Profits Part I
One of the constant complaints from the left for over a century has to do with the whole notion of profits and it shows no signs of letting up. Be it the Big Oil companies gouging consumers at the pump, Big Pharma gouging people for drugs they need to keep them alive, or Big Insurance denying health care to the patients who need it so that they can pocket huge profits, a consistent theme from the left is the denunciation of profits.
While “Big Oil” does currently make billions in profits, profit is not a standalone concept. For example, a one million dollar profit may seem large, what if this profit came on an investment of one billion dollars and after many years of losses? Then there is number of people who get the profit. While one million might fine for one owner, what it must be spread among 100 stockholders or a thousand or more? Then there is the whole concept of reinvestment.
Yes, oil companies do make a lot of money; they also invest a lot of money, do all the work, bare all the risk, and yet make significantly less on a gallon of gas than does government. Whereas oil companies earn about 10 cents per gallon, the Federal Government gets 18.4 cents and then there are the state taxes and sales taxes on top of that. Then there is the income tax on the profits that they do make. What is left after taxes, they then either reinvest back into the business or pay out to their stockholders. When President Obama put his “boot on the throat” of BP and successfully pressured them into not paying dividend following the Gulf oil spill, it was not the fat cats who suffered but millions of average workers and retirees in Britain.
As for the Health Insurance companies, there are two facts that are often ignored. One is that a number of health insurance companies are already Not-For-Profit, and those that are For-Profit, their profits, according to a report on ABC News, “represent a miniscule percentage of the $2.5 trillion Americans spend every year on health care.”
As for Big Pharma’s profits, normally the focus is on the cost to manufacture drugs, which is often a fraction of the sale price. What is often ignored is the literally billions spent to develop these drugs, a large part of which come from their profits from previous drugs. If the companies were really raking in the huge profits critics claim, then their stock prices should be sky high. Yet they aren’t. Investors in Pfizer, for example, have lost 25% over the last 10 years.
In fact, rather than making too much, pharmaceutical companies may be making too little. This is a real concern for while recently developed drugs are quite expense, it is the profits from these drugs that fund the current research into new drugs. If those complaining about high drug profits had gotten their way in the past, then we would not have the problem of the high cost of the medicine, simply because the medicine would never have been developed. With all the attacks on drug company profits, it is probably not too surprising that the “drug pipelines are thinning.”
While the left may see profits as wasteful at best and perhaps even evil, they are what drive the economic system that has brought the highest standard of living in human history. Removing the profit motive will not make things better; they will make things worse, and probably a lot worse. More on that in Part II.
State of the Union
Obama’s State of the Union speech while delivered well was a triumph of symbolism and platitudes over substance, which was mirrored in the seating arrangements of the members of Congress. It may have been all nice, warm and fuzzy, but ultimately it was meaningless. The seating arrangements were supposed to reflect the new civility and willingness to work together. Yet there is a reason that members of both parties don’t just “work together to solve the nation’s problems.” It has nothing to do with them not getting along.
The simple fact is that, except of a few hyper-partisan members, they all get along pretty well. The problem is not that they don’t get along, or even that they don’t work together, but that they don’t agree on what should be done. These are not just partisan disagreements, but are in fact honest difference of opinion on what should be done.
Most liberals really do think that a larger federal government will be able to make people’s lives better; that the solution to the problems with schools is to be found in more federal spending on education; that the solution to the problems with health care is to be found in more federal control over health care, and for many this means a single payer system; that the solution to virtually every problem be it energy, the environment, failing inner cities, or unemployment, is to be found in more federal control and spending. To pay for this they believe that taxes on the rich are too low, and that the rich should pay more.
Most conservatives, on the other hand, really do think that the federal government is already too large and that it is either causing or exacerbating these very same problems; that the solution to the problem with schools is to be found in less government control and more choice for parents; that the solution to the problems with health care is to be found in more choice and competition that would allow for innovation; the solution to virtually every problem be it energy, the environment, failing inner cities, or unemployment, is to be found in less federal control and spending, and more freedom and competition. They believe the taxes are already too high and that, along with burdensome regulation are stifling the economy.
When one side believes that government must increase to solve these problems and the other believes that government is already too big and must decrease to solve these problems what is the middle ground? There is none. The closest is perhaps Obama’s call in his speech for a budget freeze, for government to remain the same. But that is akin to no action rather than a solution. In addition just what does he mean by a budget freeze, when at the same time he is calling for increased “investment” in a whole range of areas i.e., expanding federal spending? Does he really want to freeze, or to invest?
This was the real problem with Obama’s speech. While delivered well and each section for the most part sounded ok, as a whole it was a little incoherent, which was best summarized by his somewhat confusing reference to a sputnik moment, a single event that drastically changes everyone’s perceptions. But just what single event does he see as his sputnik moment? His reference seemed to invoke a sputnik moment without a sputnik!
In short his speech strove for great heights, but somewhat fell flat. He clearly intended this speech to be central to his attempt to redefine is presidency and gain control of the debate. But ultimately he failed. It was not a bad speech. In fact it was a pretty normal State of the Union speech, but it was not the speech he had hoped for. If the speech is remembered at all, it will likely be remembered more for the seating arrangements of Congress than for anything he said, with the possible exception of that confusing sputnik reference.
Acting on Lies
One of the most disturbing aspects of the left is that truth is largely irrelevant. This is very clear in the aftermath of the shooting in Arizona. The news of the shooting had hardly broken before those on the left began blaming it on conservatives in general and Sarah Palin in particular. It was impossible that close to shooting to have any actual knowledge about who the murderer was or why he acted. But that did not matter. A Democratic congresswoman had been shot and this seemed to them a perfect time to score some political points. So the attacks were launched.
Over the next few days as the evidence about the murderer began to trickle in, it became clear to most that not only was the murderer not a follower of Sarah Palin, or even a conservative, but that the murders were not even politically motivated. Rather than being political, the murders were an irrational act by a very trouble individual.
Now if the left had even the smallest concern for the truth that should have been the end of it. In fact, had they been honorable, apologies would have been in order. But rather than apologize, they double down, touting crosshair maps that the murderer may never have even seen, much less been influence by. As the days passed Palin was attacked for not responding. When she finally did issue a video statement, she was then attacked for responding. Meanwhile, the talk about a climate of hate on the right being behind the murders continued.
Eventually the evidence became so clear that some back off just a bit, and climate of hate on the right simply became the climate of hate, ironically completely oblivious to the fact that accusing your opponents of complicity in murder contrary to the evidence, could easily be seen as hate speech itself.
But even thought the facts were completely contrary to what they were claiming, and even though some on the left admitted this, it did not stop them from acting on their false storyline. This murder may not have been motivated by contentious political debate, but the next one could be and thus we must ban it. As such, Republicans were pressured to drop “Job Killing” from the name of the Obama Care repeal bill, and a CNN host apologized for the mention of “crosshairs” in an interview. Change was demanded despite the evidence to the contrary.
This is not an isolated event. Most of the liberal agenda has been shown to be false. Whether it be the collapse of the old Soviet Union, China’s move towards more open markets, or Europe’s current financial woes, government control of the economy has been shown not to work. Yet as those who have tried it and failed struggle to deregulate and move to more market based solutions, those on the left in America still see solutions in more and bigger government programs.
One of the central beliefs of those of the left in the 1970s was the notion that there was no difference between men and women except those imposed on them by culture, a culture which was not only rejected but condemned. Given the importance of equality to the left, it became their mission to change the culture so that women’s full potential could be achieved. Women were not only encouraged to consider non-traditional roles; they were actively discouraged away from traditional ones as those roles were part of the culture that subjugated them
Parents were encouraged to raise their children exactly the same so as to remove these culturally determined differences. Boys were given dolls, girls were given trucks. Dresses had to go, and unisex clothing was in. In colleges, putting women in women’s dorms was treated as if were being asked to sit in the back of the bus. Sport programs were mandated to spend equal amounts of money on men’s and women’s sports regardless of the interest level of men and women.
In the major media, movies, schools and government, the left pushed to restructure all of society based on the notion that there was no difference between men and women. It reached a high point with the equal rights amendment in the early 1980s which was eventually defeated. Yet, by the early 1990s, if it had not already been clear enough, a slew of studies particularly on the brain showed conclusively that men and women are different in ways far beyond the cultural norms.
But again the facts, even if given lip service, were ignored, and the push to tread men and women as completely the same continued on despite the evidence. Coed dorms with men’s and women’s floors became, became coed floors, and now even coed rooms. Girls are raised to act more like boys. Boys are raised to act more like girls. But the underlying natures are still there even if repressed. Rather than, ‘boys will be boys,’ large numbers are medicated. At colleges depression among women has skyrocketed. Many women reach middle age wishing they could jettison the careers they were told by society would be so fulfilling. Rather they just want to spend more time with their family.
In area after area, there are what the facts support, and then there is what liberals want. Very often these are vastly different things. Yet liberals continue to push forward, all the while ignoring the wreckage that continues to pile up as a result.
Tu quoque or Double Standard?
One of the common responses that seems to come up whenever Liberals behave badly is, not so much outrage but rather, the excuse that “both side do it.” This is visible once again as it is now clear that liberal attacks on Sara Palin and conservatives following the shooting in Tucson were little more than an attempt to score political points off the tragedy. In addition to being untrue (note the lack attacks on liberals when a crazed environmentalist took hostages at the discovery channel building last September) there are two other problems with this claim.
One is that it is the logical fallacy of tu quoque, or “you also,” which is one of the many forms of ad hominem attack. That “both sides do it” is not an excuse for either side. It is illegitimate to excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. If it is wrong, it is wrong. In addition to being illegitimate, it is dangerous because it becomes the rational for additional bad behavior. “After all, if the other side does it, so why shouldn’t we?” Thus this fallacy is not only irrational by definition, but can lead to a vicious cycle.
This is part of what is behind the not so new No Labels group, as they see bad behavior on both sides and thus seek another way. Technically this would not be the fallacy of tu quoque, as the No Labels group is not trying to excuse their own behavior, but it is still a form of ad hominem attack, and is still just as irrational. But in addition to this, and their other problems (see Preserving Democracy pg 188-191) the No Labels group has an addition factual problem here. In many cases, the charge that “both sides do it” is simply not correct. There is a difference between how the parties act and the standards to which they are held.
As wrote earlier, some of my liberal friends are using “Both sides do it” to rationalize way the cramming down of major legislation in the lame duck session, but the history of Lame duck sessions simply do not support the claim. The only other time something like this happened was in 1980 when like this year, the Democrats lost total control over the government.
When Bush was president, democrats frequently objected to being called unpatriotic, for opposing Bush. Now it is true that if you search the internet, you can find someone who has said just about anything about any public figure. But that some blogger somewhere called Democrats unpatriotic , is not quite the same thing as Bush or other Republican elected officials doing it, and, as Fred Barnes pointed out:
nobody called Kennedy or any other Democrat unpatriotic. Bush didn’t. Senate Republicans didn’t… In this and every other case in which Democrats claim to have been smeared as unpatriotic, the facts don’t bear them out. Bush has never used the words “Democrat” and “unpatriotic” in the same sentence or in nearby sentences. In fact, he’s never uttered the word “unpatriotic” in public in any context.
But on the Democrat side you do not have to go to obscure bloggers to find such rhetoric. Nancy Pelosi, called the Republicans “unpatriotic” at a news conference in 2008. She did the same thing in before, and is not the only Democrat to do so.
This extends to other areas as well. The transition from President Clinton to President Bush was very difficult, not just because of a lack of cooperation from the outgoing administration, but because of petty partisanship of those in the Clinton administration. Thought downplayed by the Bush administration, a later GAO report confirmed among other things that the W key was remove from many White House Keyboards and anti-bush graffiti was left in the white house. The total Cost of the damages was over $13,000. So can the same be said of the recent transition from Bush to Obama? No. In fact just the opposite, this transition was called “among the smoothest of U.S. presidential transitions.”
The same can be said of elections. When Republicans loose by a close margin, they generally accept their loss. Democrats, on the other hand often contest demanding recounts, often questionable until they can get one that gives them a victory. In 1960, Nixon loss a very close election which many historians now believe was stolen from him in Texas and Chicago. While many at the time urged him to contest, he actively sought to suppress any effort at questioning the election because he did not believe it would be good for the country. Gore’s actions following the elections in 2000 suggest Nixon was correct.
Also in 2000 Republican John Ashcroft lost a narrow senate race. Despite claims of fraud, Ashcroft accepted defeat. On the other hand in Washington State 2004 Republican Dino Rossi was declared the winner by a narrow margin. The Democrat, Christina Gregoire demand recounts the election went to the courts. The first recount still had Rossi leading, so a third manual recount was done among much controversy over ballots, particularly some newly discovered ones. This recount gave Gregoire the Democrat the lead, and she became Governor. Much the same this happen in Senatorial election in 2008 in Minnesota, where on election night the republican won, and after a lot of questionable recounts, including precincts that were somehow reporting more votes cast then voters who had voted the Democrat again won.
