Who's right on Medicare Reform? (Hint: Paul Ryan!)

I'm lazy today, plus I can't make these points better than Mish can.

From Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis blog:
"Who’s Right on Medicare Reform, Ryan and Rivlin or Obama and Gingrich? Cato Institute Praises Paul Ryan's Medicare Voucher Proposal"
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/whos-right-on-medicare-reform-ryan-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis+%28Mish%27s+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis%29


Here is more material, from Paul Ryan and the House Budget Committee:
"The Path to Prosperity (Episode 1): America's two futures, visualized"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE

"How will we do it? We will cut spending."

"Washington has NOT been telling you the truth. If we don't reform spending on government health and retirement programs We have zero hope of getting our spending, and as a result our debt crisis, under control."


"The Path to Prosperity (Episode 2): Saving Medicare, Visualized"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw

The full script of the video can be found here:
"The Facts on Medicare and How to Save It"
http://budget.house.gov/fy2012budget/medicare.htm

"Washington has not been honest with you about Medicare."

"Here’s how it works: A Medicare patient goes to the doctor and receives health care services. The doctor sends the bill for these services to Medicare, and Medicare reimburses the doctor -- with your tax dollars and borrowed money -- no questions asked."

"This system increases costs and decreases quality for two reasons: ... First ... the patient is very disconnected from the cost. ... the true cost is hidden from the Medicare patient because someone else pays the actual bill. When we pay directly for something, and we know how much it costs, we have a strong incentive to demand the best value. In health care, we don’t."

"The second reason costs are going up and quality is going down is that fee-for-service Medicare insurance has no competition -- so it reimburses all doctors and hospitals the same, even if the quality of the care they provide is poor, and the cost of their care is high. Meaning that there is little financial incentive for doctors and hospitals to deliver the best care at the lowest price."

"The urgent need to reform Medicare and the President’s misguided approach have left us with a serious question to ask: Who should be making health-care decisions for you and your family?
A government monopoly and a panel of bureaucrats in Washington DC? Or you?"


More source material is here, at the House Budget Committee website.
http://budget.house.gov/fy2012budget/

Is this possible? Ruth Bader Ginsburg is right???

I guess if you live long enough you'll see things you never thought you would see. If so, I am now officially old. Really old.

Consider this article, from International Liberty:
"I Can’t Believe I’m Siding with Ruth Bader Ginsburg over Clarence Thomas!" by Dan Mitchell
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/i-cant-believe-im-siding-with-ruth-bader-ginsburg-over-clarence-thomas/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This story once again shows that the true battle we should be concerned about is not Left versus Right, but Big Government versus Limited Government. We have Big Government. In that situation it doesn't matter which side you support. Both sides will inevitably crush liberty.

From the article:

"Sometimes it is a pain in the neck to be allied with conservatives. Just like liberals, conservatives sometimes are guilty of imposing their preferences on society, regardless of clear and unambiguous language in the Constitution."

"The most recent example is a case originating in Kentucky. Every Supreme Court Justice, with the exception of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, voted to ignore the 4th Amendment and allow unlawful entry into the dwelling of a private citizen. Michael Walsh of National Review explains in the New York Post."

A series of recent court rulings, including one this week from the US Supreme Court, appear to erode one of our bedrock defenses against the arbitrary, abusive power of the state. At risk: the Fourth Amendment guarantee to all American citizens of the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” On Monday, in Kentucky v. King, the high court upheld the conviction of a man arrested after cops — who were tailing a suspected drug dealer into an apartment building — smelled marijuana smoke and banged on his door. When they heard noises coming from the apartment “consistent with the destruction of evidence,” they broke in and found drugs. But they had the wrong guy. The drug courier was in another apartment. Hollis King may have been breaking the law, but he was minding his own business, on his own premises, and only became a suspect after the police had made their mistake. But Justice Sam Alito, writing for the 8-1 majority, said, in effect, So what? …What planet is Alito living on? The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to restrict authority. The Founders, who suffered under the British system of “general warrants” and “writs of assistance” — i.e., fishing expeditions — wished to ensure that no American home could be searched without probable cause and a duly issued warrant specifying exactly what police are looking for. The case has been remanded to Kentucky, to sort out whether the circumstances were truly “exigent.” But Alito’s interpretation is an open invitation to abuse — as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphatically warned in her dissent: “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down — never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant. I dissent from the court’s reduction of the Fourth Amendment’s force.”

Mitt Romney is a whore, Tim Pawlenty is not

Romney, like Newt, is a joke. He is imploding now, fortunately, as we see his true colors. I have never and will never vote for him.

We all know by now about how he instituted socialized health care in Massachusetts, and how that experiment is doing (it's failing). As you know by now how Romney refused to admit his mistake in his recent USA Today opinion piece. I've not seen tap dancing like that in a long time. That's great that he's attacking Obama but he has given exactly zero reason to vote for him. None.

But for the main focus of this post, please consider recent news out of Iowa. From RealClearPolitics:
"Romney in Iowa: 'I Support the Subsidy of Ethanol'" by Scott Conroy
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/27/romney_in_iowa_i_support_the_subsidy_of_ethanol_110011.html

From the article:
"'I support the subsidy of ethanol,' Romney told a potential voter after an event here was cut short by a fire alarm. 'I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution in this country.'"


Amazingly, Tim Pawlenty, who is no conservative (believe me, I used to live in Minnesota and saw him up close), comes out of this smelling like a rose. Pawlenty has both admitted past mistakes (support of the global warming agenda) and taken a stand against ethanol subsidies. Pawlenty is also a poor candidate. But he is light years ahead of scum like Gingrich and Romney because he has taken some fundamental first steps: He has admitted past mistakes and he has staked out the correct position on important issues of the day.

Back to the article:
"'The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out,' Pawlenty said. 'We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.'"

"Pawlenty was widely praised in fiscally conservative circles for taking a stance against the subsidies, which cost taxpayers about $5 billion in 2010, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been singled out for criticism by influential conservative media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal editorial board, for his vocal support of subsidized ethanol."

Song of the Day: Tracy Chapman - The Promise

Tracy Chapman - The Promise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crTc1V34m8g

"Engineering etymology" or "How words are created" (depends how you want to look at it)

From The Feral Irishman:
"For the Engineers and ( . )( . ) lovers......"
http://theferalirishman.blogspot.com/2011/05/for-engineers-and-lovers.html

Hilarious, I laughed out loud. That looks like something an engineer would do. And yes, I confess to being in both of the above-mentioned categories. :)


I first saw this drawing on Marooned (before going back to the original source):
"Mid-Week Humor..."
http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2011/05/mid-week-humor.html

I mention this to plug this blog (I like it) and because it has some funny comments further down on the page.

Turns out men and women are different. Who knew?

Fascinating article about how men and women surf the web differently in the area of erotica. I know this will come as a surprise but ... men and women are different!!!

From the Wall Street Journal, of all places:
"The Online World of Female Desire"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704463804576291181510459902.html?mod=WSJ_article_onespot

The subtitle sums it up well:
"For women indulging their curiosity, Internet erotica is less about flesh than about finding Mr. Right"

"One of our most interesting findings was that women are very different from men in how they use these online services. All across the planet, what most women seek out, in growing numbers, are not explicit scenes of sexual activity but character-driven stories of romantic relationships."

"Women account for only one out of 50 purchases of porn-site subscriptions, but they make nine out of 10 purchases of romance novels."

"Men who are attracted to a particular actress may go online looking for racy photos of her. Women who are attracted to an actor are more likely to seek out personal details about his life or erotic stories featuring one of the characters he portrays."

"Some female readers might be thinking, 'This doesn't describe me at all!' And, in fact, somewhere between a quarter and a third of the visitors to the major pornography sites are women. Our data suggest that these women probably have a higher sex drive than other women and that they are more socially aggressive and more comfortable taking risks."

Tax policies matter, no matter what the Left says

Here's a funny limerick, from LIMERICKS ÉCONOMIQUES by Dr. Goose (whoever he is):
"The $37 Billion Question"
http://www.limericksecon.com/2011/05/37-billion-question.html

The $37 Billion Question 

Said a Harvard professor of econ,
"That Google's got something unique on:
They have cash by the score,
Yet still borrow more;
This is something I've puzzled all week on." 

Said an expert in cross-border taxes,
"I should hope the professor relaxes;
As Google keeps cash
In an overseas stash,
'Til taxation here wanes and not waxes."

Why does that limerick amuse me? Because it shows that tax policies matter. Google recently borrowed $3 billion. My first reaction: Why the hell does Google need to borrow money when they have approximately $37 billion in cash? Research the issue a bit and see if effective tax rates in different countries didn't play a role. A big role.