55 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/02/11 10:31pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels expressed his support last week for the construction of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline that would carry heavy crude oil from Alberta, Canada to Texas.We applaud the governor for doing so because the pipeline will benefit America’s economy and national security, and because it poses very little environmental risk.The pipeline will benefit the U.S. economy in three significant ways:First, the American Petroleum Institute estimates the project will create 20,000 jobs, starting as soon as the U.S. State Department approves it. Second, the project will create opportunities for refineries across the country to expand their operations and create even more jobs. BP’s refinery in Whiting, Ind., is an example of a refinery that would benefit from this project, as it is currently expanding its facilities in order to process more crude oil, such as the heavy crude being extracted in Alberta.Third, the pipeline will help exert downward pressure on gas prices by bringing to market the increasing oil supply coming from Alberta, which is expanding the amount of oil available on the world market.More so, the pipeline will enhance American security by reducing the relative reliance of hostile oil-producing regimes.The potential impact of expanded Canadian production is likely to be quite large. As global energy expert Daniel Yergin noted in The Washington Post last week, “In little more than a decade, Canada’s oil sands have gone from being a fringe resource to a major one.”Yergin went on to point out that Canadian oil sands already produce “more oil than Libya exported before its civil war.” Additionally, he said, “Canadian oil sands output could double to three million barrels per day by the beginning of the next decade. This increase, along with its other oil output, would make Canada a larger oil producer than Iran — becoming the world’s fifth-largest behind Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and China.” On the subject of environmental safety, we are confident the pipeline poses very little danger for two reasons:First, the State Department reported in August the pipeline would pose “no significant impacts” to the resources in its intended path, as long as TransCanada Corporation, the company wishing to build the pipeline, follows the environmental protection procedures it has agreed to follow. Second, unlike the hard-to-control spill on BP’s Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico last year,leaks in pipelines going over or under dry land are usually stopped within minutes, allowing for any damage to be well contained and cleaned up quickly.When a project with such positive anticipated impacts presents itself, we believe the State Department should jump at the chance to approve it.
(10/26/11 12:46am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>From the wars in Asia, Africa and Latin America to the economic problems facing most of the world, there is much to bemoan about the last decade.Sometimes, though, one sees or hears something that serves as a powerful reminder of the vast progress humanity has made lately.For me, one such moment occurred Sunday, when I read that the first iPod was introduced on that date in 2001. When I clicked the link that led to an archived New York Times article about the device’s debut, I was struck by the comparative primitiveness of the product being described. The article’s headline was priceless: “Apple Introduces What It Calls an Easier to Use Portable Music Player.” “The iPod, which will sell for $399 when it becomes available on Nov. 10, is something of a hybrid of existing products. At 4 inches by just under 2.5 inches and just over three-quarters of an inch thick, it is as small as flash players, but it has a 5-gigabyte hard drive, large enough to store 1,000 songs.” I was astonished at the iPod’s thickness. I had completely forgotten iPods used to be that clunky. The current iPod Classic, the successor to the original iPod, is roughly the same length and width as the original, which makes sense from an ease-of-use standpoint, but it is barely half as thick, at 0.41 inch.More important than physical size, of course, are battery life, memory and price. The original model’s battery offered 10 hours of audio playback and no video capability, and the current model provides 40 hours of audio playback and 7 hours of video. Memory, of course, has ballooned, with the current iPod Classic boasting a 160-gigabyte hard drive, 32 times greater than that of the original. Apple has not only managed to fit all of these improvements, and many others, into a slimmer device; it has also managed to offer them at a much lower price.According to the Minneapolis Federal Reserve’s inflation calculator, the original model would cost about $508 in today’s dollars, which makes it more than twice as expensive as today’s $249 model. This means iPod consumers were paying an inflation-adjusted $101.60 per gigabyte of memory in 2001, whereas they’re paying $1.56 now.Comparing cost of battery life for audio playback, we see a 2001 cost of $50.80 per hour and a current cost of $6.23 per hour (not per hour of use, but of capability).None of the above even addresses other astonishing improvements, such as the transition from a monochromatic screen with no album art to a beautiful color display and the change from a click wheel that actually turned and had four other buttons surrounding it to one that stays still while sensing the motion of the user’s fingers and incorporates the four other buttons into itself. I’ve compared the original iPod only to its current incarnation in order to come as close as possible to making apples-to-apples comparisons when looking at the price buyers pay for certain features. Comparing the first iPod to the iPhone 4S would, of course, yield even more surprising contrasts.The positive impact of these dramatic improvements has unfortunately been dampened slightly by a drop in the median United States household income, which fell 4.9 percent between 2001 and 2010, from an inflation-adjusted $52,005 to an inflation-adjusted $49,445.While the iPod is an exceptional product from the last 10 years, there are parallels throughout many industries.Laptops have become far more powerful, useful and affordable, and automobiles in virtually all price ranges now offer features that only the luxury brands offered 10 years ago, if they had even been invented yet. I don’t mean to downplay the negative impact of the recent recession or to claim that cheaper, better iPods are undeniable proof that we are better off than we were 10 years ago.However, I do believe it is important, from time to time, to call attention to examples of progress when one sees them, especially when the gains are as mind-boggling as those Apple has brought us with the iPod.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(10/18/11 11:23pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Monday was the fifth anniversary of the day the Census Bureau estimated the U.S. population reached 300 million. As that day marked the third time the country’s population has reached a 100 million-people milestone, I believe it is important to think about the path the country has traveled and to consider the implications of where we are headed.First, let’s get some historical perspective.In 1790, the first census recorded a national population of about 3.9 million and a population density of 4.5 people per square mile , which is comparable to Wyoming’s current density. By 1915, the country’s population had reached 100 million, a roughly 25-fold increase in a span of 125 years. At the time of the 1920 census, the population density was 35.6 people per square mile, which is close to Kansas’ current density. The 200 million mark came in 1967, just 52 years after the U.S. hit 100 million. The 1970 census found that the population density had reached 57.4 people per square mile, roughly equal to Arizona’s current density. When we hit 300 million, it had been a mere 39 years since we surpassed 200 million. Last year’s census showed a population density of 87.4 people per square mile, making Missouri an average state in terms of density. All of this may seem to indicate serious overpopulation problems. After all, the above figures mean the country’s population is more than 75 times greater than it was in 1790 and that, even though the country’s land area has increased roughly four-fold, the U.S. now has about 19 times more people per square mile than it did back then. Fortunately, there are many reasons not to be alarmed. Here are just two: First, a density of 87 people per square mile is still remarkably low, both by world standards and in terms of available space in this country. As I noted in a previous column, the world’s average population density is 122 people per square mile. Many countries are considerably more dense than that. Looking at density in terms of available space in this country can also be instructive. The 2010 census found an average household size of 2.6 people, meaning there are about 120 million households in the country. If every household were given an acre of land, the entire population would require just 187,500 square miles, which is about 5 percent of the nation’s land area and is less than the combined area of Colorado and Wyoming. Second, Americans’ quality of life has increased immeasurably while our population has grown, which is no coincidence. As 19th-century Europeans sought refuge from oppressive conditions by coming to America, the population grew. The influx of immigrants spurred industrial and technological progress as manpower and brainpower joined forces in the great cities of what is now called the Rust Belt. The rising prosperity that resulted attracted more immigrants while continuing to inspire the U.S.