Other people who know far more about military and security affairs than I do will judge what President Bush had to say about Iraq. I was more interested in what the President had to say about domestic policy.
There were some of the contradictions I have come to expect. For example, the words about local control of schools and the words in support of the No Child Left Behind Act (as if the Federal government can keep spending more money on schools without control of those schools ending up more-and-more in Federal hands). How such things as the no-child-left-behind Act are supposed to be consistent with the pledge to ‘balance the budget’ was also unexplained.
There was also the odd use of language. For example, although libertarians tend to favour ‘free migration’ it is irritating for the President to say ‘no amnesty’ for illegal immigrants when an amnesty is exactly what he is planning (although he may use some other form of words for it). Still, I suppose, this type of language use is not that odd among politicians.
On health care it was good to hear the return of President Reagan’s suggestion that income used by an individual to pay for health cover should not be subject to either income tax or social security (pay roll) tax. Linking tax relief to a particular job (via only employer provided health cover being covered) is silly. It was also interesting to see that the tax relief would be limited to a certain level of spending – so that in this (and other ways) people would have an incentive to shop around for health cover that controlled costs (the one good bit of the Medicare Part D. extension of some years ago).
There was nothing on how the existence of Medicare and Medicaid (which started out at five billion Dollars in 1965 and now cost hundreds of billions of Dollars) have had a knock on effect of increasing costs of private health cover – but I did not expect this (Medicare and Medicaid are sacred these days). But there was a bit of talk about how the ‘entitlements’ (basically Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) are endlessly increasing in costs and how, if they are not reformed, it will be impossible to save them. Of course, with every passing year the difficulty of preventing the eventual collapse of these schemes, with all the effects this will have on those dependent on them, increases. If there is not a planned roll back of the system it will eventually fall apart – but as the system is not likely to collapse before the next election, most politicians do not care.
Nor was there any stress on how the vast web of Federal and State regulations have increased the cost of health care, not just the old Milton Friedman point about the doctor licensing scam, government backed white collar unionism – but the whole mess of interventions against both insurance enterprises and hospitals – but, other than sometimes attacking the distortion of Tort law, the President clearly does not feel comfortable in attacking regulations that are, supposedly, there to ‘help’ people.
There was also too much stress on private insurance being the way Americans should pay for cover. Not just direct payment, but what used to be the vast tradition of mutual aid societies in America (a ‘Fraternity’ did not always just mean a group of students) was ignored. Still, so far, not a bad section of the speech – even though the President’s ideas will be dead on arrival with the Democrat controlled Congress.
However, this section of the speech did contain what to me was the worst part of the whole State of the Union Address.
The little line about the Federal government paying out money to the States to provide private insurance for those people who could not afford to pay for it.
Firstly if the government pays it is not really ‘private’ at all, something President Bush never seems to understand – for example his failure to understand that government subsidies to charities corrupt those charities. But it is also a blank cheque. For all the talk of payment being limited to “existing resources” people like the Governor of California are already demanding the Federal government pick up the lions share of their plans to pay for ‘universal coverage’.
“But the universal coverage demanded by the Democrats is much worse, they would have government control of everything”.
True enough, but that fails to see how a ‘bit’ of statism, whether in regulations or in government welfare state schemes, is not really a alternative to full collectivism – it is a stepping stone to it.
The Democrats, or rather the dominant Democrats – the ones allied to the media and academia, will take any concession and demand more. And if for example President Bush leaves the door half open to demands that the Federal government fund demented plans such as the one by the Governor of California, the Democrats and some Republican allies may kick the door wide open – not just to California, but to every other State.
And make no mistake, once the position of ‘universal coverage’ is accepted the left will work to make sure that universal coverage means what they want it to mean.
After all if ‘the government’ is paying for some people’s health cover – even people who are not old and are in quite well paid jobs (as with the proposed California plan) why should other people pay for their own health cover? And as the academics and the media will point out, ‘means testing’ leads to a ‘poverty trap’ (and it does).
One intervention will be used as an excuse for other interventions. Just as the interventions that pushed up the cost of health care in the first place (some of which are listed above) are used as an excuse for more government interventions.
“Health care is so expensive the government must pay” (as if the government had any money of its own, separate to the people). “E.R. sections have, by law, to accept people whether they can pay or not, so the government should also…” (the favourite line of the Economist magazine). And so on.
One line of blue pencil – through the words about the Federal government paying for the new schemes of various States, might have saved a lot of trouble. For we can rest assured that extra Federal subsidies to States is one thing that will not be dead on arrival at the Democrat controlled Congress – but I doubt that they will be interested in limiting the money to ‘existing resources’.
I’ve come to think universal healthcare is inevitable given the general willful ignorance with regards to economic realities on the part of the general populace.
In which case I’d prefer it be sooner than later, so that the health care system has time to collapse and recover while I’m still young enough not to need it.
How many entrepreneurs-to-be stay with ‘the next big thing’ stay at their day jobs because they can’t afford private healthcare insurance for their families outside of the aggregate-risk plans provided by their employer?
Universal healthcare, like bankrupty laws (bringing limitation of absolute damage) and basic social security, ispresent in every first-world capitalist country – aside from the US. None of them are ‘foundering’ – although some, of course, are less healthy than others. The ‘tiger economies’ of east asia either have sponsored healthcare or schemes that don’t cost 10x what you’d pay if you paid through your employer.
It will change, as it should. The current arrangement has evolved into a system that merely benefits the corporate state and discourages entrepreneurship and self-employment.
It ALL needs to change, however – why have prescriptions? In the UK I can look up my symptoms, correlate, read the blurb, order the drugs over the internet (ticking the ‘yes I have a prescription’ box from my favoured non-EU supplier – normally swiss) and solve the problem. Sure, if I have a broken leg I need a hospital, but still…
The push for reducing gasoline use by 20% over 10 years, by resort to ethanol, was odd as well. Seems overconfident to push such a program with the R&D part still unfinished. Even the optimists hedge their claims. And the naysayers have long-standing points which still haven’t been effectively addressed.
Pie in the sky used to be the domain of the Democrats. Many of Mr. Bush’s domestic ideas make me miss Mr. Clinton (almost).
Ah me, “Universal Coverage”. I reply to all the U.S. claims, counter-claims, and aggressive lobbying for ever-more-regulation, and ever-more-money, with two words: “Canadian experience”
My main concern (other than “who’s gonna invade Iran once the U.S. bankrupts itself on Medicare”) is, once U.S. hospitals are as backlogged as Canadian hospitals, and all their doctors have fled to greener pastures due to the omnipresent overregulation and creeping pay cuts…
– where will we Canadians go instead of the U.S. for quick, decent medical care?
– to Britain?
Kindergarten-12th grade education in the US is theoretically a local school board function. There are responsibilities to state and federal oversight.
Some local boards are personal fiefdoms, however. Some areas do a “social promotion”, where kids are shuttled to the next higher grade because it’s age appropriate. Absurd. Students graduate without basic skills, and the local boards brag about their high graduation rate.
No Child Left Behind was a last gasp effort to set basic standards for calling a graduate educated. Children could leave a failing school and go to a desired competent school if failing school failed to perform. Duh!
I found the following two statements on Wikipedia about the high school I graduated from.
What exactly is No Child Left Behind claiming to achieve? It sounds to me like a touchy-feely slogan in search of money and control. Something made to order for big political grandstanding. If this school is a failing one I bet there are some pretty bad cases that are passing. Or is there something that I am not understanding?
Mid,
If the US is anything like the UK and I suspect it is then what you’re failing to understand is that the quality of education is no longer judged by the same standards that you or I use but by assorted arcana. For example in the UK they talk about “value-added” and “enrichment” which are things like school trips, tuition in the use of a musical instrument, certain sporting things, after-school activities etc. These are then assigned an effectively numerical score.
So the quality of after-school activities is treated as objectively as the percentage of kids getting an A at math.
My mother worked at Emmanuel College and it was one of the best schools in the area (good grades, lots of kids from poor backgrounds getting into good universities etc) and this was seen as a flagship for the government CTC, now City Academy scheme*. Now how did EC get such good results? My mother was firmly of the opinion that the key was the pre-selection of the kids. All the parents had to apply for a place and were interviewed. EC didn’t select on “ability” but it was definitely taking kids from homes in which education was valued enough to go through the rigmarole of the application process.
The point I’m trying to make is that all of this league table stuff is nonsense. Ofsted (our main education inspectors) include “lay members” on their inspection teams. Tacitly this acknowledges that ordinary folk can judge a school fairly well and if that’s the case why not just let parents and children do the same for themselves and junk all these pseduo-scientific rankings and ratings?
