The death of moderation is one of the most unfortunate facets of our current political scene.
Readers ought to check out the Third Way website. It would have to characterized as a center-left think tank, which ought to give those in the center-right some hope for sane resolution of some of our key issues if the Republicans cease to be a viable alternative to the Democrats.
There are some — not many, but some — signs that at least a significant minority of Democrats in Congress are open to stances that run counter to the hard left that governs the party. The most prominent recent example, of course, is the defection of 39 House Democrats from lockstep support for Obamacare.
Now it is true that the alternative they voted for, a measure introduced by GOP Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan to remedy recent health insurance cancellations, was fatally flawed. But in a rational world, the openness of these 39 lawmakers could lead to common-sense changes in the law that would actually benefit people.
Here are some excerpts of thinking featured on the Third Way site, written by Jim Kessler and Jim Cowan:
“If you talk to leading progressives these days, you’ll be sure to hear this message: The Democratic Party should embrace the economic populism of New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Such economic populism, they argue, should be the guiding star for Democrats heading into 2016. Nothing would be more disastrous for Democrats.
“While New Yorkers think of their city as the center of the universe, the last time its mayor won a race for governor or senator—let alone president—was 1869. For the past 144 years, what has happened in the Big Apple stayed in the Big Apple. Some liberals believe Sen. Warren would be the Democratic Party’s strongest presidential candidate in 2016. But what works in midnight-blue Massachusetts—a state that has had a Republican senator for a total of 152 weeks since 1979—hasn’t sold on a national level since 1960.
“The political problems of liberal populism are bad enough. Worse are the actual policies proposed by left-wing populists. The movement relies on a potent “we can have it all” fantasy that goes something like this: If we force the wealthy to pay higher taxes (there are 300,000 tax filers who earn more than $1 million), close a few corporate tax loopholes, and break up some big banks then—presto!—we can pay for, and even expand, existing entitlements. Meanwhile, we can invest more deeply in K-12 education, infrastructure, health research, clean energy and more.
“Social Security is exhibit A of this populist political and economic fantasy.”
This is great stuff. You owe it to yourself to check it out. It’s nice to know that there is more out there than Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in response to extreme left-wing Democrats.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Sell artwork to pay creditors
Something seems out of perspective as we consider selling a very small portion of the artwork in the Detroit Institute of Arts to raise money to pay off some of Detroit’s bankruptcy victims.
The choice is simple: Cut someone’s promised pension benefits or sell city-owned artwork.
Why aren’t we instead asking why any city should have been in the art business to begin with?
Politicians can grandstand all they want to about what a shame it would be to transfer prized pieces of art from the public domain to someone’s private collection. But if that’s the sentiment, perhaps the museum can take up a collection from those people who want to keep these prized pieces in the DIA to buy the treasurers from the city.
And for the record, the art we are talking about — the city-owned pieces — constitute only 5 percent of DIA’s collection. To be exact, the city owns 2,781 of the museum’s entire collection of 66,000 works. The city owned portion could raise between $452 million and $866 million, according to Christie’s auction house.
If all of this means Oakland and Macomb counties withdraw their support from the museum as a result, so be it.
People need to understand the nature of a bankruptcy, since municipal bankruptcy is a new concept to all Michiganians. The people, in the form of the city government, made more commitments than they were able to honor. Therefore, grownups have come along to manage the City of Detroit and force it to sell off some of assets so it can pay off its hapless creditors.
Generally in a bankruptcy, the creditors get much less than they are owed, sometimes only pennies on the dollar. It is up to the bankruptcy judge to determine how much.
If you say the artwork should not be sold — and bear in mind DIA could buy it if the DIA or its patrons could afford it — you are basically saying that there should be $452 million to $866 million less given to creditors — like pensioners on fixed incomes — whose only crime was to place their faith in the city of Detroit and its taxpayers.
This is not rocket science folks. There is a downside when you don’t pay your bills.
The choice is simple: Cut someone’s promised pension benefits or sell city-owned artwork.
Why aren’t we instead asking why any city should have been in the art business to begin with?
Politicians can grandstand all they want to about what a shame it would be to transfer prized pieces of art from the public domain to someone’s private collection. But if that’s the sentiment, perhaps the museum can take up a collection from those people who want to keep these prized pieces in the DIA to buy the treasurers from the city.
And for the record, the art we are talking about — the city-owned pieces — constitute only 5 percent of DIA’s collection. To be exact, the city owns 2,781 of the museum’s entire collection of 66,000 works. The city owned portion could raise between $452 million and $866 million, according to Christie’s auction house.
If all of this means Oakland and Macomb counties withdraw their support from the museum as a result, so be it.
