Category: national politics & policies

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

The “Confidence” to Accept a Free Lunch

Does the alleged “success” of the cash-for-clunkers program prove consumer confidence is on the rebound?

Cash-for-clunkers is the new handout program for car owners and car dealers. Bring in an old car with lower mileage than the latest models, and the government gives you $4,500 toward a new car.

It took about a nanosecond to dole out the first billion dollars. So Congress tossed another two billion into the pot.

Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, was at the controls when the Fed’s massive credit-for-clunky-mortgages program helped create the housing bubble. So he’s an expert. He’s been in the news lately saying that although he has his doubts about the  clunkers program, its “success” shows renewed “confidence in the economy.”

Question: If the government simply threw bags of cash at people, and people stooped to pick up this cash, would this also prove “confidence in the economy”?

Observation: The clunker subsidies comes from somebody. Because the recipients didn’t directly drop by, directly put a gun to our heads, and directly compel us to write out a check for $4,500, we’re not supposed to notice. But if you had just been forced to turn over $4,500 to subsidize somebody’s new car, you’d probably say your household economy had just taken a hit.

Your confidence might even be shaken.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Snappy Put-downs Do Not a Debate Make

There is a political struggle going on over reforming how Americans obtain and pay for medical assistance.

But is there a debate?

Mostly what we hear, instead, are snide put-downs. Gail Collins recently wrote in the New York Times that “members of Congress are getting yelled at about socialized medicine by people who appear to have been sitting in their attics since the anti-tax tea parties, listening for signs of alien aircraft. But on the bright side, they’ve finally got something to distract them from the president’s birth certificate.”

That’s kind of funny. But it doesn’t address anyone’s fear or reasonable suspicion. It’s just more liberal scorn thrown at people who disagree with “big government knows best.”

I’ve heard Rachel Maddow make similar sniping comments. According to her, all folks have against the Democrats’ reform ideas is that Obama wants to kill old people. She laughs. Dismisses it out of hand.

But there are real arguments embedded in such concerns. As I wrote recently on Townhall.com, it’s not that advocates of single-payer medical systems want to kill old people; it’s that, over time, budgetary demands force them to institute some sort of rationing. Older folk die by waiting in week-long, month-long lines for medical assistance in Canada and Great Britain right now.

This is a very real concern. It deserves honest debate, not snappy put-downs and sniping retorts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

The Big “Single-Payer” Lie

Scan the history of government programs. The scope and costs usually grow much larger than originally projected.

Moreover, ham-fisted government intervention distorts markets, causing shortages or excesses of supply, leading to high prices for goods that should be cheap, and so on.

When the problems pile up one can either repeal the controls or heap on more controls.

Guess which “solution” politicians tend to prefer.

Regarding medical care, the politicians’ answer to decades of government bungling is more bungling: regulation, subsidies, rationing, mandates and a new “public option” in health insurance to squeeze out private plans.

President Obama and other public option advocates promise, on stacks of Bibles, that this is not “somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.”

But they’re lying. Go to YouTube. Watch the videos of Obama and congressmen explicitly admitting their goal of a single-payer system. Just two years ago, Obama was saying, “But I don’t think we’re gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s gonna be potentially some transition process. . . .”

That’s how we lose our freedoms. Not all at once, but a slice at a time.

Oh, and about employer-provided medical insurance. That’s a clumsy institution that exists because of World War II wage controls. We do have to transition out of that system. But we should “transition” towards more freedom, not less.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Medical Insurance to the Max

Get everybody into a medical insurance plan, fast! But how?

Lots of “universal coverage” talk assumes that most uninsured folks are “too poor.” But look, most young people don’t buy insurance because they are healthy. And I know oldsters who have gone through life without medical insurance. When they’ve needed a shot, or a few stitches, they’ve visited the doctor and paid the bill.

Becky Akers, writing in The Christian Science Monitor, wants to know why everyone wants to force her to buy something she thinks makes no financial sense.

Ms. Akers admits that, though she is healthy and without insurance, she could get run over by a bus. But she bets she can cover most medical needs out of her savings and income.

Supporters of government managed medicine judge this irresponsible.

And yet, many of these critics are the same folks who insist that catastrophic medical insurance — the kind that is inexpensive because of huge deductibles — cover everybody, regardless of pre-existing conditions. But this turns insurance into a transfer program, workable only with high prices. Add full coverage rather than catastrophic, and medical insurance skyrockets beyond most people’s pay grade.

Yet if politicians would just stop tinkering with insurance, medical prices would come down for everyone, as Akers suggests . . . including, even the uninsurable, who would still require aid other than insurance.

If you are already sick, it’s too late to insure against sickness.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Health Rations and You

Want a laugh? To keep you from crying at what President Obama and the Congress are trying to do to health care in this country?

Over the decades, the federal government’s involvement in health care has been making it harder and harder for doctors and patients to make independent, sensible decisions about care.

Many advocates of “reform” deny the destructive consequences of past “reform” and insist that the only way to solve our problems is, in effect, to make them worse: Get government even more involved, tie the bureaucratic noose even tighter around the necks of patients and doctors.

Despite all the problems in the health care industry, we often still get great care because of the freedom that still exists. But what if advocates of Obamacare get their way and government takes over? Well, that’s the scenario satirized in a new two-minute video produced by the Sam Adams Alliance, all about “Health Rations and You.”

It adopts the black-and-white style of a 1950s-era educational film. “Health rationing. What is it? What does it mean for you?” And it’s all about how the Health Administration Bureau will give you nothing but “the best” medical care.

