Category: National

Many Primary Ideas

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

There are a variety of ideas for how we can fix our primary election process. They range from a lottery system proposed in comments and a post earlier on my site to more authoritative proposals such as rotating regional primaries as outlined by Trey Grason (go to page 25 of the PDF – hat tip the Senate Site)

Unfortunately, it is too late to fix the process for 2008, but steps can be taken for 2012. The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) is hoping to generate support for rotating regional primaries as a step toward that goal. The association’s bipartisan proposal, created by the nation’s chief state election officials, divides the country into four regions and establishes primary windows in March, April, May and June.

I was also interested in the proposal published in the New York Times by Jonathan Soros suggesting a national primary day where individual voters could opt to vote early.

There is, however, a simple way to establish a national primary and yet still allow retail politicking to meaningfully affect the course of the campaign over several months: allow early voting, with regular reporting of the tally.

Here’s one way it could work. Set a national primary date of June 30 and create a window for early voting that opens on Jan. 1. The early votes would be counted and reported at the end of each month from January through May. . .
If we began counting and reporting the interim results in advance of a national primary, the voters who cast early ballots would play the same role as voters in Iowa and New Hampshire do now: they could signal viability or create momentum for their favored candidates. These early voters would be self-selecting, trading the opportunity to watch the campaign unfold for the ability to demonstrate early conviction.

Most important, every voter, no matter where he or she lived, would have the freedom to make this choice. Right now, when one votes is determined by where one lives.

The national primary day has drawbacks, but I’m sure there are detractors to the rotating regional primaries as well and I know there are those who gripe about the lottery idea. I’m not ready to advocate for one idea over another, and I’m sure that all of them would offer an overall improvement over the current mess. What I would really like to see is an widespread, active, and public conversation now – not sometime after 2009 – to decide how we would like this system to operate because the current setup is going to lead to perpetual campaigning (like having candidates declaring six months into the four year cycle) unless we take steps to rein it in.

Tags elections, ideas, issues, media, New York Times

National

Smart Presidential Candidate

Post author By David
Post date November 8, 2007
2 Comments on Smart Presidential Candidate

LaVarr Webb commented today in Utah Policy Daily on a great column by David Brooks at the New York Times called The Happiness Gap. Brooks was talking about the gap between how happy people are with their own lives and how optimistic they are about government. I think Brooks is right that people are beginning to see through the fallacy that government solutions can fix personal problems, or that one level of government can solve the problems in another level of government. The more we trust to the federal government the more apparent it is that the federal government is not equipped to solve problems created by poor state governments. The same logic holds true with each level of government – state government can’t solve county problems, county government can’t solve city problems, etc.

The thing that really got me was Webb’s concluding paragraph:

I’ve written many times that the job description of the federal government has gotten so immense that it’s impossible to accomplish, hence the deep cynicism about the federal government. The nation’s founders intended for the national government to focus on a few things and do them very well. We need a national resorting of the roles of the different levels of government. A smart presidential candidate would do well to pick up on the mood of the people. (emphasis mine)

Webb was right on except that his last sentence left one thing out – there is a presidential candidate who has picked up on this mood. Ron Paul’s campaign is based on the principle of resorting the roles of the different levels of government – primarily reducing the role of the federal government and allowing states to take their proper place in addressing more of the issues they face. Right now the federal government is doing so much that it can’t even adequately address those issues that are properly in the sphere of the federal government, like national security and immigration. So he may not have known it, but Webb just endorsed Ron Paul as a smart presidential candidate.

Tags government, New York Times, Ron Paul, Utah Policy

culture National State technology

The Government Hammer

My father-in-law is known for saying, “When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.” Thomas Sowell talks about political crises created by Political “Solutions.”

Government laws and policies, especially the Community Reinvestment Act, pressured lenders to invest in people and places where they would not invest otherwise. Government also created the temporarily very low interest rates that made the mortgages seem affordable for the moment. . .

As for the flames sweeping across southern California, tragic as that is, this has happened time and again before — in the very same places in the very same time of year, just like hurricanes.

