First Federalist Article: Fishy Statements
Posted by The Marginalist in Personal, Politics on September 9th, 2009
As I explained before, I’m writing for a paper called the Georgetown Federalist here in D.C. My first article — which will be after the jump — is a re-worked version of “My Email to the White House.” I like the new version much better, and it will appear on the front page of the Georgetown Federalist. I was inspired by Keith Hennessey’s article here, which mocked the direct contradiction of the President’s promises and Doug Elmendorf’s analysis of health care reform 
On a side note, I will be in San Antonio from November 6th to 8th, representing the Georgetown Federalist and taking part in the Collegiate Network’s Editors’ Conference. The Collegiate Network supports independent college newspapers.
A
s for other political trouble-making I’m doing here on campus, I’m part of a new group called Hoyas for Liberty, which combines Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty. Our first event was today, featuring a speech by Adam Kissel from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). More events involving YAL and the Cato Institute are in the works. Check us out here.
Here is the article.
“If You Agree, Post This as Your Facebook Status”
Posted by The Marginalist in Freedom Fridays on September 4th, 2009
Some of you may have come across this Facebook status in some form or another yesterday:
No one should die because they cannot afford health care. No one should go broke because they get sick, and no one should be tied to a job because of a pre-existing condition. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
How do freedom-lovers like us respond to that kind of statement? Surely none of us would want people to die simply because they lack wealth or had the bad luck of having a pre-existing condition.
John Thorlin at The New Madisonian offers a good answer. Thorlin cites the “forgotten man,” the one who is forced (against his will) to provide welfare for each other.
What people who subscribe to that statement really believe is that “Someone should pay so that no one will die because they cannot afford healthcare.” That “someone” is the forgotten man Amity Shlaes spoke of — the person who is being forced to provide healthcare, whether it’s a doctor with a gun to his head or a productive citizen being targeted for more tax money.
Absolutely right. Besides the fact that the current reforms won’t actually improve the cost and quality of health care, the fact that it coerces others into providing welfare is a big no-no.
Cross-posted at Young Americans for Liberty
Some Changes
Posted by The Marginalist in Blog News on September 1st, 2009
Alright, now I’m really back from vacation. I’m now a freshman at Georgetown University. This is my dorm room. I’m going to be studying political economy (of course) here, with some math and music on the side. I’m going to be playing in the orchestra and writing for a conservative/libertarian paper called the Georgetown Federalist. And I may do some general political trouble making with a YAL chapter here.
So between The Federeralist, orchestra, classes (they did not sign me up for econ and I am very displeased), and various (including non-political) trouble making, I will obviously have less and less time to devote here. That doesn’t mean no new posts, but I’m going to write less and less for this site alone. Most of the things I post here will be reposts of things I’m writing elsewhere.
Things to look for:
- My first Federalist Article. It is a much, much better redux of this and will appear on the front page of the Federalist.
- Whatever I write at Young Americans for Liberty
- Stories of my political troublemaking
- A few weeks ago, a libertarian professor from SUNY commented on a post I wrote in April. This is both exciting and terrifying at the same time. When I find the time I will discuss the questions he raised, but I don’t know when I can do that.
- Perhaps some stories from my history seminar. The topic is socialism and the professor is, I believe, a social democrat.
– Preston
Numbers Lie/You’re Effing Kidding Me, NYT Ed.
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie, You're effing kidding me on August 30th, 2009
I saw this editorial in the New York Times today.
Those who fear that a trillion-dollar reform will add to the nation’s deficit burden should remember that these changes are intended to be deficit-neutral over the next decade.
Before why I explain why “deficit-neutral over the next decade” doesn’t actually mean that much, I want to say that I am extremely disappointed in the Times for publishing this extremely shoddy editorial. It’s ridiculously pathetic. I want to focus on that one sentence for this post — click for more. Read the rest of this entry »
Back From Vacation: 10 Things I Read
Posted by The Marginalist in Links on August 25th, 2009
I’ve been on vacation these past few weeks (San Francisco, Yosemite, Napa Valley, New York, and Virginia Beach), but just because I’ve been away doesn’t mean I haven’t been following the news (and blogosphere!).
