A man may fall many times
but he won't be a failure
until he says someone pushed him.
Elmer G. Letterman
If thou art a man,
admire those who attempt great things,
even though they fail.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
 |
| Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6 years old Gift from God Aurora Movie Massacre's Youngest Angel Courtesy Daily Mail |
Veronica was attending the movie with her 25-year-old pregnant mother, Ashley Moser. Moser was shot in the stomach, but as of the time of the article, her preborn child is still alive. Thirteen-year-old Kaylan was heroically applying CPR on Veronica, when another, larger victim fell on top of the 6-year-old. My thoughts and prayers to all the victims and their families, in particular for the rapid recovery and good health of Ms. Moser and her preborn baby; I cannot imagine her broken heart. It's young people, young ladies like Kaylan whom give me confidence in our nation's future.
Life is a journey, sweet Kaylan... You are a remarkable young woman, and I'm proud of you.
Go the Distance (excerpt, my edit) by Alan Menken and David Zippel
And I won't look back
I can go the distance
And I'll stay on track
No I won't accept defeat
It's an uphill slope
But I won't lose hope
Till I go the distance
And my journey is complete
But to look beyond the glory is the hardest part
For a heroine's strength is measured by her heart
Like a shooting star
I will go the distance
I will search the world
I will face its harms
I don't care how far
Reminder: H.R. 459, the Audit the Fed Bill Up
For Vote Tomorrow/Wednesday
I believe that the House leadership will attempt to suspend the rules. Translating legislative jargon, usually bill opponents will try to weaken the effect of a bill with amendments. In essence, suspending the rules (with limited debate) is more of a take it or leave it but to carry the bill, you need to carry it with a two-thirds vote. I regard this as one of the most important votes in years: we need more accountability and other fundamental reforms of the Fed. This is a long-overdue, critical first step in the process of true bank reform: we need to stop manipulation of interest rates and the government currency printing presses.
Barack Obama Quote of the Day
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit
is a sign of leadership failure.
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better.
I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt.
Barack Obama
aka the $5T Man
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better.
Vote for change 2012
Political Potpourri
How many commentaries have I written on how Romney should be running his campaign? And really, it's not just Romney's abysmal campaign to date but the GOP in general (including Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, etc.): they have just been inarticulate in framing the issues.
Romney has a few glaring problems: (1) the rest of the country doesn't know him well; (2) he has earned a reputation as being unprincipled; (3) his messages have been inconsistent and convoluted. And his campaign has been doing a terrible job dealing with these.
On the third point, I was listening to an earlier Fox News Sunday regarding the Romney campaign's inept response to the ObamaCare decision. Romney called the mandate a tax (as per Chief Justice Roberts' decision) while a campaign spokesman referred to it as a penalty.
Let me comment on the health care/RomenyCare/ObamaCare issue. The Democrats are drafting off Romney's own rhetoric. They think they have taken Romney's opposition out, because of surface-level similarities between the programs. So, for instance, they talk about the freeloader problem (i.e., uncollected costs because of government-mandated emergency hospital care regardless of the ability to pay).
This is disingenuous for a reason I pointed out the NCPA health care proposal earlier this month. For one thing, the federal government already subsidizes health insurance as a tax expenditure (which I discussed earlier this week) for employer-supplied healthcare. There's an equal protection argument here: people without health care insurance should be entitled to a tax credit benefit relevant to out-of-pocket costs: they are paying higher taxes than they should to offset tax expenditures on employer-provided health care. (One of the NCPA points is for the government to offset provider uninsured costs with related tax credits.)
There are a number of problems driving up health insurance costs (including an aging population with costs correlated with age), the most critical one being deviations from free market principles and the hidden costs of health care. For example, state regulations (in particular, special interest benefit add ons) are a form of protectionism, and however well-intended, policies like guaranteed issue and community rating basically enable below-cost coverage for high-risk individuals. Subsidies are also a perversion of the free market, because they artificially lower policy costs. Health insurance really isn't insurance at all in the sense but bundled health costs: government policy is effectively a tax dodge which encourages cramming out-of-pocket ordinary health costs (e.g., birth control and preventive health care) into insurance (the equivalent of which would be like including gasoline purchases, oil changes, tolls, etc., in your auto insurance policy). We need more vesting of the consumer in the purchase of health care goods and services. Large businesses can self-insure across states with a common basket of benefits; on the other hand, if you live in a lightly-populated state, there may not be sufficient economies of scales: what we need is more regional or national pooling of risks.
