NRA Sellout

Lars Larson wrote:

I'm a life member of the NRA...a fact I've always been proud of. But I'm not proud of the NRA's deal with the Devil (congressional democrats) to withdraw its opposition to the DISCLOSE act...which robs Americans and institutions like the NRA of political free speech. 

I replied:

Excellent point, Lars.

In reality, the NRA is using the power of government to handicap its rivals (GOA) and is becoming a client of Big Government -- seeking out special treatment for itself.

Starting now, the NRA will be subject to pressure by lawmakers who need only threaten their special status to get them to bend.

As soon as you accept special treatment -- for yourself, for your company, for your group -- as a gift from Big Government, you're making a pact with the devil, and you're the junior partner. Now you're going to defend Big Government in order to defend your special status. You become part of the problem.

The same thing happens with Regulatory Capture and all the other ways people use the power of government for their private enrichment.

-Tom

Lincoln on Kagan

Abraham Lincoln, writing about the nomination of Salmon P. Chase for the Supreme Court:


"[W]e wish for a Chief Justice who will sustain what has been done in regard to emancipation and the legal tenders. We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore we must take a man whose opinions are known."


The cipher that is Elena Kagan is somewhat disturbing to me on that front -- we don't know what or how she thinks.


(Hat tip to the Volokh Conspiracy.)

Don't Be Too Certain

A friend had an assignment to argue a side of a debate with which he does not agree.

By the time he was done, he was starting to see some of the other side's arguments as legitimate.  He jokingly said this was "scary."  I wrote back:

Not scary. If you're utterly 100% convinced of every element of your world view, you're nuts and closed-minded.

It takes intelligence and maturity to accept that our understanding is limited, contingent, and may contain elements of paradox or contradiction or balanced yet competing forces.

I think the practical case for free markets is a "preponderance of the evidence" case -- separate from the moral case for it, which is absolute, but only if you accept a Natural Rights philosophy of right and wrong.

Cheers.

Paul Ryan's comments re ObamaCare

By PAUL D. RYAN

The following are remarks made by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, about the cost of the House and Senate health-care bills at President Obama's Blair House summit on health care, Feb. 25:

Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.

Mr. President, you said health-care reform is budget reform. You're right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That's $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents' generation, our generation, our kids' generation. Medicaid's growing at 21 percent each year. It's suffocating states' budgets. It's adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for . . .

Now, you're right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation. And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you basically said—and I totally agree with this—I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.

Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill, because it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.

And if you take a look at the CBO analysis—analysis from your chief actuary—I think it's very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health-care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.

Now let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day—very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors.

Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That's $2.3 trillion.Now, what do I mean when I say that? Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.

[The Senate bill] does [a] couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits.

It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That's the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.

The Senate Budget Committee chairman [Kent Conrad] said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does [is treat] Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.

. . . [A]ccording to the chief actuary of Medicare . . . as much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors . . . who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.

You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting.

And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.

. . . [P]robably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. We don't think we should cut doctors [annual federal reimbursements] 21 percent next year. We've stopped those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years.

We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit . . . that provision was taken out, and it's been going on in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn't add up.

. . . I'll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?

Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we're bending it up. He's claiming that we're going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.

And so, when you take a look at this, it's really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really is a difference between us.

. . . [W]e've been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it's basically this. We don't think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the big difference.

Now, we've offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year. Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It's got to get fixed.

It's bankrupting families. It's bankrupting our government. It's hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this.

But we don't think that this is the . . . the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.

Now, I'll just simply say this. . . . [W]e are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I've got to tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you're not listening to them.

So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean-sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring down health-care costs and not raise them. And that's basically the point.

Dorchester 2010

Going to Dorchester 2010 today -- right after I guest-host for Jayne Carroll on AM-1360 KUIK -- wow, what a day this is shaping up to be.

Mug Shot

This has some personal significance:
http://www.daviesscojail.org/InmateList/InmateView.aspx?ID=2093189

Not sure I want to blog about it right now.  I do want to save the link.

Risk, cognitive bias, and the role of government

Humans are terrible at estimating risk.  Bad enough that I'd be willing to call it an area of potential market failure -- i.e. people will underestimate the risks they face, under-prepare for them, and then be over-impacted by them. 

Take my world view from about 1986, when I felt everyone should be accountable for all their decisions without exception, and it was morally acceptable for me to contemplate a worker (a) choosing not to be insured under WC, (b) getting injured on the job, and (c) impoverishing himself and his family.  So sacred was his choice that I was willing to see any negative outcome unfold.  As long as he'd chosen his actions, I was okay with his fall.

Now, reading Cialdini and numerous other sources on the horrific list of cognitive biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) to which the human mind is susceptible, I'm much more willing to embrace at least some "coercive" rules such as mandatory workers' comp insurance. 

The big risk here, for me, is that as soon as I empower someone -- almost always the government -- to use coercion to "fix" the cognitive errors of the population at large, the concept (or illusion) of individual autonomy  and "consent of the governed" can break down, and the legitimacy of the government can break down. 

Doubly so because the government is no less susceptible to error, being made up of humans, and while I can easily correct my personal errors by changing my behavior, it's very hard for me to either change or opt out of the erroneous coercive mandates of a nanny state.

The graceful way forward may be to use cognitive bias in our favor, by allowing people to "opt out" of certain things if it matters to them a lot, while making the default choice be the one that has greater social protection.  For example I'm in favor of making everyone an organ donor by default, while allowing anyone who really cares strongly to opt out.

The mindset of a Leftist

Just had an amazing conversation (well, a series of Facebook comments) with an apparent union troll who insists that Measures 66 and 67 are fabulous and wonderful.

Here's the absolute gem of a quote:

"It's impossible for a democratically elected government to 'steal' from you." - Mark Bunster, government employee, 28-Dec-2009

Wow.  It's not theft if the government does it. NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.  Bills of Attainder?  Okay with Mark, apparently.

Wow.

Why a 'no' vote on 66-67 is both wise and safe

I keep hearing that we have to raise Oregon taxes to save key services from cuts. Looks like that argument is false.

Read on.

-Tom

Detailed Back to Basics Budget is a better plan for Oregon

Salem, OR – Senate Republicans announced a revised Back to Basics Budget Tuesday, saying that there were other alternatives to raising taxes or drastically cutting services in the midst of a historic recession.  Republicans have been presenting alternative budget proposals to Democrats since last May. 

“Republicans want to create jobs for the thousands of Oregon families that are struggling to find work, and at the same time we want to avoid service cuts during these difficult times,” said Senator Chris Telfer (R-Bend).  “This budget says, ‘hey, there are other options that don’t involve business choking tax increases or service cuts.’”

The Back to Basics Budget plan consists of eleven points where savings and efficiencies through the remainder of the budget cycle can be used to balance the budget, instead of job-choking tax increases.

Back to Basics Budget:

1)      Ask state employees to pay for their health care at the

same rate teachers currently do                                                                 $131 million

2)      Roll back the pay raises granted to state employees                                           $160 million

3)      Eliminate Department of Revenue costs to administer the tax increases            $1.5 million

4)      Eliminate duplicate funding for the Bureau of Labor and Industries                     $1 million

5)      Eliminate state funding to the Portland Art Museum                                             $0.31 million

6)      Use over-collected funds from the Government Ethics Commission                 $0.5 million

7)      Suspend part of the BETC credit                                                                $85 million

8)      Suspend General Fund Spending on new “Autos & Aircraft”                       $5 million

9)      Transfer some money from the State’s Risk Assessment Account                       $13 million

10)  Use part of the $ 3 billion in “Other Fund” Ending Balances                       $133 million

11)  Use part of the Education Stability Fund / Rainy Day Fund                            $203  million

TOTAL            $733 million

“Should voters reject the tax increases, we can still protect our most important priorities like funding K-12, community colleges, universities and social services,” said Telfer.  “For many voters, removing $733 million out of the economy and cutting another 70,000 jobs is a tough pill to swallow.  This list of ideas I believe makes that point that there are other options out there.  If we think creatively, we can protect jobs and core services.” 

Last session, Republicans built a Back to Basics Budget using a philosophy that funds the most important, core services first.  After creating a starting point that holds services like K-12 education, higher education, public safety agencies and human services providers harmless from any cuts from their 2007-09 funding levels, Republicans made targeted funding additions to protect vulnerable and needy Oregonians and ensure that new state troopers can continue patrolling streets and neighborhoods. 

###

<< DETAILED ENDING FUND BALANCE LIST AVAILABLE ON REQUEST>>

Back to Basics Budget:

A Better Plan for Oregon

When lawmakers return to Salem in February they could be looking at a $733 budget hole.  The hole can be filled while still funding education, from K-12 though community colleges and universities, at levels approved by the Legislature in 2009.  The goal is to reduce the cost of government without reducing services to Oregonians.

The Plan:

12)  Ask state employees to pay for their health care at the

same rate teachers currently do                                                                 $131 million

13)  Roll back the pay raises granted to state employees                                           $160 million

14)  Eliminate Department of Revenue costs to administer the tax increases            $1.5 million

15)  Eliminate new funding for the Bureau of Labor and Industries                     $1 million

16)  Eliminate state funding to the Portland Art Museum                                             $0.31 million

17)  Use over-collected funds from the Government Ethics Commission                 $0.5 million

18)  Suspend part of the BETC credit                                                                $85 million

19)  Suspend General Fund Spending on new “Autos & Aircraft”                       $5 million

20)  Transfer some money from the State’s Risk Assessment Account                       $13 million

21)  Use part of the $ 3 billion in “Other Fund” Ending Balances                       $133 million

22)  Use part of the Education Stability Fund / Rainy Day Fund                            $203  million

TOTAL            $733 million

Other Savings                                                                                                 Approx $500 million

Back to Basics Detail

1)      State Employee Benefits - $131 Million - Much has been made of the fact that Oregon Public Employees do not contribute toward their health insurance premiums.  The same cannot be said for teachers.  The average teacher contributes $187.07 per month toward their health insurance.  According to DAS, 47,054 employees receive fully paid health insurance.  If each of those public employees paid the same as the average teacher, the state of Oregon would save $211 million per biennium or $131 million in what is left of the current biennium.  Oregon is one of the only states that continues to offer fully paid health insurance to state employees.  Elected officials at the state level are also included in this plan.

2)      State Employee Pay raises - $160 million – Eliminate the pay raises granted by the Governor without legislative input. Would apply moving forward.

3)      Tax Administration - $1.501 million – Eliminate the funding to the Department of Revenue to support additional work driven by an increase in corporate taxes.  The money will not be needed if the taxes fail (House Bill 5054 – 2009).

4)      Bureau of Labor and Industries Appropriation - $1 million – Remove appropriation from the Bureau of Labor and Industries that was given to the Commissioner’s Office, the Civil Rights Division, the Wage and Hour Division and Apprenticeship and Training.  House Bill 5024 (2009) originally eliminated the funding.  This money is in addition to the $642,861 appropriated to the Department of Justice for Civil Rights work (House Bill 5054 – 2009).

5)      Portland Art Museum - $0.31 million – Remove appropriation to the Portland Art Museum from February 2009 forward.  The original allocation was $500,000 (House Bill 5054 – 2009).

6)      Reallocate Over-Collection by the Ethics Commission - $0.5 million – According to The Oregonian, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission is collecting $600,000 more during the 2009-11 biennium than they are authorized to spend.  Reallocating $500,000 leaves the OGEC with $100,000 in reserve.

7)      Suspend Part of the Business Energy Tax Credit - $85 million – Projections from the Legislative Revenue Office show the Business Energy Tax Credit will cost the state $167 million during the 2009-11 biennium.

8)      Suspend General Fund Spending on new “Autos & Aircraft” - $5.497 million – The 2009-11 budget allocated $5.497 million in General Fund revenue for the capital purchases of “Automotive and Aircraft.”

9)      State Risk Assessment Account - $13 million - $20.2 million was swept from this fund in 2009 and the fund is projected to have an ending balance of $63.5 million at the close of the 2009-11 biennium. 

10)  Transfer Excess Other Fund Balances - $133 million – With the release of the 2009-11 revised Other Fund Ending Balance we believe there are approximately $133 million, out of approximately $3 billion, that can be reallocated.  Lawmakers reallocated $82.9 million in 2009 the plug another budget hole.

11)  Education Stability Fund / Rainy Day Fund - $203 million – The Education Stability Fund and Rainy Day Fund are expected to contain $185 million and $127 million respectively at the close of the 2009-11 biennium.

Other Savings

The Department of Human Services has embarked on a plan to save over $500 million.  The plan, called the Transformation Roadmap, has already saved $40 million and DHS should be encouraged to speed up the process.  At the same time other state agencies should launch similar plans.  What other efficiencies and savings could be found?  It makes sense to increase efficiencies before we ask Oregonians to send more money to the state. 

Obama's Executive Style

This is an impressive piece of journalism, and it reveals what I see as a solid executive style by Obama.  That's especially significant due to his relative lack of prior executive experience.

What's to like?

• Acknowledging when someone you disagree with is right
• Not blaming people and instead focusing on systems
• Willingness to listen and be flexible in approach while maintaining constancy of goals

Not a bad collection of attributes.  We could all of us do worse.