A few more weeks...

I've been following the health care bill rather closely, and looking at all the wrangling in the Senate now has reminded me of a question I heard at several health reform conferences in DC over the summer. Panelists at more than one conference were asked, "do you think health care reform will be passed before the year is out?" There were several yeses, several nos, and most concurred that something would happen, but it might not be as comprehensive as was expected. My view at the time was that Congress would ram through an entitlement expansion bill that did little to address costs. Well, looks like I was both right and wrong. This bill is going nowhere before the year is out, but if anything, it will end up as a costly Medicare expansion without cutting costs. But I think there is a reason why so many aspects of the bill have been failing in the Senate over the past week or two. They've cut many of the core aspects of the bill because they represent naive, idealistic liberal theories that do not work in the real world. Just look at the remarks of Sen. Bernie Sanders' remark that the bill "eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies." Really? So this bill is saving the nation billions of dollars despite the CBO's estimate of near a trillion dollars? They are trying to ram this bill through, but hopefully our intentionally slow and balky legislative system will weed out the illogical and irresponsible parts of this "reform".

Uncertainty

This is probably one of the best articles I've read that explains the opposition to the current health care "reform". I had actually never thought of explaining it this way, but it makes a lot of sense.

Why Does the Public Oppose ObamaCare?

The logic is that while people may support certain aspects of the bill, they reject the bill as a whole because of the extreme uncertainty involved. The average voter recognizes that they may receive some benefits from the plan, but has no way of knowing how it will really affect them. Due to the very technical nature of the bill's language, the average voter can't tell whether or not they will have to pay more or whether they qualify for a subsidy, not to mention what the long term effects will be on the economy. Additionally, voters on average have low confidence in Congress's ability to write good legislation, thus creating doubt on the legitimacy of the bill as a whole. In any case, the article says it better that I can. All I'm saying is that while the status quo is in no way ideal, the current bill is no way to fix it.

Take a bite out of crime

Here is a great clip I recently found on youtube. After completing mandatory military service, the Swiss are required to keep the firearm they trained with, thus creating a constantly armed and ready national militia. I believe that a (responsible) armed society is the best deterrent to crime and other threats to freedom. I think about how sick I felt when I was reading a book about the Armenian genocide in the early 20th century. The very first thing the Turks did was to disarm the Armenians. They went to every village and collected every firearm. The Armenians complied, trusting that it was in their best interest. But when Turks and Kurds massacred millions of Armenian men, women, and children, they had no defense. We are blessed to live in a very stable and safe country, but it's still vitally important that citizens have the means to safeguard their families and liberties.

Reality

I wish I had this documented, but I don't. Over a year ago, before the Nov. elections, I said something to the effect that the whole "Obama personality cult" would be very disillusioned when they discovered that their idol was just another politician. I figured that the wave of euphoria would die quickly, and judging by this Washington Post article, I'm right. I guess it wasn't that prophetic of a prediction; everyone should have realized that the personality worship of this past election campaign was unfounded. I love the quote from the article: "[Liberals] saw him as a transformational figure who would end war, save the Earth from global warming, restore the economy -- and still be home for dinner. They lashed out at anybody who dared to suggest that Obama was just another politician, subject to calculation, expediency and vanity like all the rest." Well surprise surprise, Pres. Obama isn't the nation's savior--no one person can be, even in the highest executive position. It's not the purpose of this post to Obama-bash--there are plenty of people that do that better than I-- but I just wanted to feel vindicated for my incredulous view of the "cult", which while still surviving, is quickly dying down.

Media...anyone in there?

Just a side note- can anyone explain why CNN.com's home page had FOUR articles on Tiger Woods today, but not a single article on the senate health care debate? And Tiger has had major headlines for something like five days straight, while our elected officials are busy trying to ram through a $1 trillion (give or take a few hundred billion) government health care takeover? Maybe I need to find a new news source. Actually, one I really like is http://www.realclearpolitics.com/. It's one of the better news compilers I've found- it takes articles from many sources and sides, and puts them all in one place. I check it several times each day. Sure, many of the articles are biased and polarized, but sometimes that's what I like! :)

A penny saved...

Time to confess. As a college student, I don't make a lot of money. Somewhere less than $15,000 per annum, which I guess is about normal for most students. But I LOVE to spend. Last month I bought a new home theater, and traded in the old Ford for a flashy BMW. I got a sweet new gaming computer, well, actually, two. (Just in case one breaks). This thanksgiving break we toured Europe and treated ourselves to first class seats. How do I afford such a lifestyle working just 15 hours per week? Easy- it's called DEBT! So what if I don't have the money now, I'll just pay it back in small installments for the next... however many years.
Ok, I'm obviously exaggerating. But it's not an exaggeration for certain people we voted to direct the course of our nation. The US government "makes" a lot of money each year, yet still runs a massive deficit, just as I would if I spent like I just described.
I honestly can't understand how fiscal restraint could ever be a partisan issue. For one, neither Rs or Ds have done a very good job lately at it. But apart from their track record, I fail to see how having massive debt could ever be considered good policy. This recent Newsweek article articulates the risks associated with out-of-control debt (it's long, but it's a good read). Fixing the debt issue is not something to put on the back burner- this is serious, as Dubai recently showed us. I, for one, don't want to see high inflation rates and down-rated US securities just because some politicians didn't know the meaning of a balanced budget.

