Monday, February 17, 2014

Monday, February 17, 2014

INSPIRING STORY OF COMMUNITY:

JERRY WEINBERGER
It Takes a Certain Kind of Village
Rallying to save a beloved local institution, D.C. neighbors show what real community looks like.
Winter 2014
Back in 1996, First Lady Hillary Clinton published It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, about the effects of extra-familial institutions and organizations on the nurturing of children. Conservatives didn’t like it. “It does not take a village to raise a child,” Bob Dole said. “It takes a family to raise a child.” Dole was right, since today the most important thing standing between a child flourishing and a child brain-scrambled by meth in the country or shot by gangsters in the city is a dad in the house. Hillary’s village—the dependency-inducing nanny state—hasn’t fared so well.
The Frager's staff in happier times
ANDREW LIGHTMAN (2)
The Frager’s staff in happier times
But that doesn’t mean that life in our reviving cities isn’t a village of a different kind. In my urban neighborhood, Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., a voluntary group called the Capitol Hill Village organizes services for the elderly. People young and old pay dues and volunteer to do chores for dues-paying residents who are avoiding the holding pen known as assisted living. Every year, the Village sponsors a fund-raising dance at the Atlas Theatre on the rapidly gentrifying H Street corridor that was the fiery epicenter of the 1968 D.C. riots. Another voluntary organization, the Capitol Hill Community Foundation, takes donations, especially from businesses, and distributes them as grants to neighborhood groups and projects. The foundation has provided more than $4 million in grants. Every dollar contributed gets used because the 30-member board of directors volunteers and pays out-of-pocket for all overhead and administrative costs. And this is not to mention the multitude of church groups tending to the needy and Internet groups that keep neighbors in touch, spread information and news, advertise yard sales, and organize block parties. All this developed without any legislation or support from the D.C. or federal governments.
The morning after
Capitol Hill is a village in another sense, too. People become acquainted in the course of everyday commercial life, mixed within residential blocks: we know the butchers and the fishmongers at Eastern Market, and they know us, so they tell us what’s fresh. We’ve always got a joke for them and they for us. Ditto for the artisans who sell at the market on weekends, such as the genius who makes giraffes and other animals from cut soda cans: his beautiful beasts rest in the corners of our house, and his big wire gecko, festooned with red and green beads, clings to the wall of our central staircase. The woodcarving guy from Surinam, who made our bedroom mirror, the table for our foyer, and a stool for me to tie my shoes, shakes my hand and gives my wife a hug and kiss and asks about our grandchildren. We talk about life and long-gone parents with my wife’s favorite jewelry artisan.
We know and chat often with the florist who turned a crummy corner building one block from our house into a fabulous indoor-outdoor flower shop, its centerpiece a multilevel, wrought-iron waterfall that gurgles in the summer and freezes into an ice sculpture in the winter. That helped inch up neighborhood property values. He keeps our townhouse rear deck verdant from spring to fall, so we are adding to his profits. In the basement of his store is a tiny market that sells artisanal specialty foods and reasonably priced wines and craft beer: we know the guys who run it, and they let us know when some especially good stuff comes in, so we are helping them pay their rent and turn a profit. When we were refinancing our house and I groused about the terms to the lady who cuts my hair, she dragged me to meet the local mortgage banker around the corner. He knew my house without looking it up, and we struck a deal that beat Wells Fargo by a mile and saved us loads of upfront cash. My wife now chats with the banker’s wife at our gym, not far away. We’ve since steered friends to that tiny bank, which has pulled off a lucrative real-estate deal.
Our neighborhood, in other words, is not a village in the anthropological sense of being rooted in folkways and time immemorial. Nor is it a village of social-justice do-gooding coerced by taxes and executed by anonymous bureaucrats. It no more springs from custom than it does from abstract moral intention. Rather, it’s closer to what Tocqueville saw in America: neighborliness and sociality, and thus morality, based on self-interest properly understood. I didn’t bond with the corner florist because of an imperative to love my neighbor; I did so first because he was improving the street and the property values. Absent those considerations, I can’t imagine why, much less how, I would have encountered him in the first place. The same goes for all the other connections I noted. People come together for mutual, material self-interest (a.k.a. profit); but they do so often and in close quarters, so they come to know and care for one another. This was illustrated in summer 2013, when a fire destroyed Frager’s, a hardware store and long-loved neighborhood institution.
