Taking out the Trash
Monday, November 02, 2009
Paul Krugman says I should be ashamed of myself for calling into question Obama administration estimates of how many jobs have been “created or saved.” Here is what Paul says,
The Obama administration’s “jobs created or saved” is just a way of saying “other things equal” in non-economese. Of course it makes sense to ask how many more people are working than would have been the case without a given policy — and every administration makes assertions along those lines. During the 2001 recession and its aftermath, how many times did the Bush administration claim that the recession would have been worse without its tax cuts? And while many of us quarreled with that claim, I don’t think I ever argued that other-things-equal arguments are nonsense on their face.
Yet Paul is rebutting claims I did not make, and he is giving Team Obama more credit on this question than it is due. Here is what I wrote on the topic last February:
The 4 million job number is a counterfactual policy simulation of what the stimulus will do based on a particular model of the economy. As such, I have no objection to someone citing it in a policy discussion. In fact, macroeconomists use models to generate figures like this all the time. I have even done it myself.But as an answer to the question “how can the American people gauge whether or not your programs are working?… What metric should they use?”, citing the 4 million job figure is a non sequitur, or more likely a diversion. A metric has to be measurable, and the actual number of jobs “created or saved” by the policy will never be measurable from any data source.
That is, I do not object to claims such as,
A: “Based on our models of the economy, we believe there would be X million fewer jobs today without the stimulus.”
But it is absurd to suggest that you can say,
B: “We have measured how many jobs the stimulus has saved or created, and the number is X.”
Economists are capable of making statements such as A, but it is beyond our ken to make statements such as B. Statement B is,of course, much stronger than statement A, as it purports to be based on data rather than on models. Unfortunately, we are hearing statements like B much too often from administration officials. A good example is here, where can you “learn” that 110,185.36 jobs have been created or saved in California alone.
The Bigger Hoax: Green Jobs or Balloon Boy?
http://www.AmericanSolution… Breaking news: The cap and trade balloon, which had promised to deliver 1.7 million new green jobs, lands with no jobs inside. In fact, cap and trade will actuall…
Choosing Bears Over Barrels
Ecology: The administration creates the mother of all protected habitats for a species whose numbers have increased since Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” It’s our hopes for energy independence that are drowning.
Investors.com – Foolishly Choosing Bears Over Barrels.
When filmmaker Phelim McAleer, whose documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong” takes apart the myths of global warming, got to ask Gore a question at the annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists, McAleer brought up the nine critical errors in Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
A British court two years ago listed them and said they must be righted before the film could be shown in schools as part of the curriculum. McAleer asked Gore why nothing had been done to correct those factual errors.
One of the nine critical errors Judge Michael Burton found in Gore’s film was the claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for ice melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court said it was aware of were four that died following a storm.
McAleer then said Gore had misrepresented the status of polar bears as endangered from melting Arctic sea ice and pointed out that the bears’ numbers were increasing.
That was before his microphone was cut off and security escorted him away. For McAleer, this warming debate was indeed over.
McAleer’s right, and Gore is just plain wrong. Yet the myth he perpetuates has dealt a critical blow to our hopes for true energy independence. Despite ever-increasing numbers and demonstrated adaptability, the famous Knut the polar bear and his kind are still said to be endangered.
That in turn has prompted the federal government to designate 200,541 squares miles off the coast of Alaska as critical habitat for polar bears, effectively killing hopes to exploit the vast energy riches of the American Arctic.
The world polar bear population is at a modern high and growing.
Mitch Taylor, a Canadian polar bear biologist, puts the population currently at around 24,000, up 40% since 1974. Taylor says that, contrary to environmentalist hype, climate change, particularly in the Arctic, is not pushing them to the brink of extinction.
Polar bears have and will continue to adapt to their environment. Taylor emphasizes their adaptability, saying they evolved from grizzly bears about 250,000 years ago and developed as a distinct species about 125,000 years ago when natural climate change occurred.
Science magazine reports that the U.S. Geological Survey now finds that Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, part of the designated habitat, holds more oil and gas than anyone thought — 1,600 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas, or 30% of the world’s supply, and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, 4% of estimated global resources.
Canadian Patients Feel Wait Of The World
From the Investor’s Business Daily
Socialized Medicine: A group in British Columbia has offered medical waiting-list insurance to members whose government treatment is on hold — another example of why state-run health care must be avoided.
Canadians have a health care system that should be the envy of no one. It’s not free, it’s funded by taxpayers, and it isn’t truly universal. Two Canadian Supreme Court justices made this clear three years ago when they concluded that “access to a waiting list is not access to health care.”
Delayed treatment in an overused system has been the root of much unnecessary suffering. To prevent premature deaths and the needless misery that are hallmarks of Canadian care, the British Columbia Automobile Association began offering waiting-list insurance to some of its members in August as part of a pilot program.
Those who bought the coverage would receive treatment in a private clinic in British Columbia or the U.S. if they were placed on a government care waiting list longer than 45 days.
