Category: Stupidity

If you can vote, you’re blameless to a politician.

From George Will in today’s Washington Post:

Moral hazard exists when a policy produces incentives for perverse behavior. One such existing policy is farm price supports that reduce the cost to farmers of overproduction, and even encourage it. Another is the policy of removing tens of millions of voters from the income tax rolls, thereby making government largess a free good for them.

If there’s one thing government is good at, it’s repeatedly amplifying moral hazards into a populist zeal for worsening the problem. Will’s column deals with the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and how Democrats are inevitably going to exploit it to push stupider economic policies to “protect” the little guy. Will points out that the primary problem with this is that the little guy who gets protection is the same little guy who willingly entered into the deal that is now causing him problems.

Granted, Democrats would seek to take from him if he’d won, exactly as they want to take from the big guys who won. So we should just ignore that some little guys won, too, and some big guys lost. That’s capitalism. Democrats don’t like capitalism.

Never trust a politician with your wallet.

I understand the appeal of a Pigou tax to counter the negative effects of gasoline use/carbon output. Theoretically, it’s perfect because it puts the burden on the user creating the problem, which is where it should be. In practice, I see no reason to trust politicians to stay within the bounds of the plan and not dip a finger or shovel into the funds. For example:

President Bush spoke out Thursday against increasing the gasoline tax, an idea being discussed as a potential part of a new Congressional plan to shore up the nation’s bridges after the deadly collapse in Minneapolis.

I get the idea that those who use the road would be paying for the road. That’s fine, except why should bridges be federal expenditures? So why should a national gas tax, collected and managed by the Congress, be used in this capacity? And isn’t a gas tax supposed to offset the negative environmental outcomes of burning gasoline?

Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, suggested this week that a tax increase might be needed to finance a proposed trust fund to repair bridges in the Federal Highway System, [sic] A large percentage of the bridges have been identified as having structural problems.

The key here is that, under current Congressional “leadership”, a large percentage of bridges managed by the federal government have uncorrected structural problems. The same legislative body that allowed this situation to develop without adequate (though, not necessarily appropriate) funding is somehow competent to manage a new influx of cash. Gotcha. I certainly trust the Congress to spend increased gas taxes where they’re needed. It’ll be just like shoring up Social Security with the trust fund receipts.

**********

On an amusing side note, President Bush is certainly bold:

Asked about the gasoline proposal, which could amount to an increase of 5 cents a gallon under schemes floating around Congress, Mr. Bush said, “Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.”

More than six years in and he’s finally suggesting that Congress examine how it sets priorities. It’s not like he could’ve vetoed any excessive spending and request that it be redirected to infrastructure. (Again, I’m only conceding that the federal government is involved in infrastructure, not that it should be involved.) No, he’s solely the tool of Congress to approve what they approve.

Or he could examine how he sets priorities. If I recall correctly, and I do, several years ago President Bush was busy demanding that the Congress pass a bigoted constitutional amendment. Apparently hating gays is a higher priority than preventing bridges from falling down.

The Schizophrenia of Economic Populism

In his lede to set up a different topic, George Will utilizes this story about Sen. Barack Obama, from the campaign trail:

Sen. Barack Obama recently told some Iowa farmers that prices of their crops are not high enough, considering what grocers are charging for other stuff: “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?”

Want to bet that Sen. Obama’s plan to get the prices of crops higher will involve some form of government subversion of economics? Want to also bet that he’ll campaign against the Whole Foods merger because it leads to higher prices? How about the possibility (probability?) that he’ll promise to help working families who have trouble paying their weekly grocery bills?

Legitimate is the enemy of more revenue.

I never got around to writing about the egregious fines (multi-year fines for minor infractions to “generate revenue”) for traffic offenses that went into effect in Virginia July 1st. As expected, they’ve already been struck down as unconstitutional, although not for the reason I would’ve guessed. There’s still a long path before the fines are history, but the political nature of the discussion is fascinating in exposing exactly how uninterested politicians are in leadership.

