By Mike
It is with great humility and with great pride that we tonight will make history for our country and progress for the American people. — Nancy Pelosi1
This president seems particularly fixated on doing something for the sake of historical magnanimity. His election was historical, healthcare reform is historical, cap and trade is historical, we’re at a cross roads in history, etc. The list is long and arduous–historical moments are what this government is all about.
And we may very well be approaching some of the most important events of our era, but our identification of them as such should seem dubious. Who are we to say what will be considered important details in one hundred years time. Certainly President Obama’s election would be one moment, but the passage of a flawed set of rules and regulations that do not approach the change they were believing in?
Perhaps. For good or ill, I don’t know.
I’m just a little unnerved by this unhealthy need to create these moments for the books; it is incredibly egotistical and narcissistic of the lot of them.
Should a man seek history’s pen or should history’s pen seek him? Depends on who is in charge when said pen strokes paper, though I suspect telling everyone you’re doing something historic does not equal historicity.
Tags: History Obama Politics
Apr 16, 2010 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
I admittedly lean heavily towards libertarianism as my own political philosophy; and this is not because I enjoy the suffering of the less well off, but because I believe self reliance and self determinism are principles that define American culture; it would seem to me that the United States and her people have benefited greatly from the results of these ideas. Those who know me know that I am far from the upper echelons of wage earners, thus I might experience a greater benefit from some other philosophy if I were to embrace it, but at what cost to my principles and the whole notion of self determinism, those thing that in my mind make us most a product of our citizenship?
But don’t confuse the advocate of said philosophy with an individual lacking the compassion to aid those in need; it is in fact a philosophy designed to produce the greatest amount of prosperity, as defined by the individual, for those with the drive to improve their livelihood, though this does not always produce favorable results. Those in need could be given a helping hand by their neighbor, not through government intervention or interaction, but through community organizations, charities, churches etc. with their outreaches designed specifically for this purpose. In this way, an individual may put the product of their labor to whatever purpose they wish, be it for personal or community gain and reep the benefit of said investment either emotionally, monetarily, or in whatever other form it may come.
People of another philosophy might convince you that it is impossible to cater to so many people of ill fortune without that societal bedrock, government taking control. In this scenario that product of labor, our property, which might have been donated for the purposes of societal welfare, is instead taken yearly from those who earn the most to be distributed around to those in need through welfare, various health benefits, food programs, education, etc. While this seems entirely fruitful, beneficial, and downright compassionate on its surface, programs like this are rarely any of the above.
Reducing the value of production results in greater harm than if it had been done voluntarily simply because it reduces the incentive to increase one’s earnings when taxed based on those earnings. In this situation, then, there is little incentive to maintain production, or hire new workers if the idea is to stay within a certain tax bracket and potential employees will be left out of work.
These programs also reduces the incentive to earn for those who take advantage of said government programs as benefits given add to income. When an individual qualifies for said benefits of $8,000 a year at an earning level of $15,000 they will be less likely to take a position which would allow them to earn $20,000 but would disqualify them from all benefits. In this scenario, there is little choice but to stay in poverty as the immediate benefits are greater than the long term potential of earning more.
Governments are not in the business of protecting the interests of the least of society; they are in the business of maintaining and gathering power. If that takes assurances of welfare, then they will continue to spend themselves into oblivion to gain the necessary votes. Hence Mr. Franklin notes:
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Simply put, a philosophy that would encourage the government to maintain system of high taxation, that would rob an individual of their property, in order to gain a little assurance of security and welfare, provide little choice or future prosperity as liberty and opportunity slowly erode.
So what is better: teaching someone a sense of self reliance, skills, and the ability to use all of this together with the possibility of failure, or to simply take from those that are well off to be distributed in an endless cycle to those that inherited a sad standing in life?
Tags: Libertarianism Welfare
Jan 08, 2010 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
Copied and posted completely, this is an interesting concept. Politics have become quite vitriolic of late, and we are need of a way to broaden the conversation so to speak, to return to our American political roots. (Source)
Watching the House of Representatives on late-night C-SPAN, you might have any number of reactions, including seppuku-inducing boredom. Depending on who’s talking, you might also feel disgust, rage, contempt, or, in rare cases, inspiration. But one reaction you probably won’t have is: “Gosh, if only there were more of these jokers.”