People need to understand the nature of a bankruptcy, since municipal bankruptcy is a new concept to all Michiganians. The people, in the form of the city government, made more commitments than they were able to honor. Therefore, grownups have come along to manage the City of Detroit and force it to sell off some of assets so it can pay off its hapless creditors.
Generally in a bankruptcy, the creditors get much less than they are owed, sometimes only pennies on the dollar. It is up to the bankruptcy judge to determine how much.
If you say the artwork should not be sold — and bear in mind DIA could buy it if the DIA or its patrons could afford it — you are basically saying that there should be $452 million to $866 million less given to creditors — like pensioners on fixed incomes — whose only crime was to place their faith in the city of Detroit and its taxpayers.
This is not rocket science folks. There is a downside when you don’t pay your bills.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Second-guessing Walmart executives
“Here's How Walmart Could Pay Workers a Decent Wage Without Raising Prices”
Now this had to be a good one, right?
Turns out the suggestion, carried on Mother Jones, was simple: Instead of buying back some of their stock as planned, Walmart executives instead ought to invest the money in raising employees’ wages.
Gee, why didn’t they think of that?
Now, there can be many reasons why Walmart is buying back its own stock. Perhaps they feel they are the target of an unfriendly acquisition attempt and want to drive up the price of the stock to prevent it.
Now consider the alternative. Walmart executives decline to buy back their own stock, thereby allowing the price of the stock to fall. A prospective new owner swoops in, buyds or merges with Walmart, and increases prices on merchandise.
Or perhaps the new stockholders demand that executives seek savings by laying off employees. Then the employees not only don;t have higher wages, they don;t have jobs either.
There could be myriad reasons Walmart executives are buying back their own stock. The point is, we simply don’t know.
Unless you are in their shoes you simply don;t know what Walmart executives are thinking.
Those who think they do are parading their economic illiteracy.
It would be better for all of us if they would find a copy of Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” and read it.
Now this had to be a good one, right?
Turns out the suggestion, carried on Mother Jones, was simple: Instead of buying back some of their stock as planned, Walmart executives instead ought to invest the money in raising employees’ wages.
Gee, why didn’t they think of that?
Now, there can be many reasons why Walmart is buying back its own stock. Perhaps they feel they are the target of an unfriendly acquisition attempt and want to drive up the price of the stock to prevent it.
Now consider the alternative. Walmart executives decline to buy back their own stock, thereby allowing the price of the stock to fall. A prospective new owner swoops in, buyds or merges with Walmart, and increases prices on merchandise.
Or perhaps the new stockholders demand that executives seek savings by laying off employees. Then the employees not only don;t have higher wages, they don;t have jobs either.
There could be myriad reasons Walmart executives are buying back their own stock. The point is, we simply don’t know.
Unless you are in their shoes you simply don;t know what Walmart executives are thinking.
Those who think they do are parading their economic illiteracy.
It would be better for all of us if they would find a copy of Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” and read it.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Cheney gay marriage dispute unfortunate
Mary Cheney says her sister, Liz, is wrong on the issue of gay marriage.
Liz Cheney said on Fox News Sunday that she believes in the traditional definition of marriage involving a man and a woman. Mary Cheney is involved in a gay marriage.
The disagreement between the two became public when Mary Cheney responded to and criticized her sister’s stance in a Facebook post.
That a family spat is public is sad enough. That this should come up in a Senate race between incumbent Mike Enzi and Liz Cheney is the saddest part of all, however.
Enzi has chosen to grandstand on the issue by supporting a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This despite the fact that any dispute over gay marriage is clearly under the purview of the individual states in the nation. Enzi knows a constitutional amendment will never happen and ought to be honest enough to say so.
When asked about the issue herself, Liz Cheney could have taken the high road — and a solid conservative stance — by making it clear that the issue had no place in a U.S. Senate race since it is a question of states’ rights, and not within the prerogative of the federal government. Her personal views are of no relevance. Her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, has taken the states’ rights position on the issue since 2009.
When our country has such serious economic issues on its plate, the real shame is that Enzi is trying to portray Liz Cheney as soft on gay marriage — a question that has no pertinence in a Senate race. Both Republican candidates are in a position to teach the folks of Wyoming the difference between state and federal prerogatives and that isn’t happening.
Liz Cheney said on Fox News Sunday that she believes in the traditional definition of marriage involving a man and a woman. Mary Cheney is involved in a gay marriage.
The disagreement between the two became public when Mary Cheney responded to and criticized her sister’s stance in a Facebook post.
That a family spat is public is sad enough. That this should come up in a Senate race between incumbent Mike Enzi and Liz Cheney is the saddest part of all, however.
Enzi has chosen to grandstand on the issue by supporting a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This despite the fact that any dispute over gay marriage is clearly under the purview of the individual states in the nation. Enzi knows a constitutional amendment will never happen and ought to be honest enough to say so.