Del. David E. Poisson (D-Loudoun), who voted for the transportation package, said he expects the fees to surface in his race against Republican challenger Lynn Chapman.

“I was never a fan of the abuser fees,” Poisson said. “I spoke against them when the session ended and continue to maintain that they’re not a reliable source of transportation revenue. But it was very, very clear to me that this was, at least in the view of the majority, an essential ingredient in the overall package. Had we opposed any element of the package, it all would have failed.”

If the majority (Republicans) supported it, I don’t understand why it would’ve failed if the minority (Democrats) had opposed it. What I see is political shenanigans on both sides. Republicans wanted to get something done without raising taxes to pay for it. Democrats wanted money to spend, period. I won’t accept “I voted for it but I really opposed it.” Principles, principles, principles. This is more conspiring than opposing forces compromising.

I don’t think Maryland Gov. O’Malley is dense.

First, the obvious:

Maryland’s efforts to close a gaping budget shortfall next year could result in higher income taxes for the state’s more affluent residents — and a possible break for those earning less.

Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and leading lawmakers say they are giving serious consideration to overhauling the state’s tax brackets, which are among the flattest in the nation. Everyone with taxable income of more than $3,000 a year pays the same rate.

To close a “gaping budget shortfall,” Maryland could try not spending so much money. Novel, I know, but it’s been known to work for middle-, lower-, working-, and even upper-class families where expenses exceed income.

But there are (Democratic, not that it really matters) politicians involved, so that idea is not only not feasible, it’s not “fair”.

O’Malley called the structure “patently unfair” this week, saying at a Democratic breakfast in Frederick that Peter Angelos, the wealthy trial lawyer who owns the Baltimore Orioles, should not pay the same rate as “the woman who cleans his office.”

“I’m in favor of progressive taxation, where people who make a lot more pay more,” O’Malley told reporters recently.

Does everyone in Maryland pay the same dollar amount to the state? Do Peter Angelos and his cleaning woman each pay $500, to pick a random tax amount? No? Then people who make “a lot” more in Maryland already pay (a lot) more. Anyone who believes otherwise is either too dense to be qualified for public office or a liar.

Witnessing Violence Against the Constitution

Here’s a reminder that politicians are the same, regardless of party affiliation. Politics is about power, to the exclusion of ethical statecraft.

The long-awaited Rockefeller TV-violence bill will be introduced before the August recess, says Steven Broderick, press secretary to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). The bill would give the FCC the power to regulate violence on cable and satellite, as well as on broadcast.

It will also likely require the FCC to define indecent violent content, a call the FCC punted to Congress in a report it issued several months ago.
…

He also is buoyed by the change in congressional leadership. A similar bill that Rockefeller introduced in 2005 did not go anywhere.

“Last time, Congress was under different management,” says Broderick. “Times have changed, and programming on TV has changed.”

Broadcast restrictions on cable and satellite will never hold up to court scrutiny, so it’s not worth discussing. It is useful as a reminder that politicians consider the Constitution a mere suggestion for legislating.

I’ll also be quite amused if the FCC can come up with rules for indecent violent content. It’s perpetually ignored such demands for verbal and sexual indecency, preferring the power option that allows it to threaten with unwritten rules. Also, it shouldn’t be the FCC’s job to set the rules. If Congress feels it should make such laws in the face of “Congress shall make no laws”, it should at least determine the specifics of its disregard. Eventually, that must fall to court review, as well.

With that out of the way, let’s look at broadcast schedules (remember, cable and satellite are irrelevant here) to examine Mr. Broderick’s statement that “programming on TV has changed.” The Fall 2005 broadcast television schedule:

  • 24
  • Prison Break
  • CSI
  • Law & Order
  • Bones
  • Ghost Whisperer
  • Criminal Minds
  • Lost
  • Alias

The Fall 2007 broadcast television schedule:

  • 24
  • Prison Break
  • CSI
  • Law & Order
  • Bones
  • Ghost Whisperer
  • Criminal Minds
  • Lost
  • Heroes
  • Jericho

If I’m reading that correctly, the only difference in the two schedules is the subtraction of Alias (boo!) and the addition of Heroes and Jericho. Comparing Alias and Heroes strikes me as an even trade on the violence scale, so Mr. Broderick is essentially saying that the addition of Jericho now justifies government regulation of television content. Does Sen. Rockefeller really want to hang this bill on that argument?

