Recently in Public Policy Category

Brilliant article by a smart man. Thanks, Herbert London. He's president of the Hudson Institute, where people work who are too smart for the Cato Institute. I hope you all recognize the reference to Freidrich Hayek's best-selling book. (The Russell Roberts' rap video is awesome on the contest between Hayek and Keynes.)

The road to serfdom is paved with rights and benefits. People want more of whatever for which someone else will pay. The casualty in this assessment is personal responsibility and liberty.

My goodness, listening this morning (approx. one third of the way through the 41-minute podcast) to the invaluable BBC NewsPod, I came across recent debate of this story of the proposed implementation of teaching clinical sex ed to all students, regardless whether the school is private or religious.

Scary stuff. When people consider health more important than freedom, this is what happen. Gesundheit uber alles.

I, however, did enjoy listening to the British pronunciation of condom.

Makes me greatly appreciate the First Amendment we have in this country.

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.

He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.

On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)

As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.

I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.

And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.

After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)

I. GOT. BORED.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........

UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

It has become quite apparent that our so-called representatives in both chambers of Congress have ceased to represent us and instead have gone off in a radical direction that will, in the end, cripple America with crushing debt, destroy an imperfect but working health care system that rivals that of any place else on the planet, erode even more of our rights, and create economic roadblocks that will do nothing but further weaken our ability to compete in the world's marketplace. It is the nightmare of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged come to life. With all of this in mind, is it any surprise a large majority of Americans are so angry with Congress and their Leftist Overlord?

We're trying in every way legally and officially possible to make clear that we don't want the radical meal we're being forced to eat. We fervently do not want to "fundamentally transform" America. But there is such a huge disconnect from our world to our representatives'. It's as if we are ghosts whom they can't see or hear! When someone refuses to listen, going so far as to ignore you, don't you shout louder? Doesn't it anger you? When you're attacked and belittled because you have to shout to be heard and you're still ignored, doesn't that infuriate you? These people miss that we passionately don't want what they want. The more they refuse to hear us, the more we try to make them. We are not going away.

We're justly and increasingly angry because our reps not only refuse to hear us, but they also chastise us for wanting to be heard. How else would they expect us to react when we feel so helpless and hopeless? No matter what we want, say, or do, our government is going to force us to eat a meal we never ordered. In addition, we keep saying, "no, we don't want this," but they keep putting affirmations in our mouths and proceeding with their radical agenda anyway. We are not enjoying the governmental rape of our country. We said "no," and "no" means "no" in every language. Why doesn't this matter? Every poll reflects the president's rapidly declining approval rating -- for good reason. And still, Robert Gibbs flippantly dismisses it. How are "we the people" supposed to feel? Certainly we do not feel happy, or even just mildly upset, about being disregarded. Far-left ideologues who supposedly espouse "compassionate" causes have no compassion for how we feel, nor do they have a clue that we are an angry mob of their own creation.

I certainly feel angry, particularly with my Congressional Representative, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH1), who has shown a penchant for dismissing any of her 'constituents' who do not ascribe to her particular political beliefs. On more than one occasion she is alleged to have referred to those of us non-Democrats living in her Congressional District as not being her constituents. That's funny as I thought everyone living in her district was her constituent, whether we agreed with her politics or not. So much for being our representative. Instead she represents only her own points of view and the hell with the rest of us. (I have a feeling Ms. Shea-Porter will have a very rude awakening come next November when she's booted, bag and baggage, from her seat.)

Obama's falling poll numbers certainly indicate a lot of our anger, particularly when his approval rating after a little over 11 months in office is worse than George W. Bush's after eight years.

Yet there's another twist that might make we angry Americans even angrier: Pelosi and Reid's move to short-circuit the normal conference process, where differences between House and Senate versions of a given bill are hammered out. Instead, reconciling the differences between the two health care reform bills will likely be done behind closed doors, out of the public eye, with little input from members of either house. In other words, the fix will be in.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. "We have to defer to the bigger picture," explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children's health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate's version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been "cut off at the knees" but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way -- without appointing an actual conference.

Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were "ping-ponged" -- i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. "We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue," said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.

But serious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a "ping-pong" game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.

Is there any wonder why things like the TEA party movement have been growing? Is there any wonder why confrontations between members of Congress and the public have been becoming more heated and less polite? Why are the Democrats so surprised when far too many of them have been ignoring their constituents back home, ignoring their wishes, ignoring their phone calls, letters, and e-mails, and following the lead of Pelosi and Reid, neither of whom has the best interests of the American people at heart. Instead they have their own Leftist Utopia-driven agenda that has nothing to do with what the American people want or need.

