Independence Day
I love this country.
Two days ago I met a co-worker who left the Former Soviet Union 12 years ago and came to America. She misses home and made the comment that somehow her mind likes to only remember the good things about Ukraine. But, is she happy here? An emphatic yes.
My wife is an immigrant. A few years ago we attended her swearing in ceremony. The hall was filled to capacity with new Americans with their family and friends in attendance. When the National Anthem was sung my wife noticed a new citizen near her crying--he was not the only one.
A few years ago I was putting my garbage and recycling out. A Vietnamese man came along on a bike and asked if he could rummage through my recycling. I said sure. We talked and he introduced himself as a former officer in the South Vietnamese Army. What did he think of America? He loved it.
I was in a taxi once with a taxi driver from the Sudan. In his motherland he was the CFO of a company. In America he is a taxi driver--he loves America.
Each of these stories are about people who have voted with their actions to declare that America is a great place. I know from witnessing my wife's experience that it is not easy to leave familiar surroundings and come to a new country. But, I also know that there is a lot about this country to like.
When I think of what America is, I see a country where ideals and dreams are able to become reality. We are wealthy and we are free. I am grateful to be here and I hope that I can do my part to share the blessings of this country with the rest of the world. Pursue your dream and you too will improve this country and improve the world.
Happy Birthday America!
Jul 3, 2003
Republican Party Coalition in Trouble?
That is the opinion of Todd Lindberg. This caused a small spattering of comments on National Review's The Corner last night.
Ignore for now his mistaken grouping of Affirmative Action with abortion as being important to the same group. At a general level Lindberg is wrong and right.
He is wrong that serious Republican candidates will no longer fight on the issues of Affirmative Action, abortion, or Gay marriage. These so called social issues carry important significance to quite a few significant Republican leaders.
Where he is right is that Social Conservatives, a significant force in the Republican party, may have reason to feel frustrated. Afterall, seven of nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans Presidents, yet Conservatives can only reliably depend on three Conservative votes. Of the remaining four Republicans only two are sometime swing votes in favor of Republican issues. This is frustrating. There appears little chance of changing the status quo.
What Social Conservatives, and really any activist on any issue, need to come to grips with is that Republican, and Democrat, politicians are politicians first, Republicans second (if that even means anything), and Conservative third. What many people easily forget is that a politician generally has one motivation: winning elections. They may generally have some ambition about making the world a better place and thereby securing a prominent place in history for themselves, but at the end of the day this all equates to a desire to be electable. It can get confusing since electable leads to history book placement which feeds back to electable. However, it still is based on the conept of being electable in one way or another. Let's talk through some interesting examples.
Zell Miller. He has no intention of running for reelection so his party doesn't matter--he is not as concerned about electability since he is done. Of course there is the factor of historical ambition. The voters in his state like Republican policies. They have voted for Republican Presidential candidates. He must assume that bucking the Liberal Democrats will ensure him a place in the hearts of Georgians who will remember him for years to come.
Jim Jeffords. He goes down in history for swinging the Republican's out of control of the Senate. The press made a big deal about his independence. My big issues at the time were: 1)He always voted with Democrats anyway so why was this so special? 2)If he was so committed to ideal he should have made this change before he was a big powerful committee chair and only one vote divided the Senate. Bottom-line? He did it for electability reasons. His state is trending liberal and there was no way to be sure that Howard Dean wouldn't run for the US Senate. He chose an opportune time when he could exact political promises from the Democratic party. In reality his personal power in the Senate realized no real improvement, but his electability did.
The politician needs the party to help his election. In some cases the party is not helpful so the politician bucks the trend. The party has only one purpose--control of power. If there is no power then the party has no favors to reward with. Power allows the party to hand out jobs in government and deliver blocks of votes. This in turn makes the party able to extract donations and organize campaign volunteers. These two things snowball and reenforce each other. New politicians have a choice and must decide where to align themselves. If they are serious about being elected they will find some way to rationalize a position in the most powerful party in their local area or region.
So, why should Republicans be Conservative? The Republican party only needs to be Conservative enough to keep Conservatives from forming a third party. The Social Conservatives, in this case, would never win election on their own and thereby lose the power that can be derived from what is essentially a coalition within the Republican Party. The exchange is a trade of power for support. Republican party needs people to walk the streets and pass out fliers, they call the right to life people. The right to life people need conservative judges they ask the Republicans. This same type of compromising goes on in the Democratic party.
This means that the extreme views on issues can rarely attain complete success. If Republicans on the one hand need Conservatives, but on the other end of the voter spectrum they need women voters then a compromise on abortion arises. The same thing with Affirmative Action and minorities. And what of Gay marriage? If enough of the Ross Perot type of voter thinks that Gay marriage is okay you can bet the Republicans will find a way to compromise on this issue as well.
What Todd Lindberg fails to see is that this is the natural order of American politics. President Bush is a politician. Bush wants to be an electable and effective President first, Republican leader second, and Conservative ideologist third. He has concluded that being contentious on too many issues is not wise. So, he secures the issue of taxes and conducts a strong foriegn policy. On most everything else he finds a way to cut the difference and put the issue to rest. That is why he had nothing too negative or too loud to say about any of the court decisions that didn't go his way last week. Instead it is easier to move on.
The Republican Party will survive and it will continue to be the best home for Social Conservatives. But Social Conservatives must assess the landscape and determine a strategy for the next round of fights. We need to redefine the issues and do a better job of broadcasting our message so that pure politicians will have more reason to allign more closely with our views.
That is the opinion of Todd Lindberg. This caused a small spattering of comments on National Review's The Corner last night.
Ignore for now his mistaken grouping of Affirmative Action with abortion as being important to the same group. At a general level Lindberg is wrong and right.
He is wrong that serious Republican candidates will no longer fight on the issues of Affirmative Action, abortion, or Gay marriage. These so called social issues carry important significance to quite a few significant Republican leaders.
Where he is right is that Social Conservatives, a significant force in the Republican party, may have reason to feel frustrated. Afterall, seven of nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans Presidents, yet Conservatives can only reliably depend on three Conservative votes. Of the remaining four Republicans only two are sometime swing votes in favor of Republican issues. This is frustrating. There appears little chance of changing the status quo.
What Social Conservatives, and really any activist on any issue, need to come to grips with is that Republican, and Democrat, politicians are politicians first, Republicans second (if that even means anything), and Conservative third. What many people easily forget is that a politician generally has one motivation: winning elections. They may generally have some ambition about making the world a better place and thereby securing a prominent place in history for themselves, but at the end of the day this all equates to a desire to be electable. It can get confusing since electable leads to history book placement which feeds back to electable. However, it still is based on the conept of being electable in one way or another. Let's talk through some interesting examples.
Zell Miller. He has no intention of running for reelection so his party doesn't matter--he is not as concerned about electability since he is done. Of course there is the factor of historical ambition. The voters in his state like Republican policies. They have voted for Republican Presidential candidates. He must assume that bucking the Liberal Democrats will ensure him a place in the hearts of Georgians who will remember him for years to come.
Jim Jeffords. He goes down in history for swinging the Republican's out of control of the Senate. The press made a big deal about his independence. My big issues at the time were: 1)He always voted with Democrats anyway so why was this so special? 2)If he was so committed to ideal he should have made this change before he was a big powerful committee chair and only one vote divided the Senate. Bottom-line? He did it for electability reasons. His state is trending liberal and there was no way to be sure that Howard Dean wouldn't run for the US Senate. He chose an opportune time when he could exact political promises from the Democratic party. In reality his personal power in the Senate realized no real improvement, but his electability did.
The politician needs the party to help his election. In some cases the party is not helpful so the politician bucks the trend. The party has only one purpose--control of power. If there is no power then the party has no favors to reward with. Power allows the party to hand out jobs in government and deliver blocks of votes. This in turn makes the party able to extract donations and organize campaign volunteers. These two things snowball and reenforce each other. New politicians have a choice and must decide where to align themselves. If they are serious about being elected they will find some way to rationalize a position in the most powerful party in their local area or region.
So, why should Republicans be Conservative? The Republican party only needs to be Conservative enough to keep Conservatives from forming a third party. The Social Conservatives, in this case, would never win election on their own and thereby lose the power that can be derived from what is essentially a coalition within the Republican Party. The exchange is a trade of power for support. Republican party needs people to walk the streets and pass out fliers, they call the right to life people. The right to life people need conservative judges they ask the Republicans. This same type of compromising goes on in the Democratic party.
This means that the extreme views on issues can rarely attain complete success. If Republicans on the one hand need Conservatives, but on the other end of the voter spectrum they need women voters then a compromise on abortion arises. The same thing with Affirmative Action and minorities. And what of Gay marriage? If enough of the Ross Perot type of voter thinks that Gay marriage is okay you can bet the Republicans will find a way to compromise on this issue as well.
What Todd Lindberg fails to see is that this is the natural order of American politics. President Bush is a politician. Bush wants to be an electable and effective President first, Republican leader second, and Conservative ideologist third. He has concluded that being contentious on too many issues is not wise. So, he secures the issue of taxes and conducts a strong foriegn policy. On most everything else he finds a way to cut the difference and put the issue to rest. That is why he had nothing too negative or too loud to say about any of the court decisions that didn't go his way last week. Instead it is easier to move on.
