Truth nevër hurts the teller.
Robert Browning
Sheldon Richmond, "It's Not About Contraception:
Negative vs. Positive 'Rights'": Thumbs UP!
In yesterday's post, I previewed Richmond's earlier essay "Contraception: Insuring the Uninsurable". (Richmond is editor of the libertarian magazine The Freeman and its companion website TheFreemanOnline.org.) I've repeated on multiple occasions in this blog since the deliberations over ObamaCare that much of what falls into "health insurance" is a perversion of the concept of insurance. It's not the only perversion of the concept of insurance I've criticized in this blog: there's the example of flood insurance. (The fact is, many people will try to game the system, i.e., to socialize their losses given guaranteed issue. For example, they'll wait until they are seriously sick or even unsuccessfully attempt to get flood insurance knowing a hurricane is headed to the area. It's basically fraud: it's not spreading the risk of a low-probability catastrophic event.)
Richmond pointed out many things can be healthful and good for you--but that doesn't make them insurable expenses. What we insure against are rare, relatively random, high-cost events or conditions which would eventually bankrupt all but the few whom have accumulated substantial assets: say, a cancer diagnosis, a spinal cord injury, etc.
The Catholic Church preaches a chaste lifestyle--no sex outside of marriage (before, during or after)--and openness to God's gift of children within marriage. To force the Church to subsidize an indulgent lifestyle against its religious and moral teachings is manifestly unjust and undermines her moral authority in the eyes of her faithful.
My preview comments focused on the historical context for dysfunctional government policies that perverted the concept of insurance into bundled health services where much of the costs are hidden from the insured and in turn they have no real incentive to control costs. I then concluded with this independent observation:
But more to the point, there's a slippery slope argument here--where do you draw the line at potentially worthy healthcare?...That's the problem with positive rights and FDR's Second Bill of Rights: you never have enough resources. The only thing government achieves here is adding more costs on the system.I have largely ignored Obama's statement on his "compromise" because it's distortion and obfuscation as usual, is characteristically defensive and disrespectful of the opposing point of view (for example, Obama goes out of his way to imply that the opponents are being hypocritical because certain states had similar or even worse policies), repeatedly begs the question (by asserting what is to be proven), and uses dubious statistics (i.e., 99% of women between 18 and 34 have used contraceptives: for one thing, there's a significant number of women whom practice a chaste lifestyle and/or want to have a large family).
After writing that last statement, I just decided to do an Internet search on the 99% and discovered, as I suspected, that the President was misleading the American people. Kessler, the Washington Post self-appointed "fact checker" looked into the issue. For one thing, Obama was quoting the results of a self-report measure (which are notoriously unreliable--my point, not Kessler's), not to mention one reported by an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. The 98-99% figure, furthermore, was a CUMULATIVE one focusing on ONLY (broadly defined) sexually-active women and any relevant instance of contraceptive use, i.e., we are talking about women whom had intercourse at least once during their lifetimes and/or they or their partners used a type of birth control (including a condom) on any encounter. However, 21% of the target population had never engaged in intercourse. Even among self-reporting Catholic women, roughly a third were not using a reliable form of birth control, and current contraceptive use statistics excluded sexually active women "who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant.".
Obama is indirectly here trying to undermine the moral authority and relevance of the Church by arguing Catholic women don't follow what the Catholic bishops are preaching anyway. (Ah yes, what a mighty insight that is, indeed: the Church also preaches following the Ten Commandments, but (believe it or not) most Catholics go to confession more than once in their lives! No doubt in Obama's eyes, that's a failure of the Church authority, not the reflection of one's own sinful behavior and responsibility...)
But here's the main point: there are lots of things that are far more salient to our well-being than sex, e.g., food, water, shelter or clothing to withstand the weather conditions, etc. These are part of the ordinary expenses of living, what we spend our disposable income on. Why is it "fair" that a Roman Catholic priest or nun (say, teaching in a school) under a vow of celibacy (or others pursuing a chaste lifestyle) should have to subsidize the costs of a sinful, indulgent lifestyle?
Richmond in the cited article raised the same issue I did independently about negative and positive rights. He points out the same old same old bait-and-switch arguments that progressives repeatedly use to justify mandates. In this case, Catholic bishops are not trying to revisit the SCOTUS Griswold decision (i.e., the overturned Connecticut law outlawing the sale of contraceptives). Either a sexually active woman (or her partner) can afford contraceptives or not. If she can, she doesn't need a mandate. If she doesn't, the question is to what extent I can be forced to subsidize her birth control anymore than I can be forced to pick up the check for her lunch. Maybe I want a new car; instead, I may have to drive a used one in order to live in my budget. If gas is expensive, I cut down discretionary driving, maybe make use of public or private transit. But money is fungible, and sex is a volitional activity.