Why would people risk building million-dollar homes in the known paths of wildfires? For the same reason that people choose to live in the known paths of hurricanes. Because the government — that is, the taxpayers — will get stuck with a lot of the costs of dealing with those dangers and the costs of rebuilding.

Why is there such a huge amount of inflammable vegetation over such a wide area that fires can reach unstoppable proportions by the time they get to places where people live? Because “open space” has become a political sacred cow beyond rational discussion. . .

In other words, government preserves all the conditions for wildfires and subsidizes people who live in their path.

As for water shortages . . . The federal government’s water projects supply much of the water used in California that enables agriculture to flourish in what would otherwise be a desert.

We have created a culture where government is the solution to every every social “problem” (many times government is used to address preferences like open space which are not actually problems) just as technology is the solution to every technical problem. Lawmakers don’t intend to create crises, but crisis is the natural result when government gets involved in things that it was not designed to address (things like the cost of water or the price of home loans). In other words, if you have a hammer everything may look like a nail, but no matter how skillfully you hammer on a screw it won’t work like a screw – you need a screw driver to succeed with screws.

Tags economics, media, thoughts

National

What is Our Narrative?

I found it interesting to read what Michael Barone had to say about politicians who were successful as they presented a narrative of where the country was an what it needed to move forward. Of our current parties and candidates he says:

Neither party is presenting a narrative, as the Roosevelts and Reagan did, that takes due note of America’s great strengths and achievements. Each seems to take the course, easier in a time of polarized politics, of lambasting the opposition.

That got me wondering, what kind of a narrative would be successful today – and will any candidate present such a narrative? I think I might take a look at the various candidates again for myself to see if there are narratives from their campaigns that Mr. Barone is missing. Does anyone see a candidate who is presenting what they feel is a compelling narrative?

Tags media, parties

National

Congress – Do Something

A month into the fiscal year and Congress has not presented an appropriations bill for the President to sign because they don’t care enough about making things work when there are accusations to be flung, fights to pick (like SCHIP), and post offices to be named. The New York Times takes issue with the fact that they are putting the 2010 census at risk by failing to fund it.

The sad part of all this dithering in Congress is that there are more funding issues like the census, where there is little disagreement about how much funding it should receive, than there are like SCHIP where there is much disagreement about funding. The other sad thing is that the things where there is little disagreement are generally more important for keeping the government functioning than the bills where there is contention. The New York Times suggests that Congress should fund the census with their emergency appropriations bill for the California fires. They also offer a decent reason to explain the combination.

I agree and I think that Congress should also set about submitting an appropriations bill on all the other issues where there is little disagreement on the funding – at least we could ensure that parts of the government are funded while issues such as SCHIP are being “discussed.”

Tags connections, media, New York Times

National

Health Care Suggestions

Michael Cannon, a self-described conservative turned libertarian at the Cato Institute has some very good ideas on what health care reform should look like. (Hat tip Scott) Some of his suggestions seem like they would appeal to most reasonable people (“think freedom, not universal coverage” and “health-savings accounts are not enough”) while others look like they are ripe targets for those who have been working to “reform” our health care system for 15 years already (most notably “don’t ‘improve’ welfare programs — cut them”). It is important to dig deeper into such suggestions before dismissing such libertarian ideas as heartless. In this case, digging deeper means nothing more than reading the rest of the paragraph:

At the behest of conservatives, Jeb Bush and other governors have made Medicaid more consumer-friendly. The only problem is that Medicaid and SCHIP are welfare programs, and making welfare more attractive leads to…more welfare.

After all what is more heartless, finding ways to help people become more self-sufficient, or teaching them to be dependent on the contributions of people they don’t even know? (The second one sounds like a very precarious position to be in.)

Mr. Cannon also throws in gems like “The lefties aren’t always wrong.” Only a libertarian would say that to a conservative – and the conservatives need to hear it. My personal favorite though (because it’s too easy to forget sometimes) is this – “private markets are not necessarily free markets.” That’s the thing that has worried me about so many of the plans proposed by many leading conservatives. They pat themselves on the back for turning to private markets but they do nothing to ensure that the market is actually free. That difference is why “the health-care industry does not want free markets.” They are all for private markets where they can make their private fortunes, but those who are thriving in a market that is not free have little incentive to make the market free.

Some people will argue that the rising cost of health care is driven by the rising costs of running health care related businesses, but rising costs are easy to accept when you know that nothing short of releasing a drug that leads to fatal consequences is going to put you out of business. Health care is probably more stable than real-estate – and almost as stable as alcohol, tobacco, and pornography.

I’ve strayed from my original point – go read the article by Michael Cannon.

Tags connections, free markets, health care, issues

National

Another Reversal

I’ve had another change of position which is sure to make me popular with some people. When I originally looked at endorsing Ron Paul I had some reservations. Over the five months since then those reservations have disappeared. My current position is that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party that would bring real change to the White House. There are reasons to choose another candidate, but if you are looking for substantial change instead of new approaches to politics as usual then your only option is Ron Paul.

I am not blind to the challenges that he faces, but Ron Paul has been gaining momentum in the form of supporters (converts such as myself) and cash – he is raising as much money as John McCain and spending much less so he is prepared to keep running for a long time. Ron Paul also has something else in his favor – none of his supporters are passive in their support.

It’s funny that the only candidate who would really change things is one who has been in Congress for two decades.

Tags change, position, Ron Paul

National

SCHIP Numbers

The SCHIP politics are perfect for people with different ideals to keep political pundits happy – do you favor smaller government and oppose helping children, or do you help the helpless by taking money from everyone else? President Bush did what he said he would do and vetoed the bill. Congress failed to override the veto. So now it’s back to the drawing board without anyone having changed positions. I’m all for smaller government and that was an ambitious expansion, but the numbers didn’t add up even if I were less conservative.

. . . the vetoed bill that would have more than doubled the funding from $25 billion for the next five years to $60 billion and expanded coverage from 6.6 million children to 10 million.

So for 2.4 times the price we can ensure 1.5 times the number of children – that sounds like we’ve just introduced a lot of waste into the system.

Bush and many House Republicans . . . want the program narrowly tailored only for those making twice the poverty level or less, though they would not remove anyone making more who is already enrolled. The president says that leaves about 500,000 children who are eligible but not yet enrolled.

“I want to provide enough money to make sure those 500,000 do get covered,” Bush said Wednesday. “That ought to be the focus of our efforts.”

At first, Bush only wanted to add $5 billion in spending, but government budget analysts say that is not enough to cover the rising health care costs of those already in the state programs.

Somehow I just can’t escape the conclusion that the mentality “if it’s getting too expensive just let the government pay for you” can only lead to financial ruin for the country. Have we forgotten that funneling money through the government does not increase the amount of money available. Even if government programs cost nothing it would be a zero sum equation. If costs are rising then we need to find a way to reduce them, not just play hot-potato with the bill.

Apparently there is an alternative solution being proposed in the House that covers those under 200% of the federal poverty level and then gives tax credits for those up to 300% of the poverty level. This would give coverage to most of those who would have been covered in the original bill, but through different mechanisms – the question on this new bill is – what’s it going to cost. Even if I prefer tax credits over federal programs I don’t want to pay $65 billion to cover 10 million children with tax credits any more than I want to pay $60 billion to expand the existing government program.

Tags health care, issues, money

National State

State vs Federal

Today is not the first time that I have heard this argument:

Ronald Reagan is not running this year. Then again, even before he was president, Reagan did not live up to the standard of President Reagan. . . He enacted tax increases and expanded abortion rights when he was governor of California. Yet conservatives now rightfully recognize him as one of the greatest presidents in our country’s history.

The difference today was that a new thought struck me – we should expect differences in what a candidate will do in a federal position compared to what they might have taken in state offices. These two levels of government are different and serve different roles. Our states are not meant to mimic the federal government – they are meant to serve functions in our lives which have not been (and often should not be) addressed at the federal level.

