The 'Inside-Out' approach to personal and self;
even more fundamentally, to start with the most inside part of self
with your paradigms, your character, and your motives.
The inside-out approach says that private victories precede public victories,
that making and keeping promises to ourselves precedes making and keeping promises to others.
It says it is futile to put personality ahead of character,
to try to improve relationships with others before improving ourselves.
Stephen Covey
Great New Romney Ad: Some Comments
The Romney campaign ad is pure political genius: the ad not only perfectly captures Obama's hubris and narcissism, but the beautiful baby represents future generations indentured by a feckless, spendthrift, profligate Obama (aka "The $5 Trillion (and Counting) Man") and his enabling Congressional Democrat crony allies.
The ad makes a questionable point about the $5T Man that I think needs a correction. From the Treasury Department:
| Current | Debt Held by the Public | Intragovernmental Holdings | Total Public Debt Outstanding |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/27/2012 | 10,831,917,653,124.47 | 4,757,489,762,037.23 | 15,589,407,415,161.70 |
No, he inherited about $10.6T; but you can argue by next January, he'll probably have eclipsed all the debt that George W. Bush inherited and left Bush in the dust, despite the fact that the recession technically ended in June 2009. Note that Bush started his tenure with an 8-month recession, ended with a 13-month recession (in process), and incurred over 7 years of war funding.
However, there is a more troubling shift--from the captive funding of social security reserves to publicly held debt, and the government has to compete with other investments, which adversely affects the private sector. The key point is the category called "Intragovernmental Holdings". You know, this is the money that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" Democrats will tell you won't run out for another 20-odd years; in essence, as we have been doing for the last 2 years counting, we not only take ALL of existing employee social security taxes (and employer matches) and simply send them out to current beneficiaries--but we have to dip into the reserve to make up the difference.
Under Obama, no net contribution has been added to the reserve since 2009: in fact, excluding interest income, we've run at a deficit since 2010 (for the first time since the Reagan social security fix) and have had to dip down into the reserves because (among other things): (1) payroll tax cuts to employees, (2) accelerating Baby Boomer retirements and (3) a bumper crop of early retirees seeking shelter from a horrific jobless recession/recovery, disproportionately affecting older workers.) At the beginning of the Obama Presidency, public-held debt was $6.3T and IGH was $4.3T. Publicly held debt has gone up just over 70%--while the reserves are up roughly 10%. Now debt is debt is debt, whether it's a Treasury note held by a mutual fund, the Chinese or Japanese, or an IOU in the social security reserve. You can argue that publicly-held debt accumulated during the Obama Administration will come close to matching nearly all the publicly-held debt through Bush, and it could be that's what the Romney campaign is referring to.
Uh-oh. Smell that? I think the new generation needs a change. In Washington DC this fall.
Timothy Sandefur/Cato Institute,
"ObamaCare's Medicaid Mandates at SCOTUS"
Thumbs UP!
One of the issues on the third day of SCOTUS deliberations on ObamaCare was whether the sovereignty of states have been subordinated, by scope creep of a federal government's power grab, by strings on Medicaid funding. The two points I want to point out from this discussion involve (1) the Solicitor General's refusal to draw any limits on the discretion of Administrative bureaucrats (like HHS Security Sebelius), which in my judgment shows utter disregard for the Founding Fathers' concept and intent of limited federal government and (2) the issue of materiality of Medicaid funding (up to 40% or so of state budgets) and federal barriers for states to exit the Medicaid arrangement. For example, Sandefur talks about federal constraints on states' ability to control costs, even if they exited the Medicaid arrangement by, say, transferring patients to more cost-effective facilities.
NOTE: I still think that individual state regulations of health care--including various special-interest mandates, professional licensing, etc.--can be just as problematic in other aspects. What I see as a more constructive federal role in health care is to allow more of a free market among states, allowing individual policyholders to work around protectionist expensive state mandates. State-based insurers, no doubt, would quickly demand the rollback of mandates to compete in the market. The problem is that the progressive Obama Administration, instead of using interstate commerce authority to promote more of a free market among states, attempted to centralize authority and thus propagate unsustainable mandates to the states in a clear subjugation of interests as described above, a form of extortion. This creates deadweight loss for consumers because they are forced to pay for expensive optional (versus core emergency care) benefits they don't want or need (they may later on choose to use them because they feel they're paying for them anyway--a self-fulfilling dysfunctional outcome which exacerbates inflationary pressures in the sector!)
