For weeks now I’ve been hearing the talking points from the left calling those expressing dissent of the current health care legislation anti-American, paid GOP operatives, insurance industry paid operatives… and really anything other than dissenter.

First, I haven’t really commented on this because it’s stupid.  This party just a few short years ago told the American people that dissent was the highest form of American civil duty and calling people “un-American” for disagreeing with you was far, far below the belt.

Of course there was actually no concerted campaign to call dissenters un-American at that time, just a straw man they burnt fairly easily, but that’s really a different story.

For now – it should be obvious that the WH & Congressional Democrat leaders are working on a strategy to marginalize the opposition and doing so pretty effectively with the use of the media and the bully pulpit the President naturally has at his disposal.

What’s more than a little amusing is at the same time the Obama administration and leading Democrat figures are calling all dissenters paid operatives, they are currently seeking paid operatives right now through Craig’s list and what’s amusing is that if the insurance industry or GOP were using the same vehicle, searching for Obama would bring up their results as well.  For the Sacramento area:

Aug 11 – *Help CURE the Health Care Crisis & MAKE MONEY* $9-$13/hr, FT* - (East Sacramento) img <<nonprofit

Aug 7 – Make social change – Help Pass Obama’s Health Care Reform!!! - (Sacramento) img <<et cetera

Aug 4 – Help pass Obama’s Health Care Reform!!! Earn $9-14 an hour!!! - (Sacramento) img <<et cetera

Aug 3 – ***Help Pass Obama’s Health Care Plan and Earn $325-$500/Week - (Sacramento, CA) img <<nonprofit

Jul 31 – Help Pass Obama’s Health Care Reform! Earn $325-550 per week! - (Sacramento) img <<et cetera

Jul 29 – Work to Pass Obama’s Plans this Summer! Earn $9-14/hr! - (Sacramento) img <<et cetera

Jul 28 – Build Support for Obama’s Plans!!! Earn $325-550 a Week! - (Sacramento) img <<nonprofit

Jul 27 – HELP PASS OBAMA’S PLANS AND EARN $325-550 A WEEK!!! - (Berkeley) img <<nonprofit

Jul 27 – HELP PASS OBAMA’S PLANS AND EARN $325-550 A WEEK!!! - (Sacramento) img <<et cetera

Jul 23 – HELP PASS OBAMA’S PLAN TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING! EARN $9-14/HOUR!!! - (Sacramento) img <<et cetera

Jul 21 – BUILD PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR OBAMA’S PLAN & EARN $9-14 AN HOUR!!! - (Sacramento) img <<nonprofit

Jul 15 – Make $350-550 per Week Working for OBAMA’s PROGRESSIVE AGENDA!!! - (Sacramento) img <<nonprofit

Jul 14 – SUMMER CAMPAIGN STAFF POSITIONS AVAILABLE!!! EARN $350-550 A WEEK! - (Sacramento) img <<et cetera

Of course the Republicans are now much more pro-dissent then they were 4 years ago, but in this particular case, the hypocrisy is easier to see on the Democrat’s side.

What a difference a few short years makes…

One of the main issues with socializing large chunks of any part of society is the perversion of incentives.

When the government gets involved in more and more social control through the legislation, the incentives towards rational behavior changes.

For instance, when Fannie & Freddie, quasi-government agencies, bought up bad loans without proper auditing controls, the banking system went from ensuring secure loans for their investors to pushing loan origination fees and pushing the risk to Fannie & Freddie.

In the end of course, due to corrupt business leaders & reckless consumers gaming the system combined with Fannie & Freddie continuing their bad practices, a larger portion of the economy suffered as a result.

But using game theory and basic human behavior it is almost expected.  Indeed, lots of prominent economists, politicians, statisticians, and many others told us we were heading to exactly where we are.

The reason is the government changed the game by making owning a home a perceived no risk situation.  This had one major affect: it increased demand artificially.

By artificially lowering the costs, you in turn artificially increase the demand causing artificial shortages causing an increase in prices & so on…until something gives.

Whether increasing demand for homes or for medical services through universal health care, the results are bound to end up the same.

For example, France is having severe issues on the amount of money health care is costing them (see here):

…In recent months, France imposed American-style “co-pays” on patients to try to throttle back prescription-drug costs and forced state hospitals to crack down on expenses. “A hospital doesn’t need to be money-losing to provide good-quality treatment,” President Nicolas Sarkozy thundered in a recent speech to doctors.

And service cuts — such as the closure of a maternity ward near Ms. Cuccarolo’s home — are prompting complaints from patients, doctors and nurses that care is being rationed…

Of course as we know, all health care is rationed, but here in France, Ms. Cuccarolo had issues with having a hospital capable of delivering a baby close by:

When Laure Cuccarolo went into early labor on a recent Sunday night in a village in southern France, her only choice was to ask the local fire brigade to whisk her to a hospital 30 miles away. A closer one had been shuttered by cost cuts in France’s universal health system.

An issue America doesn’t currently have as we don’t tend to close hospitals at all.

The reason they are missing access to the care they need is because the costs have gotten out of control.  The reason costs are out of control is because the government changed fundamental market incentives by artificially increasing demand.  Since it continues to artificially increase demand, these problems will continue forward and continue to get worse.

As Cato noted in one of it’s recent policy analysis papers (see here):

…Supporters [of Universal Health Care] claim that a new government program could deliver higher-quality health care at a lower cost than private insurance, and that competition from a government program would force private insurers to improve.

A full accounting shows that government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance. The central problem with proposals to create a new government program, however, is not that government is less efficient than private insurers, but that government can hide its inefficiencies and draw consumers away from private insurance, despite offering an inferior product….

This fundamental perversion of normal market conditions, leads not only to scarcity problems, but also to a system whose costs will continue to unnecessarily rise faster over time.

So whether we see this played out in the housing boom/bust, see it playing out in health care in France, or see it play out here if we go down this road, the results will likely be the same.

First, when writing about such a controversial topic, I will start with a disclaimer.   True child predators should not be allowed out of prison ever.  To me, the rape of a child, is the same basic act as destroying that child’s life.  Therefore, the punishment should fit the crime.

Having said that, as with most things happening around the world today, potential solutions like Meghan’s Law have gone further than needed.  Which might be ok, as over doing it isn’t necessarily wrong in all cases, but in this case, we’ve overdone it to the point that Meghan’s Law isn’t useful for the average citizen.

In an article titled, America’s unjust sex laws published in the Economist, they try to tackle this very question: Is Meghan’s Law and other similar laws working as intended.

For background, several years ago victims’ rights groups and other lobbyists started pushing for Meghan’s Law:

…In their grief, the parents started a petition, demanding that families should be told if a sexual predator moves nearby. Hundreds of thousands signed it. In no time at all, lawmakers in New Jersey granted their wish. And before long, “Megan’s laws” had spread to every American state..

Which means anyone labeled as a sex offender:

…this means that their names, photographs and addresses are published online, so that fearful parents can check whether a child-molester lives nearby. Under the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, another law named after a murdered child, all states will soon be obliged to make their sex-offender registries public. Such rules are extremely popular….

So what is at issue?

…In fact its sex-offender laws have grown self-defeatingly harsh (see article). They have been driven by a ratchet effect. Individual American politicians have great latitude to propose new laws. Stricter curbs on paedophiles win votes….

How do we know?

…In all, 674,000 Americans are on sex-offender registries—more than the population of Vermont, North Dakota or Wyoming. The number keeps growing partly because in several states registration is for life and partly because registries are not confined to the sort of murderer who ensnared Megan Kanka. According to Human Rights Watch, at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of “distributing child pornography” to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends….

What does all this mean?

Well, first it means that the information itself is worthless.  If I look up online right now the sex offenders within my zip code (which is possible in my jurisdiction) I honestly don’t know if the old guy is married to the person he supposedly raped in high school due to solely statutory  reasons, or if he kidnapped and raped a 12 year old girl.

One should worry me, the other not so much.

