Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 3: One-Party Rule

The next topic I’d like to delve into regarding reasons to not vote for Barack Obama is actually not all about Obama himself: unified government with overwhelming Democratic Congressional majorities. This is actually a key issue for me with Obama winning, as, if it were not the case, I wouldn’t be as concerned about what I feel are the more radical policies Obama himself might pursue. I don’t believe it’s debatable that the priorities of the modern Democratic Party tend to favor both a larger role for the federal government in areas of our society in which it is already involved, and substantial involvement in areas in which it traditionally has not been. Generally speaking, the left believes that the federal government is best positioned to tackle certain issues, where the right believes state and local governments or the private sector would be more appropriate. There are two main parts to that debate: 1) Can the federal government truly more effectively provide the services in question than states, localities, or the private sector? and 2) Are the consequences of allowing the federal government to be involved in such things acceptable? Personally, I believe that the federal government, in the vast majority of cases, cannot be more effective. But, for the purposes of this post, the second question is more important.

I don’t see any reason to believe that, with an expanded majority in the House, and a majority in the Senate that is, or is nearly, filibuster-proof, the Democratic Party will not pursue every government expanding policy they’ve been denied for years. And it is a certainty that any judicial appointments, including to the Supreme Court, will be given to judges that will be less likely to curtail the power of the federal government. Nancy Pelosi’s recent declaration that Congress will be “more bipartisan” under expanded Democratic rule is laughable. Even if she directed her party to allow more Republican measures out of committee, or to allow more Republican amendments to come to a vote, it would only be because she would feel confident that nothing the Republicans ask for will pass. And remember, she and Senator Reid promised that, when the Democrats took control of the Congress after the 2006 vote, they would allow Republicans to be heard — that never came to pass. So, among the avalanche of legislation the Democrats will feel a new freedom to produce, it is a foregone conclusion that there will be measures that will hand new and expanded powers to the federal government.

Keep in mind, I’m not just talking about ballooning spending on pet projects, though there is no chance that won’t happen. (Remember, the “party of limited government” spent like drunken sailors when they had the reins of power.) I’m talking about new powers, created with the intention to “help you,” but that will allow the government even greater control of what individuals can and cannot do, what companies can and cannot sell, what research can and cannot be done, how much and to whom lenders can and cannot lend, and even what information you can and cannot get. I realize that this sounds paranoid and dramatic. And I don’t mean to say that Democrats want to control your life (though in the case of the Fairness Doctrine, it appears that they do.) I’d have to assume that, for the most part, most of them do not. But the power is the problem. How Democrats do not realize this after the last 8 years is simply beyond me. Everyone on the left (and some on the right) complains when President Bush uses powers he should not (and some believe does not) have. But if the power is there, even if it’s found in a loophole or a tortured reading of the law, a president (or a government agency, or Congress) only has to believe there’s a need to use it in order to do so.

All of the preceding was a long-winded set up for this: With a President Obama, even some of the most offensive legislation will pass. Aside from the already dangerous, big-government proposals he will submit himself (which will undoubtedly be made worse by an overzealous Congress), and will therefore pass, it will be nearly impossible for him to keep his party from overreaching — even if he actually wants to. Again, I’ll point to President Bush and the Republican Congress. Bush needed his priorities (mainly war-related) passed, and so made little attempt to control the wasteful and irresponsible spending members of his party initiated, even when he would have preferred to do otherwise. The problem is three-fold: 1) A president needs the backing of his party to pass bills that might be controversial, and to fight the opposition; 2) a bill may be largely in alignment with the President’s priorities, and rejecting it because of excesses may eliminate any chance of addressing those priorities; 3) there can be political consequences, such as voter disillusionment due to party in-fighting, or the loss of vulnerable seats made more likely when legislators appear ineffective. In other words, it is very much in the President’s interest to pass his own party’s bills. And, anyway, Senator Obama does not come across as someone who fears big government.

Once again, why do I believe that big-government solutions are dangerous? Is it because I’m a Republican and big-government solutions usually implement Democratic policy goals? Actually, it’s pretty much the reverse: I’m a Republican because I believe big-government solutions are dangerous, regardless of who’s in power at any given time. Again, I cannot understand how Democrats don’t see this. The Democrats I know — and most of my friends are fairly liberal Democrats — most certainly do not want the government dictating how they live their lives. Of course, this concerns them most when Republicans (Conservatives) are in power, and issues arise related to gay marriage, abortion/birth control, values education, censorship, war, spying, and so on. But, as I mentioned in my previous post, if you give a Democrat the potential to abuse power, you give it to the next Republican as well. We should all want the federal government to have very limited powers.

