The grassroots Tea Party movement flummoxes the left

Watching the left try to cope with the Tea Party movement is fascinating. Some evidence suggests that fear is in control, like the desperate marginalizing and demonizing of the Tea Party movement that so effectively shows the dissatisfaction of millions of Americans with government over-reaching. The left resorts to name-calling and tries to paint the Tea Party participants as a bunch of wild-eyed radicals, bent on revolution, perhaps even violence. But that is a gross distortion of these Americans, the vast majority of whom are everyday citizens merely taking advantage of their God-given and constitutionally-protected right to speak their mind.

Some on the left are unable to accept this movement as a genuine citizen protest against Big Government excesses and intrusions into personal freedom. That perspective is represented by columnist Reg Henry, who wrote last week, “If you happened to see the health care summit that President Barack Obama hosted the other day … you saw the Republicans insist with great certainty that Americans don’t want health care legislation.” Well, Mr. Henry, that’s not what Republicans said, which is that Americans don’t like “this” legislation, and are saying so loud and clear.

And as for their certainty in saying so, well, it’s because Republicans aren’t deaf or blind. They hear from their constituents, both Republicans and Democrats. They recognize that Tea Party participants are fed up with the over-bearing nature of the federal government, and the arrogant way the president and the leaders of Congress ignore their objections, and they say Congress had better not enact legislation affecting 17 percent of the economy by a 50 percent-plus-one vote when the country is so sharply divided on the issue, and Republicans are finally paying attention.

They also realize that opinion polls conducted by respected polling organizations portray the mood of the country pretty accurately, using proven and accepted methodology to randomly sample Americans who usually are registered voters, and whose statistically relevant opinions can be extrapolated to the citizenry at large with 96 percent accuracy.

They know multiple polls conducted repeatedly over several months continue to show a consistent disapproval of the direction the country is heading, ranging from 60 to 73 percent, and a small percentage of approval, in some polls as low as 22 percent.

But Mr. Henry seems to think the 2008 election was the definitive statement by the people of what they want the president and the Congress to do, even though President Obama’s campaign was one of cavernous rhetoric, devoid of detail. Furthermore, Mr. Obama’s victory margin was only seven points, 53 to 46 percent, and that isn’t a mandate to do anything. In fact, seven points is a fraction of the margin between Americans who dislike the country’s direction and those who approve of it.

Another columnist, Ann McFeatters, relies on superficial thinking and insufficient research to help her misunderstand this phenomenon, in her column taking President Obama to task “for wasting political capital and failing to get as much done as he could have.”

“The tide began to turn against health insurance reform, aided brilliantly by Republicans who began talking nonsensically, but effectively, about ‘death panels’ and socialistic medicine,” she wrote. But just because the bill does not say specifically “in our socialized medicine system there will be death panels” doesn’t preclude a mechanism evolving that will make life and death decisions based on budget considerations, nor does it mean that the system won’t become one where private health insurance cannot survive against the government’s monopolistic tendencies, and in a few years we will have socialized medicine. What Republicans did – and folks on the left didn’t do – was to look at the reform measures, and project them into the future to see what might happen.

After revealing that she didn’t look into the future to see where reform measures may lead, she blamed “Wall Street fat cats” for the recent financial crisis, showing that she also didn’t look far enough into the past to find out what really caused the financial crisis. It’s true that Wall Streeters and big bankers contributed to the collapse, but they were only playing by the rules past Congresses and administrations created for them. Ms. McFeatters only looked back a couple of years, but the government meddling that created the environment for the problem began decades ago.

She criticizes the president’s failure to fulfill promises like closing Guantanamo Bay, ending the Iraq war, and capturing Osama bin Laden. Here, she fails to consider the ramifications of his promises, or obstacles to their fulfillment. So much of what Mr. Obama promised was unrealistic, and an objective analysis showed that. But Ms. McFeatters, the news media, and 53 percent of voters didn’t analyze his promises.