-born population to have children, and the cycle continued.Looking ahead to the 400 million mark, which the Census Bureau believes we will hit in 2039, what can we expect?We know the population density will be about 113 people per square mile, which is a bit more than Kentucky’s current density. We can probably expect the share of the population that is 65 and older to continue growing, which will strain systems such as Social Security. Higher immigration and birth rates, fortunately, can help cushion that blow in this country, whereas Japan and many European countries will be facing an even steeper climb due to shrinking populations and low birth rates. Some worry that while overall density will still be fairly low, we will see excessive crowding in coastal areas, such as Southern California, Florida and the Northeast.While there will still be population growth in those areas, we can take comfort in the fact that much of the growth will be in states that aren’t on the coasts .In the last decade, the five fastest-growing states were Nevada (35.1 percent), Arizona (24.6 percent), Utah (23.8 percent), Idaho (21.1 percent) and Texas (20.6 percent) . California, by contrast, barely beat the national average of 9.7 percent with its 10 percent growth. New York and New Jersey grew by just 2.1 and 4.5 percent, respectively. Despite some Americans’ concerns, it looks like the 400 million-person America of 2039 will be prosperous, relatively uncrowded and better positioned than many industrialized nations to tackle the challenge of an aging society.Today, the U.S. population is about 312.5 million. To the next 88 million, I say, “Come on in! There’s plenty of room.”— jarlower@indiana.edu
(10/11/11 10:27pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Recent political events have drawn attention to the question of what constitutes a fair system of taxation.President Barack Obama’s “Buffett Rule” proposal for raising taxes for the highest income earners comes to mind, as does the Occupy Wall Street protesters’ demand that the “bottom 99 percent” not be fleeced by the richest 1 percent. One of the more controversial events of this kind was Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s August campaign speech, in which she made the case for taxing top earners more heavily.“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own,” she said. “Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. “But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. “Now, look, you built a factory, and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. “But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” I agree with the many Democrats, liberals and progressives who believe Warren has done a good job of explaining the leftist perspective. I disagree, however, with all of the important things she said and, thus, with her conclusion.Warren makes three major mistakes in her reasoning. The most important mistake comes near the end of her remarks, when she refers to “the underlying social contract.” In reality, none of us has seen or read, let alone signed, any such contract, even though it is a commonly used metaphor for the responsibilities people try to impose on others in democratic societies.While this may seem like a very technical point, it is significant because it means the door is open for people like Warren to decide what the contract says or what it should say whenever they look at the country’s situation and don’t like it.The above relates to Warren’s second major mistake. She tries to pretend all of the federal spending she wants the rich to pay for is essential for transportation, education and police and fire protection, even when that could not be further from the truth. She conveniently neglects to mention that most of those services are financed at the local and state level and hopes her audience won’t pick up on this multi-trillion-dollar sleight of hand.Warren’s third major mistake has to do with her implication that the federal income tax system has not been sufficiently progressive in recent years.We can’t technically say she is wrong about whether the system is progressive enough because we don’t all agree on the values system with which we should evaluate it. But we can say she is wrong to believe that the system has been growing less progressive.That is because the top marginal tax rate — which was reduced during George W. Bush’s presidency — is not a relevant measure of progressivity. The reason is that the rich often pay less in taxes when marginal rates are higher because they find ways of generating more income abroad. They then frequently bring more of their income to the U.S. when marginal rates are lower.A more relevant measure was calculated by Michael D. Stroup of the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2008. He points out that “every major tax bill (since 1993) — both Republican and Democrat — has increased the progressivity of the federal income tax system.” Stroup’s metric is the Tax Progressivity Index, which calculates the ratio of various income groups’ share of income earned to the share of taxes they pay. It shows that while high-income earners have continued to earn an ever-larger share of the total income, their share of taxes paid has increased more rapidly. While some may have been dazzled by Warren’s argument, I remain unconvinced. If she wants us to believe that anyone should be taxed more to fund unsustainable expenditures, such as bloated entitlement systems and unconstitutional wars, she’s going to have to do better than this.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(10/04/11 11:53pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Zionsville attorney Guy Allen Relford is currently representing clients in two Indiana cities. He is seeking the repeal of firearms ordinances in several municipalities across the state. Relford is working to ensure that all of Indiana’s cities and towns are in compliance with a state law that took effect July 1. It prohibits the enactment or enforcement of firearms restrictions on most city ?properties. While we admire the pro-Second Amendment aims of the law, we disagree that the state should restrict local governments in the ?interest of protecting gun rights.In Evansville, Relford is representing a client whose case has caused some controversy. His client, Benjamin A. Magenheimer, was escorted from a city zoo on Sept. 10 for displaying allegedly unruly behavior while carrying a handgun in a holster on his hip. The recent Indiana Daily Student article on this subject (“Gun law leads to lawsuits in Evansville, Hammond,” Sept. 28) makes clear that Relford and his client dispute the claim that the ?behavior was unruly. The article quotes Evansville City Attorney David L. Jones as saying Magenheimer was “getting loud and basically unruly,” but it also notes that Relford denies that his client was behaving ?inappropriately. Jones also said he has been told Magenheimer was recently escorted from a hospital for carrying a gun and ?being unruly. While we agree that people should not behave belligerently while carrying guns in public, the main issue here is whether municipalities should be able to impose tighter restrictions on gun owners and, if so, whether they should exercise that right.First, we should note that, legally, states are much freer to restrict the actions of local governments within them than the federal government is to restrict the actions of the 50 states. This is because the states and the national government share power in many areas, whereas local governments are entirely subject to the will of their respective state ?governments. Second, we would like to assert that government power is best kept in check when government is small and local, a proposition which should lead states to be cautious when exercising the legal right ?discussed above.Third, we want to state clearly that we approve of the right to keep and bear arms because we consider it a fundamental safeguard against government aggression, as well as a subset of ?property rights.All of this leads us to conclude that while state governments can legally restrict local governments’ actions, they should be reluctant to ?do so. The ideal solution would be for the state to repeal the new law restricting local governments’ actions on this issue and for all local governments to voluntarily repeal restrictions on their residents’ right to bear arms.