That’s too bad. Because what our political system may be lacking more than anything else is enough members of Congress. No, really. Seriously, stop laughing.
Except for a brief effort to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii, the size of the House has been frozen at 435 members since 1911. A 1929 law, driven in part by a desire to keep immigrants underrepresented, has kept it that way.
But there’s nothing sacred about the 435 number. In fact, the Founders would be aghast at the idea that the “peoples’ house” is filled with pols speaking for hundreds of thousands of citizens.
In Federalist No. 55, James Madison defended the proposed Constitution’s apportionment clause despite its widespread unpopularity. The chief complaints, according to Madison, were that such a small Congress would become an “unsafe depository of the public interests”; that the districts would be too large and diverse for any politician to “possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents”; and that such a tiny House would have the net result of attracting elitist types whose aim would be the “permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many.”
So how big were these liberty-threatening districts? How tiny was the potentially oligarchic House? The districts had no more than 30,000 people, yielding 65 representatives. Under today’s apportionment system, the “ideal” congressional district is 700,000 people, with some districts reaching nearly 1 million. Montana, with a population of 958,000, has just one representative, but each of Rhode Island’s two districts has about 530,000 people.
There is, of course, an important principle here, and if all of Montana’s residents were black, it would be easier for everyone to see it. Montanans’ votes don’t count as much as Rhode Islanders’ — in fact, a Montanan’s vote only counts for about three-fifths of a Rhode Islander’s. That America’s slave population was counted by the same ratio under the original Constitution is usually cited, rightly, as one of the document’s greatest sins. A lawsuit filed in federal court in Mississippi last month hopes to force Congress to remedy the status quo’s assault on the one-person, one-vote principle by increasing Congress to as many as a paltry 1,761 members.
Beyond principle, there are practical reasons to expand Congress. For decades, presidential candidates have promised to change the “way Washington works.” But once elected, they’re soon captured by their own congressional parties, which are in turn beholden to the “old bulls” and constituencies rooted in interests outside their districts.
A Congress of, say, 5,000 citizen-legislators would change that overnight. Would it cost more money? Yes. But today’s huge staffs could be cut, and perks and pork might even be curtailed by using the old chewing gum rule: If there’s not enough for everyone, nobody can have any.
Term-limit activists have the right idea — getting new blood in Washington — but their remedy is anti-democratic. The trick is to swamp Congress with new blood and new ideas. Want more minorities in Congress? Done. Want more libertarians? More socialists? More blue-collar workers? Done, done, done.
In free-speech debates, it’s often said that the cure for bad speech is more speech. Well, the cure for a calcified Congress just might be more members; the remedy for an undemocratic system, more democracy.
When you look at the congressional corruption scandals of the last 20 years, it’s hard not to see them as stemming from a system that has, in fact, led to the “permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many.”
Critics of the status quo from the left and right yearn to shatter the two-party system’s lock on politics. I’m not convinced that would be a good thing, but wouldn’t the best way to do that be for smaller parties in Congress to champion fresh new ideas? Rather than have some billionaire egomaniac who, in effect, creates or co-opts a ridiculous third party just so he can indulge his presidential ambitions, why not have third, fourth, or 15th parties test their wares in a smaller political market and build themselves up to where they could field a president?
Obviously, the rajahs of incumbentstan don’t like the prospect of diluting their own power. But expanding Congress would, among other things, make late-night C-SPAN so much more entertaining. – We Need a Bigger House by Jonah Goldberg
Dec 13, 2009 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
…health care. Fuck, right? Who wants to talk about that dry boring shit? I mean, hasn’t this horse been beaten to death; don’t you want to leave the poor fucker alone, lest we be forced to shoot? Don’t put this poor bastard into the race, he’s lamer than FDR. What, too soon…to swipe jokes?
