My Mayor's Car.

There was some discussion on local talk radio (The Ralph Bailey Show) yesterday about whether our mayor should get a new car or not. The question did not center around whether or not he deserved it. Most agreed that he did. The issue was whether he should accept a new car during our state's serious financial crisis.
The host argued that he should not accept it because of the severe cuts that are on the way at the state and local levels. I get his point; leadership comes from the top. If you are going to cut jobs and slash spending, you have to make symbolic gestures in your own office.
One argument made was that our mayor is quite wealthy and it would not hurt his budget at all to buy his own car. While this is probably true, it misses the point.
I have heard the host argue many times about how taxing the rich is not the way out of our problems, how it is unfair, how it ruins the incentive to be wealthy. Maybe it is a large intellectual leap, but asking the mayor to pay for his own car - a car that is part of the benefit package of his position - because we have decided he can "afford" it - seems the same as the argument that we should tax the rich because they can "afford" it. You see, if he pays for his own car to do the city's business, he is paying an extra tax to be mayor. If the hosts resolution is that the state is broke so those who can afford it should pay the bills, I am sure he supports the continuation of higher sales taxes (which are actually regressive, but that can be argued another time) and a higher annual income tax for the wealthiest few percent of Californian's. He should - but he doesn't.
The Point: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Let's look at a better example: the issues in Wisconsin and New Jersey. The issues with the destruction of collective bargaining rights can be a bit overwhelming. For the purpose of my argument we will focus on contract enforcement (feel free to bring up other topics in the comments - as though anyone is reading this).
So often we hear that government needs to be run like business. Old tried and true mantras like, "if I ran my business like the government, I would be broke!" I absolutely agree. The problem is people who usually agree with those sentiments want to give the government the right to break contracts with their employees without any sort of legal recourse. That is not how business is run. Rather, it is taking the rules that business is required to play by and throwing them out in the case of the government.
The worst part, to my mind, is the vitriol aimed at the public employees. These are workers, like the rest of us. If my boss offered me a raise, I would take it. If my boss offered me better health coverage, I would take it. A person would be silly not to. I agree completely that the state employee retirement structure needs to be reworked. We might also need to look at the compensation and benefits structure. But, why would be blame the employees for making a good deal. We should be shouting at the politicians who made the deal and now are unwilling to stand by it. The employee unions exist to represent their members. We elect politicians to represent us. It is the politicians who did not live up to their fiduciary duty. They are to be blamed for the bad deals - not the employees who are behaving  reasonably and following incentive.

Health Care

So, after listening to and reading the President's speech to a joint session of congress concerning the topic of health care, let me dogmatize it for you.

(Words of President Obama in italics)
"Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch."
One sixth or not, that makes sense.

Regarding people who have insurance through their current employment, "...nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."
That is the issue, the government may not require a change, but what thinking businessman is not going to opt for his employees to be in the cheaper public option? It is not because that businessperson is evil, but because lowering cost is the economically responsible thing to do when your employees depend upon the profitability of your company for their livelihoods. So, while many may fall into the group that the President says will be unaffected, how long will they remain unaffected after the government begins competing with private industry?

"For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need."
The exchange concept earns dogmatic approval from this reviewer provided that no insurance company be forced to join it (not joining would lead the company out of the market anyway). I am worried about the concept of "according to your need" which is a direct quote from the Communist Manifesto. Not saying the President is communist (in this entry), but that type of talk has to perk a political philosophers ears up.

...individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance...95% of small business...would be exempt from these requirements
If you read this portion, it again rigs true to the old Marxist philosophy, from each according to his ability and to each according to their need. This philosophy destroys incentive, though I don't think the President has carried, or intends to carry it out to that end.

Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies.
Considering the President's point, this likely means that 16 states have more than five companies providing insurance. Also, five companies providing insurance in most states represents considerable competition. Keep in mind that not all states are as densely populated as the greatest state in the union, from which I dogmatize.

I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits
I get the public option being a nonprofit and that potentially that should add no cost to the taxpayer. However, does anyone doubt that when the bureaucracy is created it will cost more than planned and eventually need a bailout along the lines of Social Security? Remember, we all pay into Social Security so that general fund tax dollars are not necessary. How is that working out. I long for Al Gore's lockbox.

The President does throw a bone to fiscal conservatives by offering tort reform, but only after dismissing its importance saying that "defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. It may? Really?

The President goes on to pick up a Bush Administration initiative...continuing eight years of failed policy.

Of course we can't have a health care speech without some good old-fashioned class warfare, "[Health Care Reform] will cost ...less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans."
Those damn wealthy Americans all out there creating jobs and reaping the benefits or their hard work and the hard work of generations of their families.
Humorously sad was the idea that tax cuts are somehow "costs." I think that says volumes about who your income should belong to.

The President ends with a threat "we will call you out" and a couple of anecdotal tear jerkers.

All in all, it was a well crafted speech. The basic ideas are pretty decent, though I worry that the President sees the government as genuinely benevolent and capable of staving off corruption in its bureaucratic application of health care. This is a worry because this belief is what leads well meaning people to create and suffer under horrible oppression.

The full text of the speech is available in dozens of online locations. I have quoted from the text found here.

Note: Interested in my take on any subject? Leave a comment with a request and I would be happy to make it known.

911.

As the dogmatist reflects on September 11, 2001 he remembers these words of Tony Blair.

America has its faults as a society, as we have ours.

But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery.

I think of its Constitution, with its inalienable rights granted to every citizen still a model for the world.

I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became chief of their armed forces and is now secretary of state Colin Powell and I wonder frankly whether such a thing could have happened here.

I think of the Statue of Liberty and how many refugees, migrants and the impoverished passed its light and felt that if not for them, for their children, a new world could indeed be theirs.

