Truth is what stands the test of experience.
Albert Einstein
Example of How the Obama/Democrat Obsession
with Regulation (i.e., Hidden Anti-Consumer Tax)
Not Only Makes the US Less Competitive
But Can Cost People Their Health, Maybe Lives
I've pointed out on a number of occasions that the regulatory burden (e.g., new prescription drug approvals) is better assumed by Big Business as a competitive weapon by its very scale, a barrier of market entry against smaller, innovative companies; I've noted that regulation is a poor substitute for competition in a robust free market. But when these politicians, seeking their 15 minutes of soundbite fame, lash out at companies, already being targeted by opportunistic lawyers, shedding public tears to mask their greed, and the federal agency originally responsible for a relevant drug approval, the lesson isn't lost on either the target company or relevant government bureaucrats.
I have no doubt that there have been occasional unintended gaps in scenario testing or issues with nature and extent of data collection during the trials and approval processes of prescription drugs, and if and when relevant problems occur, the company is responsible for remedying the situation. But the nature and extent of risk averse behavior can be counterproductive in delaying the introduction of a useful drug to the market so the prospective consumers can use it; every day of delay subtracts from their treatment and recovery:
According to ex-FDA commissioner Alexander M. Schmidt: "In all of FDA's history, I am unable to find a single instance where a congressional committee investigated the failure of the FDA to approve a new drug. But, the times when hearings have been held to criticize our approval of new drugs have been so frequent that we aren't able to count them....The message to FDA staff could not be clearer." In fact, the price of bringing a medicine to market, per billion spent, in constant dollars, has increased by a factor of 100 times over the last sixty years. Consequently, pharma has developed an ever greater fear of developing new medicines. By some estimates, current pharma sales and marketing budgets are already twice those of R&D.If the cost and investment required to bring a new drug to market gets above a certain level, then no company will invest in a discovery. And if a desperate patient advocacy group, foundation, or government does not fund the research, then the discovery will quietly die. And so will many people. Increasingly, medicines and medical devices are approved in Europe before the U.S. Following European approvals, the U.S. demands additional trials, despite hundreds or thousands of patients already treated. Is it possible that if one added up the delays, deferrals, denials of funding, and spiked projects, one might find that the number of people killed each year by what we do NOT do exceeds those saved by regulation by one or two orders of magnitude?Remember Bastiat's famous "things seen and unseen"? Opportunity costs? Remember the kerfuffle several months back when experts recommended breast exams only every other year once a woman hit 50 or so? Part of that assessment had to do with the traumatic effects of false positives. You have to balance the risks of improved health from potential consumers of the drug against the risk of any adverse effects. Enriquez points out that the excess government regulatory burden affects the feasibility of drugs focused on the treatment of low volumes of patients. That is, higher regulatory cost burden shrinks the number of prospective drugs.
Enriquez also tells an amusing anecdote anyone from the metro DC area would relate to. I think I've driven in some of the worst traffic across the US: Southwest Freeway in Houston, the Chicagoland area, HIghway 101 in Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, and then there's the Capitol Beltway. On multiple occasions I've been in stop-and-go traffic on I-95 leading to and from the north Beltway. A 90-minute (one-way) commute can easily double or triple on bad days. I still can't get used to stop and go at 5:45 AM on the Beltway (especially from College Park through Silver Spring). Traffic can be bad in both directions. I've never been to the FDA, but I've seen an exit sign heading north/east near Silver Spring.
The point is that left lanes are a way of getting past the logjams around local exits (although it can take some time to migrate across lanes). When you finally get to the left lanes, you often find yourself behind somebody whom is passive aggressively slowing traffic behind him (which leads frustrated drivers to try to pass him from the next lane). John Nestor wrote into a local area medium covering the issue. He self-righteously said he drives in the left lane because he enjoys it, and he doesn't really care what the other drivers think--he's driving within the speed limit and thinks they don't. Let's just say Mr. Nestor is so despised locally that they refer to Nestor's driving as if a labor union boss exploiting the work rules in a labor slowdown "Nestoring". It turns out that Nestor has worked for the FDA and has never found a candidate drug to pass his safety criteria....
Nestoring, whether in government or in driving, in the name of safety, really makes the world less safe for other people.
Catholic-In-Name-Only Caroline Kennedy
As a Catholic who has always cut Caroline Kennedy some slack for losing her father in an assassination, I'm finally fed up with Caroline Kennedy, whom has politically exploited her family's fame and blew an opportunity to be named as Hillary Clinton's successor and to follow in the footsteps of her Uncle Bobby.
Caroline Kennedy was quoted during the DNC as saying "As a Catholic woman, I take reproductive rights seriously, and today they are under attack." No, Caroline, no Republican is trying to stop women from having babies (unlike China). Yes, I know, I know: she is using a euphemism: it sounds so much more culturally acceptable and politically correct than to say that you're okay with the dismemberment of a preborn baby with a functioning nervous system.
