THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Interesting article written by Scully about his time in the White House:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200709/michael-gerson

***

The apparently non-partisan Tax Policy Center:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org

I thought it was a good speech, but I got the sense that (other than the first ten minutes about herself and her family) it was largely written for whoever wound up being the VP choice, mostly just a generic (possibly effective) attack against Obama.

I’m a Democrat, so maybe I’m biased, but I get the sense that the McCain campaign knows that the majority of Americans prefer Obama’s policies, so they’re trying to keep the focus on biography and experience and off the issues.

I agree that Fred Thompson handled the tax policy issue in a more honest way. I’d rather see McCain be honest and try to justify his plan to give even larger tax cuts to the rich based on supply-side theory instead of trying to mislead the public about Obama’s tax plan.

The Palin speech was obviously an attempt to cater to centrists and left-leaners who don’t identify with Obama and see him as a phony. Because conservatives are aware of her conservative positions and record, they left those things alone and went for the image.

The ironic thing about McCain’s economics is this: Sure he’s a supply-sider (and rightly; “taxing the rich” disproportionately is populist nonsense that’s good for no one), but he extends his distrust for corporate influence in Washington to a most preposterous conclusion. He calls for more regulation of businesses, which is what gets them sending lobbyists to Washington in the first place. He fails to see that what gets Business entrenched in Washington is Washington getting entrenched in Business. Leave businesses alone, and there will be LESS corruption and pork. Yet McCain calls corruption and pork the enemy while doing the very thing that creates the need for them in the first place.

Of course, Obama’s “lobbyist-free” campaign is even more entrenched in the current style of Washington-business politics. He would extend the government even more into the world of business (and health care), creating an even larger network of lobbies and competing business interests in the capitol, each vying for regulation that helps the one and hurts the other. While this makes more sense for Obama, being a big-government liberal, the irony here is that such a system of regulation is good for big, entrenched business in whose interest it is to have their well being tied to the government, while the regulation is disastrous to smaller companies that first can’t afford to implement the regulations as well as the big businesses, and second aren’t ‘too big to fail’ and thus aren’t worthy of protectionist schemes.

Hardly a change election.

Can anyone explain to me how Obama’s going to implement his “universal” healthcare program (which I like)? I’m a tad befuddled about this.

Being somewhat lazy, I’ll just point you to the details on Obama’s website.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

I’m going to tie in a few things you might appreciate…

I met Pete Stemkowski a few years ago before a Sharks game.  We talked a bit about being from Winnipeg, and he told this funny story to the assembled crowd: in either 1966 or 1968, he got his first big NHL contract, which was $14000 a season (or was it $7000?), and when he went home for the summer, everybody called him “The Richest Man in Winnipeg...”

That’s the thing about being from a place the size of Alaska or Manitoba - everyone’s perspective is off.  There’s a reason no one from Manitoba has led a Canadian political party for 60 years (or why Manitoba produces so few NHL stars) - the place is just too small to produce someone skilled enough.  Not with any likelihood, at least.

Manitoba still has a Premier and MLAs and dedicated Rhodes Scholarships - there are just 5-15x as many of these positions and honours per capita as in Ontario.  So the Mayor of a town of 9000 people (which would be the 6th- or 7th-largest city in Manitoba, btw) could very well become the Premier without that representing any real ability on his or her part. 

Sarah Palin is a beneficiary of a similar situation.  Even if I knew nothing about her, I’d be very wary of her.

There are certain socialist things that all governments (read: people) should do. 

One is to take care of the elderly.  Does anyone disagree with medicare and pension plans (of some sort)?  Left to their own devices as 20 and 30-yr olds, people will mortgage their future to survive better today.  People are probably not good risk-managers, and without mandatory old-person care, we’d likely have some sort of crisis.  This is a guess on my part, and I’d like to hear of other countries that don’t have old-age care (health or financial) and yet managed to thrive as a society.  I doubt there are any.

Similarly, as we care for the elderly, we need to care for the children.  Parents don’t own children.  They are more like trustees or guardians.  To that end, children have health, financial, and educational rights that should not be completely determined by the status, whims, and planning of their guardians.  Indeed, schools recognize this by implementing scholarships, which are really socialist devices.

It is people aged 25-60 that bear the responsibility for the society they bring into this world, and the society that cared for them.  You can create a capitalistic society all you want, as long as its bounded by the social responsibilities to the young and old.

So, at a minimum, a health plan, of some sort or other, that covers the young and old should be guaranteed, with premiums coming straight from the government (read: people aged 25-60).

