February 24, 2008
If you had accumulated so much debt that your total income for the rest of your life would be insufficient to pay it off, one would think that not only were you imprudent, but that your whole life had been built upon morally questionable premises. Yet that is the situation with regard to the Federal Government and Medicare. According to a column in the Wall Street Journal (February 23-24, A9) by John C. Goodman, " Medicare's unfunded liability is $74 trillion-five times that of Social Security. According to the Congressional Budget Office, health-care spending is on a course that could crowd out all other government programs." The silence of the presidential condidates on this problem is deafening. Obama and Clinton are simply concerned to acquire more debt with their proposals for universal coverage. Neither of them are interested in emphasizing that Medicaid covers the poor and Medicare the elderly so that the most of the uninsured would be capable of purchasing an inexpensive catastrophe policy if that was high enough on their list of priorities. The more the government undertakes to support medical services for the general population, the greater is the budget deficit, the greater the burden on future generations, the greater the temptation to generate inflation (a great way to pay debts), and the worse the general financial condition of the United States. (Because of the irresponsibility on the part of the political class over the last generation, one should no more cry for the US than for Argentina). What is to be done? Perhaps with an extreme problem, one should aim for a radical solution. The government should get out of the health care business entirely; it has no more reason to be involved in it than in the automobile or clothing business. Return all the money collected in taxes to support various medical programs to the taxpayers. Arrange for inexpensive catastrophe insurance to be available for purchase by everyone; and then let everyone pay for their non-catastrophic expenses. The costs of medical care should go way down since individuals will themselves have to control their demand for medical services. Private philanthropy will flow to help those who are really too poor to pay for routine care even if their priorities were in that direction. But do not expect any of the candicates to adopt this or any other rational approach. They are too busy right now telling the public all the benefits they will receive by electing them.
clandesm@aol.com
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
No Surrender
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Yesterday, I explained why, although I voted for Barack Obama in the New York primary, I have only tempered enthusiasm for his candidacy as well as Clinton's although I hope that one of them will be elected President. Today, I want to explain why I have very little enthusiasm for Obama's Iraq policy. He favors a quick withdrawal of US troops and an end to US participation in military activity. His policy reflects not only his own quite justified opposition to the war, but also the disenchantment with the war on the part of a majority of US voters. The problem with this view is that it appears to be the same thing as surrender. After all, one way of surrendering in a fight is to stop fighting and get the hell out of there. McCain has accused the democrats of wanting to surrender. Now in Obama's behalf, I must say that his policy is not exactly surrender. In answer to the question what he would do if the situation in Iraq went from bad to worse as troops were being withdrawn and US intests were threatened, he said that he would not let this happen. So he has qualified his policy, and this is enough to differentiate it from surrender. However, because it looks like surrender and may even have the consequences of surrender, it is vulnerable to McCain's criticism. Moreover, I think that if the American people feel that they are faced with the alternatives of surrender or continuing the war, then, no matter how much they dislike the war and no matter how wrong-headed getting into the war was, they still might prefer continuing it. And if they do, McCain might be able to defeat Obama or Clinton. I think that the democratic candidate must explain three things: he (or she) must explain very clearly how his Iraq policy differs from surrender and how he will preserve US interests in the Middle East and how withdrawal from a country that the policies of the Bush administration has ruined is not dishonorable. In think that Obama more than Clinton may be able to provide these explanations because of his extraordinary rhetorical skills and power of persuasion. I think the election depends upon these skills.
clandesm@aol.com
Yesterday, I explained why, although I voted for Barack Obama in the New York primary, I have only tempered enthusiasm for his candidacy as well as Clinton's although I hope that one of them will be elected President. Today, I want to explain why I have very little enthusiasm for Obama's Iraq policy. He favors a quick withdrawal of US troops and an end to US participation in military activity. His policy reflects not only his own quite justified opposition to the war, but also the disenchantment with the war on the part of a majority of US voters. The problem with this view is that it appears to be the same thing as surrender. After all, one way of surrendering in a fight is to stop fighting and get the hell out of there. McCain has accused the democrats of wanting to surrender. Now in Obama's behalf, I must say that his policy is not exactly surrender. In answer to the question what he would do if the situation in Iraq went from bad to worse as troops were being withdrawn and US intests were threatened, he said that he would not let this happen. So he has qualified his policy, and this is enough to differentiate it from surrender. However, because it looks like surrender and may even have the consequences of surrender, it is vulnerable to McCain's criticism. Moreover, I think that if the American people feel that they are faced with the alternatives of surrender or continuing the war, then, no matter how much they dislike the war and no matter how wrong-headed getting into the war was, they still might prefer continuing it. And if they do, McCain might be able to defeat Obama or Clinton. I think that the democratic candidate must explain three things: he (or she) must explain very clearly how his Iraq policy differs from surrender and how he will preserve US interests in the Middle East and how withdrawal from a country that the policies of the Bush administration has ruined is not dishonorable. In think that Obama more than Clinton may be able to provide these explanations because of his extraordinary rhetorical skills and power of persuasion. I think the election depends upon these skills.
