It should be self evident that President Obama has more to lose going over the fiscal cliff than Republicans.
Mr. Obama's first term was about getting re-elected. His second term is about his legacy.
It was also evident in his recent press conference that the movement you saw in the President's eyes was the slow motion act of his blinking.
Boehner is now saying he is ready to go over the cliff. Let's go. Call the President's bluff.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama; The Fallacy of "You didn't build that"
In September of last year, the following were off the cuff remarks made by Elizabeth Warren:
"“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did...."
These words were recalled from the archives in some news sources recently in light of President Obama's "You didn't build that" comment.
This is an appealing point of view to those who might find themselves within the ranks of millions of working class Americans, who have never started a business, never run a business, and never known any success in the area of managing a business. There's no shame in that. Many, in fact most people, never have any of those experiences, but lead productive lives working for others. In the mind of Ms. Warren, however, they may now take some credit for the success of the businessman because they have perhaps paid some taxes to support roads, schools, police and fire departments, and even defense. ("Perhaps paid" because approximately 50% of individuals pay no Federal income tax at all, though they may pay state income taxes and they do pay state and local sales taxes). But the flaw in Ms. Warren's thinking lies in the words "the rest of us". The implication is that the rest of us paid for the roads on which the businessman moves his goods - but that he didn't. The rest of us paid to educate his work force - but he didn't. The rest of us pay for police, fire departments, and defense - but he doesn't. Therein lies the fallacy. The taxes that all taxpayers pay do indeed go to supporting these community benefits, and in doing so create opportunity for all to make the most of those resources individually. The successful businessman who puts his money at risk, who invests his hours and hours of labor, often, literally, his blood, his sweat, and his tears simply applies himself better than the average citizen in taking advantage of the opportunity provided collectively. He deserves the credit for that, not the average taxpayer.
Barack Obama makes essentially the same mistaken argument. But there is something even more denegrating, in my opinion at least, to the efforts of business owners. In addition to echoing the thoughts expressed by Ms. Warren, his "you didn't build that" speech also contained these words expressing his surprise at the fact that some of those who have been successfull in business will say; "It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." Well, it may be true that there are a lot of hard working people out there. But this statement and this alone is all you need to explain why the President does not know business, has never started a business, does not understand business and has no respect for business or free enterprise. Because to be successful in business, especially a small business, you do work harder than everybody else and you take all the risk! To lump the hard work that the entrepreneur does in with the work of everyone else, important as that may be, is to fail to recognize how special the efforts of the entrepreneur are in the success of America as a nation.
"“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did...."
These words were recalled from the archives in some news sources recently in light of President Obama's "You didn't build that" comment.
This is an appealing point of view to those who might find themselves within the ranks of millions of working class Americans, who have never started a business, never run a business, and never known any success in the area of managing a business. There's no shame in that. Many, in fact most people, never have any of those experiences, but lead productive lives working for others. In the mind of Ms. Warren, however, they may now take some credit for the success of the businessman because they have perhaps paid some taxes to support roads, schools, police and fire departments, and even defense. ("Perhaps paid" because approximately 50% of individuals pay no Federal income tax at all, though they may pay state income taxes and they do pay state and local sales taxes). But the flaw in Ms. Warren's thinking lies in the words "the rest of us". The implication is that the rest of us paid for the roads on which the businessman moves his goods - but that he didn't. The rest of us paid to educate his work force - but he didn't. The rest of us pay for police, fire departments, and defense - but he doesn't. Therein lies the fallacy. The taxes that all taxpayers pay do indeed go to supporting these community benefits, and in doing so create opportunity for all to make the most of those resources individually. The successful businessman who puts his money at risk, who invests his hours and hours of labor, often, literally, his blood, his sweat, and his tears simply applies himself better than the average citizen in taking advantage of the opportunity provided collectively. He deserves the credit for that, not the average taxpayer.
Barack Obama makes essentially the same mistaken argument. But there is something even more denegrating, in my opinion at least, to the efforts of business owners. In addition to echoing the thoughts expressed by Ms. Warren, his "you didn't build that" speech also contained these words expressing his surprise at the fact that some of those who have been successfull in business will say; "It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." Well, it may be true that there are a lot of hard working people out there. But this statement and this alone is all you need to explain why the President does not know business, has never started a business, does not understand business and has no respect for business or free enterprise. Because to be successful in business, especially a small business, you do work harder than everybody else and you take all the risk! To lump the hard work that the entrepreneur does in with the work of everyone else, important as that may be, is to fail to recognize how special the efforts of the entrepreneur are in the success of America as a nation.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act
Yes, I know this has been done to death. But regardless of the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) decision next week, the issues with health care in this country will go on.
