bailing out the bees

Now I constantly bitch about federal bailouts for the banking and automotive industries, but I have finally found the worse example of how to spend money.  CNN recently ran this article detailing a plan wherein over £10 million was pledged by a consortium sponsored by the British government for research over what is happening to declining bee population (Thanks Andy for pointing out this travesty).  The U.S. federal government has pledged another $5 million.  

"Now aren't bees important pollinators?" you ask.  "Shouldn't we figure out what's killing them?"  Absolutely not.  And as much as I would like to take credit, I am not the one killing the bees and now just trying to cover it up.  First, you must understand that bees are enemy number one.  More than snakes, more than sharks, in fact more than all other animals combined, bees kill more Americans every year (almost 60) than any other animals.  Not to mention it hurts real bad to get stung.  And there is almost no defense to a bee attack.  You can't out run them, they can fly, and you can't even punch them in the face.  They are simply terrible.

Why should we be using research money to save bees.  Nobody likes them, and nobody ever will.  I pledge that I will do my part and continue the bee genocide, killing any bees that give me the chance.  In fact, I just sprayed a nest on my neighbors porch the other day.  Who knows, maybe one day my children can live in a country where they don't have to live in fear for the next terrorist bee attack.

my usual tuesday rant

First, I want to apologize that this is my first post in a week.  I had to finish writing my paper and have started studying for finals because I have two friends coming into town on Wednesday, and they are going to be ruining my life until they leave on Sunday.  So don't expect many posts until then.

So I've been reading a lot about universal health care lately.  According to some recent polls, over 60% of Americans support a universal health care system, and they think the Federal government are the best ones to provide it.  And I mean why not.  As the argument goes, the government can provide cheaper health care than the private industry because they won't be working for a profit.  Not to mention that by giving everyone health insurance, the overall system costs associated with providing medical services to currently uninsured patients will be eliminated.  Sounds like a win-win to me!

Obama has recently said that implementing universal health care is a bigger priority than even his climate change initiatives.  So obviously we are going to see some big political battles over the next couple of months over this issue.  What gets me the most angry is the terms that supporters of universal health care cast the issue in.  Their whole argument is that the rich should payer higher taxes, use that money to pay for health care for the indigent and working poor, and VOILA!  Problem solved.  It is the most fundamentally flawed type of argument.  List a couple of facts and ideas and then simply assert that it will fix the issue because it sounds like it would work.  Never in this analysis (if you can even call it that) are any effects or the proposed changes even considered.  In order to develop an effective health care system in this country the analysis must start with three fundamental questions:  What is the effective goal of our ideal health care system?  How does our current system fall short of that goal?  How do the we change the current system to best meet our goal and prevent unintended bad consequences resulting from that change?

You would think the answer to the first question is easy, but if you ask a diverse group of people I bet you would get several different answers.  Liberals may say that they want everyone to have affordable coverage and equal access to treatments.  Conservatives may say the want the government to stay out, regardless of how that affects the system.  If you ask me, both these are not going to happen, either because its physically impossible (liberal) or politically impossible (conservative).  Personally, I think a diversified health care system would be most ideal, allowing individuals to pick and choose the amount of coverage they want based on a variety of circumstances: amount of risk willing to accept, family medical history, ability to pay, etc.  This would be unacceptable to the democrats running things however.  They think they can provide everything for everybody.  In determining whether this is possible, it is helpful to look to the state of Massachusetts, who a few years ago implemented a system similar to the one proposed for the rest of the country.  Let me tell you how great the results have been.

The first problem with the Massachusetts system is the extraordinary costs associated with it.  The program provides no- or low-cost insurance to approximately 165,000 residents, roughly 60% of the people who had been previously uninsured before the program took effect.  The Massachusetts budget for 2010 sets aside approximately $880 million for this part of the program alone.  And that cost represents a 42% increase in cost since the program began in 2006!  It has increased in price almost 50% in just 4 years!  

How could that be, you ask?  Easy, by providing extensive coverage for people who don't have any stake in paying for it, these newly insured people have no incentive to save.  Why not go to the doctor for that cough if you don't have to pay for it?  Until a system is put into place where the users are forced to pay for the costs of services received in some type of proportional way there is no incentive to keep costs down, and they will continue to rise.

"Easy fix!" yells the supporter of universal health care.  Simply cap the amount of treatments a person can receive.  Yay, problem solved.  Not quite.  Whether the limit is based on the relative necessity of the procedure, the value of the service based on clinical effectiveness and/or cost, or a limit on total expenditures, each option will lead to undesirable results.  The first problem is that its going to be government bureaucrats, not doctors and patients who will be deciding these limits.  In health care each patient is different and localized doctors, not federal bureaucrats should make these decisions.  

And if you think that just because care will be rationed for those who choose the federal health insurance option will be limited, while those who remain with private insurers will see no change, then you are very mistaken.  When the government provides health insurance to the indigent, they will no doubt do what they do for medicare and medicaid: force service providers to accept the patients and only receive what the bureaucrats running the system thinks your services are worth.  Undoubtedly, this price will be well below the true cost of the service.  This will lead to higher costs for private providers who can't mandate their own prices, which will be passed on to the consumer.  

Since mandating lower costs for people that don't even pay for the service is probably not even politically feasible, the U.S. system will probably go the route of Massachusetts and its European and Canadian counterparts and simply impose price controls on all medical services.  Price controls are one of the most economically undesirable political actions that a government can make.  When a price control is set at a value higher than the market equilibrium, it will lead to a surplus in the good or service as the supply increases faster than demand.  Contrarily, a price ceiling will drive down supply, while increasing demand by creating an artificially low price for the service leading to shortages.  This is exactly what happened in Europe and Canada.  The shortages have led to rationing of medical services, often leading to long waits to see a doctor and critical care industries, death before you ever receive treatment.

At the end of the day, increased health care coverage and lowering costs are competing goals; it is not possible to achieve a high degree of both.  As output increases, the cost associated with that output increases as well.  Universal health care will not increase coverage while lowering the overall cost of the system.  Instead it will lead to huge amounts of debt and the rationing of medical services.  And the rationing will not be done by doctors and patients, but by bureaucrats in Washington.  Until personal responsibility and choice are hallmarks of our health care in this country, we will not see any change from the status quo except maybe things could get worse as the government tries to fudge things.  I hope in the next few weeks to develop a proposal on how a system based on the market would be more advantageous than the current system  Although such a system would not cover everyone and may not be ideal, at least I won't try to mask its flaws in rhetoric and hide its true effects (cough, cough, Obama and Pelosi).

more i love money, pirates, president obama and the new gop

First and foremost, there was a brand new I Love Money 2 last night, and it was a good one.  For the first time in weeks it looks like Taylor Made is not in charge anymore.  Prancer, Myamee and Ice made an agreement to work together until the end, leaving Taylor Made and It high and dry.  Although they should be safe until Frenchy and Saphari are gone, unless they start winning some challenges and become paymaster, it may be

over soon for the two guys left on the show.  After 20 Pack got bounced last night (Myamee decided not to honor his deal with Taylor Made) there are no dominant male competitors left, so it really is anyone's game.  I'm excited to see what happens.

In other TV news, MTV has started up the Duel 2, and its season premier was awesome.  CT punched out a dude and the challenege was a rugby hybrid.  Not to mention there are no teams, so no one will be throwing challeneges.  I really like I Love Money, but the Duel 2 has more athletic competitors, hotter girls, more intense challenges and a better house, so it may be my new favorite reality TV program.  I'll be sure to comment on Wednesday's new episode.

Also in the news, Somali pirates recently attempted to highjack a U.S. merchant ship in the Indian Ocean near the Gulf of Aden.  Although unsuccessful, they did manage to take the ship's captain hostage for a few days.  However, the U.S. Navy was quickly on the scene, sending the U.S.S. Bainbridge, a destroyer which leads the U.S.'s antipiracy battle group, to deal with the situation.  As I'm sure you heard, during the negotiations the pirates became "hostile" and so orders were given to do what was neccessary to protect the captain.  Navy snipers shot and killed three pirates and another was captured.  The captain was unharmed.  