And the anger grows.....

Do you want to see the future of the US under the policies Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are trying to impose upon us? Then check out this video, courtesy of PJTV.

After 50 years of leftist policies and politics, Detroit has gone from the peak to the valley, having shrunk in population by 50%. Is that's what in store for us under leftist leadership for the rest of the country?

It's good to know that it's not only white people who are the cancer of the planet, as Susan Sontag is infamously remembered for having sputtered. We're all at fault if we breath out that poisonous gas carbon dioxide that's a "threat" to the public safety.

Silly me for thinking that that gas was good for plants in their production of oxygen and sugars. That's at least what my grandfather, a Ph.D. in biology, constantly taught me when we went down to visit him in Naples, Florida. Photosynthesis, no?

Obviously I should be sent to a re-education camp for siring more than two or three children. (I have four.) All that poisonous carbon dioxide!

Wait. I'm a gun-toting, Bible reading, weekly church attending, conservative. I think there are moral absolutes, truth, and Haydn is better than Lady Ga Ga. They won't even bother wasting time on me. I'm hopelessly reactionary.

I think not; it's about time. Now when will John Brendan McCormick, the bishop of the Diocese of Manchester, do the same to ultra abortion rights Catholic Protestant Jeanne Shaheen?

Maybe a stronger moral stand like Bishop Tobin's will cause confused and imprudent Catholics to lean more heavily to Republicans in states where they have large numbers. Notwithstanding this, however, some have swung to the Democratic side. I'm thinking of Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Massachusetts is a lost cause.

HT: Lucianne. Some of the comments, which will only be available for several days, are very interesting. Here's one that I particularly like:

Reply 33 - Posted by: muggy, 11/22/2009 8:26:29 AM    
I love this from the AP:

"The decision by the outspoken prelate..."

I guess it's "outspoken" these days for any institution to stick to its values and mores.

While I'm at it, I might as well add insult to injury in regards to the the recently passed Pelosi Health Care Destruction bill.

While she has crowed her success into forcing the passage of an onerous and deceptive bill the American people don't want, at least one liberal has the courage to state exactly what Pelosi's health care reform legislation is really all about: making the American people more dependent on the US Government against their will...and not for their own good.

[John] Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

"Making the United States a more equitable country?" Who decides what is 'equitable'? And is equality as Obama and his minions define it really a good thing?

The answer to this last question is 'no', for Obama's equality has nothing to do with equality of opportunity and everything to do with outcome. We've seen such equality many times, both in the past and present, and it's nothing anyone should aspire to because all it really means is equality of misery.

Everyone will be equal...except of course the ruling elite. Nothing will be denied to them because, after all, they are more equal than the rest of us.

In making health care reform a misplaced priority, he and Pelosi and Reid have shown us what it is they really want to do is to make sure we are all good little proles on the hook to the 'benevolent' dictatorship that is The State. They have come to believe they know what's good for the masses better than we do, therefore they must control every aspect of our lives. Such is their arrogance. But like all statists their beliefs have one major flaw: they are no better at running our lives than they are their own. In fact, they are totally incapable of making our lives better by the means they have been pushing for all these decades. [/rant]

As more than one commenter to the Cassidy piece noted, the last thing we want to do is to be like everyone else.

We are the EXCEPTION. Who cares if the rest of the world has universal health care? The United States of America has been the exception since it was first created. What is sad is that we have idiots in our government who do not believe in American exceptionalism and think that we need to be just like the rest of the world. Did the founding fathers believe that we needed to be like Europe when we declared independence? NOOOOOOO!!! Why should we become like them now?

Look, we don't want a government run system that will give us mediocre care and only give the best care to the rich, famous, and the Washington elites. We want to be able to have choice. The healthcare legislation that the Democrats are trying to pass will not give us choice. It is designed to make private insurance obsolete and eventually put everyone on a government run system.

We already know how well such a system will run. Examples abound, both here and in other countries, showing us that they work well...if you aren't sick or hurt. Otherwise all bets are off. Do we really want a system like that?

Here's yet another story about how great ObamaCare/PelosiCare will be for the average American:


Some may say that this example and the one I posted yesterday are atypical of what occurs under Canada's socialized medical care system. But I know far too many friends north of the border that tell me it is all too typical. I've heard the same thing from friends in the UK about the NHS as well.

(H/T Instapundit)

How's that $787 billion stimulus workin' for ya? For three New England states it's not helping all that much.