No surprise that the left doesn’t understand the Tea Party movement; and no surprise that it fears its opposition. Many liberals are unable to cope with logical disagreements, and because they don’t think things through cannot present logical arguments for their ideas.

Hence, instead of working with the opposition to find common ground on the nation’s problems, the majority party tries to force its ideas on the country, which is government at its worst.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Liberalism, Politics, Government, Democrats

The Latest from Bones

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Politics, Government, Democrats

Demonizing for political gain

When you want to generate a lot of support for some political program, a common ploy is to create in the minds of those whose support you seek the idea that somebody is mean, evil, wicked, bad and nasty.

The demon in the effort to impose greater government control over our health care is health insurance providers, who are attacked for all manner of improper and/or self-serving behavior, both imagined and real. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leading the charge, calls the insurers “villains,” but speaks in generalities and fails to show evidence of actual “villainy.”

We’ve heard the criticisms of health insurers, and some of them have done bad things. However, people in every industry and type of business occasionally do bad things, so insurers are no worse than anyone else.

The most questionable of these allegations is that the insurance companies do horrible things to their customers, such as dropping someone’s coverage when they have a serious illness; rejecting coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, or charging them higher premiums; and imposing large rate increases, in pursuit of excessive profits.

Last August Dr. Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the University of Michigan at Flint, demonstrated that health insurers like Cigna, Aetna, and WellPoint, had a profit margin of just 3.3 percent, ranking last on a list of 86 business categories.

People often mistakenly judge whether a company makes excessive profits by how many dollars it made. But what really is important is how much money it kept from what it collected from selling what it produced: profits divided by revenue. A multi-billion-dollar profit figure isn’t really meaningful without knowing how much revenue the company had. A company with $13.2 billion in profits and $400 billion in revenue achieved only a 3.3 percent profit margin. You can get a 3.3 percent return on your money by investing it in a three-year CD, even in today’s depressed market.

Compare that margin to more profitable business groups, like beverage producers/brewers at 25.9 percent, wireless communications at 11.1 percent, and general entertainment at 6.8 percent. If health insurers are mistreating customers for high profits, their strategy is a failure.

Most business decisions have a fundamental economic reason behind them, even large rate increases like WellPoint’s 39 percent hike in California. Fox Business Channel’s Stuart Varney explained this in the “Back of the Book Segment” on Fox News’ [begin ital] The O’Reilly Factor [end ital] recently in a segment titled “Making money off people’s illness.” "There's a recession in California and 800,000 [new participants] have gone onto Medicaid [roles],” he said. “Doctors who treat Medicaid patients lose money on every patient, and they transfer that loss to privately insured people,” which raises the insurer’s costs and creates the need to raise rates.

The title of that segment, “Making money off people’s illness,” indicates that the often- sensible Mr. O’Reilly believes health insurers are behaving immorally. But think about it: if you are in a business that deals with illness, you have to make money to stay in business and pay your employees. You must therefore make money off people’s illness. Millions of Americans are guilty of this “crime,” and we should be thankful for that. This is an example where emotion impeded clear thinking, and when this occurs people are easily taken advantage of by demagogues like Nancy Pelosi.

The Government Accounting office informs us that in 2008 the median number of insurers in individual states was 27, although that varies from a low of eight or fewer in three New England states to a few dozen in other states, and that the five largest insurers provide 75 percent or more of the policies nationwide.

Consider that there are 1,262 companies in the United States that provide health insurance, according to the business information provider, Manta. However, insurance companies are licensed by each state individually, which means that every health insurance provider might be faced with 50 different sets of criteria in order to qualify to sell to everyone in the U.S. That, and widely differing population numbers, explain why some states have dozens of providers and others have only a handful, and also why the largest companies are able to adapt to such a wide and varied set of rules, and smaller companies cannot.

Obviously, it would improve the cost and performance of health insurers if we could foster greater competition among them, and surely if we freed up all 1,262 companies to sell to anyone in the country, the variety of plans and cost levels that would emerge would satisfy the needs of the vast majority of Americans, and do so at much lower costs than we have now.

Since the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (supposedly) protects state sovereignty against encroachment from the federal government, Congress cannot mandate uniformity of requirements for health insurers. However, that does not preclude a federal recommendation of sensible requirements that states can voluntarily adopt.

This is a vastly superior solution to health insurance reform than the destructive government takeover now being jammed down our throats by a blind, deaf and ideologically controlled Congress.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Politics, Health care, Liberalism

Obama's Idea of "Stimulus"

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Politics, Liberalism, Democrats

Washington in the 21st century: Failing to learn from history

The brilliant economist Dr. Thomas Sowell looks back on the Great Depression: “Nothing established the idea that government intervention in the economy is essential like the Great Depression of the 1930s. The raw facts tell the story of that historic tragedy: National output fell by one-third between 1929 and 1933, thousands of banks failed, unemployment peaked at 25%, corporations as a whole lost money two years in a row. Prior to this time, no president had attempted to have the federal government intervene to bring a depression to an end.” Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt opted for government intervention and the results of that ill-advised approach are a painful part of our history.

Contrast that with the stock market crash of 1987, which was similar in size to the crash of 1929, but the recovery from it was years shorter in duration. President Ronald Reagan’s administration, in sharp contrast to the administrations of Hoover and FDR, and despite media outrage at the government's inaction, did nothing; no bailout, no stimulus, nothing, according to Dr. Sowell.

Those two experiences have taught our elected leaders nothing. Beginning with the administration of George W. Bush and continuing with, and accelerated by, the administration of Barack Obama, we have embraced the failed policies that gave us the Great Depression and, interestingly, the same policies that brought on the financial crisis of 2008: excessive government intervention in the private economy.

On October 14, 2008, the Bush administration announced a series of initiatives to stabilize the markets, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Then on February 18, 2009, in Colorado, Mr. Obama signed the $787 billion– now up to $865 billion – stimulus bill. How have these measure fared in ending the recession that began in December of 2007?

The Government Accountability Office said last October, a year after TARP was born, that it found no evidence that the program prevented a financial meltdown, nor did it stimulate banks to start lending to business again at needed levels. Although $500 billion in TARP loans have been repaid to the federal treasury, the program did not accomplish the vast majority of its goals.

The president and other supporters of the stimulus bill touted its investments in job creation, saying it would save or create 3.5 million jobs. Without this bill, the president predicted, unemployment would rise from eight percent to more than nine percent. In fact, after its enactment, unemployment shot through the nine percent level to above 10 percent. Clearly, the stimulus did not succeed in stopping job losses, and since it aimed more money at pork barrel projects than actual stimulus activities, and delayed most payments for a year or more, little real stimulation has taken place.

We can’t know for certain what would have happened if TARP and the stimulus hadn’t been implemented, but evidence from both the 1929 and 1987 examples strongly suggests that doing nothing back in October of 2008 and February of 2009 would have been the better decision. And, the country would be $1.5 trillion better off.

Dr. Sowell points out something else we should think about: “This administration and Congress are now in a position to do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s – use a crisis of the times to create new institutions that will last for generations. To this day, we are still subsidizing millionaires in agriculture because farmers were having a tough time in the 1930s. We have the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") taking reckless chances in the housing market that have blown up in our faces today, because FDR decided to create a new federal housing agency in 1938. Who knows what bright ideas this administration will turn into permanent institutions for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with?”

Well, how about a nationalized health care system, an economy-busting energy tax, and enormous deficits as far as the eye can see?

Despite massive public disapproval, the president and Congressional leaders seem hell-bent on creating a healthcare system heavily controlled by government. And despite the fraud and deceit in climate change science, they still want to impose economy crippling levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

President Obama says that when he "walked in the door" in January of 2009 he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. But he misstated the Bush deficit, which actually was slightly less than $800 billion when correct computations of the deficit and TARP money are used, and his deficit for 2010 is double what he inherited.