I have a cousin who recently declared bankruptcy because, while she was near the poverty line, she wasn’t poor enough to qualify for charity care from the hospital.  And she had to take her kid to the hospital.  What is she supposed to do here?  She was stupid in being between health care coverage, as she was unemployed at the time of the incident, and she didn’t apply for consumer coverage on her own in time.  Imagine those who don’t go to the hospital for their kid precisely because of lack of coverage.  Doesn’t make sense, other than in a “survival of the fittest” mentality.

It all depends what kind of society we want, and how much trust we want to put in trustees, and how exposed we want to make the (involuntary) trusters.

I’m in complete agreement with post 3.
As to Tango 7, from a moral standpoint we should do all of those things of course. But why do we need the government as an eternal mediator? Wouldn’t 98% of parents be better than the government at providing health care and care in general? Yes, we need a government to stop child abuse, to help those who genuinely cannot help themselves (disabled, orphans, et al). But in most cases, people will do much better than the government itself will. The US is over $10 trillion in debt; shouldn’t I as a private citizen have the option to say that I can take care of myself and my family better on my own? Particularly, I should have the option to opt out of social security. 42% of the federal debt is consumed in “entitlement spending”, most of which is spent on marinating three related programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Regarding children, I think most of us should be able to agree that providing education, health insurance, and a minimum level of financial security (i.e. food stamps) for all children is moral and in the country’s best interest. I don’t think we’d all agree on how to provide the health care, but it seems wrong to say that a child who happens to have parents making minimum wage who are supportive and nurturing in every sense other than financially doesn’t deserve to have their health care subsidized by the government. Some conservatives might be concerned that these benefits would be extended to those who don’t really need them, but is anyone really opposed to that basic set of facts? 90-something percent of children probably are fortunate enough to have parents who can afford health care for their children, but what do we do about the ones who don’t?

The issue of the elderly is a little tougher because you can’t blame the child for being poor, but you can blame the senior citizen. That said, my general response to people who want to get rid of social security/medicare is: do you really think we should just let an elderly person who’s flat broke (even if it’s their own fault) just die on the street? If so, fine, we disagree. If not, you have to be in favor of some sort of program. Of course, we can still debate in good faith the amount of social security payments and at what age they should kick in, or even programs with a completely different structure.

Phil: most is not all. 

What you need to do is give everyone the opportunity for coverage.  For example, SCHIP is good:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/schip.asp

But, is it good enough?  There’s got to be some basic coverage available for everyone, and you should have the right to opt out.  It’s really the difference between opt-in and opt-out.  Healthcare coverage for children (including expectant mothers) should be provided for, with an option to opt-out.

This way, you get 100% satisfaction, not 98% or “most”.

The same deal as Phil is saying for old-age programs.  You should be able to opt out, if you think you can do better.  At the same time, you can’t opt out if you are mortgaging your future.  An opt-out is “I want to absolve you from any obligations, even if I am broke”, just as Pronk is talking about. Too many people I think would take that as seriously as a marriage contract.

So, the 25-60 year olds have to decide on what they want to do with the young and the old if they opt-out completely, and are now homeless or dying.  Do you let them die?  No?  Then, you need some mandatory social service to care for them.

Re John/3:

I don’t believe that the past eight years provide support for the thesis that a Democratic administration would lead to “more corruption and pork” and benefit “big, entrenched businesses.”

The current administration has consistently relied on private businesses rather than government to carry out various functions.  This has been the case in Iraq (witness the series of no-bid contracts awarded to “favored companies” like Haliburton).  Another example is the health care debate—the most vociferous supporters of the GOP approach are the insurance companies, who would lose the status of intermediaries under a government-sponsored insurance scheme.  (Note to Phil D/8—a government-sponsored health insurance policy does not mean that government would “provide health care”.  I don’t know who would advocate the latter—maybe Ralph Nader.)

While an Obama administration would certainly tend to support stricter regulation in many areas (notably, the environment), his approach in other areas may be more nuanced.  There was an excellent article in the New York Times magazine a couple weeks ago that described his economic policy in some detail.  Many of his proposals involve tax cuts—not unlike the GOP, except that they would be targeted towards middle- and lower-income indivduals, as opposed to the wealthiest (whose taxes would be increased).

Link to article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html

I’m a strict libertarian. I’m for as small of government as possible, ideally what’s prescribed in the Constitution. I’m for mandatory government coverage for those who cannot provide for themselves: those under 18 (you suggest 25?) and the disabled. I’m not sure I would extend it to the elderly because they have had decades and decades to save and prepare, at some point they are on their own. As for the rest, I do let them die under my ideal government.
I also have full confidence that the American people, statistically the most generous on earth, would never live to see the day where we have the legitimately needy die. I trust the people to resolve this problem, not government which has shown it cannot do anything, save for deliver the mail, well. Do you trust the same people who run your local RMV to care for America’s needy?
Consider this analogy. In an Amish community, when someone’s barn burns down, the community gathers together to help rebuild the barn. Problem solved. When Katrina struck, every government plan from local to federal failed dismally. The police took a hike. FEMA responded too late. Much of the National Guard was guarding another nation. Those credit cards the government handed out like candy were grossly abused. To what extent there was relief, it came from the goodness of those in the private sector. Now think of how much more we (me included) could have given if we were not paying 1/3 to 1/2 our money to fund our inept government.

Let me amend the above to say that Americans would not only help the legitimately needy but also those who struggle at least partially because of their own vices.
Also, let me stress that the virtues of generosity and compassion are certainly not exclusive to the USA.

The problem with health care is massive regulation and consequent price fixing. Of course civilized societies need to provide for those who genuinely cannot help themselves, but this should be done by direct payment of services to doctors and hospitals by the federal government from tax money, not subsidies to massive, racketeering health insurance companies.

Obama’s plan amounts to fascism, basically. It is a terrible alliance of government and business interests that strengthens the former while protecting the latter (to the detriment of the free market). It allows government to peddle various schemes of social control orchestrated by academics whom no one would listen to otherwise, while big, established health insurance companies will become de facto arms of the government, freed from the vicissitudes of the market, their profit margins guaranteed by American tax dollars.

Consequently, those companies will negotiate with hospital and doctor groups for a lower tier quality of services for those who have been forced to be insured through them by the federal government. Bad service and queues will be the result.

A much better solution to the insane cost of health care is to deregulate the health care and insurance industries and delegitimize the extensive, government-funded and -supported system of doctor boards which monopolistically control entry into health care professions in order to keep service-providers rare and costs high.

The free market isn’t the problem. It is the extensive meddling in the free market (and thus-- and this is the point people seem to miss-- the meddling of the no-longer free market in business) that is the problem.

Woops: and this is the point people seem to miss-- the meddling of the no-longer free market in government

I guess that’s what the “Preview” is for.

While I’m adding another comment I should add that I find it amusing that liberals/Democrats (and plenty of Republicans, too, including McCain) talk about the “obscene profits” of “Big Oil” and propose plans to tax oil companies.

But meanwhile, the oil companies actually have profit margins below the national average. Health insurance and pharmaceutical companies have much greater profit margins, with the latter way out in front of everyone else. And why do they have such huge margins? Because government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, along with extensive industry regulations the leaders in the industry pushed for, provide guaranteed services at prices that are hugely favorable to the drug and health insurance companies.

Greater profits. Decreased competition. And if you have no insurance? You are screwed. Not because of the “evil” of health service providers, pharmaceutical companies and health insurance firms. No. Because the government’s do-good nonsense has created an artificial, irregular, profit-generating monster, and you aren’t part of the equation. The irony is that the very situation this welfare state has created is leading liberal politicians to call for more of it in order to solve the problem of America’s many uninsured! Yes, that’s the ticket! Millions of Americans who can’t afford insurance because of a government-created cartel are now going to be extorted into buying insurance from the government’s business friends. The government is happy! Big business is happy! And the citizens are screwed!

And conservatives/libertarians are supposed to be the ones that give undue advantages to corporations and trample on the little people? A convenient trope, meaning nothing.

"I also have full confidence that the American people, statistically the most generous on earth, would never live to see the day where we have the legitimately needy die.”

I disagree with every aspect of this statement.

In what sense are Americans the most generous? 

Do you honestly believe that today, in the United States, there are no “legitimately needy” that are dying?  Or are you saying that in your perfect small-government country, where we all have 15-25% more money going into our bank accounts each week, that people would THEN not let any legitimately needy die?  Because I’m guessing that’s not what would happen.  I’d guess that instead, we’d end up buying 15-25% bigger cars, houses, and TVs, and end up taking 15-25% more vacations.

Mike,
Click my name for the statistical proof that Americans are far more generous that the rest of the world.
Of course, there would be some poor dying on the street. But if you can provide for yourself and choose not to, no one has any legal obligation whatsoever to provide for you. You can argue that there’s a moral obligation, but that’s a religious argument. Anyway my main point is that the private sector will always take better care of the needy than the government.

The correct link is
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/06/americans-are-most-generous-people-in.html

Disclosure: conservative/libertarian who is disappointed with the big government (both domestic & foreign) of Bush Administration and was thinking of not voting until last Friday.  Also worked as aide for various Congressional members in a past career.

