It's a great thing for St. Cloud area students to perform an original choral piece. Even greater that they are going overseas. And better yet, an oratorio about the Holocaust delivered at the site of a Nazi death camp.

But the title of the piece, From anti-Semitic hotbed to healing: St. Cloud area students to perform oratorio at Nazi death camps once again has some Twin Cities writer who probably spends NO TIME in St. Cloud using the swastika story to paint an entire town as a hotbed when the one student who admitted to drawing a swastika comes from a St. Paul suburb. Yet we had to be open and pro-active, and we continue to get this kind of press. Cui bono? Those who use the claims of "systemic racism" to further their urban racial political agenda.

Labels: higher education, politics, SCSU

A local DFL activist and Wellstone! award winner writes about the Democrats she knows as being charitable:

The Democrats I know live and promote the value of personal responsibility. They believe in hard work, honesty, persistence and self-reliance.

But the Democrats I know also understand the value of social responsibility.

They know that there are many areas such as transportation, public education and police and fire protection where responding as a community for the common good is more effective and efficient than only responding individually.

I can't remember who said this last week, but it bears repeating: Do you ever notice that when liberals want to justify government spending they always go to transportation and police and fire? At least Pat includes public education, for which there are private substitutes. K-12 education in MN consumes 39.9% of a $34.5 billion state budget; public safety only 5.4%. Transportation comes out of a different fund. Tell you way, Pat, let's make a deal. You restrict us to police, fire and transportation and even K-12. How about that part called "health and human services"? Ready to privatize that?

But I digress. What does it mean for her to be socially responsible?

These Democrats also know that for many in our society, the playing field is not level, and that if we believe in our democratic principles, we must live the value of social responsibility.

The failure of a market-driven health care system is one example where all of this comes together.

Personal responsibility alone will not solve that mess.

When you hear "level playing field", what you should translate that to is "egalitarianism", and often we are talking about ex post egalitarianism. I have more than you, so that's not right. And there's plenty to that the person alone could do. Bob Collins notes that 87% of people in a survey by the Northwest Area Foundation said they agreed that "I would like to do more to help people struggling in my community", to which Bob wonders, well, what's stopping you?

It would seem that if the 87% who would like to do more, actually did more, then not quite as many people would be struggling. Armed with only anecdotal evidence, I'm going to theorize that 87% of the people are not going to do more and a sizeable number aren't doing that much now.

...A closer look at the survey shows that a large percentage said they would be willing to get together to talk about ways to help. Others said they would be willing to talk to an elected official. Seventy-eight percent said they would take part in a church project to help someone. A somewhat smaller group said they would adopt a family temporarily if they were struggling. About the same number said they would pay another $50 in taxes.

Times are tough for a lot of people, of course, but could it be different if we did as we say? As individuals, what's stopping us, aside from our belief it won't make a difference? And what do you consider to be a definition of doing something?

I suspect for most of them it's the opportunity to get together and talk about someone else doing something. Learned Foot makes the point well:

...why on earth would someone volunteer time, money and / or effort when they can just vote for [someone] who will make them feel as altruistic. The only effort required is 5 minutes at a polling station, a pull of the lever for your local machine Democrat, and then you can go forth and proclaim to the world how compassionate you are. Giving feels good. To the feeble minded and selfish, feeling like you gave while doing nothing feels just as good.

And let's face it: in most cases that compassion is going to be extracted forcibly from someone other than yourself.

The takeaway from all this, I think, is that people are well-meaning, but lazy.

We refer to this as "self-interest", Foot. And the statements like those of Mrs. Welter are simply "cheap signaling". Anyone can be generous with OPM: Other People's Money.

Mrs. W then doubles down by assaulting the church-goers while reviewing the evidence of Arthur Brooks' study Who Really Cares?:

Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or less likely to volunteer. And while conservative people do give more to charities and churches, when religion is factored out, charitable giving between liberals and conservatives is not distinguishable.

This shows only the most shallow reading of Brooks' work. He notes that religious people are more charitable towards non-religious charities than the secularist population. "A religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person," he writes. And the last sentence seems to suggest that the only thing a religious person gives to is a church, and thus for reasons involving his or her own salvation, not to help the poor. There's nothing about conservatism or religiousness that would necessarily encourage one to go to the Red Cross, but according to Brooks' estimates, the amount of blood banked in America would rise 45% if liberals gave blood as much as conservatives do.

If they ever figure out how to tax blood, Heaven help us!

Labels: Democrats, Minnesota, politics

Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies has a neat tool that looks at the voting records of Congresspersons to determine their stances on trade issues. It's neat because it divides their records between votes for trade barriers and trade subsidies. Those voting for low barriers and no subsidies are free traders. There are those who are for low barriers but subsidize domestic producers -- these are classified as "internationalists" and not free traders. I have written down the results for the three presidential candidates remaining, plus for Senator Norm Coleman:

• Clinton -- very much the interventionist. She only opposed nine of 29 trade barriers in her Senate career, and only one of seven trade subsidy bills.
• McCain is more the free trader. He opposed trade barriers 35 times out of 40 votes on such issues, and eight out of ten votes were against trade subsidies. The latter fits his profile as a crusader against government waste, as most trade subsidy programs are corporate pork.
• Obama, 36% of votes opposed trade barriers (4 of 11). He only voted twice on trade subsidies and supported them both times. An interventionist, though there's not as much of a record here as you might like to make that call.
• Coleman is the internationalist. He is very much for keeping trade barriers at a minimum, voting 16 of 22 times to keep barriers down, but has supported trade subsidies in four different votes (two were farm bills, the other two for the Byrd Amendment.)

Wellstone! by the way was the closest thing to an isolationist as we've had.

P.S. This opposition to trade subsidies should also be applied when thinking of tax breaks to dissuade airlines from taking jobs to other states. Use of the public fisc this way is a lousy deal for both small airports and large. It's all the same logic.

Labels: Coleman, economics, politics, trade

Most regular readers know I do not do many national political issues on this blog. It isn't for lack of interest, but there are so many other blogs out there spending more time doing that, that it doesn't seem a good use of my time. Economic issues and state/local politics are more my game.

But there are times where they coincide, and the story of using what a politician or elected official in a private function for the purpose of either embarrassing them or trying to catch them saying something that can be used against them is playing right now at both a national and local level.

You'd have to live in a cave not to have heard by now of Barack Obama's comments about the motivations of people who carry guns or are religious. And if you recognize the term I used in the title of this post, you probably are aware of the use of videos and PhotoShop to try to humiliate local elected officials, most notably Rep. Michele Bachmann. The natural reaction to me of both campaigns is to do a better job of controlling the environment in which the politicians speak.

In Obama's case there was the belief that the environment was controlled. The event was a $1000 per person event, and the attendee who reported the story had been a supporter (though, in fairness, we note that some claim her support was false.) She had recording equipment and, in a group that was supposed to be full of supporters, she heard something that got her to post something that might cost Obama the election.

