For all those who naively support non-discrimination codes and think you have nothing to fear from homosexual activists, check this story out. It is to the point where a public college in Georgia will not give you a counseling degree if you think homosexuality is immoral. Note in the CNN video below that the one lady says it's OK to have whatever beliefs you have, but expressing them is a behavior that is inappropriate and needs remedial training. I'm not kidding.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Shirley Sherrod and Teachable Moments
There's a lot that could be said about the Shirley Sherrod incident that was all over the news last week. For those who don't follow politics, here's a quick summary. It all started when Andrew Breitbart posted the following video in this post at BigGovernment.com:
This video excerpt appears to show blatant racism by Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, towards a white farmer, presumably while acting as a government official.
The video quickly went viral through the blogosphere and the reaction was swift. Within a few hours, Tom Vilsack, the Secretary of Agriculture, had forced Sherrod to resign. Contrary to what is widely believed, Fox News did not air anything on the matter until AFTER Sherrod had already resigned. See this post at Johnny Dollar for an incredible list of media outlets that got this part of the story wrong.
That evening, the NAACP even piled on with the following statement:
The next day, the NAACP posted a second statement retracting their first, and posted the full 43 minute video, linked here:
The full video put the previous excerpt in a very different context. I have watched the full 43 minutes, and the full story Sherrod tells starts with her youth and the horrible racism she experienced at that time. Her father was one of the leading black members of their community in Georgia. He was murdered when she was 17 and a grand jury would not indict his white murderer because he was black, even though there were 3 witnesses. Shortly after, she recounts an incident where KKK members circled the front of their house as she hid in the house and her mother confronted them on the porch with gun in hand. Numerous black members of the community circled the intruders and forced them to leave.
Before that, Sherrod was itching to leave the South and head north. But given what had happened, she resolved herself to stay and fight for change. She then says her intention for a long time was to help black folks. Later she was working at a non-profit and ran into the first time that a white family in danger of losing their farm asked for help. She struggled with her (understandable) racial animosity toward whites and didn't initially help the white farmers as much as she could have, instead sending them to a white lawyer, one of their "own kind". That is the part the initial video excerpt showed.
However, she goes onto say that was the point it was revealed to her that it wasn't just about black and white, but rich and poor. When the white farmers called back later saying the lawyer hadn't helped them much, she went to bat for them and helped them save the farm from bankruptcy. She ends up later saying that we have to get to a place where race exists, but it does not matter.
The story as a whole is a story of her life and how she overcame much of the resentment she had from the racial events that happened during her youth.
The media coverage rapidly switched the other way, calling for Sherrod to be given her job back, and slamming Breitbart and Fox News for a vicious attack on Sherrod. Sherrod has almost achieved sainthood status.
I have already linked to the Johnny Dollar piece that showed that the attack on Fox News was unwarranted. As far as I can tell, the news shows played it safe and were trying to fact check it before running anything. It is true that Bill O'Reilly had already taped a segment in which he called for Sherrod to be fired, but that hadn't even aired by the time that Sherrod had been forced to resign. The following day, O'Reilly apologized for not doing his homework.
In Breitbart's defense, he says the two excerpts he showed in his original post was all that he had at the time. Here he is on Hannity's TV show explaining how he came by the video -- this aired the day after the BigGovernment post:
Breitbart can be blamed for not being more careful before posting the excerpts he had, but the same video clip that he saw also fooled the Obama administration, the NAACP, Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly, and countless others. Most importantly, Breitbart did not force her to resign without so much as allowing her to explain the comments (like the Obama administration did) and did not condemn her despite having the full video in his possession (like the NAACP did).
Unfortunately, Breitbart has never apologized for the initial post, knowing what he knows now about it. Breitbart maintains that his whole point was to point out the hypocrisy of the NAACP in its attack on the Tea Parties, which is in fact the point he was trying to make. He still thinks that the murmurs of agreement and laughter among the crowd prove his point, that the NAACP was approving of the racist treatment of the white farmers before they could have known the whole story of her change of heart.
In my opinion, I did not find Sherrod's 43 minutes objectionable as a whole. I would point out, though, that if any white person had talked about blacks the way she did (e.g., "own kind"), they would have been forced to resign for that alone. And it is clear to me, even as she shared her story, that she still sees everything through racial lenses. For example, at one part of the speech, she accuses Republicans of opposing the health care bill because Obama is black.