(10/04/11 11:43pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Since the death of U.S.-born suspected terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki on Sept. 30, there has been renewed debate about the way our federal government wages the War on Terror. This debate is currently emphasizing the president’s policy of using unmanned aerial drones to carry out “targeted killings” of suspected terrorists, and it has been complicated by the fact that Awlaki was a U.S. citizen that presumably should have been afforded his rights to due process under the law. I am inclined to believe the government’s claims about Awlaki’s actions, but I believe his killing was an unjustified assassination. I also believe that actions of this kind do not contribute to the safety of the American people and that they actually help foment hatred of this country among impressionable young people.Why do I believe this was an unjustified assassination?First, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” As an American citizen, even as one notorious for murderous aims, Awlaki should have been afforded his rights, just as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was and Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner will be. Second, the administration’s rationale for depriving Awlaki of his due process rights is unconvincing.According to a New York Times article on the issue, the legal argument had “three elements. First, he posed an imminent threat to the lives of Americans ... Second, he was fighting alongside the enemy in the armed conflict with Al-Qaida. And finally, in the chaos of Yemen, there was no feasible way to arrest him.” While it may be that all three of these things are true, the trouble is that the evidence against Awlaki has been kept secret from both the public and the courts and is likely to remain so. The argument that the government should not have, let alone exercise, this power was made persuasively by Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com recently. He discusses the fact that many people who are fine with the current policy were harshly critical of these sorts of actions during the previous administration. “For you good progressives out there justifying this, I would ask this: ‘How would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?’” he asked.Now, on to the question of whether, morals aside, this action makes the American people safer.In his remarks on the killing, President Barack Obama referred to Awlaki’s death as “another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat Al-Qaida and its affiliates.” This was after he referred to Awlaki’s organization, Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), as “Al-Qaida’s most active operational affiliate.” He went on to say the assassination was “further proof that Al-Qaida and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world.” As I’m sure the president is aware, AQAP has only been the most active Al-Qaida affiliate for a couple of years. It was formed by a merger of the organization’s Saudi and Yemeni affiliates just as a swarm of Al-Qaida operatives were fleeing Saudi Arabia for the safer haven of Yemen, joining fighters who were doing the same from countries such as Iraq, Somalia and Pakistan.The fact that AQAP became prominent in this way is evidence that the Bush/Obama strategy of combating terrorism by waging a multi-front war in Asia and Africa is not working.Instead of depriving Al-Qaida of safe havens, this strategy merely causes them to find new ones from time to time as we chase them out of one country and then the next, leaving death, destruction and plenty of fodder for anti-American propagandists behind.The president would have been right if he had said Awlaki’s death was proof that Al-Qaida will find no permanent safe haven anywhere in the world, but I doubt that even the drone-operator-in-chief can permanently remove terrorists’ safe havens from the entire planet.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/27/11 11:05pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>One of the more infuriating political lie-names I’ve heard recently is the one used by a lobbying group that supports dramatically reducing legal immigration to this country. The group calls itself “NumbersUSA.” Unfortunately, the group’s use of the seemingly objective word “numbers” in its name is not the most infuriating aspect of its message.The group ran a national TV ad during a recent Republican presidential debate. Various speakers delivered the following message: “The immigration debate should not be about the color of people’s skin or their country of origin ... The debate should be about the numbers. Should Congress give work permits to 1 million new legal immigrants again this year, when 20 million Americans of all colors, national origins and religions are having trouble finding jobs?” NumbersUSA clearly doesn’t mean we should literally be debating about the numbers. Rather, the members hope to sneak their faulty assumptions and perverse values into viewers’ minds while coating the message in a layer of professed objectivity.Let’s take a look at what they’re sneaking in. First, when talking about how the debate should not focus on factors such as national origin, the group is clearly assuming that it’s only wrong to discriminate on that basis once someone is already an American.They clearly think it’s perfectly okay to tell a Guatemalan that, simply because he wasn’t born here, he should be made to wait years to take part in the freer, more open society he wishes to join.Second, the group makes the related assumption that people already in this country are more deserving of finding a job here than those who are just arriving. That’s why the group pits new legal immigrants against the native unemployed population.Astoundingly, this assumption ignores the fact that people who are trying to immigrate here are usually doing so because they want jobs, too. In addition to the group’s shamelessly deceptive commercial, we have its new website, ChangeTheNumbers. The site focuses on four areas (population growth, oil use, carbon footprint and green space) to impress upon its visitors the allegedly dire consequences of our current immigration patterns. Because leaving immigration at current levels will increase the first three factors and decrease the fourth at faster rates than NumbersUSA would like, the group advocates reducing legal immigration to 1970 levels, when Congress allowed in 250,000 people per year. The problem underlying the analysis is the group’s silliest assumption yet: If fewer foreigners are allowed into this country, then the increased oil use, increased carbon footprint and decreased green space they would have otherwise caused won’t happen at all. If they weren’t assuming this, then they would be advocating decreased birth rates worldwide.In reality, allowing fewer foreigners into this country will not keep oil prices down because the price of oil is greatly affected by global demand, and foreigners will still demand oil even while in their own countries.This means they will also be adding to humanity’s carbon footprint, and the fact that people everywhere always need space means that the reductions in green space, instead of being eliminated, will simply take place outside this country.Astonishingly, the group makes no mention of the fact that, compared to the rest of the world, America is still dramatically underpopulated. Countries like Mexico, China and India are all more than the world average population density of 122 people per square mile (at 142, 363 and 953, respectively). The U.S. has just 83 people per square mile, which means it’ll take more than 40 years for us to reach the current world average, even at today’s immigration rates. These facts bring us to the final absurdity of the NumbersUSA position: The group assumes that new Americans, those born here and those who immigrate here, are nothing but problems, bringing with them higher oil prices and a damaged environment.The group ignores the fact that people can not only cause problems but also solve them. After all, every new mouth to feed is accompanied by a brain that can think and two hands that can create.As an advocate of unrestricted immigration and an opponent of those who would attempt to dictate any group’s birth rate, I wish NumbersUSA would regroup and try to approach this issue more honestly. They should just admit to the public its real reason for wanting to restrict foreigners’ freedom of movement: pure xenophobia.