First, I want to praise Obama's handling of the situation.  Reportedly he gave the order to "do whatever was necessary" to maintain the safety of the captain if the situation grew more intense.  He trusted the military officials to make a good judgment and do their job, and that's exactly what they did.  The SEALs that attacked the pirates along with the Navy commanders on the Bainbridge are the best trained warfighters in the world, and Obama was right to allow them to handle the situation and not to take any options off the table.  He sent a message that the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists/pirates and projected American strength thousands of miles away from our border.

The next question is what will the pirates in Somalia do next, and how will the U.S. react.  In the aftermath of the rescue mission, officials from several European countries condemned the U.S. action, stating that it will only prompt an escalation in the piracy.  Fuck that.  These are the same officials who think it is great that shipping companies are paying tens of millions of dollars in ransom to have their ships and crews returned unharmed.  Let's see.  If you were a pirate and you could attack one of two ships, the first bears the flag of country with a powerful navy that has already killed three of your colleagues and taken a fourth captive, while the other bears the flag of a country that will assuredly pay a hefty ransom for the ship without any type of military conflict, which would you choose?  International law regarding piracy is clear.  It is perfectly legal to use force to defend against pirates attacking a ship, and a sovereign nation is in the right to defend its nationals on the high seas, whether that means destroying the pirate presence or capturing them bring back to the home country for trial.  As far as I am concerned, shoot them all.  Its the only way to send the message that unlike Somalia, the U.S. is a nation of laws and that piracy is an abrogation of those laws which we take very seriously.  That message will be much more resounding than paying a ransom.  

Now although I think Obama handled this foreign crisis well, his lack of a plan for his domestic agenda has been disturbing.  For some reason, the Obama "change" mantra was a pop culture phenomenon, and even after his election it seems as though people still think he is this great savior, without really asking any tough questions.  Obama is cut more slack in both the media and by the mainstream public (by mainstream public I mean people who have no idea what politicians in Washington are doing, or what they do ever) than any major political figure since FDR.  Doesn't it scare you that the president of the United States has not articulated his philosophical direction for the country as whole besides the fact that we need change?  

Obama has never stated what his ultimate goals for the country are.  If I could ask him one question it would be, what do you want the United States too look like in 50 years, and how do your policies put us on the path to getting there?   I have a feeling that many Americans would not like his answer to that question.  He will take us down a path of less freedom to run our own lives, massive debt, and government controls over almost all aspects of our lives.  The problem is the Republicans are not forcing his hand.  They are not articulating an opposing view point on the issues Obama has decided to push.  

The GOP needs to return to its classical liberal roots.  Republicans need to put their foot down, say government is not the answer to all life's problems, and start providing free market solutions to the problems that face us today.  We are going down the unsustainable path of a entitlement society that will bankrupt the country.  The Government Accountability Office estimated last year that the federal government's unpaid obligations for social security and medicare is over $43 trillion.  That's over three times the countries GDP.  That is unsustainable.  And we are only moving down an exponential curve.  As the baby boomers retire and try to start cashing in on social security, the federal deficit is going to go to unheard of levels: upwards of 10-20% of GDP.  And that's not federal spending, just the deficit.  At that point government spending will be well over 50% of GDP.  

Republicans need to stand up now and say that the American people won't stand for it.  We are turning into a society where 50% of the population pays no income tax and the top 10% pay over 75% of the tax burden.  And its going to get worse.  We need to go back to where Americans relied on themselves, and not the government to run their lives.  The american dream has always been that if you work hard you can move up in the world.  That's what relying on a market economy does.  It rewards hard work, which is what our society is all about.

This is the sickest picture ever:

another sad day

I have recently heard the sad news that Harry Kalas, THE voice of the Phillies since 1971, has died today.  I am in shock.  I have been following the Phils for as long as I can remember, and whether I was watching them on TV or listening to them on the radio, Harry was always there to bring me the play-by-play in his perfect baritone voice.  No one ever had a bad thing to say about Harry, and his easy going, down-to-earth personality and demeanor made me feel good just listening to him, without ever actually meeting the man.  I just want to wish his family the best, and Harry you won't be forgotten.  Although it is rather bittersweet, I do feel good that Harry got to see and broadcast a second world championship for the Phils in his final full season.  Harry, you will be missed.

ESPN STORY

Philadelphia Inquirer Coverage

a tradition unlike any other

Its Easter Sunday. More importantly, its Sunday at the Masters. The most important and storied tournament in all of golf, there really is no other event like it in the world.  Full of tradition and intrigue every year, there is no other sporting event other than maybe the super bowl that I look forward to more every year.  As I type, Tiger just hit a great par put on 9 to shoot a 33 on the front, leaving him 7-under for the tournament, just 4 back in the tourny.  And Phil just holed his par put to shoot a course record 30 on the front, putting him at 10-under and only one shot back.  To say the least, I am excited for the afternoon.  Kenny Perry and Angel "The Duck" Cabrera share the lead at 11-under.  Chad Campbell and Jim Furyk are in striking range.  I would love to see Tiger have a huge comeback and take the green jacket, but I will be happy with good finish.  

Other than that, there really is no point to this post.  I just wanted everyone to know how excited I am about golf right now.  GO TIGER!

night club moves

I wish I could dance like this at the night club. The only person I know who can dance like this is my roommate Bruce when L-a is in town.

bye bye buckwild and tax shelters. hello world champion philadelphia phillies

First of all, sorry for the delay in between my last post and this one. I have been golfing a lot (since I'm not going to be able to go as much as it gets closer to finals) and I have a draft of a 30 page term paper due next Monday, so I have been a little busy. I do want to comment on a couple of recent events though. First, there was last night's episode of I Love Money. Also, I want to discuss all that happened (or actually what didn't happen) at last week's meeting of the G-20 nations. Lastly, I want to welcome back the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies, and try to put together a quick preview of their season and try to preview the rest of baseball.

Well, I am very happy that Becky Buckwild got kicked off I Love Money last night. With Taylor Made's alliance in full control of the game at this point, it was inevitable that she would be going home at some point, but I'm glad it was sooner rather than later. Becky was thoroughly annoying all season, not to mention she is just plain gross to look at. I also hated her because she was the number one challenege thrower when there were still teams, which definitely made the game less interesting to watch. At this point I really think its anyones game, and I think 20 Pack's move to accept Taylor Made's deal and send home Buckwild was very smart on his part. He is by far the most athletic person left, and if he can win either next week's or the following week's challenge, I think he has a good shot at stealing a couple people from Taylor Made's alliance and making it to the end. We will see. If I had to handicap the race for the $250k at this point (I'm not doing odds, just picking favorites), I think Prancer is the favorite, Ice is second, Myamee is third, 20 Pack is fourth and Taylor Made is fifth. I really think Taylor Made, despite being the leader of the largest alliance, I too un-athletic to win, and eventually someone will turn on him.

Next, President Obama addressed the leaders of the other G-20 nations last week, and despite the tremendous pressure that is being put on him to help turn the global economy around, he really didn't do much (which I am very happy about). His main thesis in the speech is that the global community should attempt to crack down on tax havens, many of which are located in small islands, especially in the Caribbean. According to Obama, these countries cost governments all around the world billions of dollars a year. If the global community does not work together to stop them, then governments all around the world will have their efforts to fix their own economies undermined.

What bull shit. Do you know what I think tax havens real function is? To provide low tax competition to big tax, socialist governments all over the world. The only true effect of eliminating these tax havens would be for the average global tax rate to go up, lowering the incentive for investment, slowing growth even further, and lower the average standard of living in the world. No one wants a large percentage of their income to go to the government, especially when Obama's tax plan will have the top tax payers paying well over 50% of their income to federal and state taxes. Tax havens serve as a check on governments who raise taxes too high. If their rates grow out of control, those who wish to avoid the tax burden will simply move their assets to a tax haven. Rather than trying to compete with the very reason that the countries are attractive to investors and other entrepreneurs, the G-20 just demagogues these countries and try to make them illegal. Obviously, they think its a competition that they couldn't win. In times of economic downturn, rather than trying to eliminate the from competition countries that are still doing ok because of their belief in the free market, maybe the G-20 countries should try to emulate what makes them successful. However, that won't fit their socialist agenda.

Finally, the World Champion Phillies (yes I am going to write WORLD CHAMPIONS as many times as I possibly can) opened up play against the Braves on Sunday night. Although they lost 4-1, it is only one game, and there are 161 to go. They will be fine. Our lineup is potent, but we faced a tough sinkerballer in Derek Lowe. The Phils have always struggled against sinkerballers, and if you watched you saw that they started hitting as soon as Lowe got out of the game. But regardless of how they played the other night, I feel really good about this Phillies team. Obviously they lost their best right handed bat, and one of the team's leaders in Bat "The Bat" Burrell, but this is a resilient team, and they will be able to move on with Burrell in the clubhouse. What really struck me was how many Phillies lost weight in the off season. Both Ryan Howard and Brett Myers looked twenty pounds lighter. Right now it may not look like a good thing. Howard went 0-4, and Myers allowed four runs through six innings, all from three home runs. But I think it will be good for both of them. I'm always in favor of pro athletes getting in better shape in the off season, and that's what they both did. Howard will come around, and hopefully his off season conditioning will lead to a faster start. And despite the fact that I was screaming profanities at Brett Myers all night on Sunday, he really didn't pitch that bad. He had 3-4 mistake pitches, and the Braves made him pay on every one. Other than that, he didn't let a Braves' runner reach third base.

Looking at this team as a whole, I think the key to the offense is going to be two out fielders, Jayson Werth and Shane Victorino. These are going to be our only two bats who will be in the middle part of the lineup who can bat right handed (Victorino is a switch hitter). With Burrell's departure and the signing of Raul Ibanez, this team doesn't have a true power bat from the right size. I think Werth is very capable at filling that role, as he showed at times last season.

However, the key to the season, as it always is, is pitching. I think Cole Hamels will compete for a Cy Young this year after getting in the national spotlight when he won the World Series MVP. I think Myers will recover, and have a solid year because his stuff is just so nasty, and he just needs to get his head straight. Jaime Moyer is my hero, and he will be a very adequate number 3. The bullpen will be solid once we get back J.C. Romero, as we have everyone back from a great bullpen from last year. The real questions are the 4 and 5 starters. Joe Blanton and Chan Ho Park? Really? Not that impressive and we need at least one of them to win 12 games. If the both get to double digits, we win the division easy.

Well below are my predictions for the season. I will pick my MVPs, ROYs, Cy Young Winners, Division Winners, Wild Card Winners, and who will beat who in the playoffs (seed in parentheses). I would be very interested to read comments with other people predictions. Well here they are:

NL

MVP: Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals
ROY: Cameron Maybin, Florida Marlins
Cy Young: Cole Hamels, Philadelphia Phillies
East: Philadelphia Phillies (2)
Central: Chicago Cubs (1)
West: LA Dodgers (3)
Wild Card: NY Mets (4)

NL Championship: Phillies v. Mets

AL

MVP: Josh Hamilton, Texas Rangers
ROY: David Price, Tampa Bay Rays
Cy Young: Roy Halladay, Toronto Blue Jays
East: Tampa Bay Rays (1)
Central: Minnesota Twins (3)
West: LA Angels of Anaheim (2)
Wild Card: NY Yankees (4)

AL Championship: Angels v. Rays

WORLD SERIES: PHILLIES over Angels

Well, the current WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS have to be the favorites, right?