So far the stimulus has saved or created 20 jobs in Connecticut, 28 jobs in Vermont, and 22 jobs in New Hampshire. As Jim Hoft put it "Obama would have done better if he would have opened a McDonalds in each state."

The most I've seen of the billions in stimulus spending so far are the signs along a couple of highways touting that certain projects have been paid for via the ARRA stimulus bill.

At least the sign makers are making a buck from all this stimulus money.

This is yet another great post from Nathan, in this case covering a subject near and dear to my heart - the Land of Fruits and Nuts.

********************

Upon reading this, my emotions are mixed.

Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

At first, what I felt was disgust: yet another way for (soon to be) Uncle "Big Brother" Sam to control me, an American citizen, and force me to do/have/buy what he wishes. However, a second later I had a brilliant thought. Perhaps this really was for the good of the people. After all, California is in the midst of just about every crises known to the modern US state, so much so, that it has been referred to as a possible "failed state". Clearly, "desperate times call for desperate measures", right? The old adage must have some meaning to be passed down through all those parental lectures. But then, I came across this in the article:

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

What? What is this? Let consumers decide with their wallets? What revolutionary concept is this? But of course, instead of banning a product, why not just tax the product? No one will argue that these large televisions are "better" (in terms of power consumption) than these smaller, more energy efficient ones. However, if an individual works a hard, honest days' work and wishes to use the proverbial fruits of his labor to watch the Pats take the Super Bowl in 55" of HD glory, by all means, I say we let him. Does this mean I am advocating a tax on these "power guzzlers"? In all honesty, no. I think the only "tax" this man should pay for his "power guzzling television" should be to his electric company. In any case, far be it from me to question the all-knowing lawmaker. Clearly, this idea of consumers deciding with their wallets must not be happening, right? They must be spending every last penny they have to make sure they get the least energy efficient model possible, right? That's why we need Uncle "Big Brother" Sam to step in and save the environment and the stupid citizens from themselves. Oh, wait...

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy.

Oh? Odd. Does this mean that the "stupid consumer" may not be so stupid after all? Could we, as citizens, possibly be capable of making an environmentally friendly choice completely on our own?! Clearly, this is an age of miracles. Again, I believe represents another piece of "Trojan Horse" legislation delivered by our government management team. Sure, saving the environment is a good thing. Whether or not one believes that global warming exists is irrelevant here. This is just about being good stewards and taking care of what we have. Even those that do not believe in global warming cannot argue that it is good to save energy when we can, to invest in cleaner, more efficient technologies. The consumers have shown that they do, in fact, care about their environments, and have already shown that they are capable of making an "eco-friendly" choice without any government intervention. Why, then, do they insist on making more and more laws to govern what clearly is not in any need of governing? Again, from the article:

Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he (Doug Johnson) warned.

Another novel concept brought to us today. Of course too much government involvement can hamstring an industry, and for those who "don't know", once you come out of your rock, I invite you to go to that glowing thing with a keyboard and type in "General Motors". Read for about five minutes, and I'm sure you and I will be on the same page. This isn't about helping the environment, or even "solving the energy crisis". This is about power, plain and simple. There is no other reason for legislature to be passed on this issue. The populous is already moving in the direction that has been deemed "good". It would be one thing if these were causing widespread black/brown outs, etc. But they are not. Simply put, Uncle Big Brother Sam wishes to take one more freedom away from the citizen. As previously mentioned, I firmly believe that if you work an honest day's work, you should by all means be able to take your check and buy that 55" inch behemoth. As to Uncle Big Brother Sam, I'd offer you this bit of advice: Focus your powers on the ones that are spending other people's money, not the ones that are spending their own. (I know, one's own money. Such a concept). In closing, I believe I could sum up my view on this entire article with this one good old fashioned New England quip:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

---TNJ

One of my co-workers alerted me to this, and reading it (and later listening to it), the ignorance and avarice displayed here does not surprise me. Via Rush Limbaugh (No, I'm not one of his listeners. As I said, a co-worker sent this to me. Really ! She did!):

Cobo Hall, Detroit. Listen to this. Now, we had audio out of there yesterday. We're going to repeat that.  We got new audio today from Ken Rogulski of our affiliate there, WJR. Detroit Free Press: "'Cobo a Scene of Desperation' -- Social service agencies are bracing for more troubles. The economic tsunami washing over metro Detroit swept its casualties to the doors of Cobo Center on Wednesday in the form of 35,000 people so desperate for help with mortgage and utility bills that threats were made, fights broke out and people were nearly trampled." This is Obama's America.

