Posts
Friday, July 24, 2009
Do Anti-Smoking Programs Work to Reduce Smoking? | Michael Marlow | Cato Institute: Commentary
Do Anti-Smoking Programs Work to Reduce Smoking? | Michael Marlow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Statistical analysis that I've conducted shows that there is a very tenuous link between cigarette sales and state anti-tobacco spending. At best, spending large amounts of money on anti-tobacco programs seems to produce a trivial drop in cigarette sales — less than a pack a year per capita. States would be better advised to put these resources toward other public health policies that produce larger results."
Why the Obama Stimulus Plan Must Fail | Richard A. Epstein | Cato Institute: Commentary
Why the Obama Stimulus Plan Must Fail | Richard A. Epstein | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Congress passed the President's $787 billion package this past February with no Republican support in the House and only three Republican defections in the Senate. At the time, brave presidential words promised that this package could create some 4 million new jobs, so that the unemployment rate would top at around 8%. Alas, there are 2.6 million fewer jobs today than when the bill passed, with an unemployment rate of 9.5%, which is still inching upward."
"One component of these programs is to funnel cash in the form of one-time rebates or tax cuts to particular individuals. But that money has to come from somewhere else."
"One component of these programs is to funnel cash in the form of one-time rebates or tax cuts to particular individuals. But that money has to come from somewhere else."
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Time To End The Monopoly In Education | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Time To End The Monopoly In Education | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The productivity collapse in education is more than staggering; it's unparalleled. Can you name any other service or product that has gotten worse and less affordable over the past two generations? The reason you can't is that no other field is organized as a state-run monopoly.
The general argument against monopolies is well understood and accepted. A concrete case study might drive home the point that monopolies are just as harmful in education as in other fields."
"That is, the [D.C.] voucher program yields substantially better results at less than one-quarter the cost.
For those unfamiliar with the D.C. voucher program, it is the one that President Obama has decided to phase out, despite his stated goal of pursuing education reform that's effective and efficient."
"In literature on education, 59 findings show that markets outperform school monopolies. Not a single study has found a monopoly school system to be as efficient as a market system."
The general argument against monopolies is well understood and accepted. A concrete case study might drive home the point that monopolies are just as harmful in education as in other fields."
"That is, the [D.C.] voucher program yields substantially better results at less than one-quarter the cost.
For those unfamiliar with the D.C. voucher program, it is the one that President Obama has decided to phase out, despite his stated goal of pursuing education reform that's effective and efficient."
"In literature on education, 59 findings show that markets outperform school monopolies. Not a single study has found a monopoly school system to be as efficient as a market system."
Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul - Political News - FOXNews.com
Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul - Political News - FOXNews.com: "As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine."
"Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care."
'"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."'
How will rationing help the common good or be in line with the Hippocratic Oath?
'"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.'
No one said that the current system is good -- but the proposed system is much worse!
"Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care."
'"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."'
How will rationing help the common good or be in line with the Hippocratic Oath?
'"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.'
No one said that the current system is good -- but the proposed system is much worse!
Dems Plotting Health Bill Seek $245B for Doctors - Political News - FOXNews.com
Dems Plotting Health Bill Seek $245B for Doctors - Political News - FOXNews.com: "House Democrats want to give doctors a $245 billion sweetener that helps ensure their critical support for a health care overhaul bill."
If they have to bribe them then maybe it isn't such a good idea.
"Their only-in-Washington reasoning is that they already decided to exempt it from congressional "pay-as-you-go" rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for."
If they have to bribe them then maybe it isn't such a good idea.
"Their only-in-Washington reasoning is that they already decided to exempt it from congressional "pay-as-you-go" rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for."
Bernanke: Fed Can Handle Financial Supercop Role - Political News - FOXNews.com
Bernanke: Fed Can Handle Financial Supercop Role - Political News - FOXNews.com: "'The Fed has made some big mistakes,' said the panel's highest-ranking Republican, Spencer Bachus of Alabama. Letting the Fed become the financial supercop would be 'just inviting a false sense of security' that would be shattered at taxpayers' expense, he warned."
"Bernanke urged Congress to keep proposals to audit the Fed away from monetary policy duties. 'A perceived loss of monetary policy independence could raise fears about future inflation,' he warned."
i.e. Don't watch what we are doing or bad things will happen. That would be funny if the impact weren't so huge.
"Bernanke sought to assure investors and Congress that the Fed will be able to reel in its extraordinary economic stimulus and prevent a flare up of inflation when the recovery is more firmly rooted."
With the huge increases in the money supply, the political pressure for short-term growth, and the complexity of the economy this is virtually impossible. If the Fed can do that effectively why couldn't it prevent the recession?
"Bernanke urged Congress to keep proposals to audit the Fed away from monetary policy duties. 'A perceived loss of monetary policy independence could raise fears about future inflation,' he warned."
i.e. Don't watch what we are doing or bad things will happen. That would be funny if the impact weren't so huge.
"Bernanke sought to assure investors and Congress that the Fed will be able to reel in its extraordinary economic stimulus and prevent a flare up of inflation when the recovery is more firmly rooted."
