February 7, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

Earlier today I accused Mankiw of making a mistake–he didn’t.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

February 7, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

What’s really more important to Senator Clinton, her own political ambitions or the welfare of the uninsured and distressed borrowers? She claims to want to aid distressed borrowers and the uninsured in America, but she loaned her political campaign $5,000,000 instead of pledging it to others. $5,000,000 can finance thousands of insurance policies and/or aid thousands of borrowers until they get back on their feet. She’s chosen to help herself first. She wants to use her money to help herself, but she wants to use your money to help others. Mrs. Clinton may be privately using millions of her own funds to aid these people, but I won’t believe it until someone can produce the evidence.

Please don’t tell me she is best working for these unfortunate people by pledging money to her campaign, since that will help to ensure her presidency and public policies come to fruition. Private organizations and people are free to act on her advice with their own money, and without government coercion. If these uninsured people and distressed borrowers are really her primary concerns, than she should put her money where her mouth is.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

February 7, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

Here’s a good article. It begins:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton has vowed throughout her presidential campaign to raise taxes on the richest Americans, but now the New York senator says she will postpone the tax hikes until the economy recovers.

Clinton’s temporary retreat from her long-sought plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers is surprising in and of itself. That she is basing her decision on the belief that higher income tax rates would further undermine a weakening economy is an unexpected bow to pro-growth, supply-side economics and the underlying rationale for President Bush’s across-the-board tax cuts.

It’s worth reading it all–short article.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

February 7, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

I hope this statement on Mankiw’s blog today was a result of him writing too fast. He says:

You can’t compare $1 in 2001 to $1 in 2009, for two reasons. Inflation has made the $1 in 2001 worth less than the $1 in 2009. 

It would be the other way around. The $1 in 2009 would be worth less than the $1 in 2001. Inflation would imply a fall in the value of our currency–a dollar today would be worth more than dollars in the future.

Posted in General post | 3 Comments »

February 7, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

Hillary Clinton has a plan for everything–all of them government centered. Her health care mandate plan is the worst. The WSJ writes today on this plan:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most policy issues, but that makes their rare differences all the more revealing. To wit, their running scrap over Mrs. Clinton’s “individual mandate” for health care, which Mr. Obama has now had the nerve to expose for its inevitable government coercion.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal requires everyone to buy health insurance, along with more insurance regulation, a government insurance option for everyone and tax hikes. Mr. Obama likes all that but his mandate would only apply to children. He argues that the reason many people aren’t insured is because it’s too expensive, not because they don’t want it. Mrs. Clinton counters that coverage can’t be “universal” without a mandate.

But then Mr. Obama had the impudence to defend his views. His campaign distributed a mailer in key primary states that claimed the Clinton plan “forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it.” It also featured an image of an anxious couple at a kitchen table. The Clinton apparat went apoplectic, claiming the flyer evokes the famous “Harry and Louise” commercials. A common article of liberal faith is that this “smear campaign” doomed HillaryCare in 1994 — as opposed to, say, its huge cost and complexities. But never mind.

Yet if Mrs. Clinton’s plan is better because it has a mandate, how does it work in the real world, where some people still won’t be able to afford insurance, or would decline to acquire it? At a recent debate, the Illinois Senator drove the point home, asking Mrs. Clinton, “You can mandate it but there will still be people who can’t afford it. And if they can’t afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?” And in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that “we will have an enforcement mechanism” that might include “you know, going after people’s wages.”

Well, well. In other words, HillaryCare II isn’t all about “choice,” but would require financial penalties for people to pay attention, including garnishing wages. To put it more accurately, the individual mandate is really a government mandate that requires brute force plus huge subsidies to get anywhere near its goal of universal coverage.

…

The logic of Mr. Obama’s approach is that policy makers should target those who are priced out of coverage. The Census Bureau says 38% of the uninsured earned more than $50,000 in 2006, 19% above $75,000. They aren’t a major public policy problem — except that a big reason they lack coverage is because it is more expensive than it needs to be thanks to government market interference. And 29% earn under $25,000, which means they probably qualify for existing subsidy programs like Medicaid or Schip but haven’t enrolled.

Posted in General post | 3 Comments »

February 7, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

Good letter today in the WSJ from John Tillman, which reads:

Let’s see if I understand this correctly. Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack vetoed an eminent-domain reform bill because it would “harm the economy” (”Eminent Reality,” Review & Outlook, Jan. 30). So, the government should be allowed to take one person’s property and give it to another for the good of the economy? But when people advocate lowering the tax and regulatory burden for businesses and taxpayers, which also harm the economy, Mr. Vilsack and his fellow tax, spend and regulate brethren are always opposed. So it isn’t really about the economy, it’s about who has the power, who wants to keep it and whose rights are trampled in the process. Be disgusted — and respond accordingly when Mr. Vilsack and his ilk come calling for your vote.

Posted in General post | No Comments »