Simple reason ... Americans are way too fat! Check out the national obesity statistics here. Americans are 3 times as fat as most European countries.
Government has a role. Removing corn subsidies that ensure high-fructose corn syrup in all our foods would be a good start. (Oh, and it would also reduce starvation in third world countries which struggle to compete on an un-flat agricultural market) Town planners incentivizing more walkable communities will help. More awesome farmers' markets, like the one in my city, will help.
I personally don't even mind a tax on unhealthy foods, although I don't think its implementable.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Intellectual Dishonesty of the Public Option
President Obama once again pitched for the public option last night and the mainstream media once again cheered. On the face of it, it is easy to be carried away. You can keep your insurance, or you can take the government plan. Sounds innocuous, right?
Wrong! The reality is that a public option is a lose-lose, unless you want a nationalized healthcare system.
For starters, even if the government plan is not subsidized by the taxpayer, it has several key advantages. One is that its cost of capital is much lower than any of its competitors, its debt being backed by the full faith of the US Government. The other is that since it does not have to make a profit, competition will kill returns in the private sector, driving us towards national healthcare.
Will we be able to keep the health plan we like? Absolutely not! Lets focus simply on the issue of those currently being covered by an employer-based health plan. If you are an employer, you can either buy health insurance from a private insurer, or you can pay a tax (if I remember the parts of HR3200 I read, it's in the vicinity of 8% of gross income)
If the government plan is cheaper, most employers will simply abandon providing health coverage and instead pay the tax. But we are not in the clear even if the government plan is more expensive. After all, this means that the clientèle for the government plan will dispropriately be the unemployed, individuals with pre-existing conditions, and other high-risk groups. That would make a government plan unsustainable (after all, the point of insurance is to spread risk, not aggregate the risky) Any bets that politicians would stay true to their word and allow a government plan to fail?
The mainstream media has bought this along traditional lines, and failed to do much analysis. It is easily to be carried away by the brilliance of Obama's oratorical skills, and by the extreme craziness from some on the right. But let's not get carried away - if the public option passes, we're coasting to a socialized medical system!
Wrong! The reality is that a public option is a lose-lose, unless you want a nationalized healthcare system.
For starters, even if the government plan is not subsidized by the taxpayer, it has several key advantages. One is that its cost of capital is much lower than any of its competitors, its debt being backed by the full faith of the US Government. The other is that since it does not have to make a profit, competition will kill returns in the private sector, driving us towards national healthcare.
Will we be able to keep the health plan we like? Absolutely not! Lets focus simply on the issue of those currently being covered by an employer-based health plan. If you are an employer, you can either buy health insurance from a private insurer, or you can pay a tax (if I remember the parts of HR3200 I read, it's in the vicinity of 8% of gross income)
If the government plan is cheaper, most employers will simply abandon providing health coverage and instead pay the tax. But we are not in the clear even if the government plan is more expensive. After all, this means that the clientèle for the government plan will dispropriately be the unemployed, individuals with pre-existing conditions, and other high-risk groups. That would make a government plan unsustainable (after all, the point of insurance is to spread risk, not aggregate the risky) Any bets that politicians would stay true to their word and allow a government plan to fail?
The mainstream media has bought this along traditional lines, and failed to do much analysis. It is easily to be carried away by the brilliance of Obama's oratorical skills, and by the extreme craziness from some on the right. But let's not get carried away - if the public option passes, we're coasting to a socialized medical system!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Are Medicare Administrative Costs Cheaper?
One of the persistent arguments for a government health care plan has been the lower administrative costs associated with Medicare compared with government plans. This has been a contentious issue, with others arguing this is simply not true. Well, is it?
The American Medical Association reports that Medicare administrative costs account to 5.2 percent of public programs versus 14.1 percent of private programs. Aha, we'd all save money if we went to a public program!!
Not so fast, sport! The AMA points out to the unfair comparisons in those estimates. An excerpt:
There are other methodological issues - follow the link above for more.