Richmond points out this deceptive progressive argument of "fairness" on behalf of positive rights is an old one: "In The Law (1850), Frederic Bastiat noted that advocates of government-run schools accused those who opposed them of being against education itself." Similarly Obama tries to get away with saying if you are against a mandate for contraceptives, you are against contraceptives. No: for example, I'm willing to buy my own lunch, but I resent the government telling me I have to pay for someone else's lunch.
And then Obama takes on the role of an insurance company CEO: why, it's obvious: birth control is a lot cheaper than spending $7600 on a pregnancy to delivery. Come, let us "educate" those insurance companies because obviously they never thought of this... Just imagine how grateful they will be that we've forced them to give away what costs money in a drugstore.... (It's not as if, say, we are pursuing policies designed to limit the number of future American citizens whom will have to pay off the massive debt I am personally responsible for leaving them to pay off, in addition to their own bills...)
Now let's just this straight: women have had the opportunity to pursue an active sex lifestyle (in or outside of marriage) for at least 50 years (since the Sexual Revolution in the 1960's) without government mandates for birth control and yet the average number of children in an American family is approximately 3; most sexually-active women haven't been popping out babies every year of their fertile lives, but the President assures us almost half can't afford it. Hmmm--and yet somehow they are... Your point is, Mr. President? If that's not pushing-on-a-string public policy, I don't know what is.
"It’s amusing to watch advocates of free contraception cite as evidence for their position polls showing that women overwhelmingly support no-cost contraception." You know what, Mr. President? I bet I can find an even higher amount of support for no-cost government! Sigh! I guess I should rephrase that, given almost half of workers under Obama paying no effective income tax anyway... What I mean to say is a federal government with zero tax burden for anyone. (Wait a minute: does that mean I don't get free stuff anymore?)
Yes, the current generation has a positive right to have future generations pay off our net obligations (after all, where would they be without us--I mean, the stupid ones among us not using effective birth control?) It's not as if they will left in a financial ditch after 4 (or even 8!) years of failed Obama Administration policies.
"What we have in this debate is a clash not between two liberty interests, but rather between two rights-claims – one negative (genuine), the other positive (counterfeit)." In essence, Richmond's point is that positive rights subordinate the rights of others (say, whom might or might not otherwise choose to donate to Planned Parenthood of their own accord). If one's liberty is restricted only to act versus not to act on behalf of others, it is no liberty at all, but enslavement.
Just What Did Obama Learn From the GSE Failures?
The National Association of Realtors would have you know by accounting standards, FHA is in fine shape. Of course, you might not know, unless AEI's Edward Pinto points it out, there is a "business/government partnership" between NAR and FHA, and thus NAR has every reason to put lipstick on a pig.
Shah Gilani has other AEI and other numbers to provide additional context. In 2006, FHA had a capital ratio of 7.38%. It is required by law to maintain a minimal 2%. Its basic sources of income is a 1-point premium plus modest monthly fees. According to AEI, FHA has an economic value of $1.2B propping up $1T in loan guarantees, i.e., an estimated 0.12% capital ratio. As of year end, 12% of loans (889,000) are 2 months or more delinquent and 18% 1 month or more. Expected losses on the first group are expected to be over $40B, compared to current reserves of about $33B. Pinto argues "When measured against the accounting system used by private mortgage insurers, the FHA is likely deeply insolvent to the tune of $15-$20 billion, with a total capital shortfall of about $50 billion."
I won't go into all the details here; I recommend the cited sources as a good start. I will simply point out that the authors argue that the leverage in FHA is magnitudes larger than the bankrupt GSE's, the FHA accounting numbers reflect unrealistic "Enron-like" projected premium and home value growth rates (around 4%), and the nature of FHA loans has changed recently with many higher-value homes in the mix (with potentially more significant total dollar loss risk).
As for Obama's morally hazardous massive underwater mortgage refinancing heaped onto FHA plate which would radically expand FHA's exposure (with losses to the American taxpayer), and a politically dubious $61B in new bank taxes (passed onto consumers, of course) to pay for it? That's a big THUMBS DOWN from me.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Paul McCartney & Wings, "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey"