The hidden costs include the employer share of premiums and the effects of tax subsidies. From the standpoint of business, your cost is your wages plus the business contributions to your benefits. When progressives talk about having the employer pay the costs, they are really talking about increasing the hidden costs of your compensation. From the perspective of business, this is a zero-sum with the balance of your compensation. You may THINK you are paying $7500-$10K for a family policy because that's what you see but you're really paying $15-20K.
Policies like guaranteed issue and community rating really mean high-cost individuals socializing their health expenses, i.e., paying below cost. Who makes up the cost? The other, healthier people in the program. You are paying more than your fair share, and higher premiums in part reflect those passed along costs. Many states have risk pools where the high cost individual pays somewhat higher rates and the rest of the premium is subsidized (e.g., by a tax on premiums).
Getting back to Romney, I've argued what he needs to say something like this:
- Massachusetts before reform had the highest percentage of the insured; government costs would be much higher in other states, and today's government is struggling to cope with existing commitments in a low-growth economy, never mind the higher costs of an aging population
- Obama's promises of government "saving" families on policies were unrealistic, with any alleged savings more than offset by the additional costs of an older population, loss of market competition, and "free" or otherwise artificially low prices for health care goods and services driving demand exacerbating sector costs
- The federal government cannot sustain its current health care costs, with Medicare alone over $20T in unfunded liabilities
- Government regulations and mandates, especially from Washington, are driving up costs in the sector
- There are market aberrations, like restricted supplies of medical personnel, government price-fixing in Medicare/Medicaid, and ordinary medical expenses, which do not properly come under the concept of insurance
Romney is getting pressed for an alternative. I have repeatedly mentioned that he should propose (as Sen. Dole did back in the days of HillaryCare) catastrophic health insurance, shoring up assigned risk pools, and allow marketing of policies across state lines.
On the tax vs. penalty question: Romney should stick with the tax angle because tax issues can get resolved through budget resolution, which is easier than dealing with a filibuster-sustaining Senate Democratic minority, requiring 60 votes for passage.
Going back to the first two points I raised: I do not like the fact that the Romney campaign is essentially letting the Democrats define Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney needs to define himself, why he wants to be President, that he's not a "finger-in-the-wind" guy or changes his mind as often as he changes his socks:
- My trust lies in the private sector, not government intervention
- I will bring my knowledge in managing private sector turnarounds to the federal government: consolidating operations, selling or leasing more assets (including natural resource development), and focusing on core competencies and privatizing other operations
- I believe in old-fashioned American values, like thrift, self-reliance, and hard work, and traditional institutions like marriage, family, and church
- we believe in decentralized authority back to the individual and state;
- we need to streamline regulations to promote market competition;
- we need to cut spending across the board and streamline/simplify tax preferences and expenditures to enable lower tax rates.
- we must confront head on unsustainable federal spending and entitlement liabilities
I do wish that Romney would look for clearer ways to distinguish himself from Obama, e.g.,
- the Bush/Obama record on: low-growth economic policies; unsustainable federal deficits and spending increases; open-ended, expanding operations in the volatile Middle East and Gulf Region; and government intervention in the economy (bailouts, etc.)
- a strong dollar policy, including reining in the Federal Reserve
- a significantly smaller federal footprint in terms of individual rights and the private sector
However, it looks like Romney's position in the battleground states has slightly deteriorated, no doubt due to saturation negative ads. I saw one recent electoral projection suggesting that it all comes down to Ohio. A few suggestions to Romney: Obama has been pushing his "save" of GM and Chrysler. I would take that head on, pointing out that the federal government is still in the deep red on its auto "investments", even with Obama's $7500 federal tax rebate going to upper-income yuppie purchases, Obama's favored Volt is well below sales projections. I would point out that a reorganized GM/Chrysler under traditional bankruptcy would still have sold vehicles.