The second problem is with the court system itself.  With a hypothetical that has been used in the past, let’s say someone is being prosecuted for a sex crime and they are innocent.  During the trial, the prosecutor knows it’s not going well.  But all isn’t lost.  with the new potential punishment, innocent defendants can be put in a position of facing either:

a) please guilty, a low amount of jail time or

b) take your chances and possibly be known as a sex offender for life and long jail terms

Not much of a choice at all, especially if you are innocent.

Please don’t get me wrong here.  I think cops and prosecutors try to do the right thing as they see it most of the time for most of the people.

But allowing the less than stellar prosecutors and cops (who do exist, like in any other profession) to be able to hold something so sinister as a lifetime of scorn, while padding their win record is beyond the pale.

Of course, like health care, cash for clunkers, and any other government law, so long as voters are willing to listen to only slogans and work just to see their side win, rational debate will not exist and hundreds of thousands will be punished unnecessarily.

It’s strange for a veteran such as myself to start believing that this country isn’t interested in real freedom anymore, but here we are.  Reality is what it is…

For those interested in what some “journalists” are claiming to be “fishy” emails as such, here comes Slate to the rescue.

In an article titled Obama Wants to Kill Your Grandma, author Mike Madden does his best to stump for health care reform by building, then burning several men mad of straw.

The five myths he sees?

Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother

Myth 2: The government — i.e., you — will have to pay for abortions.

Myth 3: Obama will ban all private health insurance.

Myth 4: The government can’t possibly run a healthcare program.

Myth 5: Unlike private insurance, government bureaucrats will ration care

I consider myself pretty well informed and have yet to hear any of this crap, but lets assume it is being talked about.  Are they truly myths?

Skipping the first one completely as no one who understands rational thought honestly believes that politicians would endanger themselves by pushing for legislation they knew would kill their constituents.  Even with my very low thoughts about most politicians and their ability to critically think, politicians are rational.  & rational politicians can’t get re-elected if they purposefully wish to kill their citizens.

So, if someone reads an email that states, “Democrats want your grandma to die” and believes it, I think the fault lies with them and not the idiotic author.

On Myth #2 (abortions will be paid for): Since most Democratically controlled state government gives money to Planned Parenthood and one of Obama’s first act as President was to remove the executive order President Bush signed disallowing international funds to be used for abortion, this doesn’t seem all that “mythy”…

Please note:  I’m not making any judgment on abortion here, but it seems reasonable to expect prior behavior to continue.

On Myth #3 (the plan will ban private insurance):  I haven’t honestly heard it expressed in this way.  Most people who are against the plan for this reason, haven’t said the plan expressly forbids private health insurance, only that the government would be competing on an even playing field.  First, they wouldn’t pay taxes.  Second, they would have tax payer dollars to finance any potential loses.

Both of these things makes it nigh impossible for a private industry to compete with a public one.  Therefore, it’s predictable that this is the end result of the legislation and not a myth at all.

On Myth #4 (government can’t run health care):  The author uses Medicare & VA health care as reasons it’s possible.  It’s obvious that he is either completely unaware of Medicare’s cost overruns adding an unfunded liability to future generations of 30 trillion more than expected, but he apparently also missed the part when every politician in the country was screaming about how bad VA care is.

It’s also obvious, he’s never been to a VA hospital for care.  Either way, this is an opinion and in no way a myth.

Finally, the last one, Myth #5 (unlike private insurance, the government will ration care):  This myth is well worded for people unwilling to honestly debate health care.  For those willing to look at health care rationally though, the statement includes a false assumption, thereby invalidating it completely.

From mu understanding, no opponents have claimed that private insurance isn’t a rationing system.

Far from it, most of the opponents against government run health care seem to be the only ones willing to tell the truth.

The truth – health care will always be rationed.  Since there will always be an infinite want for health care, but for obvious reasons finite resources, rationing has to exist whether it’s private rationing or public rationing.

So the idea that this is a “myth” is simply another straw man playing with matches.

For those willing to go further, the real question is whether the market is more efficient at doing this job and therefore likely to be able to actually cover more people than the inefficiencies of the government itself.

The author may certainly disagree that the market provides a better solution, but it is not a myth.