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/22/11 11:36pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The recent bankruptcy of California solar energy company Solyndra perfectly illustrates the folly of trying to dictate market outcomes from the West Wing.In situations like these, instead of putting up their own money and making decisions based on how good a return they expect, bureaucrats put up other people’s (i.e., taxpayers’) money and make decisions based on what seems most politically expedient.That is exactly how it went with Solyndra. The administration was repeatedly warned of its financial precariousness prior to making the loan. Examples of such warnings abound, but in my limited space, I’ll cite the most glaring: In May 2010, nine months after the initial loan was approved and nine months before the second loan was approved, an industry analyst noted that Solyndra’s costs were far greater than those of its competitors and added that the type of panels it produced were not economically competitive. While there is nothing to suggest it would be impossible for private investors to make such a foolish investment, we can be confident of this: if private investors had been dumb enough to make these kinds of investments, American taxpayers would not be paying for the losses. — jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/20/11 11:50pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Tomorrow night, political junkies like me will endure two long hours of a presidential primary debate, the seventh of this election cycle. This debate, hosted by Fox News Channel, Google and the Republican Party of Florida, will have moderators and panelists like regular debates, but it will also include questions people have submitted online, either as text or as videos. There is still time to submit questions, and I hope a large number of people do. The candidates need to be confronted about issues that moderators have left untouched in previous debates, and they need to be pressed on ones the moderators have brought up but gone easy on.To get our brainstorming process started, I’d like to share the eight questions I’ve submitted.Let’s start with the questions about issues that have scarcely been discussed so far.First, about China policy: Do you agree with the notion that America’s relationship with China is necessarily adversarial, that it can only be a zero-sum game in which our gains are their losses and vice versa? If so, why?Second, about gay rights: Do you support the legalization of same-sex marriage, and did you support the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” If not, please tell us how you expect your grandchildren to look back on your position in 50 years.Third, about drug policy: To what extent do you think this country’s “War on (some) Drugs” has contributed to the violence in Mexico? If you think it has had a large effect, please discuss your position about whether the War on Drugs needs to be ended.Fourth, about election law: Republicans in Pennsylvania are planning to change the way that state’s electoral votes are allocated so that the state will no longer be winner take all, and Republicans in Nebraska are planning to change their process from a congressional district-based scheme to a winner-take-all system. Both appear to be doing this in order to make the president’s re-election less likely. How concerned are you that you might win the presidency as a result of these politically motivated policy changes?Next, let’s re-examine some issues that have been raised before but haven’t been explored fully.First, the death penalty: In recent debates, the death penalty has been a hot topic because of Gov. Rick Perry’s record in Texas. Do you support the death penalty? If you do, and if you also believe that the government is largely incompetent, how concerned are you about the possibility that innocent people are being put to death as a result of this policy?Second, the intersection of private life and public office: In a previous debate, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann had to explain her remarks about how wives should be “submissive” to their husbands. If elected, will you follow any authority other than the Constitution and your own judgment?Third, Middle East policy: Several of you have sparred over the merits and flaws of our current Middle East policy. Do you believe that this country has an obligation to depose oppressive regimes, even when those regimes pose no direct threat to us, and even when we have no way of knowing if their replacements will be improvements? If so, how do you propose that we decide which regimes to oppose and which to protect?Fourth, economic policy: Some of you have attacked your fellow candidates’ job creation records, but much of a governor’s success in that realm is a result of the policy environment that prevailed in his state before he took office. If you have been the governor of a state, please point out some specific examples of policies you championed that improved your state’s business climate, whether that climate was favorable to begin with or not.To submit your questions, go to www.youtube.com/foxnews.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/14/11 2:22am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has a good chance of winning his party’s nomination and the presidency next year, yet few in the media (mainstream or otherwise) seem to notice.Ensuring that voters understand this is essential to having an informed discussion about the direction the country should take in the coming years.This is especially true because of the frequency in which people write off the congressman since they consider him unelectable.Before we begin, I should note that I write this as someone who does not agree with Paul on everything, does not belong to any group advocating his election and does not plan to join any group advocating such. I also write this, however, as someone who shares his passion for promoting personal and economic freedom and as someone who believes he is probably the only presidential candidate from any party that has a chance of doing net good while in office.With that said, let’s look at some of the major indicators of electability in order to determine just how good a shot Paul has.For many, the most important question regarding electability is a candidate’s performance in head-to-head matchups against the president. By this metric, Paul does very well, averaging 41.5 percent to President Barack Obama’s 43 percent in polls conducted in the last month. Only one candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, does better by this standard, and his average margin of victory against the president is just 0.6 percent. Additionally, only one other candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, comes close to either Romney or Paul, losing to the president by an average of 2.5 percent. This means voters looking for a candidate that can beat Obama but that has a more consistent record of promoting limited government than Romney or Perry should give the congressman another look.After considering his chances against the president, most people are curious about Paul’s performance in national polling relative to his fellow Republican contenders. Despite the cable news channels’ fervent efforts to elevate statist, warmongering candidates such as Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Paul has consistently placed third among announced candidates for about two weeks.His average standing in the national polls among declared GOP candidates since Aug. 27, according to RealClearPolitics.com, is third place (9.2 percent), behind Perry (31.8 percent) and Romney (19.8 percent). This still leaves him a distant third, but he has gone from trailing Bachmann by seven percent on July 20 to leading by three points as of Tuesday. Those who think Paul is too far behind to make a surge should recall that, at this point in the 2008 cycle, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, was in a distant third place (15.3 percent), trailing former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (28.6 percent) and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson (23.4 percent). In addition, polls conducted in states that hold the first primaries and caucuses can be very important.There has only been one general poll conducted in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire in the last month, but Paul placed a solid third in it, earning 14 percent, much less than Romney’s 36 percent but quite close to Perry’s 18 percent. RealClearPolitics.com lists three polls conducted in the leading caucus state of Iowa in the last month, and Paul averages a respectable fourth in those. The fact that he came within one percentage point of winning the Ames Straw Poll in August, however, is a strong indication of a passionate, well-organized following, something that will be especially beneficial in small-scale contests such as caucuses and small-state primaries.This recent success in polls of Republicans in these consequential states means Paul has the potential to catch a major break if he can win or place second in one or both.Finally, one metric that can influence and be influenced by polling numbers is fundraising success. In the second quarter of this year (the most recent complete quarter) Paul was second only to Romney in fundraising, and his margin over the third-place fundraiser (former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has since dropped out) was a comfortable $4.5 million to $4.2 million. This is an indication that he will be able to compete with the president’s fundraising machine in the general election.The above figures do not prove Ron Paul is destined to be the GOP nominee and our 45th president, but the news media should acknowledge that they at least prove his viability as a contender.