I think of a country where people who do well, don't have questions asked about their accent, their class, their beginnings but have admiration for what they have done and the success they've achieved.

I think of those New Yorkers I met, still in shock, but resolute; the fire fighters and police, mourning their comrades but still head held high.

Your Pain.

Remember when Bill Clinton felt your pain? I remember as a young dogmatist thinking, "does anyone really care if he feels their pain?"

How does it matter? I came to believe that people are not really swayed by the, he knows what my life is like, argument.

Then, today, I had a coworker say that she is considering voting for McCain because Sarah Palin, quote, "is a mom." I was not aware that being a mother qualified a person to be one heartbeat from the most powerful office in the world.

If you know the Dogmatist you will know that he believes that both major political parties are leading America down a primrose path to the complete loss of political and economic freedom.

That said, I cannot believe that people would choose a presidential candidate based on who understands their particular situation. Who cares if McCain or Obama know what my life is like? I want to know how they plan to govern. I can't relate to two men who are so close to the Presidency. I can't relate to someone who craves power as much as Obama, nor can I relate to a wealthy former POW (though, I would like to relate to the wealthy part).

I can't vote for Obama because socialism is not acceptable to me no matter how much he feels my pain.

Is the dogmatist the only one who finds this appeal ridiculous? I hope not.

Ahmadinejad.

Did you ever have one of those songs that perfectly expressed an emotion you held so deep inside that you thought you were the only one to ever feel it? How beautiful is the moment when someone else perfectly expresses that feeling in song.

Oh, my love that dare not speak its name. You have been given wings by Samberg. Fly, my love. Fly.

Brady.

Shocker. Tom Brady, the inventor of American football, will be playing in the Conference Championship game again.
I was really rooting for the Jags tonight. Not because I really dislike Brady, but because I am sick of hearing countless sports pundits beg Brady to make love to their wives.

But really, in the modern watered-down sense of the word, Tom Brady is a hero. Dogmatically speaking, it must be incredibly difficult to walk, much less play professional football, in Tom Brady's condition. Imagine walking around every day with dozens of sports commentators so far up your ass.

As I consider Jacksonville's loss, I am thinking maybe I do hate Tom Brady. Maybe I, like Americans all over America, hate winners. Let us face the truth. Americans love losers and winners are looked at with suspicion.

Now, let's not attack the Patriots. Let us congratulate them for being the first team in NFL history to win every game in the same season they were caught cheating.

Still, why do people watch American Idol? Is it because they love mid-rate singing? Because they find Ryan Seacrest riveting? Because they love hearing the English degrade Americans? Or, is it because they love to see failures. The first half of the season is spent showing delusional people who suck at singing sing their hearts out. And, we laugh. We laugh because we root for the loser. Rather than root for those who spent the time earning the right to win, rather than rooting for those who innovate we root for those who choose not to be competitive. And so, as an American I root against the Patriots.

After all, that is why American's love to tax the wealthy, right? I mean, they were innovative, they created, and they earned the right to win. Rather than point to their success as an example for our children, we assume that they must have screwed someone to get where they are. They must have abused the environment and given nothing back to society. All because we hate those who are willing to work harder than we are. Go losers!

So, I may be another bitter American who hates the Patriots because they win. Well, that and the memory of the Raiders being screwed out of a trip to the big game by a bad call in a game against the Pats (nah, I have been able to let that go. Sort of. Kind of. Not at all.).

Mr. Obama.

As much as it pains me to say it, I see why so many people like Barack Obama. After reading his website I wasn't too impressed. However, after hearing his speach from New Hampshire his popularity is no longer a mystery to me.

I know. I know. The dogmatist came late to this party, but I loved his speaking style. He is like Reagan meets King meets Kennedy. Ask not what Obama can do for you, but who bought this microphone.

Below please find a few quotations from his New Hampshire victory speech and the dogmatist's take on each one.

On education
Obama: "We can stop sending our children to schools with corridors of shame and start putting them on a pathway to success."
Dogmatist: Ok, a little cheesy to start off, but I was mostly upset. My school only has breezeways of shame.

Still on education
Obama: "We can stop talking about how great teachers are and start rewarding them for their greatness by giving them more pay and more support."
Dogmatist: I like this one. However, if you go to his website his answer for education is No Child Left Behind with more money. I suppose the best way to cure a failing bureaucracy is to give it more money. Despite his talk of change Obama shows his traditional Democrat tendencies.

On energy independence
Obama: "We can harness the ingenuity of farmers and scientists, citizens and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil and save our planet from a point of no return."
Dogmatist: Can't you hear Ronald Reagan all over that? Replace 'tyranny of oil' with 'red menace' and it is almost a direct quote.

On campaigning and terrorism (one and the same?)
Obama: "And we will never use 9/11 as a way to scare up votes, because it is not a tactic to win an election. It is a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty, genocide and disease."
Dogmatist: That wasn't to scare up votes? Still, well said.

On hope
Obama: "We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."
Dogmatist: Here you really feel the preacher in Obama coming out. Passionate, inspiring, flag waiving. I guess George Bush only gets stoned by the villagers for one of those.

On the question, "Can we?"
Obama: "And, together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story, with three words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea: Yes, we can."
Dogmatist: From every mountain, in every valley, from hill to dale and other words no one uses anymore, from space station to clean burning coal mine, from immigrant laborer to Fortune 500 CEO (well, maybe not), from the corridors of shame in the schools to the corridors of shame in Washington D.C., from the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream Waters, Yes we can, Yes We Can, YES WE CAN!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Wkahd;lfjas;dfja;oshdf;has;ldkjf;asdf;lkj. Typing in tounges. The left won't like that.

All in all, a powerful old-school speech from a new-school politician running on an old-school premise of change.




Picture taken from: the United States Senate