politics
And the left wants government-managed health care?
But today, people expect insurance to cover everything, even routine things like eyeglasses and dental treatment. This is a terrible idea. Insurance is a lousy way to pay for anything.
Once some faceless stranger is paying for what you do, you don't have an incentive to control costs. On the contrary, you have an incentive to get as much as you can and leave the other person with the bill. Doctors also have an incentive to run up the bills. Patients rarely complain, but they might complain if the doctor skips a test. Insurance companies know this, of course; hence the torturous bureaucracy: the paperwork, the phone calls where you beg them to pay, the times they refuse to pay for what you thought was covered.
I can't blame them. They're just trying to protect themselves from fraud and hoping to have enough money left over to stay in business.
Government insurance is worse than private insurance. A private insurer has an incentive to cut costs; every dollar wasted comes out of profit or must be recovered by raising prices, which drives customers away. Government just raises taxes or increases debt.
So when our bloated government picks up the tab for poor people's health costs, guess what it buys: Viagra! In 2004, Medicaid spent $38 million on drugs for erectile dysfunction. Funny. I always thought one of the Left's battle cries was for the government to stay out of the private citizen's bedroom. Here's a great place to start.
Killing bureaucracy
Senator Tom Coburn (OK-R):
One of the greatest impediments to the president's vision of an ownership society is an inside-the-Beltway entitlement society, in which federal agencies expect ever-increasing budgets, regardless of their performance. The Washington Times article linked above notes the creation of the "Sunset" and "Results" Commissions, which will look in to eliminating waste within, and possibly closing down, federal agencies or departments. It's about time.
Whither goes federalism?
David Boaz, of the libertarian Cato Institute, notes that the current incarnation of the Republican Party has turned its back on federalism, abandoning the Reagan Revolution. Unfortunately, he's right. (It still won't convert me to the Libertarian Party, Tom, so don't bother.) I love the dig on the Dems, though:
But most liberals can't give up their addiction to centralization. Even as they rail against federal intervention in the Schiavo case -- arch-liberal Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's delegate in Congress, discovers for the first time in her life that "the bedrock of who we are" is the "Founders' limited vision of the federal government" -- they push for stricter regulations on pesticides and painkillers, a higher national minimum wage, and federal gun control laws.
Judicial term limits
Jeff Jacoby makes a good case for judicial term limits. Can we please do this for members of Congress while we're at it?
Foreign trespassers
'[I]llegal immigration' is an oxymoron. If it's immigration, it is not illegal, and if they are here illegally they are not immigrants, are they?
Maybe it's time that a more accurate term be coined to describe these people. I'll start the process -- how about 'foreign trespassers?' This is now the official term in use at Retrophisch™ Central.
Filibuster schmilibuster
Jeff laments the fact that a compromise used to be a good thing. My response has always been, "It depends on the particular compromise." The Senatorial filibuster agreement, made without the consent of the Republican or--and please correct me if I'm wrong--the Democratic Senate leadership, is not the sort of compromise one would find virtuous. Today's OpinionJournal shows why:
This ballyhooed "compromise" is all about saving the Senators themselves, not the Constitution. Its main point is to shield the group of 14 from the consequences of having to cast difficult, public votes in a filibuster showdown. Thus they split the baby on the most pressing nominees, giving three of them a vote while rejecting two others on what seem to be entirely arbitrary grounds, so Members of both parties can claim victory. Far better to cashier nominees as a bipartisan phalanx, rather than face up to their individual "advice and consent" responsibilities.
[...]
And it's cynicism squared in the case of the three nominees who will now finally be confirmed. Yesterday, 81 Senators voted to give Priscilla Owen a vote on the floor, after four years of Democratic filibusters. Apparently she isn't such a grave "extremist" threat after all. The same also applies to Janice Rogers Brown (22 months in the dock) and Bill Pryor (25 months). Monday's deal exposes the long Democratic campaign against them as "extremists" as nothing more than a political sop to People for the American Way and their ilk.
[...]
But there is a cynical irony here, too. To defeat a Supreme Court nominee, liberal interest groups will now be obliged to manufacture the very "extraordinary circumstances" that would give Democrats among the Gang of 14 an excuse to filibuster. Thus they will have even greater incentive than before to dig through a nominee's personal and professional life for any mud they can throw against him. In the name of consensus and comity, in short, these 14 "moderates" have increased the chances that the Senate will witness a future, bloody Borking. If anyone thinks this filibuster-busting "agreement" is going to grease the skids for judicial nominees beyond the next few months, they are living in a fantasy world.
About that filibuster agreement
I think today's Cox & Forkum amply shows how worthless the fourteen-Senator filibuster agreement will ultimately prove to be.
Great, so now whom do I vote for?
I'll have to look in to the Constitution Party, or something, because it's official: the Republicans have no spine.
Killing "public" broadcasting
There is bias in news reporting and there always will be. That's hardly the problem. The problem is forcing people to pay for the bias and propaganda with which they disagree. As Jefferson once wrote, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
This sort of tyranny has become a fixation on the left. Leftist artists cannot seem to enjoy their craft without the controversy that comes from forcing people who are offended by it to pay the bill. Leftists also want public financing of political campaigns, so that Americans are forced to pay to promote political views they oppose. Of course, this could just be a pragmatic decision based on the realization that they cannot raise funds voluntarily. In his column Jacob notes a poll conducted by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which finances PBS and NPR. Only 8 percent of Americans watch PBS. Eight percent. Yet the argument is that PBS has shows that are important to the culture, or that no one else will carry. Maybe the reason no one else will carry them is because no one else is willing to pay for them. And I hardly think Antiques Roadshow qualifies as a important historical documentary series. We do watch PBS in our home. Thomas the Tank Engine and Bob the Builder. Two highly successful childrens' programs which would do fine on any of the pay-for networks we get through our satellite service. I've found of the other shows typically shown on PBS that I would find an interest in, I can find the same or similar type shows on Discovery or the History Channel. It's time to fully privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to cut the taxpayer-funding cord. Let PBS and NPR sink or swim in the free market. Ninety-two percent of Americans can't be wrong.
The crusading media
Today's Best of the Web has what is quite possibly the best explanation of what has gone wrong with the mainstream media over the past forty years.
It's not just that the media are biased against conservatives and Republicans, though they certainly are. It is that they see every war as another Vietnam and every supposed scandal as another Watergate--at least when Republicans are in the White House, which they usually are.
The obsession with Vietnam and Watergate is central to the alienation between the press and the people. After all, these were triumphs for the crusading press but tragedies for America. And the press's quest for more such triumphs--futile, so far, after more than 30 years--is what is behind the scandals at both Newsweek and CBS.
[...]
The problem in all three cases is that news organizations were so zealous in their pursuit of the next quagmire or scandal that they forgot their first obligation, which is to tell the truth. Until those in the mainstream media are willing to acknowledge that it is this crusading impulse that has led them astray, we are unlikely to see the end of such journalistic scandals.
About those pensions
In yesterday's Political Diary, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. reminds us that the recent pension ills at United Airlines are, well, the fault of its employee owners.
Pundits on the weekend talk shows lamented Corporate America's "breaking of faith" with workers at United Airlines, whose pension plans were gutted in a bankruptcy proceeding last week. Expect more of the same from politicians, and not just Democrats, as Big Labor exploits the issue to promote its opposition to private Social Security accounts and its support for national health care. The political reaction, like yesterday's pundit reaction, can also be expected to betray perfect and pristine ignorance of what actually occurred at United.
United represents not so much a corporate failure as a labor failure. No industry is as strongly controlled by its workers as the airline business is, and United was the ultimate case in point. The company was 55% owned by its unions; the union bosses controlled three seats on the board and effectively hired and fired the CEO. Labor was sitting on both sides of the table in the 1990s, in short, when workers decided to boost their compensation with unfunded, and unfundable, pension promises while also extracting maximum dollar in current wages and benefits. The same "employee-owners," in other words, who looted the company by awarding themselves the richest pay deal in the industry also effectively voted to loot the federal government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which they knew would be the ultimate guarantor of United unfunded pension bennies.
Keep all this in mind as the labor campaign gears up, especially when angry, red-faced pilots go on TV to blame their troubles on Corporate America and fatcat CEOs. American Airlines is headquartered in Fort Worth, and Southwest Airlines in Dallas, so the airline industry is closely monitored here in the DFW metroplex. What amazes me is the amount of whining that comes from the majority of the airline industry, when in the face of all of the economic woes the airlines have been subject to of late, Southwest is still turning a profit. The reasons for this are many: they offer outstanding customer service, they only service short routes, they do not have a union influence. Southwest employees are enthusiastic, sometimes annoyingly so. However, I'd rather be annoyed by someone's cheeriness than by someone's grumpiness (hello, American?). I am, for the most part, anti-union these days. There was a time and place in our history when workers' unions were needed, and needed badly. Many perks and benefits workers enjoy in today's workplace came about as a result of union influence. But the time of the union sticking up for the little man is over with. More often than not these days, my perception is the unions are harming their members, and the companies which employ those members, more than they are helping them, and only the union bosses have anything to show for it. United's employees only have themselves to blame. [Emphasis added in quoted text.]
Ann Coulter to move to Iraq
Radical Left falls over itself volunteering packing help. Soros confirms he will cover all moving expenses. Bill Maher "despondent." News at 11.
On the working class
What we wonder is: How come it never occurs to liberals or Democrats that the very terms in which they phrase the question are part of their problem? These, after all, are people who are obsessed with politically correct terminology, from "African-American" to "fetus." Yet somehow it never dawns on them that "working class" is an insult.
Think about it: Would you call a janitor, a secretary or a carpenter "working class" to his face? The term connotes putting someone in his place: Your lot in life is to work. Thinking is for the higher classes. The questions the Democrats ask about the "working class" reflect precisely this contempt: What's the matter with these people? Why don't they understand that we know what's good for them? Why do they worry about silly things like abortion and homosexuality? If they must believe in all that religious mumbo-jumbo, can't they keep it to themselves?
Every time the Democrats lose an election, they make a big show of asking questions like these. Then, the next time they lose an election, they once again wonder why the "working class" has forsaken them. Maybe it's as simple as: because they were listening.
ACLU "observers" aiding illegals, smoking dope
Volunteers with the Minuteman Project in Arizona say "legal observers" sent by the ACLU to monitor the citizen border patrol have been seen smoking marijuana in violation of the law.
[...]
[...] ACLU monitors sent to the border to watch Minuteman activity and report civil-liberties abuses to authorities have begun flashing lights, sounding horns and warning off illegals and their "coyote" human smugglers from entering territory patrolled by the volunteers.
[...]
A volunteer reported, according to the South East Arizona Republican Club, "The ACLU is getting desperate to get something on the Minutemen and are trying to provoke incidents now."
"They pushed one of the Minutemen the other night trying to get him to push back. Didn't work. Then last night they walked up and shined a spotlight right in a Minuteman's face from six inches or so away. Didn't work that time either. We immediately report these types of contacts with them to the sheriff to counter any claims they try to make against us. They should be called the UCLU (Un-American Civil Lawsuit Union).
"They give us the middle finger every chance they get to try to get us to react. We are still trying to figure out if that is their age or IQ." It's so nice to know the defenders of liberty and our Constitution are on the job down there in Arizona. Larger pictures of the alleged dope smoking can be found here. [With thanks to Israel R. for the links.]
Quote of the day
As seen on the Laura Ingraham web site this morning:
"At this point I would rather have a right-wing Christian decide my fate than an ACLU member."
-- Eleanor Smith, a disabled, self-described liberal agnostic lesbian
The Politics of Silicon Valley
Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard has an intriguing look at the politics of Silicon Valley. Hint: incumbents are despised, "disrupters" are loved.
Take her seriously, but don't panic
Peggy Noonan, on Mrs. Clinton seeking the presidency:
Republicans--I have been among many--are now in the stage of the Hillary Conversation in which they are beginning to grouse about those who keep warning that Mrs. Clinton will be a formidable candidate for president in 2008. She won't be so tough, they say. America will never elect a woman like her, with such a sketchy history--financial scandals, political pardons, the whole mess that took place between 1980 and 2000.
I tell them they are wrong. First, it is good to be concerned about Mrs. Clinton, for she is coming down the pike. It is pointless to be afraid, but good to be concerned. Why? Because we live in a more or less 50-50 nation; because Mrs. Clinton is smarter than her husband and has become a better campaigner on the ground; because her warmth and humor seem less oily; because she has struck out a new rhetorically (though not legislatively) moderate course; because you don't play every card right the way she's been playing every card right the past five years unless you have real talent; because unlike her husband she has found it possible to grow more emotionally mature; because the presidency is the bright sharp focus of everything she does each day; because she is not going to get seriously dinged in the 2008 primaries but will likely face challengers who make her look even more moderate and stable; and because in 2008 we will have millions of 18- to 24-year-old voters who have no memory of her as the harridan of the East Wing and the nutty professor of HillaryCare.
The Hillary those young adults remember will be the senator--chuckling with a throaty chuckle, bantering amiably with Lindsey Graham, maternal and moderate and strong. Add to that this: Half the MSM will be for her, and the other half will be afraid of the half that is for her. (You think journalists are afraid of the right? Journalists are afraid of each other.) And on top of all that, It's time for a woman. Almost every young woman in America, every tough old suburban momma, every unmarried urban high-heel-wearing, briefcase-toting corporate lawyer will be saying it. They'll be working for, rooting for, giving to the woman.
I am of course exaggerating, but not by much. Not to mention that the 18-24 crowd didn't have, as usual, the voting impact in the 2004 election many hoped they would.
Taking away their shovels
"Congress doesn't act unless there is a crisis," one member of Congress once told me. That axiom is growing more apparent every day. Since many in Congress want to deny that we face crises in our economic infrastructure, the public must act now to remind them. We must demand urgent action to save our economic infrastructure. We must holler until they start to follow.
Instead of reading poll numbers, Congress must start reading thousands of e-mail messages from angry voters in their districts and states. Instead of listening to their political advisers, Congress must start listening to thousands of phone calls from people who are fed up with the income tax code, the dysfunctional Social Security structure, and runaway deficit spending. Instead of focusing on partisan politics and the next election, we must force Congress to focus on not leaving this mess for the next generation.
Let's start with a few real simple and specific messages. Congress, replace the income tax code with a national sales tax modeled on the FairTax. Congress, pass legislation that includes optional personal retirement accounts for workers younger than 45 years of age using 4 percentage points of their payroll taxes. Congress, let's enact a balanced budget amendment, since you have demonstrated that you cannot control your spending addiction.
Imagine what would happen if every member of Congress received this simple message every week from thousands of voters in their districts and states. Maybe then they will begin to see the same crises that we the people face every day.