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/07/11 12:53am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The frighteningly power-hungry people currently asking us to send them to (or keep them in) the White House have done a lot of talking about a lot of issues during the last few months.Unfortunately, I’ve rarely heard any of them discuss the continued assault being waged on freedom of speech.It’s an essential freedom, one that, if elected, they will swear to “preserve, protect, and defend.”As we mark the 224th anniversary of the Constitution’s signing later this month, more Americans should be asking presidential candidates what they intend to do about the repeated, sustained attacks against a right that should be cherished by both parties.I’d like to hear about plans to protect our right to freedom of speech from those devising new exceptions to the protection it affords.Demanding such protection is necessary given the number of ways this right has been assaulted in the last two years. I’ll cite three major examples.First, there was the Barack Obama administration’s appalling reaction to the Supreme Court’s January 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.In that case, decided by a 5-4 vote, the Court struck down provisions of several laws that restricted political speech of corporations and labor unions.These are entities, although not people, composed of people who should be free to exercise their rights as voluntarily cooperating groups.The president called for a “forceful” response from Congress and sharply criticized the ruling in a radio address.Then, mere months after the decision was handed down, he appointed to the Supreme Court the attorney (then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan) who had argued the case for the FEC.Second, we have seen groups attempting to prohibit certain forms of expression by classifying them with the amorphous term “hate speech.”Most recently, this fight took the form of a defamation suit. Snyder v. Phelps intended to stifle the protests staged by members of the Westboro Baptist Church atmilitary funerals. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, found that the First Amendment does protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally hurtful speech.The Court was right to call the protesters’ message “distasteful and repugnant.” The fact remains that curtailing “hate speech” requires us to define that term in a way that doesn’t lead us down a slippery slope toward broad government control ofpersonal expression.Third, in June, the Court decided the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association in which an association of companies in the video game industry challenged a California law that restricted the sale of so-called “violent video games” (another amorphous term) to minors.The law was insulting because it gave the state a responsibility that should reside with the minors who play the games and their parents.The Court struck down the law by a 7-2 vote.It is encouraging that the Supreme Court stood for free speech in each of these cases, but the fact that the nation’s highest court has been doing an admirable job of this lately should not make us complacent.After all, only three justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia — were in the majority in all three cases. While Kagan voted with the majority in the last two, she was, as mentioned above, squarely on the side of censorship in the first case before her appointment.Additionally, Kennedy and Scalia are among those rumored to be closest to retirement, along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Thus, the winner of next November’s election may well play a significant role in shaping the Court’s stance toward freedom of speech for decades to come.This statement should not be read as an endorsement of any candidate, even though neither of President Obama’s appointees have solid records on the issue. We should also bear in mind the fact that President George W. Bush’s record was mixed, as he appointed the reliable Roberts as well as Justice Samuel Alito, who was the lone dissenter in Phelps.Furthermore, the Republicans’ last presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was a co-author of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the most egregious attack on political speech in recent history.Clearly, until the candidates start talking about this issue, we need to keep asking about it.
— jarlower@indiana.edu
(09/01/11 10:13pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In recent decades, supporters of liberal democracy and free enterprise have occasionally discussed a concept called the “gates test” as a way of demonstrating the inferiority of authoritarian regimes. The idea is that a good way to tell where people really want to live is to "open the gates and see which way they run." This might be East Germany’s opening of the Brandenburg Gate, which set off a tremendous chain reaction in 1989, or North Korea potentially ending its ban on emigration and the U.S. removing its caps on immigration, both of which I’m still waiting for.Those who discuss the gates test point to various examples from history that demonstrate its validity. The most famous is that, when they were free to do so, after Columbus “opened the gates,” millions of Europeans left behind the poverty and persecution of their native countries for the greater freedom and tolerance found in the Americas. I agree with those who have employed this concept before that conducting the gates test can indicate which places people prefer and, by extension, which economic and political systems tend to make those places desirable.I am more interested, however, in considering what it means for these figurative (and often literal) gates to be closed, as well as what implications that has for the moral aspect of the concept.A country that keeps its "gates" closed in order to keep its people inside, whether with physical or legal barriers, or both, is restricting their freedom of movement and effectively imprisoning them. This is true whether or not anyone actually wants to leave, although it is safe to assume that in a country where the government tries to prevent its people from leaving, many of them want to do just that.By the same token, a country that keeps its "gates" closed in order to keep foreigners out is also restricting freedom of movement, but, instead of imprisoning them, is effectively denying wrongfully imprisoned people refuge from their oppressors.Even when the people who want to migrate to a country that is keeping them out are not being kept in their countries by force, the country denying entry is still violating the would-be immigrants’ right to freedom of movement.If we accept the premise that actively harming someone is less excusable than passively neglecting to help someone being harmed, we can conclude that the regime that imprisons its people is more in the wrong than one that merely denies those prisoners asylum.Nevertheless, the fact that the imprisoner is worse does not make the asylum-denier’s actions commendable. Rather, given the fact that the cost of granting asylum to the oppressed would be extremely small (equal to the cost of ending efforts to keep law-abiding foreigners out), it hardly seems defensible to maintain a system with effects that deny millions of people refuge. Some may object that I am overlooking the costs of providing public services to all of the new immigrants, but that objection assumes that we would need to spend more than we already do in order to absorb the influx.First, I submit that the anticipated problem of needing to spend more on social programs can be solved by ceasing to enroll new citizens in such programs. If we think it necessary, we can grandfather in those already benefiting from them.Second, I’m confident that we could continue to provide adequate national defense with the money we currently spend even if our population doubled, especially since so much of what we currently spend goes toward conflicts in Asia and Africa that are far from essential to defending this country.I believe that a proper understanding of what it means to keep the gates open, combined with a respect for freedom of movement, should lead all countries using force to keep their people from emigrating and all countries using force to keep foreigners from immigrating to cease their efforts at once.