--snip--

[H]ere's a portion of Ken Rogulski reporting on WJR in Michigan, two people here in line for Obama cash.

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where's it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from, but he givin' it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!

His stash? Really? Does she really thing this money is coming from Obama's own bank account? While some truly needed the aid, far too many were there to get "free government money". Never mind that they weren't entitled to it.

Read on for more incredulity.

ROGULSKI: Did you get an application to fill out yet?

WOMAN: I sure did. And I filled it out, and I am waiting to see what the results are going to be.

ROGULSKI: Will you know today how much money you're getting?

WOMAN: No, I won't, but I'm waiting for a phone call.

ROGULSKI: Where's the money coming from?

WOMAN: I believe it's coming from the City of Detroit or the state.

ROGULSKI: Where did they get it from?

WOMAN: Some funds that was forgiven (sic) by Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get the funds?

WOMAN: Obama getting the funds from... Ummm, I have no idea, to tell you the truth. He's the president.

She wants the money, but she doesn't know where it's coming from. For her and those like her it just magically appears. They don't realize the money they want comes from the pockets of their fellow citizens, or worse, was borrowed from the Chinese. And they probably don't care.

But because the Obamessiah is providing for them, they don't care. They don't care that the money must be taken away from someone else to be given to them. Money earned by others will be used to 'help' them, in turn helping Obama stay in office because these same people will vote for him come the next election. It doesn't really matter that his 'gift' is really a trap, one that will keep far too many of these people beholden to him and the government for the rest of their lives.

I hope they enjoy their re-enslavement.

One of the long standing arguments against the use of nuclear power has about what to do about the spent fuel, also called nuclear waste. For many years those against nuclear power have made the claim that the large amounts of waste were dangerous and there was no place safe to store it or sequester it for the time required to ensure it was safe. (Plutonium, one of the byproducts of fission, has a half-life of 25,000 years.) People argued the waste could be stolen by terrorists to make a nuclear weapon.

They were wrong.

The issue of nuclear waste is political, not technological.

First, we should look at exactly what is actually being argued about.

After fuel rods have spent a few years inside a nuclear reactor producing energy, they are removed from the reactor and placed in a cooling pool, held there until they have cooled to the point where they can be removed and placed into storage casks. 'Spent' fuel rods have used only a moderate percentage of the recoverable energy in the fissionable fraction of uranium that makes up the fuel. Each fuel rod assembly contains two different isotopes of uranium: U₂₃₅, the fissionable isotope, and U₂₃₈ which is not fissionable. The amount of U₂₃₅ versus U₂₃₈ is about 3% to 97%, meaning U₂₃₅ makes up only 3% of the uranium in the assembly. After being used in the power reactor that ratio has changed, with the fraction of U₂₃₅ being smaller, as is also the case of the U₂₃₈. But now there's also a fraction of Pu₂₃₉, or plutonium, as well as a few other radioisotopes.

At this point the spent fuel is supposed to be stored away someplace 'safe' for the next 25,000 years, something that really isn't practical. But that's what we're supposed to be doing with it. At this point it's considered waste. But is it really?

So is this material "waste"? Absolutely not. Ninety-five percent of a spent fuel rod is plain old U-238, the nonfissionable variety that exists in granite tabletops, stone buildings and the coal burned in coal plants to generate electricity. Uranium-238 is 1% of the earth's crust. It could be put right back in the ground where it came from.

Of the remaining 5% of a rod, one-fifth is fissionable U-235 -- which can be recycled as fuel. Another one-fifth is plutonium, also recyclable as fuel. Much of the remaining three-fifths has important uses as medical and industrial isotopes. Forty percent of all medical diagnostic procedures in this country now involve some form of radioactive isotope, and nuclear medicine is a $4 billion business. Unfortunately, we must import all our tracer material from Canada, because all of our isotopes have been headed for Yucca Mountain.

What remains after all this material has been extracted from spent fuel rods are some isotopes for which no important uses have yet been found, but which can be stored for future retrieval. France, which completely reprocesses its recyclable material, stores all the unused remains -- from 30 years of generating 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy -- beneath the floor of a single room at La Hague.

So why aren't we doing likewise?

Politics.

We have the means to reprocess fuel, which in the process would reduce the total volume of spent fuel tremendously. Instead we put it in storage casks and in cooling pools because of a decision made back in 1975 by President Gerald Ford to stop fuel reprocessing. His executive order was issued because of the fear terrorist would steal the spent fuel and make a bomb. Ford's successor made the order permanent, which is surprising considering President Carter had been a nuclear engineer in the US Navy.

