13 Questions for 12

Donald J. Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, asks thirteen very interesting questions in his essay And the answer is? One might contemplate these questions as we enter 2012. Below are several of the questions as well as the link to the entire TribLive [Pittsburgh Tribune] column/essay:

“Why do so many "progressives" believe that higher marginal tax rates on incomes will not dampen workers' efforts to earn income, but that higher marginal tax ("tariff") rates on imports will dampen importers' efforts to supply imports?

Why do so many "progressives" who preen publicly about their magnanimity toward the poor want to prevent foreign workers -- most of whom are far poorer than is any American -- from bettering their lots by competing freely against relatively rich American workers?

In the same vein, why do so many "progressives" -- nearly all of whom seem to regard differences in income earnings across workers to be an Olympian injustice -- support protectionist policies that artificially enhance the incomes earned by relatively rich American workers by artificially reducing the incomes earned by much-poorer foreign workers? Why is this greater income inequality of no concern to "progressives"?

Why are "progressives" madly obsessed with inequality of incomes but not with inequality of work effort, risk taking, prudence, courage, honesty, integrity, ambition and dedication? Monetary incomes, after all, are largely a result of the application of these qualities: Those who apply more of these qualities to their lives and careers generally earn higher incomes than are earned by those who apply fewer of these qualities to their lives and careers.”



http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/boudreaux/s_773501.html

The Socialized Medicine Scheme: disregarding public opinion

People can not believe Obama , Pelosi and their progressive followers are ramming through their particular version of health-care reform when public opinion is standing at 75% to "start over".

Maybe this helps explain their attempt to ram through legislation against overwhelming public opinion opposition. Roscoe Pound (early progressive): “ …in the hands of a progressive and enlightened caste whose conceptions are in advance of the public and whose leadership is bringing popular thought to a higher level”. (1)

Hence Obama, Pelosi and their progressive followers are coming right out of the progressive playbook and actually believe they are “enlightened” and the “concept” of their enlightened view of health-care is “in advance of the public”.

'Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told an audience yesterday that it was necessary to pass the health care bill to see what was in it away from what she termed the "fog of Washington".' (2)

In other words, Pelosi is stating that her enlightened concept of health-care is what is good for you hence merely pass the bill basically sight-unseen and trust Pelosi as you'll like it.

A final point is that Obama and Pelosi are benevolently giving the public 72 hours to read, digest, understand, and make an informed decision on a 3,000 page bill written in legal jargon regarding a highly dynamic subject. It is a ridiculous notion that an informed decision can be made in 72 hours. Its a ridiculous notion that a 3,000 page bill should not be subject to a long debate regarding all the aspects of the bill.

(1) Roscoe Pound, "The Need of a Sociological Jurisprudence," The Green Bag, October 1907, pp. 611,612.

(2)http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/pelosi-pass-the-health-care-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/