I wonder if the supporter with the recorder was instead a reporter at the St. Cloud Times. The reporter sent to cover the Sixth Congressional District GOP Convention had been told that no video or audio of the event was to be allowed. As John Bodette, the paper's executive editor, relates the story, this was just another skirmish in the "battle in our effort to cover news."

In today's media world, reporters can do their work using more than a notebook and pen. Our staffers can cover a news story with words, still photos, audio and video. These restrictions on what equipment reporters can use is an abridgment of the journalist's effort to cover the news.

The reasons for the audio/video ban are baffling.

It appears that Rep. Michele Bachmann, the Republican incumbent, has shown up in several YouTube.com videos in less than flattering ways because people altered the video. To avoid giving people more fodder to make fun of the first-term House member, the district's executive committee decided to block any audio or video from the convention sessions.

The committee also decided to bar video and audio because more than 90 people were scheduled to go to the microphones and speak during the endorsement sessions, Swanson said. Some of those people may have been nervous and said things they later regretted, Swanson said.

He compared it to a family picnic. And you don't want news cameras showing up at a family picnic, he said.

I consider the editorial staff at the Times to be friends, but I am troubled by this editorial. Let's take note first of Bodette's use of the word "can" in how Larry Schumacher "can do his work" in covering the convention. He was a witness; he wrote columns and his blog. He was just told one of the tools that he might use to cover the convention was not to be used. That might have made his job more difficult, but it didn't make it impossible, obviously.

Second, and perhaps more important, is whether it is healthy for the political process to have the space in which it operates continually shrunk, invaded by cameras, recorders and live feeds. The Times has made it a habit to complain about private working meetings of the City Council. I can see the point that when a government is sitting in deliberation doing "the work of the people" (or is that "working the people over"?) that the Fourth Estate might think it should be able to provide coverage. But a political rally or a party convention not only is not a deliberation over the use of force, it is in fact part of another part of the First Amendment, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." The question is, is that right subservient to the First Amendment rights of the press?

And note again, as John does: Unlike the deliberations in working meetings of the City Council, the entire convention was open in plain sight to Schumacher. The comparison is terribly strained, and quite misleading. (See update below)

If the claim is that public officials will speak in this private group and that their publicness makes their speech "a news event," then where stands the line that allows the governor or the senator the opportunity to speak privately with supporters? Does the representative have the right to sit in a public restaurant with three friends who also contributed to her last election and say to the person from Dump Jane Doe that "this is a private conversation"? If they said you could take notes but no cameras, would this warrant a vituperative editorial from your boss?

John Bodette acknowledges that he has no legal claim to access, but says that because it's a news event, the paper should be able to cover it as it sees fit. He makes a statement asking whether Rep. Bachmann "supported the decision" to ban audio and video. Why should she or any one else give up their protected right to assemble peacefully, and why should a newspaper decide it can interfere with that decision simply by calling it a "news event" and insisting to bring in whatever equipment it chooses?

John notes at the end that the DFL has invited his cameras and audio into their district convention. Nice bit of advertising there, and nice bit of gamesmanship by the party. I don't necessarily agree with the CD 6 GOP decision, but it's their right to make it, and a statement of the sorry state of decorum that has come over political coverage of some political candidates. Maybe the question the print media needs to ask itself is whether it has become "the man who could look no way but downward with the muck-rake in his hands; who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth on the floor." Because the others there with the cameras surely are, and sometimes they're even your supporters.

UPDATE: Larry Schumacher informs me that the City Council's working sessions are open to the public but were not broadcast like the Council's regular meetings. I will ask whether you could bring the video and audio equipment to it and posted the materials. I see no such recordings on the Times video site.

UPDATE 2: Larry points out they are sitting on the paper's opinion page.

Labels: Minnesota, politics

It had seemed to me, after my post last week about the decision whether or not something untoward had happened at the CD 6 GOP convention, that the wording of the questions would be important to know. I have confirmed these with district chair Mark Swanson, who spoke with me by phone this morning.

1. Are you a Republican?
2. Will you support John McCain at the Republican National Convention?

The email I got on this confirmed that wording and had an explanation:

...what does that mean?...It means that everyday at the convention you will be supporting Senator McCain. Additionally, I discussed with Dan [Nygaard, nominations committee chair] and he said he took time with every person that gave any sort of a qualifying criteria, that is why some people were listed as "no" or "maybe" and were given the opportunity to correct the print-out (what was displayed on the screen).

Swanson said paper copies were handed out because of the changes made on the fly, and I'm expecting to receive one later today. The screen, he said, may have been hard for district delegates to read. All of the delegates elected answer the questions "yes", and none were reported to have changed their answers or stated they were uncertain until after the election, when the motion was made to bind the delegates to vote for McCain to what they told the nominating committee and what was reported to the delegation. (UPDATED: I've changed this passage based on an email from Andy Aplikowski, who made the motion. He also notes that nobody answered the first question as a no or a maybe. Thanks for the correction, Andy!)

I am hoping to get someone from the Ron Paul campaign to tell me whether or not they have the same understanding of the events. Swanson said to me that he had no problem with slates of delegates, but that they are the responsibility of the presidential campaigns, not of the district leadership. He also thought the meaning of the questions asked were clear, and that the answers of those elected were untruthful. There does not appear to be anything in the RPM constitution that I am aware of that would allow one to unseat those delegates, but I think it fair to question the candidacy of someone willing to use such tactics to get themselves heard at a national convention.

One must wonder how the RPers would feel if the roles were reversed. Given their state co-ordinator's statements last July that they would not support Rudy Giuliani for president if he won the primary, and where one says

If the Republican Party is so, um, flexible as to nominate a statist, then certainly the voting public is within its right to enjoy its own flexibility...

and who thinks "the GOP must lose" because of its pro-war candidate, did they actually correctly answer the first question?

Labels: Minnesota, politics

Someone tipped me to a proposed action posted on the Ron Paul meetup board.

A great opportunity has come into our own backyards. Arthur J. Rolnick, Senior Vice President of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, and Associate Economist with the Federal Open Market Committee, will be speaking at the University of Saint Thomas on Thursday, April 10th, 2008. Mr. Rolnick is coming at the request of the Economics Department to speak and take questions. This event will be open to the public.

As a liberty activist and student at Saint Thomas, I am urging all those who question the policies and secrecy of the Federal Reserve to attend. This is a unique opportunity to confront a man who is deeply involved in the inner workings of the Federal Reserve.

...I am asking all those who care about our increasingly graven [sic] economic future to attend in solidarity and show our dissent for current policy. By attending and speaking up on April 10th, we the people can make an effective impact on the conscience of Mr. Arthur Rolnick.

The relationship between Ron Paul supporters and Art Rolnick is through NORFED, the group that issued Ron Paul copper coins, sold for a dollar each and caught up in a wire and mail fraud prosecution. You can own one of those coins, but commerce in them as a competing currency is a crime (see this.)

