The only problem for Obama and Romney: Ron Paul already is that champion.
It is the middle class that casts the votes but it is the special interests that finance the increasingly expensive election process. Who has more influence, the voters or the narrow agenda driven special interests who finance elections?
In 1970, the average congressional campaign cost about $52,000. In 2010, it was more than 25 times that, $1.3 million. The approval rating of congress is at an all time low just as they are getting ready to spend more money than ever. Is this just going to go on this way or is something about to change?
Ron Paul is now ahead in the polls in Iowa. Ignored by the media and having little money, Paul is about to rewrite the story of the 2012 presidential election. What is that story?
I think it has everything to do with a rebellion against the pay for access politics that has been looting the middle class for years now. Whether it is commercial or ideological, well financed interest groups come first when policy is being made and result of this is evident in the deeply entrenched problems facing America today. Paul's antagonism against the Federal Reserve is also relevant to the crisis we are in now. It was the Fed's policy of backing the financial leverage that created the capital to finance both the internet and housing bubbles which define the historic mistakes made over past 13 years.
At the core of our deficits are out of control basic costs. K-12 education costs a lot more in the US than any other developed country except for Switzerland. Top ranked in spending on education, America is bottom to middle ranked in achievement, American students rank 24th in literacy and below average in math and science. We have a very unproductive education system and a highly politicized one that has been taken over by special interests and is a product of our political system.
Our health care system is also a product of the politicians. It cost about twice as much per person to run as other developed countries and has below average health outcomes. Ballooning health care costs are at the center of our national, state and local budget crises and a big reason that unemployment is so high because employers, small businesses mostly, can't afford it.
Military spending, infrastructure and administration are not run on a shoe string. It costs much much more in America to get things done because interest groups bend every policy to their benefit.
So here we are. Just maybe the guy who is going to be elected in 2012 will be the guy who the middle class believes will put us right. Enabling the middle class means lowering the cost of government and health care. It means expecting a better educated student at a lower cost. It means an America that can be the best once again. It will also mean the end of outsourcing, a rollback in executive compensation at publicly held corporations and a more energy efficient America.
It also means middle class entrepreneurs can proper and employ people. Not many people know that the jobs problem we have this year has much to do with outsourcing. It is small and medium sized business who are creating jobs. Big companies have added very few jobs to the economy. They are still shipping jobs overseas.
At the end of the day, America is about a middle class that is succeeding. The rich will take care of themselves so we shouldn't worry about them. Rather than institutionalized poverty, the poor need a growing middle class they can aspire to become a part of. If the middle class is advantaged, the poor can rise up to it and the productive capacity and spirit of the nation will increase.
Really, what is good for America's middle class is what is good for America. Politicians who adopt that slogan will do well in the next election cycle.
One can hope that Obama and or Romney figure out this message, but in the meantime we have Ron Paul, the spoiler, to shake things up and he is going to do just that. Watch the media deny and discredit Paul until the votes in Iowa and then New Hampshire come in. Then the issues in this election will come closer to addressing what is really bugging Americans.
(This article's intent is to point out how the core issue of the election is enabling the middle class, remove structural impediments like unfair trade with China and cost overruns like health and education, and finally using America's productive capacity to turn things around. I agree with Paul that government needs to downsize if the country is to proper in the future. I am not endorsing any candidate, however.)
Right answers need right questions. This blog endeavors to discover the answers to questions on investment, economics, personal finance and social attitudes.
Showing posts with label US health care costs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US health care costs. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Politicians and Vested Interests Block Economic Recovery
Can we fix this broken economy? What needs fixing and what is the prognosis.
In the economic crisis of the 1930's, FDR could put people to work building public infrastructure within just a few months of making the decision. Out of work men were employed at low labor rates building roads, bridges and public spaces. Today, you can't build infrastructure like that. Mandatory high union wages, permitting delays, lawsuits and bloated government stand in the way. Stimulating the economy by financing construction programs have yielded little for the investment. It is the vested interests that pay for political campaigns that are put before the public interest and the economy suffers.
You can't export your way out of this mess because trade negotiators have caved to China's strategy of conquering global markets systematically. Whether it is their willingness to exploit their people, ruin their environment or steal patents and designs or subsidize industries to enable them to overwhelm foreign competition. China also won't trade fair. Foreign companies are not allowed free access to Chinese markets. China is dead set to take markets from developed countries. Washington is impotent in the face of such a determined effort to take our hard earned advantages away.
You can't increase employment if large companies in the US continue to replace workers here with workers in Asia. There has been virtually zero increase in hiring by large companies this year. The entire gain in jobs can be attributed to mid and small size companies. Washington will say nothing about this. Big companies are their sponsors.
An economy that pays too much for health care is going to go bankrupt and isn't globally competitive. The US pays twice as much as other developed countries and has worse health statistics. You can't change that when politicians obfuscate the issues in favor of the interests that finance their election campaigns. The trial attorneys, the for profit practitioners, the drug companies that get their highest profit margins in the US and the unions get first consideration in policy making and are among the biggest campaign contributors in America. Health care costs are sapping government budgets and hurting employment. This is probably the most under appreciated economic issue in the country.
The Democratic Party's largest contributors are the Teachers' unions. With the policy makers on the hook to the teachers, is it any wonder we have the most expensive public education system in the world and the one that provides the very worst performance for dollars spent? Employers are complaining, graduates are not well prepared to work and don't have the necessary skills. Despite spending vast sums, drop out rates are outrageous. Outcomes don't matter to policy makers or the unions, but the market place does care and the US is suffering as a result.
The US can't isolate itself from the political problems of the world. So when you consider that foreign military ventures are "Diplomacy by other means", you realize that we are blowing an awful lot of money. We should ask ourselves, can't we be achieving more by improving our spies on the ground, our diplomatic skills and capabilities and cheap soft dollar endeavors economic development projects like health and education assistance abroad. One single F-16 squadron on operations for 2 -3 months will cost more than a whole year of soft diplomacy for an entire developing country. Which is smarter? Which creates the most good will? Which can we afford? Our military entanglements have been mismanaged by the politicians. The goals have been off the mark and the stories peddled to the American public have been disingenuous about the real costs of war.
In the economic crisis of the 1930's, FDR could put people to work building public infrastructure within just a few months of making the decision. Out of work men were employed at low labor rates building roads, bridges and public spaces. Today, you can't build infrastructure like that. Mandatory high union wages, permitting delays, lawsuits and bloated government stand in the way. Stimulating the economy by financing construction programs have yielded little for the investment. It is the vested interests that pay for political campaigns that are put before the public interest and the economy suffers.
You can't export your way out of this mess because trade negotiators have caved to China's strategy of conquering global markets systematically. Whether it is their willingness to exploit their people, ruin their environment or steal patents and designs or subsidize industries to enable them to overwhelm foreign competition. China also won't trade fair. Foreign companies are not allowed free access to Chinese markets. China is dead set to take markets from developed countries. Washington is impotent in the face of such a determined effort to take our hard earned advantages away.
You can't increase employment if large companies in the US continue to replace workers here with workers in Asia. There has been virtually zero increase in hiring by large companies this year. The entire gain in jobs can be attributed to mid and small size companies. Washington will say nothing about this. Big companies are their sponsors.
An economy that pays too much for health care is going to go bankrupt and isn't globally competitive. The US pays twice as much as other developed countries and has worse health statistics. You can't change that when politicians obfuscate the issues in favor of the interests that finance their election campaigns. The trial attorneys, the for profit practitioners, the drug companies that get their highest profit margins in the US and the unions get first consideration in policy making and are among the biggest campaign contributors in America. Health care costs are sapping government budgets and hurting employment. This is probably the most under appreciated economic issue in the country.
The Democratic Party's largest contributors are the Teachers' unions. With the policy makers on the hook to the teachers, is it any wonder we have the most expensive public education system in the world and the one that provides the very worst performance for dollars spent? Employers are complaining, graduates are not well prepared to work and don't have the necessary skills. Despite spending vast sums, drop out rates are outrageous. Outcomes don't matter to policy makers or the unions, but the market place does care and the US is suffering as a result.
The US can't isolate itself from the political problems of the world. So when you consider that foreign military ventures are "Diplomacy by other means", you realize that we are blowing an awful lot of money. We should ask ourselves, can't we be achieving more by improving our spies on the ground, our diplomatic skills and capabilities and cheap soft dollar endeavors economic development projects like health and education assistance abroad. One single F-16 squadron on operations for 2 -3 months will cost more than a whole year of soft diplomacy for an entire developing country. Which is smarter? Which creates the most good will? Which can we afford? Our military entanglements have been mismanaged by the politicians. The goals have been off the mark and the stories peddled to the American public have been disingenuous about the real costs of war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)