"Caroline, I remember your father, John F. Kennedy. He claimed to be Catholic, but he slept with other women while married to your mother, against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
"I remember your Uncle Ted. He claimed to be Catholic, but he was also a womanizer and divorced Joan after twenty years of marriage and multiple children, even though the Church teaches the indissolubility of marriage.
"You claim to be Catholic, but you promote a type of marriage and abortion, both against the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, Caroline, you are indeed a Kennedy."A couple of more notes, Caroline. While you are basking in the glow of Democrat class warfare tax hike policies, let us recall your father's own policies (notice that he said "top to bottom", not just the middle class. Could it be your daddy wasn't as smart as Barack Obama?
Walter Heller, who had been John F. Kennedy’s CEA chair in the 1960s, [during the Ford Administration] called for “big tax cuts for stimulus to generate jobs, output and profits….Use fiscal revenues created by output gains to cover tax cuts and spending programs (repeat early ’60s).” In the wake of the JFK tax cuts phased in from 1962 to 1965, federal revenues surged at a real rate near 5% per annum.
Second, let's take into consideration your Uncle Ted ran for and won your daddy's Senate seat. In the aftermath of your Uncle Bobby's assassination in the pursuit of the open Democratic nomination in 1968, political operators approached your Uncle Ted to run in Bobby's place, and Ted declined, saying that he didn't feel that he was ready to be President, even though he had more years in the Senate than Obama did when he announced. Could it be that your uncle wasn't as smart as Barack Obama?
No, Obama Isn't the $6M Man
How About the $1.4B Man?
The IT manager I worked for on a gig in the mid-90's introduced me to Frank Groom's email subscriptions. I'm sure every reader knows that I love quotes; I start each daily post with one, and I even maintain a blog webpage of my own original quotes. I had noticed that the manager had a daily subscription to a positive quote of the day (available here; see also his 'positive news' email). I wouldn't say that I'm Pollyannish, but I have a positive attitude that has carried me through a number of setbacks or disappointments in my life and career.
I was somewhat surprised to find Groom channeling his inner Howard Beale (the movie Network: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore...") at his webpage theoutrage.com. I realize--especially in the case of my highly critical assessments of certain progressive politicians--that people who profess to have generally upbeat personalities could be critical of others. I can only speak for myself, but I think Ron Paul and others feel similarly. For us, there are real concerns about the future of America under an unsustainable course; we find many politicians are unprincipled and/or have only superficial/talking point level understanding of issues, the economy and business. Ron Paul found himself attacked over something someone else wrote in one of his newsletters, and the other GOP candidates for President usually jumped all over him on foreign policy. We see ourselves more like the boy whom points out the emperor is wearing no clothes.
I get forwarded or emailed a lot of very negative things on Obama, almost none of which appear in this blog. I do mock him when I think Obama gets a little full of himself. I do get a little exasperated when I hear him repeat political spin for the umpteenth time. As someone who has taken responsibility, has meticulously given credit to other authors and has tried to address questions on the basis of policy, not personality, I have little respect or patience for Obama's straw man arguments, dismissive behavior, and co-opting language out of context. Personally, I think Obama is a nice guy, with a beautiful family, but he's in a job that is way over his head. I love my Dad and my Uncle Roger, but I wouldn't vote for them to be President either.
Groom, others, and I strongly believe in traditional virtues, like frugality, integrity, diligence and reliability. There are things that are intuitively obvious: remember, when Jerry Brown the Younger was initially in office, he refused to live in the governor's mansion, staying in his own bachelor apartment. Especially endearing was Sarah Palin's dismissal of the governor's cooking/housekeeping staff and famously putting up the state plane for sale on eBay. (I think the sale occurred after a failed auction.) There are things I would never do, even if I was entitled. I mentioned when I was commuting to a Santa Clara work site from Chicago, the CEO's assistant called me in to tell me I was approved to stay at a local hotel for $199/night. I was instead staying at an Extended Stay American in Morgan Hill (a tough one-hour commute from south San Jose) at about $43/night. I thought it was wrong.
There are lots of things that a President does that I think involve an unconscionable taxpayer expense (fundraisers, vacations, etc.). Now the President draws roughly $400K, a relatively modest figure compared to some executives in the private sector (but given his indisputably poor performance and results, I would argue he's way overpaid. I would do the job for half the pay and do 10 times better without breaking a sweat.) But as I've frequently pointed out in discussions of public sector compensation, the famous 77 cents per wage dollar (women to men), money is fungible and you have to look at the benefits/perks. Groom has a free e-book, The 1.4 Billion Dollar Man: Costs of the Obama White House, available at publication date here.
Some examples:
- One of my best friends from freshman year of high school has a small business walking pets and house sitting. However, I don't think she makes the $100K-plus salary drawn by both the family dog walker and the Presidential valet. What's pathetic is that as a contractor, I've administered the Patent Trademark Office data warehouse and the US Archives military personnel records request database, and I didn't make as much as the Presidential dog walker.... If the American people ever voted me President, let me point for the record I've never owned a dog. I would let Donald Trump fire the Presidential dog walker. As for a valet, I would let my folks stay in a spare bedroom, and I know my Mom would have lots of things to say about my appearance. Or maybe I'll ask one of those sales guys at the Men's Wearhouse if he ever thought of moonlighting....
- "Over $3.3 billion was spent on designing a new presidential helicopter fleet, which Obama canceled; the helicopters were sold to Canada for $154 million." If this isn't a classic example of government gold-plated design, I don't know what is. I know you're worried: how is the President going to get by now that Canada owns his new helicopters. Well, not to fret--he has 31 others, each one which cost $500M and thousands of dollars per hour to operate. Remember that $1M date that Barack and Michelle took in New York for a dinner and a play? They used 5 helicopters that night. I wonder if Michelle got to go in a color helicopter that matched her dress and shoes... You want to bet when Jay Leno starts talking about his car collection, Obama mentions his helicopter collection?
- How much did you spend to take your family on vacation this year, say to Disney World? The Obama's Christmas vacations to Hawaii have cost the American taxpayer $9M each year. No, I can't tell you why the Obama's haven't gone to Disney World instead; after all, Obama is already in the Hall of Presidents. I'm not buying it, though; he doesn't come with a teleprompter...
Danish Saturated Fat Tax?
How About Big Nanny Going On a Diet?
Yeah, I know what you're thinking: I would never be able to afford to visit Denmark if I had to pay $2.40 for every kilogram overweight.
The busybody Danish progressives decided last year that they were going to save the country from obesity by adding a surtax on saturated fat content in foods. You can predict the response; here in the US, we see the result anytime a state decides to raise an excise tax: gasoline, cigarettes, beer, etc. State residents near the border cross over to do relevant purchases, and the tax-raising state loses 100% of taxes made on cross-border purchases.
One of my pet targets in the blog is the heavily protected domestic sugar industry. America produces sugar above world prices. By the way, this makes fattening desserts (or other food choices) using sugar cost more than it should, and guess what? America still has an obesity problem.
So, just like any good Progressives, the Danes were licking their chops, already dreaming of what they could do with the revenue. But you can predict the results: Danes near the German border went to get their fat-laden purchases there. Home food producers found their products weren't competitive with similar foreign products not bearing the surcharge plus the inevitable results of supply and demand: lower demand at a higher price. The Danish government is quietly dropping the tax.
Let me briefly address the nutritional issues (I have a separation nutrition blog and started looking at issues during a 2003-2004 lower-carb diet where I lost something like 90 pounds over 15 months or so. First of all, saturated fat is good for the body in measured quantities. But the American medical profession switched to a lower-fat paradigm around the 1970's where fat was recklessly demonized across the board, and low-fat diets became a norm. (You can roughly divide a diet into 3 parts: proteins, fats, and carbs. You have essential amino acids (proteins) and essential fatty acids, but no essential carbs.) So what happened was people largely migrated from consumption of fats to carbs: including white foods, like sugar, potatoes, rice, and white flour. Food producers substituted sugar to make up for the satiety derived from fats. And a funny thing happened: instead of obesity leveling off with low-fat foods, there was a growing problem of obesity.
Calories are calories are calories. If you make up for fat grams with more carb grams, it won't make you lose weight any faster. In my experience, I've done better with lower-carb diets than lower-fat.
I can tell you that my obesity problem is complex, and it has nothing to do with the consumption of snack foods, sugary desserts, frequenting all-you-care-to-eat restaurants, etc. I buy fresh fruit and vegetables, sacks of frozen chicken parts, eggs, etc. (in addition to the food products from a nationally promoted diet vendor). But as a fat person, I can tell you that state or other busybodies trying to intervene in my dietary decisions would be counterproductive.
Just an aside here: the cited "health expert" advice to subsidize healthy food and to tax junk food? They make lousy economists. The obese already have existing incentives to get their weight under control: clothing purchases, dating prospects, social stigmas, health premiums, etc. Most of us have started diets on multiple occasions over the years on our own; we want these judgmental people to keep their unsolicited comments to themselves, to respect our privacy and our own decisions. I have on two occasions lost at least 75 pounds during my life. Not one of these diets occurred because of pressure from busybodies. It could be that you are targeting someone whom has recently lost a lot of weight. Sometimes the weight creeps up on you.
The first diet with a 75-pound loss? I think my Presidential scholarship at OLL had been renewed and I got my picture taken for the student paper along with other high achievement students, mostly coeds. I was standing next this very tall, thin girl; she was a sweetheart--in fact, I don't think any of my fellow students or the faculty ever commented on my weight gain. It was clear I went way past the freshman 15. The only time they said anything was when I purchased this protein powder, and they were worried about my being on a dangerous diet. My payoff for going on a diet? The first time a pretty coed returned my smile.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Cheap Trick, "Don't Be Cruel". It takes chutzpah to take on one of the King's classic tunes, but Cheap Trick isn't some garage band. They do Elvis proud... This concludes my Cheap Trick retrospective; I'll start a short Roxette series with my next daily post.