Rolnick was quoted in an undated but certainly recent article out in Montana (the gold bugs have posted it -- I have no independent source for it) in which Rolnick responds to the NORFED claims that the Fed must be removed:

"The way I would respond to NORFED is this: The economy is incredibly productive. There's low inflation. The unemployment rate is the lowest in 30 years. What's broke?"

"These guys are right when they say there is nothing in the Constitution explicitly allowing a national bank. But the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate money and the value thereof, and courts have upheld Congress' implied powers."

Even as we head towards or are in recession, Rolnick's critique seems still valid.

"These guys" are the friends of Ron Paul. During my time in hard libertarian circles I saw many people like the poster of this call for action. I know Republicans are hopeful of keeping Ron Paul supporters engaged in its party politics. It might want to look a little more under the hood.

Labels: libertarianism, politics

[Jack] Nelson-Pallmeyer, however, was barely civil, both during and after the debate. He spun every conspiracy fantasy known to the blogosphere about the Bush administration, and then added a couple original theories to boot. He seemed very self-satisfied in the manner of academics who just know they know everything. Nelson-Pallmeyer offered hysterics to an audience clearly receptive to them.

From Captain Ed, regarding the last man standing between the DFL endorsement and Al Franken. Anyone who is a professor of Justice and Peace Studies can be expected to behave this way, Ed. It's in their qualifying exams for the doctorate.

But at least Nelson-Pallmeyer isn't hiding in a music department.

I do not have a KAR signal to turn on, but I will remind you of a typical KAR discussion of St. Thomas' Peace Studies program. This is still in my top five favorite KAR posts, and their essay would certainly get an A- in the J&P program. B's are so fascist...

Labels: higher education, Minnesota, politics

Last week I wrote this post on the whining done by Erica Jong and her comments about women.

Now, I am going to focus on an article by the diva of the women's movement, Gloria Steinem. In this article, "Women Are Never Front-Runners," Ms. Steinem whines that the women's sex barrier is not taken as seriously as a racial barrier. She claims "gender is probably the most restricting force in American life." She says the US polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy but cites no data to support this comment and ignores the fact that feminists who agree with her are the reporters and editorial writers for all forms of media that cover this topic.

One example: Historically women were perceived as weaker than men because they cried. In the 1960's and '70's Ms. Steinem's feminists decided to "be like men" and not cry. Since men and women are the same in their eyes, the media morphing of sex identification began. Now her media makes it a point to picture men crying and when Mrs. Clinton cries, she shows the "courage to break the no-tears rule." Whether or not Mrs. Clinton's tears were real is a secondary issue, her crying jag was in reaction to a gender question of "how she (Mrs. Clinton) does it all." Excuse me, there are plenty of politicians (and single moms) who do it all - people who: are not multi-millionaires; juggle homes and families; respect those with differences without playing a victim card; and don't stage questions on the campaign trail to generate sympathy.

Mrs. Steinem says a trait that worries her is that some women, especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system. If Ms. Steinem knew anything about the history of women or the treatment of women today in the Middle East, Africa and Asia she would not throw around the term "caste system." (a social structure in which classes are determined by heredity) so lightly. What Ms. Steinem misses, as did Ms. Jong, is that it was and is the Democrat Party that has used sex, gender, and race to divide this nation. It is mostly Democrats who pin labels on those with whom they disagree. It is mostly Democrats who are intolerant of free speech, professors who are not leftists, Republicans, conservatives, religious Christians, etc. Ms. Steinem is looking in the mirror when she makes her criticisms about her political party. She along with the Emily's List crowd are no-shows when the female candidate does not agree with them. So the issue is not gender, it's a very narrow, spoiled, totalitarian view of the world - her way or no way at all.

Ms. Steinem is supporting Mrs. Clinton because "she'll be a great president and because she's a woman." While supposedly decrying the sex barrier, Ms. Steinem uses sex as a qualification for president.

Labels: Feminists, politics

Hillary Versus the Patriarchy, by Erica Jong, is another diatribe by a leftist feminist. After attacking "alpha male" Bill Kristol for his comments about white women, she reverts to the feminist rhetoric of the 1960's to explain her support for Mrs. Clinton as president. Though Ms. Jong is a successful writer, she comes across as a bitter female. This paragraph is key:

She's (Mrs. Clinton) always worked twice as hard to get half as far as the men around her. She endured a demanding Republican father she could seldom please and a brilliant, straying husband who played around with bimbos. She was clearly his intellectual soul mate, but the women he chased were dumb and dumber.

A few observations: Did Mrs. Clinton have to go through all the years of routine work to EARN her partnership, or did she get a boost from her husband, the Governor? If Mrs. Clinton's father had been a Democrat, would Ms. Jong have made the same comment? She's upset because Hillary was pushed to excel? Is Mrs. Clinton's husband really brilliant if he "played around with bimbos?" And were the other women Bill played around with "dumb and dumber"? Katherine Willey had plenty of smarts and the last I read, Monica Lewinsky just graduated from the London School of Economics. Dumb? I don't think so.

Here is Ms. Jong's statement about Mrs. Clinton's run for the US Senate - in New York where Mrs. Clinton had never lived. Hmmm:

When she decided to run for the Senate she was called a carpetbagger.

Definition of a carpetbagger, American Heritage Dictionary: "An outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality." (Seems to fit.)

Ms. Jong goes on to explain how Mrs. Clinton adapted, loosened up without drugs or booze, tolerated the behavior of her husband, raised her daughter, keeping Chelsea out of the spotlight (which presidents attempt to do with their kids), stood by her man through everything. Ms. Jong uses the word "smart" a lot - she, along with Mrs. Clinton were "bluestocking, straight-A Phi Beta Kappa," students from all-girls' colleges. The final dig is Ms. Jong's cheap shots at Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. So which political party is the divisive political party?

Ms. Jong and her buddies ignore the gross abuse of women in the Arab world, many parts of Africa, Asia, and even the "honor" killings in the West. All of them refuse to address the arranged marriages of so many women on the planet. They omit the fact that many cultures still prevent women from attending school or participating in athletics.

The only females who mean anything to the Erica Jongs of the world are those who are Democrats or socialists. Otherwise, they brush off women who don't fit their mold. They dismiss women with different political views. They deny that Republicans have done as much or more for women. They want to be taken seriously, then tell us to vote for Mrs. Clinton because she put up with a wayfaring husband and "worked twice as hard" - at what? She doesn't even say Mrs. Clinton did it with class.

The article is worth the read, but don't expect Phi Beta Kappa caliber writing. It's a whining treatise, with factual errors, particularly regarding Iraq. Ms. Jong's conclusion is that people should vote for Mrs. Clinton because she's a woman, not that she's accomplished much outside of a law partnership because her husband was a governor. Pretty weak in my book.

Labels: Feminists, politics

The Senate Democrats were not impressed with President Bush's formula of a stimulus package equal to 1% of GDP, and have instead sought a larger package. Senate Republicans are supporting Bush and the House bill (which has the 1% rule imposed.) A political game thus ensues. And in the most interesting part of all, House Speaker Pelosi appears to be in the middle between the Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Pelosi issued a statement tailored to support the position of the Bush administration and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who back her House-passed measure with a few modifications.