The video is funny. Memorable. Getting a lot of hits on YouTube. And it just might help stop this socialist monster in its tracks. Give it a look-see, and pass it on.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Slavery Is Not Freedom

There is one fact about the health care “reform” legislation being debated in Washington, DC, that is unavoidable. The fact that it is coercive.

Governments coerce. It would be great if governmental force were used only to combat criminals, not also to tell us how to live our lives. But, alas, this is not the case.

If the proposed health care legislation is passed, it will result in new orders from the federal government that everyone must obey. Everyone: Doctors; employers; patients; taxpayers. One mandate would force you to sign up for health insurance if you currently lack it. Refuse, and you’ll pay a penalty. Unless you qualify for a “hardship exemption.”

Do we all know what this means? A Washington Post report claims that the notion of penalizing Americans who decline to sign up for health insurance “has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance.” Because, presumably, the best way to encourage self-reliance is to point a gun at people and tell them what to do “for their own good.”

This is worse than messy thinking. It is the opposite of the truth. Self-reliance is a matter of making choices. It implies the freedom to make choices. Self-reliance has nothing to do with Big Brother ordering you about as if your own thinking, values, and circumstances were irrelevant. And self-reliance has nothing to do with the current health care debate in Washington.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Treason and Terrorism and You

All tyrants love unlimited government. But do all advocates of unlimited government love tyranny? Well, recently major fans of big government sure have been blurting out their hysterical hatred for normal democratic disagreement.

Take Paul Krugman, New York Times rah-rah boy for humungoid government. He recently referred to opposition to the cap-and-trade bill as “treason against the planet.”

Treason, really?

Since the consequences of that policy for the food supply will almost certainly further raise worldwide prices, economist David D. Friedman asked whether Krugman himself isn’t committing some kind of murder: Because of policies Krugman pushes, thousands more will likely starve to death.

But if you think Krugman’s rhetoric is overblown, get a load of California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. In an interview in late June, she objected to Californians who influenced their Republican representatives to vote against “revenue” — her word for tax increases. She said, and I quote: “I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.”

Yes, the Democrats’ leader in the California Assembly referred to that special feature of representative democracy commonly known as “free speech” as “terrorism.”

Krugman and Bass need an education on basic terms. I guess it’s up to us to provide it.

If this be treason — or terrorism — make the most of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Stress Test for the Fed?

A bill proposed by Congressman Ron Paul would shine a light on the mysterious goings-on at the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has been sopping up many billions in toxic assets, creating money hocus-pocus, loaning vast fortunes to central banks in other countries, and in general behaving as if its actions cannot have bad consequences.

HR 1207, introduced in February, would authorize the GAO to audit the Fed’s various funding facilities, used with such abandon over the last year. Look under the hood, see what’s going on in nitty-gritty detail.

Doesn’t sound very radical. But the Fed is accustomed to being “independent,” i.e., unaccountable. Yet as Jim Grant, editor of a publication that monitors interest rates, has observed, if the Fed had to accept the auditing it requires of others, it would be regarded as insolvent.

Except, of course, for that whole create-money-out-of-thin-air thing.

President Obama, a.k.a. Mr. Transparency, has said zilch to support the bill. Still, with over 150 Republicans and over 50 Democrats cosponsoring the legislation, it now has enough votes to pass if congressional leadership allows a vote.

An audit with a negative outcome would not force the Fed to shut down.

But it would provide more ammo for those interested in slowing or stopping fiscal insanity.

And that, too, should be bipartisan. Transpartisan. Universal.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Smash Hack Attacks

Add one more news story to all the others about how your private data is not secure in any database.

In May, a gang of hackers demanded $10 million ransom in exchange for not posting the personal information of millions of Virginia residents on the Internet.

Yikes, I’m from Virginia!

The Virginia Department of Health Professions confirms that there was indeed a recent breach of its servers.

If marauders get your name, birthday, and social security number, they can make life a living hell for you. Some of these jokers commit crimes in the name of the identity they stole. Guess who ends up getting arrested.

No, the databases are not secure. Still, Big Brother keeps trying to compel us to stick all our private data in one huge database to be tethered to a national ID card. The latest approach is to require all state ID cards to follow federal data and biometric protocols. And then link every state database together until it’s all one big database. The fate of this federal project is uncertain, since — thank goodness — some state governments are refusing to play along. But the feds will keep trying.

If the government succeeds, cyber terrorists would need to pull off only one big hack attack to jeopardize the privacy and security of every card-carrying American.

I’m against being forced to be a sitting duck. How about you?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Schumer Should Shut It

Government subsidies give government officials a license to order the recipients around:

  • Spend on this.
  • Merge with that.
  • Get rid of this CEO.

You take our money, you take our orders. Strings definitely attached.

But there are other kinds of bullying, often more subtle than formally enacted laws and regulations applied to otherwise independent firms.

Some government goons toss their weight around in the private sector entirely outside any legislative or regulatory process. How? By “conversing” with private firms about how they conduct business.

Recently we witnessed Senator Chuck Schumer chatting with Time Warner Cable about its test of broadband metering in Rochester, New York. The cable company’s notion was to price different levels of service. Customers using huge amounts of bandwidth were charged extra for that extra usage.

In normal markets, buyers constantly communicate happiness or unhappiness with what sellers are selling, both verbally and through buying patterns. No politician had to chat with Coca Cola to convince it to bring back “Coca Cola Classic.”

But politicians like scoring political points. And companies subject to such persuasive efforts know that more than persuasion is involved. There’s also the threat of force if the company doesn’t knuckle under to the politician. So Time Warner dropped its price-tier trial.

And we’re all just a little less free today than we were yesterday.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.