Tag: Barack Obama

55% Duties on Chinese Tires Would Be Plain Stupid in Every Respect

Last month, I posted about the upcoming decision confronting President Obama on the question of whether or not he should impose trade restrictions (55% duties) on passenger tires from China, as recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

I am in the process of finishing a short paper on the issue, explaining why doing so would be disastrous for the economy and foreign relations, but am taking a break to share this brilliant op-ed that appeared in today’s Detroit News. Ross Kogel, Jr., president of Tire Wholesalers, really hits the nail on the head, articulately and succinctly, explaining that there is no upside, only misery, in the proposed tariffs.

Michigan could sure use several more Ross Kogel and far fewer of the business-as-usual pols and union leaders who have run the state into the abyss.

Mandate for Taxes?

The New York Times reports that House Democrats want to raise money for health care with a $550 billion tax hike on people who produce the most wealth. The Times says,

the proposal is perhaps the clearest expression yet of the mandate that Democrats believe they won last November, when voters expanded Democratic majorities in Congress and sent Barack Obama to the White House.

If Democrats think they won a mandate for huge tax increases – without talking about them – then 2010 ought to be fun.

Yet Another Imperial Outpost in Pakistan

Visit an American embassy almost anywhere in the world and it is likely to be a large, hulking, ugly fortress.  Both size and security are dictated by the U.S. government’s seeming attempt to be dictatress of the world.  Following the biblical principle that God is aware whenever a sparrow falls to earth, Washington wants to be consulted whenever a country adjusts a local education ordinance.

Very often the U.S. government keeps busy propping up unpopular regimes and intervening in internal political disputes.  As a result, Americans are targeted by demonstrators and terrorists alike.  Our embassies need to be large to accommodate all of the officials who are busy micro-managing the local society and fortified to protect those same officials.

The result isn’t particularly good for America’s image.  And it is expensive. 

Consider the taxpayer tab for new and expanded facilities in Pakistan.  Reports the Christian Science Monitor:

The US is embarking on a $1 billion crash program to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, another sign that the Obama administration is making a costly, long-term commitment to war-torn South Asia, US officials said Wednesday.

The White House has asked Congress for – and seems likely to receive – $736 million to build a new US embassy in Islamabad, along with permanent housing for US government civilians and new office space in the Pakistani capital.

The scale of the projects rivals the giant US Embassy in Baghdad, which was completed last year after construction delays at a cost of $740 million.

Senior State Department officials said the expanded diplomatic presence is needed to replace overcrowded, dilapidated and unsafe facilities and to support a “surge” of civilian officials into Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Other major projects are planned for Kabul, Afghanistan; and for the Pakistani cities of Lahore and Peshawar. In Peshawar, the US government is negotiating the purchase of a five-star hotel that would house a new US consulate.

U.S. policy towards Pakistan has been roughly 60 years of incompetence, mistakes, bad judgment, ignorance, inadequate moral conscience, wasted aid, counterproductive actions, and utter failure.  But Washington continues to try to fix Pakistan.  It seems like time for U.S. officials to learn from their experience.

Civil Liberties and President Barack W. Bush?

It’s fair to say that civil liberties and limited government were not high on President George W. Bush’s priorities list.  Indeed, they probably weren’t even on the list.  Candidate Barack Obama promised “change” when he took office, and change we have gotten.  The name of the president is different.

Alas, the policies are much the same.  While it is true that President Obama has not made the same claims of unreviewable monarchical power for the chief executive–an important distinction–he has continued to sacrifice civil liberties for dubious security gains.

Reports the New York Times:

Civil libertarians recently accused President Obama of acting like former President George W. Bush, citing reports about Mr. Obama’s plans to detain terrorism suspects without trials on domestic soil after he closes the Guantánamo prison.

It was only the latest instance in which critics have argued that Mr. Obama has failed to live up to his campaign pledge “to restore our Constitution and the rule of law” and raised a pointed question: Has he, on issues related to fighting terrorism, turned out to be little different from his predecessor?