It seems that for America, debates on major policy decisions are inversely proportional with rational thought.  For instance, on just two large questions – “Should we use pre-emptive strikes?” or “Should we completely remake health care” the main pieces of the debate has been obfuscation, logical fallacies, and messenger assassination. Which would make complete sense if we were a third world country where facts are hidden.

Since we’re not, it’s odd that for all the well meaning people who honestly believe that this is one of the largest questions of our time, the debate is nothing but a bunch of rhetorical gymnastics.

One last thing - when ever anyone is discussing any particular legislation and its potential future effects one must keep in mind that no one can prove or disprove any future hypothetical wrong.  The best thing we can honestly do when evaluating future predictions is to understand that most of them will be wrong for lots of reasons.

One important principles that should be kept in mind when passing 1200 page legislation aimed at completely overhauling 1/7th of the economy are unintended consequences.

This principle was demonstrated very well recently with a small program known as Cash for Clunkers.  Passed to remove older cars from the road to increase gas mileage of the current fleet, it actually produced several unintended consequences… some good, some bad.

Good:  It was a quick stimulus to the automobile industry

Bad:  It appears that most people traded in a 3rd truck for a new SUV.  It appears that the gas mileage differences are negligible.

Bad:  By taking $1000 cars, which poorer folks or younger kids, could use to get to work and/or school and giving them a value of $3000-$4500, we’ve hurt the poors chances to become mobile.

& many more, some of them we don’t even know or have yet to fully realize.  The reason is obvious, 536 people (Senate, Congress, & the President), no matter how smart, have enough brain power to effectively move the market in any direction they wish for the betterment of any particular group.  I wish we had people this smart, but even Einstein would be unable to effectively predict policy outcomes due to the myriad of people who will use those policies in their independent rational way.

As with all propaganda, calling things lies that you can’t disprove and burning randomly built straw men all make for very nice rhetorical tricks, but rational people should know better.

Wow.  I went to bed last night and woke up this morning contemplating what to write about the “fishy email” BS that recently came out from the WH.  After reading several articles on various websites, it seemed that the story was actually written correctly.  Most citizens interested in freedom, don’t like the idea of the government collecting data on what they deem “disinformation.”

But I forgot that I apparently live in some bubble where rational thought is allowed, as some journalists believe the only problem with the government seeking citizens to spy on other citizens, is the GOPs paranoia (here):

…However, opponents of reform have seized upon the request as a means to heighten the paranoia that has become their favorite weapon in this debate.

In a letter to the White House, GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas portrays it as program “asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed “fishy” or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests.” He raises the spectre of a White House “data collection program” by which it can assemble “the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens” opposed to reform. In other words, an enemies list. He also demands to know “what action … you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in ‘fishy’ speech?”

It’s a ludicrous suggestion, but it’s perfectly in line with the GOP strategy to use emotion, anger and fear as means to drown out debate, discussion and facts. It is the telling behavior of a movement that knows it will lose the debate on those grounds.

I’m not even sure how to effectively dissect this without including all kinds or personal sounding attacks about the author’s intellect, but I’ll see what I can do.

First, it should be plainly obvious that the author, and anyone who agrees with him that the WH is doing the right thing, has very little historical knowledge as to what typically comes after these types of requests.

It’s frightening to believe that anyone with a passing, cursory glance, at history can’t see the danger in sending political speech deemed “fishy” to the government for review.

Secondly, when anyone decides to disagree with a specific opponent, usually the strength of their hand can be gauged by their reaction.

For instance, if I engage an opponent on slavery, where I think it’s wrong and someone else thinks its right, my hand is so strong that I barely give much thought or strenuous objections.  I’m more likely to laugh at the logic twists someone would have to go through to attempt to prove slavery is necessary.  (assuming of course my opponent didn’t have power to implement their changes)

If however,  my hand is extremely weak… say for instance I think it’s a good idea for citizens to tell the government when they disagree with their fellow citizens about a political issue, I might have to start name calling and attacking the messenger.  Because surely attacking my opponents in this case on any rational level would lead only to my embarrassment.

Third, but very important – fear based motivations in politics is not new and not limited to any one given party.  Even in this very debate, both sides are using fear.  One side is claiming that without immediate change, more people will be left to die of treatable illnesses.  The other claiming that a government run health care system is more dangerous to your health than the current state of affairs.

Indeed, fear is almost always used these days.

Smoking bans gained traction?  Fear of health care costs to employees

Patriot Act?  Terrorists are everywhere and coming to get you

Gun bans?  You’re neighbor might be the crazy one with a gun.

TV sex/violence?  It’s going to lead us all to become homicidal rapists.

Cap & trade?  Our entire planet and the human race are at stake

Most religions?  Our entire planet and the race are at stake

Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at University of Kent, has done some great work on the politics of fear and our fear based culture.  His website contains his writings which are well worth the read for anyone interested in the repercussions of this fear based approach to legislation.

However, the mere fact someone is using fear based politics honestly does not tell you whether the fear is real.  Simply because someone tells you something might happen that might scare you, doesn’t mean what they are telling you is wrong.

It’s only used here by Mr. Jay Bookman to marginalize his opposition into a single, coherent group of irrational crazies.

It’s much easier for him to pretend the other side is simply paranoid and completely wrong.  It stops all the cognitive dissonance he has built up when he hears clear objections to that which he obviously cherishes.

As Voltiare said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”  Maybe Mr. Bookman is too simply weak to deal with doubt?

Mark this as reason #6358, why most media outlets prove my point that “journalist” is becoming a pejorative term.

What happened?

Former President Bill Clinton, and a entourage of former Clinton advisers, went to North Korea in order to seek release of two American journalists who were sentenced to 12 years hard labor for allegedly  crossing the border (here & here)

North Korean dictator, and all around worthless despot, released the two women into the former President’s hands (here).

The President, with the two journalists held a joint press conference as soon as the plane landed (here).

What is the current media speculation?

Well, of course it differs by source.  The left leaning sites tend to applaud the former & current Presidents, while those leaning towards the right wonder what damage this might have done.

This is true, not just of blogs known for their inability to think critically such as The Daily Kos or The Free Republic, but also main stream news outlets.

From the WSJ:

…But the important question going forward is whether Mr. Clinton’s visit was merely the down payment Kim extracted from the Obama Administration for a potentially larger set of American concessions….

& even if it was a private meeting without input from the current administration:

…Yet Mr. Clinton’s visit is a message unto itself. It will bolster Kim’s bid to dissolve the six-party negotiations in favor of the direct talks with the U.S. he has long sought. It will also dismay some in South Korea and Japan, which have their own hostages in North Korea and will wonder why Mr. Clinton couldn’t obtain their release as well.

If it turns out that if a new nuclear negotiation really was begun during Mr. Clinton’s visit, it will also send the signal to North Korea that the worse its behavior, the more it stands to gain from the U.S. And it will mean that Kim’s price will be even higher to spring the next American hostages….

& from former experts, John Bolton in the Washington Post (here):

…Former president Clinton was met at Pyongyang’s airport by notables led by Kim Kye Gwan, the North’s long-time chief nuclear negotiator, an unmistakable symbol of linkage. In Pyongyang’s view, the two reporters are pawns in the larger game of enhancing the regime’s legitimacy and gaining direct access to important U.S. figures…

What do we really know?

Well, it is highly unlikely that the Obama administration and the State Department did not know before hand that this was happening.

The NK dictator himself has been housing the two journalists in a guest house, instead of the prison labor camp where they were sentenced.  Additionally, in order to travel to North Korea, State Department approval is required.

Based on those two facts, it appears that everyone knew what was happening and what the trip was for.

Beyond conjecture though, many news outlets have moved further to suggest that we have somehow weakened our bargaining position with North Korea for extending the visit from the former President.  Additionally, since the first person to great Mr. Clinton was met by  Kim Kye-gwan, North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator, there must be more to the story.

While it is certainly true that North Korea sees a high level visit from even a former President as a victory,  Kim Kye-gwan was likely there as a fluent English speaker to serve as a translator.

His being there could potentially mean something more, but it’s unlikely it does mean more.  Even if Mr. Clinton knew foreign policy topics would be up for discussion,  there isn’t any reason to believe he would be allowed to actually negotiate any agreement.

It should also be clear that while Kim Jung Ill is a worthless tyrant, he is not irrational and therefore is aware of this as well.

Lastly, we know the US is seeking to negotiate with North Korea very differently than we have in the past.  Our goal for some time now has been to force NK to the negotiating table to sign a treaty which will not be implemented in phases, but an all-or-nothing approach to minimize North Korea’s ability to get something, only to renege later.

North Korea on the other hand, wants diplomatic status in the international community and value even the appearance of high level talks as this leads them in that direction.

To demonstrate just how high the place perception on the value scale, see no further than the current head of the Special Envoy to NK.  Nominated by President Obama,  Stephen Bosworth is maintaining not only his new government job, but also retaining his university position as well.

To Kim Jung Ill, having a part-time diplomat trying to negotiate with his world power status country that is NK, is insulting.

So from all appearances and known facts with minor conjecture, it doesn’t seem as if anything was wrong with Obama’s approach.

North Korea received their high level visit, while the Obama administration can deny any linkage between Clinton & their administration.  Two journalists who were going to face 12 years of potentially fatal hell, have been released to their families.

& this is a potential sign, though more information is needed, that back channel negotiations can start again, to hopefully minimize the nuclear threat NK can pose to the region.

This is how foreign policy works with “terrorist” regimes.  While the US, under all Presidents claim they will never negotiate, we always do, as we have to deal with anyone capable of hurting the global economy and our allies.

If the journalists don’t like this because it runs counter to their current understanding of reality, I suggest they rethink their view of reality rather than put the Obama administration into a preassigned hole of being weak on foreign policy.

Before Mr. Putin and others in the Russian government decided against freedom for all and started moving back towards an authoritarian regime, they talked a lot about pushing Glasnost.

This Russian word has been in their language for quite some time, but more recently, Mikhail Gorbachev changed the meaning.  In the 1980′s, he used the word in policies, speeches, and everywhere he could to push new changes in the Communist government.

The word was used to describe the new government system as being more transparent and more open.  Worldwide people knew the word and used it as a synonym for openness.  Mr. Gorbachev used the word to hopefully shape policies that would’ve reduced corruption and increased citizen engagement.

Fast forward to the 2008 US Presidential election and things looked much the same.  After going through a war time President, where secrecy is always valued more highly than during peace time, most Presidential candidates argued that transparency was missing in Washington.

Voters readily agreed with these statements and should’ve.  Using basic human conditioning, logic, & game theory, we know that transparency does indeed reduce corruption and increase engagement.  Anonymous actions and transactions are some of the ways the corrupt around us succeed.  Looking at Enron, socialistic governments, even your neighbors, will help prove this concept.

Even President Barak Obama pushed this openness and transparency.  He even pushed so hard during the campaign, that it became a cornerstone of how his administration would be better than others.  In the first 100 days, we even saw glimmers of hope that this would happen:

President Obama embraces openness on day one

Vowing transparency, Obama OKs ethics guidelines

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

FDA transparency committee set up under Obama openness pledge

& many, many more

Naturally, like all things, the devil is in the details.  Since Mr. Obama’s changes in the very beginning to certain rules and such, we have very much witnessed an administration that is just as willing to hide details from the public as were previous administrations.  The main difference lies, not in whether any given administration is open, but only in what facts they wish to conceal.

As proof of this assertion, look no further than the Clunker for Cash programs.  The program, designed to remove old cars off the road, has looked extremely successful.  In just 11 days, more than 250,000 older cars were removed from the US and replaced with more fuel efficient and cleaner cars.

This also helped spark demand in the auto industry which was a welcome side benefit during the recession.  From all accounts, the program was successful and is potentially something we should continue to fund going forward.

Why then the refusal to share information (here) about this prized program?

The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its “cash-for-clunkers” rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program’s success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.

It seems odd that an administration which has proactively bound their belief system to the ideas of transparency and openness would prevent the distribution, of what seems like innocuous, information.

