The White House is reporting that the so-called "stimulus" bill has "created or saved" 640,329 jobs.  That's a pretty precise number, except, as ABC News reports, "[o]fficials acknowledged the numbers were not exact, saying that states and localities that reported the numbers have made mistakes."  First of all, if the Obama Administration is aware that the number is not accurate, why post such a precise number?

But it's even more insulting when you look further into the numbers.  According to the same website, approximately $207.1 billion of the "stimulus" has been spent.  The ostensible purpose of the "stimulus" spending was to "save or create" jobs.  Even taking the Administration's own numbers at face value, that means that the government has spent over $320,000 per job that has been "saved or created".  That's even worse than the numbers ABC News reported when a top Obama economic adviser accused them of "calculator abuse" for claiming the government was paying $160,000 per job (the difference in their calculation and mine seems to be the amount of "stimulus" money actually spent; they report "$159 billion in stimulus funds allocated as of Sept. 30", while my calculation is based on the official White House reporting as of October 31).

Only government could assert that a simple calculation of unit cost is "calculator abuse".  Apparently simple mathematics and honesty are too much to ask of our elected officials and what they do with our money.

In response to this editorial in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  Preferred option:  Public option should be part of health care reform -- with no opt-out by states

I was disappointed (though not surprised) to see the Chronicle editorial board endorse the so-called "public option" -- a government-run health insurance program, based on mandates and prohibitions, to supposedly provide "meaningful competition" in the health insurance marketplace.  Unfortunately, it isn't freedom in the marketplace that limits competition; rather, government mandates against buying across state lines and against group plans limit the pool of competitors.  If government were to remove those barriers, consumers would instantly have more options in a competitive marketplace.

But the Chronicle goes further beyond the pale when it advocates a "public option" that is modeled on the Medicare system, claiming that it "provides for seniors in an efficient and cost-effective way".  Apparently the Chronicle editorialists haven't read the 2009 Report of the Medicare Trustees (available at www.ssa.gov), which talks about "growing deficits", "financial difficulties" and says that Medicare "again fails our test of short-range financial adequacy" and "continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin".  Medicare is a looming financial disaster, neither "cost effective" nor "efficient".

President Obama himself said it best when he pointed out that it is the US Post Office that is consistently having financial and operational difficulties, not FedEx or UPS.  The answer to opening up a competitive marketplace for health insurance isn't more government mandates and prohibitions, it is more power in the hands of consumers.  The "public option" does not help the public.

Sincerely,

Dave Smith
Houston, TX

With a lone Republican vote -- Maine's Senator Olympia Snowe -- another of the multitude of health insurance "reform" bills moving through Congress has cleared committee, in this case Chairman Max Baucus's (D-MT) Finance Committee.  The bill is less government-centric than some of the other bills that have passed various committees in the House and Senate, in that while it does impose a personal mandate to purchase health insurance and new taxes, the bill does not contain the so-called "public option" -- the establishment of a government-run health insurance plan to "compete" with private insurance plans.

Of course, the Baucus plan does not remove the government mandates and prohibitions that currently serve to limit competition:  prohibitions from buying across state lines that would increase competitions and allow individuals to escape costly minimum coverage state mandates; group plans that would enable organizations like the American Diabetes Association, the American Institute of Architects, or even the NAACP from pooling members together and negotiating group rates for its members; or changes in the tax code that would provide individuals with the same tax advantages to buy their own insurance that corporations have to provide it for them, that would make health insurance portable as well as allow for greater individual choice.  None of the Democratic plans offer these fundamental (and inexpensive) reforms that would lessen the impact of government in favor of empowered individuals and families.

But even though Baucus's plan does increase government intrusion, particularly with the personal mandate (for which I can find no Constitutional justification), it is receiving criticism from many desiring a more intrusive, statist "reform".  And in one sense, the criticisms from the left are correct.  In establishing a government mandate that each person must buy health insurance (with subsidies provided to those who "can't afford" coverage), the health insurance corporations are getting a tremendous boost.  What could be better for any business than having the government force people to buy your product?

Often during the health insurance debate, when mandates are criticized, advocates of government expansion pull out the example of auto insurance, and state mandates that one must purchase certain minimum insurance.  However, this is not a good analogy for several reasons.  First of all, nobody actually is forced to buy auto insurance -- only those who wish to operate vehicles on roads paid for and owned by the public; thus, the public decides what protections of public property are necessary to use those roads; if I do not wish to drive, or wish to drive only on my own private property, I require no such license. 

