Carbon Offsets: You Need Green to be "Green"

For the last few years, Al Gore has been lecturing us on how our comfortable lifestyle here in America is causing global warming. Without going into the scientific details of whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and if it is whether we can realistically stop it (maybe in another blog, another day), I will say that Gore's intentions are obvious. To him, global warming is nothing more than a tool, a crowbar used to pry Americans from their freedoms and goad them into the trap of higher taxes and a more powerful, intrusive government.

How can we tell whether Gore's concern with global warming is genuine, or if he's just using it as a weapon against capitalism as I claim above? Well, it's logical to assume that if he really were as concerned about it as he claims to be, he would have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions in his own life before laying guilt upon others. But instead, we see him criss-crossing the world in private jets and limos. The icing on the cake was a report last month revealed that Gore's mansion in Tennessee burns through more electricity in a month than most houses do in a year.

Gore says not to worry, he's buying "carbon offsets" to balance out his lavish lifestyle. The idea here is that the carbon emissions from thousands of gallons of jet fuel can be eliminated by planting a few trees halfway around the world. It's kind of like buying indulgences in the middle ages - give the church some money, then go out and sin without guilt. It really is amazing how the same mentality has popped up 700 years later.

Anyway, it struck me how Gore's system of carbon offsets goes against the basic principles of his own party. Specifically, it would widen the gap in standard of living between the rich and the poor. Those with money, like Al Gore, can go on enjoying their mansions and private jets since they can afford whatever carbon offsets they need to be "carbon neutral". The rest of us will be stuck with cramped apartments and public transit. Democrats should be outraged! But of course they are not. Why? Remember, to liberals, global warming is a religion. And in a religion you don't question God... er, Al Gore.

Single Payer the Anti-Choice Plan

Last Sunday there was a debate in our local paper about the health care system and how to fix it. One of the proposals was, of course, a single payer system. I had some thoughts on this so I wrote a letter to the editor... I thought I'd post it here also:

Single Payer the Anti-Choice Plan

A fundamental problem with single payer health care is that it denies freedom and choice. In doing this it violates the most basic principles of our country, as well as the power of the free market. Suppose there's something you dislike about your health plan; maybe the wait times are too long, the copays are too high, or the treatment you want isn't covered. With single payer, you're out of luck. Furthermore, if the government is providing everyone's health care, they will be expected to minimize costs. This provides an incentive for the "nanny state" – legislating lifestyle choices such as diet and exercise to keep health care costs down.

We need a system that embraces freedom rather than denying it. The bond between employment and health care should be broken so each individual can choose from any health plan on the market, which would spur competition and keep prices in check. Government does need to have a role in making sure everyone is able to purchase coverage, perhaps through a voucher system.

At any rate, we must fix this problem soon, before people become so exasperated with the current system that they agree to trade freedom for health care.

The Cost of Freedom

When you hear a phrase like “the cost of freedom” you probably think of our military, and the sacrifices they have made for our country. And rightly so – we owe a world of gratitude to those who have risked life and limb to protect our freedoms. But recent events have led me to consider a different kind of cost. I’m talking about the costs we all are asked to pay for our freedom, every day of our lives. I also want to raise the question of whether we as a society are still willing to pay those costs. I sincerely hope we are, but lately I have begun to question that.

One of these costs of freedom is responsibility. If we are free to make our own choices, to take our own course in life, we have to accept the responsibility of how those choices turn out. The alternative is to have someone else (government) make those choices for us. If we allow that to happen, we may feel safer, but at what price? Take the social security debate of a few years ago as an example. The proposal was to allow individuals to invest a portion of their own social security money into private accounts – out of reach of the prying hands of government. But people were cold to the idea. It was too risky, they said. Okay, but the whole thing was voluntary. Nobody was going to be forced into it – if anyone was uncomfortable making their own investment decisions they could stay in the current government-run (and soon to be bankrupt) system. That wasn’t good enough though. It was just too risky. So instead of giving people the freedom to exempt themselves from a failing system, we chose the relative safety of letting government take care of us.

