Again, another letter to my senator, reproduced here for my readers (what few there are):
Senator Bennet,
When this nation was founded, it was founded on the principles of local government first, federal government last. You have highlighted the advances Colorado has made in health care in your recent newsletter. That is exactly the place where we should address health care issues, here at the local and state levels.
It is your duty as Senator to ensure that Colorado remains a strong state that is not tied down by Federal constraints. Please do not sign on to socialized, or even quasi socialized measures that pump money to a federal bureaucracy only to come back to Colorado after large percentage is siphoned off. Please do not vote for measures that kill choice and freedom.
The solution to healthcare costs is to take insurance back to what it is supposed to be: insurance against disaster. Normal people should rarely use insurance. If you are using it often without any dire circumstances, it isn't insurance! It's a cost sharing system that ensures that people are disconnected from true market costs. This always encourages them to use more healthcare then is necessary. This causes costs to rise. It also forces a bureaucracy on doctors that costs more.
The solution is to make all healthcare expenditures tax deductible, wean employers from having to provide it, and letting insurance be portable.
These measures will solve the crisis without further eroding the freedom of the state of Colorado and it's citizens who would otherwise be governed by federal mandates.
Nathan
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Please choose freedom over security
Here is the text of a pro-freedom letter I wrote my Colorado Senator:
Senator Bennet,
I am concerned that lawmakers are trying to take it upon themselves to control every aspect of society in an attempt to create an utopia.
In your newsletter you said we may risk being the first generation to bequeath less opportunity to our children. I believe that when government displaces private action, it does just that! I see your job creation, health care, and educational programs as displacements of private action which, no matter how well intentioned, will reduce freedom and prosperity.
America has been a dynamo of job creation precisely because of the relative freedom of private industry. And even if it means that we reap what we sow during hard times, isn't that the price of freedom? Isn't is part of freedom to experience lows as well as highs? Please don't assume that all of your constituents value prosperity over freedom or even security over freedom.
Our health care system has problems, but they are the problems of being overly socialized already! Please consider that our nation has ruined healthcare precisely because we have mandated employers to be involved. We already have a oligarchic few-payer system. The single-payer system doubles down on that. Please look at the research that shows that we can solve our health care by adding freedom, not by regulating it further.
Instead of promising the moon and the sky, please consider that America is great because we can choose our futures, not because Washington dictates safe outcomes.
Ironically, freedom breeds prosperity. If you do nothing but assure Americans that the our laws will be enforced and the dollar will be stable (by not overspending) the economy will come back all by itself. It will be cyclical, but it always has been. And if you free up Americans to choose their educational venues (via vouchers for example) you'll see education flourish. The answer is freedom.
Sir, I hope you'll have the opportunity to consider these views. Thank you.
Senator Bennet,
I am concerned that lawmakers are trying to take it upon themselves to control every aspect of society in an attempt to create an utopia.
In your newsletter you said we may risk being the first generation to bequeath less opportunity to our children. I believe that when government displaces private action, it does just that! I see your job creation, health care, and educational programs as displacements of private action which, no matter how well intentioned, will reduce freedom and prosperity.
America has been a dynamo of job creation precisely because of the relative freedom of private industry. And even if it means that we reap what we sow during hard times, isn't that the price of freedom? Isn't is part of freedom to experience lows as well as highs? Please don't assume that all of your constituents value prosperity over freedom or even security over freedom.
Our health care system has problems, but they are the problems of being overly socialized already! Please consider that our nation has ruined healthcare precisely because we have mandated employers to be involved. We already have a oligarchic few-payer system. The single-payer system doubles down on that. Please look at the research that shows that we can solve our health care by adding freedom, not by regulating it further.
Instead of promising the moon and the sky, please consider that America is great because we can choose our futures, not because Washington dictates safe outcomes.
Ironically, freedom breeds prosperity. If you do nothing but assure Americans that the our laws will be enforced and the dollar will be stable (by not overspending) the economy will come back all by itself. It will be cyclical, but it always has been. And if you free up Americans to choose their educational venues (via vouchers for example) you'll see education flourish. The answer is freedom.
Sir, I hope you'll have the opportunity to consider these views. Thank you.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Stimulus Proponents: Admit it, it isn't about growth
Here is an insightful review of the Keynesian multiplier and why Europeans aren't as big on stimulus spending at the WSJ
They reference this study by prominent economists that shows only a temporary boost to the economy by stimulus spending. The "Keynesian multiplier" peaks at 1.4 only for a brief period and then it quickly diminishes to below 1.0 in 2010. Thus, we're paying a whole lot of money to ultimately hurt the economy long term. It's like being addicted to a narcotic. You need continually higher doses to achieve a high.
Keynesians: Admit it! This isn't about growth. It is about controlling society. It's about socially engineering outcomes. The real aim is to use the crisis to permanently create a constituency that is beholden to the Democratic Party for its livelihoods.
I was thinking about the great sacrifices of previous generations of Americans. How they died to protect freedom. Freedom was more important than life. But now, we're willing to trade our freedom for an elusive attempt to buy prosperity. It won't work and we sell our soul in the attempt. We saddle our grandchildren with even more debt. We have some noble veterans who are still willing to put it on the line for our country, but their numbers are very small as a percentage of the population. On average I think Americans have chosen material well-being over freedom. And they will get neither.
They reference this study by prominent economists that shows only a temporary boost to the economy by stimulus spending. The "Keynesian multiplier" peaks at 1.4 only for a brief period and then it quickly diminishes to below 1.0 in 2010. Thus, we're paying a whole lot of money to ultimately hurt the economy long term. It's like being addicted to a narcotic. You need continually higher doses to achieve a high.