Secondly, auto insurance is a competitive market; there are state licensing requirements for insurance companies that can be used to protect bigger companies from competition, but because it is purchased individually, there is much competition.  And, while there are minimum requirements by the state imposed for the protection of the property of others should a driver cause a wreck, there are no such impositions on what one must get for coverage of one's own vehicle (although most banks do impose such requirements to procure a loan, again, this is voluntary, as no one is forced to buy a car or to get a loan to do so).  A car insurance customer has free reign to shop around with various competing companies (no "public option" provided) and mix and match coverage options.  Also note that auto insurance is used for big ticket or catastrophic expenses.  Oil changes, wiper blades, and new tires aren't the purview of auto insurance.

Thirdly, it isn't the federal government providing the mandates to citizens to buy auto insurance, but rather state governments.  I personally disagree with the decision in Massachusetts to establish an individual mandate; however, as Madison explains in

Federalist 45, the state governments have much wider latitude than the federal government:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The states were expected to establish different policies and laws, with people able to "vote with their feet" should a state government become oppressive or incompetent.  Thus while I disagree with high taxes in Michigan and California, the state governments are well within their rights to implement bad policies on a broad range of "numerous and indefinite" issues.  Not so the federal governments, whose powers are "few and defined" -- with no authority for a personal mandate mentioned in the Constitution.

Mandates by a state government forcing individuals to purchase health insurance are misguided, counter-productive, and oppressive; those same mandates by the federal government are all those things, but add  "un-Constitutional" to the list.  A state could choose to establish a single-payer government plan if it so chose; the federal government has no such authority.

Whether or not any of the proposed health care plans will pass either House of Congress, much less both, is still uncertain.  Let's hope that in the name of "reform", we don't get the imposition of more mandates that limit the choices of individuals and families to define their own health care coverage.

It's official:  the Nobel Prize for Peace has been awarded to US President Barack Obama, making him the fourth U.S. President to win the award, and the third US Democrat to win the award in the past decade.  The previous winners were Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, who brokered a peace treaty ending the war between Russia and Japan, and Woodrow Wilson, who helped broker the peace treaty that ended World War I, Jimmy Carter, and former Vice President Al Gore.

According to the official website of the Nobel Prize, the prizes are "awarded for achievement in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and for peace" [emphasis added].  Yet in its announcement of President Obama's win, the Nobel Committee said that he had achieved the award "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" [emphasis added].

In naming President Obama as this year's Peace Prize Laureate, the Nobel Committee has chosen effort over achievement.  Rather than giving the prize to someone who has stood up to tyranny, like Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai -- who challenged brutal dictator Robert Mugabe, and whose wife was killed for it -- or dissidents in Cuba, North Korea, or even Venezuela, or for womens' rights activists in Muslim countries like Afghanistan, the Committee has chosen to award someone for giving a speech.

True peace can not coexist with tyranny -- true peace requires individual liberty; to claim otherwise is to equate peace with slavery or oppression.  Those who stand against oppression, against tyranny, are true peacemakers.  People like previous winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who continues to stand against the military dictators in Burma, or the Dalai Lama who fights against the Chinese dictators for political and religious freedom in Tibet:  those are true peacemakers.  These are people who, even if they don't accomplish their goals, make sacrifices for their ideals and for the good of others -- for the idea of freedom and peace.  No speech, no matter how eloquent, equates with this sacrifice, and no speech made by the President has freed a single person from the shackles of oppression.  But, according to the Nobel Committee, merely his effort is enough.

President Obama's win is the ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance, and of effort over achievement.

In response to this article in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  Coming soon:  Second stimulus with another name

E.J. Dionne is convinced that the so-called "stimulus plan passed by Congress at the beginning of the year was not big enough," stating that "even $787 billion wasn't sufficient" to move the economy from job losses to job creation and turn around the current recession.  It would appear Mr. Dionne is not dealing in facts.  Regardless of whether or not one thinks that government spending provides any "stimulus" at all, it is important to recognize that according to the government's official website that tracks "stimulus" spending (www.recovery.gov), barely $100 billion of the $787 billion has been spent. 

Doesn't it seem fiscally irresponsible to advocate another round of government deficit spending -- requiring either raising taxes or increasing the debt burden on future generations -- when less than 15% of the original "stimulus" has been spent?

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Whether on a local, state, or federal level, when our legislators vote on laws, one would expect that they have read the proposed legislation and understand what it means.  That seems reasonable, doesn't it?  Well, one expecting such a seemingly reasonable, obvious state of affairs should consider Senator Thomas Carper, Democrat of Delaware.  He was quoted in a recent news story as saying the following concerning the health care legislation proposed by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT):  "I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life", subsequently describing such language as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible."

Senator Carper goes on to state that nobody understands the legislative "gibberish", but take heart:  at least "we are pretty good at understanding the plain English version of the legislation".  Well then.

So let me get this straight:  our national legislature writes such incomprehensible bills in arcane gibberish that even those supposedly in charge of drafting the legislation and voting on it can't understand it.  Yet they expect us to trust them to represent our interests, to make decisions that impact our lives every day, to make choices that individuals and families are no longer allowed to make for themselves? 

And these are the people who "represent" us?

Completely unacceptable.

The business of insurance is built around statistics and quantification of risk:  if you want to ride your motorcycle without a helmet, or if you have speeding tickets or a DWI conviction, you're going to pay more for motorcycle or car insurance.  Insurance providers have things broken down by age, gender, and a myriad of other parameters to determine how much of a risk you are, so they can charge you accordingly.

Apparently, according to the Charlotte Observer, such activity, when applied to health insurance and high-risk behaviors like smoking and high-risk conditions like obesity, serve to "penalize" those customers caught up in the high risk condition:

North Carolina is poised to become only the second state to penalize state employees by placing them in a more expensive health insurance plan if they're obese.

Smokers will feel the drag of higher costs, too, as North Carolina and South Carolina state employees who use tobacco are slated to pay more for health insurance next year. ...

...The idea of penalizing unhealthy lifestyles and rewarding healthy conduct is hardly new among insurance plans. Public health insurance plans in other states already penalize smokers or reward nonsmokers in insurance costs. South Carolina's state employees health plan is scheduled to add a $25-per-month surcharge on smokers in January. Elsewhere in the southeast, Kentucky and Georgia impose surcharges, and Alabama gives nonsmokers a discount.

Of course, there are some that find this "hostile":  "The State Employees Association of North Carolina opposes the tobacco and obesity differentials as invasive steps", with one quoted state employee claiming that "it's an invasion of privacy. This is America, the land of the free."  Of course, the quoted employee seems to ignore a couple of important items.  First of all, under the proposal, no one would lose the right to smoke, or to eat whatever they want, or not to exercise, etc.  Secondly, no one is forced to purchase health insurance (well, at least not yet in North Carolina); an employee not wanting to submit to providing information about smoking habits or height and weight can simply refuse to participate in the health plan.  Third, the plan is being subsidized by the state — to the tune of over $750 million over three years; this means, of course, that the taxpayers of North Carolina are required to foot the bill — the behavior isn't "free" for those paying taxes.

I'm certainly not in favor of Big Government meddling in the private lives of citizens; if you want to smoke or in general live unhealthfully, that's not my business.  However, neither is it my business to be required to subsidize such behavior.  Let those who are of higher risk pay accordingly.  That's not punishment, that's just common sense.

Dear Mr. Moore,
With the release of your latest movie today, Capitalism:  A Love Story, you've apparently decided to attack not just a particular issue of interest, like General Motors, or health care, but the very economic system of capitalism itself.  In reading some of the comments you've made in interviews promoting the film, and in comments on the film from others, I get the distinct feeling that you are criticizing something you don't really understand.  As someone who really does love capitalism, I'd like to invite you to better understand what capitalism, and more specifically, free market capitalism, is really all about.

In an interview with CNSNews, you made some interesting remarks, such as "capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film... I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal [to finance the film].  The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there."  Yet, Mr. Moore, you did get the funding, and you did get the movie out there.  As nobody was forced either to provide you with funding or to pay to see the film (assuming you were using the term "steal" facetiously), "the system" did work.  I'm aware of no other economic system where a person from your background, starting with no connections, no aristocratic background, and no elite education could have done so.  No government program made your movie possible, and no government program forced people to watch it -- people voluntarily lined up to pay money to see your work.

That's the most basic foundation of free market capitalism:  voluntary exchange.  You saw a market for a product -- left-wing documentaries -- and you pursued every means of getting the necessary finances required to produce it.  Because you were successful in providing a product for that market, you were able to fund successive ventures and accumulate massive wealth.  Now I must confess:  I've never seen any of your films; I have no idea whether you're a skilled documentarian or a talentless hack.  But in a capitalist system it doesn't matter -- I have the choice whether or not to provide you with funds.  I have no power over you or anyone else, however.

Now consider if, instead of a free market capitalist system, we had a nationalized film industry -- a "socialist" system.  A National Film Board, Documentaries Division would take applications for grants for government funding to produce documentaries.  Of course, being a government agency, there would be forms to fill out, and guidelines to meet.  Depending on who was writing those guidelines, and how the applications are judged, there are many ways that system could work out.  If a center-right government were in power, perhaps only documentaries praising Ronald Reagan and the war in Iraq or maybe criticizing activist Supreme Court decisions would be in vogue.  With a center-left government, there might be affirmative action requirements to meet, with a certain percentage of documentary grants reserved for, say, minority or women filmmakers.  And, regardless of what party or what kind of government were in place, there would be graft and corruption involved; perhaps an influential Congressman would make sure his son got a grant, or maybe they could be given out as rewards or incentives for favorable movies about someone or a particular issue.

The bottom line is this:  in a capitalist system, when you were turned down for funding or distribution from one source, you were able to "beg, borrow, and steal" until you got your product to the market.  Under a government system, you'd have no recourse once your grant was turned down.  There was still no guarantee under our capitalist system that you could make your films -- there's no right for any of us to achieve our dreams -- but you had the right to try as long as you were willing to, and you ultimately succeeded.

You also provide supposed examples of where "capitalism tried to kill" one of your movies and one of your books.  Now I don't personally know the details of what happened with Disney and HarperCollins.  I would say first of all that corporations don't always act in the true free market capitalist spirit; often, they try to use the power of the government to get special treatment and protection from competition.  But that isn't capitalism, that's not an open market.  Remember:  free market capitalism is simply individual choice and voluntary exchange; fraud or coercion are not part of the equation (the purpose of government in a true free market society is to protect individual from fraud and coercion).  If Disney and HarperCollins were actually trying to suppress your work -- to prevent people from seeing it through fraud or coercion -- then they were acting unjustly.  On the other hand, if they simply weren't wanting to fund your project because they thought it a bad investment, or even because they disagreed with it philosophically, you weren't actually wronged; you still had the right to make the movie or write the book and try to get someone else to buy, publish, or distribute it.  In fact, the fact that your book was published and your movie did hit the screens is proof that you were able to use the free market system to get your product to market.

Finally, I've heard you talk several times about "greed" equating with capitalism.  First, I would submit that greed is a fundamental human failing, not the result of any economic system, and one that is not conquerable by any alternative economic system.  But even greed, in and of itself, isn't a vice that is necessarily bad... at least in a truly free market capitalist society.  There's a famous quote from Adam Smith that "it isn't from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest".  If I'm being provided with a delicious steak, I don't care if the supplier was a happy, benevolent man or a greedy scrooge -- I'm still enjoying that delicious steak.  Now, obviously if that steak is laced with harmful chemicals because of the supplier's greed, that's a different story -- but not a problem of capitalism.  Duplicitously selling someone a harmful or tainted product is certainly fraud, and fraud is acting against the tenets of free market capitalism.  One may still call the person trying to (legally) maximize his steak production simply for the love of money greedy, but he is doing no wrong -- he is simply supplying consumers with product they desire and are willing to voluntarily purchase.

The world is not perfect, and human nature is flawed.  Nobody, even the most ardent advocate, thinks that markets are perfect -- even the most free of free markets in the most capitalist of capitalist systems.  This letter only scratches the surface of what free market capitalism really means and is.  But the most important thing is this:  in a free market capitalist society, each individual is, to borrow a phrase from my favorite TV show, the master of his own domain.  He is free to pursue his own dreams, to buy and sell with others in mutually beneficial exchange, with problems occurring when the elements of fraud and coercion are introduced.  But these are part and parcel of capitalism, but rather deviations from it.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX