Miraj Patel: Free markets, Freedom, and Peace

Raising the debt ceiling

Washington is at it again with yet another debt ceiling debate. After the administration’s rampant spending over the last year, we once more find ourselves very close to the maximum legal level of national debt. With that, we again see those who are making pleas that the limit needs to be raised in order to avoid a default on national debt. This argument has been used again and again over the past few years, every time yielding the same result- increasing the ceiling. How long will this illogical argument suffice?

If we continue to increase the debt ceiling every time we approach it, then what is the point of even having such a limit? Considering where we are heading right now, I think it is pretty clear that a stand on the national debt ceiling should be taken now as opposed to later. Instead of raising the ceiling, spending can be cut in order to keep the debt below our current legal limit. In fact, without a firm debt ceiling, it doesn’t look like those is D.C. looking for quick political points will ever stop the spending- that is, until it is too late of course. We need to take a stand on this debt and we need to let the politicians know it. We need to let them know, that this is no longer acceptable:

Image credit goes to CNN.

An open letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President,

I am a concerned American citizen who has a few honest questions for you regarding your policy and rhetoric.

Throughout your campaign you embraced the idea of a government that is not entangled in special interests and lobbying. The day after your inauguration, you addressed this issue once more by placing barriers between your administration and lobbyists. Despite your words, you have granted waivers to several lobbyists over the past few months to work with your administration and the presence of special interests has not changed in a significant way compared to past administrations. Why the difference in rhetoric and policy?

You later also said that bills would be released 5 days in advance so that the American public and Congress could get a fair chance to see them before they were voted on. Yet, there have been no significant changes on this front either. Several bills, including the CARD Act, were not released within the promised time frame. Why the difference in rhetoric and policy?

You heavily criticized the Bush administration and their handling of the Guantanamo Bay prison. You assured us that it would be closed by January and the torture stopped. Yet, you recently backed out of that time frame and have not given us any estimate as to when it will actually happen- if you still plan on doing it. Why the difference in rhetoric and policy?

Over the course of the last year you have often said that you believe in capitalism and free markets. Yet, virtually every step you have taken, from pushing the stimulus to supporting the bailouts to supporting Cash for Clunkers, has been against the very system you say you still hold in high regard. Why the difference in rhetoric and policy?

Your administration has called for a stronger dollar several times over the past few months, especially recently as the dollar has weakened dramatically. Yet, you have supported policies that increase spending, increase the deficits, and weaken the dollar as the Fed is forced to devalue the currency to help fund these programs. Why the difference in rhetoric and policy?

You often blasted the previous administration for their absurd spending habits and told us that any spending increases you make would be counteracted by spending cuts, making net spending equal or lower. Despite the hopeful words, your spending this year has created a deficit of over $1.4 trillion, more than three times Bush’s biggest spending year. Why the difference in rhetoric and policy?

During your campaign you told us that the health care reform debate would be televised on CSPAN where viewers would be able to see Congressman and doctors negotiating with one another. You said this would show who really cares about the people and who adheres to the special interest groups. Despite the good idea, most of the dealing has been done in private and the American public has had the same amount of insight into the Congressional proceedings as with any other bill. Why the difference in rhetoric and policy?

In one of your debates you also said that there would be no insurance mandate. Yet, in HR3962, the plan that you are currently backing, there is such a mandate. Why the difference in rhetoric and policy?

You came to the White House offering a change from the heavy politics, special interest manipulation, and opacity between the people and government. You offered us transparency, fairness, and government accountability. Yet, this has not happened. So, with that I would like to ask you Mr. President, why the difference in rhetoric and policy?

A concerned citizen,
Miraj Patel

Tackling “too big to fail”

Congress and the Obama administration are starting to look at how to deal with the failure of large corporations, the companies that are often referred to as “too big to fail.” There are currently dozens of proposals that are being looked over and a lot of debate on how big the legislation should actually be. Many of the plans seek to decrease the ability to overleverage assets and to combat risky behavior. Some proposals go as far as to allow regulators to actively meddle in markets and even restructure or shut down parts of firms. It has also been suggested that large corporations should be split up by default. All of the proposals of course move us further away from capitalism than we already are and are likely to be conducive to further crony capitalism and corporatism.

The whole debate is of course being stressed in light of the economic failures of the last year and the mishandling of the bailouts by the government. There is one issue that really should be discussed even before any proposal is considered- does “too big to fail” even exist? In capitalism, a failure of any large corporation would simply mean that other firms would pick up the market share if the demand for the product was still there. When there is demand, supply will always follow to meet it. Employment may go down temporarily, but as the market picks up, firms would hire more people as well. Markets are self-adjusting in this way. As for the process of dissolving failed corporations- that already exists. It is called bankruptcy. Any large corporation that fails can go through bankruptcy where other firms would be able to buy any assets that they want to invest in or acquire. Toxic assets that no one is interested in would be the only losses and no matter what the government does, those assets would still be losses under any failure plan.

Stimulus: projections vs. reality

Earlier this year, the stimulus was pushed through Congress and quickly signed by President Obama in what supporters deemed a necessary step and one which would further recovery. Just as with the current healthcare debate and most spending plans, there were projections created by the government during the debate process. Below is a projection created by the administration’s economic team back in February concerning the affect the stimulus would have on unemployment as opposed to without it:

The maroon dots are the actual unemployment numbers (thank you to innocentbystanders.com for adding those in.) As you can clearly see, the predictions were drastically off. History has shown that government projections are often overly optimistic- social security and medicare being perhaps the most titanic examples. This graph doesn’t tell us what the unemployment number would’ve been had the stimulus not been passed (and we will never know the exact figure), but it is quite clear that the stimulus has not been able to curtail unemployment as expected by Washington economists. It also shows how little grasp many politicians and politically-sided economists actually have of the market.

With unemployment currently over 10%, the argument can be made that the stimulus has in fact not helped the situation. Either way, we are still left with the ~$780 billion tab that came with the legislation and it is clear the government was wrong in its outlook.

The monstrous miscalculation by the Obama administration should really serve as a caution for citizens in that we can not simply take what the government tells us as truth- especially when it comes to projections concerning markets. Government predictions are often wrong, and in some cases distorted due to political reasons (such as trying to push through legislation.) This is why it is important to consider several different sides when it comes to any government legislation, especially massive spending increases such as the stimulus, bailouts, or state-subsidized healthcare.

Healthcare reform: the heart of the issue

The big news of the past weekend was the passing of HR3962: The Affordable Health Care for America Act. The bill, which has gone through numerous revisions over the past few months, finally passed in the House and now a similar version will be voted upon in the Senate. The Obama administration has been very adamant on the passage of a healthcare reform bill over the past few months and opponents of their plans have been just as strong in spreading word of the negativities of each plan. Over and over again we have heard politicians talk about the need for reform to fix what is deemed by many, including myself, a broken system. The caveat with this process, however, is that not all reform is necessarily beneficial and some plans may in fact make things worse. We have seen a plethora of ideas over the past few months; some economically viable, others not, some which would considerably improve market outcomes, and others which fail to address the actual problems and would only make things worse. Unfortunately, an examination of the current healthcare market reveals that HR3962 does not effectively address the heart of the issue and hence, falls into that last category.

The fact of the matter is that under current market conditions, there is simply not enough healthcare to meet the demand of everyone at once. With the Baby Boomer generation getting older, projections only predict the worst is coming. HR3962, like many of the plans backed by the Obama administration, does not offer any solution to combat this problem- instead it relies on mandates to ensure people are covered. Specifically, the legislation requires the purchase of insurance for most Americans and penalizes those who don’t. There are increased government subsidies, but in the end, that money comes from the people’s pockets and we still bear the cost. Without any sufficient plan to increase the supply of healthcare, this legislation will only lead to rationing, longer wait times, and reduced quality of healthcare.

There is no getting around it. When there is a limited amount of something, you cannot simply create more out of thin air by passing legislation that requires everyone to have it. What we should be doing is working on ways to increase the supply of healthcare, which would automatically decrease costs and offer Americans more choices. Also, instead of mandating the purchase of insurance and subsidizing it, which will leads to trillions in future debt, we should consider options that actually decrease insurance costs through increased competition.

The primary way in which to accomplish both of these goals is to let the market grow and compete in an efficient manner- something that is being stalled by government policy today. Under current law, the government has massive, often overlooked, barriers on insurance and healthcare competition, which leads to high prices and reduced efficiency.

Among the most constraining regulations today, is the law that forbids Americans from buying insurance across state lines. This restriction has led to many states being dominated by only one or two insurance companies, leaving consumers with very little choices and giving a lot more market power to these firms. Opening up competition across state lines would immediately reduce prices as hundreds of companies compete with one another to meet the demand of consumers. Americans would have more choices to choose from and individuals would be more likely to find the perfect plan for their needs. Fewer restraints on insurance companies could also lead to new firms entering the market and further increasing competition.

Reducing the government bureaucracy can also help further growth and competition. Particularly, the government could ease licensing laws to allow nurse practitioners and other skilled workers perform more medical procedures. Many of these nurses and physician’s assistants are already trained to handle some of these procedures, but the law stops them from actually carrying out these procedures. Easing such laws would increase the healthcare workforce for many procedures and would also drive down costs.

Prices can be further driven down by increasing market efficiency by fixing the tax code, which currently favors certain parts of the market and in turn, leads to abuse. The primary example of this can be seen in the drastically different tax laws for individual vs. employer-purchased insurance. The government currently heavily favors employer-purchased insurance for workers through tax breaks and subsidies. This policy has led to many employers purchasing any one particular plan for a large group of their employees. This has led to abuse as many employees of such firms have misused the insurance since they are not directly paying for it. Some of these employees may not even need insurance, while others may need bigger plans. If this law was eliminated, companies would be able to pass on a lot of the saved money to their employees so that the individuals could purchase insurance based on their personal needs, which would effectively reduce abuse and in turn, cut costs.

While the Congressman supporting HR3962 say that this is the reform we need, an examination of the actual legislation reveals that it does very little to solve the actual problem because it really just circles it. When looking towards reform we need to look at solutions which would solve our healthcare shortage problem and the lack of competition in the market. The real question we should be asking right now is not should there be more government in our healthcare decisions, but whether there should be less.