It was an emotional moment last night as I watched the fireworks here in Philadelphia.
After all here is where around 225 years ago our Founding Fathers and the citizens they represented decided to lay their lives on the line to fight for freedom. What would you do today if you were asked to do the same? Many of these citizens had comfortable prosperous lives. They had children and various other comforts. The punishment for the "treason" they were about to commit was death.
As some of our politicians and various vested interests use public relations techniques to push us towards greater entitlements keep in mind that with all government provided entitlements comes a loss of freedom.
In the past two years, in both the previous administration and the current, we have seen the government apparently, and in our name, basically say that there are some companies that are entitled to succeed: various investment banks, AIG, General Motors to name a few. We watched the resulting government intervention that came as a result of the public outrage at bonuses these companies made, retreats they had planned, that they used their corporate airplanes and more. The intervention to "right these wrongs" of course cost us of a reduction of the free market.
Increasingly it seems we are pushed to believe that a government exists to provide an increasing number of entitlements to protect us from the risks of life. Currently the big one is health care. My understanding is that our Founding Fathers set up government to provide certain entitlements including: The right to choose and follow a religion of your choice, to speak your opinions and beliefs freely, to pursue happiness as you see fit. Inherent in these rights is that you might make a choice in religion that others don't agree with, you might say things that others don't like and you may make bad choices in your pursuit of happiness that result in illness, failure or death.
In this country people can live better than anywhere else in the world. They are also free to make choices that will result in a pretty bad condition for them. It is true that our government does not provide the same level of safety as other governments. Do we a citizenry want it to at the expense of our liberty? Is it even capable of doing that or will we just lose liberty for not much more security than we currently have? Keep in mind that our government had all the regulatory power in place to prevent the banking fraud that is now causing our hardship. We spent (wasted) money on that regulation for the apparency of safety. To rephrase - money came out of your pocket, money you could have used to further your chosen pursuit of happiness, and went to attempting to guarantee your safety from a fraudulent banking system.
I will end with a quote from one of our Founding Fathers:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Health care Reform and 3rd Party Payer System
A third party payer system is when the consumer is actually not the person directly paying for what they are consuming. The system works like this: You the consumer give your money monthly to someone else (like an insurance company) then you go shopping for something (like health care). You and the vendor come to an agreement on what you are going to get and the third party - the insurance company - actually pays the expense.
Imagine that you walk into a hardware store to buy a hammer. First thing you do is go see your home maintenance manager. He asks you why you are there. You explain to him that you need a hammer to drive some nails into a board, showing him pictures of the board to prove you are in need. He says fine and gives you a referral to see the hammer specialist.
You walk over to the hammer specialist with your referral slip. He shows you a selection of two hammers with wooden handles. You have a problem with that because wooden handles destroy trees which harms the environment and you want a hammer with a handle made from a new environmentally friendly material. The hammer specialist explains to you that your hardware insurance only covers the wooden hammer because there is a state law that requires all insurance companies to cover wooden handled hammers but not others.
In the end since the insurance company will cover the hammer with the wooden handle you take it and leave the store happy. You don't have to pay anything. It wasn't exactly what you wanted but the insurance covered it and you had no out of pocket expense. You also feel a small sense of satisfaction that the hardware insurance you have been required to carry by law finally got used.
You will never know actually how much was charged to the insurance for that hammer unless you put some effort into finding out. As a matter of fact you aren't even really sure how much you pay for hardware insurance monthly because it is a combination of payroll deduction subsidized by money you pay out in income tax and a series of other taxes you don't realize you are paying.
Through some inspection you discover that the hardware vendor charged $200 for the hammer and the insurance paid $75 for a hammer that normally would cost $10. The real cost to you was about $150 but because the costs are hidden from you through taxes you don't see this.
Another thing you are unaware of is that because there are a few centralized third party payers in the hardware world it is easier to regulate the market through legislation. Large companies in the market are able to lobby legislatures and other influential politicians to get them to make it law that their products have to be covered by the insurance companies. This is a great way for them to control the consumer who is being forced to pay into the insurance system.
The above ridiculous example is how health care works under the current third party payer system with the exception that, at least for now, we are not required to carry health insurance by law. But state governments and the federal government do use their authority as law makers to require insurance cover certain health care products and services. The consumer routinely does not pay directly for service or even know really how much it costs.
I guess it could be a solution to have the government further regulate health care. However what we really want is a system that gives the best health care possible in the most fair and efficient system. A suggestion is actually to create more of a free market system with the elimination of the third party paying system. I am proposing some regulation which would be to outlaw third party paying systems due to their lack of transparency to the consumer and great propensity for limiting competition. Instead one takes out fixed amounts of insurance to secure themselves in the case of illness. You can insure yourself for $20K worth of benefits if you contract cancer. If you get cancer the insurance company pays you $20k and it is up to you to spend it as you see fit. Now hospitals and care givers and others in the health care industry have to compete for your business.
One thing that is not given enough attention in the health care debate is why are costs so high. In any other industry competition results in better products, better service and lower costs. This is not happening with health care because the health care market is not a free market where suppliers and vendors need to respond to consumers. President Obama made an excellent point that the incentives inherent in our current system are mixed up. The solution is to put the consumer back into control by removing the practice of third party paying.
Imagine that you walk into a hardware store to buy a hammer. First thing you do is go see your home maintenance manager. He asks you why you are there. You explain to him that you need a hammer to drive some nails into a board, showing him pictures of the board to prove you are in need. He says fine and gives you a referral to see the hammer specialist.
You walk over to the hammer specialist with your referral slip. He shows you a selection of two hammers with wooden handles. You have a problem with that because wooden handles destroy trees which harms the environment and you want a hammer with a handle made from a new environmentally friendly material. The hammer specialist explains to you that your hardware insurance only covers the wooden hammer because there is a state law that requires all insurance companies to cover wooden handled hammers but not others.
In the end since the insurance company will cover the hammer with the wooden handle you take it and leave the store happy. You don't have to pay anything. It wasn't exactly what you wanted but the insurance covered it and you had no out of pocket expense. You also feel a small sense of satisfaction that the hardware insurance you have been required to carry by law finally got used.
You will never know actually how much was charged to the insurance for that hammer unless you put some effort into finding out. As a matter of fact you aren't even really sure how much you pay for hardware insurance monthly because it is a combination of payroll deduction subsidized by money you pay out in income tax and a series of other taxes you don't realize you are paying.
Through some inspection you discover that the hardware vendor charged $200 for the hammer and the insurance paid $75 for a hammer that normally would cost $10. The real cost to you was about $150 but because the costs are hidden from you through taxes you don't see this.
Another thing you are unaware of is that because there are a few centralized third party payers in the hardware world it is easier to regulate the market through legislation. Large companies in the market are able to lobby legislatures and other influential politicians to get them to make it law that their products have to be covered by the insurance companies. This is a great way for them to control the consumer who is being forced to pay into the insurance system.
The above ridiculous example is how health care works under the current third party payer system with the exception that, at least for now, we are not required to carry health insurance by law. But state governments and the federal government do use their authority as law makers to require insurance cover certain health care products and services. The consumer routinely does not pay directly for service or even know really how much it costs.
I guess it could be a solution to have the government further regulate health care. However what we really want is a system that gives the best health care possible in the most fair and efficient system. A suggestion is actually to create more of a free market system with the elimination of the third party paying system. I am proposing some regulation which would be to outlaw third party paying systems due to their lack of transparency to the consumer and great propensity for limiting competition. Instead one takes out fixed amounts of insurance to secure themselves in the case of illness. You can insure yourself for $20K worth of benefits if you contract cancer. If you get cancer the insurance company pays you $20k and it is up to you to spend it as you see fit. Now hospitals and care givers and others in the health care industry have to compete for your business.
One thing that is not given enough attention in the health care debate is why are costs so high. In any other industry competition results in better products, better service and lower costs. This is not happening with health care because the health care market is not a free market where suppliers and vendors need to respond to consumers. President Obama made an excellent point that the incentives inherent in our current system are mixed up. The solution is to put the consumer back into control by removing the practice of third party paying.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Healthcare Reform
Health care is an interesting debate. The question is that in this country is government regulated healthcare a good idea.
First thing is that it has to be stated that we currently DO have government regulated health care. For instance state governments have passed laws telling insurance companies what care they have to cover. As it turns out this actually makes the situation worse:
In some states, regulations make it impossible for individuals to purchase a low-cost plan that would provide only catastrophic coverage. In other cases, the benefit mandates and insurance rules might raise premiums to the point that insurance is prohibitively expensive for many people.from an article The Effect of State Regulations on Health Insurance Premiums: A Revised Analysis. Interesting to note of course is that insurance companies are mandated to cover expensive medical treatments and drugs but none of the less expensive preventative measures. I am not saying it is the case in this country that powerful pharmaceutical and medical lobbies find it convenient and extremely profitable to be able to get state legislatures to force insurance companies to cover their drugs and treatments. I am not saying that...
So it should be clear that the current unworkable system is not a free market system - it is a government regulated system and that regulation can certainly be used by vested interests.
Health care is further complicated by the quantity of inaccuracies and unknowns in the field. A stunning fact is that 20% or more of sick people can be cured by a placebo. As a matter of fact an article in the Washington Post, re-published here, showed that a sugar pill is more effective than anti-depressants in managing depression! Here is another interesting fact:
America's healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.
The full article on that can be found here.
Given that we spend 15% of our GDP on health care vs. 8% to 10% in other countries considered healthier than ours it certainly doesn't appear that under the current system the money is being well spent.
So something is definitely crooked in the American health care system. I think one way a difference could be made would be to ensure that there is no mis-representation going on with our health care providers. We spend 1.5 to 2 times the amount of our GDP on healthcare than other countries that have lower mortality rates than we do?!?! Do you think there is some fraud in the system that when gotten rid of could lower our costs? Perhaps expensive less effective treatments are being marketed/lobbied for like crazy over less expensive more effective treatments. To wit - recently a court ordered a mother to have her son undergo chemo-therapy. Expensive and extremely doubtful in efficacy.
So the next thing we look for is who benefits from a wealthy country in poor health that spends 15% of its GDP on health care? Don't strain yourself too much on that one. The U.S. is home to more than half of the top 12 pharmaceutical companies and easily has the most pharmaceutical companies of any country. Make no mistake that they make a lot of money off of the current system.
Health care is further complicated by the quantity of inaccuracies and unknowns in the field. A stunning fact is that 20% or more of sick people can be cured by a placebo. As a matter of fact an article in the Washington Post, re-published here, showed that a sugar pill is more effective than anti-depressants in managing depression! Here is another interesting fact:
America's healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.
The full article on that can be found here.
Given that we spend 15% of our GDP on health care vs. 8% to 10% in other countries considered healthier than ours it certainly doesn't appear that under the current system the money is being well spent.
So something is definitely crooked in the American health care system. I think one way a difference could be made would be to ensure that there is no mis-representation going on with our health care providers. We spend 1.5 to 2 times the amount of our GDP on healthcare than other countries that have lower mortality rates than we do?!?! Do you think there is some fraud in the system that when gotten rid of could lower our costs? Perhaps expensive less effective treatments are being marketed/lobbied for like crazy over less expensive more effective treatments. To wit - recently a court ordered a mother to have her son undergo chemo-therapy. Expensive and extremely doubtful in efficacy.
So the next thing we look for is who benefits from a wealthy country in poor health that spends 15% of its GDP on health care? Don't strain yourself too much on that one. The U.S. is home to more than half of the top 12 pharmaceutical companies and easily has the most pharmaceutical companies of any country. Make no mistake that they make a lot of money off of the current system.
It is also interesting that currently the debate is not about the cost vs. benefits of the treatments we are spending so much money on - it is about lowering the cost to the consumer for insurance coverage. What?!?! Anyone else thinking cart before the horse? Lowering the soaring cost of health care is not about lowering the insurance costs - those will go lower if the cost of the underlying care they have to cover goes down. That would happen freely competing market for health care - one we do not have. Some treatments have the advantage of the government making it the law that they have to be covered.
So trying to address the problem with a national healthcare program in a country with such a powerful pharmaceutical and medical lobby is folly. In the end we will end up paying as much or more of our production toward healthcare forcibly via taxes. This is in fact a dream for wealthy companies with powerful lobbies.
Another aspect is making the consumer accountable for their health care. Currently most consumers don't even know how much their healthcare costs them. "The insurance takes care of it." This is a terrible system - the doctor responsible for making you healthy doesn't even work for you. They work for the insurance company - after all it is the insurance that will in the end pay them. In turn the insurance company is told who and what to cover by state legislatures.
A better solution is a free market system where you can purchase dollar amount coverage for protection against getting certain illnesses. For instance you could purchase $20K in coverage in case you get cancer. If you get cancer your insurance company gives you $20K. It is now yours to spend on whatever treatment you choose to pay for.
Obama made a very intelligent statement - we have to change the incentive in health care. Now the incentive factually is that a person gets an illness that doesn't kill them but requires continuous treatment. With the above system which is more consumer based, treatments with higher success rates for curing what ails you will win out. After all you have $20K to deal with your cancer. You will seek out and spend it on the most effective treatment.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Taxation with Unfair Representation
Our forefathers rebelled against the British Empire - put their lives and wealth on the line - because they were being taxed yet unfairly represented in the government that determined the rules under which they lived. Is the modern day progressive tax system any different?
Imagine a system where your tax bracket determines the weight of your vote: If you don't pay taxes you can't vote. If you are in the first tax bracket (lowest) you get one vote, the second two votes etc.
'Crazy!!' you say? Ok - think about this: Under our current system politicians have a vested interest in down-trodden people who are dependent on the government for money be it welfare or unemployemnent. People who are dependent on the government for sustenance or security are easy votes to get. We have set up circumstances where politicians benefit from a lack of success.
What would happen if we reversed this? Politicians benefit from promoting success. Every person who is so bad off they can't pay taxes is a lost vote. There is no benefit to having poorly educated people around who don't get paid well or have to depend on the government for money. Hmm...
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Recession is Over!
Thank goodness the 'worst recession since the Great Depression' is over! The Wall Street Journal has declared that the recession will end in September, CNN changed their slogan from 'America in Crisis' to 'Road to Rescue' about a month or so ago. Obama has changed his tone to one of optimism.
It all started after we let the Government borrow another $800 billion dollars because 'disaster was imminent' and we had to bailout what is apparently the American Aristocracy. Shortly thereafter the Fed Chairman stated that the recession would end this year. A message he repeated and then other media outlets started to fall in line.
I guess I am still a bit curious as to how 3 percent of the U.S. mortgage market caused the 'worst recession since The Great Depression'. It's not even that all those subprime loans were defaulting. I have read about the credit default swaps too and in the end it seems that all that was blown out of proportion too. Certainly there were companies that did some stupid things and brought themselves to the brink of disaster. Unfortunately it was also an election year and there was one party that knew the worse the economic picture was the more they would benefit. So bad economic news was inflated and since economic predictions are mostly self fulfilling next thing we know we really do have a problem because confidence dried up. Since the amount of cash in an economy is really a reflection of confidence that dried up and we enter a dwindling spiral.
So our elected representatives in both the Bush and Obama administrations answered this problem by scaring us into saving what must be some very well connected corporations. They gave those corporations hundreds of billions of our money which in the end appears to have been a thorough waste aside from preserving the fortunes of companies and their principles that really should have simply suffered the consquences of making bad decisions. We were nicely distracted by quibbling loudly about a couple hundred million in bonuses while hundreds of BILLIONS went unaccounted for.
I rant but it is good news that at last what is happening is what is really necessary to save this economy. For all that can be said about President Obama it is undeniable that he and his team are very good at public relations. Saving an economy is about changing a bad and insecure sentiment into one of hope and confidence. With hope and confidence then money flows back into the economy naturally and growth resumes.
Obama and his administration are also correct that to save the economy requires stimulating it with energy (a.k.a money). I think the main question here is whether or not it is the government that should decide where the money gets "flowed" or you and I. Under the current administration they have taken our money by taking out loans that we will have to repay via taxes and will spend it as they see fit. A small centralized group of people deciding how trillions of dollars are to be spent. A great set of circumstances for those that are currently well connected. Hence real change will not really be brought about.
There is also alot of talk now about inflation. Inflation will come about certainly if all the money that is dumped into the economy does not result in goods and services equivalent to or greater than that amount of money. History has shown that this is usually what happens when government does the stimulus spending. This is largely because the government only has as it's goal spending the money. They don't really ensure that the money results in added goods and services of at least equal value to what was spent. A certain portion usually lines the pockets of corrupt individuals, some goes towards projects that were not really needed or wanted and some may go towards things of actual value. There is nothing to say that the government couldn't do this correctly - it just seems that it has never happened that way.
In any case what does one do to participate in the recovery and not get screwed by inflation? This is actually simple - make sure you are producing goods and services that are of value. If there is inflation then your recompense for those goods and services will simply increase along with everything else. If a time comes when we are paying $10 for a dozen eggs it won't matter because people earning $40K a year will now be earning $400K a year. Another part of this is don't sit back apathetically letting the government waste this stimulus money. Those deals are done but Obama has promised transparency and we can hold his and the Congresses feet to the fire. Pay attention, monitor the websites that make public where this money is going. If it is used to add value to our country and its economy we really can come out of this in a much better situation.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Everybody is an Economic Expert
On a morning radio the announcer exclaimed that it seems like everyone is an economic expert these days. I guess as compared to how our finance and banking system has been run and our governments current answer to economic distress most people are economic experts.
It's very scary to hear President Obama exclaiming that "trickle down economics" and tax cuts are "the failed economic policies that got us here." I actually don't think that Obama is that stupid but like any other politician is simply pushing some partisan rhetoric to help him implement his agenda and strengthen his party's influence. It is unfortunate because as Obama and his PR machine are trying to lead us away from the hard won personal liberty that this country is about with misleading statements about what caused the economic crisis he is also not bringing about any meaningful change in this country.
Let's be clear about what caused the economic meltdown: financial institutions sold risky debt as though it wasn't risky. What some bankers and mortgage brokers and other financial firms committed was flat out fraud. We don't need new regulations or bank bailouts or other nonsense. We need those organizations that mis-represented risky loans as not being risky to be sued for the damage they caused and their executives to be imprisoned for fraud and their ill begotten assets seized. That is the government's responsibility in this situation. If a bank was bamboozled into making bad loans based on fraud then they should sue whoever ripped them off and if they can't and go broke as a result then tough.
The new administration could bring about real change by for once not bowing to the political clout of Wall Street and Bankers and just start investigating for fraud and legal violations in this sub-prime mortgage meltdown. We don't need new laws - just enforce the ones already in existence.
Tax cuts and de-regulation are so far the only proven policy to ever bring about rapid economic recovery. Socialism has never resulted in anything but pushing a society to a base mediocrity at best and in the extreme impoverishes all citizens except politicians and the politically connected. Socialist countries like France hope for 7.6% unemployement in GOOD times.
Economics and banking are not complicated subjects. Economics is about people supplying each others needs. Banking is the service of using the excess produced by a society to fund new enterprises and raise the standard of living. The system can expand continuously with an ever improving standard of living for all participants. There doesn't have to be booms and busts and ups and downs. Governments role is to ensure that the participants act honestly and do not misrepresent their products or services. This should extend to honesty in the press and laws against the press being used to spin situations which is simply another form of fraud.
Generally when governments get into the business of "managing" the economic system they simply wind up reducing the economy's effectiveness to raise the standard of living and maintain a continuous expansion. That's why socialism and it's extreme communism when implemented on a large scale leads always to lower standards of living for everyone. This is because the government has to try and guess the needs and desires of its constituents which it cannot do effectively. That's why the government trying to save an economy with bailouts or government spending is a very inefficient way to save an economy.
So what is this "economic expert's" solution: I offer a 3 pronged attack -
1. Start vigorously enforcing current laws and removing fraud from the system. Loudly start arresting the bankers, corrupt regulators, politicians who committed the fraud that lead up to this mess.
2. Agressive corporate and personal income tax cuts that will immediately energize the economy and make the U.S. the best place to make investments.
3. Instead of hundreds of billions in bailouts use that money to put out some positive press about the economy. Press manipulation is a fact in this country (if you don't believe this then WAKE UP). So be that as it may lets use it to bring about a more positive economic attitude because you can pump all the money you want to into the economy if people don't feel upbeat and confident that will kill any economy even in the best of times.
I'm no community organizer but I think that will work. Unfortunately it also means less opportunity for political power - after all when you are a politician doling out billions of dollars it is pretty easy to get "favors". That doesn't happen with tax cuts.
It's very scary to hear President Obama exclaiming that "trickle down economics" and tax cuts are "the failed economic policies that got us here." I actually don't think that Obama is that stupid but like any other politician is simply pushing some partisan rhetoric to help him implement his agenda and strengthen his party's influence. It is unfortunate because as Obama and his PR machine are trying to lead us away from the hard won personal liberty that this country is about with misleading statements about what caused the economic crisis he is also not bringing about any meaningful change in this country.
Let's be clear about what caused the economic meltdown: financial institutions sold risky debt as though it wasn't risky. What some bankers and mortgage brokers and other financial firms committed was flat out fraud. We don't need new regulations or bank bailouts or other nonsense. We need those organizations that mis-represented risky loans as not being risky to be sued for the damage they caused and their executives to be imprisoned for fraud and their ill begotten assets seized. That is the government's responsibility in this situation. If a bank was bamboozled into making bad loans based on fraud then they should sue whoever ripped them off and if they can't and go broke as a result then tough.
The new administration could bring about real change by for once not bowing to the political clout of Wall Street and Bankers and just start investigating for fraud and legal violations in this sub-prime mortgage meltdown. We don't need new laws - just enforce the ones already in existence.
Tax cuts and de-regulation are so far the only proven policy to ever bring about rapid economic recovery. Socialism has never resulted in anything but pushing a society to a base mediocrity at best and in the extreme impoverishes all citizens except politicians and the politically connected. Socialist countries like France hope for 7.6% unemployement in GOOD times.
Economics and banking are not complicated subjects. Economics is about people supplying each others needs. Banking is the service of using the excess produced by a society to fund new enterprises and raise the standard of living. The system can expand continuously with an ever improving standard of living for all participants. There doesn't have to be booms and busts and ups and downs. Governments role is to ensure that the participants act honestly and do not misrepresent their products or services. This should extend to honesty in the press and laws against the press being used to spin situations which is simply another form of fraud.
Generally when governments get into the business of "managing" the economic system they simply wind up reducing the economy's effectiveness to raise the standard of living and maintain a continuous expansion. That's why socialism and it's extreme communism when implemented on a large scale leads always to lower standards of living for everyone. This is because the government has to try and guess the needs and desires of its constituents which it cannot do effectively. That's why the government trying to save an economy with bailouts or government spending is a very inefficient way to save an economy.
So what is this "economic expert's" solution: I offer a 3 pronged attack -
1. Start vigorously enforcing current laws and removing fraud from the system. Loudly start arresting the bankers, corrupt regulators, politicians who committed the fraud that lead up to this mess.
2. Agressive corporate and personal income tax cuts that will immediately energize the economy and make the U.S. the best place to make investments.
3. Instead of hundreds of billions in bailouts use that money to put out some positive press about the economy. Press manipulation is a fact in this country (if you don't believe this then WAKE UP). So be that as it may lets use it to bring about a more positive economic attitude because you can pump all the money you want to into the economy if people don't feel upbeat and confident that will kill any economy even in the best of times.
I'm no community organizer but I think that will work. Unfortunately it also means less opportunity for political power - after all when you are a politician doling out billions of dollars it is pretty easy to get "favors". That doesn't happen with tax cuts.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Why I didn't vote for Obama but I'm glad he won...
When Barak Obama and John McCain both supported the $700 billion bank bailout/junk stock purchasing waste-of-tax-payer money program they both lost my support. But that's for another post...
I think Barak is a very intelligent and charismatic person. He ran the better campaign which says something - but not that much given how badly McCain ran his. In the end I am certain he was the better candidate but it's scary that he won on what was an unabashed socialist platform.
Yes, yes - I know...how dare I use the "s" word. One of the funniest things I saw during the campaign was a fact check segment on CNN where they were analyzing this claim of whether or not Barak Obama's policy of increasing progressive taxation both for individuals and corporations is socialistic. In the end the conclusion by the "expert" was that the claim was false on the condition that we already have progressive taxation so unless you thought the current tax system was socialistic then Barak Obama's tax policy is not socialistic.
Hmmm...that doesn't make sense. The correct analysis is actually that progressive taxation IS socialistic and making taxation MORE progressive is thereby more socialistic. Karl Marx's defining slogan was From Each According to his Ability, To Each According to his Needs. Progressive taxation is about greater taxes for people who are able to earn more because "they can afford it" and give that wealth to people who earn very little via welfare and other subsidies because they are in need. Sorry but to quote Obama - "You can put lipstick on a pig..." Actually that saying is even more appropriate given the Animal Farm referrence.
Anyway I couldn't vote for him since I disagree with the policies he espoused while campaigning and I felt that casting a vote for him would show support for his campaign platform. I wanted him to win but not by a large margin so that he would see that we Americans do not support socialism. In the end he won by only 4% and the "record voter turnout" turned out to not be true. It seems that he may have won largely because Republicans are disgusted with their own party, and rightly so, and didn't vote.
I was also a bit disparaged because so many people did vote for him despite his platform but as it turns out the more I listen to people who voted for Obama it seems they just voted for him because they liked him better and didn't really understand his platform at all.
In the end I don't believe that his win represents that we as Americans are turning away from personal responsibility and small government toward a culture of dependence and big government. He did not get a mandate and most people who voted for him didn't do so because of his platform. I do think Barak is very intelligent and has enough personal integrity to see that socialism is not the solution to our ills and that the campaign platform will fade into memory...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)