Not only are those levels of government different but no state is an accurate reflection of the nation as a whole in all areas of policy. Our government is – and should be – a reflection of the people it governs; when those people differ so should their government. We rightly expect different solutions to come from Arizona than we would find in Delaware.

Tags government, thoughts

National

Health Insurance Isn’t Insurance

Post author By David
Post date October 16, 2007
3 Comments on Health Insurance Isn’t Insurance

Steve Olsen started a discussion about healthcare at THE UTAH AMICUS (I’m looking forward to part II) by asking: Is “free market health insurance” a nonsense phrase? He then identifies two issues that we must face head-on if we are to have any hope of actually pursuing a solution to this problem.

We hear a little about “this is how I’m going to pay for it” in these proposals, but very little of “this is how I’m going to eliminate waste, fraud and excessive profits”. Most independent studies have estimated between 25 and 40 percent of America’s health care dollar is spent on things other than actually providing care. . .

Not only that, improving the cost efficiency of health care has become an economic necessity. Consider Chrysler Corporation. In 1998, Daimler Benz paid $38 billion to purchase Chrysler, and earlier this year, essentially paid Cerberus to take it off their hands. Why? To escape the billions of dollars in unfunded health care obligations to employees and retirees. Basically, a major American manufacturing company was driven to insolvency because America expects employers to foot the bill for health care, something no other major industrial country does.

It is interesting that everyone seems to know that inefficiency in the system needs to be removed and yet there are no concrete ideas being presented on how to do that by any of the candidates spouting their proposals. The last time I wrote about health care I said that we need consumers to become sensitive to the costs of health care services rather than being sensitive to the costs of insurance premiums. Steve’s post reminds me that most Americans has even been insulated from the costs of insurance premiums until the last decade or so. Free markets promote efficiency but we are not going to have a free market for health care until we address the second issue that Steve discusses. (This is true no matter what Health Insurance Connector Authority we may decided to create.)

I believe one thing that hamstrings our efforts to improve health care is our insistence on using the word “insurance”. Let’s look at the dictionary definition of insurance: “A means of indemnity (transferring the responsibility for loss) against occurrence of an uncertain event.” Using the conservative definition of socialism, insurance is essentially socialistic, since it transfers personal responsibility to a larger group in society. The characteristic that allows insurance (in the traditional sense) to work in a free market system, despite being socialistic, is the fact that the event insured against is both uncertain and undesirable. . . Except for isolated cases of fraud, the undesirability of the event being insured against means collection of the benefit will not be abused.

Is health care a proper fit for the insurance paradigm? There are instances of catastrophic illness or accidents that meet the definition. But, in general, most consumption of health care services is neither uncertain nor undesired. We want that daily dose of Lipitor to keep our cholesterol down. We purposely conceive children and consume the health care services necessary to bring a new baby into the world – and we also consume birth control medicine to avoid pregnancy. Whether the illness is diabetes or bi-polar disorder, health care is often a matter of planned consumption where strong and significant consumer demand exists for the product.

People should be allowed to choose the kinds of plans that currently pass as health “insurance” but we need to wake up to the rigged system that we are working with. Insurance companies make it more expensive for doctors to operate and consumers pay that price. Worse yet, patients who don’t have insurance are charged higher prices to compensate for those extra costs because the insurance companies set their own prices on what they will pay for various treatments and office visits. This may be financially beneficial in the short run, but the result is that patients want to get their money’s worth so they expect more services. More demand means higher prices. If consumers were sensitive to the prices of individual procedures the demand would level off as the procedures got too pricey. On the other hand, more demand can lead to efficiency, but the insurance companies keep paying the same price for a procedure (and never lower their premiums) whether the system is efficient or not so the costs remain high even when doctors find ways to improve the system.

One comment from Scott Thompson asks Steve to run for Congress against Rob Bishop again. I don’t know enough about Scott to vote for him (not that it matters since that’s not my district) but I am impressed that he would come out and directly identify the central fallacy that keeps us from actually fixing our health care system.

Tags economics, Elevated, health care, issues