The program, which took two years to develop, never got beyond the pilot phase, however. The association shut it down when critics howled and government officials checked to see if such a program was actually legal in Canada.
“This is an example of a company that’s actively soliciting for clients that have the ability to pay for the privilege of queue-jumping,” said Adrian Dix, a member of B.C.’s Legislative Assembly. “In my view, and in the view of the legal opinion that we obtained, it is illegal, and it violated both provincial and national health legislation.”
It’s hard to understand why an elected official, or anyone else, would knowingly trap people in a system that can’t take care of the public it is expected to serve. Yet there are many Canadians who would, in the name of “fairness” and “equality,” deny others’ right to take care of themselves outside of the collective. They are outraged that some of their countrymen could escape the agony of the waiting lists while others languish in the bureaucratic wreckage.
But the real outrage, to quote Brian Day, former director of the Canadian Medical Association, should be that a government would actually force “a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for health care, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list.”
That, however, is the system Canadians have been living and dying with for decades. Only in recent years does it seem that they’ve had enough of it. First in Quebec and now in B.C., private clinics have been opening to treat those who either don’t want to wait or are too sick to endure the system’s waiting list. Whether they will remain legal and open will be decided this fall by the courts.
Meanwhile, Canadians keep waiting — and waiting. The Fraser Institute in Canada reports that the median wait time from a general practitioner’s referral to actual treatment by a specialist was 17.3 weeks in 2008 (see chart). That’s a full week better than the previous year, but far worse than a decade and a half earlier when the wait time was 9.3 weeks.
Despite the decline from 2007 to 2008, the long-term trend indicates that wait times will continue to grow. It’s a discouraging pattern that the U.S. will follow if Washington forces any kind of government care on this country.
© 2009 Investor’s Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved. Investor’s Business Daily, IBD and CAN SLIM and their corresponding logos are registered trademarks of Data Analysis Inc. Copyright and Trademark Notice| Privacy Statement Terms | Conditions of Use
Condition Critical: What Doctors Think About Health Reform
IBD Exclusive Series:
Condition Critical: What Doctors Think About Health Reform
Doctors believe that health care reforms proposed so far will hamper drug innovation and new medical technology, eroding America’s lead in providing high-quality, life-extending medicine.
This is another picture that emerges from a recent IBD/TIPP Poll of 1,376 physicians from around the country.
We asked the following question: “Under a government plan, do you think drug companies will have incentives to develop as many lifesaving new drugs?”
Sixty percent of those who responded to our mailed questionnaire said “no,” while 34% said “yes.” Six percent didn’t answer the question.
The survey was sent to 25,600 physicians on Aug. 28, and the results reflect questionnaires returned through Sept. 15. There are more than 800,000 physicians nationwide.
Of those responding, 100 were retired. We excluded their answers from the final tally. The names in our poll were purchased from a list broker.
In addition to soliciting “yes” or “no” answers, the questionnaire let physicians elaborate on their concerns.
One that came through was that drug and technology innovation in medicine — considered by many to be the most vital part of the U.S. health system — will wither under government-run health care.
One physician summed it up as follows: “It will crush medical research because new and innovative treatments/technology cost money initially and the government won’t pay.”
Another worried that “medical advancements will slow.”
Still another added that there will be a “disincentive for drug companies to develop new drugs.”
As we noted last week, what emerges from our poll is strong opposition by doctors to Congress’ proposed health care reforms.
Respondents opposed Congress’ reform plan by 65% to 33%. And in perhaps the most stunning result, 45% said they would “consider leaving … practice or taking an early retirement.”
That would be a devastating blow to plans to cover an additional 47 million people.
Indeed, we asked physicians that very question — whether “government can cover 47 million more people” for less money while improving quality. Fully 71% answered “no,” while 25% answered “yes.”
In recent months, many in the pro-reform camp have fought for sweeping changes based on the idea that drug companies and their profits are the villains in our health care debate.
Even some doctors believe that rising drug costs are part of a much bigger picture of runaway spending that must be tamed for the good of our nation’s health.
IBD Exclusive Series:
Condition Critical: What Doctors Think About Health Reform
In this final installment of our eight-part series on how doctors feel about health care reform, we pass on the reasons given for supporting or opposing the government’s plans.
All told, 1,376 practicing physicians responded to our questionnaire mailed Aug. 28. Nearly 65% opposed government proposals then under consideration, and 33% were in favor. Two percent didn’t answer.
Two-thirds of the reasons cited for opposing the government’s plans fell into four categories. Twenty-four percent were directed at the government itself — that it has a poor record in running major programs, for example, or that it would interfere too much in the doctor-patient relationship.
Another 16% cited the proposals’ cost and the impact on the federal deficit and debt. Each of two other concerns garnered 14% — quality of care and a lack of limits on physicians’ exposure to malpractice lawsuits.
Seventy-two percent of the reasons in favor of reform also fell into four categories. A too-long-neglected need to cover uninsured and underinsured Americans was cited by 22%. Seventeen percent simply said health care is a right, not a privilege.