Another cost we must be willing to pay is inefficiency. We could design a system where virtually all control and decision-making is turned over to the government, and because one central organization would run everything there would, in theory, be a lot less overhead and duplication of efforts. The example here is health care. Proponents of a single payer, government run system argue that their idea would save money by eliminating the administrative costs of the myriad health plans and HMO’s out there. It might – but again, at what price? You would have no choice whatsoever in your health plan. What the government says, goes, and that’s the end of it. No alternative plan to switch to if you aren’t satisfied (I sometimes refer to it as the SOL plan, because if you don’t like it, you are indeed… SOL). No competition to keep prices in check. Just relax and let the government take care of you. I don’t know about you, but somehow I find that quite difficult to do.

One particularly difficult cost that comes with freedom is seeing other people face negative consequences for poor choices they make. We hate to see others suffer, which is good, but this can go too far and drive us to use government to protect people from themselves. Take smoking, for example. Here in Wisconsin, the governor is proposing a statewide smoking ban in places of business such as bars and restaurants, as well as a huge ($1.25) increase in the cigarette tax. Now, I’m okay with the ban because of secondhand smoke (certainly no one should have the freedom to injure or endanger the lives of others), but the tax is over the line. Apparently we can’t stand to see people suffer the health consequences of smoking so we’re going to be big brother to them and insist they make healthier choices. If the purpose of the tax was to reimburse the health care system for smoking-related costs that would be one thing. But it goes well beyond that, and is being presented as “encouragement” to get people to quit. I’m a non-smoker, always have been and always will be. Even so, I find this attitude disturbing. The same logic could be used to ban all sorts of stuff, from fast food to inactivity (exercise police, anyone?). We must resolve as a society to allow grown adults to make their own choices, even if we don’t agree with them, as long as they aren’t hurting others and know what they are getting into.

Finally, a cost that is inherent to freedom, much like responsibility, is inequality. I need to specify here that I’m talking about inequality of outcome as opposed to inequality of opportunity. We should ensure, as much as possible, that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed in life. But in a society of truly free individuals, not all will make the same choices, and inevitably those different choices will lead to different results – some better and some worse than others. We have been led to believe that all kinds of inequality are offensive, but that is not necessarily true. There is nothing wrong with being free to succeed, and to reap the rewards that come with that. Too often, however, we are encouraged to feel envious of those that have more than us. Here’s a radical idea: I don’t care how much the top one percent has. As long as they acquired it fairly and legally, I’m fine with it. Like I said, we do need to have equality of opportunity, and I admit we’re not quite there yet, but beyond that I think it’s great that we have the freedom to achieve. Success should not be offensive – it’s a symptom of freedom.

Individual freedom, as long as it doesn’t hurt others and is coupled with responsibility, should be a core principle of our nation – wasn’t it once? Keep in mind there is always a compelling reason to revoke freedoms, whether that is saving money, safety, or an easier life. It may be hard to resist those temptations that come with turning pieces of our lives over to the government, but we must see the big picture. Otherwise we are nothing more than children.

Dangerous Side-Effects of Government-Run Health Care

I'll be the first to admit we have problems with our current system of health care. From exponential increases in costs to long lines in the ER because it's the only option for the uninsured, it is clear that there is room for improvement. Unfortunately, the left has claimed this issue, and their idea of "improvement" is the standard formula of bigger government, payed for by "someone else" (a standard liberal trap - eventually "someone else" becomes "you"). So what's wrong with that?

As a matter a principle, I have no problem with guaranteeing health care for everyone. In order for this to work though, it must involve the free market, which is the only way to keep prices down, and must ultimately give power to the individual, not the government (or a government-sponsored monopoly, as with your local cable company).

Handing the keys to our health care system over to the governement is not the answer. It sounds good (which is all that's required to appeal to the left), but a deeper look reveals a number of potential problems.

1. It ignores the root of the problem - rising costs. Think you won't have to pay for health care premiums out of your paycheck any more? Think again - they'll still come out of your check, just from the line marked "Federal Income Tax" rather than "HMO". There's no free lunch, especially when the government gets involved. As with everything else, health care costs are a function of supply and demand - this is simple logic. Turning the system over to the government does nothing to change this equation. The costs will continue to skyrocket unless supply increases and/or demand decreases.

How could supply increase? One way this could happen is by making the system more efficient, through technology such as the electronic medical record. A more efficient system can handle larger numbers of patients more quickly, effectively increasing supply. Unfortunately, the Federal government is not exactly known for efficiency, and layers of bureaucracy will only hinder these efforts. Just look at the mess that is Medicare Part D for an example of government "efficiency" when it comes to health care.