But I would also point out that many of the factory closures in Ohio had more to do with unsustainable cost pressures, but we have had other higher-value manufacturing gains in the economy.
Whereas I'm not calling Senate races at this point, I think there are good chances of pickups in Nebraska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, Montana and Missouri. I rate Scott Brown as a slight favorite to hold onto his seat in Massachusetts, and the biggest threat to GOP seats seems to be in Maine where the GOP candidate is trailing a distant second to former Governor King, an independent. I think the GOP has a decent shot at the seats in Connecticut, Ohio, New Mexico and possibly New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington. I'm definitely unhappy that the GOP has not been more competitive in states like Minnesota, California, New York, and Rhode Island. I'm happy with the GOP Senate nominee (Bongino) in Maryland, but I haven't heard much from him since the primary; Maryland is an uphill state for the GOP, with roughly a 2-1 registration advantage for Democrats.
A final note: it may sound as if I'm being partisan here. I'm more of a pragmatic free marketer. I have a number of issues with Republicans, e.g., Sen. Marco Rubio has not been helpful in dealing with sugar subsidies, I'm uncomfortable with Romney's China-bashing, and I share Dwight Eisenhower's concerns about the military/industrial complex. The interesting thing is how policies have flipped over time: the Federalists/Whigs/Republicans used to be the mercantilist/big government/high tariff party, and the Republican Democrats/Democrats used to be the small government/free trade/free banking party. I have always been a fiscal hawk, even during my salad days. There are few legitimate conservative Democrats today (speaking as a former conservative Democrat), and the few there are been largely marginalized by progressives locked into leadership positions. Yes, I'm very aware that Republicans have not applied the principle of small government to Big Defense, and they've done their fair share of earmarks, tax preferences/expenditures, etc.
Penn State Gets Sanctioned by the NCAA:
A Critical Response
According to a CBS News alert:
The NCAA has delivered stiff sanctions to the Penn State football program in the wake of Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, including a $60 million fine, a four-year ban from bowl games, a reduction in initial scholarships from 25 to 15 a year and the voiding of all wins from 1998 to 2011. The school has also been placed on probation for five years.This is overdone, disproportionate and counterproductive. I'm sure that the NCAA believes that it is sending a message by dealing out a Draconian punishment, but I think what it's done is wrong.
I do not have a vested interest here: I have never been a student or faculty member at Penn State, and I am not, and never have been, a fan of the Penn State football team.
Let me be clear before expressing my opinion here on the NCAA action. As a conservative and a Christian in the Roman Catholic tradition, I consider that sexual exploitation, physical abuse, or negligence of minors are unconscionable crimes. Libertarians have issues with the nature and extent of positive rights of the child, i.e., what parents must do on behalf of a child, but certainly in a trustee guardian role, we would expect them to be responsible for basic developmental needs of the child, e.g., food, shelter, safety, clothing, basic literacy and life skills, etc., to be met. (Libertarians are more likely to distinguish between legal and moral responsibilities.)
First, former Assistant Coach Sandusky alone is responsible for the unconscionable crimes of which he has been found guilty. I think that the attacks on Penn State are attempts to mitigate Sandusky's responsibility by socializing the blame.
To what extent is an institution responsible for crimes done without its knowledge or consent? The primary responsibility for reporting a crime lies with the witnesses, and as far as I know, the state is not prosecuting a case against them. I have not read the Freeh report; it would be wrong if a university official attempted to intimidate a witness from coming forward. If I'm not mistaken, the two young victims in the 2000 and 2002 alleged incidents have never been identified, the witnesses have given varying accounts of what was seen and what was said to university officials, there are questions about reliability of memories years after an event. I suspect that the reason the district attorney did not bring a case against Sandusky in 1998 was a perceived lack of evidence.
What were Schultz' and Curley's responsibilities to report poorly substantiated allegations? I am not familiar with Pennsylvania law at the time of alleged incidents. Personally, if I had been part of the Penn State University administration, especially given the 1998 circumstance: (1) Sandusky would have been prohibited from unescorted access to facilities; (2) if and when any subsequent Sandusky-related incidents came forward, I would have documented a good faith effort to follow up the allegations, encourage witnesses to report the incidents, and present to the district attorney any findings from internal investigations.
But what, if anything would the district attorney have done about the 2000 and 2002 incidents, even if they had been dutifully reported to local authorities? Sandusky no doubt would have denied the allegations, and the burden of proof would have been on the authorities. I think Schultz and Curley would have been better off leaving that decision to the district attorney.
I do believe that the university banned Sandusky from bringing a child to campus facilities after the 2002 internal investigation. I have not seen any subsequent allegations from the Penn State campus. Even if one argues wrongdoing through 2002, why is the NCAA sanctioning Penn State for crimes committed outside the campus, i.e., stripping Penn State of its victories from 2003 through 2011?
Second, the nature and extent of sanctions are arbitrary and unfair. If and when sanctions are invoked, they should be as immediate as possible after the time of the original infraction. The NCAA should not be setting rules, regulations, and sanctions on an indefinite post hoc basis: to what extent, if any, does the NCAA require registration of any alleged crimes on campuses? How fair is it to decide the rules after the game is played? How can university administrations years after the fact be held responsible for events where the quality of evidence, the reliability of witnesses, etc., deteriorate over time? How can universities address the problems to mitigate the nature and extent of sanctions if someone surfaces with allegations years after the fact?
To what extent are these sanctions comparable to those of other offenses? For instance, what about rape accusations, involvement with illicit drugs and/or steroids, gambling, etc.? To what extent should a football team be sanctioned for events not involving players?
Third, the Draconian punishment may result in unintended effects. For instance, witnesses may find themselves targeted by the local community, alumni, etc. for coming forward; we really want an environment where witnesses are supported for coming forward, not worried about being seen as disloyal or blacklisted in the local area. Universities could be threatened by malcontents with dubious claims. In many cases, crimes could simply displaced, not eliminated. For instance, the fact that Sandusky wasn't allowed to bring boys to facilities after 2002 didn't seem to deter his behavior; he just found other ways, and my guess is that the majority of his offenses over the years were off-campus. Once you set up rules, eventually motivated people will find ways around them.
Finally, the NCAA is unfairly unfairly punishing the late Coach Paterno and the football team. I can't speak as a former college athlete, but men of honor do not win by fiat but their efforts on the field. I want to see a single football player whom played against Penn State who would boast of any such unearned victories; any man among men would reject this. Sandusky wasn't on the gridiron: he didn't tackle or score on them. Are we sports fans supposed to have amnesia over the reality of Joe Paterno's coaching success after 1997? Pretending that Coach Joe Paterno and his teams from 1998-2011 did not earn their victories fair and square on the gridiron is a state of denial.
Let me be clear to the NCAA: Coach Joe Paterno is, and will remain, the football coach with the most wins: 409. I and all other genuine college football fans declare your ruling NULL and VOID. Until another coach passes Paterno with 410 wins, Paterno remains on top. I'm not saying this as a Penn State fan or as a Paterno fan, but I count wins earned on the gridiron, not in the offices of college bureaucrats.
One last point: the penalties in the form of reduced scholarships, ban on bowl appearances, etc., all but ensures that Penn State will be unable to field a competitive team in the near future. Already talented recruits are seeking their releases. I was like any red-blooded American boy: I dreamed of playing on a glorious crisp fall afternoon for the right to play in a bowl game. I was never blessed with the size, talent or speed to win a college football scholarship, but there are kids whom have been working for years to get that chance and to have a bunch of bureaucrats take that away as a knee-jerk overreaction to the alleged perverted actions of a former coach and the botched university responses to internal incident reports is fundamentally unjust.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Babys, "Turn and Walk Away"
