ACA Cancelled? Prior Policy on Death Row? A One Year Reprieve .…Maybe, Sorta, Kinda.

WASHINGTON — Bowing to pressure, President Barack Obama on Thursday announced changes to his health care law to give insurance companies the option to keep offering consumers plans that would otherwise be canceled.

The administrative changes are good for just one year, though senior administration officials said they could be extended if problems with the law persist. Obama announced the changes at the White House.

"This fix won't solve every problem for every person, but it's going to help a lot of people," the president said.’

‘It's unclear what the impact of Thursday's changes will be for the millions of people who have already had their plans canceled. While officials said insurance companies will now be able to offer those people the option to renew their old plans, companies are not required to take that step.

Insurance companies will be required to inform consumers who want to keep canceled plans about the protections that are not included under those plans. Customers will also be notified that new options are available offering more coverage and in some cases, tax credits to cover higher premiums.

Under Obama's plan, insurance companies would not be allowed to sell coverage deemed subpar under the law to new customers, marking a difference with legislation that House Republicans intend to put to a vote on Friday.

Only last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a Senate panel she doubted that retroactively permitting insurers to sell canceled policies "can work very well since companies are now in the market with an array of new plans. Many have actually added consumer protections in the last three-and-a-half years." ‘ - Policy cancellations: Obama will allow old plans, msn.com, AP, 11/14/2013

Link to the entire article appears below:

http://news.msn.com/us/policy-cancellations-obama-will-allow-old-plans


　

　


　

Obama on Obamacare: when a train wreck is not a train wreck yet it’s a train wreck

“Health Care: At his press conference this week, President Obama tried to reassure Americans about ObamaCare. Instead, he displayed either an incredible lack of understanding about his own law, or something far worse.

Asked about increasing Democratic concern over what Sen. Max Baucus called a looming ObamaCare "train wreck," Obama claimed that it's all much ado about very little.

But almost nothing he said in defense of ObamaCare was accurate. Among his statements: "A huge chunk of it's already been implemented."

In fact, all that's been implemented so far are a few PR-friendly changes like a mandate to cover children up to age 26 and a more generous Medicare drug benefit.

Democrats put off the bulk of the law — the massive market regulations, the government-run exchanges, mandates to buy coverage, and various taxes and fees—until 2014, both to hide its true costs and to avoid any unpleasantness before the 2012 elections.

"For the 85% to 90% of Americans who already have health insurance ... they don't have to worry about anything else."

Really? The Congressional Budget Office expects 7 million workers — and possibly as many as 20 million — will lose their employer coverage because of ObamaCare. That's plenty to worry about.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said millions of seniors will get dumped from their private Medicare Advantage plans by 2017 thanks to sharp payment cuts required by the law.

And small businesses now providing coverage face huge rate hikes thanks to ObamaCare's many market regulations and benefit mandates. Maryland's biggest insurer, nonprofit CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, said ObamaCare will force rates up by 15% next year.

"The other stuff's been implemented and it's working fine."

That's only true if you ignore the fact that ObamaCare's high-risk pools have been a disaster, attracting a third as many people as predicted while costing far more than the administration budgeted.

Or the fact that Obama had to issue more than 1,200 waivers to companies who said the law's initial insurance market rules would have forced them to cancel coverage for millions of workers.

The overly complicated small-business tax credit has also been a bust, with only about 5% of eligible firms taking advantage of it. And so on.” - Just How Ignorant Is Obama About ObamaCare? 05/01/2013, Investors Business Daily

The entire IBD article appears in the link below:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050113-654365-obama-gets-his-facts-wrong-about-obamacare.htm


　

Update: Reid: More funding needed to prevent ObamaCare from becoming 'train wreck' - thehill.com, 05/01/2013

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/297333-reid-says-more-funding-is-needed-to-prevent-healthcare-law-from-becoming-a-train-wreck

You Didn't Build That: The Movie

Obama Calls for Lower University Tuition Rates

‘This morning I heard President Obama call for universities to lower their tuition rates so that “everybody in America can go to college.”