The Republican Party will survive and it will continue to be the best home for Social Conservatives. But Social Conservatives must assess the landscape and determine a strategy for the next round of fights. We need to redefine the issues and do a better job of broadcasting our message so that pure politicians will have more reason to allign more closely with our views.
Unemployment - What It Means and Does NOT Mean
Today it is being reported that unemployment is up to 6.4%, the highest in 9 years. But maybe we should put on our thinking caps and evaluate this.
9 years ago places us at 1994--not a recession, in fact those were economic good times if you ask Democrats and Bill Clinton. It is instructive to compare this with historical numbers. The numbers show interesting things. From 1981 to 1986 when the Reagan economy was doing well the lowest rate was 7.0% in 1986. It was not until 1987 that the rate finally beat current rates.
Next, honest economists will admit that 0% unemployment is not attainable or even desirable. In fact, a healthy rate of unemployment is at something like 5-6%. Granted 6.4% is above that. But you need to realize that unemployment rates tend to lag behind economic growth. How come?
Easy. Unemployment rates are a measure of how many people are actively searching for a job. If I am unemployed, but not looking for a job I do not count. So, when the economy begins to improve invariably unemployment should have a momentary jump as people respond to positive reports by looking for jobs again.
The next thing, these are monthly numbers that will have to be averaged against the other months in the year to produce the actual annual rate at the end of the year. Sure, the trend is scary, but it should only concern us if it continues for more than a few months.
Finally, I think the New York Times and the AP are due for criticism. The following paragraph from the AP story ran in the New York Times is misleading:
While recent economic indicators point to an economy struggling toward recovery, the latest report demonstrated that America's job market was still very much in a state of recession last month.
Using the word recession implies to the reader that the economy is in recession. By economic definition a recession only applies to GDP growth that is negative for more than 2 quarters. Applying the term recession to unemployment figures creates a false impression that we are in a state of recession when in fact we are not. It would be more appropriate to say that the job market is still weak.
Today it is being reported that unemployment is up to 6.4%, the highest in 9 years. But maybe we should put on our thinking caps and evaluate this.
9 years ago places us at 1994--not a recession, in fact those were economic good times if you ask Democrats and Bill Clinton. It is instructive to compare this with historical numbers. The numbers show interesting things. From 1981 to 1986 when the Reagan economy was doing well the lowest rate was 7.0% in 1986. It was not until 1987 that the rate finally beat current rates.
Next, honest economists will admit that 0% unemployment is not attainable or even desirable. In fact, a healthy rate of unemployment is at something like 5-6%. Granted 6.4% is above that. But you need to realize that unemployment rates tend to lag behind economic growth. How come?
Easy. Unemployment rates are a measure of how many people are actively searching for a job. If I am unemployed, but not looking for a job I do not count. So, when the economy begins to improve invariably unemployment should have a momentary jump as people respond to positive reports by looking for jobs again.
The next thing, these are monthly numbers that will have to be averaged against the other months in the year to produce the actual annual rate at the end of the year. Sure, the trend is scary, but it should only concern us if it continues for more than a few months.
Finally, I think the New York Times and the AP are due for criticism. The following paragraph from the AP story ran in the New York Times is misleading:
While recent economic indicators point to an economy struggling toward recovery, the latest report demonstrated that America's job market was still very much in a state of recession last month.
Using the word recession implies to the reader that the economy is in recession. By economic definition a recession only applies to GDP growth that is negative for more than 2 quarters. Applying the term recession to unemployment figures creates a false impression that we are in a state of recession when in fact we are not. It would be more appropriate to say that the job market is still weak.
Jul 1, 2003
Gay Marriage
Simply put, I don't understand why Gay marriage is so important to Homosexuals. As far as I can tell the primary arguments are: 1)To grant homosexual couples the same privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy--the "equal rights" argument, 2)To "normalize" the Gay population. Yes, sure, but I still don't get it.
Andrew Sullivan, a Gay man who purports to be a Conservative on so many issues, makes both of these arguments quite forcefully. However, Sullivan and friends are mistaken if they think that they are Conservative. If a Modern Liberal looks to government to solve problems, then a Conservative thinks that government should leave things alone and allow the cultural institutions to define the moral. By this definition, activism for legalizing Gay marriage seems quite Liberal.
The real problem is that the Gay movement is confused. The Gay movement really wants one thing: the end of prejudice about what they are and what they do. Not that anyone should blame them. In spite of polls that show increasing acceptance of homosexuality, the Gay person knows that they are still abnormal, or at least presumed to be.
Interestingly enough, it might be argued that the reason for rising acceptance is that Gays have come out of the proverbial closet. This simple strategy, more so than government allowance for Gay Pride events, has caused the mainstream heterosexual to come face to face with the reality that friends, family, and colleagues are Gay. It is no surprise therefore that more and more people are coming to view Gays more sympathetically.
If the Gay movement wants to overcome prejudice a continued effort to present individuals as normal contributing members of society will be far more successful than to agitate for government recognition through marriage. Afterall, marriage is not really applicable to a Gay person. I don't understand why they would want it. From what I can tell marriage has only two possible roots. Either you believe it is rooted in religion or in traditional culture. The involvment of government is further explainable for reasons that do not relate to Gays.
Roots Of Marriage
While I can't speak too clearly about all religions, I am clear enough about Christianity. Either God meant it right from the start when he joined Adam and Eve, or Moses made it up, but one way or another it is clear that the roots of Christianity teach followers to marry as man and woman. There was no requirement for matrimony for those who would choose alternative life styles. From this perspective Gays and even the government should likly stay away from marriage all together. Why would God command such a thing? Does it matter for the political debate? Only if this is the only reason for marriage where the government is involved, in which case the agenda should be to stop government involvement in marriage.
There is, however, a cultural legacy. Let us assume for the moment that we are not Christian, would we have reason to sanction marriage? The Chinese culture is instructive on this note since it is very hard to know for sure where Christian influence begins and ends in Western civilization. As far as I can tell the religions of China have nothing much to say about homosexuality. There is anecdotal evidence that homosexual acts were even practiced in the Imperial Court. Yet, marriage in Chinese culture is quite clearly between man and woman. Granted it seems to allow for polygamy and tolerate extra-marital adventure, but nonetheless marriage is male to female. Why? Could it be because marriage was the best contract for ensuring economic survival in traditional societies? For instance, culturally it is understood that sons will care for geriatric parents--there is no need for retirement planning. Daughters? They become, quite literally, the daughters of their in-laws. Because of this the marriage agreement involves a transfer of money from the groom's family to the bride's family. Marriage is the defining contract that guides these family relationships.
Government Sticks It's Nose Under The Tent
So why do governments become involved? Historically there appears to be a need to tax--not that this has gone away. Government wants to know where you are and what household you are a part of. In exchange government granted a few conveniences along the way. Sure, many of these "privileges" have been expanded in the last century and treated as if they were "rights", but at the end of the day they are simply rewards for following the government preferred track for marrying. Interestingly enough the early progressive movement seems to have manipulated the government role in order to achieve one other purpose: protection of the members of the contract. This made sense when women appeared to be the lesser in an unequal relationship. And today it makes sense for children who are not free and willing partners to the contract. But, the last time I checked the Gay argument was all about letting consenting adults do what they want to do--if this is the case then who needs to be protected?
Conclusion
All of this being the case, it is hard to understand the need for Gay marriage. In essence the Gay movement hopes that by forcing the "privilege" of marriage that prejudice will go away. It may very well go away, but it will not be because of marriage vows. I am not willing to believe that Gay marriage would somehow destroy the institution of marriage, unless you mean that it will make it all seem a ridiculus sham. What I am willing to argue is that Gay people have no need for the institution of marriage. If it is "privileges" that are wanted then we should design contractual supports to enable things such as shared property. Just leave marriage to be what it has always been.
Simply put, I don't understand why Gay marriage is so important to Homosexuals. As far as I can tell the primary arguments are: 1)To grant homosexual couples the same privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy--the "equal rights" argument, 2)To "normalize" the Gay population. Yes, sure, but I still don't get it.
Andrew Sullivan, a Gay man who purports to be a Conservative on so many issues, makes both of these arguments quite forcefully. However, Sullivan and friends are mistaken if they think that they are Conservative. If a Modern Liberal looks to government to solve problems, then a Conservative thinks that government should leave things alone and allow the cultural institutions to define the moral. By this definition, activism for legalizing Gay marriage seems quite Liberal.
The real problem is that the Gay movement is confused. The Gay movement really wants one thing: the end of prejudice about what they are and what they do. Not that anyone should blame them. In spite of polls that show increasing acceptance of homosexuality, the Gay person knows that they are still abnormal, or at least presumed to be.
Interestingly enough, it might be argued that the reason for rising acceptance is that Gays have come out of the proverbial closet. This simple strategy, more so than government allowance for Gay Pride events, has caused the mainstream heterosexual to come face to face with the reality that friends, family, and colleagues are Gay. It is no surprise therefore that more and more people are coming to view Gays more sympathetically.
If the Gay movement wants to overcome prejudice a continued effort to present individuals as normal contributing members of society will be far more successful than to agitate for government recognition through marriage. Afterall, marriage is not really applicable to a Gay person. I don't understand why they would want it. From what I can tell marriage has only two possible roots. Either you believe it is rooted in religion or in traditional culture. The involvment of government is further explainable for reasons that do not relate to Gays.
Roots Of Marriage
While I can't speak too clearly about all religions, I am clear enough about Christianity. Either God meant it right from the start when he joined Adam and Eve, or Moses made it up, but one way or another it is clear that the roots of Christianity teach followers to marry as man and woman. There was no requirement for matrimony for those who would choose alternative life styles. From this perspective Gays and even the government should likly stay away from marriage all together. Why would God command such a thing? Does it matter for the political debate? Only if this is the only reason for marriage where the government is involved, in which case the agenda should be to stop government involvement in marriage.
There is, however, a cultural legacy. Let us assume for the moment that we are not Christian, would we have reason to sanction marriage? The Chinese culture is instructive on this note since it is very hard to know for sure where Christian influence begins and ends in Western civilization. As far as I can tell the religions of China have nothing much to say about homosexuality. There is anecdotal evidence that homosexual acts were even practiced in the Imperial Court. Yet, marriage in Chinese culture is quite clearly between man and woman. Granted it seems to allow for polygamy and tolerate extra-marital adventure, but nonetheless marriage is male to female. Why? Could it be because marriage was the best contract for ensuring economic survival in traditional societies? For instance, culturally it is understood that sons will care for geriatric parents--there is no need for retirement planning. Daughters? They become, quite literally, the daughters of their in-laws. Because of this the marriage agreement involves a transfer of money from the groom's family to the bride's family. Marriage is the defining contract that guides these family relationships.
Government Sticks It's Nose Under The Tent
So why do governments become involved? Historically there appears to be a need to tax--not that this has gone away. Government wants to know where you are and what household you are a part of. In exchange government granted a few conveniences along the way. Sure, many of these "privileges" have been expanded in the last century and treated as if they were "rights", but at the end of the day they are simply rewards for following the government preferred track for marrying. Interestingly enough the early progressive movement seems to have manipulated the government role in order to achieve one other purpose: protection of the members of the contract. This made sense when women appeared to be the lesser in an unequal relationship. And today it makes sense for children who are not free and willing partners to the contract. But, the last time I checked the Gay argument was all about letting consenting adults do what they want to do--if this is the case then who needs to be protected?
Conclusion
All of this being the case, it is hard to understand the need for Gay marriage. In essence the Gay movement hopes that by forcing the "privilege" of marriage that prejudice will go away. It may very well go away, but it will not be because of marriage vows. I am not willing to believe that Gay marriage would somehow destroy the institution of marriage, unless you mean that it will make it all seem a ridiculus sham. What I am willing to argue is that Gay people have no need for the institution of marriage. If it is "privileges" that are wanted then we should design contractual supports to enable things such as shared property. Just leave marriage to be what it has always been.
Kaus on Medicare
If you scroll to Thursday, June 26, 2003 at this link, you will see a question raised by Mickey Kaus about Conservative arguments concerning the Medicare debate. In case you can't find it here it is:
Kf on drugs: I'm confused!
1) I understand why, as Holman Jenkins Jr. argued in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, drug companies need to make big profits on successful drugs if they are going to finance the risky research to discover new drugs, which involves following a lot of false leads.
The occasional gusher provides investors a return on all the money thrown down dry holes.
I also understand why, if there's a drug benefit within a government-run Medicare system (what Democrats want), the government might use its massive buying power to demand low "dictated prices that don't cover" the costs of discovering those new and better drugs.
2) And I also understand why, as Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation argued in the New York Post yesterday, "new entitlements always wind up costing far, far more than initial estimates," and the Medicare drug entitlement is likely to be no exception. I understand why, under the alternative, partly-privatized program initially proposed by President Bush, in which you could choose from a variety of private health plans, "[m]arket pressures" would "control costs."
3) What I don't understand is how both these right-wing critiques of the Senate's prescription drug entitlement can be true at the same time. How does the partly-privatized plan give more money to drug companies (solving problem #1) while simultaneously being cheaper (solving problem #2)? I should think that, as a crude first approximation, controlling costs through "market pressures" would involve controlling the cost of drugs (substituting generics, bargaining down prices, making sure treatment is warranted, etc.)--which would mean less money for the drug companies to use to reward investors and fund risky research.
Either the drug companies get more money or they get less money, right? A system that sends them more money will be more expensive, no? Or is the miracle of the market even more miraculous than I thought?
I would like to help explain it to Kaus:
The two arguments he sights seem contradictory.
The negotiated plan provides a socialized drug benefit (arguably part of the compromise legislation). If I focus on the drug prices to be negotiated by a powerful customer, I would conclude that the government may deprive the drug companies of research cash by driving down the cost of the drug to the consumer (Wall St Journal point).
At the same time if I instead focus on the ADMINISTRATIVE costs that bureacracies entail then I might believe that the overall entitlement cost will be out of control even if individuals experience a cheaper drug price (Heritage point).
So, yes, the government may negotiate better prices (assuming Senators from Conn and NJ don't press for sweetheart deals) which will be passed on to the consumer, but the bureacratic costs of negotiating will be passed on to the taxpayer. Or put another way, will the government calculate pill prices to include government adminsitrative costs?
Ultimately, per unit costs are lower to the consumer, marginal changes in actual demand take place, and the government buereaucratic cost of maintaining the program gets passed on to general tax payers as it grows out of control.
You see there is a misconception amongst Liberals that Conservatives are mean (therefore we might try to lie about how a prescription drug benefit would work). But, what we really are is realistic. The Wall St. Journal focused on a component, while the Heritage Foundation focused on the overall cost. We realize that the government coming in to be a large mover in the marketplace is not cost free. Invariably there will need to be administrators, regulators, policy paper writers, a building, janitors, a new department head, and on and on. Sure, insurance companies will have similar staff to process claims, but why not put the same market powers to work on the administrative staff that the plan already places on drug companies?
Just think about it.
If you scroll to Thursday, June 26, 2003 at this link, you will see a question raised by Mickey Kaus about Conservative arguments concerning the Medicare debate. In case you can't find it here it is:
Kf on drugs: I'm confused!
1) I understand why, as Holman Jenkins Jr. argued in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, drug companies need to make big profits on successful drugs if they are going to finance the risky research to discover new drugs, which involves following a lot of false leads.
The occasional gusher provides investors a return on all the money thrown down dry holes.
I also understand why, if there's a drug benefit within a government-run Medicare system (what Democrats want), the government might use its massive buying power to demand low "dictated prices that don't cover" the costs of discovering those new and better drugs.
2) And I also understand why, as Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation argued in the New York Post yesterday, "new entitlements always wind up costing far, far more than initial estimates," and the Medicare drug entitlement is likely to be no exception. I understand why, under the alternative, partly-privatized program initially proposed by President Bush, in which you could choose from a variety of private health plans, "[m]arket pressures" would "control costs."
3) What I don't understand is how both these right-wing critiques of the Senate's prescription drug entitlement can be true at the same time. How does the partly-privatized plan give more money to drug companies (solving problem #1) while simultaneously being cheaper (solving problem #2)? I should think that, as a crude first approximation, controlling costs through "market pressures" would involve controlling the cost of drugs (substituting generics, bargaining down prices, making sure treatment is warranted, etc.)--which would mean less money for the drug companies to use to reward investors and fund risky research.
Either the drug companies get more money or they get less money, right? A system that sends them more money will be more expensive, no? Or is the miracle of the market even more miraculous than I thought?
I would like to help explain it to Kaus:
The two arguments he sights seem contradictory.
The negotiated plan provides a socialized drug benefit (arguably part of the compromise legislation). If I focus on the drug prices to be negotiated by a powerful customer, I would conclude that the government may deprive the drug companies of research cash by driving down the cost of the drug to the consumer (Wall St Journal point).
At the same time if I instead focus on the ADMINISTRATIVE costs that bureacracies entail then I might believe that the overall entitlement cost will be out of control even if individuals experience a cheaper drug price (Heritage point).
So, yes, the government may negotiate better prices (assuming Senators from Conn and NJ don't press for sweetheart deals) which will be passed on to the consumer, but the bureacratic costs of negotiating will be passed on to the taxpayer. Or put another way, will the government calculate pill prices to include government adminsitrative costs?
Ultimately, per unit costs are lower to the consumer, marginal changes in actual demand take place, and the government buereaucratic cost of maintaining the program gets passed on to general tax payers as it grows out of control.
You see there is a misconception amongst Liberals that Conservatives are mean (therefore we might try to lie about how a prescription drug benefit would work). But, what we really are is realistic. The Wall St. Journal focused on a component, while the Heritage Foundation focused on the overall cost. We realize that the government coming in to be a large mover in the marketplace is not cost free. Invariably there will need to be administrators, regulators, policy paper writers, a building, janitors, a new department head, and on and on. Sure, insurance companies will have similar staff to process claims, but why not put the same market powers to work on the administrative staff that the plan already places on drug companies?
Just think about it.
Jun 30, 2003
Personal vs. Principle
Much of politics can be defined by the contrast of personal views with views based on principle.
The New York Times has published an Op-Ed by Stanley Fish, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In this piece, Mr. Fish tries to demonstrate that Clarence Thomas may actually be speaking out of principle, not some obtuse personal emotion about racial preferences.
As I read this piece I pondered the difference between personal and principle. Let me give some examples.
If I was Black, I could personally benefit from racial preferences. I would know that I could apply to prestigious schools and be more likely to be accepted and possibly offered nice scholarships. If asked if I am in favor of the specific preference I would most likely be since it is to my personal advantage. However, if asked in the abstract if I prefer benefits to accrue to any individual for reasons of race I might be against such a system.