First, fact: all members of congress/administration/president/vp, etc. (no matter how smart) rely on their staff heavily.  But at the same time, it is easy to tell whether a speech is given to a person five minutes before or whether that person had a say-so in the tone/delivery/content of the speech.  Both Obama & Palin had a major say-so in their speeches.  You can tell from the results:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/surveyusa-palins-speech-comparable-to.html

I’m not going to talk about health care, energy policy, etc. b/c I’m not going to convince anybody here of anything & you are not going to change my opinion.  I’m more interested in the choice of VP and game theory and your reactions. 

Put yourself in Obama and McCain’s shoes, what would you have done?  Given that Obama had to make the first move, what was the right move?  He picked Joe Biden for his foreign policy experience and appeal to white middle class voters.  Was this the best choice given what Obama could have known at the time?  Then, what about McCain who had the advantage of picking second? He went for what everyone is calling a Hail Mary with the unknown Palin--a conservative woman to rally the base & maybe pick up a few Hillary voters. 

Thoughts?

Pronk/#5, or anyone for that matter.... please explain to me how a government-run health care system will increase competition in the health care/pharmaceutical industries.

Also, as an unrelated question, does anyone else think it’s unfair to tax the income of wealthier people more than other citizens? I can understand increasing certain taxes such as the inheritance tax (though I might not necessarily agree with it), but I don’t get why some people have it out for people who make a lot of money every year working hard and keeping ahead of their competitors.

"but I don’t get why some people have it out for people who make a lot of money every year working hard and keeping ahead of their competitors”

How about those people who work hard, but don’t make alot of money?  Or those who don’t work hard and do make alot of money?

There’s a certain amount of money the government will collect from its citizens.  The question is how is that best accomplished for the society as a whole.  The range is to tax progressively higher such that the net disposable income is the same for the guy earning 20K and the guy earning 20MM (i.e., communism) to tax a flat amount (say 30K each).

Clearly the two extremes don’t work, as one dissaudes innovation and the other assures poverty.  Any tax system you create will be unfair to someone.  But, its purpose is for the betterment of society (sum of parts greater than the whole).  It’s the Royals/Yankees dilemna.

Post 11 was marked for moderation and is now open for business.

Disclaimer: I’m from Sweden so this will probably have a strong eurocentric bias, just live with it.

As persons and potential “statesmen” I find Mccain, Palin and Obamma both likable and trustworthy people, of Bidden I have no oppinion as of yet. (To be honest I had never really heard of him before he got nominated.)

I also think regardless of who wins it will help improve the US relations with European nations. I also “in practice” don’t think who wins will make a huge impact for the “average joe” in the US. Most of the differences are of the a percentage point here and there type. (Although in fairness that is even worse in our domestic politics.)

As for your medical care system I think it is pretty obviously broken. From what I’ve read studies show that in total (i.e. if you add expenditure through taxes and private spending) the average american spends 3-4 times as much on health care as the average in typical western european countries and yet if you measure typical public health indicators it is roughly as effective.

I don’t have an obvious answer for how to fix it. But I don’t think it is so much a question of public vs private as it is simply that the actual “mechanics” of the system is broken. Virtually all western nations have some sort of a mix between the private and the public in this area and i see no reason why there should be such a drastic difference just betcause you shift the balance point.

My point is this. I fully accept that there is a serious moral issue with different all quite valid viewpoints on what level of “social engineering” is desirable in a society. However, even if you are a proponent of a certain level of “social engineering” it can still be bad in the “technical sense”, i.e. laws etc can be badly designed to achieve what you want them to do…

I am a big fan of letting the free market settle things out, but I think a fair number of people would have a hard time getting by while things settled out.  Think of a PID controller where the Ki value is too high.

As far as health care goes in an ideal world the government could offer an alternative minimum to all citizens and use the penalty of taxes against companies that chose not to offer “legitimate” insurance.  I just don’t see that realistically working, because business and politics seem to only feed each other.

I think privatizing social security in the sense that you are still required to put away a certain percentage of your pay into a retirement account could work out quite well.  The problem here is that the money we pay into SS now goes directly to those collecting.  So in essence we would have to bite the bullet and pay into both so the future is better, I don’t see that working out either.

As far as taxes go I think a federal sales tax (with no income tax) could work.  One glaring issue is that it promotes saving which would not help our consumerist economy, but that may alleviate the strain placed on SS.  Food and clothing would be exempt from the general sales tax as people need those to get by.  With a sales tax each tax payers chooses how much they want to pay into the system.

Looks like my best option is to write in Ron Paul.