Category: politics, economy, etc.

The “pro-life Democrats” showed the depths of their convictions yesterday by voting for the largest expansion of federal funding for abortion in our nation’s history.  Of course, they were reassured by the most pro-abortion president in decades that he wouldn’t implement the abortion provisions of the law …  Even if that were a reliable promise (and I’ll hold out hope it was), how long does it last?  The law is in place for essentially a federally guaranteed right to an abortion with taxpayer money.

When Obama talked about a new period of politics, I thought he had some form of bipartisanship or Clinton-triangulation in mind.  What a joke — new period as in damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead with a hardcore, left-wing, statist agenda.  He and the Dems have greatly increased the polarity of our body politic.  These are not healthy times for our country.

Symbolically, the websites of the late William F. Buckley’s publication, National Review, responds today with this message: Service Unavailable.  Mr. Buckley and NR proudly state that their mission is to stand athwart history yelling “Stop!”  Looks like they’ve lost their voice today.  Speedy recovery!

Perhaps some final thoughts before the US gets what it voted for … massive expansion of federal control and authority …

The Canadian Premier’s selecting US private healthcare for his heart surgery over the socialized Canadian healthcare speaks volumes.  I’m heartened that he is unapologetic over putting his health above politics.  You have to at least admire his candor and the timing.  His obtaining care outside the Canadian system reminds me of my experience with government-run healthcare — my years in the US Army.  We suffered more than our share of broken bones and twisted bodies in the 82nd Airborne, and it was considered like winning the lottery to get referred off post for private healthcare.  Sadly, in 2007, more than a decade after I left active duty, the flagship Army medical center was roundly and properly criticized for neglecting their soldier patients (see here).  Experiencing the socialist enclave of the military was the catalyst for shedding my statist, ie liberal, leanings. 

I don’t see how the Democrats don’t pass their healthcare bill.  With such wide margins in both chambers of Congress and controlling the presidency … Unfortunately, a voter “correction” in this year’s mid-term elections and even winning the presidency and Congress back in 2012 would be very unlikely to roll back this legislation, should it pass.  It’s so very unlikely that conservatives would gain a filibuster proof Senate margin.

Regardless of whether we take the Euro-socialist plunge over the next few days and resign our children to European economic stagnation, Christ still reigns, the sun will still shine, and our God still calls us to love and serve.  Press on!

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have a hobby of discussing politics with colleagues from other countries.  Lately, a number of these conversations have centered around the subject of health care.  One of the more common statements parroted by the progressive crowd is that we need health care reform to “control the free market” capitalists that are driving health care costs out of control.  Hearing that last sentence alone should be enough to convince any of us that a government education is bad for our children.

“It’s not that liberals are ignorant, it’s just that so much of what they actually know is not true.” – Ronald Reagan

You see, in a truly free market (in spite of the hot air coming from elected officials) it is impossible to make obscene profits for an extended period of time.  Markets tend to self-correct.  If there is a market where high profit potential exists, additional entrants will enter the market.  The increased supply from additional market entrants tends to lower prices (and assuming static costs it will lower profits as well).  The higher the difficulty in entering the market, the greater the profit potential that is required for additional entrants into the market.  There could be many reasons for a potential competitor to resist entering into a new market.  In something like semiconductor fabrication there is a significant amount of capital required to build the manufacturing lines.  So, there has to be enough profit potential to entice a new entrant.  Intellectual property concerns, or other factors could delay entry into the market.  But, truly free markets in the real world (if they ever exist) tend to prevent monopolies.  So, the best way to create a true monopoly is to lobby your friendly neighborhood bureaucrat.  If the government can prevent your competitors from entering your market, you can continue to make artificially high profits.

What does this have to do with health care?  Let’s go back to our economics lesson.  If you were operating a hotel and all of your rooms were constantly filled what types of things might you do?  Perhaps you would increase your nightly rates.  You might, also, expand.  If you could not increase rates because you were contractually obligated to sell your rooms at a particular rate, you would certainly consider expanding to help increase your profits.

What does this have to do with health care?  Under the current system, medicare and private insurance companies have contracts with most providers (hospitals and doctors).  So, rates are capped.  As independent businesses, many would like to expand to increase their profit potential.  That’s where the government gets involved. 

Over the past several years, I have had the privilege to work with a number of Canadians.  As our current redistributor-in-chief has sought the government seizure of 1/6th of our economy, health care is a frequent point of discussion.  The people with whom I have spoken on this subject are, generally, very intelligent.  This fact makes the nature of our discussions maddeningly frustrating.   You see, I cannot fathom how otherwise intelligent people make statements like, “the U.S. should adopt a national health care model to help with social cohesion”.

The first time I heard this term I decided to look it up.  Let me spare you the agony of reading the definitions fashioned by tenured sociology professors.  The working definition is “anything that brings people closer together (as long as it is an approved “progressive” method of bringing people together)”.  I added the parenthetical comment based on personal experience.  You see, in every case that I have heard the term “social cohesion”, I have suggested a simple way of bringing society together.  I have suggested that to bring us all together into perfect “social cohesion” all that is needed is a societal acknowledgment that there is a single, sovereign, loving, omnipotent God who can only be reached through belief in His son Jesus Christ.

The response to this suggestion has been less than enthusiastic.  In fact, the response is only slightly less “rocky” than the response that Stephen received from

I’m not sure I agree that Haiti should be held “accountable” for holding the US church volunteers responsible for attempting to remove children illegally from Haiti.  World Mag reports that these short-term missions folk from Idaho were warned by at least a few credible sources that what they were planning to do was illegal and would land them in trouble.  Good intentions do not excuse gross neglect of the law, further, their proceeding despite serious warnings appears reckless.

Andrew Struttaford wrote an interesting article comparing Obama and Clement Attlee in the January edition of National Review.  It’s a sobering warning as to how Attlee succeeded in remodeling the British state through an aggressive and ideological commitment to the modern welfare state, of which the NHS was the crown jewel.  Attlee treated such transformation as a moral imperative irrespective of economic and political costs, which sounds all too familiar.  Attlee and Labour proximately caused the condition Britain is in today.  Troubling to think that Britain today forebodes the US in fifty years. 

From the WSJ: An Economic Time Bomb