Category: Spending

Maryland will probably try to force Wal-Mart to subsidize this.

Maryland is really stepping into stupidity with its foray into addressing the current politically desirable hot potato health insurance crisis. I’m not sure which is worse, Gov. Martin O’Malley’s plan, or the naked defectiveness of politicians from a plan in the General Assembly. Consider:

Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) will call for expanded coverage of the state’s 780,000 uninsured — one in seven residents — in his State of the State address today, aides said, highlighting a proposal that would bring more of the poorest residents into public programs and require private insurers to allow young adults to remain on their parents’ plans until age 25.

What kind of nonsense is that last new regulation, other than an outright admission that politicians love to coddle people into ignoring reality and the consequences of their own choices. At what point will parents be allowed to kick their children off of their policy? If it’s so desirable for insurers to include young adults on their parents’ insurance, wouldn’t they have already offered such policies? Might current burdensome regulations and perverse incentives be the reason why those under 25 “can’t” purchase affordable health insurance? Making those worse will help? At some point, maybe people can leave the care of their parents and go directly to the care of the state. No one ever has to make any tough choices for himself. Even if he wants to make those choices.

General Assembly leaders are offering more ambitious plans that would add a $1 tax on cigarettes to pay for covering tens of thousands of low-income workers and offer subsidies to small businesses that provide coverage. Many workers who can afford insurance but choose not to pay for it would have to buy it or face penalties.
…

The governor opposes a tobacco tax increase, and even if lawmakers approve it, there is some sentiment to use the revenue to cover other needs. And despite the momentum in the Democrat-controlled legislature, initiatives of this magnitude often take more than a single session to sell.
…

A $1-a-pack increase in the tobacco tax also is the centerpiece of an effort by the Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative to expand health care access through Medicaid and drug treatment. Although other states have approved tobacco tax increases to pay for health care, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) has expressed concern that if the tax acts as a deterrent to smoking, the revenue source could plummet.

If it might not work, why are Maryland’s elected officials so ready to implement it? Because it might work? And even if it works, the outcome might be bad? What? Politicians can’t control themselves, even when they allegedly have good intentions. They will botch the implementation of the noblest of plans. They should not be allowed anywhere near such an important, vital aspect of individual life.

I want my $10 share of the subsidy returned.

Is riding the rails so romantic that we must subsidize it long after its useful life and economic feasibility? The United States Senate thinks so:

Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced legislation yesterday that would authorize $3.2 billion a year for Amtrak over six years in exchange for greater efficiency and increased investments by states.
…

A similar bill was passed by the Senate in November, 93 to 6, but was not taken up by the House of Representatives. Lautenberg said prospects were much improved with Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress.

“It’s not going to be that difficult this year,” Lautenberg said yesterday at a news conference at Union Station, where he was joined by Lott and Alexander K. Kummant, Amtrak’s chief executive.
…

Kummant declined to specify how he would reduce operating costs, but he said that encouraging passenger growth is just as important as cutting services to achieve efficiencies.

Is it really? Danielle and I will visit New York City this weekend. We’re driving. How long do you think we considered traveling by train before deciding upon driving? Zero seconds.

No cost comparison can justify a journey on Amtrak, no matter how wonderful it would be. With tolls and gas, we’ll spend a bit shy of one hundred dollars. For Amtrak, we’d spend $220 for a roundtrip ticket. Each. And the expense of parking the car must still be considered, as well as the lack of disparity in trip length with either choice.

I don’t think I need to go on, for the case against Amtrak is obvious. Remember, too, that I’m talking about a trip in Amtrak’s only profitable service, the Northeast corridor. Amtrak makes its money in the Northeast through business and government. If you’re in one city, and going to another, it makes sense. Especially on someone else’s dime, which is how I’ve paid for it both times I’ve ridden Amtrak.

Trains have a legacy and mythology in America’s history, but that time has passed. It’s time to stop funneling taxpayer money into nostalgia. Let Amtrak sink or swim on its own. Those services that can’t be justified economically should be forced allowed to die.

More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.