When asked about the issue herself, Liz Cheney could have taken the high road — and a solid conservative stance — by making it clear that the issue had no place in a U.S. Senate race since it is a question of states’ rights, and not within the prerogative of the federal government. Her personal views are of no relevance. Her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, has taken the states’ rights position on the issue since 2009.
When our country has such serious economic issues on its plate, the real shame is that Enzi is trying to portray Liz Cheney as soft on gay marriage — a question that has no pertinence in a Senate race. Both Republican candidates are in a position to teach the folks of Wyoming the difference between state and federal prerogatives and that isn’t happening.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Few hardships among insurance cancellations
From what has been reported, you would think that 5 million Americans were risking bankruptcy due to the cancellations of their health insurance policies.
The actual truth is in a far different place.
First, these are not people who are part of employee groups, most of whom will not see major coverage changes. Instead, it is a small slice of the population — those who purchase health insurance individually — that has many valid alternatives.
The individual market covers 5.7 percent of the non-elderly population. The overwhelming majority of those people will obtain more affordable coverage under the health care law because they will be income-eligible for financial assistance to help pay for comprehensive insurance at a lower cost, according to a new report from Families USA.
“Individuals with household incomes that do not exceed four times the federal poverty level — $94,200 for a family of four in 2013 — are income-eligible for either premium tax credit subsidies to buy coverage in the new health insurance marketplaces or Medicaid, which charges no premiums for most enrollees,” the report states.
Conversely, the number of people at risk of not keeping their current individual health insurance and who also will not be income-eligible for financial help to purchase new coverage under the Affordable Care Act is just 0.6 percent of the non-elderly population, the report states.
And these are hardly hardship cases. For one thing, their income exceeds $94,200, meaning they are not destitute.
And “according to peer-reviewed research, the average duration of individual-market coverage before the Affordable Care Act was very short. Its median duration was eight months, with individual plans often bridging periods of job-based coverage,” according to the report.
Also, “altogether, 64.5 percent of consumers with individual market insurance kept that insurance for a year or less — a result not affected by income.”
Many of the 0.6 percent of Americans who have incomes too high for financial help and, without the ACA, would have kept their individual insurance for more than a year would prefer new coverage options, even without subsidies, the report states.
“A recent survey found that 45 percent of people with individual coverage described their insurance as ‘fair’ or ‘poor,’ compared to 18 percent or less for every other form of coverage, including Medicaid,” the report states.
Once again, the truth about Obamacare rests somewhere between the extremes of the heated debate between Republicans and Democrats.
The actual truth is in a far different place.
First, these are not people who are part of employee groups, most of whom will not see major coverage changes. Instead, it is a small slice of the population — those who purchase health insurance individually — that has many valid alternatives.
The individual market covers 5.7 percent of the non-elderly population. The overwhelming majority of those people will obtain more affordable coverage under the health care law because they will be income-eligible for financial assistance to help pay for comprehensive insurance at a lower cost, according to a new report from Families USA.
“Individuals with household incomes that do not exceed four times the federal poverty level — $94,200 for a family of four in 2013 — are income-eligible for either premium tax credit subsidies to buy coverage in the new health insurance marketplaces or Medicaid, which charges no premiums for most enrollees,” the report states.
Conversely, the number of people at risk of not keeping their current individual health insurance and who also will not be income-eligible for financial help to purchase new coverage under the Affordable Care Act is just 0.6 percent of the non-elderly population, the report states.
And these are hardly hardship cases. For one thing, their income exceeds $94,200, meaning they are not destitute.
And “according to peer-reviewed research, the average duration of individual-market coverage before the Affordable Care Act was very short. Its median duration was eight months, with individual plans often bridging periods of job-based coverage,” according to the report.
Also, “altogether, 64.5 percent of consumers with individual market insurance kept that insurance for a year or less — a result not affected by income.”
Many of the 0.6 percent of Americans who have incomes too high for financial help and, without the ACA, would have kept their individual insurance for more than a year would prefer new coverage options, even without subsidies, the report states.
“A recent survey found that 45 percent of people with individual coverage described their insurance as ‘fair’ or ‘poor,’ compared to 18 percent or less for every other form of coverage, including Medicaid,” the report states.
Once again, the truth about Obamacare rests somewhere between the extremes of the heated debate between Republicans and Democrats.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
The purpose of insurance
The current debate over “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” has revealed a shocking ignorance of the purpose of insurance.
We buy insurance for our automobiles because it is basically required by law. But there’s a bigger reason: It protects us.
Furthermore, in purchasing car insurance — or any other kind of insurance, for that matter — we hope we never have to use it.
You may go years paying $2,400 annually to insure two vehicles and never make a claim. But you are willing to do so because it is there if you need it. Others are also paying for similar policies so that in case you do have a problem, there is enough money to pay your bills.
