Wednesday, 14 November 2012

The Tragedy of Mitt Romney


            As a native Bay Stater, I have followed Mitt Romney’s political ambitions for a decade.  Although I was only 13 years old when he first ran for governor in 2002, I was a precocious teenager with an astute interest in politics at the time.  I decided to support him and his policies despite my parents’ pleas not to.  I still remember all the arguments I had with my mother and father around the dining room table about Mitt Romney and Shannon O’Brien, the Democratic Nominee.  On paper, he remains one of the strongest candidates to ever run for the Presidency.  It is a tragedy that I will not be able to support him next week.  Like the story of nearly every tragic hero, this story has two parts: the first being the story of our heroes’ rise and the second the tale of his downfall.  Today, I present the former; tomorrow, I will present the latter.
            Mitt Romney’s legacy as governor of Massachusetts remains a largely successful one.  He continued the successful educational reforms initiated by his GOP predecessors such as encouraging the opening of more charter schools in the Boston School District as well as making it mandatory for students to pass a standardized exam before they graduate.  Romney also established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship, which awarded a full tuition scholarship at any public university to anyone who scored in the top 20% of their high school class on the MCAS, the commonwealth’s standardized exam.  As a result of the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship, many bright and ambitious youth who would otherwise have been unable to afford to pay college tuition have now been empowered to pursue their hopes, goals and dreams.
            Despite the great strides Massachusetts has made in order to become the state with the highest ranked public education system, the premiere social welfare accomplishment of Governor Romney will always be his widely successful implementation of universal health care insurance reform.  Working with the Massachusetts legislature, Romney persuaded Massachusetts’ Democrats to support a conservative, free-market alternative to single payer health insurance.  This happened within the context of Democratic supermajorities in both the General Court and the State Senate.  Romney’s efforts to negotiate with others shined here, as it did when he took the helm at the Salt Lake City Olympic Games in 2002.
            Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called the states of the United States, “the laboratories of democracy” and Romney’s reforms, which are sometimes labeled spuriously as ‘Romneycare’, presented the United States of America with a grand opportunity to experiment with a conservative plan that had been discussed for decades, but never put into action.  The origins for Romney’s reforms came in 1992, when President Bill Clinton attempted to implement a universal health care plan.  Clinton’s plan was derived from leftist and socialist ideals regarding socialized medicine.  Clinton’s conservative opponents needed an alternative plan to contrast with Clinton’s plan, so they adopted ideas derived from The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.  The Heritage Foundation plan was grounded in the conservative ideal of personal responsibility.  More specifically, the plan included a “personal mandate” that would require all Americans to purchase coverage or pay a penalty.  The logic behind this proposal was sound; as long as the United States Government was willing to spend public funds to provide care to the uninsured, it should be an individual’s responsibility to contribute an appropriate amount to his or her own care.  Without this provision, “free-riders” could take unfairly advantage of government subsidies.
            The personal mandate of the Heritage Foundation plan made its way into Romney’s health care reform package.  This allowed Romney to end discrimination in the health insurance market based upon the concept of “preexisting conditions”.  It also allowed for many previously uninsured Bay Staters to purchase coverage on the health care exchange thanks to government subsidies.  This health care exchange, enabled consumers to pick and choose the right health care policy for their families by presenting clear information regarding differences in benefits, premiums, deductable and other parameters.  Other beneficial reforms came into effect as well, such as a provision that enabled young adults to remain on their parent’s policy until their 26th birthday.
            With his two crowning achievements in the spheres of education and health care, Romney is a very compelling candidate for President.  The fact he accomplished both of these objectives without increasing the burden on Massachusetts’ taxpayers is simply incredible.  Governor Romney inherited a $1.5 Billion deficit and reversed it in four years, ultimately creating a surplus.

Thursday, 1 December 2011

Taxes and the 1%

Things have gotten really busy with my real life so I haven't updated this blog much. Nevertheless, I want to share this thought provoking opinion piece penned by Nick Hanauer.

Thursday, 9 June 2011

Why Laissez-Faire fails to control medical costs.

I just read a good piece in the Economist, which does a good job explaining why a Laissez-Faire policy will not control costs better than the advisory board set up by the PPACA.

Credit Ezra Klein for the link.

Saturday, 30 April 2011

Keynes & Hayek

The folks at econstories.tv have put together another amazing music video explaining the economic ideas of Lord John Maynard Keynes & Frederich A. Hayek.

Here is the new video:


Here is the first video:

GOP's subsidy problem

David Jenkins recently posted an article discussing the hypocrisy problem facing the GOP over subsidies over the fossil fuel industry. Conservatism has long played the game of saying one will shrink government while in actuality growing it. Now the GOP is trying to reform itself and put its rhetoric into action. I'm still interested in seeing how this plays out.

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

A Bold New Experiemt

GOP house budget chairman Paul Ryan has finally endorsed the essence of last year's health care reform law. His plan phases out the current single payer health care systems that exists for old people and poor people (AKA Medicare and Medicaid respectively). These single payer programs are to be replaced with vouchers to allow recipients purchase care in the market. Ryan appears confident that this will work despite the boondoggle that was Medicare Advantage.

I'm glad to hear the GOP is now actually serious about implementing their ideology of decreasing government spending. Limiting cuts to cover just non-defense discretionary spending while entitlements go untouched just screams hypocrisy. Ryan's budget shows that the GOP is serious about cutting entitlements, thereby ending the 70+year experiment started by FDR.

Although I'm not the sort of person who desires capping government spending at 20% of GDP (25% seems more appropriate in my mind for peacetime), I am glad to see that the Republicans are putting money where their mouths are; personally I'd enjoy seeing Ryan's proposal enacted just to see how it turns out. Maybe I'm being a bit selfish because I know the entitlement cuts probably won't impact me much, but fair is fair. I'm certainly never going to enjoy a single payer health plan when I turn 65 in 2054, so why should baby boomers enjoy such benefits?

If Ryan's plan does get enacted, I have no clue what the reaction will be. Will so-called conservatives rejoice now that they have slain the beast? Or will they whine in the streeets when they discover how many government benefits have been taken away from them?

If only we could cut farm subsidies and enact a carbon tax, then I'd be thrilled.

Saturday, 12 February 2011

Vermont versus the World

A new study from Doug Hoffer of the Peace & Justice Center examines the right-wing talking point that high levels of taxation and large numbers of public employees make a state "unfavorable to business" and inevitably leads to businesses relocating to states which are "friendly to business". The results might surprise you.



Via Matt Yglesias

Friday, 14 January 2011

I just want to see that I am gladdened by the news coming out of Tunisia.

The Arab world has lacked democracy and human rights for decades, hopefully the events in Tunisia will spark change for the better throughout the region.

Wednesday, 12 January 2011

Improving the PPACA

Last night on Greater Boston with Emily Rooney, I watched Emily Rooney interview a man suing Massachusetts over the individual mandate in Mitt Romney's health care reform law. Romney's law is the inspiration for Obama's similar law, so this lawsuit will have national ramifications. Several state attorneys general have already filed lawsuits against the individual mandate; two of those challenges failed when they met a federal judge, but one succeeded. So far, all the federal judge rulings have fallen along party lines so it really is going to boil down to what Anthony Kennedy thinks when everything goes to the United States Supreme Court.

One of things I really regret is that the Democrats did not try to defuse the backlash that the individual mandate presented in the general public. Although most of the provisions of PPACA consistently polled well, the individual mandate has never garnered majority support. I understand why the mandate is necessary; I also understand that the idea of a mandate had its origins with GOP alternatives to the Clintonian proposals for health care reform, but most Americans don't and probably never will. Also, I'm somewhat inclined to agree that the individual mandate violates the spirit of liberalism on which our nation was founded. Although this provision will do a lot to promote the general welfare, it won't do much for securing the blessings of liberty.

It is for these reasons, that I think the new Congress should set about reforming how the individual mandate is implemented, in order to give citizens like Michael Merlina the choice to forge his or her own destiny. I like Paul Starr's approach. Give people who want to risk it the option of opting out, but prevent them from collecting on any of the benefits of PPACA for an extended period of time. Starr says five years, but I'm sure Congress would have to do quite a bit of research to find the optimal period of time to prevent an opt-outer from reentering.

There are also other ideas of similar ways to reintroduce more choice into the system to make the individual mandate less punitive and more voluntary. I like some of them to varying degrees.

Instead of foolishly working on repealing PPACA, I implore Speaker Boehner and other Republicans to instead work with Obama and the Democrats to make surgical cuts in the original law to make it better. Replacing the mandate with some sort of opt-in/opt-out scheme would be a very good place to start.






Sunday, 5 December 2010

Democracy vs Despotism

I recently stumbled upon a 1946 film created by Encyclopaedia Britannica discussing the difference between democracy and despotism.

I highly encourage everyone to watch it if they consider themselves practitioners of liberty. It is eerie to see the GOP pushing policies and ideas that were seen as despotic 65 years ago.

Credit PZ Myers.

Friday, 3 December 2010

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Today, I applaud my senator, Scott Brown, for his decision to support the repeal of DADT.

Monday, 15 November 2010

Solving our Budget Woes

The New York Times has an interesting feature that allows one to pick and choose various proposals in order to balance the budget.

I tried it out for myself, and this is what I got.

I encourage anyone reading this to try it out for themselves and share one's results here.

Friday, 5 November 2010

The Entitlement Spending Question

If the new Republican majority in the house wants to fix our budget woes, one of the first things they need to tackle is entitlement spending. Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner has no plans to reduce entitlement spending (or increase revenue to pay for these entitlements). Instead, he is proposing a vote on restoring cuts to Medicare made by last March's Healthcare reform bill. Looks like the GOP will not offer any new libertarianism, but rather leaves us with more of the same old Bush-era conservatism.

Credit David Frum
& The New York Times

Thinking ahead to 2011

Well the Democrats lost their House Majority, but retained their majority in the Senate. While I am upset that this probably means we won't have any progress in regards to solving the problem of global anthropogenic climate change, I am excited that we may balance the budget for the first time in a decade (even longer than a decade if you discount the use of Social Security Trust Funds in the general budget). Hopefully the GOP will not resort to their old tricks that plagued us for the six or eight years they were in control. Hopefully GOP constituencies will not be exempted from budget cuts. Defense spending, entitlement spending and agriculture subsidies should not be immune from these cuts even if the GOP is reliant on old rural voters who tend to like agriculture subsidies and entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.