The American Medical Association reports that Medicare administrative costs account to 5.2 percent of public programs versus 14.1 percent of private programs. Aha, we'd all save money if we went to a public program!!
Not so fast, sport! The AMA points out to the unfair comparisons in those estimates. An excerpt:
Perhaps the most obvious shortcoming of many estimates is that they ignore unreported spending on administration of government programs. Such uncounted administrative costs are especially evident in the Medicare program and include:
• Tax collection to fund Medicare—this is analogous to premium collection by private insurers, but whereas premium collection expenses of private insurers are rightly counted as administrative costs, tax collection expenses incurred by employers and the Internal Revenue Service do not appear in the official Medicare or NHE accounting systems, and so are usually overlooked
• Medicare program marketing, outreach and education
• Medicare program customer service
• Medicare program auditing by the Office of the Inspector General
• Medicare program contract negotiation
• Building costs of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) dedicated to the Medicare program
• Staff salaries for CMS personnel with Medicare program responsibilities
• Congressional resources exhausted each year on setting Medicare payment rates for services
There are other methodological issues - follow the link above for more.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Securitizing Health Care
As the health care debate rages, we are offered a series of poor choices due to our political system's inability for consensus. On one side is the growing chorus for a government plan. Seriously, have these proponents not been to a DMV? All the government plan will achieve is to exert Wal-Mart style cost pressures that will run private capital out of business. And what makes supporters think the government can manage such a program efficiently? The track record of Medicare is hardly inspiring - the program is likely to be insolvent in the near future!
On the other hand, it is hard to argue with the fact that we have a seriously broken system. One in six Americans is uninsured, in a system where the costs of being uninsured are more dramatic because of inflated prices. Many more are excluded from the system because of pre-existing conditions. And the system does not encourage healthy lifestyle choices or preventative medicine, because of the lack of long-term commitments from the patients in question.
Democrats are living in la-la land, ignoring the cost side of the balance and seeking to run capital out of the industry. Republicans, even worse, seem to think that sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling 'socialism' means that we don't have a problem that needs fixing. What's missing is smart ideas that, like all the good ones, straddle the middle.
So here's an idea to consider - and it's not even that original. For all the criticism of our housing boom, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have dramatically changed home ownership in this country by providing coordination. The US government managed to achieve much greater home ownership rates without running the program by supporting these agencies whose role was to buy mortgages, repackage them and sell them to private industry. Before the distortions in recent years, this meant low risk to the government, aggressive competition in private markets and, well, a free-market system that largely worked.
In concept, I can't see why this isn't a valid idea for insurance. You have a pool of, let's say 100 people, 50 of whom might be relatively young workers, 10 of them are over 80, maybe 2 of them have cancer, 15 have diabetes, ... you get the idea. By pooling them, and doing so on a large scale and only government can, you offer the insurance companies the ability to greatly increase market share, but only if they are willing to pick up the unhealthy insurees as well as the healthy ones.
There would have to be some controls to ensure pools stay largely the same (i.e. if you're in Pool A, you are highly likely to stay in Pool A) - this gives insurance companies the incentive to improve your healthcare metrics as a risk mitigation tool.
Just thinking aloud ...
On the other hand, it is hard to argue with the fact that we have a seriously broken system. One in six Americans is uninsured, in a system where the costs of being uninsured are more dramatic because of inflated prices. Many more are excluded from the system because of pre-existing conditions. And the system does not encourage healthy lifestyle choices or preventative medicine, because of the lack of long-term commitments from the patients in question.
Democrats are living in la-la land, ignoring the cost side of the balance and seeking to run capital out of the industry. Republicans, even worse, seem to think that sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling 'socialism' means that we don't have a problem that needs fixing. What's missing is smart ideas that, like all the good ones, straddle the middle.