clandesm@aol.com
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Tempered enthusiasm
February 20, 2008
As one who voted for Barack Obama in the New York primary because of the intelligent and thoughtful persona he has displayed throughout the campaign, I must now admit that I am a bit depressed about the direction both Democratic candidates are taking. Today, I will say a few words about the economy. The basic condition of the economy is that we are living on borrowed money; there is an inflationary threat fueled by increases in the money supply and the low interest rate; there is also the threat of a severe recession; there is the belief among the political class and many economists that a certain amount of inflation is normal and even beneficial and that deficits don't matter. The only long term solution is to impose fiscal discipline upon ourselves, and this means some tax increases, cuts in the federal budget, and delaying any new expensive programs (such as an expansion in public support for health care), reform of Medicare, reducing the costs of the Iraq war, and electing a president who will be willing to use the veto power to discipline a Congress that seems to know no limits and has lost any sense of fiscal prudence. But both Clinton and Obama seem headed in the opposite direction. For example, Clinton has pointed out that tax increases on the wealthy will pay for about one half of the costs of her plan to insure every citizen (not including the costs of coercion). Yet the other half is over 50 billion dollars. Where is that coming from? Both candidates have deferred to special interests to qualify their commitment to free trade. Today's "Wall Street Journal" points out that Obama is proposing "a $10 billion fund to help borrowers avoid foreclosure to buy first homes". Where is that money coming from? And why should the taxpayer pay for the mistakes and imprudence of these borrowers? Clinton wants a fund three times that size. She also wants a 90 day freeze on foreclosures, a violation of the principle of the validity of contracts. According to WSJ again, lenders oppose this idea because they will be forced to lose the interest that was contracted for and the delay would mean that the banks would foreclose on properties that have lost value during this 90 day period. These policies exemplify the point that pandering to one group means harming another and doing nothing to advance the common good. In brief, both candidates are adopting policies that will worsen our current condition rather than cure the disaster that Bush together with Congress has imposed upon all of us. The Realist advocates that both candidates step back, calm their frenzied efforts to win, and , and have more concern for the good of all and the long term interests of the American people.
As one who voted for Barack Obama in the New York primary because of the intelligent and thoughtful persona he has displayed throughout the campaign, I must now admit that I am a bit depressed about the direction both Democratic candidates are taking. Today, I will say a few words about the economy. The basic condition of the economy is that we are living on borrowed money; there is an inflationary threat fueled by increases in the money supply and the low interest rate; there is also the threat of a severe recession; there is the belief among the political class and many economists that a certain amount of inflation is normal and even beneficial and that deficits don't matter. The only long term solution is to impose fiscal discipline upon ourselves, and this means some tax increases, cuts in the federal budget, and delaying any new expensive programs (such as an expansion in public support for health care), reform of Medicare, reducing the costs of the Iraq war, and electing a president who will be willing to use the veto power to discipline a Congress that seems to know no limits and has lost any sense of fiscal prudence. But both Clinton and Obama seem headed in the opposite direction. For example, Clinton has pointed out that tax increases on the wealthy will pay for about one half of the costs of her plan to insure every citizen (not including the costs of coercion). Yet the other half is over 50 billion dollars. Where is that coming from? Both candidates have deferred to special interests to qualify their commitment to free trade. Today's "Wall Street Journal" points out that Obama is proposing "a $10 billion fund to help borrowers avoid foreclosure to buy first homes". Where is that money coming from? And why should the taxpayer pay for the mistakes and imprudence of these borrowers? Clinton wants a fund three times that size. She also wants a 90 day freeze on foreclosures, a violation of the principle of the validity of contracts. According to WSJ again, lenders oppose this idea because they will be forced to lose the interest that was contracted for and the delay would mean that the banks would foreclose on properties that have lost value during this 90 day period. These policies exemplify the point that pandering to one group means harming another and doing nothing to advance the common good. In brief, both candidates are adopting policies that will worsen our current condition rather than cure the disaster that Bush together with Congress has imposed upon all of us. The Realist advocates that both candidates step back, calm their frenzied efforts to win, and , and have more concern for the good of all and the long term interests of the American people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)