast to Obama’s bleat last week, hearken back to days of yore when 43 was in office. Dubya got some “work done,” if I’m not mistaken, and he had everybody and their rabid dog railing against him 24/7 from every conceivable sector of the MSM. Please note: Bush didn’t whine about it and call on the carping clods to cease and desist their vitriol because he couldn’t “kill terrorists if Keith keeps complaining.”
Matter of fact, when GW was attacked the most viciously and the reporters asked what he thought about the rancor, he routinely said that his enemies’ ability to spew their insanity on their ubiquitous, poorly-rated sucky “news” shows is exactly what makes America great, i.e. the freedom to be an ass if you insist. Bush, for all his foibles, played a true cool hand with his critics, laughed when shoes were thrown at him and reveled in this thing that is about to go on the endangered species list in our nation—namely our freedom.
Socialists like Obama, however, cannot work in an environment in which leaders and citizens do not do-si-do when he says so. Geez, the press corps can’t even toss him a question during a meet and greet without Barack getting testy. Therefore, Limbaugh, and all dissenters like him, must bow and kiss the ring or suffer vilification and marginalization for not being “bipartisan and tolerant.”
I would rather bikini wax a sensitive and livid grizzly sow than be a “tolerant bipartisan” toward the bloated government, pro-death, anti-free market, crap on traditional values, socialism squared, nanny state policies Obama has floated in the last few days.
For Barack and his buddies to accomplish the creation of Obamaland, they must level critics, rewrite records, become judge and jury of all things everywhere, homogenize cultures, pimp style over substance and deify power while they prop up the “victims of the system” to run their Circus Maximus.
In Obamaland where truth is dead, muscle power becomes the operative standard of speech. The results are cultic conformity and group bullying. The chief orgasmic goal of the elders of Obamaland is to create a rock-solid environment of political correctness—with the intended end being the cowing of people who might rustle their feathers by not parroting their already tried (and been found wanting) opinions. They can’t allow people to speak and think freely because the realist and the truth dealer would pee on their little party. That’s exactly what Rush is doing, and I’ll think I’ll join him. Howzabout you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)