About a year ago, my son-in-law and I converted a grill from propane to natural gas. It was a tougher job than expected, leading to several trips to Frager’s, which is about six blocks away from where I live. On Capitol Hill,everybody goes to Frager’s. After we spent half an hour digging through mounds of inventory, the salesperson found what he said that we needed. We took his word, though neither of us believed it. The Frager’s guy was right, though, and we finished just in time to fire up the grill for dinner.
Frager’s is a 90-year-old warren stuffed to the ceilings with anything one could ever need to keep house and home together. Its staff of 60 people are old and young, black and white, men and women, and all know the store like the back of their hands. If they can’t figure out what you need and how to use it, nobody can. It’s where you get locks and keys, paint, tools, flowers, hoses, brooms, fertilizer, bug spray, and parts for old electrical systems. You can rent a snow-cone machine for a child’s birthday party or buy a fan that looks like a chicken or a cat. You can get someone to spend a half-hour or more to find and then sell you one screw. Seven days a week, the narrow aisles are jammed with local residents and homeowners rich and poor, gardeners, contractors, property managers, professional plumbers and electricians, chimney sweeps, and old-timers who just like to hang out there.
In early June, we dined with friends who live near Frager’s. Just before dinner, as we were having some wine in their garden, the phone rang and our hostess let out a shriek: Frager’s was on fire, a four-alarm conflagration! We finished dinner, but nobody was in a good mood. The next morning, I called the contractor who works for us, who said that he would suffer financially: Frager’s stayed in business, he said, because it compensated for its slightly higher prices with its convenient location and remarkable staff expertise. His costs were now sure to spike and be passed on to his customers, he said, because a trip to the hardware store would now take at least twice the gas and time, and could wind up fruitless anyway, because what he needed just couldn’t be found at the Home Depot or a suburban hardware store. Ditto for the guy who maintains the spinning bikes in our gym. A few days later, he came to change some lightbulbs while I was sweating away: the bag he carried was from Frager’s. He told me that he went to Frager’s every day. Frager’s made money and helped its customers do the same: that’s not why it is beloved, but it could not have become beloved had it not been profitable for itself and others.
During and after the fire, people assembled to mourn Frager’s loss. Despite the 20,000 gallons of water per minute poured on the blaze, everything inside had been destroyed by the next morning, and the only things remaining were the brick front and side facades. Many wept and lamented that life in the neighborhood would never be the same. My wife had been planning a trip to Frager’s for the day after the fire and had to go through snarled traffic to a store much farther away. “How are we going to do without Frager’s?” she asked. Almost everyone on Capitol Hill was asking the same thing.
The store, a rambling brick building almost half a block long, was still smoldering the next morning when the village sprang into action. A hip bar and restaurant on H Street offered to take on some Frager’s employees, as did a local pretzel bakery and the group that owns an upscale Barracks Row pizza restaurant and bar. That same day, a Capitol Hill resident, the CEO of a local theater company, raised $30,250 before giving way to the Capitol Hill Community Foundation, which opened a special, tax-deductible fund: Friends of Frager’s collects donations on its website and at a booth on weekends at Eastern Market. The Hill Center, a voluntary nonprofit educational and community center, teamed up with DC Jazz to stage a concert in support of Frager’s. Food vendors and restaurateurs in the neighborhood sponsored Al Fresco for Frager’s, featuring the best neighborhood dishes. The fund-raising events kept springing up, and Friends of Frager’s has collected over $170,000. The Folger Shakespeare Theatre donated the proceeds of the last night of its brilliant Twelfth Night to Frager’s. It turns out that the theater needs Frager’s for every new production.
Nobody thinks that Frager’s can’t reopen without all this help—that’s what insurance is for. The issue for the community is not the store and its profits, but the people who work there. Neighbors want them to weather the financial storm while the business is rebuilt. I saw Frager’s chief cashier at least three or four times every month; at the counter, there was almost never time to talk, but she and her mates at the registers facilitated the smooth and courteous behavior of people in the long lines waiting to check out, and she looked you in the eye and smiled as best she could. The community wants to see her return to the job that she obviously loves and needs, and it will see to it that she does.
A community fund-raiser for Frager's
LARRY JANEZICH AND CAPITOL HILL CORNER
A community fund-raiser for Frager’s