So here's an idea to consider - and it's not even that original. For all the criticism of our housing boom, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have dramatically changed home ownership in this country by providing coordination. The US government managed to achieve much greater home ownership rates without running the program by supporting these agencies whose role was to buy mortgages, repackage them and sell them to private industry. Before the distortions in recent years, this meant low risk to the government, aggressive competition in private markets and, well, a free-market system that largely worked.
In concept, I can't see why this isn't a valid idea for insurance. You have a pool of, let's say 100 people, 50 of whom might be relatively young workers, 10 of them are over 80, maybe 2 of them have cancer, 15 have diabetes, ... you get the idea. By pooling them, and doing so on a large scale and only government can, you offer the insurance companies the ability to greatly increase market share, but only if they are willing to pick up the unhealthy insurees as well as the healthy ones.
There would have to be some controls to ensure pools stay largely the same (i.e. if you're in Pool A, you are highly likely to stay in Pool A) - this gives insurance companies the incentive to improve your healthcare metrics as a risk mitigation tool.
Just thinking aloud ...
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Add One More Scandal to the "Cleanest Admin Ever"
This time it's Obama's "urban czar". If the facts in this story are true, this is far more disturbing than any of the previous controversies. This does not appear to be questionable judgment or any such thing, but out-and-out pay-to-play Blago style.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Fairness Doctrine
One of the items on the Congressional agenda is the Fairness Doctrine, where the Government would require broadcasters to provide equal time for both sides. While it sounds good at first listen, the Fairness Doctrine is, to borrow from the Jurassic Park movies, the dumbest idea in the history of dumb ideas!! First, the government mandating coverage flies in the face of the First Amendment. Second, who gets to decide if something is a liberal/conservative view point or a balanced view point? Some bureaucrat gets to decide if Wolf Blitzer is being a liberal or just a neutral commentator? Come on!!
It appears to me that if there is any place for the Fairness Doctrine, it should be NPR and PBS, which are directly funded by taxpayers. And yet, any unbiased listener recognizes that these organizations are loaded with liberals. Virtually every show at these networks, with the exception of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, takes a decidedly biased view on the issues. Maybe we can start with dictating that such organizations need to be more balanced or lose taxpayer funding?
Full Disclosure: I listen to NPR and PBS extensively, and have contributed to NPR in the past. I have however decided against further support for NPR until their editorial content changes to present more view points.
It appears to me that if there is any place for the Fairness Doctrine, it should be NPR and PBS, which are directly funded by taxpayers. And yet, any unbiased listener recognizes that these organizations are loaded with liberals. Virtually every show at these networks, with the exception of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, takes a decidedly biased view on the issues. Maybe we can start with dictating that such organizations need to be more balanced or lose taxpayer funding?
Full Disclosure: I listen to NPR and PBS extensively, and have contributed to NPR in the past. I have however decided against further support for NPR until their editorial content changes to present more view points.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Quote of the Day: Eric Cantor on the Stimulus Bill
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) on the haste in voting on the $800 billion or so stimulus plan less than 24 hours after being released. (If you're counting, it was released at 9 pm, contains 1,1419 pages, and is being tabled at 9 am, but what's a few hours between friends!)
Those in favor of speed over commonsense may just be afraid of letting the People know what they are ramming through.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
The Daschle Fiasco Finally Ends
Today was not a good day for the Obama White House. Two candidates for senior cabinet positions resigning. But while much of the coverage has claimed the two resigned for "tax reasons", like this one, that's not quite true in Daschle's case. No one thought Daschle's tax problems were a dealbreaker - what was was that his appointment flew in the face of Obama's pledge to not hire any lobbyists.
As Time magazine reports:
Of course that's baloney, since Daschle effectively acted as a lobbyist. From the Time article:
What's particularly disturbing about this, if you were swept by the Obama hype of change, is that Obama supported Daschle despite these facts, and trying to spin the unofficial lobbyist status. Turns out he's just another politician - who would have thought?
Adding insult to injury is that the WH now argues that this will be the cleanest administration to date. That's a bit like arguing that a thief who didn't mug his victim because a cop showed up isn't a thief after all!