If anyone has ever seen how fuel is stored and how it's transported, those fears would be greatly reduced. Moving that stuff isn't easy, isn't fast, and would be very difficult to steal (and not because of the security but because of the sheer size of the transport casks). If terrorists want nuclear weapons it's easier for them get it from a renegade regime or buy it on the arms market. It's not likely they'd be able to process the fuel themselves in their garage or basement and turn it into weapons grade material.

When all is said and done, the amount of energy it's possible to generate using nuclear power is incredible, Wen one takes into account the total energy cycle, meaning the amount of carbon dioxide created for the planning, construction, commissioning, operation, and eventual decommissioning and dismantling of a nuclear power plant versus alternative energy sources, meaning solar and wind, nuclear is far greener. Nuclear power is such a dense energy source, generating far more electricity than any wind farm or solar farm while taking up a small fraction of the space of either of those alternatives.

Continued in Part III - Nuclear power and green energy 'sprawl'.

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

"A generation which ignores history has no past - and no future." -Lazarus Long (aka Robert A. Heinlein)

We cannot say they haven't been warned. There's no way they can claim ignorance about the outcome of actions they've taken or are planning to take. When the "fit hits the shan" and the economy grinds to a halt because they've singlehandedly managed to kill trade, and with it millions of American jobs, we know they'll claim "But we didn't know this would happen!"

Anyone with even a fair to middling understanding about trade protectionism, and particularly about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act would know such protectionism in the name of saving American jobs usually has just the opposite effect. Sometimes only a few thousand people find their jobs disappearing, along with their customers. And other times, like just before the Great Depression, tens of millions find their jobs and customers have gone the way of the dodo.

The effects of "unintentional" trade protectionism built into the $787 billion stimulus package has already been felt, with some American manufacturers being locked out from being able to bid for local, state, or federal government contracts because they can't meet the "Buy American" provisions of the stimulus bill.

On paper, Tom Pokorsky would seem to be a clear beneficiary of the government's $787 billion economic-stimulus package.

Mr. Pokorsky runs Aquarius Technologies Inc., a company in Port Washington, Wis., that makes equipment to treat sewage. The stimulus plan earmarks some $6 billion for municipal wastewater projects that are right in his company's sweet spot.

But the bill's Buy American provisions -- meant to give U.S. companies a leg up on foreign competition -- are causing Aquarius and other U.S. companies a lot of grief with both suppliers and clients in Canada.

It hasn't helped that some Canadian business opportunities formerly open to American companies have now been closed because of "Buy Canadian" campaigns organized in retaliation.

Now that grief has boiled over into a major diplomatic row with the largest U.S. trading partner. Canadian communities angered by perceived American chauvinism have started a Buy Canadian campaign to exclude U.S. bidders from municipal contracts.

"If that sticks, well, there goes 25% of my business," said Mr. Pokorsky. "To me, Ontario may as well be Indiana."

Halton Hills, a town of 50,000 people about 25 miles west of Toronto, is one of about a dozen Canadian communities forging ahead with plans to amend their procurement policies to freeze out American companies. "We won't be taking any products from any country that is discriminating against us," said Mayor Rick Bonnette.

For those of you lacking any understanding of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and the resulting worldwide economic meltdown, the tariffs were created by the act in order to preserve American jobs after the stock market crash of 1929. It did this by restricting foreign goods by making them far more expensive, causing our trading partners to do likewise to American goods. This had the effect of destroying almost all trade among nations. The result was that American companies lost customers (some lost all of their customers), which in turn caused them to fail. Workers lost their jobs because no one was buying American goods. Unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, and the economy collapsed. What had been a moderately severe recession was turned into a worldwide depression.

Here's where the scary part comes in:

Obama is playing the same game Herbert Hoover did, but somehow he expects the results to be different...this time. How is it he believes that if he slaps tariffs or other barriers on foreign goods coming into the country that somehow the foreign nations affected by his actions won't retaliate in kind? As we've seen from the "Buy American" requirement in the stimulus bill, that blowback has already started, and that from a nation that is our closest neighbor and biggest trading partner.

It just shows President Obama is neither a student of history or of economics. And we already know where that will lead us.

While there is agreement amongst most parties that health care reform is something needed, it is the difference in approach that divides the nation (and more specifically, Congress).

Being the frugal Yankee that I am, I am all for making sure any reforms are sustainable, actually save money, and require no use of tax dollars to support. Is such a thing possible? I believe so, and I'm not the only one. Unfortunately far too many members of Congress and their 'supporters' believe the only answer is government control (and funding) of any and all reform. The only problem with that viewpoint is that it entirely overlooks the economics of such a system, to the peril of us all (and our wallets).

