Category Archives: morality

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.

Disingenuosity

Posted on by
Reply

On the Sunday talk shows, yesterday, President Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, that

[T]he White House plan has “balance” and “detail” but he’s willing to hear suggested improvements.

Then he said with his wide-eyed innocent expression,

But what we cannot do is figure out what works for them.  The ball really is with them now.

This cynically ignores the fact that he knows full well “what works for” the Republicans.  They’ve made that clear through two House-passed budgets; although it’s possible (barely, but this is Geithner, who misses simple things like his personal taxes) Geithner missed this since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) refused to allow even talk about these budgets to occur on the Senate floor.  Republicans made clear all last summer and fall “what works for them,” also.

Power

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressives’ naked grab for it in the Senate: Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, UT) intends to do away with the filibuster so that he and his fellows can ram through whatever they feel like, without regard for anything the minority party—or the American people whom these represent—might have to say.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell understands the travesty of Reid’s move:

[He] called Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to end filibusters on motions to proceed a “naked power grab” and an “affront to the American people” Monday.  He encouraged members “on both sides” to oppose Reid’s proposal “strenuously and loudly.”

Here’s what Senator Reid and then-Senator Barack Obama had to say on the matter in 2005, during the Bush the Younger administration:

Harry Reid: [T]he filibuster is not a scheme.  And it is not new.  The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.”  It is part of the fabric of this institution.  It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

…

It also separates us from the House of Representatives—where the majority rules.  And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

And the gentleman from Illinois:

Barack Obama, in an emailed response to a constituent: I recognize that the filibuster can be used for unfortunate purposes. However, I am also aware that the Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority — and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years.  [Never mind Obama’s historical error; it’s well established he’s a mediocre student of history.]

Here he is, again, this time speaking to the National Press Club in April of that year about getting rid of the filibuster:

I remember what it was like the first several years that I was in the minority.  You couldn’t attach an amendment.  You could not get a thing done.  If you were in the minority, you might as well not have even showed up.  And then there was redistricting, and a few years later, the Democrats are in charge, and now the Republicans cannot get a thing done.  And the Democrats don’t have to pay them any attention whatsoever.

And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers—the House and the Senate—but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended[.]

Hmm….

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