Debating Health Care Reform at Colby College

Last month, I debated the direction America should take in reforming its health care sector with Prof. Hugh Waters of Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.  We squared off in front of students and faculty at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, under the auspices of the college’s Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement.  Those interested can find more information here or listen to the debate here.

Discussing Taxes & Health Care with the Federalist Society

Earlier this month, I spoke at a Federalist Society event on a panel titled, “Health Care: How Our Tax Laws Affect How Health Care is Paid for and Delivered,” with Bob Helms of the American Enterprise Institute and Prof. Amy Monahan of the University of Missouri-Columbia.  (Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania was scheduled to speak, but had to cancel.)  For the most part, I plugged my Large HSAs proposal.  Those interested can watch or listen to the forum online.

‘The Democrats’ Dangerous Trade Games’

Listening to the Democrats talk about trade on the campaign trail and in Congress, you might conclude that the party is monolithically skeptical about the merits of new trade agreements.

As they campaigned in Ohio and elsewhere, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tripped over themselves in competing to see who could denounce NAFTA and other trade initiatives in the harshest terms. Meanwhile, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi re-wrote established rules on handling proposed trade agreements by shelving the agreement the Bush administration signed with our South American ally Colombia.

In a welcome dissent in this morning’s Wall Street Journal, C. Fred Bergsten, founder and director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, sounds a warning against “The Democrats’ Dangerous Trade Games.”

Bergsten has long-standing ties to the Democratic side of the aisle, having served in Jimmy Carter’s administration as assistant secretary for international affairs at the U.S. Treasury during 1977–81.

Bergsten pulls no punches in his op-ed this morning:

[O]ur venerable House of Representatives, in the context of the Colombia agreement, has recklessly changed the rules for congressional action on trade legislation. By rejecting long-settled procedures that prevented congressional sidetracking of trade deals negotiated by presidents, the House has hamstrung U.S. trade policy and created the gravest threat to the global trading system in decades.

By effectively killing “fast track” procedures that guarantee a yes-or-no vote on trade agreements within 90 days, lawmakers in Washington, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have destroyed the credibility of the U.S. as a reliable negotiating partner.

The op-ed is well worth a read, especially among Democrats who are feeling uneasy about the direction of their party on trade.

A David Brooks Two-fer!

David BrooksCouple of notes on recent David Brooks-related program activities. First, he calls the small-government wing of the conservative movement un-American. No, honestly, he does:

At the end of [1995], when the radical conservatives in the Gingrich Congress shut down the federal government, they learned that the American public was genuinely attached to the modern state. “An anti-government philosophy turned out to be politically unpopular and fundamentally un-American,” Brooks said. “People want something melioristic, they want government to do things.”

Then, in today’s column for the Times, Brooks points out how screwed up the legislative process is, a function of myriad rent-seekers, lobbyists and special interests. His foil? The farm bill:

Interest groups turn every judicial fight into an ideological war. They lobby for more spending on the elderly, even though the country is trillions of dollars short of being able to live up to its promises. They’ve turned environmental concern into subsidies for corn growers and energy concerns into subsidies for oil companies.

The $307 billion farm bill that rolled through Congress is a perfect example of the pattern. Farm net income is up 56 percent over the past two years, yet the farm bill plows subsidies into agribusinesses, thoroughbred breeders and the rest.

The growers of nearly every crop will get more money. Farmers in the top 1 percent of earners qualify for federal payments. Under the legislation, the government will buy sugar for roughly twice the world price and then resell it at an 80 percent loss. Parts of the bill that would have protected wetlands and wildlife habitat were deleted or shrunk.

My colleagues on The Times’s editorial page called the bill “disgraceful.” My former colleagues at The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page ripped it as a “scam.” Yet such is the logic of collective action; the bill is certain to become law. It passed with 81 votes in the Senate and 318 in the House — enough to override President Bush’s coming veto. Nearly everyone in Congress got something.

Funny thing, though: I bet I can think of a much, much better example of what Brooks is driving at here. After all, at least there was broad elite consensus that the farm bill was depraved. But where could we find an example of a legislative product where literally all interests are tied up in rent-seeking and resource extraction? Ah, right:

In current national security politics, there is debate, but all the interests are on one side. Both parties see political reward in preaching danger. The massive U.S. national security establishment relies on a sense of threat to stay in business. On the other side, as former defense secretary Les Aspin once wrote, there is no other side. No one alarms us about alarmism. Hitler and Stalin destroyed America’s isolationist tradition. Everyone likes lower taxes, but not enough to organize interest groups against defense spending. A scattering of libertarians and anti-war liberals confronts a bipartisan juggernaut. The information about national security threats comes to Americans principally from people driven by organizational or electoral incentives toward threat inflation.

Physician, heal thyself. Yet more evidence the that contemporary Right offers nothing of value to libertarians.

Lieberman: Censor

The Google Public Policy blog has a write up of the company’s recent interactions with Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and his staff regarding some videos hosted on YouTube.

Senator Lieberman thinks that certain terrorism videos shouldn’t be displayed. Well, actually, a U.S. Senator has no business telling anyone what information should or shouldn’t be published. Congress can pass a law on the subject, which law would never pass First Amendment muster.

Perhaps Senator Lieberman thinks that censoring communications is some kind of anti-terrorism policy. Advocacy of terrorism of glorification of terrorist acts is stupid and dastardly, but the cure for bad speech is more speech or better speech, not censorship.

Peer-to-Patent

Here’s a video highlighting the Peer-to-Patent project originated by Beth Noveck and New York Law School’s “Do Tank.”

Whether because of inappropriately low standards for granting patents or recent decades’ outburst of inventiveness in technological fields, the Patent and Trademark Office is swamped. Patent examiners lack the breadth of knowledge in relevant fields to do the job they should be doing on each patent application. Drawing on the knowledge of interested and knowledgeable people can only improve the process, and this project aims to do just that.

I’ve written favorably about Peer-to-Patent at TechLiberationFront a couple of times, but here’s a cautionary note: A successful Peer-to-Patent program would result in a dispersion of power from patent examiners and the USPTO to the participants in the project. Surface support from the USPTO notwithstanding, the application of public choice theory to bureaucracies (by Cato’s own Bill Niskanen) tells us that the agency won’t give up this power without a fight.