Peter Angerhofer in the September 6th Sunday Citizen (Laconia, NH) reminds us, again, that health care reform can't defy economics. (Sorry, no link available)

[I]f the current governmental health care reforms attempt to subvert basic economic laws, they are, at best, bound for failure; at worst, they could destroy the quality of care that most Americans enjoy.

While the problems of rising costs should be obvious for all to see, the president and his allies have proposed solutions that ignore the fundamental economic laws of supply and demand. I f we are to provide better access to health care, we need to recognize these basic laws and reduce prices by either reducing demand, increasing supply, or both.

The President and the leftists in Congress are basing their health care reform on the mistaken premise that the supply of health care is finite, that it is static and that it won't change. And because of that false premise, they'll try to force a drop in demand for health care as the means of reducing the costs. The only means of reducing demand is to ration care, to deny care, to decide who will and who won't be treated, who will live and who will die.

But the supply is not finite except at the present moment. Tomorrow there could be more. The day after there could be less. It is fluid. But should the government 'take over' health care, the finite supply will not expand. It will not be static. Instead, it will shrink.

How do I know that? History.

All one needs to do is look at every country that has instituted government provided/controlled health care. In every single case the quantity and quality of health care declined. In a few there were minor changes, mostly because the quality of health care wasn't all that great to begin with. In most others the decline was dramatic. Is that what we, the American people, really want to do here?

Of course not. But the Obama Administration and the leftists in Congress do. That desire has nothing to do with actually providing health care. Instead it's about control. They truly believe they know what's good for you better than you do. They believe they are the only ones that can possibly make the right decisions for you because you are incapable of making them for yourselves, that you're not smart enough. Only the government is wise enough to make those decisions. Of course we've seen the dystopian results of that before and we know we don't want to go down that path.

Should Congressional leftists ignore the economics of their health care reform bills, reform won't work. The burden placed upon the economy and the taxpayers will be too great. It will require the infusion of billions, if not trillions to ensure mediocre health care, increased morbidity, and increased suffering. A once great, though imperfect, health care system will have been reduced to a shadow of its former self. And the leftists will congratulate themselves for succeeding in pulling of the greatest swindle since Bernie Madoff.

One thing far too many people promoting national health care reform have overlooked has been the actual economics of the main proposal (HR3200). In their minds the numbers will come into alignment if we all just wish hard enough and keep our fingers crossed. But taking a look at the economics with a (hopefully) dispassionate eye reveals some disturbing issues that have been ignored, either by design or through ignorance. (I, being the kind of guy I am, am willing to give the proponents the benefit of doubt and assume it's from ignorance.)

Whenever government gets involved, and particularly the federal government, costs go up. It is inevitable. Our own history has shown again and again that is the case. Why does anyone doubt that it will happen again if government takes a broader role in health care? All anyone needs to do is look at what's been happening in Massachusetts, where their preview of nationwide health care reform has done nothing but increased costs and wait times. Can anyone say that won't happen across the board if Obama gets his way?

So before there's any progress on such reform, proponents cannot defy the economics of that reform and what it really means. Too many parts of the most well known health care reform bill - the aforementioned HR3200 - ignore the economic impacts, which in turn will lead to the failure of the reform measure while at the same time damaging or destroying the existing medical care infrastructure. That's no way to 'fix' the problem.

A few 'lowlights' of what we can look forward to if HR3200 should pass:

Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds -- yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it. Finally, Massachusetts shows where "ObamaCare" would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing.

The most sweeping provision in the Massachusetts reforms -- and the legislation before Congress -- is an "individual mandate" that makes health insurance compulsory. Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums.

The necessity of specifying what satisfies the mandate gives politicians enormous power to dictate the content of every American's health plan -- a power that health care providers inevitably capture and use to increase the required level of insurance.

--snip--

Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more. Officials further increased premiums by imposing new limits on cost-sharing.

Over time, as mandates eliminate low-cost options and price controls eliminate comprehensive options, both the Massachusetts and Obama reforms will march consumers into a narrow range of health plans.

As goes choice, so goes quality. Statistics on waiting times for specialist care in Massachusetts read like a dispatch from Canada. In 2004, Boston already had the longest waits among metropolitan areas. By 2009, waits had generally shortened in other metro areas (average wait: less than three weeks) but lengthened in Boston (average wait: seven weeks), according to the Merritt Hawkins survey.