The budget deficit forecast for 2010 is 10.6 percent of GDP, up from 9.9 percent of GDP in 2009, and according to Reuters, “the budget still forecasts U.S. public debt rising above 71 percent of GDP by 2013, up from 53 percent in 2009, and almost 80 percent by 2020 -- levels that could spook investors.” Americans recognize how serious this situation is, even if their leaders do not.

They are following White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s dictum “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” even if that means wrecking the country to push through their ideological agenda.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Politics, Economy, Liberalism

The Latest from Bones

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Sports, Entertainment, Humor

It has been a challenging year for Global Warming/Climate Change

The recent epidemic of snow, ice and cold temperatures has given rise to lots of joking about global warming, such as, “How’s that global warming working out for you?” and “we have 10 inches of global warming on the ground.” The Associated Press noted on Saturday, “Forget red and blue - color America white. There was snow on the ground in 49 states Friday. Hawaii was the holdout.”

The story went on to quote David Robinson, head of the Global Snow Lab at Rutgers University, that on Friday morning “67.1 percent of the U.S. had snow on the ground, with the average depth a healthy 8 inches. Normally, about 40 or 50 percent of the U.S. has snow cover this time of year.”

Everyone who has ever looked into it knows that the Earth goes through alternate cycles of warming and cooling that last thousands of years, and shorter cycles of warming and cooling within the longer cycles.

The global warming/climate change advocates (warmists) believe human activity since the onset of the Industrial Age is producing rising global temperatures. Skeptics point to other reasons for the increase, such as normal cyclical change and changes in Sun activity, among other reasons, and note that for the last several years there has actually been a cooling trend.

Warmists, however, behave as if the question is finally and unquestionably resolved, claiming there is a “consensus” and saying that it is “settled science.”

GreenFacts.org’s glossary says this about consensus: “The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field. Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:

• all scientist[s] are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,
• the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.

Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of ‘Certain Truth.’"

NASA’s Home Page informs us that: “It may surprise many people that science -- the de facto source of dependable knowledge about the natural world -- cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change.”

The idea that consensus does not equal certain truth – indeed, that in science certain truth does not exist because of the possibility of new information being discovered – is a major feature of the scientific method.

The University of Rochchester Physics Department defines the scientific method as “the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, ‘Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.’ … It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. "

The certainty with which warmists dismiss skeptical views of their pet theory seems to run counter to the spirit of scientific investigation.

Worse, warmists’ attitude toward and treatment of skeptics are clearly non-scientific. They include ridicule, intimidation of skeptical colleagues, personal destruction and calls for legal prosecution, all because they disagree on a scientific theory.

Worse, yet, is that in an effort to perpetuate their alarmist scenarios, some warmists have resorted to deceit and outright fraud at Penn State University and England’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The UK Telegraph reports that “perhaps the most damaging revelations … are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.”

A hacker broke into computers at the CRU, releasing 61 megabytes of confidential emails and documents onto the Internet. Knowing what these documents and emails contain, it is clear why the CRU scientists are upset that their duplicity has become public, a scandal some believe could be the greatest in modern science. These documents and emails involve some of the most prominent scientists advocating anthropogenic global warming theory and suggest conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, efforts to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process, manipulation of data, and private admissions of flaws in their public claims.

We can justifiably ask, “If man’s activities truly cause the Earth to warm, why do they need to deceive the public?” What do they fear from being honest?

As the science of global warming crumbles, the reaction of warmists to the revelations is interesting. The scientists say these revelations are a petty issue, while the policymakers go merrily on as if man-caused warming is settled science and everything is just hunky-dory.

All of this supports the idea that “saving the Earth from humans” is more about an ideology turned into a religion than about a real threat to the environment.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Science, Politics, Environment, Liberalism