 I am virtually certain that the President is not stupid enough to think that if tuition rates fell to zero,there would magically be enough room in the colleges for everybody in America. So I’ve got to believe that he’s purposely saying stupid things in order to appeal to stupid voters — the sort of voters, in other words, who probably don’t belong in college.

To believe what the President wants you to believe, you’d have to be not just stupid but badly misinformed. At the University where I teach, we do not lack for applicants. The reason we don’t have more students is not that they can’t afford us; it’s that we don’t have room for them.

The President’s proposal would make sense if universities were ordinary monopolists, artificially restricting enrollments in order to keep prices high. But universities, insofar as they are monopolists, are by no means ordinary — they are price-discriminating monopolists — and extraordinarily effective ones at that.

Every year, I tell my Principles students with confidence that “You and the student on your right are probably not paying the same tuition rate”. Universities have detailed information on students’ academic records (which tells them where else those students are likely to be admitted) and detailed information on student’s (and their family’s) financial statuses. They exploit this information to tailor individual aid packages.

That’s important here, because, unlike an ordinary monopolist, a good price discriminator doesn’t leave seats in the classroom unfilled just to keep prices high. Instead, the price discriminator fills empty seats at bargain prices while still keeping prices high for those who are willing to pay full fare.' - Playing the Dunce, Steve Landsburg, 09/04/2012

http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/09/04/playing-the-dunce/

　

　

Beyond Landburg’s monopoly aspect, what about land grant universities as “the second coming of the post office”? How so?

Administrative positions at universities, as reported many times by Mark Perry, economist University of Michigan,  are now at or exceed the number of professors and instructors at many, many universities. The administrative positions which are increasing at an increasing rate are well paying and come with a litany of benefits driving total compensation to high levels.(1)

Beginning in 1979 to present the escalating cost of higher education is accompanied by escalating administration positions and associated cost. These administrative position are to extent or another the result of a political constituency building process of certain politicos. These expanding public sector administrative positions then rationally require such persons holding such positions to support political candidates that support the growth and maintenance of the growing administration.

Therefore the escalating costs of higher education are politically driven as a political constituency building exercise. A few questions that beg to be asked are: would Mr. Obama be open to slashing this politically built constituency which is very likely part of his voter base? Capacity concerns aside, if institutions overnight jettisoned fifty percent of their administration and consequently lowered cost would Mr. Obama then complain of lost jobs or more succinctly complain of lost jobs which represent his now lost voter base?

In the final analysis, Landsburg is likely correct: “…to believe that he’s purposely saying stupid things in order to appeal to stupid voters”.



Notes:


(1) http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/12/college-everythings-going-up-except.html

Eastwood Speech at the GOP Convention: “When somebody does not do the job… we gotta let’m go.”

Transcript of Paul Ryan's GOP Convention Speech

"Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored by the support of this convention for vice president of the United States.

I accept the duty to help lead our nation out of a jobs crisis and back to prosperity – and I know we can do this.

I accept the calling of my generation to give our children the America that was given to us, with opportunity for the young and security for the old – and I know that we are ready.

Our nominee is sure ready. His whole life has prepared him for this moment – to meet serious challenges in a serious way, without excuses and idle words. After four years of getting the run-around, America needs a turnaround, and the man for the job is Governor Mitt Romney.

I’m the newcomer to the campaign, so let me share a first impression. I have never seen opponents so silent about their record, and so desperate to keep their power.

They’ve run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division are all they’ve got left.

With all their attack ads, the president is just throwing away money – and he’s pretty experienced at that. You see, some people can’t be dragged down by the usual cheap tactics, because their ability, character, and plain decency are so obvious – and ladies and gentlemen, that is Mitt Romney.

For my part, your nomination is an unexpected turn. It certainly came as news to my family, and I’d like you to meet them: My wife Janna, our daughter Liza, and our boys Charlie and Sam.