Barack Obama keeps talking about “change.” I’m sure he means “change” with respect to how business gets done, where government’s priorities are, and how we deal with the rest of the world. But it is unlikely he’ll affect much change in the first and third sense, and his changes to government’s priorities have the potential to usher in fundamental changes of which we should all be wary.

Election 2008 Series:

• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 1: Wealth Redistribution
• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 2: Health Care
• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 3: One-Party Rule
• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Wrap Up
• And What About “President McCain?”

Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 2: Health Care

With one week to go until election day, I’m continuing my series on the reasons to fear an Obama presidency. Part 2 of my series continues the theme in part 1: good motives/bad effect. This post focuses on Obama’s promise to deliver health insurance to all Americans.

First of all, it troubles me that anyone would think it’s the federal government’s business to be involved in individuals’ health care. The federal government was created to regulate activity between the states, to provide for the defense of all of the states from foreign enemies, and to protect the rights of individuals from encroachment by any government, private entity or other individual. That’s all. Of course, the government has taken many more responsibilities upon itself over the years, but very few would say that it has done a decent job in those endeavors. The common problems are accountability, and the incentive toward waste. The agencies that administer such programs are doing so with other people’s money. Therefore, it does not matter how the money is spent, and there is no incentive to make sure the program is running efficiently or effectively. In fact, come budget time, the primary concern is to demonstrate that they need more money, which is generally done by saying, “Hey, we spent all the money you gave us last year!” And in almost every case, if anyone attempts to trim the budget for one of these programs, even if waste can be demonstrated, the attempt is met with accusations of meanness and hardheartedness, and is subsequently abandoned. So, handing over responsibility to a government agency for administering a new health insurance program should give people pause, in the first place.

Now, Obama’s plan is supposedly a hybrid of reforms for private insurance and the addition of government-sponsored insurance, which he claims will be voluntary — and perhaps it will be, at first. However, any voluntary plan is likely to only draw those who need it most — those who cannot afford to pay premiums. Most of these people will be the same people that do not pay much, if anything, in taxes. Which means the money will need to be raised elsewhere (hey, taxes!). So, those who do not voluntarily enroll in the federal program will be paying for those who do, and many that cannot afford the inevitable increased tax burden *and* their own insurance premiums will be forced to “voluntarily” join the federal program. And even those who choose not to enroll will be paying for it, anyway, and are therefore effectively enrolled. Perhaps in a attempt to address this, Obama’s plan promises a tax credit to “everyone who needs it” to pay premiums. If that does work out, you’ll have the government paying for its own health plan, and paying (via tax credits) the premiums on private plans. How long do we think it will take before they start regulating what insurance companies must cover, and how much they can charge, with the rational being that taxpayers are footing the bill? Trick question — they won’t wait at all. The plan already includes mandates that “large employers… contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care,” that malpractice insurance companies “don’t overcharge” doctors, and that health insurance companies ignore pre-existing conditions. In essence, the plan forces employers, malpractice insurers, and health insurers to lose money, right out of the box. (Just an aside on pre-existing conditions: You “insure” against something that *might* happen. If it already has happened, i.e., a pre-existing condition, then forcing insurers to pay for it is not having them provide insurance, it’s forcing them to give away money. Can you imagine going to an insurer after your house burns down, and telling them, “Here’s your $1000 premium. Now give me a new policy and pay for my house to be rebuilt.”

Another reason to fear such vastly expanded (after all we do have Medicare and Medicaid) involvement in health care is that it gives the government another excuse to regulate your behavior. While insurers often (rightly) charge higher premiums to smokers and others with various risk factors, once the government (taxpayer) is footing the bill, lawmakers will most assuredly make the argument that this or that behavior should be outlawed, because the increased risk costs the taxpayers more money. Perhaps this starts out in a way most people thing is OK, like no more smoking in any public place, or by anyone on health plan that receives money from the government. Perhaps certain types of unhealthy food will be off-limits. Maybe drinking will need to be curtailed. But what about certain behaviors deemed unsavory by the party in power? What if conservatives again rule the roost, and decide that certain types of sexual behavior pose an unacceptable risk, and are therefore a burden that should not be shouldered by taxpayers? Yes, this is the slippery slope argument. But if it sounds far-fetched, it’s not unprecedented: just look at the many ways the government has used the Commerce Clause to justify all sorts of regulation and control over things tenuously (if at all) related to interstate commerce.