I have two mentally handicapped siblings. On a personal level I prefer that the government provide special transportation options so that they can get to work without the help of my parents. Furthermore, on a personal level, I prefer that the government continue to provide them with a social security check in order to provide for their basic day-to-day expenses. There is no practical way that they will ever be able to contribute to society at any level that matches their cost of maintenance. However, if asked in the abstract if I prefer programs to provide free public transit and financial stipends to those who can't seem to be productive in society I might be against such a system.
Dick Cheney was all ready to run for the Republican nomination for President in 1996. One of his daughters informed him that she was Gay. He decided to avoid the publicity this would cause for his family and did not run. I suspect that there was a bigger issue. He knew that his own views about Gay marriage and other Gay issues would be thrown in his face if he ran and it came out that his daughter was Gay. Since this was a sure bet, he knew he would never be able to discuss more important issues that really mattered to him. By time he joined the Bush-Cheney ticket for 2000, he had decided to neuter his stance on Gay marriage and other issues. The personal had overridden the principle.
My son has a genetic disorder. He can essentially live a normal life if he receives regular medical treatment for his ailment. One problem, the treatments can run into the millions of dollars. While my child has been fortunate enough to not require high levels of treatment, we have met families where by the age of three, their child might properly be called a "million dollar man". All but the largest employer insurance programs will not cover treatment. Putting aside the debate about how insurance can distort market prices for drugs, at a personal level I prefer that insurance companies be forced to cover this and that government programs provide coverage when I can't get insurance. On a personal level I prefer things like COBRA and Medicaid when I need these benefits. However, if asked in the abstract whether I should have to pay taxes and higher insurance premiums so that every rare malady can be covered and paid for I might be against such a program.
What is my point? People who are concerned about political ideas can become conflicted. Either we personally experience the emotional or we hear the stories and understand the emotional. For instance, there are many emotional stories about Gay couples that just want to express their mutual love through the vows of marriage. This is the emotional. The interesting thing is that we live in such a rich country that we can worry about trying to fulfill the wishes of every little group. We say: "Are you suffering? We can fix it!" And, in a sense, we can. And so individuals extrapolate from the personal to define the principle. The irony is that the people of poor third world countries can't afford to worry about these things. Is there public transit for handicapped citizens in Guatemala? Do they debate Gay marriage in Bangladesh? Does the government protect those with genetic disorders from disfigurement or death in Rwanda? Do they worry about Affirmative Action in any of these places? If yes to any of these questions, they often do it to the detriment of the entire country.
Clever politicians like Clinton and even Bush 2 have discovered that the secret to election is to focus people on their personal wants and avoid principle. So why did the Bush brief to the Supreme Court look for compromise? So that Blacks would feel that Bush was concerned about getting them into school, while assuring Whites that they had been wronged by the existing system at Michigan. Clinton State of the Union speeches were virtual laundry lists for every possible beneficiary group. Each group concluding that as long as MY personal need is fulfilled then I don't care who else gets something.
Is there a problem with this approach?
There are all kinds of problems. At a high level it is worth wondering if the sacrifice of principle is really a position of integrity. In this sense Clarence Thomas becomes the ultimate in integrity, not ingratitude as Maureen Dowd would argue. Sure, Justice Thomas has benefited from political affirmative action that looks for diversity candidates to balance the political makeup of things like the cabinet and the Supreme Court. But since integrity is an individual issue it is really not of a macro importance that need concern too many of us.
The largest issue is inefficiency. How many innovative ideas are being sidelined in order to afford handicapped transit or universal medical coverage? Put another way, when was the last time a great new invention came out of a heavily socialized economy? Unfortunately, the issuance of benefits does not come without cost. Sure, the actual amount of any individual's taxes that go to provide free transit for my siblings is fairly low. But, if we took that aggregate amount and freed it up for invention what would the aggregate effect be?
Unfortunately, I fear that America is rich enough that we have no way out of the trap. The nature of politics will continue to make the interest of the small groups paramount in the mind of the politician. Campaign finance reform, term limits, or any of your other garden-variety political reforms will make no difference. We are stuck in an ever-rising bidding war for the affection of the focused and energized interest groups. I take my hat off to Clarence Thomas, and others, who are willing to overlook personal benefit and search for, and define, the ideal.
----------------
For the record, I am not in favor of socialized programs for the handicapped, socialized medicine, Gay marriage, or Affirmative Action.
Much of politics can be defined by the contrast of personal views with views based on principle.
The New York Times has published an Op-Ed by Stanley Fish, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In this piece, Mr. Fish tries to demonstrate that Clarence Thomas may actually be speaking out of principle, not some obtuse personal emotion about racial preferences.