As Time magazine reports:
According to the White House, the important thing is that Tom Daschle is not technically a lobbyist. "If you're not registered to lobby, you can't be a lobbyist," explains White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. And Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader who is up for the top health post in the Obama Cabinet, never filled out the paperwork to register.
Of course that's baloney, since Daschle effectively acted as a lobbyist. From the Time article:
Daschle, for instance, was a high-paid "policy adviser" at Alston & Bird, a lobbying firm with dozens of brand-name pharmaceutical and health-services clients. "Senator Daschle focuses his services on advising the firm's clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy," boasts the firm's website. One of Alston's clients, EduCap, a nonprofit student-loan company that spent six figures lobbying to change federal loan laws, took Daschle on two cushy overseas trips, one to the Bahamas for a board meeting and another to the Middle East to meet with foreign leaders.
What's particularly disturbing about this, if you were swept by the Obama hype of change, is that Obama supported Daschle despite these facts, and trying to spin the unofficial lobbyist status. Turns out he's just another politician - who would have thought?
Adding insult to injury is that the WH now argues that this will be the cleanest administration to date. That's a bit like arguing that a thief who didn't mug his victim because a cop showed up isn't a thief after all!
Monday, February 02, 2009
Enjoy Stimulus Now, Pay Your $14,000 Share Later
Kevin Hastett wrote a incredible must-read piece on Bloomberg titled 'Enjoy Stimulus Now, Pay Your $14,000 Share Later'. Really, you must read it to understand the fiscal implications on your household budget are.
An excerpt:
And just what does that mean for your personal finances?
The longer the deficits last, the larger those numbers get. And all for what?
An excerpt:
Under President George W. Bush -- a big spender in his own right -- the federal budget deficit reached a record $455 billion in fiscal 2008, more than double a year earlier. Government bailouts of banks and other industries that started under Bush, and may accelerate under President Barack Obama, will help push the deficit toward that $1.7 trillion mark.
And just what does that mean for your personal finances?
If your family income in 2006 was between $75,000 and $100,000, the extra taxes that you will have to pay at some point in the future add up to about $14,000. If your income was between $100,000 and $200,000, your future tax hike will be about $28,000. If your income was between $200,000 and $500,000, then your future tax bill just went up by $90,299.
The longer the deficits last, the larger those numbers get. And all for what?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Flawed Small Car Argument
More ranting about CAFE standards. I was thinking about a concept in transportation planning called latent demand. It goes something like this. A city determines travel times are too much in their community. So they build new freeways, wider roads, that in the short term reduce travel times. But people then start to buy property in areas previously considered too far from the city center, and kaboom, their travel times are back up where they were, or often higher!
That's the flaw in the implicit assumption that forcing smaller cars on the public is the solution to our transportation energy needs. You don't have to look too far from your circle of friends to realize the person with a new fuel-sipping Honda is more likely to take a long road trip than one who takes a gas-guzzling old pickup.
I'm a tree-hugger, and I want to see true environmental change, but this is not the way. In the end, for true progress, we have to get past the cliched simplistic solutions, and a solution not based in government but societal change of less consumption.
That's the flaw in the implicit assumption that forcing smaller cars on the public is the solution to our transportation energy needs. You don't have to look too far from your circle of friends to realize the person with a new fuel-sipping Honda is more likely to take a long road trip than one who takes a gas-guzzling old pickup.
I'm a tree-hugger, and I want to see true environmental change, but this is not the way. In the end, for true progress, we have to get past the cliched simplistic solutions, and a solution not based in government but societal change of less consumption.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Wrong (and Right) Way to Fuel Efficiency
I've been thinking about fuel efficiency standards this evening. The intent is to force auto makers to make more fuel friendly cards. Every automaker essentially has to meet quotas for fuel efficient cars. Especially as the economy worsens, new CAFE standards will kill the auto makers. With fuel prices so low, there is little incentive for the average consumer to chose to buy fuel sippers. Suddenly, the already delicately positioned auto makers may be left with huge inventories of small vehicles that they will have to sell at small, if any, profit.
