About Me

Name: Dave Smith
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Precisely Inaccurate

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.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Medicare: Efficient and Cost-Effective?!?

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
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »