A Question for My GOPer Friends
As final passage of the economic stimulus plan becomes a reality tonight, I have one question for my GOPer friends like Sen. George Voinovich, who spent much of the day squawking about the increase in the national debt that will result from the deficit spending necessary to rescue our economy:
Where in the hell was your concern when George W. Bush added $5 Trillion to our national debt in order to finance, not necessary economic pump-priming, but rather a hugely expensive and misbegotten war in Iraq, plus massive tax cuts for the wealthy that failed to do much of anything for our economy?
Answer: None. None at all. As a matter of fact, Dick Cheney said that deficits don't matter. Which makes all the GOP hand wringing nothing but hypocrisy of the worst sort.
Happy to respond. Lots of hypocrisy among Republicans in Washington these days, no doubt about it. You're right. And they have paid a heavy price at the ballot box. Speaking personally, I voted an independent ballot in last year's primary in protest.
But a question:
Could not the same now be said about you and your Democrats? I recall that the party that now owns Washington offered repeatedly during the campaign as justification for "change" the fact that George W. Bush (nevermind that Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007) ran up a deficit that "our children and grandchildren can't afford."
I read today that President Obama's first budget is likely to include a deficit (nearly $2 trillion) almost double that of George W. Bush's first three (just under $1 trillion) combined.
And this, before we get to the effort to nationalize the health care industry. Prepare for tax hikes, my middle class friends...
fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics
I have to agree, FMP, that deficits are undesirable and the national debt does concern me.
The difference is spending on economically necessary pump priming (which will end when the economy recovers) vs. spending on massive tax cuts for the wealthy (which didn't do much for our economy and were enormously expensive).
Personally, I think the "price" the GOP paid at the ballot box was limited: they lost because of demographics that are trending away from them. Right now, they are a party that appeals only to white, married, Christians just as our country is becoming less white, less married, and less Christian.
As for health care: Right now, Honda of America is moving work from its Ohio plants to Ontario, Canada, despite the higher taxes, because of cheaper health care expenses. Health care costs are destroying our national competitiveness. Clearly, something most be done. I'd love to hear a GOP plan for health care that made sense. There is a reason most other Western countries have a single-payer health care system. It saves $$$.
You ought to know better, Nick. Dems were saying the same sort of thing in 1976.
Did you talk to someone at Honda about that move up north? 'Cause a bit of Googling is telling me that corporate tax rates are LOWER in Canada. Throw in the fact that in Canada health care is mostly paid through employee income taxes and it looks like the evil bastards are just trying to make more money by off-loading the health care expense to someone else.
Also, a debate over Keynes is probably best left for another thread. But, if you have a moment, consider this and this. (That last one might take a bit longer.) I'd be interested in your thoughts, sans politics.
It's not a GOP plan, but it's my plan:
People who don't have health insurance who would like to have health insurance should buy it. People who don't have health insurance who don't want it have made a choice and I don't spend a lot of time worrying about them.
You're gainfully employed, I wonder: How many strangers have you purchased health insurance policies for? Probably zero. Which means you apparently believe that people other than you should pay for health insurance for...people other than you. This makes sense?
BSB readers, more here:
http://fmpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/10/gillespie-plan.html
And here:
http://fmpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/12/mark-perry-makes-unassailable-point.html
fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics
FMP, I went to both of your links, and I find it funny how you left out a third category of people: people who would like to have health insurance but can't afford it. Of course, I completely understand that GOPers usually NEVER think about them. I'm happy to help you out there.
How many people have I paid health insurance premiums for? Why, none. But that doesn't mean I haven't paid the costs of providing health care to the uninsured. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The Cleveland Clinic and other hospitals can and do increase their rates in order to make up for the money lost in providing care to the uninsured. You pay for it one way or another.
That's exactly what the GOP has failed to understand, FMP. That every man for himself approach that worked so well on the frontier in the 19th century doesn't work quite so well in a global interconnected economy like we have now.
Also, tell me, how exactly does your plan reduce the cost of our health care system from its current 15% of GDP to 9% of GDP like Canada's?
We already have mechanisms for those people. They're called Medicaid and Medicare. What's funny about that? I don't believe there are 47 million Americans (or whatever number you guys are using these days) who would have health insurance if only they could afford it.
Are you attempting to make the case that health care in Canada is better than it is here in the United States? If so, I guess we just won't agree. Nothing wrong with that, but what you seem to be advocating is a health care system that is financed by 50 percent-plus taxes on some people to take and re-distribute resources to others. That's how Canada does it. It's socialism. And again, nothing wrong with that, just make your case. You guys never want to have an honest debate on the issue and its merits. It's all "Republicans hate poor people" and so forth. Very lazy.
fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics
FMP, I'm not sure I know enough about health care policy to engage in a debate on whether or not Canada's heath care system is better than ours overall, even though it is better on some basic metrics like life expectancy (Canada: 81, US: 78).
What I do know, is that it is cheaper. Much cheaper. Consider than in 2008, Canada spent 9.7% of GDP on health care, versus 15.2% for the U.S. That's 5.5% of GDP less than ours. Assuming US GDP is $13 Trillion, that would be the equivalent of reducing US health care costs by $715 billion.
Why should we care that our neighbors to the north have a cheaper health care system? Well, we live in a global economy, and we have to compete with those guys. Companies are beginning to move work into Canada to take advantage of the lower health care costs. If anything, you would expect that to accelerate during a recession, right?
So, we in the US either have to figure out a way to lower our own health care costs or accept that we'll be competing at a disadvantage with our Canadian neighbors. If it was me, I'd chose the former option.
We agree: The United States can do better than its current health care system. But it seems to me that world economic history indicates that for any good or service, quality gets better and prices get lower via more choice and competition, not less. National health care would destroy any concept of competition for all but the wealthiest, most elite (think movie stars, pro athletes, former U.S. Senators, the "rich," etc.) in our society. Talk about two Americas..
fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics
Just off the top of my head, it occurs to me that Canadians likely import the vast majority (if not near-totality) of their medical equipment-, supplies and pharmaceuticals from U.S. manufacturers. If so, that would account for a great deal of the disparity between the health-care-as-percentage-of GDP figures you cite. C + I + G + net exports = GDP. I note again that Canada's health care system is financed by punitive taxes on economic activists and anti-growth re-distribution of wealth. What was the last big-time life-improving innovation that came from Canada?
Where did those figures come from? I'm interested in reading more.
fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics
FMP, they came from Fareed Zakaria. I'm planning a separate post about this article later.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183670
Anti-growth? Their economy is doing much better than ours right now. That's a GOP buzz word that I've never understood. Some redistribution of wealth is necessary for a stable society, but that doesn't necessarily mean it retards economic growth. Ronald Reagan understood that, which was why he started the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has been one of the most effective anti-poverty measures of the last 30 years.
Cost is only one facet of any product or service. Quality, availability, options, etc all figure in to the equation when an INDIVIDUAL chooses to spend money, even on health care.
Nick, consider your employer. When one of your sales teams pitches your products and services, don't they try to show the customer that what you have to offer is superior, even if the price is higher? And if the customer decides they are willing and able to afford your services, great! But if they want it, but are unable to pay the price, what do you do? They don't sell it for less than what they are willing to.
Think about the regulations health care providers are saddled with and apply similar restrictions to the business that puts food on your table. Do you not agree that would suck? You are not forced to sell your services to a business that can't pay. You're not told by the government how much you should charge.
And consider this. I'm not a doctor, but it would piss me off royally if my own government, who's supposed to protect me from infringements on my property and labor, not only taxes me so as to give the services I provide to others for free, but also tells me how much I'm able to charge for those services. How is that consistent with the principles of freedom and liberty?
Also, I'd still like to hear your thoughts on Hayek.
P.S.- Health care and finance/banking are probably the two most regulated industries in the U.S. Ain't it interesting how they are also the most screwed up?
First of all Tudorman, my employer is a for-profit concern. Most health care providing institutions are not. They receive tax advantages in exchange for their not-for-profit status. And along with those tax advantages comes the obligation to provide for poor patients.
Health care is not something one can decide whether or not to purchase..you absolutely must purchase it. That's why every Western country has rules and regulations that attempt to broaden access to it. If you want to go live in a country where health care is based solely on ability to pay, my guess is it wouldn't remain a stable country for long before all the poor people took to the streets with stones and molotov cocktails to demand health care.
It's an interesting aside to note that there has never been a large scale famine in any functioning democracy. Know why? Because eventually the poor people band together and say "Feed us! Or we'll vote for someone who will." And you know what? It works. They get fed. Now, you might call that socialism. I call it a harbinger of a functioning democracy.
Likewise, if enough people are without health care, and they start dying from preventable diseases, they will eventually take to the streets to demand it. In order to prevent that from happening and "ensure domestic tranqulity" (remember where that phrase came from? Oh yeah, the preamble to the Constitution), rules providing for health care for poor people are put in place.
As far as Hayek, the article you posted from the Hill blog had so many factual inaccuracies that I gave up reading it half way through. I haven't read the second one yet, but I know that Mr. Hayek is the main proponent of Austrian economics, of which only the Ron Paul folks agree with as far as I know. Have you read John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money?
if we allowed another 4 million jobs (and their associated taxes) get flushed down the drain -- the approx amount of jobs Stimzilla creates/saves.
And it wouldn't be just that. Without Stimzilla, unemployment would reach double digits by the end of the year, losing probably another 3-6 million jobs and continued negative GDP growth. That's a net difference of up to 10 million more lost jobs within a year with vs w/o Stimzilla.
How's your deficit look then with that many less taxpayers and that many more on unemployment and medicaid and foodstamps? Growth works to raise tax revenue. The Clinton surplus proved that.
Investment in OUR country instead of some dessert shithold is a better allocation of OUR resources. What's a shame is that it took a near catastrofuck to wake us up to the fact that we've let our own house go to shit.
And for you New Deal deniers who say that spending didn't work cuz we didn't get out of the Depression until WWII, that war was Superspending, Stimzilla on steroids with a 90% tax rate on earnings over $1 million. The only thing I worry about is that the newly fiscally responsible obstructionists in the GOP caucus stopped Stimzilla from being big enough.