The kids are happy to see their grandma, who lives in Florida. There she is – my Mom, Betty. My Dad, a small-town lawyer, was also named Paul. Until we lost him when I was 16, he was a gentle presence in my life. I like to think he’d be proud of me and my sister and brothers, because I’m sure proud of him and of where I come from, Janesville, Wisconsin.

I live on the same block where I grew up. We belong to the same parish where I was baptized. Janesville is that kind of place. The people of Wisconsin have been good to me. I’ve tried to live up to their trust. And now I ask those hardworking men and women, and millions like them across America, to join our cause and get this country working again.

When Governor Romney asked me to join the ticket, I said, “Let’s get this done” – and that is exactly, what we’re going to do.

President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

Right now, 23 million men and women are struggling to find work. Twenty-three million people, unemployed or underemployed. Nearly one in six Americans is living in poverty. Millions of young Americans have graduated from college during the Obama presidency, ready to use their gifts and get moving in life. Half of them can’t find the work they studied for, or any work at all.

So here’s the question: Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?

The first troubling sign came with the stimulus. It was President Obama’s first and best shot at fixing the economy, at a time when he got everything he wanted under one-party rule. It cost $831 billion – the largest one-time expenditure ever by our federal government.
It went to companies like Solyndra, with their gold-plated connections, subsidized jobs, and make-believe markets.

The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal.
What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn’t just spent and wasted – it was borrowed, spent, and wasted.

Maybe the greatest waste of all was time. Here we were, faced with a massive job crisis – so deep that if everyone out of work stood in single file, that unemployment line would stretch the length of the entire American continent. You would think that any president, whatever his party, would make job creation, and nothing else, his first order of economic business.

But this president didn’t do that. Instead, we got a long, divisive, all-or-nothing attempt to put the federal government in charge of health care.

Obamacare comes to more than two thousand pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines that have no place in a free country.

The president has declared that the debate over government-controlled health care is over. That will come as news to the millions of Americans who will elect Mitt Romney so we can repeal Obamacare.

And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly.

You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care takeover, even with new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in Washington still didn’t have enough money. They needed more. They needed hundreds of billions more. So, they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.

An obligation we have to our parents and grandparents is being sacrificed, all to pay for a new entitlement we didn’t even ask for. The greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare, and we’re going to stop it.

In Congress, when they take out the heavy books and wall charts about Medicare, my thoughts go back to a house on Garfield Street in Janesville. My wonderful grandma, Janet, had Alzheimer’s and moved in with Mom and me. Though she felt lost at times, we did all the little things that made her feel loved.

We had help from Medicare, and it was there, just like it’s there for my Mom today. Medicare is a promise, and we will honor it. A Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare, for my Mom’s generation, for my generation, and for my kids and yours.

So our opponents can consider themselves on notice. In this election, on this issue, the usual posturing on the Left isn’t going to work. Mitt Romney and I know the difference between protecting a program, and raiding it. Ladies and gentlemen, our nation needs this debate. We want this debate. We will win this debate.

Obamacare, as much as anything else, explains why a presidency that began with such anticipation now comes to such a disappointing close.

It began with a financial crisis; it ends with a job crisis.
It began with a housing crisis they alone didn’t cause; it ends with a housing crisis they didn’t correct.

It began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America.

It all started off with stirring speeches, Greek columns, the thrill of something new. Now all that’s left is a presidency adrift, surviving on slogans that already seem tired, grasping at a moment that has already passed, like a ship trying to sail on yesterday’s wind.

President Obama was asked not long ago to reflect on any mistakes he might have made. He said, well, “I haven’t communicated enough.” He said his job is to “tell a story to the American people” – as if that’s the whole problem here? He needs to talk more, and we need to be better listeners?

Ladies and gentlemen, these past four years we have suffered no shortage of words in the White House. What’s missing is leadership in the White House. And the story that Barack Obama does tell, forever shifting blame to the last administration, is getting old. The man assumed office almost four years ago – isn’t it about time he assumed responsibility?

In this generation, a defining responsibility of government is to steer our nation clear of a debt crisis while there is still time. Back in 2008, candidate Obama called a $10 trillion national debt “unpatriotic” – serious talk from what looked to be a serious reformer.

Yet by his own decisions, President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments of Europe combined. One president, one term, $5 trillion in new debt.

He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.

Republicans stepped up with good-faith reforms and solutions equal to the problems. How did the president respond? By doing nothing – nothing except to dodge and demagogue the issue.

So here we are, $16 trillion in debt and still he does nothing. In Europe, massive debts have put entire governments at risk of collapse, and still he does nothing. And all we have heard from this president and his team are attacks on anyone who dares to point out the obvious.

They have no answer to this simple reality: We need to stop spending money we don’t have.

My Dad used to say to me: “Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution.” The present administration has made its choices. And Mitt Romney and I have made ours: Before the math and the momentum overwhelm us all, we are going to solve this nation’s economic problems.

And I’m going to level with you: We don’t have that much time. But if we are serious, and smart, and we lead, we can do this.

After four years of government trying to divide up the wealth, we will get America creating wealth again. With tax fairness and regulatory reform, we’ll put government back on the side of the men and women who create jobs, and the men and women who need jobs.

My Mom started a small business, and I’ve seen what it takes. Mom was 50 when my Dad died. She got on a bus every weekday for years, and rode 40 miles each morning to Madison. She earned a new degree and learned new skills to start her small business. It wasn’t just a new livelihood. It was a new life. And it transformed my Mom from a widow in grief to a small businesswoman whose happiness wasn’t just in the past. Her work gave her hope. It made our family proud. And to this day, my Mom is my role model.

Behind every small business, there’s a story worth knowing. All the corner shops in our towns and cities, the restaurants, cleaners, gyms, hair salons, hardware stores – these didn’t come out of nowhere. A lot of heart goes into each one. And if small businesspeople say they made it on their own, all they are saying is that nobody else worked seven days a week in their place. Nobody showed up in their place to open the door at five in the morning. Nobody did their thinking, and worrying, and sweating for them. After all that work, and in a bad economy, it sure doesn’t help to hear from their president that government gets the credit. What they deserve to hear is the truth: Yes, you did build that.

We have a plan for a stronger middle class, with the goal of generating 12 million new jobs over the next four years.

In a clean break from the Obama years, and frankly from the years before this president, we will keep federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, or less. That is enough. The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government, and we choose to limit government.

I learned a good deal about economics, and about America, from the author of the Reagan tax reforms – the great Jack Kemp. What gave Jack that incredible enthusiasm was his belief in the possibilities of free people, in the power of free enterprise and strong communities to overcome poverty and despair. We need that same optimism right now.

And in our dealings with other nations, a Romney-Ryan administration will speak with confidence and clarity. Wherever men and women rise up for their own freedom, they will know that the American president is on their side. Instead of managing American decline, leaving allies to doubt us and adversaries to test us, we will act in the conviction that the United States is still the greatest force for peace and liberty that this world has ever known.
President Obama is the kind of politician who puts promises on the record, and then calls that the record.

But we are four years into this presidency. The issue is not the economy as Barack Obama inherited it, not the economy as he envisions it, but this economy as we are living it.

College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life. Everyone who feels stuck in the Obama economy is right to focus on the here and now. And I hope you understand this too, if you’re feeling left out or passed by: You have not failed, your leaders have failed you.

None of us have to settle for the best this administration offers – a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.

Listen to the way we’re spoken to already, as if everyone is stuck in some class or station in life, victims of circumstances beyond our control, with government there to help us cope with our fate.

It’s the exact opposite of everything I learned growing up in Wisconsin, or at college in Ohio. When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That’s what we do in this country. That’s the American Dream. That’s freedom, and I’ll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners.

By themselves, the failures of one administration are not a mandate for a new administration. A challenger must stand on his own merits. He must be ready and worthy to serve in the office of president.

We’re a full generation apart, Governor Romney and I. And, in some ways, we’re a little different. There are the songs on his iPod, which I’ve heard on the campaign bus and on many hotel elevators. He actually urged me to play some of these songs at campaign rallies. I said, I hope it’s not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin.

A generation apart. That makes us different, but not in any of the things that matter. Mitt Romney and I both grew up in the heartland, and we know what places like Wisconsin and Michigan look like when times are good, when people are working, when families are doing more than just getting by. And we both know it can be that way again.

We’ve had very different careers – mine mainly in public service, his mostly in the private sector. He helped start businesses and turn around failing ones. By the way, being successful in business – that’s a good thing.

Mitt has not only succeeded, but succeeded where others could not. He turned around the Olympics at a time when a great institution was collapsing under the weight of bad management, overspending, and corruption – sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

He was the Republican governor of a state where almost nine in ten legislators are Democrats, and yet he balanced the budget without raising taxes. Unemployment went down, household incomes went up, and Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, saw its credit rating upgraded.

Mitt and I also go to different churches. But in any church, the best kind of preaching is done by example. And I’ve been watching that example. The man who will accept your nomination tomorrow is prayerful and faithful and honorable. Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. Not only a fine businessman, he’s a fine man, worthy of leading this optimistic and good-hearted country.

Our different faiths come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life.

We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.

Each of these great moral ideas is essential to democratic government – to the rule of law, to life in a humane and decent society. They are the moral creed of our country, as powerful in our time, as on the day of America’s founding. They are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government.

The founding generation secured those rights for us, and in every generation since, the best among us have defended our freedoms. They are protecting us right now. We honor them and all our veterans, and we thank them.
The right that makes all the difference now, is the right to choose our own leaders. And you are entitled to the clearest possible choice, because the time for choosing is drawing near. So here is our pledge.

We will not duck the tough issues, we will lead.

We will not spend four years blaming others, we will take responsibility.

We will not try to replace our founding principles, we will reapply our founding principles.

The work ahead will be hard. These times demand the best of us – all of us, but we can do this. Together, we can do this.

We can get this country working again. We can get this economy growing again. We can make the safety net safe again. We can do this.

Whatever your political party, let’s come together for the sake of our country. Join Mitt Romney and me. Let’s give this effort everything we have. Let’s see this through all the way. Let’s get this done.

Thank you, and God bless you all"

“You Didn’t Build That” Sneer and Crowding Out Private-Sector Success

Recently Don Boudreaux, economist George Mason University wrote an essay entitled “Crowding out private-sector success” published 08/14/2012 at Triblive, the e-edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune. Boudreaux points out in the essay, as the title implies, that Mr. Obama’s recent sneer of “you didn’t build that” is an attempt to crowd out private-sector success with collective action. (1)


Among the kinds of infrastructure that have, in fact, been supplied successfully by private businesses are city streets, highways, sewage systems, formal education, policing, money and commercial law. Government provision of such infrastructure, therefore, cannot be read as evidence that government’s role on this front is necessary.

If government failed to build highways to connect, say, Atlanta to Pittsburgh, private firms almost certainly would. (It’s easy to collect tolls from drivers who use highways.) And likewise for nearly any other pair of cities in America. So in what way is any actual, government-built highway necessary for any private entrepreneur’s economic success? None — if (as is likely) private enterprise would have done what government instead did by crowding out private efforts. (2)

　
Regarding Mr. Obama’s “sneer” and Dr. Boudreaux’s essay, here are some points to ponder:


(1) the essay finds some of its basis in the economic concept that: government produces nothing. This is, government produces nothing that the private sector would not have otherwise produced, absent tax. The total would be equivalent, albeit a different basket of goods.

(2) Obama’s “sneer” along with Elizabeth Warren‘s “sneer“ may well indicate that the two know just enough about the concept of “collective action” to frame political notional talking points, but no more.

(3) consider F.A. Hayek’s position that if collective action is to be undertaken, the government should merely act as resource [tax] collector and the collective action should be deployed through the private sector. Hayek postulated that the deployment of collective action through a public sector was due to politicos gaining power through such an arrangement.

(4) if a collective action is undertaken, say building a bridge, the collective action was undertaken in lieu of private action. However, the collective action is not pure “someone else/everyone else” made this happen. That is a very ultraistic view. Do bond referendums end up on ballots, for say a performing arts center, by voters casting a vote due to spontaneous order -or- in the main, do the ballot initiative end up placed on said ballot by special interests? Does appropriated highway money build bridge X or replace bridge Y due to bureaucratic decisions or voter preference?

(5) if voters V vote for bridge Z, does the voter not do so out of self-interest? Conversely, if voter VV votes against bridge Z, does the voter not do out of self-interest? If special interest S lobbies to have bridge Z built through someone else’s money, does special interest S not do so from the point of self-interest? Hence one might label an action “collective action” but Mr. Self-Interest is at the bottom of this collective action.


Therefore, by notionally framing collective action as a spontaneous action of diverse citizens rather than its self interest roots, leaving out that much collective action is politico and/or special-interest associated and adding back the ultraistic idea that participants of the collective action voted for the object of the collective action out of their pure benevolence for their fellow man….we end with Obama and Warren’s notional political argument of “you didn’t build that” by indeed crowding out private sector success with a politically framed notional proposition.

　
Notes:



(1) Crowding out private-sector success, Donald Boudreaux, 08/14/2012, Triblive

http://triblive.com/opinion/donaldboudreaux/2371691-74/government-highways-private-built-mart-wal-build-companies-obama-oil


(2) Ibid

　
　
　
　

Public Choice, Pluralism, The Neo-Corporatist State, and the book The Amateur by Ed Klein [page 65 specifically]

In the book Government Failure, A Primer in Public Choice by Gordon Tullock, Arthur Seldon, and Gordon Brady, Gordon Tullock makes an excellent observation that many if not all economies prior to 1700 were economies based on rent seeking [gaining privilege from/through government to gain success]. That the 13 colonies where the exception and by 1700 rent seeking economies where on the decline and by the time Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations rent seeking economies were being replaced in a wide spread fashion.

However, and strictly speaking of the USA, Tullock points out that an economy based upon rent seeking was once again advocated beginning around 1910 [Woodrow Wilson era] and continuing through today. The insight being that rent seeking economies are an old form of economic organization and have once again been adopted by politicos in the US. Keep this point in mind for a moment.

The neo-corporatist state, those economic organizations adopted infamously by Adolph Hitler and Francisco Franco, economies based on society seen as a corporation and government dominates all sectors of society and all sectors of society are required to work for “the public interest” where the public interest is defined by politicos through the mechanism of government. The neo-corporatist state is generally swept aside and dismissed mainly due to the end result of Adolph Hitler’s Germany.

Ah, but not so fast. Although the concept of the neo-corporatist state is many times swept aside, by no means is the neo-corporatist state concept dead. Pluralism, where competing interest groups in a rent seeking economy compete for government privileges can easily morph into a neo-corporatist state where politicos through the mechanism of government merely set the agenda and all follow the “interest agenda” rather than the politico being competitively lobbied by various special interests. That is to say, rather than politicos being faced with competing interests, politicos merely end competition and set the interest-agenda in a monopolistic fashion.

Which brings us to page 65 of the book The Amateur by Ed Klein. Klein states [paraphrasing] that Michael Dukakis and Gary Hart were advocates of the neo-corporatist state as is Barrack Obama and his inner circle of advisors. That the “transformational” mantra of Obama is in essence neo-corporatism where: “ He planned to achieve his “transformational” presidency by vastly expanding the reach of Washington into the everyday life of American citizens”.

Klein certainly brings up an interesting point.

Obama vs. Romney: A Basic Error with the Private Equity Debate Point

Obama stated in a recent speech that having a background in private equity [Romney] is basically a disqualifier to be president:

“The main goal of a financial firm like Governor Romney's is not to create jobs. And, by the way, the people who work at these firms will tell you that's not their goal. Their main goal is to create wealth for themselves and their investors. When maximizing short-term gains for your investors rather than building companies that last is your goal, then sometimes it goes the other way. Workers get laid off, benefits disappear, pensions are cut, factories go dark. Now, that may be the job of somebody who's engaged in corporate buyouts. That's fine. But that's not the job of a president.” - Des Moines, Iowa, state fair grounds speech, 05/24/2012

Hmmm.

Upon further review, Obama's minions are simultaneously putting forth a message, and not being corrected by the White House and hence implicitly advocated by the White House,  stating Obama is the real private equity guy with the most common examples pointed to as GM and Chrysler. (1)

That is, that Obama‘s restructuring of GM and Chrysler [abrogating bondholder rights], layoffs and termination of auto worker positions, plant closures, and dealership contract terminations, etc. and the semi-recovery of GM and Chrysler make Mr. Obama the king of private equity based on the sheer size of the GM and Chrysler bail out.


Upon closer examination of the Mr. Obama's debate point and his associated intelligentsia argument:

(1) government bailouts and private equity procedures are mutually exclusive, yet both are equated in the minions message. That is, a notional proposition is put forth as fact with no empirical evidence,


(2) Romney, with a private equity background, with his background held forth as an automatic disqualifier of Romney for the job as president (being Obama‘s implicit and explicit message and definition of disqualifiers),


(3) carrying forward Obama’s very own definition and applying it to those associated with private equity and simultaneously seeking the position of president,


(3a) synthesizing Obama's debate point with the minions argument,


(4) Mr. Obama is defined as the private equity king and hence disqualified by his own background- disqualifier-definition. Ops!

Ah, the evil of it all!


Notes:

(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-private-equity-king/2012/05/23/gJQAFolLkU_story.html

“Social Darwinism”: The Political Spectrum’s Fungible Taking Point

“In remarks later Tuesday, President Barack Obama will slam the Republican budget plan put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as "nothing but thinly veiled Social Darwinism."

"It's a Trojan Horse," Obama will say during remarks at an Associated Press Luncheon, according to excerpts released by the White House.

"Disguised as [a] deficit reduction plan, it's really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It's nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism. It's antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everyone who's willing to work for it -- a place where prosperity doesn't trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that's built to last -- education and training; research and development -- it's a prescription for decline," the president will say.” (1)

　

One might ask oneself what does social Darwinism mean? That is, the phrase “social Darwinism” is not a common phrase. Matter-of-fact, the phrase is used so infrequently that it prompted a Washington Post article entitled What Obama meant by ‘social Darwinism’:

　

"Simply put, it means applying the ideas of Charles Darwin — that species adapt over time — to human society, arguing that competition over resources helps humanity evolve for the better as the weak are weeded out and the strong survive and thrive.

But social Darwinism is seen as more as an epithet than a useful description, because the idea is so malleable.

Social Darwinism gained some popularity early on among British landowners and American capitalists, who saw in it a justification for their own wealth.

Imperialism was
justified on Darwinist grounds as strength honed through warfare, with stronger races overtaking weaker ones. But peace was too, on the grounds that the fittest members of society should not be wasted in war. 

“The concentration of capital is a necessity for meeting the demands of our day, and as such should not be looked at askance, but be encouraged,” Carnegie wrote in his autobiography after reading social Darwinist theory. “There is nothing detrimental to human society in it, but much that is, or is bound soon to become, beneficial.”

Social Darwinism is also seen in eugenics, the idea that certain races and physical traits should be weeded out of the general population. It played a role in the American progressive movement and in Nazi Germany — both movements that went against laissez-faire capitalism, in very different ways. In this interpretation, the weak must be culled so that the society as a whole can evolve more quickly.

Thus “social Darwinism” can be used to attack all sorts of enemies.”

　

“While the term “social Darwinism” was used as early as 1877, it did not gain widespread popularity except in retrospect, and mostly as an insult.” (2)

　

　

Hence one finds oneself with a seldom used phrase, used as an epithet, a phrase that is highly malleable which can only mean one has arrived once again at the intersection of politics-and-talk otherwise known as political talking points. That is, Mr. Obama does not like Mr. Ryan’s’ plan. Rather than empirically disproving Mr. Ryan’s plan Mr. Obama merely relies on a political talking point that attempts to vilify by denying legitimacy to the plan and the plan’s sponsor through a malleable epithet. Moreover, if one is out to disparage without evidence, one might reconsider using a political talking point phrase that doesn’t prompt everyone to run to textbooks to find the meaning of the vilifying talking point.

Furthermore, the disparaging political talking point of social Darwinism, as a political short cut attempt to avoid evidence to empirically refute, and the subsequent attempt by others to explain what the heck the political taking point means, still leaves us with no insight regarding social Darwinism. That is to say, we still are left with: why is it a political talking point and why is it considered disparaging and why can all corners of the political spectrum use the talking point against one another?

For those seeking some grand insight into the political talking point “social Darwinism” one may find that Thomas C. Leonard offers such insight. Leonard’s 2007 essay Origins of the myth of social Darwinism: The ambiguous legacy of Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in American Thought appeared in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

One very, very odd point that Leonard uncovers is that the phrase “social Darwinism” was hardly ever used prior to Richard Hofstadter’s 1944 book Social Darwinism in American Thought. Moreover, Hofstadter basically declared “social Darwinism” as dead at the end of World War One. However, after Hofstadter’s 1944 book, the use of the phrase “social Darwinism” skyrocketed. Hence we have a very obscure concept, rarely referred to and when the rarely mentioned obscure concept is pronounced dead, it suddenly skyrockets in its use. Odd to say the least.

A link to Leonard’s essay appears below:

　

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/myth.pdf

　

Notes:

(1) Obama: Paul Ryan's Budget is 'Nothing But Thinly Veiled Social Darwinism', Huffington Post, 04/03/2012,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/obama-paul-ryan-budget-social-darwinism_n_1399080.html

　

　

(2) What Obama meant by ‘social Darwinism’, Washington Post, 04/04/2012,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/what-obama-meant-by-social-darwinism/2012/04/04/gIQAKlZLvS_blog.html#comments

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

Student Loans: a burden or a purposeful politico transfer of cost?

On April 24, 2012 president Obama visited Chapel Hill, NC the home of the University of North Carolina to make his political pitch regarding student loan interest rates. Leaving aside many items that circulate around the topic and proposal, one might want to focus upon his talking point that student loans “become a burden”.

One might say the “burden” is due to too much loan value in relation to income earned after graduation. One might say the “burden” is the inability to finance other items in the near term such as a car or home until student loan balances are paid down/off. However, one might want to also consider that the burden is purposely placed upon the student. How so?

If one considers public universities one must consider that these institutions are public sector entities. That the same over staffed and over paid bureaucracy exists at universities that exists in many other public sector entities albeit the bureaucracy is entitled “administration” at a university.

At many, many universities a long-term trend stretching back to approximately 1979 is the ever increasing size of the administration at universities. Today the number of employees within university administrations is approaching , equaling or exceeding the number of professors at particular institutions. Therefore, like any other public sector entity a very well paid and benefit laden bureaucracy exists.

If one goes back to the explosion in college costs, one will see the escalation began in 1979 which coincides with the explosion in administration size.

Returning to the concept of “burden”, is the burden purposefully placed upon the student in that their loan amount reflects an exploding tuition cost associated with an exponential growth in public sector bureaucracy at universities? Is the “become a burden” political dupery as politicos through the mechanism of government have encourage the administrative increase as a dependent political constituency building exercise with the student “burdened” with the cost?

Stated alternatively, has the politico through dependent political constituency building regarding the increased sized of public sector university administration shifted such cost of the dependent political constituency building exercise onto the unknowing student and consequently the size of the students’ loans? Is the “burden” no more than the burden of the cost purposely transferred to the student by the politico and then “become a burden” is merely a politico dupery talking point to deflect the real source of the burden?


Update 04/29/2012: The Political Obsession with College Education Has Created an Unsustainable College Tuition Bubble, carpe diem blog, Dr. Mark Perry. Link appears below:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/04/political-obsession-with-college.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FmmMP+%28CARPE+DIEM%29

Pawns and Politics

Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama