A Step Closer to Socialized Medicine

So late last night the House Democrats managed to pass their version of nationalized health care in a 220-215 vote--a squeaker, but still a win. I cannot emphasize enough what a bad idea this is. This particular bill, in any case. There are ways to ensure that every American and legal immigrant has access to health care. Vouchers--payouts, coupons, checks, call 'em what you will--would be easy and much cheaper. And the legislation would be very short, as it would only require proof of no insurance, a dedicated source of funding, and a sunset clause for individuals who manage to get a job or their own insurance. You do NOT need additional taxes on new medical devices. You do NOT need penalties, fines, or jail time for people who do not WANT insurance. You do not need business-killing regulations covering illegal immigrants, when hospitals nationwide have already closed their doors because they were already compassionately covering people without insurance. You do not need this government "guaranteeing" supposedly low-cost insurance. They can't do it. This is the same government that...

• Continually increases the cost of college educations.
• Spent the Social Security trust fund/"lock box" in the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.
• Despite $5 trillion spent on the "war on poverty," has somehow managed not to eliminate poverty.
• Cannot keep a space exploration program funded.
• Creates $400 hammers and $600 toilet seats for the Department of Defense.

The point is that NOTHING the government has done has been made cheaper, and in fact is very often made more expensive just by its presence in the economy. In the name of doing something for one segment of the public, our government will take away the freedom of others. Note again that if this bill passes, you will be arrested and thrown into prison if you do not have health insurance.

There are, in fact, people who deliberately choose not to have health insurance but have enough money to pay doctors directly as they go. Others are young and stupid and think they don't need it. Others would rather spend money on cable TV or nights at the bar. So if someone does not have health insurance by choice, it's none of the government's business.

It's time to rethink a government policy--led by our president and championed by his allies in Congress--that says government has the right to force you to do something for your own good. Now I know someone will say, "Yeah, but government forces you not to commit murder, steal, etc." Not the same at all. We are talking about optional activities. Items that fall under the umbrella of freedom and things not in the Constitution. Freedom used to connote the freedom to use it badly. Consider the idjits who win Lotto and go broke buying multiple cars and houses. They might be stupid, but they've got the money and they're free to use it as they see fit if it doesn't harm anyone.

If government can dictate that everyone gets health coverage, they can tell you that you must live your life in a prescribed "healthy" manner to reduce their costs. "What's the difference between that and businesses?" someone might ask. It's really simple, and this is why I trust businesses infinitely more than governments: a private insurance firm will give you a discount for healthy living (for example, my insurance company reimburses my health club membership up to $150 a year). If government is telling you to live healthier to be elligible for insurance and you don't, they throw you in prison. Can I make this any clearer? You do not want the government to have this much power over you, even in the name of "doing something for you."

And again, this WILL cost more. So Washington will raise taxes to pay for this. Except that raising taxes takes more money out of the economy that otherwise would be used for private investment and spending. You might recall that there's a recession on--10.2% unemployment and rising. If companies have to pay for part of this healthcare mandate by the employee, it makes sense for them to have a few employees as possible. Therefore, they will NOT hire more people and unemployment will stay high or increase. This is not going to help the broader economy, it will hurt very badly.

Call your senators and write them. Stop this. Please. I intend to. Repeatedly.

Potpourri LXXXII

Before diving off the high board for the evening, I'd just like to say happy birthday to Dar, a.k.a. Darlene Cavalier, a.k.a. Darlene the Science Cheerleader. Gooooo Dar!

Next up from the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE), another YouTube video on starting up a propellor-driven aircraft (Lochkeed Constellation). A bit too much oil in the crankcase, I reckon...

Is even Cuba contemplating a reduction in government? Memo to Washington...

An Abu Dhabi investor is buying 32% of Virgin Galactic.

Also from the DUDE: The recession is over? If true, can we stop overspending? Another memo to Washington...

Think I'll shut down now. G'night, all.

Potpourri XLVII

Articles here and here on Ares I-X...

Here's a list of things that have to go right to get human beings to and from the Moon safely. All of them must take place at extreme velocities, temperatures, or environments and require our greatest efforts to correctly. How is it that people cannot be inspired by the space program? How is it possible for a nation to make space exploration boring?

From a friend of Hu: a company that ships wine to Alabama legally. Better read the fine print first.

Here's the official White House press release on the nominations of Charles Bolden and Lori Garver.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________________________FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 23, 2009
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals for key administration posts: General Charles Bolden, Administrator of NASA and Lori Garver, Deputy Administrator of NASA.

President Obama said, “These talented individuals will help put NASA on course to boldly push the boundaries of science, aeronautics and exploration in the 21st century and ensure the long-term vibrancy of America’s space program.”

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals today:

Gen. Charles Bolden, Nominee for Administrator of NASA
Charles Bolden retired from the United States Marine Corps in 2003 as the Commanding General of the Third Marine Aircraft Wing after serving more than 34 years, and is currently CEO of JackandPanther LLC, a privately-held military and aerospace consulting firm. Gen. Bolden began his service in U.S. Marine Corps in 1968. He flew more than 100 sorties in Vietnam from 1972-73. In 1980, he was selected as an astronaut by NASA, flying two space shuttle missions as pilot and two missions as commander. Following the Challenger accident in 1986, Gen. Bolden was named the Chief of the Safety Division at the Johnson Space Center with responsibilities for overseeing the safety efforts in the return-to-flight efforts. He was appointed Assistant Deputy Administrator of NASA headquarters in 1992. He was Senior Vice President at TechTrans International, Inc. from 2003 until 2005. Gen. Bolden holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis and a M.S. in Systems Management from the University of Southern California.

Lori Garver, Nominee for Deputy Administrator of NASA
Lori Garver is the President of Capital Space, LLC, and has served as Senior Advisor for Space at the Avascent Group, a strategy and management consulting firm, based in Washington, D.C. She was the lead civil space policy advisor for Obama for America, and she helped lead the Agency Review Team for NASA during the Transition. She has intimate familiarity with the agency and knows well the challenges it faces. From 1998 to 2001, Ms. Garver served as NASA’s Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy and Plans. Reporting to the NASA Administrator, she oversaw the analysis, development, and integration of NASA policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, and the NASA Advisory Council. Ms. Garver also served as a primary spokesperson for NASA. Prior to this appointment, she served as a Senior Policy Analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, and Special Assistant to the Administrator. Ms. Garver earned an M.S. in Science, Technology, and Public Policy from the George Washington University and a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Colorado College.

*

A Space Review editorial compares NASA to the automobile industry.

This one from the corporate office: the Baltimore Sun is reporting that you're going to need to pony up with your middle name when it comes time to fly. I actually inquired how much it would cost to legally change my name from Bartholomew to Bart because I sign my checks Bart but my mother and the State of Alabama call me Bartholomew (and the former only when she's angry with me). Why? Because the TSA was getting p!$$y with me about my driver's license not matching my credit cards. Parents beware: I won't be the only one to contemplate this change to save myself the aggravation at the airport. Another lesson in the law of Unintended Consequences from our government: make the law more intrusive and yoiu can even cause people to change their names.

This one from Nickomundo: Anderson Cooper believes the current generation is going to be shafted by the recession. Jeez, spare me. Every generation is screwed by a recession, usually temporarily, as the ability to make more choices and obtain more opportunities is reduced by slowed economic activity. Recession means your mom buys from the discount rack or sews your clothes when you rip them. Recession means you don't go to the Chuck-E-Cheese once a week or don't get high-end snacks with your lunch. Or that you don't buy your lunch. Or vacation gets put off a year. You're sad, you're disappointed. A couple of more fortunate, more shallow peers might laugh at your cheap, off-the-rack clothes. You're hurt. You move on.

Is NASA "over the hill" if the average age there is 49? All depends. People keep telling me that "40 is the new 30." Which means what for Gen Y? It means you'll be waiting another 10 years before you get promoted. (Just a little snark/humor to offer insight into how your elders might be thinking.)

Leonard David, whose brain I'd like to borrow for a week, has a blog on a new approach to searching for Earthlike planets.

The International Space Development Conference officially gets under way tomorrow. The Space Investment Symposium (SIS), which has become attached to ISDC since 2006, happened today. That's an event where they put wannabe space entrepreneurs and venture capitalists into a room and try to educate the space people on the right way to write a business plan to get investment money from the VCs. I first wrote about the SIS in 2007 and have been trying to keep up with it when I can. Lately I haven't been able to afford the leave time--or the ticket price. I don't complain about that--I got in gratis as a journalist in '06 and '07.

I see the SIS as a positive sign in the space advocacy movement because it shows that space businesses are becoming routine, part of the regular investment and business environment, like utilities or drug companies. However, I've heard complaints that this emphasis on business also raises ticket prices for space-related events and eliminates that "grass roots" touch/feel to the activity. I look at it this way, speaking purely for myself and from a strictly appearance-based point of view: more suits means more people taking space seriously. It's the difference between space advocates showing up in t-shirts or Star Trek outfits to lobby Congress and those same advocates showing up with suits, professional attire, and briefcases. Which one would you take more seriously? Apperances matter. And if that means that the space movement loses the "common touch" but gains credibility among the non-space-minded public, then I'm willing to make the sacrifice. If you want to wear t-shirts and Star Trek outfits, there's probably a science fiction convention out there waiting for you. If you want to make a serious effort to get civilization into space, leave the t-shirts at home and get ready to do business.

The Economy, Continued

George W. Bush handed off a bad economy to Barack Obama. I believe we can all agree on this. However, after that, the perception of economic reality between conservatives and liberals diverges. For example, Bush took the wrong step--after cutting taxes during the '01-03 recession--of attempting a massive government bailout/intrusion into the economy. The '08-'09 recession has been the result of a collapse in home prices, credit, and some of the financial and industrial concerns that depended on the credit markets. The bail-outs under Bush and Obama, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury, have not worked. Credit remains tight, more mortgages are failing, and credit remains tight. Enter Barack Obama.

It is time to stop blaming George W. Bush for the economy. This economy has been Obama's for a month now. Gone is the soaring rhetoric of "hope" and "change." Now we are treated to grim reality, "It's going to get worse before it gets better," and more excuses for the government to intrude into the private sector.

A jolt of government spending on private-sector products and services could temporarily juice the economy, though John Maynard Keynes himself said that incentives were necessary to encourage businesses to invest and expand. Those incentives generally include tax cuts and reductions in regulations. The Obama stimulus plan has not done this. It has focused on government spending on government-focused activities that increase the federal bureaucracy but does not increase private-sector productivity, which has always been more dynamic and profitable than government activity. It has increased taxes on the people with the most money, who would be the ones paying the most taxes and investing in the most profitable businesses. He has proposed a massive new dose of federal spending that the nation cannot afford, foreign investors do not want to subsidize (or want concessions to support), and which could inflate the currency in the long run.

Furthermore, President Obama and his party in Congress have attached regulations and strings to their version of the bailout money. President Obama has criticized CEOs for flying in private jets or going on business travel to expensive places, potentially damaging businesses and jobs in those industries. The more the government interferes, the less businesses are likely to take risks, for fear of being targeted or criticized for their attempts at success.

Obama has preached about a new "era of responsibility," but the government bailing out businesses and individuals who made bad decisions guarantees more irresponsibility in the future because somewhere, somehow, people believe that the government will always bail them out if they screw up. Indeed, the bigger the screwup (billions of dollars lost), the more likely it is that a company will get a bailout!

Obama wants more Americans working, but extending unemployment benefits or upping the benefits is an incentive to stay home and let the government take care of you. And so forth.

In short, I believe President Obama's policies and public statements are making the economy worse, not better. I want my country to be rich. Heck, I want to be rich! I want my 401(k) back. I've been told I need to "give Obama a break." At what point can the voters make him accept responsibility? When the Dow doubles down a couple more times? When unemployment hits 10%? 15%? 25%, as it did under Roosevelt? At what point can we stop blaming Bush? And saying things like "Well, Bush did X worse" is not helpful, nor is it a terribly effective defense of Obama. Bush is not president anymore, Obama is, and I want him to know what he is going to do that will be good for the economy.

I want the president to cut taxes. I want him to ease up on the private sector. I want him to stop telling businesses that it's not appropriate to travel to Las Vegas or Orlando for conventions. I want him to stop criticizing anyone able to afford a private plane. I don't want him to spend more in one year than most of the most expensive years-long projects in American history. If he's going to spend taxpayer money, let it be for basic infrastructure, basic research and development (including space exploration), quality academic and trade education, and temporary relief of economic hardship. If he really wanted to kick up the economy, he could cut the number of the federal regulations (and the bureaucracy responsible for increasing their number), bypass bailing out banks and other companies, and send every taxpayer $10,000. We would probably still come out ahead...plus, he'd stimulate consumer spending like nothing anyone has ever seen! I could get behind a program like that.

Heck, if he did all that, I might vote for him in '12!

Well, Duhhhhh...

Psssst! Hey, did you know that we were in a recession? It MUST be true! I saw it on CNN.com!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm?cnn=yes

Of course the Wizards of the Obvious in Atlanta have also been saying that we were on the verge of a major economic downturn since the beginning of the Bush administration. Now they've got what they wanted. I hope they're happy.

What's utterly amazing about this is that once it's "official" that we're in a recession, the Dow decided to drop another 600+ points. It's like a man is having desperate pains in his chest and arms, but until a doctor comes by and says, "You're having a heart attack," it isn't really real.