Tag Archives: freedom

Opportunity Inequality and Outcome Inequality

Posted on by
Reply

From The Federalist No 10:

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

…

But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise.  As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.  As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other….  The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.  The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.

Whence the modern Liberals’ (in stark contrast to this view, typical of 18th Century Liberals) disdain for the equality of opportunity that allows each man to show the best that there is in him—and so necessarily leads to unequal outcomes?  Whence the drive of our modern Liberals to render unequal our access to opportunity that, aside from being at the foundation of our country are central to our society’s overall prosperity, by capping every man’s final success and driving us to equal (and impoverished) outcomes?

Hmm….

Federal Control(s)

Posted on by
Reply

This is how the central government gets its subordinate states ensnared in the Federal power trap.  Much has been written already on the entrapment of the states in the Medicaid, education, and so on honeypots, with the Feds having gotten the states dependent on Federal monies for those programs, and then using that addiction to control the states’ behavior vis-à-vis those programs—and other useful state considerations—lest those funds have something happen to them (albeit descriptions have not been this blunt).

Here’s an explicit example, this time aimed at New Orleans and through this city the state of Louisiana.

Engineers consider it a Rolls Royce of flood protection—comparable to systems in seaside European cities such as St. Petersburg, Venice, Rotterdam and Amsterdam.  Whether the infrastructure can hold is less in question than whether New Orleans can be trusted with the keys.

The Army Corps estimates it will take $38 million a year to pay for upkeep, maintenance and operational costs after it’s turned over to local officials.

Local flood-control chief Robert Turner said he has questions about where that money will come from.  At current funding levels, the region will run out of money to properly operate the high-powered system within a decade unless a new revenue source is found.

“That’s been the eternal problem with flood-protection systems,” said Thomas Wolff, an engineer at Michigan State University.  “You build something very good and then give it to local interests who are not as well-funded.”

However, the Feds will blame the locals for the failure:

Congressional investigations found the old Orleans Levee Board more interested in managing a casino license and two marinas than looking after levees.  Though the Army Corps of Engineers had responsibility for annual levee inspections, the local levee boards were responsible for maintenance.  Still, the boards spent millions of dollars on a fountain and overpasses rather than on levee protection.

Never mind that the locals have a local economy that needs looking after, else there’s nothing for a (Cadillac) Federal program to…protect.

As Richard Fernandez notes in his post,

The problem with free stuff is that someone has to pay for it.

And when the Federal government sighs and says, “OK, we’ll pay,” it then also exerts control over the program being centrally funded and over the entity “benefiting” from that program.  And so the entity and its citizens also “pay for it,” with their freedom of action.

So much for federalism.

An Obamacare Outcome

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Peter Weiss, a practicing physician, describes one.

I have now posted a notice in my office and each exam room stating exactly what Obamacare will cover for those yearly visits.  Remember Obama promised this as a free exam—no co-pay, no deductible, no charge.  That’s fine and dandy if you are healthy and have no complaints.  However, we are obligated by law to code specifically for the reason of the visit.  An annual exam is one specific code; you can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding.  This annual visit covers the exam and “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code—insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.

What this means:

If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss any new ailment or unstable condition.  I cannot bait and switch to another code—that’s illegal.  We, the physicians, are audited all the time and can lose our license for insurance fraud.

Yeah.  A separate appointment, separately scheduled for your new ailment.  Further, during your scheduled annual, note that bit above: “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code….  Your doctor’s discussion concerning your annual’s results are largely scripted by Uncle Sugar.  Talk about snake oil.

Oh, and good luck scheduling that separate appointment.  Keep in mind that your doctor, if you get to keep him at all, is part of a shrinking collection of doctors, and their work loads are exploding from all the new patients Obamacare is foisting off on them.  There are only so many hours in a day.

 

RTWT

Tax “Negotiation”

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another example of the Progressive view of negotiations.

In public statements, [Treasury Secretary Timothy, who has joined the negotiations] Geithner has suggested he will hold the line on the core White House demand to raise tax rates on wealthier Americans.  If “people look at this and look at it carefully, they’ll come to the judgment we reached,” he said at a Wall Street Journal conference earlier this month, adding that this meant “higher rates” and limits on tax deductions.

Because, of course, they’re right; anyone with any sense will agree with them, so that question is closed.

This is consistent with the new Obama position of being willing to discuss only tax raises, with spending cuts and entitlement reform completely off the table.  Progressives will talk about them later.  They promise.

Can It Get Any More Feckless?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a statement from our State Department’s statement concerning Mohamed Morsi’s power grab (coup?) in Egypt:

The decisions and declarations announced on November 22 raise concerns for many Egyptians and for the international community.  One of the aspirations of the revolution was to ensure that power would not be overly concentrated in the hands of any one person or institution.  The current constitutional vacuum in Egypt can only be resolved by the adoption of a constitution that includes checks and balances, and respects fundamental freedoms, individual rights, and the rule of law consistent with Egypt’s international commitments.  We call for calm and encourage all parties to work together and call for all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue.

This wishy-washy set of remarks is another example a foreign policy of leading from behind—which is to say following, and being influenced by the events ahead.

The answer to the question, then, seems to be…yes.  We just haven’t seen it yet.