As I read this piece I pondered the difference between personal and principle. Let me give some examples.
If I was Black, I could personally benefit from racial preferences. I would know that I could apply to prestigious schools and be more likely to be accepted and possibly offered nice scholarships. If asked if I am in favor of the specific preference I would most likely be since it is to my personal advantage. However, if asked in the abstract if I prefer benefits to accrue to any individual for reasons of race I might be against such a system.
I have two mentally handicapped siblings. On a personal level I prefer that the government provide special transportation options so that they can get to work without the help of my parents. Furthermore, on a personal level, I prefer that the government continue to provide them with a social security check in order to provide for their basic day-to-day expenses. There is no practical way that they will ever be able to contribute to society at any level that matches their cost of maintenance. However, if asked in the abstract if I prefer programs to provide free public transit and financial stipends to those who can't seem to be productive in society I might be against such a system.
Dick Cheney was all ready to run for the Republican nomination for President in 1996. One of his daughters informed him that she was Gay. He decided to avoid the publicity this would cause for his family and did not run. I suspect that there was a bigger issue. He knew that his own views about Gay marriage and other Gay issues would be thrown in his face if he ran and it came out that his daughter was Gay. Since this was a sure bet, he knew he would never be able to discuss more important issues that really mattered to him. By time he joined the Bush-Cheney ticket for 2000, he had decided to neuter his stance on Gay marriage and other issues. The personal had overridden the principle.
My son has a genetic disorder. He can essentially live a normal life if he receives regular medical treatment for his ailment. One problem, the treatments can run into the millions of dollars. While my child has been fortunate enough to not require high levels of treatment, we have met families where by the age of three, their child might properly be called a "million dollar man". All but the largest employer insurance programs will not cover treatment. Putting aside the debate about how insurance can distort market prices for drugs, at a personal level I prefer that insurance companies be forced to cover this and that government programs provide coverage when I can't get insurance. On a personal level I prefer things like COBRA and Medicaid when I need these benefits. However, if asked in the abstract whether I should have to pay taxes and higher insurance premiums so that every rare malady can be covered and paid for I might be against such a program.
What is my point? People who are concerned about political ideas can become conflicted. Either we personally experience the emotional or we hear the stories and understand the emotional. For instance, there are many emotional stories about Gay couples that just want to express their mutual love through the vows of marriage. This is the emotional. The interesting thing is that we live in such a rich country that we can worry about trying to fulfill the wishes of every little group. We say: "Are you suffering? We can fix it!" And, in a sense, we can. And so individuals extrapolate from the personal to define the principle. The irony is that the people of poor third world countries can't afford to worry about these things. Is there public transit for handicapped citizens in Guatemala? Do they debate Gay marriage in Bangladesh? Does the government protect those with genetic disorders from disfigurement or death in Rwanda? Do they worry about Affirmative Action in any of these places? If yes to any of these questions, they often do it to the detriment of the entire country.
Clever politicians like Clinton and even Bush 2 have discovered that the secret to election is to focus people on their personal wants and avoid principle. So why did the Bush brief to the Supreme Court look for compromise? So that Blacks would feel that Bush was concerned about getting them into school, while assuring Whites that they had been wronged by the existing system at Michigan. Clinton State of the Union speeches were virtual laundry lists for every possible beneficiary group. Each group concluding that as long as MY personal need is fulfilled then I don't care who else gets something.
Is there a problem with this approach?
There are all kinds of problems. At a high level it is worth wondering if the sacrifice of principle is really a position of integrity. In this sense Clarence Thomas becomes the ultimate in integrity, not ingratitude as Maureen Dowd would argue. Sure, Justice Thomas has benefited from political affirmative action that looks for diversity candidates to balance the political makeup of things like the cabinet and the Supreme Court. But since integrity is an individual issue it is really not of a macro importance that need concern too many of us.
The largest issue is inefficiency. How many innovative ideas are being sidelined in order to afford handicapped transit or universal medical coverage? Put another way, when was the last time a great new invention came out of a heavily socialized economy? Unfortunately, the issuance of benefits does not come without cost. Sure, the actual amount of any individual's taxes that go to provide free transit for my siblings is fairly low. But, if we took that aggregate amount and freed it up for invention what would the aggregate effect be?
Unfortunately, I fear that America is rich enough that we have no way out of the trap. The nature of politics will continue to make the interest of the small groups paramount in the mind of the politician. Campaign finance reform, term limits, or any of your other garden-variety political reforms will make no difference. We are stuck in an ever-rising bidding war for the affection of the focused and energized interest groups. I take my hat off to Clarence Thomas, and others, who are willing to overlook personal benefit and search for, and define, the ideal.
----------------
For the record, I am not in favor of socialized programs for the handicapped, socialized medicine, Gay marriage, or Affirmative Action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)