To paraphrase Wilde: A government minister knows the cost of everything** and the value of nothing.
Of course some parents can’t be bothered but in that case they are clearly so bereft of intrest in their sprogs that no amount of fecking about by the Department For Education will do one iota of good.
*Loosely based on the US Magnet scheme.
**Obviously not including the overspend, obviously.
My mother was also firmly of the opinion that another reason for EC’s good grades was herself. There has been a bit of a slide following her retirement.
>- where will we Canadians go instead of the U.S. for
> quick, decent medical care?
>
>- to Britain?
Probably India or Hong Kong. Or maybe some carribean country will become an international medicine destination they way some are international banking destinations now.
I know President Bush is not beloved by the Samizdats, and your points are all 5technically correct.
He is addressing a Congress that would like to fix entitlement spending by raising taxes and fix the health care system by nationalizing it. The President’s plans have — in common — an introduction of market forces and personal responsibility.
It’s big government and much as I’d love a Reaganite, Goldwaterite Chief Executive, President Bush tries to push things the right way against a congress and intelligentsia that would go for the same spending without any market mechanism or personal control.
“My mother was also firmly of the opinion that another reason for EC’s good grades was herself. There has been a bit of a slide following her retirement.”
I don’t doubt your mother one bit. If she’s of an age to retire, she knew how to teach students to read. She’ll surely be missed. Too many young people are now being ‘educated’ by leftie social reformers like this clown.
I object to “No Child Left Behind” on several levels. Not the least of which is that it creates a nationwide mechanism for the professional bureaucrat class to spread their stupidities with greater ease.
CFM,
Point taken and thanks. But this isn’t about age. There are idiots of all ages. I’m young(ish) and I’m no idiot. I guess if there’s a central point to my rant it is this: teaching achieves nothing without the desire to learn. If you don’t have that the greatest teacher on the planet will not make the slightest difference.
I’ve perhaps worn this axiom out lately, but a systematic avoidance of reality is the operating definition of insanity. How can a politician begin to speak about maintaining the status quo, with a few pet projects added in, and not sound insane?
It should be the State of Insanity Address.
jk first:
One does not fight people by handing out concessions to them.
The main point of my article (which you seem to have missed) is that changing the tax system to avoid taxing (either via income tax on the payroll tax) income people use to pay for medical cover (rather than just not taxing employer provided plans) is one thing, but OFFERING MONEY FOR STATE GOVERNMENT EFFORTS AT UNIVERSAL COVERAGE is quite another.
Whether is starts out as “from existing resources” or not, it will certainly not stop at that.
Medicaid (back in 1965) already established the principle that “if you can not pay the taxpayer will pay”, the increase of costs of Medicare and Medicaid (from five billion Dollars in 1965 to many HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of Dollars now) and the “knock on” effect of helping (along with all the other interventions) force up private medical costs, clearly show the effect of government intervention in this area. Now with things like the California plan even people who are in work (and are not that badly paid) will be able to demand taxpayer money for medical cover.
As I stated, the academics and the media will soon be beating the drum about the “working poor” and how they should have their medical cover paid for (they already are beating the drum about this). When people talk about the “poverty trap” effect of government welfare schemes (such as government provided health cover) they are quite correct – if one looses “means tested” benefits if one gets a higher income this is a disincentive to earning a higher income. However, the alternative to means tested benefits “universal” cover, has the down side of being wildly expensive and (in terms of medical care) not very good (would you trust your health to the same government that is in charge of U.S. Mail?)
“What about the British N.H.S.?” – fine, as long as you do not mind dying waiting for treatment (or not very good treatment if you happen not to have died off by the time it is your “turn”).
“But it will be different in the United States” – yes it will. In Britain people are still allowed to pay for medical treatment from private hospitals (although these hospitals are subject to a lot of costly and counter productive regulations), in the United States there are already a lot of government hospitals (for example in Louisiana), but this does NOT deter demands for more collectivism. What the media (and so on) want is for “the government” (i.e. the taxpayers) to pay for general medical treatment and for this treatment to be of the highest quality and to be delivered as soon as required – this is (of course) utterly impossible.