Pelosi said House lawmakers are "very receptive to additions to our bill which ensure that disabled veterans and additional seniors are eligible" for rebate checks and want to make sure illegal immigrants are denied them.

Pelosi pointedly did not endorse Senate adds-ons endorsed by Reid, such as provisions benefiting coal companies and a 13-week extension of jobless benefits. The unemployment insurance provision could advance through the House as a separate measure after the stimulus measure passes.

The newspapers are playing this as if the Republicans are to blame, but it isn't just them. Of course, the senators up for re-election want this passed ASAP, but the other 66 are willing to temporize to get maximum advantage. With all due respect to Michelle Malkin and Lassie, it's hard to come up with a good reason for drawing the line at 1%, particularly when you're looking for votes at the senior home. If you're going to cry "fiscal responsibility", how about you get to work on trimming a $3.1 trillion budget?

UPDATE (4pm): The Senate passed the bill without the add-ons. Victory for Pelosi, Bush, and Senate GOP.

Labels: economics, politics

At least in one race, it appears so.

Al Franken, the comedian-turned-U.S. Senate candidate, thinks the current state of health care in Minnesota — and the United States as a whole — is anything but funny.

“Every other industrialized country in the world has universal health care — we’re the only industrialized country that doesn’t — and I think it’s no coincidence that we spend twice as much per person as any other industrialized country on health care,” Franken said during a visit to the Detroit Lakes Newspapers offices on Friday. “And yet we don’t have as good outcomes as they do.

“We’re last in the industrialized world in preventive care. We have 47 million people who are uninsured, with tens of millions more who are underinsured because they can’t afford full coverage … and they live in fear that they will go bankrupt if they have a medical crisis. Medical crises are the No. 1 cause of bankruptcy in this country.

“Fifty percent of the bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical crises. They don’t have that in other industrialized countries.”

Franken also notes that the current health care system has “tremendous waste,” with 34 percent of health care dollars being spent on administrative fees.

“No other country spends more than 21 percent (on administrative fees),” he said. “We have people going to work every day for insurance companies trying to figure out how to deny you care.

“I hear story after story of incredible waste in our system because we aren’t universal.”

Where do we start with this hooey? Let's look at a couple of leading examples, say, Sweden:

Health Minister Göran Hägglund has criticized the lack of progress made toward shortening wait times in Sweden’s health system.

He made the comments in an opinion article published in Dagens Nyheter in which he stated that the 250 million kronor spent by the government on lowering wait times has apparently had a little effect.

The criticism comes in response to a report by the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) showing that nearly 45 percent of patients have longer wait times than are supposedly guaranteed by the healthcare system.
...
In Jämtland county, for example, four out of ten patients couldn’t even get through to their local clinic by telephone on the day they become ill.

Hägglund asserted that people are generally satisfied with the care provided—when they receive it.

“But the wait to receive attention—be it a telephone call to a local clinic or a first visit to a physician—is simply too long,” he said.

Hat tip Mark Perry, who wonders what would happen to Domino's or Northwest Airlines if four out of ten of their customers couldn't get their calls answered.

Next door in Norway, hospitals are suffering a budget crisis. This is worth reading in its entirety, but I will italicize the paragraph that should be used as a clue-bat to the back of Al Franken's noggin:

With waiting lists long, and patients still often lying in corridors, many Norwegians can't understand why medical care is under so much pressure in one of the world's wealthiest countries.

The board of Ullevål University Hospital in Oslo, one of the country's biggest public health institutions, announced earlier this week that it needed to cut its budget by NOK 406 million (about USD 81 million). Medical personnel were quick to claim that patient care would be affected.

The cuts come after another year of reports that patients often have to wait months for operations, that clinics face shutdown or maternity patients are sent home within hours of birth. The physical plant at Ullevål, like at many other Norwegian hospitals, can use some refurbishing, if for no other reason than to make the hospital a more cheerful, inviting place.

State officials, including Health Minister Sylvia Brustad of the Labour Party, argue that the hospitals are receiving more state funding than ever before, and that more patients are being cared for than ever. Nevertheless, cuts are warned and both hospital administrators and union leaders claim they're dealing with yet another health care "crisis."

Newspaper Aftenposten has gathered figures showing that Norwegian hospitals today have NOK 86 billion available, up from NOK 56 billion in 2002. Even though budgets have increased every year, the hospitals are using more money than they're getting. That's led to an accumulated budget deficit of around NOK 9 billion.

The number of doctors tied to Norwegian hospitals rose from 6,700 in 1995 to 10,854 in 2006, up 62 percent. The number of nurses and psychologists on staff has also increased, while administrative personnel has increased the least. The total number of hospital workers in Norway jumped from 67,098 in 1995 to 94,923 in 2006, with payroll costs jumping 70 percent.

Professor Terje Hagen of a health management and economic institute at the University of Oslo claims there is no crisis within Norwegian health care. "The hospitals have had tighter financial constraints in recent years, but they're still using more resources than planned," Hagen told Aftenposten.

Hagen says health care personnel aren't working as many hours as they did before, and notes there's more of them. Professor Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen puts the financial problems firmly on the rise in personnel and the resulting payroll hikes. He also rejects talk of a crisis.

"As I see it, neither hospital personnel nor politicians manage to say 'no' (to health care services that result in higher costs)," Kristiansen said. "When the possibilities for what can be done just get bigger and bigger, and no one sets priorities, budgets will burst.

"It's virtually immoral to talk about a crisis, when we are among the countries using the most money on hospitals in the world."

The budget that bursts is not the hospital's, in universal care. It's yours.

Now of course, Franken's supporters will argue that he doesn't really want single-payer, even though his health-care page says "A single-payer system would be the most effective in terms of reducing administrative costs, and I would be thrilled to support such a system." He just wants it for kids under 18 (that's the Obama plan, too.) But even his plan for adults -- every state mandated to come up with its own plan -- creates a problem that Glen Whitman identified a few months ago:

To enact any mandate, legislators and bureaucrats must specify a minimum benefits package that an insurance policy must cover. Yet this package can't be defined in an apolitical way. Each medical specialty, from oncology to acupuncture, will push for its services to be included. Ditto other interest groups. In government, bloat is the rule, not the exception.

Even now, every state has a list of benefits that any health-insurance policy must cover--from contraception to psychotherapy to chiropractic to hair transplants. All states together have created nearly 1,900 mandated benefits. Of course, more generous benefits make insurance more expensive. A 2007 study estimates existing mandates boost premiums by more than 20%.

If interest groups have found it worthwhile to lobby 50 state legislatures for laws affecting only voluntarily purchased insurance policies, they will surely redouble their efforts to affect the contents of a federally mandated insurance plan. Consequently, even more people will find themselves unable to afford insurance. Others will buy insurance, but only via public subsidies. Isn't that just what the doctor didn't order?