How am I so sure? Because something like this has happened before. On April 30, 2007, Eastern Market suffered the same fate as Frager’s. A fire gutted the landmark, built in 1873 and the only remaining public market in D.C. today. In addition to being the heart of the neighborhood, Eastern Market is also a major tourist attraction. On weekends, thousands of shoppers, tourists, and people out for a stroll mob the market and the vegetable and craft stall area around it; during the week, the market is a major source of food for the neighborhood. Political power brokers line up alongside yuppies and working-class people of all ethnicities and colors. You can pay a fortune for Serrano ham or artisanal chèvre or pick up a croaker or pigs’ ears or feet for a couple of bucks, or a smoked turkey neck or fresh rabbit, or some kimchi made by the Korean greengrocer. The fire was thus a disaster for D.C. as a whole, and since the city owns the place, it was imperative that it restore the building and provide a temporary location so that the market could resume functioning as soon as possible. The building restoration took two years. The village’s problem, which the city could not address, was the four-month interlude between the fire and the opening of the temporary structure. How were the employees to weather this financial storm? Some vendors weren’t well insured. Others tried to sell from makeshift stalls outside but ran into all kinds of problems with refrigeration and sanitation.
The village came to the rescue. The Capitol Hill Community Foundation set up a special fund for Eastern Market employees, just as it has now done for Frager’s. Individuals, businesses (including local restaurants), the Capitol Hill Association of Merchants and Professionals, and other organizations all donated generously. In the end, the foundation managed over $500,000 in community contributions to help Eastern Market employees. The result: not one of the employees, many of them first-generation immigrants, lost a job. When the temporary market opened, only the location had changed.
Four days after the Frager’s fire, the business opened a “pop-up” garden store on the concrete slab still remaining of the temporary Eastern Market structure (the market building reopened in 2009). Community bloggers urged residents to buy every plant in stock, and the checkout line that first day stretched for a block. By closing time, Friends of Frager’s had raised $15,000. The chief cashier remains on the job as the pop-up site expands its range of services and products. Frager’s will have a tougher time than did the Eastern Market, though. According to its owner, a kind man named John Weintraub, rebuilding and getting back to business on the hallowed spot will take at least two difficult years.
Weintraub isn’t a young man, having purchased Frager’s with a fraternity buddy in the mid-1970s. He has run a hardware store, he said, not a property-development company, which he’s now forced to do. His home serves as temporary office space. He has had to negotiate with the insurance company (so far, so good) and contend with the byzantine world of the D.C. building and zoning departments. The city has offered help: it loaned the temporary Eastern Market slab and has indicated its willingness to be reasonable about property taxes on the store lot. But you can’t negotiate the D.C. building-bureaucracy maze without expensive permits and the services of costly “expediters.” Even securing temporary retail space can’t be done quickly, given the regulatory hurdles: despite official goodwill, it took three months to open a temporary paint store in a vacant restaurant down the block. Ditto for a makeshift location for rentals and hardware. I could see the strain on Weintraub’s face. By far, the most painful thing he had to do was lay off 25 members of the peak-season staff of 60 full- and part-time employees. The awful task was made easier, he said, by the outpouring of cash from the Capitol Hill Village to support the laid-off employees and ease them into new jobs with community businesses, or to help them get the unemployment insurance for which they’re eligible. Donations continue to flow into Friends of Frager’s.
When Weintraub loses heart, his spirits get a boost from the people walking around with Frager’s T-shirts bearing the slogan, “Not On Our Watch.” That was the store’s general manager’s comment when asked if Frager’s would disappear. It’s the sentiment, too, of the Capitol Hill Village.
This kind of support is not likely to have surfaced if Frager’s and Eastern Market had put their faith in Hillary Clinton’s version of community. Consider a Wall Street Journal article last summer about the AmeriCorps program, in which James Bovard described the complete absence of results-based evaluation. In 2000, the Government Accountability Office complained that evaluations “do not measure AmeriCorps programs’ progress toward the strategic goals of strengthening communities and improving participants’ lives, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.” Another GAO report in 2004 reported that AmeriCorps didn’t seem to know how many participants it had on its rolls. Until recently, AmeriCorps had no permanent inspector general at its oversight agency, since, in 2009, it fired its IG for standing by a report that hundreds of thousands of AmeriCorps dollars had been misused and for issuing a report that one large AmeriCorps program had “failed to report any positive results.” That village hasn’t worked, and it costs taxpayers some $446 million per year. Thankfully, neither the employees at Eastern Market nor at Frager’s depended on AmeriCorps. It takes a village, yes; but only a real one will do.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Saturday, February 15, 2014

A LUCID EXPLANATION OF THE USE AND ABUSE OF THE WORDS "LIBERAL" AND "LIBERALISM":

The Origin of 'Liberalism'

When Adam Smith and a group of fellow Scots first used the word in a political sense, it meant something very different than it does today.
More

Adam Smith (left) and Edinburgh's Parliament Square, c. 1794 (Wikimedia Commons)
It's easy to feel lost in information today, but “big data” can also help us understand the formulations we use in interpreting information, including politics. Google has scanned millions of books published over centuries. Can billions upon billions of words in digital form help us understand our history and character?
Thanks to digitization, we can now establish when the word “liberal” first took on a political meaning. For centuries it had had what scholars have called pre-political meanings, such as generous, tolerant, or suitable to one of noble or superior status—as in “liberal arts” and “liberal education.”  But now usingGoogle’s Ngram Viewer we can see what the word “liberal”—as an adjective—was used to modify. Up to 1769 the word was used only in pre-political ways, but in and around 1769 such terms as “liberal policy,” “liberal plan,” “liberal system,” “liberal views,” “liberal ideas,” and “liberal principles” begin sprouting like flowers.



My research with Will Fleming finds that the Scottish historian William Robertson appears to be the most significant innovator, repeatedly using “liberal” in a political way, notably in a book published in 1769. (I presented more details in a lecture at the Ratio Institute, viewable here.) Of the Hanseatic League, for example, Robertson spoke of “the spirit and zeal with which they contended for those liberties and rights,” and how a society of merchants, “attentive only to commercial objects, could not fail of diffusing over Europe new and more liberal ideas concerning justice and order.”
Robertson’s friend and fellow Scot Adam Smith used “liberal” in a similar sense in The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. If all nations, Smith says, were to follow “the liberal system of free exportation and free importation,” then they would be like one great cosmopolitan empire, and famines would be prevented. Then he repeats the phrase: “But very few countries have entirely adopted this liberal system.”
Smith’s “liberal system” was not concerned solely with international trade. He used “liberal” to describe application of the same principles to domestic policy issues. Smith was a great opponent of restrictions in the labor market, favoring freedom of contract, and wished to see labor markets “resting on such liberal principles.”



Elsewhere, Smith draws an important contrast between regulating “the industry and commerce of a great country … upon the same model as the departments of a publick office”—that is, to direct the economy as though it were an organization—versus “allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice.” In drawing such a contrast, Smith again is signaling the label “liberal” for the latter, which he favors.
Smith also compliments a school of French economists: “In representing perfect liberty as the only effectual expedient” for making national wealth as great as possible, “its doctrine seems to be in every respect as just as it is generous and liberal.” At the core of Smith’s idea of liberal principles is the idea of natural liberty:
All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men.
For Smith, natural liberty was not an axiom. He made exceptions to it and acknowledged that he was doing so. Still, it is his main principle, and the burden of proof is on those who would contravene it. In an open letter to Smith in 1787,Jeremy Bentham saluted him for having taught society the presumption of liberty. Bentham then proceeded to challenge Smith on one of his exceptions, saying that Smith had failed to meet the burden of proof when he made an exception to natural liberty by endorsing an existing law setting a maximum interest rate.
Shortly after The Wealth of Nations was published, Robertson wrote to Smith, saluting it as an antidote to "illiberal arrangements" and saying, “Your Book must necessarily become a Political or Commercial Code to all Europe, which must be often consulted by men both of Practice and Speculation.” Robertson’s expectation, widely shared at the time, proved accurate. And as Smith’s system spread, so did his term for it. The term became familiar in British officialdom, popping up occasionally in Parliamentary debate and even in King George III’s address at the opening of Parliament in 1782.
The term was exported to Europe and the United States as well. Some scholars have argued that the modern usage of “liberal” originated on the European continent before spreading to Britain. But using Google’s scans of books in French, Spanish, Italian, and German, we can see that usage in these countries trails Britain. I wouldn’t go so far as Arthur Herman does in the title of his splendid 2001 book, How the Scots Invented the Modern World, but it was Scots who originated the use of “liberal” in a political sense.
On the Continent, “liberal” was used, as compared to in Britain, more to denote constitutional reform and political participation, as opposed to natural liberty. Britain’s exceptional history of stable government and islandhood helped to make Smith’s focus on natural liberty possible. In his recent book Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World, Daniel Hannan quotes Smith in a 1763 lecture. After the 1707 union of England and Scotland the “dominions were then entirely surrounded by the sea … No foreign invasion was therefore much to be dreaded ...They were therefore,” Smith continued, “under no necessity of keeping up a standing army.” The Parliament shared power with the Crown, under a rule of law. “In this manner,” Smith said, “a system of liberty has been established in England before the standing army was introduced; which as it was not the case in other countries, so it has not been ever established in them.”
After Smith’s death in 1790, his peers and students, such as Dugald Stewart and then Stewart’s flock of influential students, including those of the Edinburgh Review, reinforced “liberal” discourse and guaranteed that the term’s usage continued to spread. In the 1820s the suffix “-ism” was attached to create “liberalism.” and later in the century the Liberal Party rose in British politics.
William Gladstone, the party’s leader, served four terms as prime minister of the United Kingdom. To Gladstone and Liberal Party associates such as Richard Cobden and John Bright, “liberal” was understood largely as Adam Smith first used the term in a political sense. Gladstone advanced free trade abroad, reduced government expenditures, and reduced taxation. Joseph Schumpeterput it this way: “Gladstonian finance was the finance of the system of 'natural liberty,' laissez-faire, and free trade.” As for domestic deregulation, the Liberal Party’s record was mixed, but it has to be understood in the context of pressure toward interventionism. In his book The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian Britain, Jonathan Parry writes, “Politicians were faced with the need to respond to the mass electorate, and they compromised accordingly … Liberals were committed to using the powers of central and local government pragmatically and constructively, so as to secure order, economy, free-market conditions and self-improvement.”
It was especially after 1880 that the Smithian sense of “liberal” began to lose traction to other, often contrary, meanings. The principal presumption of today’s “liberalism” often lies with the status quo, or even with the idea that the government should “do something” to solve perceived problems.
Google’s work enables us to establish who first used “liberal” in a political sense, what it meant, and how it spread. By knowing about the inception of “liberal” principles, we better understand the confusing semantics of politics today. Today, many of those who admire Adam Smith call themselves “classical liberals.” Maybe someday they will again be able to say simply “liberal.”

SCHOOL REFORM IN  THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF NEW YORK:
Unions of any description in any industry are the bane of progress, prosperity and justice, for that matter.

THE REAL WATER SHORTAGE DEMON IS GOVERNMENT, DESPITE OBLAMO'S RANTING FOR GLOBAL WARMING ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRAZIES.

California's Drought Isn't Due To Global Warming, But Politics

33 Comments
 Posted 
Water Wars: President Obama visited California's drought-hit Central Valley Friday, offering handouts and blaming global warming. But the state's water shortage is due to the left's refusal to deal with the state's water needs.
Following legislative action last month by Speaker John Boehner and California's Central Valley Representatives David Valadao, Devin Nunes and Kevin McCarthy, whose Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act was designed to resolve the long-standing problem of environmental water cutbacks that have devastated America's richest farmland, Obama is grandstanding in California, too.
His aim, however, is not a long-term solution for California's now-constant water shortages that have hit its $45 billion agricultural industry, but to preach about global warming. Instead of blaming the man-made political causes of California's worst water shortage, he's come with $2 billion in "relief" that's nothing but a tired effort to divert attention from fellow Democrats' dereliction of duty in using the state's water infrastructure.
The one thing that will mitigate droughts in California — a permanent feature of the state — is to restore the water flow from California's water-heavy north to farmers in the central and south. That's just what House Bill 3964, which passed by a 229-191 vote last week, does.
But Obama's plan is not to get that worthy bill through the Senate (where Democrats are holding it up) but to shovel pork to environmental activists and their victims, insultingly offering out-of-work farmers a "summer meal plan" in his package.
"We are not interested in welfare; we want water," Nunes told IBD this week. He and his fellow legislator Valadao are both farmers who represent the worst-hit regions of the Central Valley in Congress and can only look at the president's approach with disbelief.
"He's not addressing the situation," Valadao told us.
"They want to blame the drought for the lack of water, but they wasted water for the past five years," said Nunes.
The two explain that California's system of aqueducts and storage tanks was designed long ago to take advantage of rain and mountain runoff from wet years and store it for use in dry years. But it's now inactive — by design. "California's forefathers built a system (of aqueducts and storage facilities) designed to withstand five years of drought," said Nunes.
"We have infrastructure dating from the 1960s for transporting water, but by the 1990s the policies had changed," said Valadao.
Environmental special interests managed to dismantle the system by diverting water meant for farms to pet projects, such as saving delta smelt, a baitfish. That move forced the flushing of 3 million acre-feet of water originally slated for the Central Valley into the ocean over the past five years.
That hasn't helped the smelt any. But that doesn't seem to matter to Obama or his environmentalist friends.
The shutdown has been made worse by the inaction of California's Democrats, who for years have refused to build adequate storage facilities so that rainwater and snowmelt runoff can be stored for use by a growing population during dry years, another element of the earlier system. With no storage, the rain goes wasted.
"We can't make it rain, but what we can do is (conserve water) and save it for today, and we did not do that for two years," said Valadao, citing a recent wet year.
"We went into 2013 with reservoirs 80% full and ended the year at 20% full, and now we have 0%," said Valadao, citing the failure to build adequate storage for water. "We had lots of opportunities to prepare," he noted, but Democrats "blew it."
Nunes said the problem is serious and calls for concrete solutions, not dreamy social re-engineering efforts based on the unproven science of global warming.
"It's not global warming that led us to this problem, but math and engineering, because we let 3 million acre-feet of water go wasted over the past five years," Nunes said. "If we had that water, we would not be in an unmitigated disaster."
But that's right where California finds itself now.


A QUOTE THAT WARNS OF IMPENDING DISASTER:
"The reason why collapse, especially that caused by socialism, is so utterly complete is that the damage remains hidden for so long. The design margin is used up; savings are depleted; the institutions are hollowed out; public morality becomes perverted and education becomes nothing but a credential — and it all happens out of the public eye. Only when everything is used up, as in Venezuela, when the whole edifice implodes, as if by magic, does the cumulative effect become manifest."

The reason it's hard to disagree with this assessment are the examples of Detroit, Cuba, Venezuela an other socialist experimentations around the world.  Read the full story here:

Friday, February 14, 2014

Friday, February 14, 2014

HERE'S ONE ESTABLISHED PHYSICIAN'S RESPONSE TO OBAMACARE:

OBAMACARE IN ONE STATE


Linking to this New York Times story, James Taranto wrote here earlier this week about the tangled fate of Obamacare in Arkansas. Coincidentally, Dr. Samuel Vallery wrote us from Hot Springs, Arkansas with a personal take:
I am long time reader of Power Line. I am a 51 year old, solo ENT specialist, practicing in Hot Springs, Arkansas. I have been in practice here for 19 years. I have watched with horror, as the Obama administration and Democrat congressional colleagues have steamrolled this nation with Obamacare.
When the state of Arkansas decided to take money from the federal government to dramatically expand Medicaid enrollment and to also create the “private option,” I decided that I was going to swim upstream, and refuse to see any of those patients. In my area, Blue Cross/Blue Shield has contracted with the Feds. What they have done is roll Obamacare (the “private option”) and Medicaid into the Blue Cross “TrueBlue” PPO. A large number of private, otherwise insured patients are also in this PPO.
The plan is to force Arkansas physicians to take Medicaid/Obamacare patients at ridiculously reduced reimbursement rates. If a physicain wants to keep seeing private “TrueBlue” PPO patients, he/she must also accept the rolled in Obamacare/Medicaid patients, as well. The only way out of being included in Obamacare is to send a registered letter to BCBS, and resign from the entire PPO. As far as I know, I am the only physician in my area who has done this, so far.
I have recently moved into a small, 1300 square foot leased space, and I have cut my staff down to one full time employee, and two part time employees. I hope to be able to survive on cash patients, a few other smaller private insurance plans, and “out of network” patients. In addition to dropping the large Blue Cross PPO, I have also opted out of Medicare, and only see those patients on a cash pay basis. I have included an attachment of a photo of my billboard that went up here in town a few days ago, as well as a link to my Web site, where my cash prices are listed for all to see.
I can only hope that more physicians will take the same steps that I have taken, and that patients will educate themselves and understand that paying cash for “out of network” medical care is a better option than staying within limited networks that benefit insurance companies and large hospital corporations that own their salaried, hired physicians.
The photo Dr. Vallery has forwarded is below. We thank Dr. Vallery for his message and for his permission to post it on Power Line.
DrVallery
UPDATE: A reader writes to provide the following information: “There is an organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that is fighting Obamacare every way it can. They provide information to doctors interested in going cash only. They have been around for a long time. I have signed up for their email updates. Here is the link to their website for those interested in what they are doing. On their home page you will see links to Heritage and Cato, and they have joined in an amicus brief re Hobby Lobby.”

ON THE ENERGY FRONT THIS FROM THE ADVANCED GERMAN STATE: All this state intervention in the marketplace doesn't seem to work all that well.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Thursday, February 13, 2014

THIS IS PRETTY MUCH HOW IT WORKS THESE DAYS:

President Obama is dividing America into two nations—one rich, the other increasingly poor, and both more likely to elect Democrats. Americans growing richer support his policies, and those growing poorer are increasingly dependent on Democratic politicians for government handouts.

In this century, the economy has not performed well, and a jobs shortage has driven down the income of most Americans.
Obama’s “recovery” has managed only 2.4 percent growth, but George W. Bush’s expansion scored about the same rate and then collapsed altogether.
Since 2001, when Bush took office, the U.S. economy has created only 4.7 million jobs—about 30,000 a month and less than one-fourth of those needed to keep pace with population growth. For most, wages after inflation and higher state taxes have fallen.
Technology is important. The digital revolution and the shift of news and entertainment to the Internet, cable, eBooks, and the like have effectively killed one million jobs.
Globalization is a culprit. American industry still boasts many of the best products and most efficient factories but has shed 5 million jobs—far more than can be justified by rising productivity.
Manufacturing has enjoyed a small renaissance but has recouped only one in nine lost jobs, because Bush and Obama poorly enforced trade agreements that apply to principal competitors. China, Japan, and Germany systematically maintain currency advantages and barriers that artificially underprice their products and block our exports.
Obama has unilaterally imposed environmental and energy policies that needlessly raise costs and penalize competitiveness.
Increasingly workers are divided into two groups.
Those with diplomas from elite universities rely less on sinking U.S. fortunes and more on global markets for their services or who can simply manipulate markets. Big wealth is concentrated on Wall Street, the Silicon Valley, and Hollywood, and players with monopoly power—like the NFL and your local cable operator.
Meanwhile, the rest of America goes without a job or languishes with sinking wages waiting on the new elite in restaurants and hotels.
One in six men between the ages of 25 and 54 have no job, few prospects for finding one, and are increasingly supported by their wives.
Contrary to the cynical alibis of Democratic politicians and feminists, this is not a choice made possible by greater gender equity. During the William Clinton years, when both women and the overall economy made strong gains, the percent of prime-age men working increased, but since has declined precipitously.
Non-elite males don’t vote for Democrats and certainly are not likely to vote for Hillary Clinton, so Obama happily pursues policies that marginalize and make them despondent.
Hillary talks endlessly about programs to help girls and women but little about the plight of those forgotten men and the boys our schools are failing.
Democrats answer these problems with strategies that motivate the poorly and less prestigiously educated to quit the labor force altogether and rely on government largess and rewards the wealthy elite who finance their campaigns.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare’s perverse incentives will motivate 2.3 million low and middle-income Americans not to seek employment. One in seven adults is now covered by food stamps.
Strong enforcement policies and generous tax treatment for intellectual property enhances the wealth of high-profile Democratic contributors in Hollywood and the Silicon Valley.
The Obama Justice Department, unlike its Clinton and Reagan era predecessors, fines banks instead of prosecuting financiers who defraud investors. Then Democratic fundraisers collect commissions from left-leaning bankers and lawyers with seven and eight figure incomes.
The IRS stalks conservative political contributors, and the Justice Department rifles the phone and email records of reporters. We can’t have too many critics stirring up the masses.
The PC police now ensconced at the helm of America’s once great universities, limit conservative voices, but supply NPR and the New York Times with research that pimps progressive causes.
Wrapping it all together, Democrats win elections cultivating a large contingent of voters whose declining circumstances require substantial government support and finance their campaigns with contributions from elites profiting from globalization. Critics are squelched, and the Republic declines.
I thank my stars for tenure, but feeding my family and writing this column will only get tougher under the high heels of a President Hillary Clinton.
Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and is a widely published columnist. He tweets @pmorici1.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

THIS INTERESTING ARTICLE FROM 2010 TALKS ABOUT MONEY IN POLITICS: Who can explain/justify public employee unions?

UNIONS ARE THE BANE OF DEMOCRACY AND NEED TO BE FOUGHT LIKE ANY CANCER:

MONEY IN POLITICS AND THE HYPOCRISY OF THE LEFT


As I eagerly await the daily announcement from the media and the organized Left about the latest purported outrage of the Koch brothers spending money on politics, it is worth taking in the data compiled by the lefty Center for Responsive Politics about the top donors to political campaigns.  The data on campaign spending from 1989-2014 show that all of the lefty talk about “corporate money” in politics is a smoke screen: the largest donors are labor unions and left-leaning grassroots groups.  In fact, the number one donor is Act Blue, which hasn’t been around all that long.
The screen cap below shows the top 15 political donors.  Eleven of the 15 tilt Democratic while none tilt Republican, and nine of them are labor unions, with the second largest political donor being the giant public employee union, AFSCME.  Koch Industries comes in way down at 59th place on the list.
Pretty clear that all of the noise about the Koch Brothers and corporate money in politics generally has one objective in mind: force out any money that might even marginally detract from the drive for liberal power.  Act blue indeed.
Money copy

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

February 11, 2014

THE AUSTRIANS HAVE A SIMPLE AND COHERENT MESSAGE ABOUT ECONOMICS.  HOWEVER ONE MUST WADE THROUGH SOME TURGID ENGLISH TO UNDERSTAND IT.  OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BEYOND MOST LIBERALS.

DIONNE AGAIN, NATURALLY [WITH COMMENT BY PAUL]

Once upon a time, about 25 years ago, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne was often worth reading.  He seemed to be a liberal of some curiosity and independence of mind.  His columns were usually original and unpredictable.  He was among the rare journalists who attended the American Political Science Association conventions when they were held in DC; he’d be spotted attending the better (usually conservative) panels, and scooping up an armload of papers in the paper room.  His widely acclaimed and highly readable book Why Americans Hate Politics was notable for his careful treatment of the rise of conservative thought.
Today Dionne is a lazy and utterly predictable partisan hack.
What happened?  Not sure, but he seemed to take a turn toward the usual liberal madness some time during the George W. Bush administration.  Bush seemed to have that effect of a lot of liberals.  (Paul Krugman, who once made some sense, is said to walk around in circles talking to himself at the few academic conferences he still attends.)
Anyway, Dionne’s column yesterday is a real doozy.  He tries to blame the Austrian school of economics for gridlock in Washington.  Dionne was picking up on a comment from Ron Paul on the campaign trail in 2012 about how “We’re all Austrians now.”  Here’s E.J.:
Paul’s words are worth remembering not only because they are entertaining but also because he has a point. To a remarkable degree, our politics are haunted by the principles of Austrian economics and their sweeping hostility to any actions by government to keep downturns from becoming catastrophes or to promote greater economic fairness.
Now, the Austrian theory is highly controversial; actually, make that almost completely rejected by mainstream economists today, almost none of whom foresaw or predicted the housing bubble and subsequent bust.  Who did?  Ah, yes—some of the Austrians.   Funny thing, but Austrian economic theory seems to explain the recent world better than conventional economic theories.
Apparently it is much too difficult for Dionne to represent the basic Austrian theory accurately, which is that the kind of macroeconomic interventions liberals, following Keynes, like to impose make booms bigger and more unstable, this making the busts worse.  Moreover, the interventions like the Obama stimulus make the misery of the bust worse and more prolonged. Markets, while harsh at the bottom, self-correct quicker than government, and end the misery sooner, like tearing off a bandaid.
Instead, Dionne says this:
Hayek and Mises perceived little difference between democratic governments that used their power to plan against recessions and dictatorships that did the same thing. In this view, the policies of Franklin Roosevelt led down what Hayek called the “Road to Serfdom” and were thus objectively comparable to those of Hitler or Stalin.
Later, Dionne quotes the European historian Tony Judt:
Hayek believed, Judt said, that “if you begin with welfare policies of any sort — directing individuals, taxing for social ends, engineering the outcomes of market relationships — you will end up with Hitler.”
As I say, I guess it’s too difficult to actually read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, or his more complete Constitution of Liberty, to see what his argument actually was, so easier just to go with Judt’s comic book version instead.  In both of his great books, Hayek endorses the principle of social insurance (and even a mandate for everyone to buy health insurance—egad*), but is concerned with the tendency toward making social insurance programs into redistribution programs.  Wow—crazy stuff, I know.  But you can see that Judt’s formula that Hayek opposed “welfare policies of any sort” is flat wrong.
And is Hayek’s broader point that centralized economic planning would lead to tyrannical government really so far-fetched?  The linchpin of Hayek’s argument was that the plans and desires of the statists would require the undermining of the rule of law, because steadily increasing arbitrary power is necessary for their centralized schemes to work.  I wonder whether Dionne has checked in lately with the Little Sisters of the Poor?  Or has taken notice of the IRS harassment of groups opposed to Obama?  I wonder what he makes of Obama’s unilateral executive decisions simply to suspend parts of the health care law that are politically inconvenient?
Maybe it’s time adapt the old Gilbert O’Sullivan tune into “Dionne Again, Naturally”:
To think that only yesterday
I was cheerful, bright and gay
Looking forward to who wouldn’t do
The role I was about to play
But as if to knock me down
Reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch
Cut me into little pieces
Leaving me to doubt
Talk about, God in His mercy
Oh, if he really does exist
Why did he desert me
In my hour of need
I truly am indeed
Dionne again, naturally
* See The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press definitive edition currently in print, p. 406.
PAUL ADDS: Dionne must have misplaced those papers he scooped up at the American Political Science Association meetings. He is now incapable of accurately stating the views of leading conservative thinkers. In this article, for example, he completely misstated the nature of American conservatism and mischaracterized the views of leading conservatives, most notably Robert Nisbet.