Keynesians: Admit it! This isn't about growth. It is about controlling society. It's about socially engineering outcomes. The real aim is to use the crisis to permanently create a constituency that is beholden to the Democratic Party for its livelihoods.
I was thinking about the great sacrifices of previous generations of Americans. How they died to protect freedom. Freedom was more important than life. But now, we're willing to trade our freedom for an elusive attempt to buy prosperity. It won't work and we sell our soul in the attempt. We saddle our grandchildren with even more debt. We have some noble veterans who are still willing to put it on the line for our country, but their numbers are very small as a percentage of the population. On average I think Americans have chosen material well-being over freedom. And they will get neither.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama's Straw Men
This was exactly my feeling as I listened to Obama. It's easy to look good when tearing down straw men.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561484923478287.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561484923478287.html
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Cost of Stimulus compared to Iraq War
From this day forth, I hope I never hear a pro-stimulus advocate say another word about the dollar cost of the Iraq War. We can talk about the human cost but that would be a different blog.
This week's stimulus plan is coming in around 900 billion. That's about 1 trillion dollars, or about 7% of our entire GDP (and this on top of the trillions of stimulus and bank aid already doled out). The entire projected ten year cost of our involvement in Iraq is 1 trillion dollars, or 100 billion a year (See this analysis ). When President Obama signs this bill, it will have about the same financial consequences as the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
I realize that money spent in Iraq is not the same as money spent in the U.S. But it is no worse than "stimulative" expenditures that create no long term infrastructure. (5% or less of the current stimulus plan actually goes to infrastructure.) Every Humvee, tank, or tomahawk missile purchased sent income to American firms, engineers, workers, and local economies. Every soldier who receives a paycheck saves it in largely American banks and spends it on products imported from the U.S. and sends money home to families in the U.S. Need we forget that WWII is what finally got us out of the great depression? (Not a fun way to get out of a depression).
Patronage by another name: The political usefulness of stimulus
In my last post, I talked about the nature of stimulus and why, at best, it adds only a few percent to the GDP. But at worst, it puts productive labor into less productive uses. People who are driven by market price signals work really hard to find efficiencies that improve our standard of living. Government often picks projects based on political usefulness, not efficiency.
The 1930 Great Recession was triggered by the missteps of a Republican administration (just as the 2008 recession was). But it took a Democratic administration, coupled with continued poor monetary policy by the Fed, to extend the recession into a 10 year depression. But worst of all, Roosevelt used the depression to permanently institute widespread dependence on federal government patronage. The depression was a political tool. And so it is with Obama today. Recently at the Elkhart town hall meeting he admitted the usefulness of the "crisis": "if we don’t use this crisis as an opportunity to start retooling..." And Obama's chief of staff has said, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."
Roosevelt used his fiscal power to control elections. WPA workers were reminded who their benefactors were. Greater federal funding was promised to voters...if they voted correctly. Patronage went to the party faithful and was denied those who dare cross the President. Roosevelt attempted to take over the courts (through court packing) and he tried to buy influence over the legislative branch.
President Obama will not go to these extremes. But does anyone doubt that the stimulus will find its way into the pockets of Democrats to a larger degree than Republicans? Who will stimulus recipients feel obligated to vote for in the next election? That said, I do hope we can make lemonade out of this lemon. We owe it to the President to keep him honest and accountable.
This week's stimulus plan is coming in around 900 billion. That's about 1 trillion dollars, or about 7% of our entire GDP (and this on top of the trillions of stimulus and bank aid already doled out). The entire projected ten year cost of our involvement in Iraq is 1 trillion dollars, or 100 billion a year (See this analysis ). When President Obama signs this bill, it will have about the same financial consequences as the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
I realize that money spent in Iraq is not the same as money spent in the U.S. But it is no worse than "stimulative" expenditures that create no long term infrastructure. (5% or less of the current stimulus plan actually goes to infrastructure.) Every Humvee, tank, or tomahawk missile purchased sent income to American firms, engineers, workers, and local economies. Every soldier who receives a paycheck saves it in largely American banks and spends it on products imported from the U.S. and sends money home to families in the U.S. Need we forget that WWII is what finally got us out of the great depression? (Not a fun way to get out of a depression).
Patronage by another name: The political usefulness of stimulus
In my last post, I talked about the nature of stimulus and why, at best, it adds only a few percent to the GDP. But at worst, it puts productive labor into less productive uses. People who are driven by market price signals work really hard to find efficiencies that improve our standard of living. Government often picks projects based on political usefulness, not efficiency.
The 1930 Great Recession was triggered by the missteps of a Republican administration (just as the 2008 recession was). But it took a Democratic administration, coupled with continued poor monetary policy by the Fed, to extend the recession into a 10 year depression. But worst of all, Roosevelt used the depression to permanently institute widespread dependence on federal government patronage. The depression was a political tool. And so it is with Obama today. Recently at the Elkhart town hall meeting he admitted the usefulness of the "crisis": "if we don’t use this crisis as an opportunity to start retooling..." And Obama's chief of staff has said, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."
Roosevelt used his fiscal power to control elections. WPA workers were reminded who their benefactors were. Greater federal funding was promised to voters...if they voted correctly. Patronage went to the party faithful and was denied those who dare cross the President. Roosevelt attempted to take over the courts (through court packing) and he tried to buy influence over the legislative branch.
President Obama will not go to these extremes. But does anyone doubt that the stimulus will find its way into the pockets of Democrats to a larger degree than Republicans? Who will stimulus recipients feel obligated to vote for in the next election? That said, I do hope we can make lemonade out of this lemon. We owe it to the President to keep him honest and accountable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)