The answer depends on what it means to act like Mr. Bush.

As they move toward completing a review of their options for dealing with the detainees, Obama administration officials insist that there is a fundamental difference between Mr. Bush’s approach and theirs. While Mr. Bush claimed to wield sweeping powers as commander in chief that allowed him to bypass legal constraints when fighting terrorism, they say, Mr. Obama respects checks and balances by relying on — and obeying — Congressional statutes.

“While the administration is considering a series of options, a range of options, none relies on legal theories that we have the inherent authority to detain people,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said this week in response to questions about the preventive detention report. “And this will not be pursued in that manner.”

But Mr. Obama’s critics say that whether statutory authorization exists for his counterterrorism policies is just a legalistic point. The core problem with Mr. Bush’s approach, they argue, was that it trammeled individual rights. And they say Mr. Obama’s policies have not changed that.

“President Obama may mouth very different rhetoric,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “He may have a more complicated process with members of Congress. But in the end, there is no substantive break from the policies of the Bush administration.”

The primary beneficiaries of constitutional liberties are not terrorist suspects, but the rest of us.  The necessary trade-offs are not always easy, but the president and legislators must never forget that it is a free society they are supposed to be defending.

Spinning…When a President who Seeks Dictatorial Powers in an Illegal Move Is Removed by the Congress and by the Supreme Court, Is it a “Military Coup”?

The media discussion of events in Honduras is remarkably confused. Here’s CNN:

The president of the U.N. General Assembly scheduled a noon session Monday to discuss the situation in Honduras, following a military-led coup that ousted the sitting president.


Micheletti, the head of Congress, became president after lawmakers voted by a show of hands to strip Zelaya of his powers, with a resolution stating that Zelaya “provoked confrontations and divisions” within the country.


The coup came on the same day that he had vowed to follow through with a nonbinding referendum that the Honduran Supreme Court had ruled illegal.

Imagine that George Bush, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or some other American president had decided to overturn the Constitution so that he could stay in power beyond the constitutionally limited time. To do that, he orders a nationwide referendum that is not constitutionally authorized and blatantly illegal. The Federal Election Commission rules that it is illegal. The Supreme Court rules that it is illegal. The Congress votes to strip the president of his powers and, as members of Congress are not that good at overcoming the president’s personally loyal and handpicked bodyguards, they send police and military to arrest the president. Now, which party is guilty of leading a coup?

This is another example of populist, dictatorial, anti-democratic thought parading as “democratic.” I discuss the issue in my recent lecture on enduring democracy in New Delhi.

The Ultimate Question: Freedom or Power?

Here I was, sick with worry that the questions I hoped to pose to President Obama about his health reform plan would never be answered.  Thank God, Matthew Holt stepped up to the plate.  Or the wicket.  Whatever.

What follows are some of my questions (addressed to the president) and Holt’s responses (in italics).

Mr. President, in your inaugural address and elsewhere, you said you are not interested in ideology, only what works. Economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, where you used to teach, have researched what works. They conclude there is “no evidence” that universal health insurance coverage is the best way to improve public health. Before enacting universal coverage, shouldn’t you spend at least some of the $1 billion you dedicated to comparative-effectiveness research to determine whether universal coverage is comparatively effective? Absent such evidence, isn’t pursuing universal coverage by definition an ideological crusade?

Sadly Michael, universal coverage is not about improving public health. If you want to do that, go teach some kids age 1–5 and build some sewage systems. Universal care is about making sure that the costs of health care are fairly distributed. Under the systems you prefer and the one we now have they’re distributed from the poor and sick to the healthy and wealthy—many of whom we both know work in the health care system. But apparently there was NOT ONE MENTION of the uninsured or sick people bankrupted by the system in the whole hour.

Holt’s categorization of my preferred health care “system” and the un-mentioned uninsured aside, he makes my point for me: universal coverage is about ideology, not health.  In fact, Holt demonstrates that the Church of Universal Coverage would be happy to have people die sooner if that would promote its ideo-religious goals.  I really should send him a fruit basket.

A draft congressional report said that comparative-effectiveness research would “yield significant payoffs” because some treatments “will no longer be prescribed.” Who will decide which treatments will get the axe? Since government pays for half of all treatments, is it plausible to suggest that government will not insert itself into medical decisions? Or is it reasonable for patients to fear that government will deny them care?

Why should patients fear it? We know that less intensive care is better, and cheaper primary care is better than more extensive specialty care.

So the government will insert itself into medical decisions.  Gotcha.  Holt is really clearing a lot of things up.

To answer his question, though, the concern is that one size really doesn’t fit all, and that the government’s rules will, shall we say, break my eggs to make his universal-coverage omelette.

You recently said the United States spends “almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet … the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren’t any healthier.” Achieving universal coverage could require us to spend an additional $2 trillion over the next 10 years. If America already spends too much on health care, why are you asking Americans to spend even more?

Ah we agree. All the money should come from the current system, even if it means reducing the incomes of pundits, bloggers and those who sponsor them, and a few people in the system. Sadly the politics of the US means that apparently Obama can’t say that.

So nice when we can agree.  Now if only there were some way to deny incumbent producers the power to block more efficient ways of doing things … to block “progress,” if you will … hmmmmm

You found $600 billion worth of inefficiencies that you want to cut from Medicare and Medicaid. If government health programs generate that much waste, why do you want to create another?

You’re saying all government programs are the same? That means the US Marine Corps and the Iraqi volunteer EDF (or whatever it’s called) are the same. I could start a government program that saved $600b very easily in Medicare & Medicaid. I might make a few enemies.

Holt is right.  A new program might waste a lot less.  (Or a lot more.)  But the best part of his answer is that leftist impulse: “I could design a better social order if we could just get rid of that whole constitutional democracy thing.”

You and your advisors argue that Medicare creates misaligned financial incentives that discourage preventive care, comparative-effectiveness research, electronic medical records, and efforts to reduce medical errors. Medicare’s payment system is the product of the political process. What gives you faith that the political process can devise less-perverse financial incentives this time?

See my above answer, oh and abolish the Senate.

I refer my right, honorable friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

You have said there are “legitimate concerns” that the government might give its new health plan an unfair advantage through taxpayer subsidies or by “printing money.” How do you propose to prevent this Congress and future Congresses from creating any unfair advantages?

I don’t know but I’ll make a deal. I’ll promise my health plan won’t have use an unfair advantage if you promise that AHIP’s members will stop lobbying Congress to rip-off the taxpayer.

Again, so helpful of Holt to acknowledge that the playing field between government and private insurers could never be level.

And to keep the insurance industry from ripping off the taxpayers, it seems we will have to give up either (1) the freedom of speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, or (2) the power that government currently wields over our health care sector and that the insurance companies’ lobbyists so often bend to their will.

Which brings me to Holt’s byline:

Matthew Holt is a vicious blogger who wouldn’t mind being President for a day or two but not without the ability to break Congress to his will in the first ten minutes.

Doesn’t sound like he would choose freedom over power.

Trouble in Obamaland

The Washington Post reports on a recent survey:

The poll found little change in underlying public attitudes toward government since the inauguration, with slightly more than half saying they prefer a smaller government with fewer services to a larger government with more services. Independents, however, now split 61 to 35 percent in favor of a smaller government; they were more narrowly divided on this question a year ago (52 to 44 percent), before the financial crisis hit.

The Obama team probably assumes people who identify as Republicans will disapprove of  Obama’s actions sooner rather than later. Independents, however, are crucial to keeping up his public approval and thereby getting what he wants out of Congress.  On the size of government — as well as on many specific policy issues — Obama is now running counter to public opinion.

This may be the beginning of the end of the beginning.