But honestly, let’s talk. This is a very important subject that we need to discuss, because the consequences go well beyond providing a service to those without the means to access it under present circumstances.
My Quick Analysis
- Enacting reform of the current system isn’t bad per se. The way the system currently operates is hardly efficient and not nearly as competitive as it should be. What enables the insurance companies to monopolize certain regions has to do with current law regulating where they are allowed to operate–namely, they are prohibited from offering policies across state lines. This is not advantageous to you and I, and current proposals before the Senate, and what was enacted by the house, do not address this issue. Competitive reform is not their goal it seems.
- Inefficiencies in the system cannot be addressed by introducing more bureaucrats into the process. This is a fallacy in every way. And the notion of substituting one insurance company pencil pusher for one, or more likely several government trained and paid pencil pushers is so poor a solution as to illicit a question of who’s lives they are trying to make simpler and more efficient.
- Quality is not likely to increase as a result of passing reform legislation, nor would it be likely to increase under a single payer system; as they say, cost does not correlate to quality, as we pay more than any other industrialized nation per person with reasonably similar results (we do much more reporting in that sector then other nations), but our options are many and our facilities are the finest. Please remember, this does not mean that all facilities are top notch, as they would not be in Canada or the UK (same difference, am I right?), but the results of our system are clearly not poor in spite of some edge cases. The real question is, what is the marginal result? Quality service, at a high cost, or little to no service at a high cost? I suspect the former is more closely related to the actual result.
- No matter how badly you might want a government run option, or a single payer system, the answer to why it shouldn’t happen has more to do with the future fiscal health of the nation than with a lack of compassion. In no way can we continue to fund programs without the ability to pay in full. Modern nation states may be willing to operate in this fashion, and their citizens may continue to allow them to operate willfully in this fashion (due to ignorance of its implications…I speak from experience), but it is doomed to fail unless some drastic measures are taken. Governments derive wealth from their ability to borrow and tax; there is no other store of wealth. In this scenario a government can continue to ensure that they may borrow in a limitless fashion in order to fund various programs and to keep banks in order; but these stores of debt must be paid eventually. That debt is left to you and I. We are left with the tab through increased taxation, inflation, and if deficit spending continues, a collapse. There is no free lunch, no matter how badly you want it.
- I cannot express this enough: there is no free lunch to be had through a single payer system. It must be paid for. The fiscal situation in this country is not good; we do not have the ability to fund this indefinitely, so think about that. No matter what you think about the moral implications of passing such a program (and really, do you honestly think Jesus would have partnered up with Caesar to provide such a thing), we can’t afford to pay for it at this time.
- In terms of what the constitution allows, we should not be able to legally pass such a program if interpreting the language in any strict from. Yes, many decisions have been handed down that affirm some of the direction our government has taken us in; however, if considering the intent of the founders (anti-federalists especially, but even federalists would have said the constitution offered protections from such abuses) there was never any notion of such power being directed so centrally; compelling individuals with mandates that must be followed or else be fined and jailed could hardly be considered the protection of our rights and liberties. When asked a question as fundamental as where the constitution grants Congress the right to do such a thing, current majority leaders laugh it off; in other words, this was never a real concern in their minds, they take it for granted that our liberties are government given rather than “god given.” The past century has represented an antithetical approach to the founders ideals for our federal system.
Whether or not this seems as though it were merely a question of morality, hate, and racism on the part of opponents, there are very real concerns that are not being addressed seriously by congressional leaders. These concerns are not an affront on those individuals, but merely on their philosophy of governance; we cannot ignore what this means for the health of the nation in terms of economic growth, job gains/losses, the ability to earn one’s way up the economic ladder, and the long term viability of our government as debt obligations come calling.
I want to leave you with one thought:
Remember too that when you have a progressive tax system, especially when there are surcharges on people making seven-figure incomes, you also have a system where for any given level of national income, the greater the inequality, the greater the government’s tax revenues. And indeed federal revenues have been rising faster than median wages for decades now, thanks to the rich getting ever richer.