I am also disturbed by further statements that Shirley Sherrod has since made which show she is still not to the point where race exists but doesn't matter to her. Here is one such clip (jump to 1:50):
I've seen several other problematic statements and may post them if I run across them again.
In addition, further information about the Sherrod's and one particular quote from her husband are also cause for concern:
This video excerpt appears to show blatant racism by Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, towards a white farmer, presumably while acting as a government official.
The video quickly went viral through the blogosphere and the reaction was swift. Within a few hours, Tom Vilsack, the Secretary of Agriculture, had forced Sherrod to resign. Contrary to what is widely believed, Fox News did not air anything on the matter until AFTER Sherrod had already resigned. See this post at Johnny Dollar for an incredible list of media outlets that got this part of the story wrong.
That evening, the NAACP even piled on with the following statement:
We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.
Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.
We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.
Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.
The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.
We thank those who brought this to our national office's attention, as there are hundreds of local fundraising dinners each year.
The next day, the NAACP posted a second statement retracting their first, and posted the full 43 minute video, linked here:
The full video put the previous excerpt in a very different context. I have watched the full 43 minutes, and the full story Sherrod tells starts with her youth and the horrible racism she experienced at that time. Her father was one of the leading black members of their community in Georgia. He was murdered when she was 17 and a grand jury would not indict his white murderer because he was black, even though there were 3 witnesses. Shortly after, she recounts an incident where KKK members circled the front of their house as she hid in the house and her mother confronted them on the porch with gun in hand. Numerous black members of the community circled the intruders and forced them to leave.
Before that, Sherrod was itching to leave the South and head north. But given what had happened, she resolved herself to stay and fight for change. She then says her intention for a long time was to help black folks. Later she was working at a non-profit and ran into the first time that a white family in danger of losing their farm asked for help. She struggled with her (understandable) racial animosity toward whites and didn't initially help the white farmers as much as she could have, instead sending them to a white lawyer, one of their "own kind". That is the part the initial video excerpt showed.
However, she goes onto say that was the point it was revealed to her that it wasn't just about black and white, but rich and poor. When the white farmers called back later saying the lawyer hadn't helped them much, she went to bat for them and helped them save the farm from bankruptcy. She ends up later saying that we have to get to a place where race exists, but it does not matter.
The story as a whole is a story of her life and how she overcame much of the resentment she had from the racial events that happened during her youth.
The media coverage rapidly switched the other way, calling for Sherrod to be given her job back, and slamming Breitbart and Fox News for a vicious attack on Sherrod. Sherrod has almost achieved sainthood status.
I have already linked to the Johnny Dollar piece that showed that the attack on Fox News was unwarranted. As far as I can tell, the news shows played it safe and were trying to fact check it before running anything. It is true that Bill O'Reilly had already taped a segment in which he called for Sherrod to be fired, but that hadn't even aired by the time that Sherrod had been forced to resign. The following day, O'Reilly apologized for not doing his homework.
In Breitbart's defense, he says the two excerpts he showed in his original post was all that he had at the time. Here he is on Hannity's TV show explaining how he came by the video -- this aired the day after the BigGovernment post:
Breitbart can be blamed for not being more careful before posting the excerpts he had, but the same video clip that he saw also fooled the Obama administration, the NAACP, Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly, and countless others. Most importantly, Breitbart did not force her to resign without so much as allowing her to explain the comments (like the Obama administration did) and did not condemn her despite having the full video in his possession (like the NAACP did).
Unfortunately, Breitbart has never apologized for the initial post, knowing what he knows now about it. Breitbart maintains that his whole point was to point out the hypocrisy of the NAACP in its attack on the Tea Parties, which is in fact the point he was trying to make. He still thinks that the murmurs of agreement and laughter among the crowd prove his point, that the NAACP was approving of the racist treatment of the white farmers before they could have known the whole story of her change of heart.
In my opinion, I did not find Sherrod's 43 minutes objectionable as a whole. I would point out, though, that if any white person had talked about blacks the way she did (e.g., "own kind"), they would have been forced to resign for that alone. And it is clear to me, even as she shared her story, that she still sees everything through racial lenses. For example, at one part of the speech, she accuses Republicans of opposing the health care bill because Obama is black.
I am also disturbed by further statements that Shirley Sherrod has since made which show she is still not to the point where race exists but doesn't matter to her. Here is one such clip (jump to 1:50):
I've seen several other problematic statements and may post them if I run across them again.
In addition, further information about the Sherrod's and one particular quote from her husband are also cause for concern:
VIDEO: Paul Ryan talks Spending and Deficits
HotAir posted a good clip of Paul Ryan doing a good job communicating about the budget on Chris Matthews show.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Milton Friedman Explains Spending
I stumbled across a simple but illuminating article at BigGovernment.com from Nov. 2009.
Thomas Del Beccaro does a great job explaining why any large organization inevitably has more bureaucratic inefficiencies. He notes that large companies struggle with bureaucracy too but because of the profit motive do the hard work to keep waste in check. Then he explains how large government programs have neither the motive nor the ability to minimize fraud and waste. And he quotes the great Milton Friedman giving this crystal-clear explanation:
Thomas Del Beccaro does a great job explaining why any large organization inevitably has more bureaucratic inefficiencies. He notes that large companies struggle with bureaucracy too but because of the profit motive do the hard work to keep waste in check. Then he explains how large government programs have neither the motive nor the ability to minimize fraud and waste. And he quotes the great Milton Friedman giving this crystal-clear explanation:
“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Kucinich on Stossel
This week's Stossel (on Fox Business network) talked a lot about Cleveland, and what was wrong with the city. The city's population was something like 2 million around 1950, but has dwindled by more than half, and is now ranked by some publications as the worst city in America. Stossel's proposition was that it was higher taxes, excessive regulations, and inefficient government services that caused the decline.
Stossel brought on the former mayor of Indianapolis, another city located in the region but which has been doing well. In the 90's, that mayor had privatized many functions that the government used to do -- golf courses, waste disposal, etc. He said they started looking through the phone book, and if at least 3 private businesses offered the same service as the government, they privatized it.
But to get to the point of my post, I was interested to learn that nutcase House Democrat and former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was the former mayor of Cleveland. In fact, he was the mayor at a time when Cleveland defaulted on their debts back a couple decades ago because he refused to sell city property or reduce government spending.
At the end of Stossel's show there was a Q&A segment with the audience. One of the members asked Kucinich what he didn't like about privatization. Kucinich said that the problem with privatization is that private companies want to make profits and that to do so they will lower workers' wages and raise prices.
So while I always thought of private businesses as entities that are forced to earn business by offering the best service at the best price, I realized that a lot of people focus instead on their incentives to keep labor costs down and profits up as a bad thing.
The problems I see with this "Kucinich view" (which I fear is shared by way too many Americans):
1. Businesses that cannot compete (offer a desired good or service at a price people are willing to pay) go out of business. Government services that can't compete (offer as good of quality service at the same or lower cost than private business) don't go away. They stick around and continue to offer worse service at a higher cost.
2. Government wages that are higher than the private labor market rate are really benefiting those workers at the cost of taxpayers. How is that fair to the taxpayer?
3. Why should government's goal be to keep public sector wages higher? Shouldn't the goal be to offer public services at the lowest cost? Wouldn't this include keeping labor costs down? Of course the government will always be forced to pay wages competitive with the private sector in order to recruit and retain public sector employees, but what is the argument for paying wages higher than that?
4. Government takes from taxpayers via force (threat of fine or imprisonment) in order to provide services, so when it uses taxpayer money to fund services that a taxpayer doesn't want or use, it is really stealing from the taxpayer or forcibly directing what they spend their money on. That is why government services should be limited to core public services that are truly serving a very high percentage of taxpayers.
5. Profits are kept in check by competition. It is a very rare instance where a business has no competition (a monopoly). Businesses can only make a profit to the extent they can keep costs down better than their competition (operate more efficiently) or are willing to accept a lower profit margin.
6. Wage rates are also maintained by competition. Businesses cannot retain quality employees without paying as much as their competitors are paying.
7. For those that think that non-profits or government can provides services at a lower cost to the taxpayer because they aren't taking a profit, that assumes (most of the time incorrectly) that the waste and inefficiency in government or a non-profit entity is less than the profit margin of the more efficient for-profit business. But what if, for example, a business with a 8% profit margin runs a service 15% more efficiently than government?
I believe the fairest and most efficient economic system is the free market where wages and prices are dictated by market forces -- that is, in the labor market, what employers are willing to pay and employees are willing to work for, and in the markets for goods and services, what the buyer is willing to pay and the seller willing to sell for. Government should reasonably minimize the amount of interference via regulation, and only provide core public services like roads, police, and parks that for various reasons are better offered by government than by private businesses.
Stossel brought on the former mayor of Indianapolis, another city located in the region but which has been doing well. In the 90's, that mayor had privatized many functions that the government used to do -- golf courses, waste disposal, etc. He said they started looking through the phone book, and if at least 3 private businesses offered the same service as the government, they privatized it.
But to get to the point of my post, I was interested to learn that nutcase House Democrat and former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was the former mayor of Cleveland. In fact, he was the mayor at a time when Cleveland defaulted on their debts back a couple decades ago because he refused to sell city property or reduce government spending.
At the end of Stossel's show there was a Q&A segment with the audience. One of the members asked Kucinich what he didn't like about privatization. Kucinich said that the problem with privatization is that private companies want to make profits and that to do so they will lower workers' wages and raise prices.
So while I always thought of private businesses as entities that are forced to earn business by offering the best service at the best price, I realized that a lot of people focus instead on their incentives to keep labor costs down and profits up as a bad thing.
The problems I see with this "Kucinich view" (which I fear is shared by way too many Americans):
1. Businesses that cannot compete (offer a desired good or service at a price people are willing to pay) go out of business. Government services that can't compete (offer as good of quality service at the same or lower cost than private business) don't go away. They stick around and continue to offer worse service at a higher cost.
2. Government wages that are higher than the private labor market rate are really benefiting those workers at the cost of taxpayers. How is that fair to the taxpayer?
3. Why should government's goal be to keep public sector wages higher? Shouldn't the goal be to offer public services at the lowest cost? Wouldn't this include keeping labor costs down? Of course the government will always be forced to pay wages competitive with the private sector in order to recruit and retain public sector employees, but what is the argument for paying wages higher than that?
4. Government takes from taxpayers via force (threat of fine or imprisonment) in order to provide services, so when it uses taxpayer money to fund services that a taxpayer doesn't want or use, it is really stealing from the taxpayer or forcibly directing what they spend their money on. That is why government services should be limited to core public services that are truly serving a very high percentage of taxpayers.
5. Profits are kept in check by competition. It is a very rare instance where a business has no competition (a monopoly). Businesses can only make a profit to the extent they can keep costs down better than their competition (operate more efficiently) or are willing to accept a lower profit margin.
6. Wage rates are also maintained by competition. Businesses cannot retain quality employees without paying as much as their competitors are paying.
7. For those that think that non-profits or government can provides services at a lower cost to the taxpayer because they aren't taking a profit, that assumes (most of the time incorrectly) that the waste and inefficiency in government or a non-profit entity is less than the profit margin of the more efficient for-profit business. But what if, for example, a business with a 8% profit margin runs a service 15% more efficiently than government?
I believe the fairest and most efficient economic system is the free market where wages and prices are dictated by market forces -- that is, in the labor market, what employers are willing to pay and employees are willing to work for, and in the markets for goods and services, what the buyer is willing to pay and the seller willing to sell for. Government should reasonably minimize the amount of interference via regulation, and only provide core public services like roads, police, and parks that for various reasons are better offered by government than by private businesses.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
VIDEO: Ryan at Rules Committee Sums Up
If there should be an individual mandate, it should be to watch this presentation by Rep. Paul Ryan at the House Rules Committee today (obviously before word spread that Pelosi has dropped DemonPass).
My comment on health care at HotAir
Below is my comment at a HotAir post about Paul Ryan decimating Louise Slaughter in an argument about Medicare.
But first, the video of the takedown:
The fact is that SS and Medicare are going bankrupt. Medicare costs are growing beyond ability for government to pay.
Cuts will HAVE TO BE MADE at some point. The question is whether to start now so we can adjust gradually and lessen the pain, or whether we continue to bury our heads in the sand and end up with abrupt cuts when the bill comes due.
A second question is what is the most efficient way to keep services up and costs down. And in my opinion, that is through reverting back to utilizing the free market as much as is possible given the current state of things.
Honestly, the best two things I can think of that government could do IF they wanted to mandate something that would lower health care costs are steps that would get consumers more skin in the game:
1. Mandate that all insurance plans have minimum percentage-based co-pays.
For instance, instead of paying somewhere from $0-$30 to go see the doctor, you pay a minimum of 10%-30%. Say you had to pay 20%. Now instead of just going to a doctor and not caring what it costs (say $200) because you pay $20 no matter what, if you pay 20% you now look around for the best price because if you can find a doctor that you like that charges $140 instead of $200, you only pay $28 instead of $40. The competition which drives down costs plus the higher amount that you’re chipping in will reduce insurance rates to save you net cost overall.
In the same way, X-rays and MRI’s and all other medical tests should be paid for on a percentage basis. This gives the users of the services the motivation to shop around for the best price at a quality they are comfortable with.
The market competition will bring down prices, and it doesn’t need everyone in the system to be price conscious. Just as with any other good or service, everyone will benefit from the efforts of the folks who are price conscious.
2. Mandate that all medical care providers post prices or offer on the spot quotes.
Without price visibility, consumers are unable to make informed decisions that include price. Right now, most people go find the best quality care they can and don’t worry about price, because they think someone else (insurance) is paying. There is simply not enough incentive or understanding for people to think through it and say,
Until the health care system gives the consumers of health care both the price visibility and incentive to shop around and/or consume less, costs will continue to increase at an unsustainable rate.
I read a figure somewhere last year, and I wish I could find it again, that back in the 60’s, individuals on average paid for 60% of health care expenses out of pocket. Now they only pay about 10% out of pocket, the rest is covered through insurance (and even the cost of that is hidden through the employer-based system). No wonder we consume 3 times as much health care in number of procedures per person that we did in 1980!
But first, the video of the takedown:
The fact is that SS and Medicare are going bankrupt. Medicare costs are growing beyond ability for government to pay.
Cuts will HAVE TO BE MADE at some point. The question is whether to start now so we can adjust gradually and lessen the pain, or whether we continue to bury our heads in the sand and end up with abrupt cuts when the bill comes due.
A second question is what is the most efficient way to keep services up and costs down. And in my opinion, that is through reverting back to utilizing the free market as much as is possible given the current state of things.
Honestly, the best two things I can think of that government could do IF they wanted to mandate something that would lower health care costs are steps that would get consumers more skin in the game:
1. Mandate that all insurance plans have minimum percentage-based co-pays.
For instance, instead of paying somewhere from $0-$30 to go see the doctor, you pay a minimum of 10%-30%. Say you had to pay 20%. Now instead of just going to a doctor and not caring what it costs (say $200) because you pay $20 no matter what, if you pay 20% you now look around for the best price because if you can find a doctor that you like that charges $140 instead of $200, you only pay $28 instead of $40. The competition which drives down costs plus the higher amount that you’re chipping in will reduce insurance rates to save you net cost overall.
In the same way, X-rays and MRI’s and all other medical tests should be paid for on a percentage basis. This gives the users of the services the motivation to shop around for the best price at a quality they are comfortable with.
The market competition will bring down prices, and it doesn’t need everyone in the system to be price conscious. Just as with any other good or service, everyone will benefit from the efforts of the folks who are price conscious.
2. Mandate that all medical care providers post prices or offer on the spot quotes.
Without price visibility, consumers are unable to make informed decisions that include price. Right now, most people go find the best quality care they can and don’t worry about price, because they think someone else (insurance) is paying. There is simply not enough incentive or understanding for people to think through it and say,
“Yeah, I’m going to put in the hours of effort it takes calling my providers and insurance to find out what the best cost is for this visit or procedure, because even though it costs me the same either way, I know that it will ultimately raise my insurance rates if I don’t shop around for the best price.”
Until the health care system gives the consumers of health care both the price visibility and incentive to shop around and/or consume less, costs will continue to increase at an unsustainable rate.
I read a figure somewhere last year, and I wish I could find it again, that back in the 60’s, individuals on average paid for 60% of health care expenses out of pocket. Now they only pay about 10% out of pocket, the rest is covered through insurance (and even the cost of that is hidden through the employer-based system). No wonder we consume 3 times as much health care in number of procedures per person that we did in 1980!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)