Washington Logic

There was a song fifteen or twenty years ago called Cowboy Logic, which detailed the worldview of the American cowboy. Sometimes this logic differed from what modern man might call convention, but it made sense in the end. Today, I introduce to you the concept of Washington Logic. It is also counter-intuitive, but unlike Cowboy Logic, it doesn't come back around to making sense later.

The following list is by no means comprehensive, but here are a few examples of when you know your leaders have been in Washington too long.

DC fallacy #1: Maintaining the same tax structure next year as this year is a tax cut.

The President has been throwing this logic around, hoping you'll buy it. This would be like going to buy a car and having the salesman tell you he'd cut you an even better deal... by giving you the same price that's on the sticker.

DC fallacy #2: Going to a higher tax rate next year is NOT raising taxes.

It's easy for politicians to talk about “letting the tax cuts expire”. But this would be like your employer offering you a raise... to your current salary.

DC fallacy #3: Cutting taxes is the same thing as increasing spending.

It is true that more debt is invoked if you reduce the amount of money you bring in while continuing to spend every penny you used to make. That's why most of us who have had to figure it out on less money have made corresponding cuts in our expenditures. Still, given fallacy #1, you really can't claim an increase in spending when there's no tax cut on the table anyway.

DC fallacy #4: Raising taxes will create jobs.

If this were true, states with the highest tax rates would also have the highest job growth. What do we see instead? States with more favorable tax structures have job growth while California becomes more and more insolvent. Democrats always talk about Republicans who give tax cuts to companies who send jobs overseas. But tell me this: if the Dems make the tax structure in the US unfavorable, who is really responsible for corporations moving operations offshore?

DC fallacy #5: By postponing the vote on extending the Bush tax cuts, Democrat lawmakers will fool voters into voting for them.

Sorry, Senator Reid, but the smokescreen isn't going to work. You had the opportunity to start the economy moving in a positive direction by letting the job creators know they wouldn't be facing a major tax increase in 2011. The only reason you would choose not to take that vote right now is because you are planning to raise taxes on those who can affect recovery. Then again, putting your agenda ahead of economic recovery has been a theme of yours over the past 21 months, hasn't it?

A Look at Economics

Let’s say I’m a really busy guy. So I hire a service to pick up my lunch orders every day. I call the order in, the service pays for it, and they deliver it to my desk. To keep it from becoming a bookkeeping nightmare, the service and I agree on a daily flat fee that is intended to cover the cost of the meal, the cost to transport it from the restaurant to my desk, and some margin of profit. Based on this fee, the service gives me guidelines of what will and will not be covered in terms of restaurants, meal types, timeframe, etc. The service and I have a good working relationship within those parameters.

Now imagine that a regulatory agency decided that we need to enact legislation to mandate what lunch delivery services must provide. Suddenly, where I had been getting food from Arby’s and Chili’s around the corner, my service now has to offer everyone food from more expensive and more distant restaurants. What happens? They have to raise their rates to cover the new requirements. The problem is… I’m happy with the old service. I don’t want to pay more – I just want my old plan. But now the old plan is not available. The old plan is illegal.

Or maybe they couldn’t raise their rates, because the new legislation has a requirement for what they are allowed to charge for the new minimum plan. So my service, not wanting to close up shop and put all their employees out of work, decides to pursue customers who are less likely to use the more expensive services. If they are successful in targeting people like me who statistically cost them less money, they can stay afloat, but that means they’re making a huge profit margin on less demanding customers while losing money on the more expensive clients. People like me figure out this disparity and decide it’s not worth having a service after all. We leave en masse, tipping the scales away from profitability and into bankruptcy. The government pays billions to bail out all the failing lunch delivery services without addressing any of the underlying issues, thus prolonging the problem while buying dependency from a once-thriving industry.

I prefer choice and competition in my medical insurance plans, not a one-size-fits-all approach to “protect” me. Wait, did I say insurance? You know I meant lunch delivery services.

An open letter to Senator Harry Reid

Senator, you may well be the best campaigner in the history of American politics. Six years ago, you ran as the candidate who was “independent – like Nevada”. To call the second-highest Democrat in the Senate (highest, after Tom Daschle lost his seat) “independent” takes a certain amount of intellectual courage, to say the least. However, your latest campaign eclipses even this so-called intellectual courage. Sharron Angle is “too extreme”? No, Senator, I assert it is you who are too extreme.