With the huge increases in the money supply, the political pressure for short-term growth, and the complexity of the economy this is virtually impossible. If the Fed can do that effectively why couldn't it prevent the recession?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Shortage of Cyber Experts Could Pose Threat to U.S. National Security - Political News - FOXNews.com
Shortage of Cyber Experts Could Pose Threat to U.S. National Security - Political News - FOXNews.com: "The size of the government's cyber work force is largely unknown, because agencies often classify their employees differently. The Pentagon says it has more than 90,000 personnel involved with cybersecurity, while the non-defense department civilian cybersecurity work force has been estimated at 35,000 to 45,000. Intelligence community estimates are classified."
Over 125,000 cybersecurity experts sure seems like a lot to me!
Over 125,000 cybersecurity experts sure seems like a lot to me!
Walker again advocates dismantling county government - JSOnline
Walker again advocates dismantling county government - JSOnline: "Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker on Monday renewed his call to blow up county government, suggesting that many functions could be parceled out to the state, municipalities and new entities."
Removing extra government layers: good
Giving more control to higher government: bad
Giving more control to lower government: good
Removing extra government layers: good
Giving more control to higher government: bad
Giving more control to lower government: good
Mr. President, We Are Still Torturing? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary
Mr. President, We Are Still Torturing? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "More conservatively, actual autopsy reports obtained by the ACLU disclose that at least 21 Bagram 'detainees,' and possibly more, have been killed during 'coercive interrogations.' It's difficult to get precise statistics from legal black holes."
A Closer Look at Those Industry Deals | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
A Closer Look at Those Industry Deals | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Yet the PhRMA agreement would not save taxpayers $80 billion. It would cost them $80 billion, and then some.
Under the agreement, the full price of each drug would continue to count toward seniors' catastrophic deductible. As a result, even more seniors would exceed that deductible, after which taxpayers would pay 95 percent of their drug costs. Obama also agreed to oppose stricter price controls for government purchases. PhRMA members agreed to cut their prices for seniors only because Obama agreed that taxpayers would buy more drugs at higher prices.
Think about it: Would drug companies enter this agreement unless they knew they would be net winners? Lobbyists never advocate less revenue for their members.
An agreement reached with Wal-Mart was also deceptively self-serving. Two weeks ago, the nation's largest private employer pledged to support a key Obama priority: a mandate requiring all employers to offer health benefits. An administration official called Wal-Mart's support for an employer mandate "significant."
Yet Wal-Mart's announcement was less Nixon going to China than, say, Stalin going to China. As one Wal-Mart lobbyist candidly explained to me, the company supports an employer mandate because it would primarily harm Wal-Mart's competitors. (The 315,000 jobs an employer mandate would destroy? Collateral damage.) Wal-Mart's competitors are not amused."
"Finally, last week Vice President Joe Biden announced that three hospital groups agreed to support $155 billion in cuts in federal payments to hospitals."
"The Obama administration essentially issued those groups an insurance policy. To guarantee that the groups would get at least $155 billion back from the government in the form of newly insured customers, the administration agreed that the new subsidies would start flowing immediately, while the pay cuts would take effect over time. That means the pay cuts may never take effect at all: physicians have been blocking their own scheduled pay cuts for nearly a decade.
The administration further bribed the hospital groups with unspecified protections from competing physician-owned hospitals as well as protections for the same inefficient hospitals Obama has criticized."
"Each agreement was negotiated behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny. All are contingent on the favored groups getting something they want, and all "savings" could be undone by future lobbying. To paraphrase George Bailey, the industry isn't selling — the industry is buying."
Under the agreement, the full price of each drug would continue to count toward seniors' catastrophic deductible. As a result, even more seniors would exceed that deductible, after which taxpayers would pay 95 percent of their drug costs. Obama also agreed to oppose stricter price controls for government purchases. PhRMA members agreed to cut their prices for seniors only because Obama agreed that taxpayers would buy more drugs at higher prices.
Think about it: Would drug companies enter this agreement unless they knew they would be net winners? Lobbyists never advocate less revenue for their members.
An agreement reached with Wal-Mart was also deceptively self-serving. Two weeks ago, the nation's largest private employer pledged to support a key Obama priority: a mandate requiring all employers to offer health benefits. An administration official called Wal-Mart's support for an employer mandate "significant."
Yet Wal-Mart's announcement was less Nixon going to China than, say, Stalin going to China. As one Wal-Mart lobbyist candidly explained to me, the company supports an employer mandate because it would primarily harm Wal-Mart's competitors. (The 315,000 jobs an employer mandate would destroy? Collateral damage.) Wal-Mart's competitors are not amused."
"Finally, last week Vice President Joe Biden announced that three hospital groups agreed to support $155 billion in cuts in federal payments to hospitals."
"The Obama administration essentially issued those groups an insurance policy. To guarantee that the groups would get at least $155 billion back from the government in the form of newly insured customers, the administration agreed that the new subsidies would start flowing immediately, while the pay cuts would take effect over time. That means the pay cuts may never take effect at all: physicians have been blocking their own scheduled pay cuts for nearly a decade.
The administration further bribed the hospital groups with unspecified protections from competing physician-owned hospitals as well as protections for the same inefficient hospitals Obama has criticized."
"Each agreement was negotiated behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny. All are contingent on the favored groups getting something they want, and all "savings" could be undone by future lobbying. To paraphrase George Bailey, the industry isn't selling — the industry is buying."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)