Taxation even with representation

I congratulate people who write articles like this one recently published in Forbes. I think too often the focus is placed on the for whom and how much of government spending, without asking whether it should be spent in the first place. The author makes a good argument for limited federal government, stating that the constitution specifically states in the 10th amendment that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Much of the spending on the Federal level would be better left to the states, and the framers of the constitution intended for the Federal government to be constrained to certain specific tasks. Governance on a state-to-state basis would allow people to "vote with their feet" and live in a state that most coincides with their ideals. Now isn't the time to get into a big federalism debate, but the way I see it, we have already passed the point where economies of scale favor centralized administration. Is it possible to limit the size of the Federal government and govern on a more efficient state level? I'm not sure how to do that, but I agree with the author when he wrote, "we should demand that they cease talking of reduced federal spending and taxes in favor of a real discussion of the proper role of the federal government itself."

Your turn

A recent story from the AP cites a Senate report that "seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush". It blames the prior administration for not catching Bin Laden when they had the chance in Tora Bora. Now I certainly wouldn't claim that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been perfectly managed, and the Pres. Bush's administration certainly made many costly mistakes. I would, however, say to the Obama administration and Congress: let's see you do better. Sure, Bush didn't get Bin Laden. Let's see you get him. Just do us a favor and don't try him in New York with the rest of his rabble.

Maine

Today I had a pleasant conversation with Senator Dennis Damon, the Maine state senator who was the lead sponsor of the recent same-sex marriage bill (which was rejected via referendum just this month). I interviewed him for a law paper that I'm working on for school, and was fortunate to get twenty minutes of his time. I gathered two main things from the interview:

1. It is quite possible to have civil, respectful conversation with people that have different viewpoints than your own. Of course, this requires both sides to be willing to be respectful, even if they disagree. I didn't go into the interview with the intention of starting an argument, Sen. Damon seemed to be a courteous and well-mannered person. He probably knew that I had a different viewpoint since I mentioned I was from BYU, but he was respectful of my beliefs. I think we get the perception from political debates and news programs that people with different views must always be rude and snarky, but I think civil discussion is always possible- if difficult.
2. Politicians respond to their constituency, and are chosen by the people. While certainly there are politicians that make poor choices despite the public's best efforts to choose good leadership, there are many more who do what they do because that is what the people want, for better or for worse. We can't place all the blame on politicians for poor social policy- we also must blame the citizens and interest groups who ask for such policies.

So the final take-home lesson- it's vital to be politically active and support efforts to protect marriage, but it can also be done without being nasty and mean spirited.

"Stimulus" transparency

I remember reading the news stories early this year, aghast at seeing the massive $900 billion "stimulus" bill get rammed through congress. I thought it was more than just poor judgment- it was a travesty. But, as they said, it was necessary, and without it, unemployment might go above 8%! Well, nearly a year later, the economy is no better and unemployment is over 10%. To make matters worse, job numbers have been reported Enron-style. Just check out this article from Bloomberg. Wanting to make the stimulus look like a resounding success, the Obama administration fudged the numbers, and now they're getting called on it. So much for transparency, or good judgment for that matter.

Spot on

The WSJ said it like it is in this excellent article:

The Coming Deficit Disaster

Fiscal responsibility my foot. This health "reform" bill that will be voted on in the senate today seems to be going in the same direction as the "stimulus" plan earlier this year- fruitless spending with no regard to debt. They say this bill will reduce the deficit- does anyone believe that? Not according to a recent poll that found that only 19% of voters believe that Pres. Obama will keep his promise that the health bill will not increase the deficit. You would think that the current administration thinks that they have a huge blank check to spend all they want. Well don't be surprised when it bounces.

Ft. Hood

Well I follow the news nonstop, so let me hit this one first before it fades away. The Fort Hood shootings- terribly tragedy, proof that terrorism is alive and well. But many writers and pundits hesitate to use the T word. Why? Because the perpetrator was a Muslim, and in our PC world it's bad to associate the two. Now let me qualify my remarks- several of my colleagues are Muslims, and they are terrific people and I respect them highly. Their religion has made them great people of exceptional faith. But just like many other sects, there are the crazies that think that God justifies their murder. Hasan's killing spree was premeditated and ideological. You don't cry "Allahu Akbar" and shoot several dozen people out of coincidence. If Timothy McVeigh qualified as a terrorist, you bet Hasan should be called the same.