Given the government’s insatiable appetite for cash, it’s only natural that it would prefer to tax plutocrats, spending some of that money on poorer Americans, rather than move to a world where poorer Americans earn more (but still don’t pay that much in taxes), and the plutocrats earn less, depriving the national fisc of untold billions in revenue.
The government’s interests, then, are naturally aligned with those of the plutocrats — and when that happens, the chances of change naturally drop to zero. – Felix Salmon
Dec 04, 2009 • OP-ED
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
I’m not going to say much of my opinion on the matter at this point, other than to note the obvious political leaning in this particular comic does not necessarily reflect my views. I also want to note the reason I post this is because the effect it has is to point out an oddity in the new grand strategy of the Afghan war. An oddity that is troubling.
Comments?
Tags: Afghanistan Obama
Dec 03, 2009 • OP-ED
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
Editor,
In this paper, and among other sources, I have read the claim that the most moral action would be the passage of universal healthcare; and while, from the perspective of some it would indeed seem to be a moral imperative to ensure that the less well off are cared for, it is difficult to claim that the most moral action is a government run program.
From a certain perspective, what is deemed moral is that which is seen as the “greatest good for the greatest number of people.” Though the act of passing universal healthcare is done with great moral intentions, it will ultimately impact the greatest number of individuals more negatively over time, and will serve to help the fewest at inception.
What negative impact would such a program have on a greater portion of society than that which it is designed to serve? Simply, its costs will become increasingly astronomical and undeniably unaffordable over time, and in such a way as to cause catastrophic collapse unless a change is made in expenditures or in tax collection.
And while we are, in sum total, the wealthiest nation on earth, a great deal of this wealth is built on debt, from the car or house many own to the ever increasing debt of the federal government built year after year on deficit spending for various social programs and military expeditions.
This is not to say that those less well off should be left to wallow in misery; it is simply the role of societal institutions, and not government, to ensure individuals are cared for, and seemingly the most moral way. And so from this interpretation of morality it is difficult to say whether the passage of a government program designed to assist such a small percentage of the population is truly the most moral path to take.
But, of course, the issue of morality is complicated. Our tradition of governance is not; it is about negative liberty, or rather what the government will not do in order to maintain an individual’s right to life, liberty, and private property.
Passage of universal health care, or the passage of a similar program, diminishes this tradition by creating a sense of entitlement in a population looking for positive liberty—or what the government will provide—at the expense of an individual’s right to property, by increasing taxes, and the liberty one enjoys when deciding how to provide their own health and wellness, by supplanting that with a system designed to mandate what qualifies as quality care rather than that which is based on an individual’s needs.
Mike Mattner
Benton Harbor, MI
Sent to the Herald Palladium.
Tags: Health Care Letter to the Editor Morality
Nov 10, 2009 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
I was walking down town the other day, looking for a spot to grab a quick bit of lunch, when I ran into my old friend, Johnny. He asked, “Did you see the news? Our president won the Nobel peace prize!”
I gasped rather noisily. Johnny asked, “you ok?”
“Sure, Johnny, I’m fine. What did you say about the prize?”
“I can’t believe it either, but it’s a sign to conservatives in this country to get in line with our great president’s, and the world’s, agenda. That’s for sure!”
I had to ask him, why he thought this was necessary or even good for our nation and those living in it. A world wide agenda designed to create equality does not necessarily create favorable outcomes. “What do you mean it doesn’t create ‘favorable outcomes?’” He air quoted that last part. I explained that by drafting and passing legislation designed to create expensive entitlements, entitlements that would eventually need to be paid for with taxation, they were creating an environment of diminished liberty.
“But Bush was a fascist!” Woe, Johnny, woe! What made Bush a fascist? “Well, he just was. He stomped all over the constitution by lying about a war and people died! And that made us lose our rights, like freedom of speech and stuff!”
Wait, we lost our rights? There aren’t many examples of this situation, I’m sure because I’ve not seen any laws produced or evidence that this has occurred. If it has, please let me know. Opposition was rarely denounced by the administration or by any members of Congress, so I’m not sure how any free speech was stifled. The issue here, Johnny is what I mean by diminished liberty, and how this administration deals with the rights you were so concerned about under the Bush administration.