I have a couple things to take care of now that I’m (finally) in college, but I’d like to share a few interesting things I read.
The Top Ten Things I Read on Vacation
10. The math of a zombie attack
Freakonomics readers, however, point out that the model was flawed.
9. John Goodman notes a Joint Economic Committee report with this table
Or as I like to call it, we’re screwed!
8. How to publish a scientific comment in 123 easy steps
7. Jon Stewart shows why Fox News is stupid
6. Don Boudreaux explains why insurance should only cover catastrophic events
and why Medicare isn’t necessary
What’s funny (well not funny, really) is that we’ve totally forgotten the point of insurance and why it’s economically sensible. Insurance is designed for the unpredicatable. There’s nothing unpredictable about bad health when you get old.
Many of the current budget assumptions are laughably implausible. Both the White House and CBO predict that Congress will hold federal spending at the rate of inflation over the next decade. This is the same Democratic Congress that awarded a 47% increase in domestic discretionary spending in 2009 when counting stimulus funds. And the appropriations bills now speeding through Congress for 2010 serve up an 8% increase in domestic spending after inflation.
4. Political Math does an epic beatdown on Paul Krugman
My problem with Mr. Krugman’s “How big is $9 trillion?” is that he is aware of all the problems I pointed out. He didn’t explain how much $9 trillion is; he obfuscated it. By comparing the debt load in the heart of a world-shaking war to a debt load that was accumulated in (relative) peacetime, he has misled his readers to the real significance of the data.
3. “Radio Nowhere” by Bruce Springsteen
I flew Virgin America, which gives you loads of music to listen to. Luckily, they had 15 of The Boss’s best tracks. I hadn’t listened to Magic before, but that’s definitely the next album I’m buying. Unfortunately, I can’t embed the video.
2. TSA assaults pregnant woman, and arrests husband
There is now a division between the citizenry and the state. When that state is used as a tool against me, there is no longer any reason why I should owe any allegiance to that state.
What troubles me is when liberals decry the tyranny of the state when it comes to the police — but they’re perfectly willing to put the same folks in charge of health care, auto companies, and finance.
1. The best article I’ve ever read on health care reform
The most important single step we can take toward truly reforming our system is to move away from comprehensive health insurance as the single model for financing care. And a guiding principle of any reform should be to put the consumer, not the insurer or the government, at the center of the system.
The article is written by a Democratic businessman whose father died in a hospital. Although it’s 6 pages long, the author offers the best diagnosis of why health care is so bad in America. He ends with his idea of how government should support the sick and poor — if I were to design a health-welfare system, that’s how I would do it.
Open Letter to Whole Foods Boycotters
Posted by The Marginalist in Politics on August 16th, 2009
Dear Whole Foods boycotters,
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey recently voiced his opinions on health care in this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Personally, I found his article rather prescient and considered it to be a fairly apt summary of the type of health care reform that most free-market economists like me would support. I did not agree with every last detail of his plan, but as with every other piece on health care, I digested his thoughts and went on with my life.
Obviously some of you did not react the same way as I did. Judging by the comments on Mackey’s full post at his blog and what I’m hearing from the internet, a good number of people are advocating a boycott of Whole Foods in response to Mackey’s recent article.
Now, I never shop at Whole Foods and Mackey’s article is not going to change that. I would also never stop listening to Bruce Springsteen or U2 simply because they have publicly advocated political beliefs that I have strong disagreements with. But, I fully recognize your right to choose to engage or disengage in business with someone for whatever reason you please.
However, before you choose to boycott Whole Foods, I would appreciate that you ask yourself a few questions:
- If you boycott Whole Foods because of Mackey’s political views, are you prepared to seek out every single company you do business with and ensure that the CEOs of those companies supports your idea of health care reform? Will you divest from each and every company whose CEO does not agree with you on this issue?
- If you only oppose Whole Foods because Mackey took the time to make public his opinions, may I ask what is so terrible about people acting on their political beliefs, even if they disagree with you?
- If you want Mackey to be removed as the CEO of Whole Foods because of his political beliefs and activities, do you think that political beliefs are legitimate criteria for hiring and firing? Should we hire or fire based on a person’s political activities? Would it be acceptable for me to fire a liberal or progressive because of his or her political activities?
- If the CEO of your company came out against universal health care, would you support a boycott of your own company? Even if the company was forced to lay people off as a result?
- Is boycotting companies whose CEOs disagree with you part of Obama’s plan to, as he said, “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long”? Or do the words “partisanship,” “pettiness,” and “immaturity” mean something else?
- Let’s say the organization of this boycott is successful to the point that some stores are forced to close. Now that all of the employees have lost their income and health benefits, is that an acceptable cost to punish Mackey for voicing political beliefs you don’t agree with? What would you say to those employees and their families?
I respectfully await your response.
Preston Mui
Hiatus
Posted by The Marginalist in Blog News on August 16th, 2009
On vacation for a while… Don’t let anything interesting happen without me 
My Email to the White House
Posted by The Marginalist in Personal on August 11th, 2009
Dear President Obama, et. al.,
Your team recently posted on the White House Blog asking American citizens to come forth with “fishy” statements about health care reform that we find on the Internet. I applaud your efforts to combat disinformation about health care reform that could defeat attempts at sound and moral health care reforms. Disinformation must not stand in the way of true health care reform.
I’m writing today to respond to your request to seek out and flag fishy statements. I came across a lengthy document a few days ago that makes some very fishy statements that I believe run contrary to what the President has been saying. I fear these fishy statements may sink health care reform. I’m actually quite surprised the administration has not pointed out these fishy statements yet.
These are the fishy statements I found in this document.
- You promised that you would never raise taxes on individuals earning less than $250,000. However, the document says that individuals who fail to meet acceptable coverage will be subject to a 2.5% tax on their Adjusted Gross Income, even if their income is below $250,000.
- The President promised that health reform will guarantee the individual’s choice to purchase plans they want. However, the document claims that a “Health Choice Commissioner” will decide what counts as a “qualified plan.” If an individual wants to purchase a plan not approved by the Commissioner, he or she would not be allowed to.
- You have said that businesses are suffering from having to meet the health care costs for their employees. However, this document claims that businesses who choose not to, or cannot afford to, provide health insurance to their employees will be hit with a tax up to 8% of their payroll.
- The fishiest statement in this document is that existing health care plans may not enroll new individuals after health care reform is passed. The document also says that individuals who are currently enrolled in a plan will not be allowed to change the terms of their contracts after reform is passed. However, the President has consistently trumpeted choice as a key principle of health reform.
I hope you public address the fishy statements found in this document. As a strong advocate of health care reform, I believe these statements have the ability to drastically diminish the chances of your health care plan moving forward. If the public becomes more exposed to these fishy statements, public opinion may very well overwhelm your efforts at reform.
This document also claims to be H.R. 3200, an actual bill sponsored by Rep. John Dingell that is being considered by the House of Representatives at this very moment. But that couldn’t be possible; the bill breaks so many of the promises you’ve made to the American people. You would never support a bill with that many fishy statements.
Would you?
Sincerely,
Preston Mui
(Inspired by Keith Hennessey, cross-posted at Young Americans for Liberty)
Numbers Lie: Bill O’Reilly is an Idiot
Posted by The Marginalist in Numbers Lie on August 11th, 2009
Hat tip to… Paul Krugman, actually.
Squeal.
Posted by The Marginalist in Uncategorized on August 7th, 2009