And what about unintended consequences? Medicare and Medicaid are definitely well-intentioned programs. And employer-sponsored health insurance is a very welcome benefit to those who have it. But a reasonable argument can be made that such easy health insurance has helped to enable the rapid increase in health care costs. Think about it: As long as people are only paying a small, manageable co-payment, most do not pay any attention to the actual price tag of the procedure or office visit. This is the case in a health care market in which a significant portion of insurers are private, and actually do have an incentive to try to keep prices down. The federal government, with no competition to fear, no shareholders to please, and a penchant for spending way more money than it should, will almost certainly be ineffective at managing costs by shopping around and routing out fraud and waste. That means costs will likely explode, practically unchecked, and/or quality will likely suffer. At that point there will be no option but to further expand the government program, as it will be impossible for a private sector solution to be effective. Everybody seems to understand that monopolies are bad for consumers. But when the government is the monopolist, a lot of people apparently forget this.

The biggest problems with such a proposal are these: The government is given more power over individuals and companies, because if they’re paying, they have a rational for controlling your behavior. And even if the plan is a miserable failure, wreaks havoc on the health care industry in America, and wastes billions of dollars in taxpayer money, it will be nearly impossible to undo it, for the same reason it would be impossible to repeal a $1000 tax credit — no politician would ever want to be seen as someone that wants to take away your health care. Just look at Social Security: Everyone knows it’s in huge trouble, but no one will do anything at all about it.

I understand the desire to provide health care coverage to those who cannot afford it. It is a noble and a worthy goal. But I honestly feel that any approach, in which the federal government has anything but the smallest part, will do more harm than good. Though a private or mostly private solution would be my preference, I even think it’s much more acceptable for state governments (vs. federal) to have a significant role in health care. While accountability and waste are still problems with state-run programs, these problems are much easier to address at the state level (for a variety of reasons), and at least different states could experiment with different solutions, the most successful of which could be applied elsewhere.

Such a fundamental change in the relationship between the federal government and such a significant part of the private sector is a change that is too risky to make.

Election 2008 Series:

• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 1: Wealth Redistribution
• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 2: Health Care
• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 3: One-Party Rule
• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Wrap Up
• And What About “President McCain?”

Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 1: Wealth Redistribution

It’s just about 1 week before election day. The polls have been saying pretty much the same thing for weeks now: The odds overwhelmingly favor the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States. Why is this the case? Any number of reasons have been given, including the massive unpopularity of President Bush, the scary state of the economy, the well-deserved beating the “Republican brand” has taken, the charisma and campaigning skills of candidate Obama, the ineptitude of the McCain campaign, media favoritism for Obama, the very real desire for “change” (with the misguided belief that Obama will bring it), and more. With all of this, it’s a wonder that McCain is anywhere near being in this race. And it’s been tempting to just give in to what seems inevitable, and say, “How bad can a President Obama be, anyway?” Over the course of my next few posts, I’d like to try to answer that….

First of all, let’s accept that Obama’s motives are pure — though it’s difficult to say that about any politician, especially one about whom we know so little. The problem is not his motives, but the effect the policies he pursues, based on those motives, will have on the country. For example, by now we’ve all heard the words “redistributive change” and “spreading the wealth” repeatedly. Even if we accept the argument that Obama didn’t actually mean “wealth redistribution,” there’s still his promise to give $1000 from tax revenue to millions of people that do not contribute to that revenue. That is, by definition, redistribution. What’s wrong with this? It sounds nice, right? These guys are doing OK, and should therefore be happy to give some money to these others that aren’t. The economic (stimulus) argument is that more people having more money means more people will be spending it — everybody wins! I don’t have the time or space to spend debunking this theory — but it’s not even necessary. The worst things about this $1000 tax credit proposal are that it gives the government (regardless of who’s in control) even more direct power over individuals (“Want that thousand bucks? Here’s what you need to do…”), and that, once passed, it will be nearly impossible to undo in the future. Who wants to be the politician to say, “Vote for me and I’ll take away that $1000 check!” Also, once the precedent is set, what’s to stop politicians from saying $2000 is the right number, or $10,000?

There has always been an element of wealth redistribution in our system, with the “rich” paying the highest taxes but the “poor” receiving most of the benefits of government programs. I’m not saying that’s exactly acceptable, but at least an effort has usually been made to disguise the redistribution as “services” for the “common good.” But now, all pretense has been dropped. It is hard to see how this and other proposals, such as the intention, voiced by Joe Biden, to make lenders renegotiate the principal on mortgages — essentially making them give money to their borrowers — are anything more than blatant attempts to purchase votes. “Vote for me and I’ll give you money!”

Let me just quickly dispatch the argument that wealth has been redistributed upward by the “Bush economic policies,” and so it’s time to turn it around. Offering a tax cut is allowing someone to keep more of his own money. That is not redistribution, it’s non-distribution. (And it is not buying votes, because you cannot buy something from someone with his own money.) As far as policies benefiting the wealthy and businesses, as long as those policies do not involve simply taking money from the non-wealthy and handing it to the wealthy, it’s not redistribution. I do take exception to so-called corporate welfare. Though normally given in the form of tax breaks (which, again, is allowing an entity to keep more of it’s own money), if the tax is enough of a problem such that a single entity should be exempt from it, then everyone should be exempt. The government should not have the power to say to one company, “We want you to succeed, so here’s a tax ‘incentive,’” while basically telling others, “We don’t care if you fail.” And please, enough of the “tax breaks for the rich” nonsense. The highest income earners pay the most taxes by far. Any true tax cut is going to benefit those who pay the most taxes the most. But even after the “Bush tax cuts for the rich,” the rich still paid the overwhelming share of all income taxes. (Would you call a 1% across-the-board tax increase a “tax increase for the rich,” just because it would cost the rich the most in actual dollars?)

The idea of taking money from the wealthy, the producers, the highest earners in a society and giving it to “those who need it” has been tried before. It has proven to be a failure, and has led to economic ruin. I don’t know why this argument still continues. Calling this same idea a “tax cut” does not change what it is. Sure, it may have some positive economic stimulus effect in the short term, and it is natural to want to help people who need it, but in the long run, punishing producers causes much greater harm for everyone. It would be a huge mistake to allow it to happen now.

Election 2008 Series:

• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 1: Wealth Redistribution
• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 2: Health Care
• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Part 3: One-Party Rule
• Why Fear “President Obama?” – Wrap Up
• And What About “President McCain?”

Is There A Doctor In The House?

What happened to House? Not too long ago, it was definitely one of the more compelling shows on TV. But now, the medicine is sloppy (good medical reviews here), there are too many characters, and the stories are all over the place. It’s a real shame, and I’m hoping they can turn it around before I decide to stop watching. I think the show is suffering from the same affliction to which many other good shows seem to succumb: let’s call it “one-up-itis.” It’s a condition that leads writers and producers to attempt to continually raise the bar on the suspense, shock value, drama, sexiness, etc, on a successful show, because they feel that’s the only way to keep people watching.

Take 24, for example. Sure the show has always been a bit over the top, but in order to push the limits, I guess to keep the show exciting, they detonated a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles, early in the last season. Did they not realize that the compelling thing about a “ticking time bomb” type story is the suspense that builds while the hero is trying to *stop* tens of thousands of people from dying? Memo to Hollywood: This is what’s meant by “jumping the shark.” Once a show gets too far out, it’s very difficult to reel it back in.

So, House folks, dial it back a bit, please. There’s no need to make each week’s medical mystery so much more baffling than the last one. Just give us a patient with a good story. You don’t have to ratchet up the conflict between the main characters to the point of unbelievability. A little workplace tension goes a long way. And grossing people out with sliced up brains and exploding intestines is not the key to securing higher ratings — teenaged boys are not your core audience. There’s room in the TV schedule for a serious, intelligent drama. Leave the nonsensical medicine to ER and Grey’s Anatomy, and the gross out garbage to reality TV.

High School Reunion

Last Saturday night my wife and I went to my 20 hear high school reunion.  I had decided to go because I was curious to see who else would show up, and because I knew there were bound to be at least a few people I’d really like to see.  I didn’t really have any expectations going in, but I never would have predicted that I’d have such an excellent time.  From the moment the party started (the woman working the door would not let us in even a minute before 8), it was like a mega-episode of This Is Your Life (at least until 18).  As I started to recognize faces I haven’t seen in 20 years (or more, in some cases), each one would trigger a new set of memories — sometime just a few images, sometimes very detailed recollections.  I could not stop smiling all night.  It was really great to see that so many of the kids I knew have turned out to be such nice people.  And the variety of stories — who just returned from Cambodia, who was living in Paris, who’s a NYC fireman with 4 kids, etc — was really astounding.  For all the years I knew these same people, none of us had really done anything.  We were just kids, of course.  But I guess that’s how you think of people — the way you knew them.  The event also gave me the opportunity to tell some people how much I appreciated how nice they were when we were kids.  I think it’s important to do things like that, and I’m glad I got the chance.

Anyway, I hope to keep in touch with many of the people I saw.  Facebook should help.  And I hope it’s not 20 years before I see many of them again.

OK, To Be Fair….