Even when both side do it, the standards by which they are judged is vastly different. What all politicians do have in common is that they all say dumb things from time to time and have bad interviews. When Republicans such as Dan Quayle, George Bush, or a Sarah Palin do it, it is taken as determinative and proof that they are an idiots. The quotes are played over and over. When Democrats do it, such as Obama saying he had been in 57 states, it is written off as a non-consequential mistake.
In another area, consider the reaction to conduct of Mark Foley. When it was discovered that he had sent sexually explicit emails and instant messages to former congressional page, he was immediately asked to resign, and the ensuing scandal became a major issue in the 2006 congressional elections. In an odd quirk of timing, in the midst of the Foley scandal Congress Gerry Studds passed away. In a New York Time obituary, he was lauded as “a role model.” Yet, in contrast to Foley, Studds did not just send sexually explicit messages to former pages, he had a sexual relationship with a then current page. Did he like Foley resign? No, he went on to be reelected and was eventually lauded as a role model.
In area after area, the simple facts are that they don’t just all do it. Even in areas where they do, the evidence is that there is a clear double standard. When Republicans do misbehave they are condemned, and rightly so. But when Democrats do the same or in some cases even worse, their actions are excused by point to Republican behavior, real or imagined.
Thoughts on the Arizona Shooting
The aftermath of the attempted assignation of Congresswoman Giffords, the murder of 6, and the wounding of 13 others has been very troubling. First and foremost, is the tragedy, pain and sorrow of the event, particularly the death of 9 year old Christina-Taylor Green, whose birth on 9/11/2001, and now her death leaves a wonderful life full of promise bookended by national tragedy.
This was not just a crime of multiple murder, it was a crime against our very democratic form of government. The very nature of it threatens the ability of representatives to freely meet with the people. Another of ironies in this horrendous crime is that Giffords took part in the reading of the Constitution last week, reading the first amendment which said,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While security will almost certainly be tightened in the future, I hope that these future measures will be mostly invisible and will not isolate members of congress as the president’s security isolates him. Having to pass through a TSA line to see a representative will only further isolate them from the people and severely restrict where they can go.
But, unfortunately, the shock of the event had not even passed before some on the left in a crass political move began partisan finger pointing at conservatives, the tea party, and particularly trying to blame Sarah Palin. This was then picked up by some prominent voices on the left, though thankfully not all. Ironically claiming we should tone down the rhetoric, they began trying to lay blame in a desperate and despicable attempt to turn this tragedy to their own political advantage. Thus instead of a nation grieving as one, conservatives and the tea party members suddenly had to defend themselves from these vile and politically based charges.
As more and more evidence emerged about the murderer, it became increasingly clear how baseless these charges were. Still, if past experience is any indication, the press will continue to gently imply these links. Oh, they will of course deny that there was any actual connection when challenged, and then will go on to talk about these admittedly unconnected statements as if they were connected. As the years pass and memory fades, the link will be made more and more explicit, in the same way that the Oklahoma City bomber, is now said to be a conservative or a Christian, as the need to link arises.
For now, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, the partisan attacks are shifting. Oh yes, we now know that Palin was not directly responsible, but now the problem is that she is hiding and not responding to these baseless attacks in a way that her critics see as appropriate. For example, in an interview, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein was critical of Palin, saying she should “come out and say, you know what, that was a little bit much and we need to be careful.”
Frankly I think Palin did exactly the right thing. She is not the issue! The shooting in Arizona is the issue. Why should Palin take the bait and insert herself into an artificial controversy created by her enemies in order to discredit her? The only thing it would do is further shift the focus away from where it should be, on the tragedy.
Finally, one other thought that has been troubling me is one that touches on Christina-Taylor Green. One thing that is clear is who committed this crime. The murderer (the only way I will refer to him) was caught at the scene, in the act. The only thing that really might be in doubt is his mental competence. I, for one, do not automatically equate troubled with the inability to distinguish right from wrong. But regardless, this issue should be able to be settled one way or the fairly quickly.
For sake of argument let us assume he is not criminally insane. In that case, this crime, multiple murder that strikes at the heart of our governmental system, in my mind clearly warrants the death penalty. Yet, despite the clarity of the case, it is very likely that the murderer, even if found guilty and given the death penalty, has more years to live than Christina-Taylor Green had when he cut her life short. He may also very well outlive many of those who he has left grieving for loved ones he killed. While it is true that we must avoid a rush to justice, it is equally true that justice delayed, is justice denied.
