Politics - DeHavenator response to Obama's speech

I watched Obama's speech last night. I'm not sure why, it was on and I couldn't look away, not like a train wreck, but more like a Globetrotters vs Generals basketball game where you knew the outcome but watched for the entertainment value, the skill and, at the same time, silliness of it all. Obama, in the speech realm, is a Globetrotter while all others and merely Generals. However, being able to do some fancy tricks doesn't make you a world class basketball player.

Hailing his stimulus bill, he is pressing forward to spend big money in three areas: alternative, clean energy, education, and health care. Let's take them one at a time.

If we are to spend big money in an effort to stimulate the economy, there is perhaps no better avenue than alternative energy. The main reason is that progress in this industry could create a much better environment for our businesses (did you think I was going on a green rant?). Long-term, it would be highly beneficial if we could produce our own energy, it's a matter of national security in some ways. I do have a green slant when it comes to environmental politics, so that this could help that environment is a bonus perk for me. Another great reason to invest here is the economics of the matter. Investing and producing alternative energy is not yet very profitable, the natural economic incentive to produce it is lacking. Yet, for our future, everyone (rich and poor) would likely be better off it we began doing so a little more quickly than the natural process would permit. There are certain things, such as roads, that one person or one group would not want to pay for because everyone gets equal benefit, so why should they bear all the costs? The government, unfortunately, must handle these areas. I think alternative energy is currently in this stage but will someday be profitable. At that time, government would need to get out. So, I support Obama in this area, but just one word of cautions. Please do not ignore nuclear power. Our ability to harness nuclear power could be our most likely path of success.

I should let my wife go on the education rant, but I've listened to her (except when a game is on) and I've learned some things. First, let's talk about k-12. The US spends more per capita on k-12 education than any other country, yet we perform poorly here. Throwing more money at the problem will not help. The issue with public education is not funding, it is its rules and focus. Often, administrators do not support teachers and will give in to parents and students demands. Leaving teachers powerless in their own class rooms is a growing problem. The other, particularly in early education, is the lack of focus on the basics. The three r's should be drilled home relentlessly to build the foundation for all other learning. Instead, our young children must memorize historical facts and scientific principles and learn the arts. These things are good in time, but the basics must be mastered first. Consider public versus private school teachers. Public teachers make more money and receive better benefits, but private schools have no trouble finding good teachers because of the superior working environment they offer. Private schools have the freedom to support their teachers and not act in a manner that suggests the parents and the students have all the rights and the school must acquiesce to them. Also, the school has the ability to set their own curriculum and not follow some bureauctratic plan written by men and women in Washington who are removed from the classrooms. Empower teachers and you will see more improvement than by giving them more money to toe the government line. As for increasing assistance for college education, I have mixed feelings about that and am willing to support a reasonable increase.

The final and most complicated subject is health care. Health care costs are certainly out of control. The question, however, is how to decrease the costs to perform medical services not to decrease the cost to the individual. The US could simply agree to pay half of everyone's medical expenses, co-pay and all, and that would lower the individual's cost. It would balloon our debt even more of course. So, that's not the source problem. The question is has the cost to perform an x-ray skyrocketed? If so, why and is there anything that can be done? Obama mentioned improving some efficiency issues and that could help, but I am not optimistic the actual costs can be substantially reduced. Medical liability costs are enormous because of our ability to sue for any wrong doing and for any punitive amount. Perhaps limiting the punitive damages could reduce the medical liability insurance medical providers pay and thus lower the costs. Obama, however, would not want to offend his lawyer constituency, so I doubt we'll hear much about that. It would probably only nibble into the problem anyway. I wonder at the source of rising costs. Is it that we now go to the doctor for every minor concern? Is it that we have found better treatments but they are more expensive? This issue requires an honest investigation instead of assuming that the problem can be solved by paying the citizens bills for them.

On a final note, and here is where I thought he became a laughable politician, Obama spoke of cutting into the deficit. After all the talk of spending and our gloomy economy, Obama said he would reduce our deficit. How? He would do so by getting out of Iraq (that's a good start) and by raising the taxes our businesses and wealthy, the producers (that's a bad finish). Again, there is no evidence that increasing that tax bracket will increase revenue, and even if it did it couldn't make a dent in that massive spending he has completed and is proposing. People will chose to cheat/avoid taxes as they are raised to levels they find excessive and they will decide not to expand/create businesses. The second part of that is worrisome. Raising taxes in the midst of a severe economic downturn is very risky. If a business owner has to pay $40,000 more in taxes and his profits are decreasing because of a sluggish economy, will he simply say, "Oh, well". No, he will act, most likely by reducing employee wages or cutting jobs entirely. So, when Obama says that he will raise taxes on the wealthy, but reduce our (middle class) taxes he is telling you the truth. What he is not saying is that by doing so, he may be cutting your job. Hey, at least then you really won't be paying any taxes! No matter how much a socialist might want to change it, the producers hold the keys to our economy, not the laborers. That's how it should and must be. Who would you prefer steering our economy, Bill Gates, his maintenance staff that works for him, or, even worse, the government?

Stat of the day - according to Obama's own numbers, each job created/saved by the stimulus will cost the American taxpayers about $200,000.

Quote of the day (Jindal) - "Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did."