Category: Politics

Obama likes to say that new spending should be “deficit neutral”.  That sounds like a great idea!  After all, nobody wants to be financially irresponsible, right? The idea that we account for new spending is a good one, and it is better than not accounting for new spending.  But, it’s yet another politician’s con job.

Let’s use a simpler example.  Let’s say you have a monthly income of $1,000.  And let’s say you’re carrying a debt of $100,000 for your mortgage, for which you pay $537 per month.  You also tend to spend about $500 on your other living expenses, so all in all you’re losing money each month.  Since a tax-hike is like a giving the government a raise, let’s say that one day, you get a raise of $200 per month.  You could decide to save that money.  Or, you could decide to go buy a car (healthcare) for $20,000 and a $200 per month payment.  All-in-all, you convince yourself, you are “deficit neutral”.

Here is how it looks:

As you can see, although we decided buy a car, we are still “deficit neutral”.   Our income has gone up, but our incremental losses each month have not.

But what happens 5 years down the line?

After time passes, we now see that “deficit neutral” does not mean we didn’t create a more dire financial picture.  Sure, we are now the proud owners of a 5 year old car.  But to do so, we’ve amassed 17% more debt, and have nothing in the bank.  Ironically, of the 3 financial outcomes, you can easily argue that we would be better off to never even get the raise than to buy the car.  Can you imagine saying to your boss, “Please don’t give me a raise – it will send me into more debt!”?

Finally, how often do you get a large raise?  Can the government give itself a raise any time it wants to?  The answer is – not very often.  Sure, the government can give itself a raise by way of more taxes, each time we do so, we decrease economic growth.  As such, the government needs to choose very wisely when it does tax and for what purpose.  By having increased our taxes to pay for healthcare, Obama will need to raise even more taxes to pay off our debt.

So now the question is – what is Obama’s plan to get to financial responsibility?  He seems to think “deficit neutral” is responsible.  But, as you can see, that’s not the whole picture.   I know this is obvious to most readers of this blog – sorry for being pedantic.

** The numbers above are all based on values I picked for interest, periods, etc.  I chose reasonable numbers – 5% interest, a little more for the car, only 10% for credit card debt, etc.  This was just the first set of numbers I used.  Regardless of the numbers you use, realistic-ish scenarios yield similar results.

Pretty much everyone wants a better healthcare system.  The desire for change stems from two basic concerns:

1. We want every American to be have insurance (e.g. you shouldn’t have to pay for your own healthcare if you can’t afford it)
2. We think the cost of healthcare is too high

The major proponents of change would also have you believe that America has a horrible healthcare system because we have higher incidence of newborn fatalities and a lower life expectancy than other nations.  They say these are signals of a failed healthcare system.

But are they?  I’ve argued before, and I’ll argue again, that the cause of poor health in America has nothing to do with our healthcare system.  When you need critical care, there is no place better than America to get it.  America also is the runaway leader in healthcare research and generates more Nobel prize winners in Medicine than any other country.

So why do we die early?  Jamie Oliver, winner of this year’s TED Prize tells you why.  And the cost of the fix is cheap, and has nothing to do with our healthcare system.  The problem is us.  Changing insurance won’t make us live longer.  He’s a great speaker, I hope you’ll watch.

Since the Supreme Court Ruling on corporate limits last month, a lot of people have been discussing the role of lobbyists, special interests, and those that try to buy undue influence.  I’m ecstatic that this is gaining attention, because it doesn’t matter if you are liberal or conservative, I have yet to meet anyone that isn’t against this growing source of corruption in America.

Obama seems to think the ruling was wrong, and attacked the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address.  Lawrence Lessig wrote a nice article about our general lack of trust in congress, spurred by lobbyists and corruption.  He recommends the Fair Elections Now Act, which is good, but won’t prevent the corruption we have today.

Lessig follows the obvious answer – which is more spending caps and more legislation.  And while these are good ideas, they won’t work, because they don’t address real problem:

The government distributes too much money.

Why has the amount of money spent on lobbyists more than doubled in the last 10 years?  Because our government is expanding.  When we give money to the Federal Government to spend, special interests line up to assist with the distribution of those dollars.  If we just don’t let the Feds get the money in the first place, the lobbyists will disappear.   But as long as the money is there, the lobbyists will remain.

On the surface, it seems like contribution caps should be enough.  But the reality is that there are just too many loopholes.  Although the limits are allegedly $5,000 per candidate per year, it doesn’t take much browsing through OpenSecrets.org to discover that individuals, PACs and corporations are all able to openly donate much more (example1, example2, example3).  Unfortunately, legislation to close these doors is difficult at best, and impossible due to freedom of speech at worst.  There are so many back-door mechanisms to donate money (e.g. “hey, I’ll buy you a ticket to come talk here in San Francisco”, or “I can run a TV show about you”, or “I can write an article for you in my paper about how bad your opponent is”), that it just isn’t realistic to expect we can possibly close them all.

Special interest groups have figured this out.  They’re not just buying a few candidates, they’re now buying all of them.  Consider AT&T, for example, who donated $4.5M to candidates last year.  If you believed that the $5,000 per candidate contribution limit applied, that would mean they would donate to ~900 candidates.  In actuality, they donated to ~430.  And since there are only ~500 Congressmen,  that means they donated to most of them!  And AT&T is not alone.  The National Association of Realtors, and practically every union are doing exactly the same thing:  buying “access” to more than half of Congress.

Once we realize that centralizing our spending through the Federal Government is the problem, two simple solutions emerge:

1. We need to give the government less money to spend.
2. When we do give money to the government, we should federate it through states and local agencies as much as possible.  Don’t leave decision making power in Washington, where a small number of politicians can be influenced.

This realization also highlights why Obama’s entire strategy leads to more corruption, not less. Obama spent over $700B last year in “stimulus”.  Did he really believe that he could distribute such a massive amount of spending without calling out the lobbyists in droves?  Does it really surprise him that when he announced that he wanted a federal takeover of federal student loans that Sallie Mae would kick up it’s lobbying to the tune of $8M?

The unfairness and corruption is caused by the lobbyists and campaign contributions, that is true.  But they are not the root cause, and they are impossible to stop without violating our own liberties (hence the Supreme Court ruling).  When all money flows through a small funnel in Washington, corruption increases.  Take the money back, federate our spending across the states and local governments, reduce spending and reduce taxation, and the corruption will decrease.

I am so sick of hearing claims like, “this bill will save $200B by 2020”.

What does that mean?  It usually means that in order to trump up the savings benefit, the politician multiplied the annual savings by 10.  Or they did inflation adjustment, or added debt interest, or other complex additives to make the savings look bigger than it is.  At the end of the day, it is a bogus number.

I just received a letter From Senator Diane Feinstein claiming a bill will save “$176 billion from 2014 to 2023”.  What that really means is an annual savings of roughly ~$17.6B.  That’s nice, but when put in perspective to the $3.6T spending package being proposed for 2011, it’s a mere half of one percent of spending.  And she calls this reform.

It’s not just the democrats doing this – all of them seem to use this kind of lying mathematics in order to fool their constituents.  It’s dishonest at worst and deceptive at best.

OpenSecrets is a great site.  Find out for yourself where the money is flowing in politics.

Interesting was reading about Scott Brown (highly publicized Senate race in Mass) and also where healthcare companies donate their money.  You might be surprised to know that it’s mostly going to Democrats right now, but I suspect that is due to their large majority population in congress.

For tech fans, reading about Microsoft’s PAC is also interesting.

Of course, if we really want to control our own government, we need to nix all political PACs and lobbyists.  Then OpenSecrets wouldn’t be such an interesting site.

Electric cars are coming.  Right now, the electrics that you’d want to drive cost too much.  But those prices will come down.  Are we ready to switch from gasoline to electric?

To answer the question, let’s look how States generate their electricity.  The Energy Information Administration has a nice summary table.

On average, ~50% of America’s electricity is generated from coal.  California’s largest source of electric power is natural gas, and generates only ~1.5% of its power from coal.  But, if you buy your electric car in Indiana, you’ll be trading your gasoline for electric power which is more than 90% generated from coal.

Now, I’m just doing fuzzy math, making simple assumptions based on some published statistics.  My numbers could be wrong (perhaps electric cars are charged at night, and the profile of energy sources at night is different than what is consumed today).  Maybe someone smart can correct me on that.

But on the surface, it doesn’t seem to me that switching from gas to electric will make our skies cleaner.  Why do many states and governments offer rebates to switch?

Others have noticed this problem too. 

Obama likes to say that his plan does not kill private insurance.  He likes to say that he is “adding choice”.  This is patently false, and you should be scared.  If the Obama plan passes (currently in debate in the House!), you will eventually have no choices except the government choice.

The House plan allows employers to chose:  either they can provide private insurance and pay nothing to the government plan, or they can simply pay 8% of payroll to the government and everyone gets the government plan.

Today, employers are already paying more than 8% of payroll for healthcare premiums.  In fact, small businesses are paying between 11% and 14% of payroll to health insurance premiums.  With medical costs rising, this figure is only going up.

So even if your employer doesn’t switch to the government plan now, they eventually will.  A reduction in wages by 6% can be achieved by switching your healthcare provider?  What board of directors *wouldn’t* switch?

Now you might, like Obama, believe that the health care insurers are making too much in profits, so the private insurers just need to reduce prices.   I’m sure they will try to compete with the new taxpayer-funded pricing.  Keep in mind, however, that while a cut from 14% of payroll to 8% of payroll is only a 6% savings for the company, that represents a 43% drop in revenues for the health insurer.  These companies will need to cut costs to reflect the new pricing; which roughly translates to a 43% drop in covered care.  Because of the reduced coverage, this will give employers all the more reason to switch the the simple, no-overhead plan – the government plan.  As more employers switch, more private insurers will go out of business.   It is just a matter of time.

Oh – and how did the government calculate the figure for an 8% payroll tax?  Nobody knows!  Should it be 9%?  7%?  Nobody knows!  It appears to be a number masterminded to drive Health Insurers out of business.

Obama is about taking away freedom and taking away choice.  Government healthcare does improve healthcare for 10% of Americans, but it makes healthcare worse for 90% of Americans.

We’re in a recession, and unemployment is high.  Some level of government stimulus is a good idea.  But how do we determine which programs are good? Is “Cash for Clunkers” a good idea?

I evaluate spending proposals by considering what long term value is being built.  The government can inject cash into the economy, but after the short term injection, will value remain in the economy which can benefit us for the long term?  Or is it just a short term spend?

Cars for Clunkers is a short term fix.  It adds cash to the economy for a short period, and allows Americans to continue consuming more goods than we probably need.   What happens to cars?  They get consumed – they get driven, used, and eventually (5-10 years later) get scrapped.  So when the government signs up to spend $5B on cars, they’ve injected a temporary cash boost to the auto-industry, and helped consumers get some “stuff”.  But in the end, Americans receive no long term value from this cash injection.  And when the government stops spending, the auto makers will need to layoff the workers they hired to accommodate the short term needs of the boost.

A better use of money is to build things of value.  If the government wants to create jobs, it should invest in building things.  Building schools, improving roads, and building national or local infrastructure builds long term value.  Unlike the car which will wear out in a few years and provide no value, building a school lasts for decades.  Not only do the citizens building and running the school benefit now, but the school is still usable by our children and grandchildren in the long term.

Tell your congressmen to vote no on any short-term cash injections.  All spending should build value.  If your senator can’t show long term value in their spending, it is not worth it.