Seriously. I've been scouring thar Interwebz for some sort of explanation on what "Pelosi's National Energy Tax" is. I've been looking for a proposed bill. I've been looking for some relation between this tax and the potential loss of jobs. I've been looking for some way to understand the claims from an economic point of view.
But it's not there. This is not a national energy tax. This is deliberate spinning, and it offends the shit out of me.
Apparently, everyone is squawking about the proposed environmental cap-and-trade system. For proof, I point to this article: http://www.gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=133823. Specifically, under Point 1, Rep. John Dingell (R-MI) has said the following: "Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax. And it’s a great big one."
Okay, folks: time for the truth. Cap-and-trade is not a tax. Let me repeat: cap-and-trade is not a tax. To my Republican compatriots: stop calling cap-and-trade a tax. Because it is not. It's not even close.
As I stated on Weapons of Mass Discussion (you can go to http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com, and look for the article, or choose this quick link to my comment: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/maestromatt/8025008392814448733/), the cap-and-trade system involves the privatization of the pollution-control system in the United States. At the moment, the EPA runs a regulatory scheme that is aptly-described as a public-rights system. The EPA permits private companies to pollute the United States' air and water, so long as they do so under a prescribed limit based on best current technological standards (which is, in turn, based on cost-benefit analysis). If you fail to meet the standards, you get fined. It's pretty simple.
What the cap-and-trade system would do is divide the country up into regions, and determine regional limits for pollution. Then, the private interests would bid for permits that would allow them to pollute in "X" amount. The cost of this process would put money into the hands of the federal government, which may (or may not) be used to ameliorate externalities caused by the pollution. The theory behind the approach is based on the (heavily-flawed) neoclassical model of environmental economics, and relies upon market forces to place an appropriate value on each permit, and the law to enforce the property rights created by the system.
The big, obvious, glaring issue is the fact that the system effectively pawns one of the most precious public resources available to the American people -- clean air and water. Thanks to the EPA, we have a very clean environment (overall), and it is something that Americans can enjoy for generations. The system does not take into consideration that pollution moves from region to region, and that pollution limits need to be adjusted over time. If the government wants to change pollution standards, it can only make them looser; if it decides to lower limits, then the government will have to buy back a number of permits in order to decrease overall pollution. Further, this program debilitates the ability for the States to modify or further restrict pollution above and beyond federal levels (which they can currently do).
And I have not even touched upon how the system has the potential to squash entrepreneurship in this country, and to limit the ability of small manufacturing firms to be able to compete with bigger ones.
So, two points to bring away from this post:
1. The Energy Bill is bad.
2. It's not a tax.
News-spinning is really stupid when you can just as easily attack the bald-faced truth: that the government is proposing to give to private interests the right to pollute the air and water of the United States.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Party of Morality?
This is not intended to be a knock against Republicans in general, or their supporters. However, what is going on with the choices some are making these days?
Here's a list of names, and alleged (kind of) crimes:
Rep. Mark Foley (R- Florida): Sexual messages to teenage interns. Boys, to be precise.
Rep. Bob Ney (R - Ohio): How could you not know that Abramoff was a crook?
Sen. Larry Craig (R - Idaho): Asking for toilet paper ... or something else.
Rep. Duke Cunningham (R - California): Bribery and corruption of the worst kind on the menu.
Rep. Tom DeLay (R - Texas): Money laundering? Really?
Sen. John Ensign (R - Nevada): Can't blame a man from Sin City, right?
Gov. Mark Sanford (R - S.C.): ... but Charleston?
It is really difficult -- exceedingly difficult -- for any person to consider the party to be anti-corruption and pro-morality these days. It's one thing to be caught up in allegations of misconduct, but another entirely to become the centerpiece of media scrutiny. When you become a politician, you will be scrutinized more than any other kind of person. You really have to have a watchdog making sure that you don't crack under the pressure.
But, let's say you do. You crack. The watchdog will make sure that you aren't going anywhere. While I recognize that this might be difficult when hanging out with a large group of other 50-something lonely male politicians, has anyone considered a hobby? Or going to church regularly or taking martial arts lessons? These things are somewhat less objectionable to your constituents.
Here's a list of names, and alleged (kind of) crimes:
Rep. Mark Foley (R- Florida): Sexual messages to teenage interns. Boys, to be precise.
Rep. Bob Ney (R - Ohio): How could you not know that Abramoff was a crook?
Sen. Larry Craig (R - Idaho): Asking for toilet paper ... or something else.
Rep. Duke Cunningham (R - California): Bribery and corruption of the worst kind on the menu.
Rep. Tom DeLay (R - Texas): Money laundering? Really?
Sen. John Ensign (R - Nevada): Can't blame a man from Sin City, right?
Gov. Mark Sanford (R - S.C.): ... but Charleston?
It is really difficult -- exceedingly difficult -- for any person to consider the party to be anti-corruption and pro-morality these days. It's one thing to be caught up in allegations of misconduct, but another entirely to become the centerpiece of media scrutiny. When you become a politician, you will be scrutinized more than any other kind of person. You really have to have a watchdog making sure that you don't crack under the pressure.
But, let's say you do. You crack. The watchdog will make sure that you aren't going anywhere. While I recognize that this might be difficult when hanging out with a large group of other 50-something lonely male politicians, has anyone considered a hobby? Or going to church regularly or taking martial arts lessons? These things are somewhat less objectionable to your constituents.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Bankruptcies, Prof. Warren, and the Trouble with Medical Bills
Go read this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31325093/ns/business-personal_finance.
Here we have an American citizen who has too many credit cards, who refuses to explore bankruptcy as an option, and who does not represent the majority of Americans who find themselves staring at the abyss of unrelenting debt. The constant attention given to these people, though, gives the distinct impression that the average American struggling with debt is someone who could not say "no" to easy credit.
According to Elizabeth Warren, Professor at Harvard and the current chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the banking industry's bailout, here are some statistics with regard to bankruptcy filers:
Of course, it's worth noting that Prof. Warren's (more recent) work has been criticized for some glaring mistakes. For instance, Megan McCardle keenly points out that Prof. Warren's recent work ignores the fact that bankruptcies primarily caused by medical bills have decreased in number. (McCardle's article can be found here: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/elizabeth_warren_and_the_terri.php)
Then again, just because the number of bankruptcy cases opened has fallen does not mean that the percentage of filings have not increased; according to Warren, the ratio of bankruptcies filed due to medical bills has increased from 50% in 2001 to 70% in 2008. McCardle does not really refute that; her critique is more of a caution against immediately assuming that, due to the ratio, the number of filings has increased.
The point that should be taken from Prof. Warren's work is that, assuming that the numbers of bankruptcies filed for medical costs have not increased or decreased, medical costs still remain a problem spot for Americans. Check out some of the following numbers for non-business bankruptcy filings, taken from the Administrative Office of the Bankruptcy Courts of the United States (as cited here: http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/USbankstats.htm):
The other possibility if the following: those who can afford to pay the medical bills have insurance, and medical bills are unsecured debts subject to discharge under a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. Where mortgages and car loans are debts secured by collateral, medical bills are not. People who own no assets, who are uninsured, and have a low income really only have one choice when faced with large medical bills. Unfortunately for the hospitals and medical providers, this option is exceedingly attractive under the current bankruptcy laws.
This is not to say that we need to tighten up the bankruptcy laws to make it more difficult for debtors to discharge their medical bills. Rather, the rhetoric utilized to promote change in the current health care system in the country needs to charge. Even if costs were cut by half, this would not necessarily mean a corresponding or significant decrease in bankruptcy filings, for the only sure way to eliminate medical-bill-related filings is to institute a social-medical system that would cover the indigent. The focus of the fight for health care reform -- for both sides -- is to decrease the overall costs for the benefit of the employers and employees who pay premiums. Assuming that this is the proper focus for the fight, the Obama Administration's proposal to lift the tax deduction on health premiums is unsupportable.
As the article illustrates, people will get themselves into their own troubles. There's no avoiding it. Even with all of the consumer and worker protections in the 1950's, there were still bankruptcies, and bankruptcies still occur in the most socialist of nations. What we can do, however, is concentrate on where the pinch is felt most -- small businesses and the middle class that are bleeding from the massive hikes in medical premiums. Frankly, the only sound way to do this is to reduce the incentive for rent-seeking behavior on the part of the insurers, either by forcing them into non-profit status or heavily-taxing their above-normal profits.
Here we have an American citizen who has too many credit cards, who refuses to explore bankruptcy as an option, and who does not represent the majority of Americans who find themselves staring at the abyss of unrelenting debt. The constant attention given to these people, though, gives the distinct impression that the average American struggling with debt is someone who could not say "no" to easy credit.
According to Elizabeth Warren, Professor at Harvard and the current chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the banking industry's bailout, here are some statistics with regard to bankruptcy filers:
- 44% of filers are couples;
- 30% are women filing alone;
- 26% are men filing alone;
- Slightly better educated than the general population;
- Two out of three have lost a job;
- Half have experienced a serious health problem;
- Fewer than 9% have not suffered a job loss, medical event or divorce
Of course, it's worth noting that Prof. Warren's (more recent) work has been criticized for some glaring mistakes. For instance, Megan McCardle keenly points out that Prof. Warren's recent work ignores the fact that bankruptcies primarily caused by medical bills have decreased in number. (McCardle's article can be found here: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/elizabeth_warren_and_the_terri.php)
Then again, just because the number of bankruptcy cases opened has fallen does not mean that the percentage of filings have not increased; according to Warren, the ratio of bankruptcies filed due to medical bills has increased from 50% in 2001 to 70% in 2008. McCardle does not really refute that; her critique is more of a caution against immediately assuming that, due to the ratio, the number of filings has increased.
The point that should be taken from Prof. Warren's work is that, assuming that the numbers of bankruptcies filed for medical costs have not increased or decreased, medical costs still remain a problem spot for Americans. Check out some of the following numbers for non-business bankruptcy filings, taken from the Administrative Office of the Bankruptcy Courts of the United States (as cited here: http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/USbankstats.htm):
- 2008 - 1,074,225
- 2007 - 822,950
- 2006 - 597,965
- 2005 - 2,039,214
- 2004 - 1,563,145
- 2003 - 1,625,208
- 2002 - 1,539,111
The other possibility if the following: those who can afford to pay the medical bills have insurance, and medical bills are unsecured debts subject to discharge under a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. Where mortgages and car loans are debts secured by collateral, medical bills are not. People who own no assets, who are uninsured, and have a low income really only have one choice when faced with large medical bills. Unfortunately for the hospitals and medical providers, this option is exceedingly attractive under the current bankruptcy laws.
This is not to say that we need to tighten up the bankruptcy laws to make it more difficult for debtors to discharge their medical bills. Rather, the rhetoric utilized to promote change in the current health care system in the country needs to charge. Even if costs were cut by half, this would not necessarily mean a corresponding or significant decrease in bankruptcy filings, for the only sure way to eliminate medical-bill-related filings is to institute a social-medical system that would cover the indigent. The focus of the fight for health care reform -- for both sides -- is to decrease the overall costs for the benefit of the employers and employees who pay premiums. Assuming that this is the proper focus for the fight, the Obama Administration's proposal to lift the tax deduction on health premiums is unsupportable.
As the article illustrates, people will get themselves into their own troubles. There's no avoiding it. Even with all of the consumer and worker protections in the 1950's, there were still bankruptcies, and bankruptcies still occur in the most socialist of nations. What we can do, however, is concentrate on where the pinch is felt most -- small businesses and the middle class that are bleeding from the massive hikes in medical premiums. Frankly, the only sound way to do this is to reduce the incentive for rent-seeking behavior on the part of the insurers, either by forcing them into non-profit status or heavily-taxing their above-normal profits.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Going into Reverse -- a bad idea?
Sen. Voinovich (R-Ohio) is a man whom I have met and admire. However, his office has made the following statement (actually from the Dispatch): http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2009/06/voinovich_decries_stricklands.shtml.
As I consider myself quite "liberal" when it comes to civil rights, I think it is a person's right to gamble once they understand the consequences. Although gambling is addictive, gambling is not quite on the level of other addictive activities that we legitimately let others engage in, such as drinking or smoking. Gambling is an activity that is as American as apple pie. After all, what is a 401(k) but a calculated risk?
Putting the gambling machine into horse racing venues seems reasonable to me. Horse racing is a form of gambling in many states; betting on horses is a studious form of gambling, but gambling nonetheless. The voters of Ohio rejected a constitutional amendment to permit a casino near Wilmington, but what if the measure was a mere statute or regulation or permit? Would the voters have been so opposed?
This sort of anti-modern, moral-dictating rhetoric is what drives many young people, moderates, and civil-rights "liberals" from the Republican Party. We ought to leave people well enough alone, and let them make their own educated decisions.
As I consider myself quite "liberal" when it comes to civil rights, I think it is a person's right to gamble once they understand the consequences. Although gambling is addictive, gambling is not quite on the level of other addictive activities that we legitimately let others engage in, such as drinking or smoking. Gambling is an activity that is as American as apple pie. After all, what is a 401(k) but a calculated risk?
Putting the gambling machine into horse racing venues seems reasonable to me. Horse racing is a form of gambling in many states; betting on horses is a studious form of gambling, but gambling nonetheless. The voters of Ohio rejected a constitutional amendment to permit a casino near Wilmington, but what if the measure was a mere statute or regulation or permit? Would the voters have been so opposed?
This sort of anti-modern, moral-dictating rhetoric is what drives many young people, moderates, and civil-rights "liberals" from the Republican Party. We ought to leave people well enough alone, and let them make their own educated decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)