The crux of this issue is the question, what do you do with the uninsured?
The solution of the Obama Administration is to take the 30 million or so uninsured, insure them, and spread the cost across the greater population and use the individual mandate to pay for it. The Congressional Budget Office, at the request of the Administration has reported that doing so will reduce overall costs in health care. That might happen, but if it does, economics demands that it will be at the expense of service and medical progress. Adding 30 million individuals to the roles can only mean that costs go up. Yet if costs are held in check (controlled), then service and investment in research and development must decline. I don't think that's what anyone wants in America.
So again, what do you do with the uninsured?
The only solution is to incent the uninsured to buy insurance. Yet everyone knows that for many of these folks affordability is out of the question. So there remain two problems to solve in health care which have simple, but radical solutions; reduce the cost of insurance and incent every individual to buy insurance.
The first is to open health insurance sales outside of state lines so that companies can compete nationally for the uninsured and those currently insured. The latter can be achieved by uncoupling health insurance from employment, increasing pay commensurate with corporate costs to compensate employees for having to provide their own insurance, and thereby making health insurance in the United States truly market and need based.
The second issue is that of then incenting individuals to buy insurance at all. This can be achieved not my mandating, taxing, or penalizing, but by educating. Today, the sole factor that disincentivizes individuals, particularly the young, from buying at least catastrophic coverage is the fact that they can walk into any emergency room and be treated, essentially at the cost of the insured. This is because of a law that requires hospitals and clinics to treat individuals whether they can pay or not. What if that was not the case? What if these institutions were required only to offer palliative care and nothing more? What if an individual who walked in with cancer were given pain medication and made comfortable, but would be offered nothing more? What if an individual who walked in with a broken arm had his bone set and was given pain medication but nothing more? Many Americans have not yet learned the simple lesson that is fundamental to a culture of personal responsibility and that lesson is why you need insurance in the first place. Once you teach that, people will recognize that carrying health insurance in some form, tailored to them by the marketplace, is in their self interest. Providing medical care, essentially for free will never teach it. Only a complete change of view of the principles of insurance coverage will do that. Educate, and people will do what is best for them on their own, not through government force.
The crux of this issue is the question, what do you do with the uninsured?
The solution of the Obama Administration is to take the 30 million or so uninsured, insure them, and spread the cost across the greater population and use the individual mandate to pay for it. The Congressional Budget Office, at the request of the Administration has reported that doing so will reduce overall costs in health care. That might happen, but if it does, economics demands that it will be at the expense of service and medical progress. Adding 30 million individuals to the roles can only mean that costs go up. Yet if costs are held in check (controlled), then service and investment in research and development must decline. I don't think that's what anyone wants in America.
So again, what do you do with the uninsured?
The only solution is to incent the uninsured to buy insurance. Yet everyone knows that for many of these folks affordability is out of the question. So there remain two problems to solve in health care which have simple, but radical solutions; reduce the cost of insurance and incent every individual to buy insurance.
The first is to open health insurance sales outside of state lines so that companies can compete nationally for the uninsured and those currently insured. The latter can be achieved by uncoupling health insurance from employment, increasing pay commensurate with corporate costs to compensate employees for having to provide their own insurance, and thereby making health insurance in the United States truly market and need based.
The second issue is that of then incenting individuals to buy insurance at all. This can be achieved not my mandating, taxing, or penalizing, but by educating. Today, the sole factor that disincentivizes individuals, particularly the young, from buying at least catastrophic coverage is the fact that they can walk into any emergency room and be treated, essentially at the cost of the insured. This is because of a law that requires hospitals and clinics to treat individuals whether they can pay or not. What if that was not the case? What if these institutions were required only to offer palliative care and nothing more? What if an individual who walked in with cancer were given pain medication and made comfortable, but would be offered nothing more? What if an individual who walked in with a broken arm had his bone set and was given pain medication but nothing more? Many Americans have not yet learned the simple lesson that is fundamental to a culture of personal responsibility and that lesson is why you need insurance in the first place. Once you teach that, people will recognize that carrying health insurance in some form, tailored to them by the marketplace, is in their self interest. Providing medical care, essentially for free will never teach it. Only a complete change of view of the principles of insurance coverage will do that. Educate, and people will do what is best for them on their own, not through government force.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)