February 2008 Archives

Implicit in this article is a concept that I think is at the root of the problem with issues based politics. One must actually understand the issue in order to weigh a candidate's position on that issue. In the case of this particular article, one must understand micro and macro economics fairly completely in order to dissect each candidate's economic plan for the future. Most people do not understand economics to this level and instead work on intuition. On the face of it it would seem that taxing the hell out of rich and giving free stuff to the middle class is a great idea. For anyone who views them self as middle class it definitely feels good. The problem is that things are never that simple. There are long term effects that can only be understood through detailed analysis of the policy by those who possess an understanding of the intricacies of, in this case, economics. The same is true regardless of the discipline; foreign policy, domestic policy, etc.

The second half of the problem with issues based politics is that we cannot accurately know what the issues of the next four years will be. In 2000 when we were asked to choose between George Bush and Al Gore terrorism and a burst real estate bubble were not the issues we were basing our decisions upon.

Unfortunately, principles and character do not fit on a bumper sticker. Issues do. And, it is a lot easier to get people emotionally charged over issues. Issues fit on bumper stickers and make great sound bytes. Principles upon which all decisions will be based require that we first understand the principle and then give some contemplation to the ramifications of that principle. That could take more than the 12 and a half seconds that we normally give to contemplating a bumper sticker.

Aloha

read more | digg story

[posted with ecto]

Technorati Tags: election, politics, Obama

Surprise, surprise, surprise. The Marine Corps has ordered Franz J. Gayl to stop his research into the decision to not deliver MRAP vehicles that commanders on the ground in Iraq said were required in order to better protect Marines from the very effective IEDs being used by insurgents.

read more | digg story

A member of my family has one of those pre-existing conditions that makes it very important that we have health care insurance. We simply cannot afford to be without insurance coverage. So, I am terribly interested in discussions about health care.

On the face of it, universal health care sounds pretty good. I'd like to not have to worry about how to pay for the health problems that inevitably come with age. However, I am not at all convinced that it would be as wonderful as it seems once implemented. I can foresee a myriad of problems that might arise when the government controls or at least influences that health care we have access to. There is, however, one eventuality that no one wants to mention.

Once implemented, the government will eventually tire of funding it. Military reservists and retirees are already experiencing this with Tricare (read the story).

This New York Times article says that both Clinton and Obama argee that universal health care will require at least $110 billion to start. There's no indication of what they think the ongoing costs might be. I think it unlikely that we have any real understanding of how much universal health care will cost over the long term. If it goes like most things we will be surprised by the largeness of the number once we know it. As the cost of universal health care grows, as it surely will given America's aging society, Congress will be faced with the task of figuring out how to fund the increases.

Interesting to me is the fact that no one mentions the fact that universal health care usurps the individual of choice. Mr. Obama tells us that he won't force anyone to take health care because everyone will be persuaded by the low price. Mrs. Clinton is, in my opinion, a bit more honest. She realizes that universal health care will only work if everyone participates. Mrs. Clinton is straight up about requiring everyone to join. Thereby depriving the example in the article, Brandy Coons, from being to choose how she wants to spend her money.

I am not really very happy about the current health care system. I'd like to see a better system. However, I am not at all convinced that Federally fund health care has any hope at all of being that better system.

Back in August I mentioned that the decision to not supply MRAP vehicles to troops in Iraq would translation into dead soldiers.

Now, some one is attempting to document the fact that Marines have died and been injured as a result of that decision. read more | digg story

In related news, the Department of Defense again wants to mess with the health care benefits that military personnel receive.

So, let's review. The Department of Defense doesn't want to give military personnel the equipment that will best protect them as they go in harms way because it is too expensive and jeopardizes future projects. The Department of Defense (or Congress, though there's probably plenty of blame for both) also wants to discourage military members and retirees from using the health care benefits they've been promised by making them more expensive to the service member.

And this one is really bipartisan. The military really has very few friends in Congress or the White House. Both sides of the aisle really wish we'd show up for the wars they like and then just disappear.

aloha

[posted with ecto]

Technorati Tags: Iraq, military, politics