Who is going to write the mandate that says hair transplants are out? That physical therapy for a chronically arthritic shoulder is limited to only ten times a year, or that condoms are in but that new fancy IUD is out?

And what happens if you mandate that everyone buy their own health insurance, and they don't? As Whitman points out, in the 47 states with mandatory auto insurance, 12% of autos are uninsured -- a higher percentage than persons without health insurance in Minnesota. And in a third of the cases nationwide, the uninsured had household income over $50,000. (Source.)

(BTW, Arnold Kling recommends this excellent article, but it's a 7 MB pdf, so beware.)

The question comes down, as Grace-Marie Turner says, to whether you let individuals control their own care, or you let government. Sweden and Norway use government, and Al Franken thinks that's a good idea. Luckily for those Republicans suffering palpitations on their choice of presidential nominee, all of the remaining GOP candidates are not for the Scandinavian model of health care. John McCain says "To use their money effectively, Americans need more choices."

Here, by the way, is Norm Coleman's health care page. I don't see any mention of Sweden.

Labels: Coleman, economics, Franken, health care, politics

Congress and President Bush appear to have settled on a budget. How many months did Congress stall on this basic need of our citizens? Oh, well. I have another point to make.

Many of our youth have very little concept of numbers. As stated early on, I give my college students a 50-fact multiplication test (50 seconds) to attempt to drive home the phenomenal processing speeds of computers.

Related to little exercise is a requirement that all numbers on papers include the zeroes. For example, gross sales of $46.5 billion is not allowed; it must be shown as $46,500,000,000.

Back to the US budget. A $3.1 trillion dollar budget has little impact but $3,100,000,000,000, that's another story. Maybe elected officials just might become more responsible with our money if they realized just how much of it they spend.

Labels: legislature, politics, taxes

... it's your final chance to hear from the NARN on the caucuses. We'll have Minnesota representatives from all four remaining GOP candidates and we want your questions and comments on who you are supporting and why. The last MPR/Humphrey poll has McCain well in front with Huckabee in second place (41-22, with Romney back another five.) Hillary Clinton is up seven on Barack Obama in that poll.

Is it possible to change minds still? Four spokespeople will try, and so will the callers. Join us please at 651-289-4488. Listen on the stream if you wish; the podcast will be available later.

Also, we plan a Tuesday night broadcast beginning at 8pm on the Patriot, with updates from party headquarters, call-ins from caucuses, national results, and expert analysis from as many people as will take a phone call from us. More details to appear on Monday, but we hope you go to the caucuses, then flip on AM 1280 the Patriot on your way home.

Labels: Final Word, Minnesota, NARN, politics

Several bloggers were invited to speak earlier this evening with Senator Norm Coleman about his upcoming campaign for re-election. It was a small and fairly informal affair, with Coleman holding forth with a group of about six bloggers that I heard for approximately thirty minutes. I heard Mitch, Michael, and Drew on the call. The campaign intends to make these a regular part of their schedule going forward.

The campaign put up a new video today, the first of what they hope to be many positive campaign ads highlighting Coleman's record. This one discusses some constituent service for a couple adopting a child from Haiti. There was some discussion of whether they would run more positive ads or ads contrasting Coleman from Al Franken or Mike Ciresi, but all I learned from this was that they had a plan to have both running and that some will go to TV. There was no commitment to when this would happen.

Both Coleman and campaign manager Cullen Sheehan emphasized that there was an uptick in small donations and in volunteer activity, indicating increase in activity. In response to questions about the mood of the base, Coleman pointed to low voter turnout in GOP primaries thus far but thought the issues were so important to people that we would see a response. We need independents to win, he stressed, and we have a way to go.

Questions were asked first about immigration. Coleman felt that the Bush SOTU speech had stressed the right balance about both respect for the law and for our country's highest ideals. Not a path to citizenship that allows anyone to jump ahead of legal immigrants, and nothing that would go ahead of actually securing the border first. Coleman understood that voters did not trust the Senate on the issue and this needs to be fixed, but he also felt that people want to be able to work and not live in fear. Common ground exists, he thought, in first fixing the border and then having people agree on the speaking English, paying taxes and holding employers responsible for hiring legal immigrants. I did not hear enough of how to get from those to the desire to have people not live in fear, but what I heard was stronger on immigration than some have portrayed as Coleman's position.

I asked about the stimulus package and his plans. He gave the standard answer on what I call 3T Stimulation (Timely, Temporary, Targeted) and that he felt all would come together and pass the plan by 2/15. Whether it stays identical to the House bill isn't as certain. He also gave a focused answer on housing, arguing for the Bush position on fixing Fannie and Freddie, modernizing FHA, etc. We cannot have plans like Barney Frank's plan to introduce greater regulation in credit markets, because it would end up denying access to credit to people wanting, for example, to buy their first homes. In five to seven years, he said, people may complain about lack of access to capital. The worst, he felt, would be to raise taxes.

He closed with a rather passionate defense of his position with the base, quoting the 80% rule about who to vote for (as my friend Gary says, your 80% friend isn't your 20% enemy.) I paraphrase here, but I think the line he used was "Leadership is sometimes moving in a direction that people don't yet know they need to move." The last election was not a rejection of conservatism, and on the key issues we agree. He left us with a story that comes from a Charles Swindoll book (I knew I had heard it before, but had forgotten where and had to look it up tonight.) His side was the one with the "Yes" face.

Labels: Coleman, politics

For those who do not know, Carleton College in Northfield, MN was the employer of deceased former US Senator, Paul Wellstone. As with most college campuses, the majority of its students and staff lean left. A special election was held January 3, 2008 for a MN State Senate seat. The DFL candidate won by a rather large margin. Key votes came from the Carleton precinct. Al Franken, former comedian and candidate for the DFL Senate challenge to sitting US Senator, Norm Coleman, held a rally the night before the election.

After the rally, students posed for photos with Mr. Franken's. Apparently his treatment of one of the conservative students, Peter Fritz, was less than what one would expect from a US Senate candidate. I know Peter. He is the epitome of a knowledgeable, responsible, articulate, intelligent, polite young man. He treats all with respect. According to this write-up in the Mpls. Star Tribune, the same cannot be said of some DFL students nor Mr. Franken. For the record, Carlton does not have a GOP group. If you read the article, you can spot the unwarranted snide comments made against Peter.

Labels: politics

...then children are the second.

A moral cloud hangs over our candidates. Just how much today's federal policies, favoring the old over the young and the past over the future, should be altered ought to be a central issue of the campaign. But knowing the unpopular political implications, our candidates have lapsed into calculated quiet.

(h/t: Craig Newmark.)

Labels: politics

I don't know the answer, but that didn't stop me from adding 700 words to this symposium of the Center of the American Experiment. It attempts to answer the following questions:

• Should we even bother thinking about something conceived as urban conservatism (as opposed to other basic kinds) to begin with?
• If you were to design a philosophy of urban conservatism, what would it contain? What would it not contain?
• Do you believe it’s possible to build and maintain a sufficiently potent and longterm
• conservative movement in the United States without more than token support in major cities and other urban areas?
• What about the same question in regards to Minnesota? Is it possible to build and maintain a sufficiently potent and longterm conservative movement here with hardly any support in Minneapolis and St. Paul and most inner-ring suburbs? In considering this question and the one immediately above, you may want to take into account various demographic changes well underway across the country, especially significant increases in minority populations.
• And by the way, how do you define conservatism?

And all in 700 words! So I picked a brief corner of that and wrote. You like? You don't like? Leave a comment.

I'll use this to ask a simple question to a statement in the symposium by Dane Smith, when he says “[Conservatives] need to say things differently and also back up their words with money.” My question: Whose money? And by what right should we have to coerce money from the public to pay for our ideas?

Labels: Minnesota, politics

...between Iowa and New Hampshire, almost every presidential contender found himself lapsing into boilerplate assertions that he was the "candidate of change" – or even, as both McCain and Hillary put it, an "agent of change," which sounds far more exotic, as if they're James Bond and Pussy Galore covertly driving the Aston Martin across some international frontier, pressing the ejector button and dropping a ton of government regulation on some hapless foreigners.

But it's capitalism that's the real "agent of change." Politicians, on the whole, prefer stasis, at least on everything for which they already have responsibility. That's the lesson King Canute was trying to teach his courtiers when he took them down to the beach and let the tide roll in: Government has its limits. In most of the Western world, the tide is rolling in on demographically and economically unsustainable entitlements, but that doesn't stop politicians getting out their beach chairs and promising to create even more. That's government "change".

From Mark Steyn. Change is also the buzzword at the Kool Aid Report.

Labels: politics

I'm amused by my conservative friends' reactions to the Manchester Union-Leader's endorsement of John McCain and unendorsement of Mitt Romney. Growing up there (and delivering the paper throughout my teen years), I have pretty good memories of the paper getting Ed Muskie to cry after a particularly vicious Bill Loeb editorial, references to Gerald Ford as "Jerry the Jerk" etc. The paper has always had an old-time feel of the papers where Clark Kent and Peter Parker worked at, with a cigar-chomping, bellowing bully in charge. While current publisher Joe McQuaid isn't quite the same guy the Loebs were, he grew up at their side and the paper still views its role in the presidential contest as its chance to be a newspaper on the national stage. Come January 10th, they'll turn back into a pumpkin for the next 3.5 years.

By the way: The last time McCain ran, McQuaid referred to him as "the most liberal guy on the Republican side." The Leader endorsed Steve Forbes in 2000. McCain of course won, with Forbes a distant third. McQuaid called GW Bush "a wimp". So those who want to dig up something the Concord Monitor wrote 28 years ago to call the Union Leader a liberal paper should probably think whether that really applies.

By the way, part 2: This fellow used to write at the U-L, and it gets me to thinking that if the Loebs were alive today, they might have endorsed Ron Paul.

Labels: politics

I went with some friends to see Charlie Wilson's War last night. Forget Tom Hanks -- Philip Seymour Hoffman has the best role in the movie and dominates the scenes he's in. I loved him in Casino Royale M:I3, and now in this he's in my very short list of movies that I'll see because he's in it regardless of what the movie is about. (Thanks to Ming; I have no idea why I was thinking Casino Royale there. It makes more sense with M:I3, a movie I otherwise didn't like.)

A couple places (notably this IBD editorial) suggest the movie has a Hollywood slant. OK, maybe it does, though for someone my age you have enough knowledge of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the role of the US with the mujaheddin in western Pakistan to put the proper history around it. You don't need to be an expert. It might have been nice to have seen Reagan at least once in the movie. But that appears an error of omission than commission, and it bothers one less. John Fund today wonders what happened to "Scoop Jackson Democrats" like Charlie Wilson. I wonder if Scoop Jackson would even be a Democrat. If this is how Dewayne Wickham treats Joe Lieberman, what would he do with a Charlie Wilson?

Labels: politics

Angus is really upset about Mike Huckabee's restaurant choices. What kind of guy wants to go Olive Garden or T.G.I.Friday's when he's eating in Manhattan on someone else's dime?

I can answer that: In my five years as a vegan who travels (in the first half of the nineties) I had a list in my head of restaurant chains and what they had that I could eat on my diet. Now I'm sure there are hundreds of restaurants that have better menus than the OG, but suppose I am sitting down to interview in one and scan the menu and find they do not have anything on it that is vegan. I am also trying to project myself in the interview as a guy who's a little aw-shucks, not pretentious, not a pain in the posterior. Do I want to take time reviewing some options the chef MIGHT cook for my fussy self?

Not that I'm a fan of the Huckster, but I can understand why he might look for a chain restaurant while traveling.

Labels: food, politics, travel

This morning, I heard Marty Seifert, Republican Minority Leader, clearly articulate goals for the upcoming legislative session and campaigns for next year. In summary, what he said made sense. Here goes:

1 - The Republican message is positive: increase jobs, have government live within its means; have government apply fiscal discipline.
2 - Transportation: roads and bridges; roads and bridges; roads and bridges.
3 - Marshall should not have to pay for others' pork projects nor should others have to pay for Marshall's pork projects. (Locals want, locals raise the money, locals pay. We need to stop the mindset of going to the state government trough.)
4 - We need fewer people riding the welfare wagon. MN gets 4000-6000 new residents a year who come here for public benefits.

We need to return to individual responsibility versus everyone wanting someone else's money. Then we all win.

Labels: politics

Via Yahoo News:

The New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union, has endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mike Huckabee for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations respectively, sources said Wednesday.

This is the first time the 16,000-member group has endorsed a Republican candidate, despite estimates that a quarter of its members are Republicans.

I laughed when during the YouTube/CNN debate Huckabee said his campaign was in need of all the endorsements it could get, including in that instance Log Cabin Republicans. But in that case he said he'd take support without changing his views. He may not have changed his education views, but they are different from the rest of the GOP field, as reported in today's Concord Monitor:

Huckabee became the first Republican yesterday to be endorsed by the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association. In a short press conference, President Rhonda Wesolowski lauded Huckabee's opposition to school vouchers and his commitment to arts and music education.

But Huckabee also favors "testing teachers" and replacing those who do not meet established standards. The NEA has been critical of the practice, as well as the federal No Child Left Behind law, parts of which Huckabee supports.

Still, Wesolowski said NEA-New Hampshire liked that Huckabee favors measuring student growth over time as opposed to judging a teacher's effectiveness by how students score on a single test. She said the group didn't ask Huckabee much about No Child Left Behind, since he wasn't a member of the Congress that passed the law. Huckabee, who backed President Bush in 2004, initially supported it.

Now one should give Huckabee credit for going to the teachers unions and asking for their support -- would that other GOP candidates would do so! But opposing vouchers and supporting higher spending make him less than appealing to Republicans for whom education is an issue of concern. A governor that mandates an hour of arts and music instruction per week, which Huckabee did in 2005, is not someone who supports local control. I find that pretty odd for any chapter of the NEA to support.

The Monitor article has a great deal of information about Huckabee's education record, so those so interested are invited to read it.

Labels: education, politics

I have to admit, I find this amusing:

From WSJ's Political Journal's John Fund:

But some dissident elements appeared in Oslo to protest Mr. Gore's plan for centralizing control over economic growth. Politico.com reports that a Democrat source in Oslo detected "a significant Ron Paul for President contingent with signs and banners outside [Mr. Gore's] hotel." Apparently, some Paul supporters believe Mr. Gore's plans would only make the world poorer and less able to cope with serious environmental concerns. A source in Oslo told me that several Paulheads chanted, "All we are saying, is give growth a chance," in a throwback to a 1960s anti-war protest song.

So he isn't probably going to win anything, but there are times this race really benefits from having the energy of the Paulites.

Original at Politico.com.

Labels: politics

J. Edgar Hoover was notorious for using the FBI to compile dossiers on people from all walks of life. Is his ghost on the campaign trail now? Lots of jabber about Mrs. Clinton's latest attack on Mr. Obama's writing about a wish to be president in kindergarten and third grade: here, here and here.

One point overlooked: President Bush has been criticized for his efforts to try to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks. There's been way too much hand-wringing over the possibility that the government might possibly in some remote case ask about what books you have read.

If you are honestly concerned about civil liberties, the last thing you ought to want or even consider is someone (Mrs. Clinton) in the White House who already displays a personal interest in the minute details across the entire span of another person's life.

This is really scary.

Labels: politics

There's already comments on last night's debate from Mitch (who sat next to me at the Patriot Primary), Michael (two seats down), Ed, and others. I'm puzzled by Scott's conclusion that Romney won. I thought he came off far too combative; the "I was wrong" on abortion line was buried in a lot of non-answering of questions. And too much attack: Even when he was right, such as tagging Mike Huckabee on signing Arkansas' DREAM Act, Romney comes off as meanspirited.

I also utterly disagree with Ed on the quality of CNN's questions (even discounting to zero the planted general.) A commenter at Powerline got this exactly right:

CNN chose the questions so once again we get the liberal's perspective of conservatism.

"What would Jesus do?"
"Do you believe this book"
Lock and loaded gun prop question.
Confederate Flag.

And of course...Should women go to jail if they have an abortion.

Not a single question on trade. Not a single question on education. Shoving the Iraq questions until late in the program. It was highly manipulative towards CNN's ends, and not for the betterment of the Republican watching this program to decide who they should support in the primary.

Last thing I learned -- Rusty Humphries is more than a Louie Anderson look-alike. Michael and I greatly enjoyed dinner with him and Patriot station manager John Hunt before the debate, and that fellow's knowledge of the Middle East was impressive. I'll have to start listening.

Labels: politics

For those who thought the Mark Ritchie story was no big deal, the price of poker just went up.

The state's legislative auditor is racheting up his investigation of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie after a response Ritchie's office provided proved "unreliable" regarding allegations of inappropriate use of a mailing list generated through an official program.

As a consequence, the legislative auditor will be requiring Ritchie and members of his staff to submit to questioning under oath, an unusual step in legislative audit investigations.

Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles said today his office will continue working on several other investigations but will proceed quickly into the Ritchie probe.

D.J. Tice of the StarTribune says this is no trifling matter:

Nobles is one of the most widely respected figures in Minnesota state government. When he calls someone’s responses “unreliable” and “belated” that someone may have some explaining to do.

Tice provides a copy of Nobles' letter to the Legislative Audit Commission.

The idea (for example from DFL chair Brian Melendez) that this is just Republicans hounding Ritchie is thus quite wrong. Michael of course is reporting on this. Perhaps others can now give credit where it is due: MDE has struck paydirt.

UPDATE (10:30pm): Brunswick story moved on us -- here's an alternate link that works just now. Not up on the STrib's main page.

Labels: Minnesota, politics

Michael and I are taking a week off from The Final Word. Just as well, as Michael is busy chasing down pieces of the Mark Ritchie debacle. Gary has found another one.

Me? I'm trying to figure out how to get a gig researching a Cigar Aficionado bash. Otherwise I'm writing. Have a good weekend.

(Shopping? No, because I'm trying to improve the trade deficit and stay out of those Icelanders' way. And Greg Mankiw anticipates my Tuesday principles lecture -- all the better since I use his book!)

Labels: Minnesota, NARN, politics

A few weeks back, after some investigative reporting by my NARN colleague Michael Brodkorb, we ran a story on The Final Word about a potential irregularity with the use of a mailing list from an official function of the Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, for a newsletter that solicited donations for Ritchie's campaign. At the time, Ritchie was quoted as saying he didn't know how Republican operatives who attended the official meeting got his solicitation. Today, Ritchie admits he personally gave the lists to the mailer. Michael now documents as well that Ritchie's office claimed not to know how the lists got to the mailer in a response to questions from two legislators.

Kudos of course to Michael. Also to Mark Brunswick at the StarTribune for following up on this story and getting the scoop on Ritchie's admission.

Now it's the rest of the media's turn. On Nov. 4, 2006, the PioneerPress endorsed Ritchie (which Ritchie has reproduced on his own campaign site), including this paragraph

We will hold Ritchie accountable to his promise to run his office as a "nonpartisan" — a big challenge for anyone affiliated with a political party.

PP, you're on the clock.

Labels: Minnesota, politics

I don't think I've ever seen this line of logic before. Senator Christopher Dodd is holding up any confirmations of Federal Reserve governors until after the elections.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), suggested Friday that he might not bring a vote on the renomination of Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, a leading figure in the central bank’s effort to overhaul its mortgage regulation.

Kroszner’s term at the Fed expires Jan. 31, and the White House nominated the former academic to a 14-year term that would run through 2022.

“There’s one nomination here that would be for somebody [for] 14 years,” Dodd told reporters on a conference call. “We’re frankly getting down to less than a year away from the [November 2008] election. On nominations of that length, I’m fairly reluctant.”

There are already two empty seats on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Losing a third seat gives the Fed a much smaller board with which to make monetary policy than the original Federal Reserve Act intended. The nominations were made on May 16. My impression is that having Kroszner off the board and holding up the other two makes the FOMC more weighted towards academic economists, and possibly more hawkish on inflation. Why Dodd thinks this is a good idea is beyond me. And it seems a new extension of Congressional running-out-the-clock on divided government.

At any rate, fewer members on the Board of Governors robs monetary policy of a diversity of viewpoints.

Labels: economics, Federal Reserve, politics

There are some nice summaries out of the views of the presidential candidates on a variety of economic issues.

1. I've downloaded but haven't yet listened to the debate the National Association of Business Economists had with the advisers for five candidates. Unfortunately no advisers for Thompson or Romney were on the panel.
2. John Goodman has summarized the health care platforms. He ends up liking the McCain plan better than the other two Republican plans; it's also the most radical, in simply giving a $5000 refundable tax credit (like EITC) to couples to buy their own health insurance while killing off the current system's subsidies. His opinion of the Democratic plans is much lower. Meanwhile, Steve Verdon reminds us that promises about paying for health insurance reform that begin with "repeal the Bush tax cuts" are trying to spend the same money twice.
   
3. Ben Muse has been a one-man show writing views on international trade of the candidates (and others.) So far he has views from Romney, Clinton, and links to Simon Lester's thoughts on Edwards and Kucinich.

See also Muse's post on a poll on trade, in which we find that blue collar workers are more inclined to trade deals to protect jobs and white collar workers think innovation and new ideas are going to be the best source of new jobs.

Labels: economics, politics

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar has discovered a new place to engage in class warfare: The new farm bill. Arguing that the 75-year-old plan is still has strong arguments for support, the only thing she can find wrong is that it gives money to people who do not need it.

Nearly 600 residents of New York City, 559 residents of Washington, D.C., and even 21 residents of Beverly Hills 90210 received federal farm checks in the past three years. Some collected hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Last time I checked, there wasn't a lot of farmland in those communities.

We can fix this and do better for our farmers by using the new Farm Bill to close loopholes, tighten payment limits and enforce tougher income eligibility standards.

First, the current Senate and House Farm Bill proposals eliminate the "three-entity rule." This will end the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations to multiply payments.

Second, a long-standing bill proposed by Sens. Byron Dorgan and Charles Grassley would limit annual payments to $250,000.

Third, nonfarmer millionaires should be precluded from receiving payments.

Let's understand something about economics here. Farming, like most economic activity, requires four factors of production: land; labor; capital; and entrepreneurship. The entrepreneur puts his or her own resources at risk of loss in return for the opportunity for profit. If you wish to support farmers, then whomsoever accepts that risk receives the benefit, be it a rich or poor person. There are already rules in place to guarantee that the person actually have something at risk (whether or not they are an active or passive investor.) If they have these rules in place, why does it matter if the person who is at risk is rich or poor?

Sen. Klobuchar worries that subsidy payments to rich farmland investors will "undermine public support for every farm program." If the reasons for supporting farmers are sound, I fail to see why, unless the Democrats fear their class warfare message will spill over into their own constituencies. Selling the "riskiness" story is difficult, because there are plenty of riskier investments than farming (remember those Internet stocks you owned seven years ago?) And a majority of farmers do not get any subsidies; the chicken farm you smelled going out to hunt deer this weekend did not receive a subsidy for its operations.

So why are some farmers aided and others not? Could the reasons be political rather than economic? It will be interesteing to follow the debate on the new farm bill that opens today.

Labels: economics, politics

Barack Obama granted an interview to a five-year-old reporter, and explains his health insurance plan:

Crouching to the ground after a rally with 4,000 supporters, Obama briefly outlined for Hadassah his plan to provide health insurance for everyone and to improve schools. He also suggested to the first-grader that wealthier people should help those who are less fortunate.

"We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money," Obama said. "If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"

"We've got to make sure?" Who's the we? It's really telling that in Obama's mind, health care reform is a transfer program, not a way to improve efficiency of the health care system.

(h/t: Final Word producer Matt Reynolds.)

Labels: health care, politics

D.J. Tice has been posting on The Big Question some excellent material on the Social Security debate that I really hope will happen. While he did some factchecking of Hillary Clinton's claim that the global war of terror threatens Social Security -- which could also be said, albeit to a smaller degree, about earmarking transportation money for bike trails -- he stated that the Republicans have been "less than wholly impressive" on Social Security, except for Fred Thompson. In an earlier post he notes Thompson's position is to switch from indexing benefits to wage inflation to indexing on price inflation.

It’s a real plan for restoring Social Security’s solvency — real enough to be scaldingly controversial. By most estimates, so called price indexing would cause future benefits to fall enough to balance Social Security’s books without tax hikes, about 25 percent from the levels now promised. In effect, it would simply cut benefits to match Social Security’s existing revenue stream.

All the same, price indexing would still mean that future retirees would receive real benefits, after inflation, equal to those of today’s retirees.

Here's an example of the kind of attack on the Thompson plan you can expect, from our liberal friends at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The price indexing idea has been around for quite some time, and was considered the starting point for discussions President Bush tried to have in 2005; you might remember how well that went. Economists and public policy specialists have known of this option longer than that.

So what's wrong with it? For one, it means you cannot grow your way to funding Social Security liabilities (unless all of a sudden profits and interest grow much, much faster -- not a position likely to be supported by CBPP.) Wage indexing means that any gains in productivity created by future generations will be transferred off to the retired generation. Insisting on the maintenance of wage indexing means you are moving the cost of public pensions increasingly onto future generations.

Second, as David Leonhart's column today makes clear, the Social Security problem is only part of the larger issue of unfunded liabilities we have. Medicare is much larger, and nobody seems willing yet to discuss that issue. Last night Rep. Kucinich argued for extending Medicare to all, and the other Democratic candidates weren't far behind. Republicans aren't any better. When Ben Bernanke brings it up, he gets scolded: Why should presidential candidates be expected to be any bolder? Well, here too, Thompson has at least said he wants to address the topic.

Labels: economics, politics

I was at the Patriot Saturday when Michael noted he received a press release from the Governor's office that said a deal he had agreed while in India regarding Essar Group's purchase of the Minnesota Steel and to construct a new plant in Hibbing. News reports describe the problem:

The Essar Group closed Monday on a deal to buy Minnesota Steel, planning to begin construction on a steel mill near Hibbing early next year -- a project that Pawlenty said holds great promise for the state of Minnesota. But later in the week, federal officials contacted the governor to inform him of Essar's possible ties to Iran.

Reuters reports that Essar plans to begin work on an $8 billion to $10 billion oil refinery in Iran early next year, working with the National Iranian Refining and Distribution Co. Such a deal may constitute or lead to business practices that are prohibited by the U.S. government. Pawlenty said Essar officials have confirmed talk in Iran, but say they do not have any commitments there.

If the federal government finds Essar's actions in Iran to be a violation of U.S. policy, Pawlenty said he would withdraw his support for the company's planned steel mill on the Iron Range.

The deal includes $30-60 million in state money for the Iron Range, and potentially scotching the deal has got the Ranger Mafia up in arms.

"It never ceases to amaze me how this governor can change his mind from one day to the next. It's frustrating that a project we've been working on for seven years is finally picked up on by the Twin Cities media a couple of days ago when the governor says it's going to be a good deal for the Range and state. Then days later, a complete reversal," said state Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, in a telephone interview Sunday evening. ...

"I was stunned. This is so extraordinary. We were told the meeting with Essar went well (on Thursday) and then he gets back to Minnesota and immediately draws this line in the sand. I find it puzzling," said state Rep. Tom Anzelc, DFL-Balsam Township.

Anzelc said he had been out at some hunting shacks talking to some guys prior to next weekend's opening of the deer firearms season and had also been to an anniversary party.

"People are puzzled. But they're still upbeat. After all, we're Rangers," he said.

What on earth does that mean, "we're R