Environmental advocates will protest that there is a need to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. But really, even if we accept those goals, CAFE standards are the wrong way to go. They are the spineless politicians' way to avoid what is the truly effective solution - raise the cost of fuel! If fuel is more expensive, there is consumer demand for smaller cars (think a few months ago), and automakers will respond. This way, the government is not forcing them to make low-demand vehicles, but achieves the same result with a lot less economic pain.
Isn't it strange that politicians were complaining about high fuel prices and global warming at the same time?
Environmental advocates will protest that there is a need to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. But really, even if we accept those goals, CAFE standards are the wrong way to go. They are the spineless politicians' way to avoid what is the truly effective solution - raise the cost of fuel! If fuel is more expensive, there is consumer demand for smaller cars (think a few months ago), and automakers will respond. This way, the government is not forcing them to make low-demand vehicles, but achieves the same result with a lot less economic pain.
Isn't it strange that politicians were complaining about high fuel prices and global warming at the same time?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Geithner Must Go!
So there's been some red faces over the recent revelation that Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner did not pay his taxes from his IMF job from 2001 through 2004. After an IRS audit flagged his 2003 and 2004 returns, he paid the taxes for those years, but did not pay his overdue taxes for 2001-2002 until the Obama transition team pointed it out shortly before he was nominated.
President-elect Obama seems to be willing to call it an "innocent mistake", as do many in the press, but hold on! This isn't Rep. Charlie Rangel, who underpaid on his taxes. That was embarrassing because Rangel heads the committee that oversees the IRS. Geithner was working all those years and paid ZERO in taxes. That wasn't oversight, it was an attempt to defraud!! The alternate explanation is that he is pretty darned inept, which should rule him out as a custodian of our billions. Either way, this incident should disqualify him from becoming Treasury Secretary.
President-elect Obama seems to be willing to call it an "innocent mistake", as do many in the press, but hold on! This isn't Rep. Charlie Rangel, who underpaid on his taxes. That was embarrassing because Rangel heads the committee that oversees the IRS. Geithner was working all those years and paid ZERO in taxes. That wasn't oversight, it was an attempt to defraud!! The alternate explanation is that he is pretty darned inept, which should rule him out as a custodian of our billions. Either way, this incident should disqualify him from becoming Treasury Secretary.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Quote of the Day: Joe the Plumber
Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, the man in the spotlight during the third presidential debate had this to say to ABC News:
Here is the whole story.
You know, me or -- you know, Bill Gates, I don't care who you are. If you worked for it, if it was your idea, and you implemented it, it's not right for someone to decide you made too much."
Here is the whole story.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Zogby Poll Mechanics
If you are a politics buff like me, or get your news from the Drudge Report, you probably closely follow the Zogby tracking poll, along with other such polls (the Gallup is the one featured most often). But today I saw a sentence in your release that made me say Whoa!!
What are the magic words? Telephone tracking poll. News flash! Telephone tracking polls don't work! One, you only select voters with phones, bias the samples for people who stay at home during the day or answer the phone ... it's very poor science! And polling is a science!
In this season of statistics, I'd like to recommend one of the best books you can read. The 1954 classic, How to Lie with Statistics is a fantastic guide for the layperson on ways companies and politicians distort statistics to make their case. And no, you don't have to be math-savvy to understand the book! In fact, the telephone poll analysis was something I read in that book years ago.
The telephone tracking poll shows neither candidate with a clear advantage in the national horserace
What are the magic words? Telephone tracking poll. News flash! Telephone tracking polls don't work! One, you only select voters with phones, bias the samples for people who stay at home during the day or answer the phone ... it's very poor science! And polling is a science!
In this season of statistics, I'd like to recommend one of the best books you can read. The 1954 classic, How to Lie with Statistics is a fantastic guide for the layperson on ways companies and politicians distort statistics to make their case. And no, you don't have to be math-savvy to understand the book! In fact, the telephone poll analysis was something I read in that book years ago.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
An Obvious Conflict of Interest
I like Gwen Ifill. I think she's a sharp, smart journo, and I have felt that if CBS truly wanted to get a solid woman anchor, they should have picked her rather than Katie Couric. Having said that, I was shocked to learn of her latest conflict of interest when it comes to moderating the VP debates - she's writing a book on Obama to be released on inaugration day. That means an Obama victory could make a difference of a half million dollars or more!!
I don't think Ifill will be biased, but the appearance of conflict has potentially polluted what should be an interesting debate.
I don't think Ifill will be biased, but the appearance of conflict has potentially polluted what should be an interesting debate.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Villain of the Day: The SEC?
A lot has been made of John McCain's statement that SEC chairman Cox should be fired. I thought it was a silly demand - after all, a lot of what happened is not Cox's fault. Until I saw this, from the Maudlin newsletter:
Hmmm.
It is going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money. While I think the losses on AIG will be rather minor in the grand scheme of things, if you add up Fannie and Freddie and a new RTC, coupled with the stimulus package, you can easily get to $500 billion, and that is probably a low number. For such a price, we had better get a new regulatory scheme which requires reduced leverage. Want to get really mad? Up until 2003, all investment banks were allowed only 12 to 1 leverage. Then in 2004, the SEC basically gave five banks (and only five banks) the ability to lever up 30 or even 40 to 1. Bet you can guess the five banks. Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Morgan and Goldman. Three down.
Hmmm.
Friday, September 05, 2008
ANWR Oil Reserves
Some numbers to mull on ...
Mean estimate of ANWR Area 1002 Technically Recoverable Oil
7.7 billion barrels**
US proven oil reserves
21.8 billion barrels
**This estimate is only for the federally controlled area, and was done when oil was at $20/bl. Given that oil is more than 5 times that number, ANWR could have substantially larger oil reserves.
Mean estimate of ANWR Area 1002 Technically Recoverable Oil
7.7 billion barrels**
US proven oil reserves
21.8 billion barrels
**This estimate is only for the federally controlled area, and was done when oil was at $20/bl. Given that oil is more than 5 times that number, ANWR could have substantially larger oil reserves.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
RNC: Day Two Impressions
I only watched the RNC from about 9 or so. And I must say, it was quite a view. The one thing the GOP does better than the Dems is stay on schedule. Especially this year in a truncated convention where time was critical.
The video tribute to Michael Mansoor literally had me in tears. At a time of so much selfishness and cynicism, here was a young man who leaped on a grenade to protect his fellow soldiers. That, and the tribute to the veterans of different wars, set the evening in a really good way for me.
The Dems lost steam too often with breaks. Not the Republicans. Immediately after the tribute was what I thought was a pretty good speech by First Lady Laura Bush. There's something pretty awesome about her - she has so much grace and class! And she went to point out the stats the media have not bothered to point out - especially the highest ever minority performance on achievement tests, and what I think should be the legacy of the Bush administration - increasing the number of Africans receiving antiretrovirals from 50,000 to about 2 million.
President Bush was decent - he had a few good lines, but I don't know if it was the fact that he was speaking by satellite, or what, but he's been better at public speaking. But it was short, and kept the momentum going into the video tribute of Reagan.
The Reagan piece was ok. Seriously, how do you ever make a vid on Reagan and not include the famous "Tear Down these Walls" speech? But there were moments when it was touching.
Fred Thompson was the best speaker of the evening. Talk about knocking it out of the park. Best line was talking about hope ... the hope that McCain had as a POW, that is the true hope. His re-telling of the McCain story was incredibly moving, and for someone like me who has already heard it, I still found myself tearing up.
Joe Lieberman was decent, but entertaining if only because I was surprised how aggressive he was. I won't expect to see calls for his censure within his causus, but it truly motivated the folks at the convention center, and the base in general to see the former VP pick of the Dems come over.
Overall, I thought it was a pretty good night. I think the GOP candidates have less of a need to be specific since they are running on an experience platform. And their experiences have been of surviving torture, reforming government ... not how their candidate met his wife, and asked her out!!
I'm real excited about the Palin speech tonight. The more I see her old interviews, the more I like her. She's been viciously attacked by the jerks like the DailyKos and the far left, but that's a post for another time.
The video tribute to Michael Mansoor literally had me in tears. At a time of so much selfishness and cynicism, here was a young man who leaped on a grenade to protect his fellow soldiers. That, and the tribute to the veterans of different wars, set the evening in a really good way for me.
The Dems lost steam too often with breaks. Not the Republicans. Immediately after the tribute was what I thought was a pretty good speech by First Lady Laura Bush. There's something pretty awesome about her - she has so much grace and class! And she went to point out the stats the media have not bothered to point out - especially the highest ever minority performance on achievement tests, and what I think should be the legacy of the Bush administration - increasing the number of Africans receiving antiretrovirals from 50,000 to about 2 million.
President Bush was decent - he had a few good lines, but I don't know if it was the fact that he was speaking by satellite, or what, but he's been better at public speaking. But it was short, and kept the momentum going into the video tribute of Reagan.
The Reagan piece was ok. Seriously, how do you ever make a vid on Reagan and not include the famous "Tear Down these Walls" speech? But there were moments when it was touching.
Fred Thompson was the best speaker of the evening. Talk about knocking it out of the park. Best line was talking about hope ... the hope that McCain had as a POW, that is the true hope. His re-telling of the McCain story was incredibly moving, and for someone like me who has already heard it, I still found myself tearing up.
Joe Lieberman was decent, but entertaining if only because I was surprised how aggressive he was. I won't expect to see calls for his censure within his causus, but it truly motivated the folks at the convention center, and the base in general to see the former VP pick of the Dems come over.
Overall, I thought it was a pretty good night. I think the GOP candidates have less of a need to be specific since they are running on an experience platform. And their experiences have been of surviving torture, reforming government ... not how their candidate met his wife, and asked her out!!
I'm real excited about the Palin speech tonight. The more I see her old interviews, the more I like her. She's been viciously attacked by the jerks like the DailyKos and the far left, but that's a post for another time.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Require Women to be Paid As Much As Men?
John McCain opposed a law legislating equal pay for women as their male counterparts. Ditto Sarah Palin. What is with American conservatism? Is this an instance of GOP bigotry liberals love to complain about.
Women get paid less than men for a variety of reasons, and discrimination is an important, although not only, factor. Studies have routinely showed that women who demand raises, for example, are perceived in a less favorable light than male counterparts. And no unbiased observer can deny the existence of old-boy networks.
The challenge with legislating equal pay for equal work comes down to what constitutes equal work. The whole idea comes from a manufacturing age, when equal work simply could be construed to be equal number of hours, and job functions. However, the age we live in does not lend itself to such analysis.
As an environmental consultant, I make a lot more than some of my peers. And a lot less than some others. Is it because I'm brown? A foreigner? Good looking? Ugly? Or just plain because I'm smarter/dumber or more/less hard-working than my peers? How is a law going to distinguish discrimination from true performance-based pay?
Women get paid less than men for a variety of reasons, and discrimination is an important, although not only, factor. Studies have routinely showed that women who demand raises, for example, are perceived in a less favorable light than male counterparts. And no unbiased observer can deny the existence of old-boy networks.
The challenge with legislating equal pay for equal work comes down to what constitutes equal work. The whole idea comes from a manufacturing age, when equal work simply could be construed to be equal number of hours, and job functions. However, the age we live in does not lend itself to such analysis.
As an environmental consultant, I make a lot more than some of my peers. And a lot less than some others. Is it because I'm brown? A foreigner? Good looking? Ugly? Or just plain because I'm smarter/dumber or more/less hard-working than my peers? How is a law going to distinguish discrimination from true performance-based pay?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)