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(08/29/11 11:29pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I recently saw the Tea Party argument against excessive federal spending lampooned as follows: “Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio are socialist ploys to reroute government spending away from legitimate subsidies to oil companies.”I can’t say how accurately that quote represents the sentiments of the Tea Party.I can say, however, that it evinces a very poor understanding of federal policy on the part of the person writing it.The quote seems to take for granted the claim that oil companies receive subsidies from the federal government that promote their oil-related activities. That assumption is dead wrong. The only subsidies oil companies receive are those they receive for doing things unrelated to oil, like researching and developing “clean” energy technologies such as wind and solar power. In fact, what leftists call “subsidies” are actually just tax breaks oil companies receive because of their status as companies. The tax break oil companies benefit from is one that allows any company — in any industry — to deduct certain expenses from its taxes, up to a maximum of nine percent of those expenses. The only “special treatment” oil companies get is this: the law that created this tax break specifically limits a company’s break to six percent of the expenses in question. Those in the political class who call this tax break a subsidy and imply that it only benefits oil companies are being deliberately disingenuous.Those among their followers who parrot these falsehoods are being gullible and are demonstrating a pitiful inability to use Google and their brains at the same time.Both of these groups, of course, are helping spread a misguided understanding of the relationship between private entities and the state. This misguided understanding equates tax breaks with subsidies, ignoring the crucial difference between the two.Whereas a subsidy is defined as “direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking,” a tax break is simply a reduction in the share of a company or individual’s income forcibly taken by the government.In other words, a subsidy is a payment to a company, financed by borrowing, printing money or taxing others, and a tax break is a way of letting a company keep more of its own money than it otherwise would.Calling a tax break a subsidy, then, implies that a company’s income belongs not to the company but to the government. It implies that any money the government does not confiscate is not legitimately earned income but rather a gift from a benevolent overlord. This kind of thinking is a major factor in the destruction of economic freedom in the world today.Those who understand the difference between tax breaks and subsidies, as well as the difference between creating wealth and expropriating wealth, must spread the proper understanding of these issues. The degree of prosperity and freedom enjoyed in the coming decades will be determined by the outcome of this battle of ideas.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(04/20/11 8:35pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Whether we’re ready or not, the presidential race is now in full swing.President Obama has launched his re-election bid, and Republican contenders have begun forming their exploratory committees, which will lead to official announcements in the weeks to come.Now that we’re about to see the Republican field duke it out for the nomination, it’s time to consider what kind of candidate we’re hoping to see emerge as the main challenger to the president.So far, I’ve been unimpressed with most of the likely candidates.Hopefuls such as Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and billionaire celebrity Donald Trump have pandered to the birther crowd instead of focusing on legitimate reasons for challenging the president.Numerous others have kept up the pro-war drumbeat that dominated the party in recent decades instead of returning to the non-interventionism championed by the GOP of the early and middle 20th century.None of the major candidates have indicated a willingness to stop the crusade for discrimination against gays, and no major candidates have yet shown any willingness to consider ending our wasteful, destructive war on drugs.Nevertheless, there are a few glimmers of hope, supplied mostly by second and third tier candidates who will need some big breaks if they want to have a chance against the party establishment.The most electable of this bunch is probably still-unsure-about-running Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has proposed that Republicans call a truce on social issues until we have dealt with our immediate and pressing economic problems.His obvious and sincere focus on the issues that really matter, along with his solid economic and fiscal record as governor, make him the kind of Republican who could not only win broad support from voters but also gain the cooperation of congressional Democrats on some major initiatives.A likely candidate who may be poised for a breakout year is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose non-interventionist stance on foreign policy could change the direction of GOP politics and gain massive support from war-weary voters who have found Obama’s continuation of Bush-era foreign policy disappointing.Although many will write him off because he never broke into the top tier in the 2008 race, it should be noted that positions which Paul was practically laughed off the stage for last time — from ending (or at least auditing) the Federal Reserve to opposing renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act— are now widespread among GOP senators and congressmen. Finally, a nearly unknown but probable candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, has caught my attention for having what appears to be an even more consistently pro-liberty set of positions than Rep. Paul, the GOP’s best-known libertarian. Unlike Paul, Johnson, who governed his predominantly Democratic state for two terms from 1995 to 2003, supports abortion rights and opposes new restrictions on immigration.Given the current sorry state of the front-runners in this nomination fight, I hope one of the above leaders will soon make some gains. I’d like to see this president challenged by someone who would focus on what’s important while also protecting our liberties.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(04/06/11 7:32pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In my last two columns, I discussed four major causes of high health care costs in the United States, two that restrict the supply of care and two that drive up demand for care.Today, I’d like to discuss some potential solutions to these problems, starting with ways of loosening restrictions on supply.The first major restriction on supply I discussed is the Food and Drug Administration’s policy of prohibiting the sale of prescription medications it has not approved, and the second is the 50 states’ common policy of restricting the practice of medicine to those licensed by the state.A drastic solution to these problems would be to completely eliminate the regulations in question, but there are intriguing and innovative intermediate steps we could take that might have an easier time of gaining popular support.For the FDA problem, Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has proposed that we allow the FDA to continue testing and evaluating drugs but that we remove the ban on prescribing drugs the agency has not approved. This would allow those who consider FDA approval important to continue acting as though nothing has changed, and it would allow those who disagree with the FDA’s judgment to go ahead and prescribe drugs it has not approved or is taking too long to approve.A similar solution to the licensure problem would be to change the system doctors go through from one of licensure to one of certification. This would mean doctors could still be evaluated by the states they wish to practice in if they or their patients considered state approval important, but it would allow them to practice without approval from the state if they so chose.This would make doctors similar to accountants, who don’t need to have state approval to do what they do but who do need state approval to call themselves Certified Public Accountants. Now, on to the policies that inflate demand. The first is the collection of tax policies that favor the use of insurance for financing health care even when using insurance makes little sense. The second is the use of insurance for many problems that are not technically insurable because they are too predictable or not sufficiently catastrophic, such as annual physicals and tooth cavities.The best solution to the first problem would be to eliminate the tax break employers get for offering their employees health care, as well as the recently enacted mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance or face an Internal Revenue Service “fine.”Although these steps would probably not strike most people as too drastic, potential short-term improvements would include reducing the amount of tax employers can avoid paying and lessening the fines imposed on those who flout the individual mandate.The ideal solution to the second problem would be for states to eliminate their mandates on what kinds of procedures must be covered by insurance. This would allow people to shop around more easily to find a plan that fits their needs and doesn’t contain coverage for all of the obscure procedures special interest groups have conspired with state governments to include.Short of that, we could eliminate the restriction on purchasing insurance across state lines, which would allow people in states where the law requires far too many treatments to be covered to shop for coverage offered in a state with lighter regulations.As the debate over health care continues in the coming years, I hope market-oriented solutions such as these will be given a fair hearing alongside the failed, government-driven solutions of the past.— jarlower@indiana.edu