We are now years into an economic crisis created by lending and housing policies you supported. Your colleagues Mr. Frank and Mr. Dodd may have been the architects of the collapse, but you opposed the reforms that could have prevented it. And now that it is in full swing, what is your solution? Raise taxes. Engineer a takeover of the medical industry. Throw money at car companies without addressing the underlying issues that got them into trouble in the first place. Pay lip service to energy independence while your party blocks efforts to achieve it. Create unprecedented deficits through expanded federal programs – both of which will literally take an act of Congress to un-make.

Senator, fostering an environment in which the economy can grow – thus creating jobs and wealth – should have been at the top of your priority list, and you have certainly been in a position to control the discussion. And you know something about economic recovery, because you were in Washington when Jimmy Carter’s recession gave way to the economic growth enjoyed in the ‘80s and ‘90s. But instead, you have mortgaged the future of this country for the opportunity to take a stab at your liberal agenda.

And what about these quotes? How would you have characterized Ms. Angle, had she said the following?

• “I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican.” So are you saying your political life is the result of a holy calling? Didn’t you criticize Ms. Angle for saying just that?
• “I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK.” This equating enforcement of immigration policy with being anti-Latino is tired. Almost as tired as when you attributed President Obama’s success to being a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
• “As long as we follow the President’s path in Iraq, the war is lost.” This was in 2007. Today, with no major policy shift in Iraq, your party is claiming victory.
• “I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating.” Senator, CBS News reported your approval rating at 8% earlier this year.

Some people may buy into your attack ads. These are many of the same people who voted for you six years ago, thinking that such a high-ranking Democrat representing our state would pay dividends. We’ve certainly seen those dividends in Nevada: nationwide highs in unemployment and foreclosures, and a lack of any coherent plan to correct the current problems, to say nothing of preventing their recurrence. Whatever credibility your experience as a legislator affords you, your record of focusing on the wrong problems, poor solutions, and ignoring your constituents more than cancels it out. The experience you’ve picked up in your 27 years on Capitol Hill has not made you a better senator but a better politician. I’m sorry to say you won’t be getting my vote this November. You’re just too extreme.

Warm it up, Mike!

Galileo Galilei is considered to be the father of modern physics. Why? Because he decided to research and draw conclusions independently of the conventional wisdom of the times. In the 1630s, GG published his research that showed the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system. This put him under fire with the Church of the day, since it was considered heretical to suggest that the Earth was not the centerpiece. Yet Galileo, despite the possibility of excommunication and conviction for heresy, boldly moved forward with his work. His dedication to pure science and reason is applauded to this day.

The modern scientific community may exist as a direct result of Galileo's work. However, Galileo would be shocked to see that Science has become what the Church was in his day. In 1632, the Church told GG not to study the solar system because it could go against the scientific consensus. Today, the scientific community tells us that we should not question the theories of "climate change" because they are a matter of scientific consensus too.

I'm not sure what "scientific consensus" means. When I studied science in elementary school, we learned there are theories and there are laws. Nowhere did consensus enter the picture. If something can be proven, it's a law. Otherwise, it's a theory, subject to being tested. I don't remember all the steps in the scientific method, but here's a good approximation:
* Formulate a question
* Develop a hypothesis
* Test the hypothesis
* Make conclusions
Of course, the real world of science is a bit more complex than that. The testing has to meet standards for consistency and elimination of bias, and the conclusions must be reviewed by other scientists. If any part of the process is suspect, then the conclusions may be rendered invalid. This is true no matter how many people may like you, your work, or your ideas. And really, this is how science stays fresh. Albert Einstein challenged not minor theories or conclusions, but the entire framework of the universe. Concepts like time, speed, gravity, and measurement - once thought to be immutable - were challenged and fundamentally altered by Einstein's work. Let's face it: he wasn't challenging some obscure theorist or concept. He went after Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and too many others to list here.

So, in the spirit of Einstein's work, let's challenge, shall we? Global warming is a faith with three major tenets, as I see it. Each tenet is the foundation for the next. Here they are:
1. The temperatures on Earth are rising
2. The cause of the heating is increased greenhouse gas (GHG) levels in the atmosphere
3. The reason GHGs are on the rise is because of mankind's tendency toward industrialization.