Another 17% said the current system either doesn’t work or is “unsustainable,” and that any system would be better. Sixteen percent said reform is needed to make insurers more accountable and competitive.
We begin the list here with the first response received:
1. Oppose: I oppose socialism in all its forms and incarnations. Get the government off my body! Government should be shrunk drastically, not expanded!
2. Oppose: Too vague, too expensive. Does not sufficiently address real problems of medical care or malpractice abuses.
3. Oppose: Poorly thought out. Very limited access to primary care currently. Can’t imagine how limited access and resources would be if everyone’s insured. Not enough doctors! Also would unfairly distribute the loss to those already paying for health care.
4. Oppose: Too much government interference. Stupid politicians.
5. Oppose: The government should try to fix only what is broken.
6. Support: Insurance companies already ration care and limit access. Insuring the uninsured will save money. A public option will provide a “transparent” bureaucracy that doctors and patients will at least have a chance of dealing with.
7. Oppose: No tort reform.
8. Support: We are all one serious illness away from losing our current standard of living. If people are too ill to work, or if they are laid off, they lose their employer-based benefits. Every American has the right to universal health care.
Constitution Goes Missing from Language of Our Presidents, Lawmakers
By Ken McIntyre
The tens of thousands of Americans who traveled to Washington over the weekend to protest profligate government spending didn’t just exercise their constitutional right to peacefully assemble and ask that wrongs be set right.
Taxpayers and voters also demonstrated a healthy understanding that the Constitution is on their side.
“We want our country to go back to the roots of doing what our Founding Fathers wanted us to do — less government in every aspect of my life,” Debbie Wilson, 51, of Apollo Beach, Fla., told The Washington Post.
“We want our freedom back,” Gary Brown, 53, of Greer, S.C., told The Washington Times. “The Constitution is the law of the land. We don’t need lawyers to interpret it. Get out of our lives.”
Terri Hall, 45, of Starke, Fla., told USA Today that the hundreds of billions in new spending by President Barack Obama and Congress compelled her to get politically active for the first time. “Our government has lost sight of thepowers they were granted,” she said.
Such anecdotal evidence of renewed public attention to the Constitution’s provisions for a central government of limited powers should be heartening. Not just to constitutional scholars at The Heritage Foundation, but to anyone who believes debates over the federal government’s role in our lives ought to begin with the document that specified the powers of that government.
“Americans want certain problems in the health care system solved, but it is doubtful they want those problems ’solved’ in a way that does violence to key foundational principles of American political life,” student of government Andrew E. Busch wrote a year ago, well before the current hubbub.
The reminders over the weekend from everyday people, taking a stand for liberty outside the U.S. Capitol, were particularly apt. This year the too-little-celebrated Constitution Day falls on Thursday, Sept. 17 — with events at Heritage and elsewhere.
One thread clearly connects the Washington rally with April’s “tea party” demonstrations against runaway spending and taxes and the summer’s “town hall” protests of a huge government intrusion into health care: Americans are insisting that elected leaders reacquaint themselves with the Constitution.
“Is the Constitution a vibrant reality shaping policy debates,” as Busch asks, “or is it a dead letter to our public officials?”
Busch, an associate professor of political science at Claremont McKenna College, argues that the declining role of the Constitution in public discourse over the past 75 years — from the president and Congress down to those who mix it up at community meetings — has not been good for America.
“Ultimately, constitutional government requires a constitutional conversation that includes the people and their representatives,” Busch writes. “Failure to sustain such a conversation … will contribute to the constitutional illiteracy of the nation.”
Only three presidents since 1934 averaged more than 10 references to the Constitution in each State of the Union speech: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. (As Heritage’s chart shows, Reagan was the runaway leader with an average of 16 per address.)
George W. Bush’s State of the Union addresses averaged a mere three references — and his rate per 1,000 words tied with Bill Clinton for lowest of any modern president.
The discouraging trend — not just in presidential communication but in congressional debates — follows “the ascent of Progressive and New Deal philosophies that systematically downplayed the importance of strict adherence to the Constitution,” Busch writes.
Today, the Web’s growing blogosphere, he predicts, offers “some hope for a return of written argument” to reach the public about the need to protect and defend the Constitution.
In February, President Barack Obama didn’t make a single reference to the Constitution in his first address to a joint session of Congress, notesMatthew Spalding, director of Heritage’s Simon Center for American Studies, who recently went over the speech again.
“The federal government has lost many of its moor ings and today acts with little concern for the limits in the Constitution,” Spalding writes. “As a result, growing numbers are dependent on government ben efits and entitlements. Many of our political leaders are rudderless, speaking in vague generali ties and mired in small-minded politics and petty debates.
“As a nation, we are left divided about our own meaning, unable — perhaps unwilling — to defend our ideas, our institutions and ourselves.”
Spalding adds:
“The change we need, the change consis tent with the American idea, is not movement away from but toward our principles … . And so as we look ahead, we must also look back, not as a matter of historical curiosity, but as a guide for our nation. What we seek is renewal.”
Ken McIntyre is the Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Bob Hubbard