For discussion: if this is how Congress treats a non-essential service in financial distress, how will it treat a financial healthcare crisis under a single-payer system when should problems arise?

Sorry, folks, hospital’s closed. Moose out front shoulda told ya.

More single-payer “goodness”, this time from the U.K.

Patients are being denied basic operations, including treatments for varicose veins, wisdom teeth and bad backs, as hospitals try frantically to balance the books by the end of the financial year, The Times can reveal.

NHS trusts throughout the country are making sweeping cuts to services and delaying appointments in an attempt to address their debts before the end of March. Family doctors have been told to send fewer patients to hospital, A&E departments have been instructed to turn people away, and a wide range of routine procedures has been suspended.
…

A letter from [North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust] chief executive, Janet Soo-Chung, says that all non-urgent admissions must be approved by an assessment team or they will not be paid for. A&E departments in Harrogate, Scarborough, South Tees and York have been told that they will not be paid for treating patients with minor ailments who could go elsewhere.

No patients will be given a hospital appointment in less than eight weeks, and none admitted for elective surgery unless they have waited a minimum of 12 to 16 weeks. Those treated quicker will not be paid for.

The United States will be no different if we implement a single-payer system. Given the timeline progression of other single-payer systems, I’m probably at the perfect age (33) for our system to break down around the time I retire. Wonderful. I’ll pass, thanks.

Source: Socialized Medicine

I know who’s carrying the oil can.

We knew this was coming, so only minor credit is warranted:

On its second day under Democratic management, the House yesterday overwhelmingly approved new rules aimed at reining in deficit spending and shedding more light on the murky world of special-interest projects known as earmarks.

Under the new provisions, the House will for the first time in years be required to pay for any proposal to cut taxes or increase spending on the most expensive federal programs by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. And lawmakers will be required to disclose the sponsors of earmarks, which are attached in virtual secrecy to legislation to direct money to favored interests or home-district projects.

Admirable, although I don’t trust anyone in Congress to pick spending cuts in the equation. Balanced budgets are better than deficits, but barely under the principle-free government that’s emerged out of abandoned understanding of the Constitution. The only safeguard we have right now is the veto pen, and we know how well that isn’t working under the current administration.

In recent months, with revelations that lawmakers had earmarked funds for projects with little public benefit, earmarks had became a political embarrassment and a symbol of fiscal profligacy.

Revelations? Who didn’t know this was going on? That’s a bizarre way for a journalist to phrase the recent attention to the long-standing problem of reckless spending. But, in case anyone feels we need new evidence that Congress (i.e. Democrats) will botch the implementation of Pay-as-You-Go, consider:

So far, fiscal restraint appears to be gaining the upper hand. As he left the House chamber yesterday, [House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B.] Rangel said he is scouring the tax code for tax breaks that benefit special interests. If the beneficiaries “don’t put their hands up, it’s out,” he said, suggesting that the money saved could go toward paying for the repeal of the alternative minimum tax.

Good grief. The squeaky wheel gets the oil is not wise fiscal policy. All Rep. Rangel is saying here is that he’s seeking political contributions for his re-election campaign. If you have a tax loophole that you’re fond of, it’s available for a price. The more things change…

Who needs brains when we have other people’s money?

One sentence, three flaws:

Scottish parents who wish to have their male infants circumcised should have the procedure paid for by the NHS to prevent the transmission of AIDS, a World Health Organisation (WHO) expert said yesterday.

First, allow me to repeat the obvious counter-argument to this. Male infants are not sexually active and parents have more ability to teach their children safe sex practices and responsibility than ability to predict their child’s personal behavior 15 or more years into the future. So, unless their sons intend to have unprotected sex with HIV-positive women, something parents can’t know, circumcising male infants to protect them from HIV is unconscionable folly.

Second, the World Health Organization is strongly pro-male infant circumcision and strongly anti-female infant circumcision. I understand the reasoning depends on centuries of what’s socially acceptable, but I’ve already pointed out the hypocrisy in applying different rules to boys and girls when they apply equally. Specifically, human rights are subject to more than just a clean operating room and good intentions. The World Health Organization should read through its own literature with a keener eye.

Third, for those in the United States longing for socialized healthcare, this is the sort of quandary you’ll be in. Fanatics will seek to allow parents to chop off parts of their sons on the national dime. That’s absurd enough, since there is no medical need for the surgery, but it should be clear that national resources are not unlimited. Every penny unnecessarily removing a foreskin is a penny not spent curing disease. I suspect socialists don’t think this way. There’s always another rich person who can be forced to pay her fair share, right? That’s unjust, but also false. People will die now so that little boys might not die six or seven decades from now of diseases with causes not specific to their foreskins. It’s stupidity.

This has to be satirical.

I didn’t get to blog this yesterday, but it’s still worth a mention. It’s always wise to check your assumptions when promoting an idea, especially when that idea is that deficits are wonderful:

A reporter once asked President Reagan if he had anything to say in defense of his deficits. “No” answered Reagan, “they’re big enough to defend themselves.” Liberals howled, and conservatives chuckled, but no one questioned the premise of the question: that deficits are inherently a bad thing. The argument has always about whether the bad thing called deficits are too large and whether they will ever be paid off, not whether they can actually be good for our country. For the record the answers are: no, they’re not too big (see attached chart); no, they will never be paid off, and yes, they can be a good thing.

I actually like the premise of the question, because deficits involve politicians playing with other people’s money. Considering some of those other people haven’t been born yet, caution and responsibility seem to be key. But that’s not the flawed assumption I’m concerned with in this essay.

When strong nations go to war, they borrow money. Weak nations, not so much. That’s because strong nations usually win, and winning nations usually repay their creditors. Rich and successful people don’t have any problem getting someone to loan them money. The same holds for wealthy and successful nations. That’s why, historically, the interest rate of a nation’s bonds is a pretty good inverse indicator of investor confidence in the war effort. The more trouble investors see on the horizon, the more compensation they demand for the added risk.
…

This is the way the world works, some might say, but is it right? What about the children? Is it really fair for them to shoulder the burden of our wars? Heck yeah, it’s fair. Number one, they won’t be children when they start to share the burden of the national debt. Number two, they benefit.

Here’s the flawed assumption. The author expresses a selfish belief that we can have anything we want, and as long as the country survives, the children should just shut up. We’re wise, or at least rich. That’s enough, right?

The author concludes:

Defense is a sort of infrastructure, too. It provides benefits for future generations, just like roads and bridges do. Is it some kind of rip-off that my kid’s future tax bills will include interest payments from the war against Jihadists? Not if we win.

Good grief. Of course defense is vital, and the benefits of maintaining a strong nation carry over beyond just the immediate expenditure. (An assumption with some danger, but I can accept it.) No sane person believes that government shouldn’t protect its people. Defense is a legitimate expense for any government and should be made to the point that the nation remains safe. But that does not give a free pass for rampant spending elsewhere at the expense of future generations.

Look at the federal budget. The bulk of expenditures are in entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), not defense. To ignore these and believe that the war on Jihadists somehow excuses annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars is absurd. Eventually, the interest will absorb the entire budget, so the government will need further resources. At what point does this stop? (Hint: It begins with bank and ends with ruptcy.)

If the author wanted to make a case that the national debt is good, and shouldn’t be paid off, we can talk. He’d still be wrong, I believe, but there might be a case. But the deficit? Ridiculous. There is more than just interest rate signaling involved. Namely, interest payments.

If we want to do something for the children, we need to teach them economics. And the author of this essay should be last in line for the job.

Wanting to do and Doing are not the same

It’s now obvious that the Republican strategy over the next two weeks will be to hammer away at the supposed fringe liberal agenda Speaker Pelosi would force upon America. It’s an amusing narrative, if only because what it ignores – the benefit of divided government – is so painfully obvious. We’re not changing the president in this election, and I don’t even buy the promise of impeachment proceedings. That leaves a Republican president to veto any and every fringe bill that comes from Congress. That assumes the Democrats gain both houses. If not, the “dangers” of a Democratic Congress never arrive on the president’s desk. This fear is overblown.

Not surprisingly, more of this appeared in yesterday’s Opinion Journal. It’s a valiant effort, I suppose, except it ignores the last half-decade and pretends that we don’t remember it. Among many hilarious bits of nonsense:

Second, President Bush will not be able to re-energize his effort for individually owned Social Security accounts, for “preventing the privatization of social security” is in the Democratic National Committee’s “6-Point Plan for 2006.” Democrats don’t trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds–better to let a wise government do that, for as socialist Noam Chomsky says, “putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together.” And since Congress gets to spend Social Security tax receipts that aren’t needed to pay benefits, letting people invest their payments in their own retirement accounts would be a costly revenue reduction that the new, bigger-spending Congress won’t allow to happen.

Privatizing Social Security is necessary. The longer we wait, the worse the pain when we finally fix it. I get it. But provide me one example of how the current Republican Congress fought for privatization. Show me evidence that President Bush didn’t pack up his reform agenda (saving his political capital for other expenditures?) at the first hint of resistance from the Republican Congress. And, no, quoting Noam Chomsky’s stupidity isn’t proof.

I don’t like the idea of Democrats in power, but I despise the reality of Republicans in power. A few years out of power won’t hurt any more than what we’re suffering now. Maybe I’m wrong, but shouting “they suck more” won’t convince me.

I don’t trust either, which is why I want divided

From yesterday, two editorial essays describing what Democrats would do if elected. First, from Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post, explaining why returning the Democrats to the majority would be good:

Should they make it through both houses, many of these measures will face a presidential veto. George W. Bush has already vetoed stem cell legislation, and he has staunchly opposed raising the minimum wage since the day he entered politics. What will congressional Republicans do if they’re confronted with a series of vetoes of popular legislation? How large will the lame duck president loom in their calculations?

If they’re so popular, and the public is clamoring for them, how can Mr. Meyerson believe that Republicans wouldn’t try to raise at least one of those flags? Does he believe that the current GOP isn’t so shallow as to support an issue for its supposed popular appeal, regardless of its policy impact? That assumes that President Bush would even sign the legislation. I suspect he’d find his Stem Cell Research-only veto pen.

Of course, it’s worth stepping back from that and asking the more fundamental question of whether or not public policy should be set by popular demand. I hope that popular demand correlates to good policy, but it doesn’t. That makes majoritarian arguments unacceptable.

Next, from Mallory Factor of the Free Enterprise Fund, explaining why returning the Democrats to the majority would be bad:

Next, let’s look at spending. One has to admit that the Republicans have given into the spending temptation, too, in the last few years. But the answer is structural reform to fight Congressional earmarks, not a change in party control. Rep. Pelosi suggests that most new spending would be “pay as you go.” At first, this sounds good, with its hint of not adding new government programs until we can afford them. But “pay as you go” really means “pay before passing go”—and certainly don’t collect any $300 tax refund checks as with the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Rep. Pelosi would be much more convincing on spending if her party had not already proposed $90 billion in new government spending, even before it takes control of the House. The only way to “pay as you go” and fund these programs is for “you” (the taxpayer) to “pay” more. That’s why Rep. Rangel has to say that middle class tax increases have to be considered, too—just raising taxes on the rich won’t pay for everything.

Who will enact this structural reform? The current GOP? Please. And Rep. Pelosi’s spending increases still must pass the president’s desk before we need to worry about her “pay as you go” theory. And does Mr. Factor really believe that the $300 refund check was fiscally responsible, as opposed to political opportunism?

For fun, consider this one extra bit of wishful thinking:

With $90 billion in spending proposals, and 12 years out of power, can we really believe that Democrats will turn on a dime to become the party of spending restraint? Instead, let’s hope that this year’s near-death experience for the Republicans will help keep them focused on cutting government spending and keeping taxes low.

Let’s assume the Republicans might discover fiscal restraint, just for giggles. The word keep in Mr. Factor’s prayer is an interesting choice. For this year’s near-death experience to keep them focused on cutting government spending, they would have to already be focused on it. Who believes that, other than partisans more interested in keeping power than fiscal restraint.