Let us put some scrutiny to these ideas. While the Church of the Warming Globe may shade us as heretics, we have to see if it makes sense. I'll explain why in a bit. The first tenet is that it's getting warmer. Is this true? That's a topic of some debate, because methodology makes a big difference. Warmer where? Everywhere? At ground level? In the upper atmosphere? In the polar regions? At the equator? In rural areas? In cities? No question, the climate system here on Earth is complex, so we need to understand if warming is even taking place. Media outlets publicized the notion that 1998 was the warmest year on record, to the point that you can still find reference to this idea all over the internet. However, re-examination of the statistics (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878) has brought forth the conclusion that 1934 is now the warmest. Combine this with the study published in Nature last year that says there will be no warming through at least 2015, and we have to call into question the entire first tenet. Is the world really getting warmer? (Maybe not, I'm still having to scrape ice off my windshield most mornings!)

Second tenet: warming is caused by more GHGs. We know that temperatures are regulated by the balance of two opposing forces: solar radiation heats us up and Earth re-radiation cools us off. The idea in the second tenet is that re-radiation is being held up by the presence of GHGs, which are like a blanket that hold heat in rather than letting it escape. The GHG we usually hear about is carbon dioxide. And the conclusion is that more CO2 means more warming. However, the relationship is not linear; rather, we would expect to see diminishing returns. Imagine a window, holding heat inside your home. If you put a second pane of glass up against the first, it would not double the amount of heat held inside. In the same way, CO2 has diminishing GHG potential. Thus, mathematically speaking, there is a limit to the amount of global warming that can be expected based on increasing GHGs. Do the climate models take into account this factor?

A word on cause-and-effect: it's hard to prove! As a matter of fact, there is a theory that says global warming causes an increase in GHG levels. Since the most prevalent GHG is water vapor, it makes sense that more heat would result in more water vapor being held in the atmosphere.

Third tenet: this is all caused by you and me. As the world has moved to more industry, the rise in GHGs has led to a higher global temperature. This makes sense, but is it backed up by fact? I already mentioned that the warmest year on record was 1934. Should we then infer that 1934 was the year of greatest carbon emissions? This is not likely, since most of the world in 1934 didn't have electricity! And if it were true, then emissions must have dropped significantly thereafter. From the mid-1940s through the early 1970s, there was a strong cooling trend in place. If this is the case, then can we infer that industry slowed down after the Great Depression ended and WWII was settled? We know this is not the case in the US, as the postwar era was some of the biggest sustained economic and industrial growth in our history. And, since the EPA was not even in existence before 1970, we can assume that this growth did not always come in "green" ways!

I remember this cooling trend from my youth. Growing up in one of the strongholds of the radical environmental movement, I heard all through elementary school how air pollution was going to lead us to a new Ice Age.

Of course, there is also the question of the Medieval Warm Period. From 800 to 1300, global temperatures were higher, nearly at 20th-Century levels. Was this the result of industrialization? The obvious "no" tells us there is more to climate change than simple man can put in.

"So, Benito," you may say, "you've poked some holes in the three tenets, but what is the real deal?" I'm going to tell you. I don't know. This is not a major revelation, and for that I apologize. Maybe it's the natural variation in the Sun's output. Maybe it's a decrease in the albedo of airborne particulates due to clean air standards. Maybe it's just random variation that none of us can or should try to control. I'm no climatologist, and I don't plan on becoming one. "So why did you write this article?" I wrote it to be honest. I don't know if the three tenets are true or not. The so-called scientific community should be so considerate to do the same. Call it a theory, an idea, a concept that needs more research before we can fully understand it. But don't throw meaningless terms at me like "scientific consensus". It's insulting.

Finally, why is this important? Because the "scientific consensus" has the potential to take real money out of your pocket. The agenda-pushers are trying to enact controls, limits, and (you guessed it) taxes. If we are to submit to environmental controls, it should be on the basis of sound science rather than conjecture and dogmatic ideology. And, if the US takes up the cross of cap-and-trade legislation, it will weigh down the economy in a time that the economy needs all the help it can get. Let's prioritize, and put this notion at the bottom of the page.

The Auto Industry

In the 1993 film In the Line of Fire, Clint Eastwood’s character makes reference to the fact that everyone has their “pet theories” about the Kennedy assassination. “How it was the Cubans, or the CIA, or the white supremacists, or the Mob. About whether there was one weapon, or whether there was five.” In a similar way, everyone seems to have a pet theory on what caused the meltdown of the US auto industry. Some say the union. Some say inefficient operations. But the most common reason that “everyone knows” is that Detroit has been going for years, making cars and trucks that the American people simply don’t want to buy. If this is true, it’s a powerful image: three venerable mega-corporations racing forward while completely out of touch with the American consumer.

By now, you know what I have to say: it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny!

First of all, the idea that Detroit makes only bloated, gas-guzzling monstrosities while Asian and European manufacturers make high-tech, fuel-efficient cars for the modern age is ridiculous. Automakers in every country have to compete based on what is on the market. So where we have the American SUVs like the Chevy Tahoe and Jeep Wrangler, we also have the Nissan Armada and Toyota FJ Cruiser. Likewise, the Honda Civic and Toyota Camry have the Chevy Impala and Ford Focus to compete with.

Let’s examine the car-buying habits of Americans in the first eleven months of 2008. All sales numbers are from Forbes.com contributor Jacqueline Mitchell. The data represent major consumer automobile brands and exclude high-end luxury and performance vehicles. And all comparisons are in terms of units sold, as opposed to gross sales dollars.

To start with the losers, the worst-selling car of 2008 was not an American car, nor was it an SUV. It was an Asian minivan, the Hyundai Entourage. Despite naming a car after a supposedly popular series on HBO, Hyundai sold less than 5500 of these vans – down from 16,000 in 2007. Still, SUVs made up eight of the ten worst sellers this year, including five American models and three from Asia. If we can equate the decline in SUV sales with the increase in gas prices, it means gas prices finally reached the tipping point. I have said before that, while gas prices are an easy thing to complain about, they were of little real consequence to most people, since consumption was not affected. With the highest highs we saw this year, there has been a change in the real demand for gas as people changed their driving habits or their car of choice. With that in mind, it’s not surprising to see the SUV decline in popularity this year; although one has to wonder what will happen if gas prices stay low.

As for the leaders, what car would you expect to see in the top slot? The Toyota Prius? The VW Golf? The sentiment expressed at the top of this article would imply those little cars would be high on people’s lists. However, neither of them made the Top Ten. You may be even more surprised to learn that the top two spots were held down by American vehicles – trucks no less – the Ford F-150 and the Chevy Silverado. Between those two, over 900,000 units were sold. What can we interpret from two full-size pickups leading the way in US auto sales? Once again, fuel economy is not the most important factor for people buying cars (if it were, everyone would drive a Geo Metro like me). While demand for the SUV may be somewhat elastic, some consumers just need a truck, regardless of gas prices. Could this also mean the American auto industry is not quite so out-of-touch?

Indeed, the top two spots were held down by Detroit, as were five of the Top Ten. Three of the American entrants were pickups, and the other two were the Chevy Impala and the Ford Focus. All the imports on the list were Japanese passenger cars: Honda Accord and Civic, Toyota Corolla and Camry, and Nissan Altima. Outside the Top Ten, there are other bright spots for Detroit. The Dodge Caravan/Chrysler Town & Country were far and away the best selling minivan in January, selling 17,186 units to Toyota Sienna’s 10,406 and Honda Odyssey’s 8,746. And while the Toyota Prius may have been the first hybrid to the table, there have been advances in hybrid technology that out-innovate it in the Chevy Tahoe, the Saturn Vue, and the Ford Escape.

Let’s look at marketing. In recent months, there have been numerous ads released by Toyota to show their trucks as all-American, tried-and-true, legitimate work vehicles. One can imagine that Toyota wants to capture market share in the lucrative full-size truck market. Also, Chevy has been putting out a series that shows innovations in the so-called green vehicle market. These innovations include the afore-mentioned Tahoe hybrid, the line of Flex Fuel vehicles, and the Chevy Volt plug-in car. Since neither of these ad campaigns seem to have had an effect on the consumer market, perhaps Detroit’s bailout can come by replacing TV commercials with something else…

…like telemarketing. Imagine this:
“Hello.”
“Hello, may I please speak to Mr. Wilson?”
“Speaking.”
“Sir, I’m calling on behalf of Chrysler Automotive. Do you currently own a car?”
“Yes, I have-”
“Well, we can offer you a great deal today on a Dodge Grand Caravan, with no money down and 0% APR for 72 months.”
“Actually, I-”
“And please don’t forget that the Grand Caravan has stow-n-go seating, a powerful V6, and room for seven.”
“That’s the whole-”
“In fact, we recently sent you a mailer on the Grand Caravan. Have you received this mailer?”
“I’m not sure, but-”
“Well, it’s a great car for kids. How many kids do you have?”
“None! That’s why-”
“Please, sir. Everyone has kids these days. How many shall I put you down for?”
“Fine. I have seven. Now will you-”
“Oh, well then we can set you up in our 15-passenger Dodge Sprinter. Excellent choice, sir.”
“No, I-”
“What we’re offering today is a no-risk trial that you can cancel at any time within the first month. Should you decide to keep the van, we’ll bill you standard MSRP plus tax, license, and docking fees. Does that sound all right?”
“No, actually, I don’t-”
“Well, sir, this is a free trial, and what I can do is offer you the reduced restocking option in the unlikely event you choose not to keep the van. Let me put you on hold while I run your credit card…”

Perhaps not. In any case, let us not be too hasty in assigning blame on the product offering made by Detroit. A significant number of Americans are still buying.

Following the Election

I'm not going to cry voter suppression. I'm not going to argue that the military absentee ballots haven't been counted yet. I'm not going to call for lawsuits in Ohio, Virginia, or Florida. I'm not going to jump onto the legal team in the suit claiming Obama has no standing to be President. I won't even whine about the Rasmussen poll that shows a majority of Americans think the press helped Obama to win (http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20081105/pl_rasmussen/reportershelpedobama20081105). Obama won. McCain lost. Let that sink in for a moment.

Moving on, we must examine the fact that Republicans as a general rule do not run good political campaigns. Exit polls showed that the majority of voters in Ohio listed the economy as the number one concern in their decision. And the numbers from Ohio show 51% voted for Obama. And here begins my frustration with the election. It's not so much that Obama won. It's the false perception with those who voted for him. Let's review:

• Obama's platform was "CHANGE". There was not a group in America that couldn't identify that. Colin Powell called him a transformational candidate. And yet, in 8 years in the Illinois legislature and what will be 4 in the US Senate, he has no record of standing for change.
  
• Obama ran as the guy who will bring everyone together. Again, he has no record of doing this. The legislation he's sponsored with Republicans has been bland stuff that had near-universal support anyway. Doesn't take a lot of political courage to pull that stuff off.
  
• Obama won as the more qualified economist. But the redistribution strategies he supports have never served to get us out of a bad economy. McCain's platform of keeping low tax rates on the top income earners is the same plan that got us out of the worst economy since the Depression.
  
• Obama ran as the reformer, sent to make changes to the way government runs. Again, he has no record of this, and the record he does have shows him supporting corrupt organizations like ACORN, being supported by corrupt organizations like Fannie Mae, and having personal ties to corrupt individuals like Tony Rezko.
  
• Obama is supposed to be the friend of the little guy. However, his days as a community organizer show little to no accomplishment. The attacks from his campaign against Joe the plumber and Sarah Palin show how he treats regular people who don't agree with him. And perhaps the biggest sign out there is that he has numerous family members living in poverty while he and Michelle have cleared tens of millions in recent years.
• Many of the claims of the Obama campaign can be shown to be false or misleading. One example is the idea that Obama is a supporter of gun rights. Another is the tired idea that Republicans give tax breaks for taking jobs away from Americans.
  

Of course, a campaign can position itself as it chooses. I'm disappointed that the McCain campaign didn't do more to highlight the falsehood and talk about facts, ideas, and the middle class. Republicans need to take note of this in 2010.

Speaking of the future, things looked bleak for Republicans in 1976, but it took just four years of Jimmy Carter to revitalize the conservative movement and pave the way for eight years of Reagan. It took just two years of Bill Clinton and a Democrat Congress to usher in a new conservative agenda. So take heart, my conservative friends. And beware, my liberal friends. With the Republican Party squarely out of the spotlight, we'll be watching.

Tomorrow's the ELECTION!

I'm an election-night junkie. I love watching the coverage. In 2004, I set my clock based on what state's polls closed at what time. I love the maps showing the electoral votes with the ticker on the bottom giving exit poll data. Exit polls - are they still legal?

Of course, in 2004, I bought into the mainstream press' ideas that John Kerry was going to be the next President. Today, I've heard the full spectrum of prognostication. Tammy Bruce said this morning that McCain was going to win Pennsylvania or at least make it very close. No Republican has won Pennsylvania in 20 years. But that's okay, she said he'll take Florida, Ohio, and Virginia as well. I like the optimism, because it contrasted nicely with Bill O'Reilly doing a post-mortem on what McCain did wrong to lose the election.

I will be honest, unlike everyone else in the news. I have no idea what to expect tomorrow. There's a chance McCain could win, and there's a chance Obama could win. Either way, I'll be glued to the TV as much as possible.

So, to get back to Dr. A, I wanted to do some responses to her points before the polls open up tomorrow. If I can debunk a few Obama myths in the next few hours, maybe it will help. Take it away, Dr. A!

Obama actually has a rational plan for energy independence that would completely change the nature of our relationship with the oil-producing nations of the Middle East (eg: they wouldn't matter to us anymore), create jobs, and ensure that the US holds the patents on alternative energy technology that would be extremely valuable exportable commodities. McCain's "spending freeze" and lack of support for basic scientific research will only ensure that the US falls further behind technologically and will have to purchase alternative-energy technologies from other nations with better foresight.

No one ever talks about Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, or Mexico becoming energy-independent. Why is that? Because they are willing to tap their own natural resources. And yet we aren't. Obama has made some recent, token gestures toward offshore drilling, but this is clearly a politically calculated move, because it's never been part of his platform before. What has Obama discussed as far as energy policy goes? CAFE standards, clean coal, wind, and solar. Will any of these initiatives get us out of the Middle East oil market? Not likely.

CAFE standards are the antithesis of free-market capitalism. Here you have the government telling a manufacturer that it must provide vehicles that meet certain fuel economy standards. Last I knew, we are free in this country to purchase as we see fit. Manufacturers, therefore, should be able to sell as they see fit, to meet the market demand. Until this year, fuel economy was not a primary motivational factor for consumers buying cars. If it were, the Geo Metro would be the best selling car of all time. But it's not (good for me, since I got a great deal on a used one). People choose vehicles for a variety of reasons. I know the Left gets hung up on the popularity of the SUV, thinking it is merely a status symbol. First, if that's true, it's a free country! Second, there are many other reasons to drive an SUV, including towing and payload capacity, seating, driving in snow and other adverse conditions, and general safety in an accident.

As fuel costs have risen, the SUV has become less desireable. As such, manufacturers have sunk R&D dollars into more efficient vehicles. Now that there's a stronger market for them, companies are willing to invest. Welcome to the free market. You'll now see the average fuel economy of passenger vehicles increase. And this is coming without changing the statutory minimums.

As for the scientific initiatives, see my post on corn ethanol. I'm all for new ideas and new technologies. I'm all for green technology and paradigm shifts if they make sense. But, again, if there's no market for it, a company is not going to invest in it. That's bad business. If the government chooses to invest in it, it's still bad business, but the difference is something called logrolling, which means you continue down the same path, even if it makes no sense, because it's a government program. You may call the McCain plan a spending freeze, because it doesn't put out taxpayer money like a shopping spree. However, the idea McCain had a few months ago to put up a bounty for a significant technological advance is a great idea. We saw the results from the X Prize, where smart people were given the incentive and someone succeeded in building a privately-funded spacecraft. Do the same thing for energy innovation with government money, and you'll see results.

Obama's healthcare plan isn't perfect, but would help tremendously with the current problems of the uninsured.

Basic principle: healthcare is not the responsibility of the government. Furthermore, it's not something that will improve with the government's "help".

What's missing in the healthcare system is competition. Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies don't compete for your business. According to the Census Bureau, the majority of Americans have health insurance through their employers. So that's a majority of the American public that doesn't choose a plan based on what's best for them. Where's the incentive to compete? Where's the incentive to innovate? Where's the incentive to operate more efficiently to gain more market share? There is none. By extension, our doctors and our hospitals get captive business from us, based on what our insurance will cover. To take it a step further, they can charge whatever they want, because we largely don't see what they're charging. It's a symbiotic relationship. Healthcare providers charge higher rates so people need insurance to cover the high costs. Insurance companies charge higher premiums to cover the higher costs, and no one shops around, so there's no risk of losing business.

Now, take the idea of government-sponsored healthcare. Does it increase competition? Does it drive costs down? Does it do anything to improve the condition of the market? No. Quite the opposite, it harms the free market. Let me give you this illustration. The government buys cheese to distribute to low-income consumers. It has to pay a premium for this cheese, because it demands a significant quantity and has to make good for the dairy farmers who are selling it. So, if the government is buying cheese at $3/lb., it means that every grocery company will have to pay the same price. A grocer that was getting cheese for $2.25/lb. will soon find that no one is willing to sell to him at that price - not when the government is willing to pay more. So what happens to the price of cheese in that grocer's store? It goes up! Now fewer people can afford cheese and more people have to get it from the government. It continues this way until the government has to socialize the cheese industry.

In actuality, the cheese industry will probably be okay, because there are many options. But in the world of trial lawyers (big Obama contributors) who drive up the cost of being in health care, the health care market is already strained. And a move to involve the government will threaten it further. A move where government uses its position to stimulate the private sector and thus drive down costs through competition is much preferred. Ask Mitt Romney about the plan he signed into law in Massachusetts.

Honestly, one of the things that has impressed me the most about Obama is that he really seems to understand that the reason for US economic superiority in the last half of the 20th century is the amount of technological innovation that happened during WWII and the Space Race.

That's a good analysis. Economic superiority comes from invention and development of industries. Imagine a better product, bring it to market, and suddenly a new industry is born. Jobs are created. People make money, from the top of the corporation down to the guy mopping the bathrooms. Talk about spreading the wealth around! It's a model of economic growth that doesn't punish success, that doesn't rely on redistribution of wealth, and that tears the ceiling off of what could be. Awesome, Dr. A! Unfortunately, I don't hear this model in Obama's plans. Instead, I hear that we need to roll back tax cuts and get the "wealthy" to start paying their "fair share". I hear that we need to punish successful and innovative companies with a "windfall profits tax". I hear that America needs to stop thinking like the world's only superpower and start letting the rest of the world dictate what we eat and drive. His agenda doesn't sound compatible with striving for the greatness America has enjoyed since the Second World War.

McCain mostly advocates research being funded by private corporations. The problem with this is that when you have profits as your bottom line for research & development, the quality of your research suffers... which would you trust more, research on the efficacy of a new medication done by Professor X funded by the NIH or the same study done by Pfizer?

This goes back to my earlier point. Companies have to get results in order to survive. Government programs can go on indefinitely. Companies have to find ideas, find ways to bring them to market, and find out if they are feasible. Government functions as if it had unending resources and lives in a world of limited accountability. Companies have to function as efficiently as possible, since they face competition. Government has no competition. Private industry, while derided by the Left, is an invaluable asset in building innovation for the future. To answer your question, I'd trust the company that has the incentive to bring a better product to market over the government that manages Social Security any day of the week.

I do think Obama knows at least something about economics and knows enough to seek the right expert advisers.

If Obama has any idea how the economy works, he hasn't shown it. His former political mentor is a self-proclaimed communist. He has promised to raise taxes in spite of a poor economy, which has never worked to bring about economic recovery (unlike the opposite, which does have a track record of working). No country has ever taxed its way out of a recession, and I can think of no socialist nation that we could call "thriving". He has proposed hundreds of billions in new spending without matching spending cuts. He has no record in this area, so he can only be judged in his own words, which say quite a bit.

To wrap up, the case against Obama is strong. He has no accomplishments in his tenure as a state legislator or a US Senator. He throws around a lot of concepts that he either doesn't understand or is deliberately misleading people based on who his particular audience is. He would be hard-pressed to get a position of mid- to high-level management in any company in this country, and yet he is asking to be the top executive in government. He claims to be a transformational candidate, yet his record shows no signs of change. He claims to be a new type of politician, but he is running the same old liberal playbook. I want change in this country, but Barack Obama is neither qualified nor willing to bring it.