(03/24/11 10:27pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In my last column, I addressed two government policies that contribute to high health care costs by restricting the available supply of medicines and providers.Now, let’s examine the policies that drive costs up by inflating demand.One major culprit in this category is the policy of using the tax system to favor the financing of health care expenditures with insurance, particularly employer or government-provided insurance. There are numerous flaws with this policy, but the one most pertinent to this discussion is the fact that paying for health care in this way encourages overconsumption.This is because, when consumers are largely insulated from the full costs of the services provided to them, they tend to consume more than they would if they were charged the full price at the time the service is rendered.Another significant problem in this area is the practice of using insurance to pay for expenses that are not actually insurable in the proper understanding of the term. Mandates enforced by each of this country’s 50 state governments are largely to blame for this practice. These policies require insurers to cover a certain minimum slate of procedures regardless of whether insurers want to offer such coverage or consumers want to buy it.As the writer Robert Blumen has explained, “Insurable risks share certain characteristics, among them, a small risk of loss, the magnitude of a loss would be too great for the insured to afford, and when the risk is spread over a large number of similar cases, the premium for each insured is affordable.”Blumen goes on to argue that there are essentially three types of health care: “predictable care,” such as annual physicals; “unpredictable, non-serious care,” such as a tooth cavity; and “unpredictable but serious health emergencies,” such as being hit by a car.He argues that the first two kinds should not be financed with insurance because doing so renders the term insurance meaningless and transforms insurance from a risk-sharing arrangement in which all participants have a roughly equal chance of coming out ahead into a vehicle for getting others to pay for as much of your routine expenditures as possible.The financing of so much predictable, non-catastrophic care through insurance contributes to overconsumption because people are insulated from the full costs of their care and are thus a) less well equipped to shop around for the best care at the best price and b) less likely to consider the option of foregoing non-essential procedures in order to reduce both their own costs and the strain on the system.An analogy to other common types of insurance may be instructive. Auto insurance doesn’t cover routine maintenance,and homeowner’s insurance doesn’t cover remodeling. This is because these types of insurance are used only for truly insurable risks, such as catastrophic or otherwise serious damage.The use of these types of insurance for far more predictable, far less serious expenses would result in overconsumption and excessive costs in these areas, too.Although it may be obvious in some cases what my preferred solutions to the above problems are, I plan to devote my next column to a discussion of potential policies that might address them, with an emphasis on intermediate reforms that might have less trouble garnering public support than the more extreme solutions I’d ultimately prefer.—jarlower@indiana.edu
(03/02/11 9:42pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>What are the real problems with health care in this country?We know the usual litany of problems people list. Major ones include high and rising costs, a lack of affordable insurance and difficulty getting coverage for pre-existing conditions.The first of these is urgently in need of addressing, but focusing on the second one has actually exacerbated the problem of rising costs, as I’ll demonstrate. High and rising costs can be best addressed by measures that will increase the supply of health care and decrease the demand for it.The third problem has only arisen because of a basic misunderstanding about insurance that our current system has spawned, as I’ll explain next week.I’d like to begin my discussion of the true problems with health care by focusing on policies that restrict the supply of health care, leaving aside for the moment those policies that drive up demand.The two main factors that restrict the supply of health care are both well-intentioned, but misguided government policies.The first, far from being considered problematic, is usually touted as one of the great advancements of American government: the Food and Drug Administration’s policy of prohibiting the sale of any medication not approved by its bureaucrats.Many people buy the standard argument that, if not for the FDA, we would be able to have little confidence in the safety of our medicines. Unfortunately, they overlook the fact that while it does sometimes save lives by keeping dangerous drugs off the market, the FDA much more frequently causes unnecessary deaths by delaying safe drugs from coming to the market.We know this because the FDA faces heavily skewed incentives that lead it to exercise far too much caution when considering approvals. When an unsafe new drug is approved, the people who die from it are easy to identify as victims of FDA carelessness, but when people die as a result of the FDA’s excessive caution in approving a safe drug, the government’s culpability goes unnoticed.As former FDA commissioner Alexander M. Schmidt explained in 1974, “In all of FDA’s history, I am unable to find a single instance where a congressional committee investigated the failure of 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.”One of the more prominent examples of the FDA’s deadly caution is the case of beta-blockers, which help prevent secondary heart attacks. Although the drugs were widely used outside the United States throughout the 1970s, the FDA didn’t approve them until 1981. When the agency did so, proclaiming that the drugs would save up to 17,000 lives per year, some observers correctly noted what that statement really amounted to: an admission of responsibility for more than 100,000 deaths during the course of a decade.The other main supply-restricting policy the government has imposed is the requirement that people wishing to practice medicine be licensed by the state. This policy, coupled with the requirement that doctors be licensed in each state in which they wish to practice, contributes massively to high costs.As with the FDA problem, this notion prompts many to object that without state-mandated licensure, the quality of health care professionals would plummet. On the contrary, the primary effect of eliminating these restrictions would be to free consumers to seek care from providers who are nearly as skilled as doctors but less expensive.My personal experience receiving excellent care from nurse practitioners at the IU Health Center makes me confident that many people could get a lot more of their care from less heavily educated professionals for far less money than they currently do.It is also important to remember that, with the current system, there are still some bad doctors and that will probably always be the case. In the absence of restrictions on entry into the medical field, more people — both capable and less so — will be able to offer their services, placing significant downward pressure on prices.As long as consumers continue to demand high-quality care, however, we need not worry that our doctors will suddenly become incompetent once the state gets out of their way.Tune in next week for an examination of how inflated demand drives up costs as well.