Wednesday, July 22, 2009

From Fox News Sunday 7/19/2009

Updated due to Math Error(s).

Chris Wallace and Peter Orszag (Director of the Office of Management and Budget) are discussing health Care reform. Here is the full transcript.

Chris mentions taxes:

WALLACE: Let's talk about taxes. The House would raise a half a trillion dollars to help pay for its health care program by imposing a surtax on top earners. As a result, combined with other Obama tax policy and local taxes, 39 of the 50 states would have tax rates over 50 percent.

I want you to take a look at this. The top rate in Denmark is 60 percent. It would be over 57 percent in Oregon, almost 57 percent in New York and California. That's higher than Sweden and Belgium.

Is the president prepared to say that it is unacceptable to raise taxes that high?

ORSZAG: Well, first, look. You were — you were adding in state and local taxes in those calculations.

WALLACE: Well, that's what people are going to have to pay.

ORSZAG: Secondly, that affects a very small percentage of the population, 1 or 2 percent.

The money line: "that affects a very small percentage of the population, 1 or 2 percent."

Stew's View:

A. As of 22 July, 2009, according to the Census bureau, the population of the United States is 306,975,184.
B. 10% of that is roughly 30.7 million. 
C. 47 Million uninsured account for 16% of the population.

Although 9.7 million of the uninsured are non-citizen immigrants (IBD Editorial quoting "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," a census report), subtracting this number from the uninsured is poor categorization. (Remember the three rules for categorizing things. 1. Independent, 2. Mutually Exclusive, 3. Collectively Exhaustive.)

D. 17 Million live in households making more than $50K per year (same IBD editorial) - implication - they could probably afford some type of health insurance.
E. Leaving 30 million uninsured and probably unable to afford it.
F. That is roughly 10% of the population.

Back to the money line: "that affects a very small percentage of the population, 1 or 2 percent."
Orszag's implication seems clear to me, restated here "why should we care about being just to 1 or 2 percent of the population?" Indeed.


Stew's questions: 
1. Why are we redesigning 17% of our 2007 gdp to close a 10% gap in coverage?
2. How many of the uninsured poor qualify for Medicaid and have not signed up for it? SCHIP?
3. How is the health insurance market like the auto insurance market (e.g. State mandates, federal regulation) - resulting in increased costs?
4. Why isn't private health insurance tax deductible, the way it is to employers?
5. Why can't private citizens have Health Savings Accounts?
6. What hidden costs of healthcare are driven by ineffective Government practices / regulations?
7. Tort reform?

Update:  Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today.


Saturday, July 11, 2009

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

The Rule of Law

We have all heard the phrase "Rule of Law".  What does it mean, how does it work?  For a short lesson on the rule of law, look here.

Stew's View: Rawls' method is more comprehensive (as opposed to the formulation by A.V. Dicey), but the use of item 6 (added by Mr. Solum) ought not be necessary.  The better application of Rawls' framework is that it universally applies to all participants (including government).

Monday, April 27, 2009

Learn about TARP

Here is an article from Powerline about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

The moneyline:

The Inspector General's report documents the stunning and at least partly illegal expansion of TARP from the $700 billion originally allocated by Congress to what is now a $3 trillion complex of programs.

Read the whole thing.  $3 Trillion will not be the end number of this program, it will be higher.

Stew's View:  It will not make a difference that TARP has been illegally expanded, since the US Supreme Court has been limiting the ability of taxpayers to bring suit against the government.  This leads to a harm without a remedy and the timeline difference between TARP disbursement and the glacial pace of lawsuits means the money will be long gone before any action is taken.  The only action that could have prevented this is to not do it in the first place.

From Twitter

RT @snowed_in: Tomorrow's headline: "Obama: We Inherited this swine flu"

My reply:

@michellemalkin RT Tommorrows Headline: already happened look here http://www.thenation.com/bl...

Michelle picked up on it here:
But of course: Lib blames GOP 4 swine flu 'cuz some opposed pandemic funding in porkulus. http://bit.ly/Kmky0 v(ia @instugator)

She has posted it here.

You go Michelle!




Speed the Teleprompter Up!

Apparently, Pres Obama's ability to read the teleprompter is increasing.

Look here.