However, if President Bush keeps make concessions he will simply feed the illusion that such things are possible. The President should FIGHT BACK – he has (for example) a weekly radio broadcast, ever thought of using such opportunities to explain to people why they can not have a world where there are seas of lemonaid, friendly “antilions” and “antitigers” eager to perform the household chores, and pigs running up chanting “eat me”, “eat me” (and all the other things the media and academia think are perfectly possible if only the government had some “compassion”).
More Federal money will not deter these people – it will be taken (quite correctly) as a sign of weakness and will strengthen the demands.
In Massachusetts from July it will be a criminal offence (punishable by a one thousand Dollar fine) not to have medical cover – “if people are forced to have it, the community should pay” will be the cry. And politically connected business enterprises (who already face special taxes if they do not pay for medical cover) will join in the demands for “the community” (i.e. someone else) to pay the bill.
As for President Bush himself – I judge him by what he does.
For example, there is no need to “lift the cap” on social security (pay roll tax) payments so that “the rich pay more”. Even if such a bill passed the Senate (unlikely of the Republicans were well led) he could veto it.
If President Bush does not veto the bill (in fear of being seen as a “defender of the rich”) then he is unfit to be President – not “my opinion” simply an objective fact.
On some of the points other people have made:
Yes indeed the “20% cut” is arbitrary.
It may be that someone comes up with a cheaper war to run a car than using gasoline (a good way of promoting new ideas would be to abolish capital gains tax – which should be abolished anyway, for various reasons). But to say there will be X per cent cut in use of Y number of years shows a silly “plan” view of the world.
It reminds me of the part of the speech where President Bush explained the odd nature of “ear marks” – these spending projects do not appear in the bills that Congress debates and votes on, and are not there in the bills that President Bush signs – but they are “treated as having the force of law” anyway.
A logical way of responding to this would be to say “they should no longer have the force of law”, but President Bush said that earmarks should be cut by 50 per cent over X number of years.
Why “fifty per cent” – why not fifty one or forty nine? The whole way of thinking is absurd.
On C02 emissions generally. Of course having people burn corn (or whatever) instead of oil does not reduce C02 emissions. Electric cars or hydrogen power would do this – but the electricity (either for the electric cars or to “crack” sea water for the hydrogen) still needs to be generated. Taking the regulations (which do NOT “improve safty”) from nuclear power stations would help do this.
Of course there may be other ways – hence the need to get rid of such things as capital gains tax (in order to stop taxing investiment and inovation in this and other fields).
“But the Democrats will not go along with this” – of course not, so tell the people what the consequences of the collectivism of the Democrats and their media and academia allies are. Fox news and other outlets exist use them to reach the people. The President is being interviewed on Fox on Wednesday (4p.m. Eastern, 9 p.m. G.M.T.). Will he go on the attack (for example say he will veto any effort to get rid of the cap on Social Security “contributions”) or will there be another vague “let us work together” display?
If only someone like the present Governor of Texas (Rick Perry) was President. Or the “moderate, middle of the road” President Ford. Gerald Ford vetoed more spending in the average week than President Bush has vetoed in six years. “Give the man a chance, do not be biased against him – he is in a very difficult position………” The Democrats dominated both houses of Congress in the mid 1970’s and there was no Fox news back then (and no internet either). President Ford’s position was rather more “difficult” (remember also the Nixon parden and the defeat in Indo China).
A bad workman blames his tools. For President Bush’s defenders to blame his “position” for his failings is the same game. He should either FIGHT BACK (which he could well do) or resign – either way he would stop messing about. I will watch the interview on Wednesday to see if there
Education.
School boards have been in the process of “consolidation” for a century of so.
There should to be many tens of thousands. Typically every few thousand people would have a directly elected board.
Now school boards may cover hundreds of thousands or millions of people. Also the share of government edcuation spending paid for or controlled by State governments (rather than local boards) has grown and grown. And Federal spending and control of education has also grown (especially since the creation of the Department of Education by President Carter [the N.E.A. union supported him in 1976 in return for a promise to create this department – the first time the “National Education Association” dropped the pretense that it was an unbiased “professional association”] – although the old H.E.W. department stuck its nose into education as well).
Of course libertarians do not support government funding or control of schools at any level (Federal, State or local) but “voting with your feet” (to use Lenin’s words against him) is a lot less difficult when getting away from one authority is only a short walk (rather than a matter of leaving the country).
Certainly blaiming the problems with American government education on local control is incorrect -as (as I have already pointed out) this control has been in decline for a century.