Some may argue that the national version of this program won't suffer from the problems seen in Massachusetts, but anyone with even a little knowledge of history will understand that the problems with a national program will be far worse. In the end it will benefit no one but the government. Disincentives for health care workers will make sure the quality and quantity of health care available will fall, particularly after the more gifted and dedicated workers are finally driven out by frustration and stress. It's already started in Massachusetts and has been an ongoing problem in the UK.

One does not promote better health care by penalizing those giving exceptional care. But that's exactly what this latest version of socialized medicine will do.

I always thought the way to ensure more 'equality' when it came to any issue, be it economic, political, or medical, was to raise everyone up to a higher level, not pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator. That's what health care reform as proposed will do, making sure no one but the most wealthy (and members of the ruling elite) will receive exceptional care. The rest of us will be left with an ever declining quality and quantity of health care because reform made it inevitable that it would be so.

If nothing else such a move should be considered criminal because it looks like just what it is: racketeering. And we must remember racketeering has a long, fruitful history in Chicago.

Another problem with health care reform is that viable, workable plans are being ignored. It could be because the plans are being proposed by people other than those belonging to the 'right' party. Never mind that they might actually work as compared to ObamaCare.

One would thing the Democrats would pay attention to some of those plans, particularly those put forth by knowledgeable health care professionals, like Dr. Arthur M. Feldman:

As a cardiologist and the administrator of a large practice that includes general internists and specialists, I spend much of my time trying to figure out how to provide care for a growing number of uninsured or underinsured patients. I also have to battle billion-dollar private insurance companies that don't adequately cover patients with preexisting illnesses and often deny coverage for necessary treatments.

On a basic level, I'm with the president: Our health-care system needs to be changed so that all of my patients, and all citizens, have access to the care they need. But I don't agree with how he wants to fix things. Most of my colleagues and I strongly oppose the health-care reform bills that Congress will take up again this week. The proposals leave enormous gaps unfilled.

Before President Obama addresses a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, I hope he will consider these 10 major reasons why I -- and doctors like me -- worry that the legislation on the table will leave us worse off.

1.Private insurance companies escape real regulation.
2.We urgently need tort reform, but it's nowhere to be seen.
3."Prevention" won't magically make costs go down.
4.Reform efforts don't address our critical shortage of health-care workers.
5.We need more primary-care physicians -- but we also need specialists.
6.We have to streamline drug development and shake up the Food and Drug Administration.
7.We can't fund health-care reform by cutting payments to doctors.
8.We can't forget about research.
9.Cutting reimbursements could shut some hospitals down.
10.We need to improve the quality of care.

Each of Dr. Feldman's points bear looking into. (In his article linked above, each of his ten points are explained in detail.) Failure to address these issues will cause health care reform to be a dismal failure, creating both medical and economic chaos. Of course, I always thought health care reform was supposed to make things better, not worse. But if Congress does not abandon its ill-advised course of action in this regard, we will all be worse off for no other reason than they made it be that way.

More to follow in Part II.....

Carol-Shea Porter may have met her match, at least when it comes to town hall meetings and debate about health care reform. As we posted yesterday, Shea-Porter has proven she can dish it out but can't take it. On more than one occasion she has shown her contempt for her constituents.

The comes along her presumed Republican challenger for her seat in the 2010 elections, Manchester mayor Frank Guinta, holding his own town hall meeting. The dichotomy between the two sets of town meetings couldn't be any broader.

Some observations by someone attending both meetings:

First let me start by saying, I don't believe for a minute, CSP would have scheduled a town hall meeting if Mayor Guinta hadn't scheduled one first.

With only an HOUR to ask questions of the Holy one, oops, I mean Congresswoman CSP, and with CSP taking up 20 minutes of that hour to sell us on how awful the insurance companies are, a rare few individuals were able to ask a question. We were limited to 2 minutes and people like me were denied the opportunity to follow up our original question with facts that contradicted her answer.

After CSP mislead everyone at the meeting on tort reform in Texas, he knew I had information that contradicted what she had just said to a woman who questioned her on cutting healthcare costs. His ticket was pulled and he let me go up and confront her on her misleading information.

In stark contrast, Mayor Guinta's town hall meeting was open to as many people who showed up.We were "allowed" to ask our questions without any time constraints and we didn't have to HIT the LOTTERY in order to ask a question.

Mayor Guinta took questions for the first hour then decided to extend his meeting another hour to accommodate the others who still wanted to raise concerns or ask a question.

At the end of the second hour, it was time to end the meeting, however he again graciously told the crowd he would remain in the hall and those who still wanted to talk to him, could do so.