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(02/22/11 1:49am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Senate Bill 590, the Arizona-style immigration bill, is currently working its way through the Indiana General Assembly.SB 590 is one of the more alarming pieces of legislation our state representatives and senators have taken up in recent memory.According to the Indianapolis Star, the measure “would require police who stop someone for another violation, such as a traffic stop, to ask for proof that they are here legally if they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they are here illegally.” It would also prohibit people here illegally from “getting some services, including in-state tuition at colleges.” The primary problem with bills like this one is they make the states that enact them less attractive to potential immigrants, which hampers a state’s ability to grow and remain vibrant. With the exception of wanted criminals, all potential immigrants should be welcomed — whether they waded through this country’s unconscionably complex naturalization process or not — because freedom of movement is a fundamental right upon which no government should be allowed to infringe. (See my column from May 9, 2010, for a fuller explanation of this argument.) An additional problem is the likelihood that this measure will result in the harassment of people who are here legally but happen to look or sound like they are from a country from which illegal immigrants often come.It is also important to highlight one of Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s objections to the bill, which is that immigration is “a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries — not Indiana and other countries.” That statement is a part of the Indiana Compact, a set of five principles that Zoeller, along with a group of community, business and education leaders from around the state, put forth “to guide Indiana’s immigration discussion.” Among the other principles in the Compact are the assertions that Hoosiers should “oppose policies that unnecessarily separate families” and that “Indiana’s immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state.” Supporters of an immigration policy that welcomes people to this state and enhances our economic competitiveness should support the Indiana Compact and oppose Senate Bill 590.Write your representatives today.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(02/22/11 12:42am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>No matter the fate of the Republican Party’s efforts to repeal last year’s health care reform act, this country is not finished debating the issue.Recent developments — including increasingly threatening court challenges to the law and increasingly negative public opinion — have ensured that we haven’t heard the last of the health care discussion.Although that surely means we’re in for even more inanity from politicians and pundits on all sides of the issue, I’m glad for this reason: The renewed debate offers a chance to clear up some of the more harmful misconceptions surrounding this issue.These misconceptions plague the debate at every level, which is why I plan to devote my next few columns to this issue.In coming weeks, I will be addressing what I see as the true flaws with our current health care system and the ways last year’s reforms will exacerbate them.I’ll also discuss the policies I believe should be implemented in order to bring truly beneficial reform to our health care system.This week, though, I’d like to briefly reiterate and expand on an argument I made almost 18 months ago on these pages about the fundamental mistake most people make when debating health care.That mistake is the failure to defend and properly understand individual rights.I have argued that health care cannot be considered a right because it is, essentially, a good or service. Goods and services cannot be inherent rights because their provision requires the effort of other people, so making them rights implies that all people deserve to be provided with them even if those in a position to provide them are unwilling to do so.That is, making health care a right deprives health care providers of their rights by declaring that they must provide their services whether they can expect to be compensated or not.Others have countered that I am overlooking the all-important right to life mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution. Their claim is that the right to life implies a right to health care.This, of course, perverts the meaning of the word “right” because no one can possess a right to violate the rights of another. If that were permissible, then any person who considered something necessary to the maintenance of his life could force someone else to provide it to him on the grounds that his right to life demands it.As I intend to demonstrate in the coming weeks, the mistake of classifying health care as a right is one of the major reasons for the sorry state of our current quasi-state-run health care system.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu
(01/20/11 10:57pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As Congress returns to work this week with the repeal of last year’s health care overhaul on the House Republicans’ agenda, the national debate over this perennial issue has resumed.Never one to let an opportunity to spread misconceptions and logical fallacies pass him by, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman trotted out his latest argument on the topic earlier this week.Krugman, who has long been maligned by fellow economist Steven Landsburg for his use of the straw man fallacy, was true to form and added to his growing collection another textbook example of this error in reasoning.In his column, Krugman focused on one fairly significant flaw in the GOP argument for repeal. He exposed the absurdity of Speaker John Boehner’s claim that the overhaul will increase the deficit when one counts the costs of related reforms of the health care system that were not actually included in last year’s bill.He compares that sort of argument to the claim that a seemingly inexpensive dinner is actually very fiscally irresponsible when one takes into account already scheduled expenditures such as one’s monthly mortgage payment.His point is that spending that will occur whether or not last year’s reforms are repealed should not be considered when determining the impact of said repeals on the deficit.As far as it goes, Krugman’s argument is correct. Krugman’s broader implication, however, is not. This widely respected economist is attempting to create the impression that because one of the GOP’s favorite arguments for repeal is incorrect, repeal is a not a good idea.Classic straw man, classic Krugman, no?If Mr. Krugman were interested in an honest appraisal of the issue, he might consider the central claim Republicans are making, which is that the reforms will stifle job creation because of measures like the employer-provided insurance mandate and new taxes levied on insurance plans provided by small businesses.That claim is backed up by the National Federation of Independent Business, a small business organization that, with the backing of 93 percent of its members, recently implored Congress to repeal the recent reforms and replace them with more market-oriented solutions.Krugman might also consider a concern that, disappointingly, both major parties have almost completely ignored what the aforementioned Dr. Landsburg was talking about more than a year ago: The fact that it makes little sense to finance the vast majority of health care expenditures with insurance in the first place.Another column would be necessary to fully explain this argument, but the basic idea is that financing even routine health care consumption through insurance insulates people from the true costs of their consumption, which leads to overconsumption and, by extension, higher than necessary prices.Landsburg argues that a good first step on the way to lessening the centrality of insurance to our health care system would be to “eliminate the tax deduction for employer-supplied insurance.”Doing so, he argues, would lessen overconsumption by those already insured and would have the added benefit of prompting people to do more shopping around instead of settling for the plan their employers provide.Krugman has, of course, overlooked numerous other arguments for repeal, and I have left unmentioned a slew of potential solutions — offered by Republicans and others — that would do more to improve the provision of health care in this country.But at least we’ve cleared one thing up: Mr. Krugman’s latest seemingly clever argument is, as usual, far from airtight.E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu