Category Archives: morality

European Central Budget Authority?

Posted on by
Reply

The IMF wants a central budget authority for the European Union: it wants the member nations of the EU to subordinate their sovereign budgetary duties to the demands of a “higher authority.”  However, it wants that without the federalism that must accompany such a subordination.

Worse, the IMF claims—they’re serious about this, mind you—that everything would be all right.  In answer to objections of nations like Germany, who wish to preserve their budgets and their sovereignty from the persistent demands of economically weaker nations, the IMF insists that such “risk sharing”

means that, at any point in time, countries experiencing better cyclical conditions support those at the other end of the spectrum; it does not mean the same country is always on the giving or receiving end[.]

Except, of course, that it means exactly that.  The nations rimming the Mediterranean, for instance, have entirely different concepts of the role of government in men’s lives and even of the purpose of money than have, for instance, the nations of central Europe—Germany, e.g., and Poland, whose concepts are different yet from those of England (not a member of the euro zone, to their benefit) or France (who is a member).  The risk transferors always will be the same, and those forced to accept the risk under the IMF’s scheme, also always will be the same.

The IMF says further:

A full-fledged budget at the euro-area level would allow for risk sharing both through revenues…and through spending.

Sound economies would be required, under the IMF’s scheme, to take on the risk the profligate economies are inflicting.

Unfortunately, the differences in fundamental principles make federalism across Europe a pipe dream.  The impossibility of federalism means a central budget authority can only be a disaster for the perennially stronger economies, while doing nothing at all to help the weaker.

It isn’t necessary to go any farther than that, except to note an example of the IMF’s breathtaking…naiveté.  They propose, for instance,

a “rainy day” fund that would distribute money to countries experiencing economic shocks.  The IMF says that annual contributions of 1.5%-2.5% of the euro zone’s gross national product would have been sufficient to provide…shock absorbers….

A built-in, automatic bailout fund.  No need for economic discipline by a government here.  There are other hare-brained schemes in the IMF’s…suggestions…but they’re all variations on this idea of automatic bailouts for the needy countries.

Obligations

Posted on by
Reply

Under the smoke screen of the upcoming national debt ceiling…discussions…President Barack Obama had this about negotiating with the Russians Iranians Republicans:

We will not negotiate over whether or not America should keep its word and meet its obligations.

You mean like red lines (Syria)?  Or, support for our allies (Israel and forced concessions; Poland and the Czech Republic and missile defense systems)?  Support for freedom lovers (Syria, Libya, Iran’s Green Revolutionaries)?  Support for foreign nationals who’ve sacrificed on our behalf (Dr Shakil Afridi, Janis Shinwary)?

The Wages of Trust

Posted on by
Reply

…or its lack.  Readers of this blog—all half-dozen of you—are well aware that I favor immigration reform (and of a broad, generous variety, but that’s neither here nor there in this post).

There is a serious immigration reform move in the House and Senate, or was until recently.  Congressmen Sam Johnson and John Carter (both R, TX) have walked away from the House’s Gang of … which was working a House version of comprehensive immigration reform.  Their reasons are telling, and they present the difficulty of achieving serious reform at any time in the near, or middle, future:

After years of hard work and countless meetings, we have reached a tipping point and can no longer continue working on a broad approach to immigration.  We want to be clear.  The problem is politics.  Instead of doing what’s right for America, President Obama time and again has unilaterally disregarded the US Constitution, the letter of the law and bypassed the Congress—the body most representative of the people—in order to advance his political agenda.  We will not tolerate it.  Laws passed by Congress are not merely suggestions, regardless of the current atmosphere in Washington.  Laws are to be respected and followed by all—particularly by the Commander-in-Chief.
…
If past actions are the best indicators of future behavior; we know that any measure depending on the president’s enforcement will not be faithfully executed.  It would be gravely irresponsible to further empower this administration by granting them additional authority or discretion with a new immigration system.  The bottom line is—the American people do not trust the president to enforce laws, and we don’t either.

And there’s the rub.  This president cannot be trusted.  Worse, though, Obama’s mendacity has reached the point that he’s badly stained the reputation of the office.  It will be difficult to pass any comprehensive immigration reform that depends on a President’s execution of it—indeed, this will be true of any serious legislation, since any law enacted depends on a President doing his Constitutional duty to enforce that law.

Another Non-Existent Idea for Health Care Reform

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican Study Committee has offered yet another Obamacare alternative in a long line of Obamacare alternatives Republicans have offered in the past two-three years.  The gist of the latest alternative is this:

Title I – Repeal of Obamacare

Title II – Increasing Access to Portable, Affordable Health Insurance

  • levels the playing field between those who receive insurance from an employer and those purchasing it in the individual market: replacesthose with qualifying health plan receive an SDHI of $7,500 (individuals) or $20,000 (families) which will apply to income and payroll taxes, and will increase at CPI-U
    • 1) the current uncapped tax benefit for employer-sponsored health insurance
    • 2) the self-employed tax deduction with an above-the-line standard deduction for health insurance (SDHI)
  • full SDHI goes to the individual or family regardless of the cost of the policy bought—the SDHI above the cost goes right into the individual’s or family’s pocketbook
  • expand access to and allowable expenses for health savings accounts (HSAs), increase the maximum allowable contribution into HSAs, and allow employers to offer a larger benefit for successful completion of a wellness program

Title III – Improving Access to Insurance for Vulnerable Americans

  • expand federal support for state high risk pools to $25 billion over 10 years
  • guarantees that individuals with pre-existing conditions can move between the large group, small group, and individual health insurance markets, so long as they maintain continuous coverage

Title IV – Encouraging a More Competitive Health Care Market

  • allows Americans to purchase health insurance products across state lines
  • permits small businesses to pool together to negotiate better rates

Title V – Reforming Medical Liability Law

  • caps non-economic damages, and limits attorney fees

Title VI – Respecting Human Life

  • prohibits federal funds authorized or appropriated by this act from covering abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is jeopardized
  • ensures that no state pro-life or conscience protection laws will be preempted

But this doesn’t exist; Democrats say Republicans have offered no alternatives.

Privacy and Validity

Posted on by
Reply

Eric Boehm, in a recent Watchdog.org post, noted some concerns about Obamacare.

Thanks to new regulations that are part of the federal Affordable Care Act, patients will be asked to disclose more personal information to their doctors—including how often they have sex and how with how many sexual partners.

And once they do, it won’t really be personal information any more.

Similar questions exist for drug use history, and the questions are required of all doctors, from your dermatologist or osteopath to your GP—regardless of the questions’ relevance to the health problem that brought you to the doctor.

On top of that, as Goldwater Institute lawyer, Christina Sandefur, says,

Once you’ve shared your information with a private third party, the Supreme Court has ruled that is fair game for the government[.]

Apocalyptic?  Likely (the Supremes’ rulings on the related matters didn’t exactly say that), but it can’t be casually discounted.  Additionally,

Doctors and hospitals who refuse to participate could be cut off from some federal funds, and individuals who decline to share sensitive information may have to pay the fines…outlined in the federal health care law.

Regardless of the validity of the concerns in Boehm’s column, people—and doctors—will react to those concerns.  Which raises this set of questions:

What will be the validity of the data collected?  At what rate will patients, to protect their privacy while satisfying (their perception of) the letter of the law, falsify their data—deny drug use to their dermatologist, make up answers to questions about their sex lives?  How will the government reconcile patient-provided data that conflict from their dermatologist to their cardiologist to their GP?