Since we have no proof, I don’t wish to use conjecture or speculation about to why the admin is refusing to deliver the information they claim makes their case for refunding the program, but the possible reasons are almost endless.  Some include:

They could knowingly be hiding damaging information.  IE- the data doesn’t support their current contention.

They might not be able to really get the full set of information they are claiming they have… IE – they spoke earlier than they should’ve about the program using incoming information instead of complete information.

They might have all the information they will likely get, but it might not contain specific data to help resell the program.  IE – we know it was used 250K times on these types of cars, but do we know whether this actually increased demand, got people to trade-in cars they wouldn’t have otherwise… etc, etc

But whatever the reason for the refusal, you would think in an “open” administration, at the very least, should communicate the reason the data has been delayed (and not denied from an open administration) and when the data should be available to the public.

Of course when the current makeup of our politicians includes several hundred incumbents who have voted on both the Patriot Act & more recently, health care reform, without ever having enough time to read it…. and with current celebrity obsessed population being more enamored by style than actual substance…I don’t see any trends that positive change in true transparency is on the way for the US.

As we all know, Congress, the Senate, and the President of the United States is pushing hard for health care reform, which they promise us will lead to lower costs and will be completely revenue neutral.

To take their claims into context, these are the exact same individuals who brought us a really good program, Cash for Clunkers, only to bankrupt it in 1/11th the promised time.

The program, which was intended to remove older, less fuel efficient cars off the road, started on July 24th, 2009, with a total of $1 Billion dollars in assets (here):

…Approved last month, the program known officially as the Car Allowance Rebate System offers rebates of $3,500 to owners who relinquish cars rated at less than 18 miles per gallon to purchase ones getting at least 22 m.p.g. If the new vehicle gets at least 10 m.p.g. more than the trade-in, the rebate is $4,500. For SUVs, minivans and pickups, a 2 m.p.g. improvement is required, while a 5 m.p.g. gain nets the full rebate…

…The program is expected to run four months, or until the $1 billion is depleted. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has until July 24 to issue the final regulations, putting most transactions on hold until Friday…

It was supposed to last 4 months, but is now almost out of money (here):

WASHINGTON — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday that unless the Senate approves $2 billion in additional funding, the Obama administration could be forced to halt as early as Tuesday the “cash for clunkers” program that has become one of the most visible and fast-acting of the government’s economic-stimulus programs.

& the analysis itself wasn’t a simple mistake or a black swan.  We didn’t run into any unknown situations or start out with bad numbers.  The reason the initial analysis was wrong was negligence:

…U.S. auto sales have been running at an annual pace below 10 million a year since January, a steep drop from the 16 million annual sales levels normal earlier in the decade. That sales collapse has led to tens of thousands of layoffs at auto companies and the manufacturing and service firms that support them…

Using just those numbers alone, we expect 3.2 million cars to be bought in the next 4 months, but Congress allocated money for just  8% of expected sales, without apparently contemplating the obvious increase in demand.

Of course this is a minor example when comparing the relatively small number of $1 billion dollars (or $11 billion) against a $3 trillion dollar budget, but it’s clearly instructive.

Time and time again, the government had lead us down a path with promises of this and that kind snake oil, this and that kind of freedom.  Yet almost every single time, they have proven their inability to fully understand the consequences of legislation.

The amount of willful ignorance it mush take to be consistently wrong, but still think you’re helping now or will be helpful in the future is simply astounding.

But shooting fish in a barrel will only get us so far.  In our system of government, the end result is that the voters are truly responsible.  Politicians run on incentives like us all & as long as voters don’t hold them accountable for their mistakes, they have no obvious reason to change course.

If we as voters show, by our very actions, that we are ok with a system that rewards incumbency without contemplating actual results, rewards style over substance, rewards politically correct talk as opposed to direct debates, we are contributing to a system which will allow these actions to continue.

But since there doesn’t seem to be any grassroots effort aimed at actually changing the system itself instead of ensuring “our team” wins, we might as well ask the question:

How much did they say health care would cost?