As might have been obvious in my VP debate post, one of the things that I found most outrageous was Joe Biden saying the Obama administration would make lenders renegotiate the principal on shaky mortgages. My main point was not that renegotiating principal is a crazy idea — lenders do it all the time. But having the government *compel* lenders to do so to me seems like overreaching. A friend pointed out, after last night’s Presidential debate, that McCain’s promise to buy up bad mortgages and renegotiate them would amount to the same thing. I don’t know if that’s exactly true — it depends on whether the program is compulsory, and what the government would be paying the lenders. If it’s *either* optional or the government will be paying full price, then it’s not the same thing. But if McCain would force lenders to sell mortgages to the government at a discount, then it is exactly the same (or, potentially, worse, due to the lost interest income to the lenders), and I would condemn it as well. Even in the best case, I still have to say that I don’t like the idea of the federal government being in the business of lending money directly to citizens. Unfortunately, it was the federal government that forced lenders to make many of those bad loans, so in a way, having the government take over the risk makes sense. But the lesson here is that the government never should have been involved in telling the lenders to whom they must lend, in the first place.

I didn’t watch the debate, so if I write a post about it, it will likely be more about the reaction to it than anything else. But that might be even more boring than the debate itself appears to have been.

The Veep Debate – *Yawn*

I watched the first 45 minutes or so of the Vice Presidential debate, last Thursday. I found it pretty boring, and wound up turning it off. Supposedly, it got “good” in the second half — but I really doubt that. Both candidates basically stood up there reciting the talking points from their campaigns, which pretty much all politicians (yes, even Obama) always do. And really, I don’t fault them for quickly dispatching the moderator’s questions to then get back to whatever points they wanted to make. Limiting answers to 90 seconds makes it almost not worthwhile to bother answering the specific questions. I’d rather see a real debate about political and governing philosophy, anyway.

There were a few things that stood out, to me, about which I have heard nothing since. The first was Palin talking about a McCain administration supporting (essentially) equal rights for gay couples (without the label “marriage”). I’m not so surprised she would support civil unions — I do not share the opinion of her as some backwards religious nut. But I was surprised that she went as far as she did in laying out the specifics of what she and McCain would support and at how emphatic she sounded about it. I would expect the Republican candidate to be more vague, in order to let the “right wingers” believe what they need to make themselves comfortable. To me, her response seemed like more than would be necessary, if her goal was only to diffuse the issue.

The second thing that stood out for me was the way each veep candidate went about promoting their running mate. This had to be more of a challenge for Biden, who, with many many more years of experience than Obama, had to try to convince the audience that *Obama* has been such a great leader on various issues with which Biden has likely been dealing for a long time. Of course, it’s Biden’s job to do so, and I think he did a decent job. But it often came across as Biden touting his own “leadership,” with Obama getting credit by association.

But the one thing that stuck out most, for me, was a comment from Biden about renegotiating people’s mortgages. He made it a point to emphasize that an Obama administration would make lenders renegotiate not only the interest (bad enough), but the principal! How does this not get a reaction from anyone? Renegotiate the principal? What does that even mean? The man is talking about what amounts to taking money from lenders — just plain taking it and giving it to borrowers — as if this is a good and correct thing to do! I find this unbelievable! If a lender wishes to forgive a portion of a loan in order to secure at least partial repayment, shouldn’t that be the lender’s choice? But Biden was making a so-called populist appeal by saying, We’re going to make those greedy lenders give you poor borrowers money! That seems like almost a naked admission that they intend to buy your vote, and with someone else’s money.

Anyway, I can’t really say who won. I will say that, to me, Biden came off looking much more comfortable and confident (which is really no surprise), if also a bit slick. However, I do think the GOP ticket will get more of a boost from the debate than the Democratic ticket, mainly because the McCain campaign appears to have been struggling to have it’s message heard the past couple of weeks, and the debate, and particularly Palin’s reasonably effective performance, should help bring it back into focus.

So, That Didn’t Work Out…

Um, yeah, I’m really great at this blogging thing.  It’s only been 2 months since my last post, and my last post was only my second post ever.  I did start a couple of posts about some grammar peeves (“a lot” vs “alot” and the inappropriate use of quotes), but, frankly, they felt stupid.  I guess I kind of put myself in a box, laying out “what this blog will be about,” in my first post.  So, I’ve decided to abandon those plans, and just write about whatever I want to write about.  If I find that I’m often writing about the same things, then that’s “what this blog will be about.”  So, if anyone is actually following this blog… (*crickets*)… there might actually be something to read here soon.  Well, at the very least, there will be this post.