Shea-Porter couldn't be bothered to answer questions that disagreed with her 'vision' on this matter, but her challenger took on all questions and stayed until everyone had a chance to talk with him.

Of the two approaches, I prefer latter, not the former. It's too bad Carol Shea-Porter prefers the former.

Do you think she'll get the message after she's voted out of office?

Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH-1)finally worked up the courage to actually face her constituents in two town hall meetings today. (Earlier 'town hall meetings' she held were actually teleconferences with AARP members where other members of the public were not invited.)

Shea-Porter's town hall meeting in Manchester today might have better been called by what it really was: a town room meeting. The meeting was limited to only 100 people, leaving out most of those wishing to question their representative to the House. Despite the limited number of people allowed in to the meeting, Shea-Porter did not escape unscathed, with more than one attendee calling her on her support for health care reform many believe is seriously flawed.

In her second town hall meeting held in the seacoast city of Portsmouth, attendees there continued to question the wisdom of the health care reform as laid out by President Obama.

In Portsmouth, the demonstrations were much more subdued, but the questions were no less contentious.

"How can you look me in the eye or anyone else and tell me health care won't be rationed?" one questioner asked.

Shea-Porter said there is a lot of misinformation still being spread about the bill, and she said the bill will reduce costs, but some weren't buying it.

"They'll increase the cost of anyone who's not going to be highly subsidized by that bill," one questioner said.

Shea-Porter said health care reform comes down to fairness and responsibility, but audience reaction was split with boos and cheers, indicating that many are not convinced.

In all my years I have never seen one single government-run program that has managed to reduce costs for more than a quarter or two. Government, by its very nature, is incapable of being more efficient than the private sector. The incentives to keep costs under control don't exist because the government doesn't have to worry about losing 'customers' or going out of business should they fail to provide the services they're supposed to deliver. The bureaucracy that runs the program expands until it is incapable of delivering cost effective service, mainly due to bureaucratic inertia, contradictory rules and regulations, and sometimes, political infighting. To think they can reduce health care costs is ludicrous on the face of it.

Shea-Porter's contention that reform " comes down to fairness and responsibility" rings hollow with me. If "fairness' is defined as destroying the health care system of over 85% of Americans in favor of covering the 15% that aren't covered by insurance, then I'm against it. Again, she and many other Democrats see health care as a zero-sum game, meaning that in order to provide it to the underserved they must take it away from those already covered. Instead they should be looking at ways to see those lacking health insurance to be covered, either by removing the restrictive laws and regulations that limit choice of insurers by the public, allowing even more competition (which always brings down prices), or changing how health insurance covers medical care (do away with the top to bottom coverage and limit it to catastrophic and chronic care).

The big problem is that Congressional Democrats are unable to see their form of health care reform has been tried before and has failed miserably. But that won't stop them from trying it again...with the same results.

When it comes to the awful health care reform bill (HR3200), Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) actually gets it.


(H/T Granite Grok)

As if we need yet another example of a failed "public option" plan, there comes this one from Maine.

Want a preview of ObamaCare in action? Sneak a look at what has happened in Maine. In 2003, the state to great fanfare enacted its own version of universal health care. Democratic Governor John Baldacci signed the plan into law with a bevy of familiar promises. By 2009, it would cover all of Maine's approximately 128,000 uninsured citizens. System-wide controls on hospital and physician costs would hold down insurance premiums. There would be no tax increases. The program was going to provide insurance for everyone and save businesses and patients money at the same time.

After five years, fiscal realities as brutal as the waves that crash along Maine's famous coastline have hit the insurance plan. The system that was supposed to save money has cost taxpayers $155 million and is still rising.

It only took five years to show taxpayers the public option doesn't work, costs far more than governor and the Democrat majority legislature promised, and is in deep trouble, requiring an increasing amount of scarce tax dollars to support.

Many of the same arguments used to promote Maine's DirigoCare are being used to promote ObamaCare. As far as I can tell the differences in the economics of the programs are small other than the size of the programs, which means the shortfalls experienced by ObamaCare will likely be proportionately larger than the deficit being experienced by Maine. The Congressional Budget Office has already come right out and said Congress and President have seriously underestimated the cost of implementing and running ObamaCare. That members of Congress haven't learned the lessons of TennCare, MassCare, and DirigoCare is disturbing. What's insane is that these same members of Congress want to do the same thing on a national scale, ignoring that they are likely to end up with exactly the same result as the other programs - less care, higher costs, scarce medical resources, and an ever increasing amount of taxpayer dollars to fix the problem of their own making.