So it's pretty clear that government-run health care would do nothing to increase supply. What about the demand side? Proponents of these ideas usually point to the large numbers of uninsured that go to the ER because it's the only way they can get treatment. It's true that a system in which all are insured would reduce this, but I have a hard time believing that this one group will outweigh an entire system that has no incentive to control spending whatsoever - after all, if the governement is paying for it, who cares if a procedure costs $1000 at Clinic A and $2000 at Clinic B? Clinic B is a few minutes closer, so I'll go there - after all, I'm not paying for it, and for that matter I probably don't know there's a price difference anyway.

2. Do you want your health care run by the same institution that ran FEMA during the Katrina mess? Or, perhaps a more relevant example is the new Medicare Part D plan, which is so confusing some pharmacies have advertised that they have an "expert" available to sit down with you and explain it. If you think your HMO plan is confusing, just wait until the same organization that gave us the IRS owns your health care. Imagine hiring a professional "health plan expert" to navigate the depths of your government-run plan, just as many do with today's tax code. After all, a government-run health plan would be written by congress, which is basically nothing but a bunch of lawyers. That's why our tax code is the way it is, and will probably never change... why would health care turn out any differently?

3. It gives the government, and more specifically whichever party is currently in power, too much say over what is and isn't covered. The left should be particularly concerned about this one. If you're a liberal, think about this - what happens when conservatives are in control and decide that abortions, birth control, etc. should not be covered? When you turn control over to the governement, you turn your health care into a political football. Sure, the party you like may be in power now, but history says the other party will eventually take their place, at which point your health coverage is subject to opinions and values vastly different than yours.

4. It paves the way for a "big brother" type government that takes away individual freedoms in the name of keeping health care costs down. Let's think about what will happen to this governement program 10, 20, or more years down the road as costs continue to rise. One logical solution would be to use the power of legislation to cut costs by discouraging or even outlawing "risky" activities that statistically lead to higher health care costs. In a free market, if my neighbor is overweight, sits in front of the TV all day, and eats Big Macs as a midnight snack, that's his business, or at least the business of his insurance company which generally doesn't have the power to regulate such things. But in a system where we are all in the same government-run health care pool, funded by tax money, his lifestyle is very much my business since I'll be paying for his triple-bypass surgery. Under this regime, it would be easy to justify the erosion of personal freedoms such as what to eat, how much to exercise, etc. in the name of keeping health care costs down. This last point is the one that really frightens me, not only because I consider individual freedom a core value, but also because I believe it would happen much easier and with less of a fight than most people think. Sadly, there are too many people who don't mind having freedoms stripped away, as long as it saves them some money or makes them feel good about the cause of the day.

So considering all of that, is "health care for all" a hopeless cause? Not at all... as I mentioned earlier, I have no problem with guaranteeing health care for all American citizens. Here's a hypothetical system that I could support (just off the top of my head - not based on any real plan I've heard of):

Everyone gets a voucher for a health care plan. They can choose from any of the plans that are available today, as well as those offered by other states (which is currently prohibited in most cases). This allows the free market to come into play. Each plan is still free to set its own rate. If you choose a plan that is cheaper than average, you get a portion of the difference as a refund. If you choose a more expensive plan, you pay the difference.

Of course that's just a very rough outline, but it solves the problem of the uninsured without opening the door to any of the problems described above. There are probably other solutions that are equally as good or better. Hopefully sanity will prevail and we won't hand the keys over to the government... but unless a fix happens soon, I fear that more and more people will believe that government is the only answer and we will and up taking the "easy road" of public health care.

Green With Envy: Liberals' True Colors Shining Through

If someone offered you $10,000 in cash, with the only stipulation being that your neighbor would also be given $10,000, would you accept it?

Now suppose your neighbor would receive $100,000 but you would still only receive $10,000. It's either this or both of you getting nothing. Which would you choose now?

Now suppose your neighbor is already much wealthier than you. Again, you can choose between you getting $10,000 and your neighbor getting $100,000, or both of you getting nothing.

To me, this is a no-brainer. I'd gladly take the money, even if it meant someone else getting more. What's it to me if my rich neighbor benefits as well? If I was willing to sacrifice my own good just to stick it to someone else, what would that say about my priorities? Yes, I might be tempted to complain about the other guy getting more, but I wouldn't go so far as to let that prevent me from taking the money - that would be foolish.

Where am I going with this? Last week, the Democrats in congress were presented with this question. Not exactly, but the basic idea was the same. A bill was introduced to raise the minimum wage (by almost 50%!), but the compromise was that the estate tax would be cut. (The estate tax is largely seen as a tax on the rich, although in reality it can also hit family farms and small businesses since it is not just a tax on cash assets.)

The Democrats claim to be on the side of the poor. I'd like to see them explain this one to some impoverished family struggling to get by on minimum wage... "Yes, we could have give you a 50% raise, but then some millionaire you'll never know or have any contact with, and who has no impact on your life whatsoever, will benefit. And we can't have that. So keep making your $5.15 an hour and remember... vote Democrat! We feel your pain!"

We already knew the Democrats were against virtually every tax cut under the sun - especially those that tend to benefit the wealthy. After all, being envious of those who have more than you is one of the basic requirements of being a liberal. So opposing the estate tax cut was no surprise. And of course they also presented themselves as being the party of the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, etc... so the minimum wage increase should have been something that appealed to them. And in fact it was, and probably still will be, a central part of their campaigns in '06 and '08. But what happens when these objectives conflict? What if helping the working poor comes at the cost of cutting taxes for those unlikely to vote Democrat? Thanks to last week's vote we now know what happens... the poor lose out. Envy of the rich trumps compassion for the poor.

Keep this in mind when the Democrats try to use raising the minimum wage as a campaign platform in '06 and '08, as they surely will. They had their chance.

Toll Roads: See What Happens When You Ignore the Laws of Mathematics

It sounded like a great idea six months ago... end a law that automatically increased Wisconsin's gas tax by about a penny each year. Well, perhaps not a great idea but at least a quick way for politicians to win votes in times of $3/gallon gas. Lower gas prices... hooray! Lower taxes... hooray! And everyone jumped on board...

Now the Wisconsin Department of Transportation announces massive budget shortfalls. Imagine that! (In reality it's partly due to the gas tax freeze and partly due to Gov. Doyle raiding the highway budget to pay for other programs so he could brag about not raising taxes... but for today we'll focus on the gas tax portion of it.) But raising the gas tax isn't an option. No, that extra penny would just be too much... and more importantly, it might cost votes. But we have to come up with that money somehow. So let's have...

Toll roads!

Yes, toll roads are now being discussed as a serious possibility in Wisconsin. Because the highway department has massive budget shortfalls. Because we wanted to end the automatic gas tax increase. Because we hated paying more for gas. Because that made it more expensive to drive. So yes, by all means, let's get toll roads instead.

See how it comes full circle? Everyone thought ending the gas tax increase was a free lunch. And it was - for six months - until the bill came. Now it's going to cost even more.

But ending the gas tax increase was the feel-good option. No one wants to pay an extra penny on a gallon of gas when the price is already over $3. Apparently it' s much better to implement a toll system that will surely cost much more. It has to cost more, because not only does it have to make up all the money lost by the gas tax freeze, but it also has to raise enough money to fund its own bureaucracy of toll booths and their attendants, high-tech electronic passes, state-of-the-art multi-thousand-dollar security cameras to find out who's sneaking through the toll area without paying their 40 cents, and of course the highly paid governement workers to manage the whole thing.

Yes, the gas tax is a tax, and the conservative in me hates the idea of raising any tax... but reality says roads have to get built and maintained somehow, and unfortunately it isn't free. Inflation causes those road construction costs to rise every year, and since the gas tax is a flat rate (not a percentage of the price), the rate must increase to keep up with inflation. Simple mathematics predicted that ending the gas tax increase was a crisis waiting to happen. But as we learned from the social security debate, politicians and simple mathematics don't mix very well.

What makes the toll option so much better than the gas tax increase? Is it because you have a choice about driving on the toll roads? Perhaps, but that only works until they put a toll booth up on the only major highway between your house and your place of employment... then your "choice" is to pay the toll or sit in gridlock at countless red lights on city streets (or spend three times as long taking public tranportation). On the other hand, the gas tax is efficient. It's automatically assessed at the pump with no traffic-clogging booths or any of the bureaucracy that goes with managing a toll system. It's also fair - everyone who uses the roads, and therefore contributes to the need for road construction, pays it. Hmm, efficient and fair... no wonder the government couldn't stand for it.