Both sides are wrong, regardless of how they got there. Giving us popular spending won’t help our mess, and arguing that we’re bad, but they’re worse is dumb. Neither party should have complete control. Ever.

The post where I praise the Bush Administration

This is wonderful news:

The Bush administration has decided to end its funding of a groundbreaking program that has sought to curb the spread of HIV by offering subsidized circumcisions to men in Swaziland.

A statement issued Thursday night by the U.S. Agency for International Development said that it had only recently learned of the program and that it violated government policy supporting study of circumcision but not services offering the procedure.
…

In its statement, USAID said the funding “should not have occurred, and there will be no further circumcisions performed with U.S. Government funds until the PEPFAR Scientific Steering Committee reviews data from ongoing clinical trials and considers any recommendations on male circumcision from the normative international Agencies.” PEPFAR is the Bush anti-AIDS program.

According to the article taxpayer money only paid for adult circumcisions. That makes me happier less angry, but barely. I’m not sure where funding AIDS prevention in Africa falls within the Constitutional responsibilities granted to the United States government, but that’s not my issue. I’m not going to approach the scientific implications, either. I’m still not denying them; I just don’t believe they’re enough for the reasons I’ve explained in the past.

I applaud this primarily because I don’t believe circumcision is the most effective HIV prevention for the Third World. Economic development would have a far greater impact. Clean water would have a far greater impact. If we’re going to be involved, we need to set the foundation for allowing these men (and women) to help themselves. They need some hope that engaging in safer sex will result in a better life, a life with opportunity.

This means no longer propping up corrupt dictators who squander our foreign aid. That’s easily said, and I accept that. The details, which I haven’t provided beyond the most basic form, are important. But it seems obvious that we need to remove diseased regimes. Removing healthy foreskins only hides the symptoms.

When will Congress ban Happy Meals?

Shocking news from the futurists:

One in five children is predicted to be obese by the end of the decade.

Uh oh. Someone wants more of my money. And who is that someone?

… Wednesday’s report [by the Institute of Medicine] spotlighted the government’s VERB campaign, a program once touted as spurring a 30 percent increase in exercise among the preteens it reached. It ended this year with Bush administration budget cuts.

VERB encouraged 9- to 13-year-olds to take part in physical activities, like bike riding or skateboarding. Slick ads, at a cost of $59 million last year, portrayed exercise as cool at an age when outdoor play typically winds down and adolescent slothfulness sets in.

The demise of the program “calls into question the commitment to obesity prevention within government,” the panel concluded.

[Emory University’s Dr. Jeffrey] Koplan was more blunt, calling it a waste of taxpayer money to develop a program that works and then dismantle it.

We all know the government is the only effective way to stop kids from being fat. Why do the fiscal conservatives hate fat kids? Sometimes I wonder how I sleep at night? Of course, I also wonder, if we encourage children to ride a bike or a skateboard, how will they accomplish what they’re now so wonderfully motivated to do if they don’t have a bike or a skateboard? There are poor parents in America who believe food, clothing, and shelter are more important. Their kids will be at a disadvantage, no? How much government taxpayer money is enough, so we don’t miss anyone?

Specifically to Dr. Koplan’s point, it’s a waste of taxpayer money to develop a program. Notice that I used his sentiment, but put the period in the correct place. It’s amazing what can happen when political principle meets grammar. Taxpayers save money, which is especially useful to me since I don’t have children targeted by that $59 million. I’d rather we spend it wisely. If that means I hate fat kids, so be it.

Or here’s an idea. When I was a kid, my brother and our friends liked to play football. You know what held us back? No field to play on. Fields existed in ready supply at neighborhood schools, as you’d expect, but we weren’t allowed on. If we’re going to have public provision of education, and all of the facilities apparently necessary, why not open them to the public paying for them. Liability blah blah blah. Football is a violent, dangerous sport etc. etc. etc. I know. Bikes and skateboards are dangerous, too. Solve the barriers imposed on money already spent on mostly idle property instead of creating new programs. It’s a suggestion.

Or government could leave parenting to parents.