Tag Archives: Obama

The Final Bell: Thoughts on School Day Length

Posted on by sjcammenga
Reply

During the discussion on how to improve Detroit Schools, one man said that, although he does not necessarily like the concept of charter schools, they have some good ideas which he would like to instate. However, the policy he was referring was longer school days.           

As a future teacher myself, many of my friends have done student teaching. Though they are college kids who are accustomed to thriving on a lack of sleep, by the time they get back from school they look exhausted and still need to grade papers and prepare assignments. A seven hour day at school is really a ten hour day after commuting, grading papers and preparing lessons. Another hour of school would be another hour away from either their personal refreshment and sleep, or the amount of time they spend giving feedback while grading or preparing for the next day.

A longer day would be difficult for students as well. One teacher pointed out that her students are already more distracted after lunch, and are often not very attentive by the time the last bell rings. If they were to sit for another hour, it is questionable how much more they would retain. One study found that students were on task for about one-third of the hours spent in school. Perhaps using more of that time to provide a quality education, rather than aiming for another hour or two, would be wiser.

Longer school days come with a high cost for the government and businesses as well. Base pay for teachers would need to increase proportionately to the length of the school day. This would obviously cost the districts more, but lengthening the school day could also have a negative effect on the businesses that rely on the ordinary length of the school day or the school year to allow them to employ student workers in the afternoon or evening.

Many people, including President Obama, have called for longer school days as a component of school reform. It is an issue in contract negotiations across the country. In the end, I believe that longer school days will cost more and be harder on teachers and students. Perhaps this is one option that we could pass up.

No More Taxes! Wait a minute…

Posted on by razma766
Reply

“What a relief. Now that April 15 is out of the way, my tax rate is back to zero for another year.

At least that’s the way the President of the United States seems to have it figured—your tax burden, according to him, is measured by what you’re paying right this moment as opposed to what you’re obligated to pay in the future.

That’s the only possible interpretation of his statement last night that Tea Partiers (and others) should be thanking him for cutting taxes. The reality is that President Obama, like President Bush before him, has rather dramatically raised government spending and therefore has raised your taxes. To say otherwise is like saying you got your new swimming pool for free because you put it on your credit card.

Once the money is spent, the bill must eventually come due—and there’s nobody around to foot that bill except the taxpayers. We are locked into higher current spending and therefore locked into higher future taxes. The president hasn’t lowered taxes; he’s raised and then deferred them. To say otherwise is—let’s be blunt—a flat-out lie.” – Steve Landsburg

Originally from Cafe Hayek

Status quo thoughts on the status quo

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

In his recent letter, William Smith expresses his concerns with the status quo in the political process: “If the president and his party don’t help the majority of the people during his term in office, vote them out! Until then, how will we know? I am sick and tired of status quo. Can’t we just once pass some bills and see if they will help the American people? Maybe, just maybe, that in turn will help the condition of our country” (Sick of the status quo, February 15).

Although I sympathize with Williams frustrations, it is wishful thinking to expect anything other than the status quo from the American political process. Politicians, regardless of their party, face gross incentives in favor of pursuing their own reelection and virtually no incentives to improve the conditions of the public. As Don Boudreaux said in September of 2009: “No delusions should remain that the most recent presidential election has “transformed” Washington into anything grander than what it has always been: a ’spoils exchange’ where A and B shamelessly conspire to rob C and then swap the plundered proceeds with D for D’s commitment to help A and B retain their seats on this exchange.”

Kurt Bouwhuis

Dear President Obama:

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Here is a great letter to President Obama from Don Boudreaux:

Neither consistency nor sincerity is what they do.

Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
………………………………….

25 January 2010

Mr. Barack Obama
President, Executive Branch
United States government
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Obama:

In your weekly radio address on Saturday (Jan. 23) you harshly criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United – a ruling that protects citizens, even when organized as corporations, from government censorship of their political speech.  You worry that this decision will allow “unbridled corporate spending” to influence political outcomes.

Now today, the AP reports that “President Barack Obama on Monday offered help for people struggling to pay bills and care for their families….  Among the initiatives: a doubling of the child care tax credit for families earning under $85,000; a $1.6 billion increase in federal funding for child care programs and a program to cap student loan payments at 10 percent of income above ‘a basic living allowance.’
….
“Obama is seeking to offer some attractive options to taxpayers, mindful of the painful implications of the loss of a traditionally Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts to Republican Scott Brown.  White House advisers see Wednesday’s State of the Union speech as a key opportunity for Obama to recalibrate his message and reset his presidency after that stinging setback.”

Interesting.  You think it dangerous for the republic when corporations use “unbridled” spending to try to affect political outcomes, yet you yourself don’t hesitate to use unbridled spending (of other people’s money!) to try to affect political outcomes.

Seems inconsistent to me, Mr. President.  Don’t you agree?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Fairfax, VA 22030

Swarms of Poisonous Insects

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Here is a great letter to the editor by Don Boudreaux:

Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/
………………………………….

13 October 2009

Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

Reporting on the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for government regulation, you report that “In a move designed as much for symbolism as effect, the new chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission dispatched all 100 agency inspectors across the country last month to enforce a law that requires special drains on swimming pools to prevent children from entrapment.  The agency shut down more than 200 pools.  The new regulators display a passion for rules and a belief that government must protect the public from dangers lurking at home and on the job” (“A Vigorous Push From Federal Regulators,” Oct. 13).

Symbolism indeed.

The symbol I’m reminded of is the Declaration of Independence.  Words that Thomas Jefferson used to denounce King George III apply with equal force and justification Mr. Obama: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Unintended Consequences

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Unintended Consequences

Most advocates of Obama’s health care reform dislike the employer paid health insurance system. Their disapproval of this system is rational – Just imagine if your house, car, etc… were all supplied by your employer and revoked upon leaving the company. I would, however, have a great deal of disagreement with many advocates of Obama’s health care reform over the origins of this faulty employer paid health insurance system.

The employer paid health insurance system is not the result of the free market, but rather, an unintended consequence of price controls placed on wages during World War II by the Roosevelt Administration. These price controls made it illegal to pay employees more than a government determined wage. As a result, businesses began to offer free health care on top of the maximum legal wage limit in order to attract the most valuable employees (as it was illegal to attract the best employees through wages).

The government propped up employer paid health insurance even further by altering the federal tax code. The federal tax code was changed to exclude, without limit, the value of employer paid health insurance from both income and payroll taxes. Although the price controls from the World War II era have been revoked, the employer paid health insurance tax exemption is still in existence today.

With every single piece of legislation enacted by government, there are unintended consequences that negatively impact society. These negative impacts are then ‘remedied’by further government intervention, which, it is argued, are ‘necessary’to solve the problem. This creates a cycle that is especially noticeable in both the health care and financial sectors of the economy, where government intervenes most.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Change Indeed

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Tired of being plundered.

Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/
…………………………

……….

12 September 2009

Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281

To the Editor:

So the Obama administration will force Americans who buy automobile tires from China to pay a 35-percent surcharge for the privilege of doing so (“U.S. to Impose Tariff on Chinese Tires,” September 12).

No delusions should remain that the most recent presidential election has “transformed” politics into anything grander than what it has always been: a ‘spoils exchange’where A and B shamelessly collude to rob C and exchange the plundered proceeds with D in return for D’s commitment to help A and B retain their seats on this exchange.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030Chnge

Thievery Masquerading as Benevolence

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

In Anne Mowery’s letter on balanced reporting, she states “…I cannot, as a decent person, turn my back on those who have lost their jobs or have a pre-existing condition that prevents them from getting insurance at a reasonable rate, or denies them coverage.” (“Give us balance,” Sept. 1).

As I read this statement, I was inspired by what I felt was Anne’s heartfelt proposal to help these people in need with her own time and resources.

My sense of inspiration quickly diminished as I read the very next sentence: “I find it troublesome when you run all of your guest writers’columns slamming Obama and those who would try to help the people who need help in these tough economic times.”  Although I share Anne’s desire for balanced reporting, I oppose her and Obama’s approach to helping people.

It is inspirational to see individuals spend their own time and resources helping people in need.  It is upsetting to see individuals spend their own time and resources lobbying for the confiscation of other people’s money to fulfill the same end.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Misleading Information

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

“So let me explain what reform will mean for you. Let me start my dispelling the outlandish rumors…” – President Obama

I figured I would use this line from the clip to dispel the outlandish rumor that Obama makes starting at 4:37. He states we have two different approaches when it comes to health care. Our first approach is the status quo. Our second choice is reform. With either of these approaches, we are left with a healthcare system strangled by government through heavy subsidies and regulation.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he forgot to mention the third approach – Freedom. Allowing individuals to voluntarily associate in the absence of government coercion. Removing government from healthcare would get rid of political decision making, which is heavily influenced by special interests, and allow for competition to drive costs down (like in most other markets).

It appears to me that no one really understands health care reform. John Stewart has some good evidence.

Medical Coverage Like A Game Show

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

In less than 90 seconds the new video highlights the upside-down priorities of Oregons Medicaid system. Lobbying groups have used the political process to push coverage for special-interest causes like substance abuse and weight loss treatment ahead of treatments for some kinds of cancer on the priority list.

Enjoy!

Capture is part of regulation itself

Posted on by pontoppidandk
1

Here’s a letter I sent to the WSJ about a week ago

by D. Pontoppidan, Summer Fellow at the Mackinac Center

Thomas Frank [“Obama and Regulatory Capture, June 24] calls the present moment a time “for a ringing reclamation of the regulatory project.” To protect consumers, he argues, we need regulation, and better people in charge, lest we suffer from “regulatory capture,” a concept developed by the Chicago economist George Stigler.

I am reminded of another Chicago economist, Milton Friedman, who once recounted the history of the Federal Register, which records all matters concerned with regulatory agencies in the United States. From its inception in 1936, the Federal Register grew from 2,599 pages and six inches of shelf space to 36,487 pages in 1978, the year before Friedman’s book ‘Free to Choose’ was published, taking up 127 inches of shelf space – a veritable 10-foot shelf. Though the Federal Register was not even able to tell me the number of pages they publish today, they did inform me that they now published on a daily basis.

There are two myths at play in Frank’s article. One is that a lack of regulation was to blame for the financial crash. The second myth is that the answer to regulatory capture is to get better people into regulatory agencies. The whole point, however, of regulatory capture is that it is an inherent flaw in the system. To quote Stigler himself, “The state—the machinery and power of the state—is a potential resource or threat to every industry in the society. With its power to prohibit or compel, to take or give money, the state can and does selectively help or hurt a vast number of industries.” Leaving consumers free to choose on an open market seems a better way of punishing those who deal in bad products.

Freedom in Iran

Posted on by pontoppidandk
2

By D. Pontoppidan, Summer Fellow at the Mackinac Center

We’ve all seen what has been described as the “biggest unrest in Iran since 1979” unfold on television for the past week. What we haven’t seen, however, is the United States of America or President Barack Obama take an active stance in the conflict. So far, the world has heard very little from the leader of the free world in the matter of Iran.
This provides grounds for some thoughts over the foreign policy of the current party in power – the Democratic Party.

Historically, the Democratic Party was an interventionist party that believed in spreading freedom around the world. It would seem, however, that it has changed its principles radically since the failure of the Iraq war, and taken a more isolationist stance on foreign issues, which is a shame. As a European, and in particular as a Dane, I have always seen America as a historical liberator of oppressed peoples around the world. FDR to me was never the president of the Great Depression or the president of Social Security, but the president who gave the famous Garden Hose speech to persuade Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. FDR’s phenomenal leadership made it possible to persuade a largely isolationist country to lend military equipment, and later manpower, to European countries that defended themselves against the Axis powers. If not for the Democratic Party, I would have been speaking German today – not Danish. That counts for something in my book.

A few weeks ago, President Obama spoke at the 65th anniversary of D-Day and stated: “Friends and veterans, what we cannot forget — what we must not forget — is that D-Day was a time and a place where the bravery and selflessness of a few was able to change the course of an entire century”. This bravery was apparent in the men who died at the front fighting for freedom and democracy – but it was also part of the political leadership and the Democratic Party at the time. And just as it was then, it should be today.

Should we declare war on Iran? No. The price would clearly be too high to pay. But what about taking a stance for democracy? For the past week, the Iranian government has violently and brutally cracked down upon any dissent from peaceful protesters that have protested the disputed results of the Iranian Presidential Elections from June 12 2009. Protesters have been killed and assassinated, political prisoners have been taken, cell phones and internet connections have been shut down, and the Iranian people’s desire for free assembly and free speech is being grossly set aside. What we are seeing unfold is a victory for totalitarianism – not democracy. According to Der Spiegel, as many as 5.000 Lebanese Hezbollah militiamen have been recruited to fight the protesters, happily traveling the distance from Lebanon to Iran to destroy the spirit of democracy and keep an Islamic extremist in power.

Recognizing the right of the Iranian people to have open, democratic elections as well as the right to protest peacefully against blatant electoral fraud would not be a hard thing for the United States to do, but it would be significant in providing a united stand against the corrupt Iranian regime. Echoing French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the United States could demand that the Iranian election results must be subject to immediate nullification, and that no international country should recognize the results until an international probe into the Presidential election’s process has been conducted. The United States could refuse to speak to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and thereby refuse to recognize him as leader of his country. Through the United Nations’ Security Council, a resolution could be passed imposing sanctions on Iran, or at least it could be attempted. And as a president widely seen by the world community as a symbol of hope and change, Barack Obama could attempt to unite the world just as he united his own country. The statement “Yes we can” did not go around the world because it was a smart campaign slogan. It went global because of its universality and belief in certain basic truths, as fundamental as those described in the Declaration of Independence. The belief that change can be achieved.

To recognize Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President is to recognize violence and fraud as valid measures in a country that proclaims itself to be democratic but clearly is not. The Iranian election process, having been manipulated from the beginning, did not intend for Mr. Hossein Mousavi or any other possible reform candidate to win. We now have the chance, however, to help the Iranian people in ensuring a more prosperous future, and rise up against a totalitarian system. I recall the words of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who in his Inaugural Address stated: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty”.

Words of wisdom for the leadership of today.

Health-Care the Safeway

Posted on by jskorup
1

-Jarrett Skorup

The news the past week has been heavy on health care.  President Obama delivered a speech in Green Bay, Wisconsin partially outlining his plan to force private insurance companies to compete with the government (still not sure how that works) and demonizing those on the side of free-markets.  He has also issued statements that his new plan will include more taxes; Max Baucus, senator from Oregon, hints that Congress may tax health benefits, something Obama specifically chided McCain for on the campaign trail saying,

Apparently, Senator McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them, too.

The AP reports that Obama is also open to borrowing in order to pay for the plan, though I’m not exactly sure how that fits with his “paygo” idea.  But what the hey, I’m just a lowly intern, much to inexperienced to understand that politicians rarely mean what they say.

So what is the free-market response?  Has anybody solved the problem?

There are several examples of companies who have found ways to better their insurance while decreasing costs, and all have done so by using the free-maket ideas of incentives and competition.  The two major examples are Whole Foods (led by the libertarian-leaning CEO, John Mackey) and, more recently, Safeway.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, CEO Steven Burd lays out his plan for how the federal government could save 40% on its health care by adopting some easy Safeway initiatives.  So how has his company been able to cut costs and yet manage to keep good service?  By relying on the free-market.

As much as we would like to take credit for being a health-care innovator, Safeway has done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model. For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and has therefore translated into premium differences among drivers. Stated somewhat differently, the auto-insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility. As a result, bad behaviors (like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, and frequency of accidents) are considered when establishing insurance premiums. Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by the good driver premiums.

The program also provide incentives to those who get healthy on their own; doing things like quitting smoking, losing weight and decreasing blood pressure and cholesterol levels.  Employees are provided with lower premiums for improving in these areas, much in the same way that car companies reward good drivers, women (who, it pains me to say, tend to be safer) and those who avoid tickets.  This voluntary program (done by those in Safeway’s non-unionized work force) has a rating of “very good” or “excellent” by 78% of those participating; and Mr. Burd believes that things could be even better if laws were repealed that currently constrain the incentives his company is allowed to offer.

Using the free-market to increase competition, lower costs, and provide better care?  What a novel concept.

No one can spend $1.5 billion of other people’s money responsibly

Posted on by razma766
Reply

By Donald J. Boudreaux
Business & Media Institute
1/20/2009 10:52:07 AM

Editor, The Wall Street Journal

200 Liberty Street

New York, NY 10281


To the Editor:


You report that Barack Obama will call for “a new era of responsibility” (“Obama to Call for a New Era of Responsibility,” Jan. 20).


His actions belie his words. By seeking an extra $800 billion for “stimulus,” Mr. Obama will generate a typhoon of irresponsibility. Consider what Arnold Kling says at the blog EconLog: “How many people will have meaningful input in determining the overall allocation of the billion stimulus? 10? 20? It won’t be more than 1000. These people – let’s say that in the end 500 technocrats will play a meaningful role in writing the bill – will have unimaginable power. Remember that what they are doing is taking our money and deciding for us how to spend it. Presumably, that is because they are wiser at spending our money than we are at spending it ourselves.


“The arithmetic is mind-boggling. If 500 people have meaningful input, and the stimulus is almost $800 billion, then on average each person is responsible for taking more than $1.5 billion of our money and trying to spend it more wisely than we would spend it ourselves.”

Absolutely no one can spend $1.5 billion of other people’s money responsibly.


Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

Don Boudreaux is the Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University and a Business & Media Institute adviser.