Why did no one tell me that the movie is NOTHING like the short story. Okay old guy in the 20th century becomes younger.
I’m happy F. Scott never saw this.
And how did a short story turn into a 2 hour and 40 minute movie? Oh…I guess it has to do with my first point – that the movie has nothing to do with it.
NY Times delivers this bombshell:
The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.
What went wrong?
Business Cycle, Bush, more Bush, Bush that Obama extended, and Obama.
Their share of the damage (in the same order): 37, 33, 20, 10 (percent)
Politics aside, I think that this is pretty clear evidence that government has grown too big. The national debt is a symptom of that. A surplus disappearing over several years is another symptom of that. As soon as some money frees up, it disappears. People do the same thing, in anticipation of a paycheck, you might go out to eat or buy a few new movies. Except if you start going in the red, you stop your poor spending habits. Once money is allotted for a federal program, it is hard as hell to remove from the budget.
I don’t think our leaders need to quibble about debt as a percentage of GDP, size of the budget, earmarks, etc. They need to seriously consider what services government should provide and what role it should play in people’s lives. I think by bickering about numbers we are missing a fundamental question. Answering that question (provided the answer is what I expect it to be) will do a lot toward solving the other problems.
From ABC News’ White House Correspondent Jake Tapper’s questioning:
ORSZAG: It includes a lot. I mean, again, if — look, if health care costs grow at the same rate over the next four decades as they did over the past four decades, Medicare and Medicaid go from 5 percent of the economy today to 20 percent of the economy by 2050. That is the core driver of our entitlement problem.
If we succeed in bending that curve, we will have done more to improve the long-term health — fiscal health — of the nation than any other single thing we could do. Which is not to say other things aren’t important, but what I’m saying is, over the next two months we have an opportunity, our best shot, at addressing that problem, and that’s what we want to do. (emphasis added)
I am pretty concerned about what health care reform means for the country. I have a lot of thoughts on it and want to post more in-depth, but I thought this quote from a WH press conference would be a good start.
This quote has nothing to do with ’socializing’ health care in the United States. It does have a lot to do with the Obama Administration’s recent foray into health care industry meetings. The OMB has cited studies out of Dartmouth reporting that regional health care costs differ dramatically with no tangible results. The belief of the Administration is that if costs can be lowered to the cost of the low-cost region, the cost of care will drop without diminishing the quality of care.
That is the basis for the bolded portion of the quote. I think it is interesting that in a quote about health care, the meaning of health has to be clarified to fiscal health. In particular, he is talking about fiscal health to the year 2050. Will Obama’s policy help actual health care over the next four decades? That does not seem to be a concern of this policy.
It seems to me that it takes several key assumptions to accept the conclusion that regional cost differences can be eliminated and the quality of not care will be change. It is pretty common that health care procedures are the most expensive during their initial use, as companies attempt to recoup R&D costs. If some of the regional discrepancy comes from introducing new procedures, do we want to eliminate those costs?
Philosophically, this issue stands as extremely interesting to me. In a competitive industry there are strong incentives for efficiency. To maximize profits a firm needs to minimize costs. Government, on the other hand, is no model citizen for efficiency. If cost savings are really the way out of the entitlement mess that we have created for ourselves, shouldn’t we maximize the incentives for a competitive industry to flourish?
For instance: Therefore A has an incentive to move to Region 2 and sell it's services at a lower cost, thus making a higher profit than Hospital B. It seems if this discrepancy can be resolved the greenback would have induced these savings long ago, unless entrenched government policies are preventing those changes. Chiding from the Obama Administration does not seem like the solution. I'm guessing that government intervention and tax incentives are not aligned to create a low-cost market for health care. Just a guess. Maybe we should try that first?
Hospital A in Region 1 is providing services at cost X.
Hospital B in Region 2 is providing services at cost Y.
X
I tried to buy an acoustic guitar from someone on craigslist. It was an amazing deal, but alas the deal fell through.
…from a much greater legal mind than my own:
Jurisprudentially, moreover, the sorry Didden episode reveals an important lesson about constitutional law. It is always possible to top one bad decision (Kelo) with another (Didden). This does not augur well for a Sotomayor appointment to the Supreme Court. The president should have done better, and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, should subject this dubious nomination to the intense scrutiny that it deserves.
Nominating a justice to the Supreme Court is a great honor for a president. They get to appoint a man or woman for life to the top legal institution in the United States. In some instances, they can change the balance of power on the Court. Judicial philosophy matters. It affects and guides rulings. Even if the balance on the Court does not change, the personalities on the Court certainly will.
A SC nomination does not do much for members of Congress from the President’s party. Yes, Chuck Schumer can repeat the President’s praise of Sotomayor and so can everyone else. But that is not a very productive confirmation hearing.
The nomination does give the opposing party the opportunity to use the hearings as a platform to explain their judicial philosophy vis-a-vis the nominee they oppose. Politically it may not be salient to vote against a nominee. By that I mean several things. First of all, the President has the power, under the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint justices. The Constitution grants him (or her) that power. In my opinion, the nominee should face scrutiny for their opinions, but that does not mean a nominee should simply be opposed because your party does not have control of the White House. Second, every vote counts. Votes in Congress are not independent of one another, members of Congress have limited political capital, as does the President.
So what can the GOP do? Ask questions with purpose. Be creative. Don’t play softball with a Princeton and Yale Law School grad. Frame questions so that you can use your answers to show the superiority of the judicial philosophy you believe should be on the Court. Sotomayor is certainly running through what questions may be asked. She will be prepared. I’m not saying you need to ambush her, but as a conservative you believe a certain type of justice should be on the Court. Show the public why Sotomayor does not fit that bill.
Speak to moderate America when asking questions about judicial philosophy. I think that they will readily listen. Just because Sotomayor will be confirmed does not mean it has to be a win for Obama. Remember, he might get another nominee in the next 3 years.
Recent Comments