In order to pay for the entitlements that I mentioned earlier, our government (left and right politicians are guilty of this) must reduce our right to the fruits of our labor, our property if you will, our money, in the form of heavy taxes. This burden more often than not will fall on the moneyed, wealthy class; the folks that provide jobs, drive innovation, and have the money to invest in future growth. The more you earn the more you pay. This encourages the wealthy to limit their earnings in an effort to curb their tax burden. With poorer individuals, it is also in their best interest to limit the amount of money they earn in order to ensure they maintain their entitlement benefits.
Keeping individuals on the dole allows for them to create an environment of reliance on the government, while government grow ever so slowly in order to cater to that new found need.
Johnny screamed, “Liar! They would never do to our liberties what Bush did! They care about people!”
And so do conservatives, it’s just that their principles encourage individuals to go out and work hard to attempt to make it for themselves, but when they don’t make it they should rely on the charity of other individuals, churches, and groups that are privately owned and operated to pick up the slack and give people a hand. It should never be the government’s role to do these things, as they will be done inefficiently, will expand the role and scope of government in society and create a life that will not be worth living as property rights are diminished in an effort to collect more taxes. In that case, wealth creation is a burden.
And Johnny, individual liberty has more to do with making a go of it and failing than being guaranteed a good home, a hot meal, and a job by the government. It sounds nice, but breeds a situation of equal misery.
Both parties in this country are as guilty as can be of statist tendencies, their speed and outright efforts are just a little different.
“Huh?” Johnny asked blankly. “You’re getting that hate filled diatribe from Fox News! Your hating, hater, hate speechiness!”
What are you talking about Johnny? Where’s the debate my friend?
Johnny walked away screaming.
Oct 09, 2009 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
Well. Hello again old friend. I see you’ve been very busy lately Sam, you crazy uncle you. My cousins are telling me a lot about what you’ve been up to and let me tell you it sounds pretty wild. The ol’ Uncle Sam residence is really taking a turn for the worse.
I heard you’ve lost a bunch of money on some ponzi investment schemes involving cages for your kid’s pets (I’m still blown away by this one). Turns out those once lucrative domiciles were actually pretty worthless when you found out the pets had no way to pay for them. The whole thing was all twisted up and I’m still having trouble wrapping my mind around the mess that situation created. Really, though, what were you thinking? Pets can’t pay for their residences Sam. At all.
Then, what’s this about spilling money into your kid’s bank accounts (where did that money come from by the way, who exactly is giving you money to lend) to try to prop up those cages? You didn’t learn from your poor decision making the first time around did you? Look, if your kids are ever going to learn anything they need to lose all of their money and start from scratch with a better idea of what to spend their money on. Now you’re just encouraging them to invest poorly.
Also, I heard Grant Michael, little old G.M., makes pinewood derby cars for his buddies in the scouts, but people stopped buying his for some better models made by another kid. That’s too bad, these things happen. No, Sam, don’t go buying up his operation–look he needs to figure out what his buddies want to buy, you can’t just tell him to make something you think is good for your house. It won’t work out well for him or you.
Haven’t you wasted enough money yet? Haven’t you figured out that blowing money is the worst way to get out of money troubles?
Come on Sam, get it together man. You can’t control your house this way. The money’s going to stop coming in when everyone loses their incentive to earn and you keep giving them a bunch of money that you don’t even have yourself.
It’s simple, go back to your first principles, and give your family the space it needs to lead successful lives.
Otherwise, chief, you’re just the dictator of the house.
Oct 01, 2009 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
Editor,
I submitted a letter to the editor in the past few weeks concerning the numbers of the uninsured in this country as well as the cost of the program to the government.
The primary point of contention with that letter seems to have been with the numbers I cited, (and it didn’t help that the Herald Palladium gave the letter a headline of “phony numbers”) but the crux of my argument was not the numbers in question those were to merely point out that it is disingenuous to use them in order to say that the problem is extreme and needs our attention immediately, the real point I wanted to make in that letter concerning health care is that it is too costly for our government to fund a public option.