Link via Hit & Run

Sen. Clinton is Rod Tidwell.

Sen. Clinton and her populist buddies are opportunists, nothing more. Consider:

“Our tax code should be valuing hard work and helping middle-class and working families get ahead,” [Senator Hillary Clinton] said in Keene, N.H., as she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination. “It offends our values as a nation when an investment manager making $50 million can pay a lower tax rate on her earned income than a teacher making $50,000 pays on her income.”

It should equally offend our values when a teacher making $50,000 pays a lower rate on her earned income than an investment manager making $50 million pays on her income. Having a tax code that is used as a tool to push agendas, pick winners and losers, demonize success, and generate fleeting economic “equality” offends our values. Set a base exemption and tax everything – and everyone – else equally, at a rate as low as possible, regardless of an individual’s economic results.

Let me ask a question or two. If there is unfair treatment here, and it seems there is, why is the explanation always that the rich aren’t paying enough? Why is the problem never that the poor are paying too much?

Stirring Incomplete Information from Michael Moore

I touched on this yesterday, especially in the comments, but Michael Moore has trouble with facts. I wouldn’t call him a liar, because he’s a skilled propagandist. The facts, out of context, are still the facts. Forget that such abuse of context fails to reveal anything intelligent about policy. As long as it’s a fact, it can be defended.

That’s his tactic today in challenging CNN’s reporting on Sicko, with the requisite omission of any context. For example, Moore praises Cuba’s health system, although the WHO ranks Cuba 39th compared to the U.S. ranking at 37. Moore rebuts this “gotcha” moment from CNN by stating that he put this figure in the movie. Fair enough; I don’t doubt that he did. He’s generally guilty of omission, not commission. He’s a propagandist, so no surprises.

What he fails to do is provide any context for those rankings. The latest link I can find describes it’s methodology in determining that ranking:

In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country. It also measures what each country’s system has accomplished in comparison with those of other countries.

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

Broke new methodological ground. Oh, and employing a technique not previously used for health systems. Don’t forget comparing to what the experts estimate. Is it possible to have methodological flaws, or to at least draw irrelevant conclusions based on estimates?

But let’s get to the last two measures. For distribution of responsiveness, how many people in the United States are denied adequate health care, a question independent of whether or not they’ll face an economic burden from that health care? In the answer, would you rather be the average American or the average Cuban? I suppose if you believe that Moore’s visit to Cuba first-rate hospitals was more honest than mere propaganda from a Communist state, the answer isn’t obvious. But any answer other than the U.S. is wrong.

Of course, that doesn’t mean we have the financial burdens perfectly figured out, which is the last measure from the WHO. Again, no one is denied medical care, which should matter. Moore ignores that when he (apparently¹) fails to mention long waits and rationing for essential services in countries with single-payer health care. But specifically to funding, it’s not objective to decide that too many people face economic ruin (not a percentage of bankruptcies, as Moore states, but how many people?) from the system we have, so we should place the burden exclusively on taxpayers. That’s a pre-determined solution without concern for the actual problem, which is economic burden.

If we’re looking to reduce the economic burden from a health crisis, insurance to cover catastrophic medical care is the way to go. Have people pay for their own preventive care, or buy separate insurance for that, if they choose. But disentangle coverage for catastrophic events from coverage for routine care. The current situation we have where the two are co-mingled is largely a government-created problem. Fix the broken government incentive problem by removing improperly targeted incentives, such as tax-subsidized employer health insurance.

Instead we’re left with disingenuous framing of the problem while ignoring what would actually resolve the issues we face. This quote exemplifies focusing on wrong assumptions:

“It is especially beneficial to make sure that as large a percentage as possible of the poorest people in each country can get insurance,” says [Dr Julio Frenk, Executive Director for Evidence and Information for Policy at WHO]. “Insurance protects people against the catastrophic effects of poor health. What we are seeing is that in many countries, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income on health care than the rich.”

Dr. Frenk’s opening sentence is fine, if he understands the true problem. The rest of his quote suggests he does not. If he understood, he would’ve stated that insurance against catastrophic medical events protects people from the catastrophic financial effects. He didn’t, offering only the empty, obvious fact that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income on heath care than the rich. Of course they do, just like the poor pay a higher percentage of their income on food, housing, gasoline, clothing, and every other generally necessary expense. This is not news, nor is it specific cause for government intervention through economic redistribution² and health care financing and provision, contrary to what Moore believes.

Moore also thinks the 20 to 30 percent of Canadians who disapprove of their waiting times for health care don’t matter. The minority never matters to a populist, or the liberty lost to mob rule. Now ask yourself if Moore’s comparison of American and Cuban infant mortality rates, for example, might have a bit more nuance than he’s letting on.

Link to Moore’s rant via Boing Boing. Moore’s rant on CNN here.

¹ Full Disclosure: I still haven’t seen Sicko. Viewing it isn’t necessary for my analysis here. Also, I have no respect for the WHO, since it promotes a gender bias in unnecessary, forced genital cutting, and it’s incapable of understanding that circumcision to prevent HIV infection is better suited for sexually active adults who volunteer for the procedure based on their own evaluation, rather than forcing the surgery on infants who will not be sexually active for well over a decade.

² I wonder what Dr. Frenk’s position would be on taxes to pay for health care. Would he be as distressed that the rich pay a (much) higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor? If it’s about fairness in percentage, a little fairness in analysis might be useful.

I might have Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Who does James Taranto think he’s fooling with this Best of Web Today?

In the sixth paragraph [ed. note: this story], the AP accurately describes the program: “President Bush authorized warrantless monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mails to or from the United States when one party is believed to be a terrorist or to have terrorist ties.” But in both the headline and the first paragraph, the wire service refers to the monitoring of international communications as “domestic spying.”

Such misreporting–and the AP is far from the only offender–is scurrilous. Moreover, it is potentially threatening to civil liberties. Remember the boy who cried wolf? If a future administration does engage in warrantless domestic wiretapping, how will the AP let us know? Who will believe it is the real thing?

Don’t complain about this illegal spying or we won’t believe you when there really is illegal spying. Nice try, but international telephone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involve a domestic point in a two-point connection. Everyone who isn’t being intentionally obtuse (or dishonest) understands this. I suspect that after six years of this sort of partisan blindness, Taranto actually believes what he’s selling. That wows me more than the unlikely possibility that his silly argument will be accepted by thinking people.

Why do you support the enemy?

Glenn Reynolds (approvingly?) links to Victor Davis Hanson highlighting an atrocity, but only provides the concluding rant. That rant:

For a self-congratulatory culture issuing moral lectures on everything from global warming to the dangers of smoking, the silence of the West toward the primordial horror from Gaza to Anbar is, well, horrific in its own way as well…

The primordial horror he says we’re ignoring a story of al Qaeda terrorists literally baking a child and serving him to his family. Figurative show of hands here… who isn’t repulsed by that story? Who believes the murderers capable of doing that aren’t the vilest scum possible?

If you haven’t spoken out against it, Victor Davis Hanson wants you to know that you should be ashamed of yourself. You’re part of a self-congratulatory culture committing a horror of your own, since your silence – and probably any sort of questioning of the current administration’s efforts to prevent such horrors – clearly indicates your approval that the act he mentioned is somehow not despicable. Or at least no worse than Paris Hilton’s troubles or whether or not you were able to score an iPhone last week.

Clearly punditry has few minimum requirements beyond smug, ignorant self-righteousness.