History Calls … Olympia Snowe

Healthcare, Regulation, Republicans, Socialism

From Mount Olympus Ms. Olympia, a Republicans, has issued forth: “Is this [healthcare] bill all that I would want? Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.”

In the event you are not yet, at once, sickened and bored by the long process it is taking the president and his politburo of proctologists to herd us all into healthcare pens, here’s the latest from the NYT:

“The Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to approve legislation that would reshape the American health care system and provide subsidies to help millions of people buy insurance, as Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, joined all 13 Democrats on the panel in support of the landmark bill. …

The bill endorsed on Tuesday seeks to provide health benefits to a majority of uninsured by expanding Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for the poor, and creating new state-run insurance options for individuals and families earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level or $44,100 for a family of four.

For many other moderate-income Americans, the bill would provide government subsidies to help them buy insurance through new government-regulated marketplaces.

The legislation also seeks to impose strict new regulations on the insurance industry, including banning insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and it would require nearly all Americans to obtain coverage.

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Finance Committee bill over 10 years would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 29 million.

It would still leave 25 million people uninsured, about one-third of them illegal immigrants.

The bill is projected to cost $829 billion over the 10 years, which would be fully offset by new tax and fees, including a tax on high-cost insurance policies, as well as by savings from slowing the growth in Medicare spending by the government.

Democrats and Republicans argued loudly over the fiscal implications of the bill, which the budget office has predicted will reduce federal deficits by $81 billion over 10 years.”

[SNIP]

Less tedious is this succinct comparison of the schemes:

Comparing the Health Care Proposals
“The Senate Finance Committee approved a health care bill on Tuesday. Senate Democratic leaders will now have to merge the bill with a more liberal measure approved in July by the Senate health committee. Three House committees also approved health care bills in July and House leaders are now working to distill from the three bills one package that will go to the floor. How the measures compare on some key issues”:

Require nearly all Americans to have a minimum level of health insurance or pay a penalty.
House version

Would include mandate.

Exempt those who cannot afford insurance and people with religious objections. The bill does not specify standards for financial hardship waivers.

Penalty: 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over a certain level ($18,700 for a couple).

Senate Health Committee

Would include mandate.

Exempt American Indians and those who cannot afford insurance. The bill does not specify standards for financial hardship waivers.

Penalty: Up to $750 a person a year.

Senate Finance Committee

Would include mandate, starting in 2013.

Exempt American Indians, people with religious objections, those who cannot afford insurance, households with incomes lower than 133 percent of the poverty level ($29,327 for a family of four) and individuals who would have to pay more than 8 percent of their income to buy the lowest cost plan available to them.

Penalty would be phased in gradually: $200 a person in 2014; $400 in 2015; $600 in 2016; and $750 in 2017.

White House

Open to a mandate as long as people who cannot afford insurance are exempt. During the campaign, President Obama proposed mandates for children only.

“I am open to your ideas on shared responsibility. But I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable. If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it.” (Letter to Senate leaders, June 3)

Interest groups

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the insurers’ lobby, supports individual mandates. If individual mandates are passed, insurers say they will stop refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and charging higher premiums based on gender or health status. Most of the proposals allow insurers to charge more for older people, subject to federal limits.

Drug companies and insurers could benefit from mandates, which could provide millions of new customers.

Labor unions and consumer groups support mandates for individuals as long as employers are required to help pay for coverage.

[End NYT excerpt]

Mercer Citing On NYT's Economix Blog

Government, Ilana Mercer, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, The State

Are Federal Workers Overpaid? asks Professor Nancy Folbre of Economix at the New York Times. Unfortunately, Ms. Folbre answers unsatisfactorily. However, she does cite me in her New-York Times’ Economix blog.

New York Times
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
Nancy Folbre – 9 hours ago
“…They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby” …

October 13, 2009, 7:11 am
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
By Nancy Folbre

Today’s Economist

Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

It’s bad enough that the average federal worker is paid more than the average private-sector worker, especially taking into account the value of benefits like health insurance and pensions. But what’s really shocking is that the gulf between the total compensation (wages plus benefits) enjoyed by federal workers and private-sector workers has increased since 1990.

So argues Chris Edwards, the tax director at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization.

Similar arguments were featured in a full-page ad sponsored by The Free Enterprise Nation in The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 22.

They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe.

None of the sources provided any details about the characteristics of federal workers or their jobs. But such details (easily extracted from the regular Current Population Survey) explain why federal workers are paid more and why their average compensation has risen higher. They also show that federal employment creates proportionately far more middle-class jobs than the private sector.

In 2008, only 14 percent of federal workers were on part-time schedules, compared to 26 percent in the private sector. Federal workers were far older on average: 55 percent were between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 36 percent of private-sector workers. Furthermore, 45 percent of federal workers held a college degree or higher educational credential, compared to 29 percent of private-sector workers.

Federal workers are more likely to receive employer-paid health benefits than private sector workers — 77 percent compared to 56 percent. This is one reason our highest-paid federal employee, the president of the United States, is fighting for universal health insurance coverage.

Federal workers are also more likely than private sector workers to garner pension benefits (81 percent compared to 53 percent). Keep in mind, however, that for some federal employees, pension benefits come in lieu of Social Security payments.

Both health insurance and pension benefits are more expensive for older than for younger workers, and health insurance costs, in particular, have escalated rapidly since 1990. Also, age and educational attainment differences have widened considerably since 1991, when 20 percent of private sector and 31 percent of federal workers had a college degree or higher.

The biggest difference between private and federal employment, illustrated in the graph above, lies in the proportion of jobs paying less than $25,000 a year. In 2008 more than 43 percent of private-sector workers earned less than $25,000 a year. Most federal employees fell squarely in the middle earnings brackets, making $25,000 to $75,000 a year.

A larger share of federal than private-sector workers earned $75,000 to $150,000 a year. Beyond that level, private employees were overrepresented. The percentage earning more than $250,000 in 2008 (not shown in the graph above) was twice as high as the percentage of federal employees (1 percent compared to 0.5 percent).

In order to protect the confidentiality of its respondents, the Current Population Survey assigns all extremely high levels of earnings the same value or “topcode.” As a result, it’s impossible to accurately compare all private sector and federal workers in the long right-hand tail of the earnings distribution

But not all earnings are confidential. We, know, for instance, that the president of the United States earned $400,000 in 2008. He also enjoyed a $50,000 annual expense account and rent-free accomodations for himself and his family at the White House.

By comparison, the compensation of the chief executive officers of the 500 biggest companies of the United States in 2008 came out to an average of $11.4 million each.

Consistent with the overall picture described above, statistical analysis of the impact of individual education and experience on earnings in the United States by the Harvard economist George Borjas showed that federal employees are paid considerably less than comparable private workers at the top end.

As the conservative columnist Ross Douthat points out, earnings inequality is generally lower in public-sector employment, and countries with a larger public sector therefore experience less overall income inequality.

Some oinking can definitely be heard out there in the labor market, but anyone willing to follow the numbers can tell that the biggest piggies are not those employed by the federal government.

Mercer Citing On NYT’s Economix Blog

Economy, Government, Ilana Mercer, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, The State

Are Federal Workers Overpaid? asks Professor Nancy Folbre of Economix at the New York Times. Unfortunately, Ms. Folbre answers unsatisfactorily. However, she does cite me in her New-York Times’ Economix blog.

New York Times
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
Nancy Folbre – 9 hours ago
“…They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby” …

October 13, 2009, 7:11 am
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
By Nancy Folbre

Today’s Economist

Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

It’s bad enough that the average federal worker is paid more than the average private-sector worker, especially taking into account the value of benefits like health insurance and pensions. But what’s really shocking is that the gulf between the total compensation (wages plus benefits) enjoyed by federal workers and private-sector workers has increased since 1990.

So argues Chris Edwards, the tax director at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization.

Similar arguments were featured in a full-page ad sponsored by The Free Enterprise Nation in The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 22.

They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe.

None of the sources provided any details about the characteristics of federal workers or their jobs. But such details (easily extracted from the regular Current Population Survey) explain why federal workers are paid more and why their average compensation has risen higher. They also show that federal employment creates proportionately far more middle-class jobs than the private sector.

In 2008, only 14 percent of federal workers were on part-time schedules, compared to 26 percent in the private sector. Federal workers were far older on average: 55 percent were between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 36 percent of private-sector workers. Furthermore, 45 percent of federal workers held a college degree or higher educational credential, compared to 29 percent of private-sector workers.

Federal workers are more likely to receive employer-paid health benefits than private sector workers — 77 percent compared to 56 percent. This is one reason our highest-paid federal employee, the president of the United States, is fighting for universal health insurance coverage.

Federal workers are also more likely than private sector workers to garner pension benefits (81 percent compared to 53 percent). Keep in mind, however, that for some federal employees, pension benefits come in lieu of Social Security payments.

Both health insurance and pension benefits are more expensive for older than for younger workers, and health insurance costs, in particular, have escalated rapidly since 1990. Also, age and educational attainment differences have widened considerably since 1991, when 20 percent of private sector and 31 percent of federal workers had a college degree or higher.

The biggest difference between private and federal employment, illustrated in the graph above, lies in the proportion of jobs paying less than $25,000 a year. In 2008 more than 43 percent of private-sector workers earned less than $25,000 a year. Most federal employees fell squarely in the middle earnings brackets, making $25,000 to $75,000 a year.

A larger share of federal than private-sector workers earned $75,000 to $150,000 a year. Beyond that level, private employees were overrepresented. The percentage earning more than $250,000 in 2008 (not shown in the graph above) was twice as high as the percentage of federal employees (1 percent compared to 0.5 percent).

In order to protect the confidentiality of its respondents, the Current Population Survey assigns all extremely high levels of earnings the same value or “topcode.” As a result, it’s impossible to accurately compare all private sector and federal workers in the long right-hand tail of the earnings distribution

But not all earnings are confidential. We, know, for instance, that the president of the United States earned $400,000 in 2008. He also enjoyed a $50,000 annual expense account and rent-free accomodations for himself and his family at the White House.

By comparison, the compensation of the chief executive officers of the 500 biggest companies of the United States in 2008 came out to an average of $11.4 million each.

Consistent with the overall picture described above, statistical analysis of the impact of individual education and experience on earnings in the United States by the Harvard economist George Borjas showed that federal employees are paid considerably less than comparable private workers at the top end.

As the conservative columnist Ross Douthat points out, earnings inequality is generally lower in public-sector employment, and countries with a larger public sector therefore experience less overall income inequality.

Some oinking can definitely be heard out there in the labor market, but anyone willing to follow the numbers can tell that the biggest piggies are not those employed by the federal government.

'Yes, Columbus Discovered America'

America, Colonialism, Education, History, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Propaganda

Indigenous Indians protesting Columbus Day are not nearly as ridiculous as native Americans teaching and imbibing a great deal of tripe about Christopher Columbus. And no one puts it quite like David Yeagley, the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle:

“…it is the greatness of Columbus that liberals cannot abide. Being the pathological protesters they are, no great achiever is allowed recognition. (Liberals laud only empty words of people like Barry Soetoro.) And that which the world has previously considered great and honorable must now be denigrated, demeaned, and condemned. Indeed, damned as evil and wrong.

That’s what Jeffrey Kolowith is teaching his kindergarten students in Tampa, Florida. They mustn’t like Columbus. He was bad. ‘He was very, very mean, very bossy,’ says Kolowith, poisoning the little children’s minds with disdain, aversion, and hatred for the very elements of character required to achieve anything grand. Self-discipline, group management, unrelenting dedication, these are not to be found in the weak and ‘loving’ liberal. The only thing they’re devoted to is undoing what achievers achieve.

An AP story, “A darker side of Columbus” emerges in US classrooms, indicates Kolowith is determined that children despise those who have accomplished the most significant feats in history.

Author of the article, Christine Amario, has assembled a sordid array of typical, boring anti-American brainwashers. The only one distinguished among them is in fact Mr. Kolowith—and only because he’s taken the anti-Western cause to the youngest children in the American public school system: the five-year olds.

The irony of an author with an Italian name, trying to discredit the greatest Italian since the time of Jesus! Self-purgation, is it? ‘Abbe pietá di me!’ (Have mercy on me!) This is the liberal’s idea of nobility: self-loathing.”

Read “Yes, Columbus Discovered America.” (As well as the the interview Dr. Yeagley conducted with me.)