The congressional budget office has run numerous reports citing the deficits our government must run in order to fund the plan being considered. We mention sustainable spending and activity constantly, and it’s pretty clear that continuing to run and fund programs that require massive deficits won’t send our government into the black, but into the territory of not meeting its financial obligations. That is clearly not a sustainable state of affairs.
The only way to decrease deficit spending in that scenario would be to craft and implement new or increased taxes. In our progressive income tax structure the brunt of the burden likely will fall on the small percentage of the population making the most money. In many cases that means small businesses, or other providers of jobs. Taxes are to innovation, progress, and chances of employment what bleach and ammonia are to bacteria. An extreme comparison, but you get my point.
But, taxes will also be raised for the poor; not only directly through income taxes but also through increased taxation on various vices, luxury items, et cetera that create a regressive tax structure. These sorts of taxes (not relating to income) are more likely to be felt by lower income earners than those earning a higher income.
I agree, the costs of health care are indeed extremely high, and reform is needed to make the insurance market more open and competitive, but the option currently on the table is too large, too expensive, and not deliberated well enough for me to say that this is the reform we need; this option does not breed competitiveness or control costs in a way that is beneficial to the future operation of this nation or the well-being of its people; it creates a future tax obligation that will be impossible to meet.
So, let’s continue the discussion, let’s critique each other’s facts and ideas and hash out some kind of solid, truly sustainable reform, but let’s remember to not disparage one another simply because we cannot agree; instead let’s figure out why we do, and see if we can find some common points of concern to address in any future healthcare legislation.
Mike Mattner
Update: I was told this was published in the rag of record in our region, however I never saw it and was never informed of it being published. Oh well.
Tags: Health Care Letter to the Editor
Sep 10, 2009 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
Editor,
We can all agree that healthcare costs can be, and often are, unaffordable for many; the system needs reform, but to what end? A recent proposal from Congress would create a public option for individuals earning up to a certain percentage above the poverty line in an effort to ensure that the roughly 47 million uninsured individuals in this country are covered.
Unfortunately, that number is a bit disingenuous, but effective, in helping push legislation. Let’s break that number down a bit: roughly 18 million can afford insurance, but do not want it; 8 million are young 18-25 year olds and choose not to sign up; 12 million are non-citizen residents or illegal; 9 million are between jobs and only temporarily uninsured; 8 million are covered children, who have merely not been signed up; and another 3 million are eligible for government health programs but have not signed up. This adds up to more than the 47 million uninsured that is often cited, but many individuals will fall under multiple categories. What we also know is that roughly 80 percent of those that are uninsured are in good to excellent health and the majority tend to be young. Additionally, the numbers cited are merely a snapshot, or a moment in time, of the true picture of the uninsured, which could be higher or lower than the official figures.
So just from looking at these rough numbers, we can see that it can be a bit misleading to claim a government option is needed immediately for the health and well being of the citizenry.
From a financial perspective, the Congressional Budget Office gives a pretty clear picture of why bringing a public option to the table should be so unpalatable. By its own reports, the claimed savings on Medicare of $2 billion over 10 years is small in comparison to the roughly $1 trillion it would cost in that same time frame to fund the public option–and we’re only in the first decade of the program. Beyond that the net cost of coverage would continue to grow by 8 percent a year. What this means is an unsustainable level of deficit spending over the long term, unless taxes are raised significantly on everyone–including the middle class and poor. Any move towards a single-payer system would force these numbers sky high to a level that would bankrupt government and the system.
This program is unneeded and too expensive, in addition to the many other problems presented by the House’s version of the legislation, to be seen as a real solution.
There are other options available for decreasing costs and reforming the insurance industry, but keeping it out of the hands of government is best if we respect the principles set forth in the constitution. Otherwise we trample on them in order to gain more entitlements and increased tax obligations–perhaps not for ourselves but certainly for our progeny, and at the unintended cost of changing the face of what liberty means in this country.
Mike Mattner
Update: To be published in the Herald Palladium. Not sure on the date yet.
Jul 28, 2009 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