You see, this is how insurance works. You create a pool of money large enough to handle anyone’s claims, of which there may be a wide variety. This is why it is necessary for everyone to have insurance, to create a large enough accumulation of money so that all contingencies can be handled. The higher the participation, the lower the cost for everyone.
That’s why it is so difficult to understand why people don’t comprehend this in the medical realm. No one wants to get sick. But if you do, medical expenses are prohibitively high. No one can afford cancer treatment. Pediatric care can be very expensive. Pregnancies also cost a lot of money.
So why is it that people who are 58 can’t understand why they need coverage for everything. Yes, perhaps their child-bearing years are a thing of the past but it is a very real expense for younger people — perhaps even the 58-year-old’s daughter and son in-law. Similarly, why should young people have to be insured against diseases normally associated with old age?
Get the point? Everyone participates in order to share a burden when it happens.
It’s just like public schools or roads or military defense. Everyone pays equally — or should pay equally — so everyone can benefit.
We buy insurance for our automobiles because it is basically required by law. But there’s a bigger reason: It protects us.
Furthermore, in purchasing car insurance — or any other kind of insurance, for that matter — we hope we never have to use it.
You may go years paying $2,400 annually to insure two vehicles and never make a claim. But you are willing to do so because it is there if you need it. Others are also paying for similar policies so that in case you do have a problem, there is enough money to pay your bills.
You see, this is how insurance works. You create a pool of money large enough to handle anyone’s claims, of which there may be a wide variety. This is why it is necessary for everyone to have insurance, to create a large enough accumulation of money so that all contingencies can be handled. The higher the participation, the lower the cost for everyone.
That’s why it is so difficult to understand why people don’t comprehend this in the medical realm. No one wants to get sick. But if you do, medical expenses are prohibitively high. No one can afford cancer treatment. Pediatric care can be very expensive. Pregnancies also cost a lot of money.
So why is it that people who are 58 can’t understand why they need coverage for everything. Yes, perhaps their child-bearing years are a thing of the past but it is a very real expense for younger people — perhaps even the 58-year-old’s daughter and son in-law. Similarly, why should young people have to be insured against diseases normally associated with old age?
Get the point? Everyone participates in order to share a burden when it happens.
It’s just like public schools or roads or military defense. Everyone pays equally — or should pay equally — so everyone can benefit.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
What Bill Clinton said
Well of course we’d like people to keep their insurance and their doctors if they want to. Now how can we make this happen?
U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., says his legislation will do so. It will do nothing of the sort.
You see, in America we have free enterprise. Government cannot make a company sell something it doesn’t want to sell.
Yes, President Obama went overboard when he made that promise. And yes, former President Clinton is correct in saying the government should keep its promise, even if it takes changing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
But here is the only way that could happen: the government would have to provide the insurance.
Congress could, if it wanted to, enact a law very narrowly targeted at the 1 percent of the population that has been hit with a health insurance policy cancellation due to Obamacare. It could make up the difference, from our tax dollars, between what they were paying under their old policy and what a new policy meeting the requirements of Obamacare would cost.
Do you honestly believe Republicans will vote for such a law? No, they’d rather skewer the president and raise funds for their congressional re-election campaigns than solve the problem.
People really need to try to understand that the law was adopted to provide insurance to people who have no insurance. Yes, a few people are going to have to pay more, but the truth is, they can probably afford it.
See for yourself. Listen carefully to what Deborah Persico is saying in this video. She says she is going to have to pay $5,000 more per year for insurance. Is hers a hardship case? Do you think the government should make up the $5,000 difference?
U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., says his legislation will do so. It will do nothing of the sort.
You see, in America we have free enterprise. Government cannot make a company sell something it doesn’t want to sell.
Yes, President Obama went overboard when he made that promise. And yes, former President Clinton is correct in saying the government should keep its promise, even if it takes changing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
But here is the only way that could happen: the government would have to provide the insurance.
Congress could, if it wanted to, enact a law very narrowly targeted at the 1 percent of the population that has been hit with a health insurance policy cancellation due to Obamacare. It could make up the difference, from our tax dollars, between what they were paying under their old policy and what a new policy meeting the requirements of Obamacare would cost.
Do you honestly believe Republicans will vote for such a law? No, they’d rather skewer the president and raise funds for their congressional re-election campaigns than solve the problem.
People really need to try to understand that the law was adopted to provide insurance to people who have no insurance. Yes, a few people are going to have to pay more, but the truth is, they can probably afford it.
See for yourself. Listen carefully to what Deborah Persico is saying in this video. She says she is going to have to pay $5,000 more per year for insurance. Is hers a hardship case? Do you think the government should make up the $5,000 difference?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)