People arguing for a national health insurance plan often state that the United States is the only developed nation without one. They say this as if it is sufficient argument for one. They apparently believe that we should have one just because our peers have one. Never mind the fact that medical care in other developed nations is inferior to ours. Never mind that the vast majority of emigrants choose to move to the United States over the other developed nations; for them, national health insurance doesn’t seem to be a strong criterion.

Those in favor of national health insurance seem to believe that universally available health care is preferred over good health care. But the flaw in this argument is that universally available health care is already available. Private health insurance is available to anyone who can afford it. For those who can’t afford it there is Medicaid, SCHIP and charitable institutions. You might be denied knee replacement surgery under Medicaid but that will also be denied under a national health insurance plan.

There is also the false assumption that a national health care plan will ensure that everyone is covered. If the plan is universally available but voluntary not everyone will opt to pay for it. If participation in the plan is mandatory how will the cost be collected from those unable to pay? The cost won’t be collected from those unable to pay so we’re back to the system we have now: health insurance plans that are available to those able to pay and public assistance for those that aren’t.

The concept of “minorities” in a political sense has always bemused me. Following are my somewhat random thoughts on the subject:

How can a political party that depends on a majority for its power be a true friend of a minority? They can’t. They can only be a true friend to a collection of minorities with common interests. And that collection has to be large enough to constitute a majority. But if this collection of minorities has sufficiently common interests and numbers to place a particular party and president in power are they truly a minority? The mathematician in me says no.

Since slavery, the most racist act committed by this country was the inclusion of all citizens of African descent in a single group. That group is the “black minority.” It doesn’t matter how rich or poor you are or how educated or uneducated you are; if your ancestors were African you are in that group. It doesn’t matter if you are among the most poor, uneducated and disadvantaged in the land; if your skin is white you are not in that group. It is a blatant classification of a large segment of our population on their ethnicity alone.  Jeff Foxworthy’s classification of rednecks makes more sense; he specifies hundreds of criteria, each of which can qualify you for membership in the group.

African-Americans are not alone; Hispanics, for example, have their own group. But why should Hispanics be classified separately from blacks? Aren’t their needs similar to those of blacks? I would think that the needs among blacks or among Hispanics taken separately are at least as different as the needs of both taken together. The answer is that combining the minorities might be politically threatening; if they’re all combined they may no longer constitute a minority. But an astute, populist political party can claim that it is their duty now to represent the interests of the new majority.

It seems to me that all this thrashing about over the supposed under-represented minorities is much ado about nothing. What happened to representing all the people all the time? And treating everyone equally?

(Perhaps I shouldn’t raise the question posed in the title of this post; Obama may want to create a new White House Czar for that purpose.)

Here’s an idea: Let’s stop keeping money in banks in order to remove the incentive for people to rob banks. When asked decades ago why he robbed banks Willie Sutton said, “because that’s where the money is.” So why not just stop keeping money in the banks? Because it’s a stupid idea. We don’t need banks if we can’t put our money there for safe keeping. We need to deter bank robbers by capturing them and dealing with them severely, not by giving in to them.

But that’s exactly what President Obama wants to do in closing Gitmo, give in to elements that want to harm us. He says that it has become a symbol that helps Al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. He provides no evidence to support that claim but so what if it is true? Should we cease to defend our country when doing so encourages our attackers? Should we not punish our attackers when doing so infuriates their supporters? No, the only effective way to deal with them is to punish them hard and often.

Placating the enemy is never an effective strategy; it is only seen as a sign of weakness. Irritating them as often as possible is better; when angry they will make mistakes.

It’s interesting that Obama apparently believes that the radical elements around the world are stupid enough to not notice that he is just moving the detainees from Gitmo to other prisons in the US. That is, he plans to close Gitmo, not release the detainees. Or, he thinks that the radical elements are upset about the symbolism of Gitmo itself rather than the fact that their comrades are incarcerated.

Anyway, I’ve long questioned the idea that there is an endless supply of hothead fanatics ready and willing to give their lives for the cause of destroying the US. If Gitmo has been such an effective recruiting tool where are they and what have they done? To the US homeland, that is. I think it’s more likely that immediately after 9/11 they celebrated a lot and then started to ask themselves what they really accomplished. The US mourned the loss of the victims but hardly skipped a beat on the whole. And they recognized that things were now a lot tougher on them. They all had to leave Afghanistan and go find new digs (literally) in Pakistan.

Perhaps too they came to believe that the 9/11 attack just turned out to be a huge recruiting tool for the Americans.

President Obama is boasting about coming in under budget on one of his spending plans. He doesn’t bother to point out that all the money he spent is money the government doesn’t have. He is bragging about the few dollars that he won’t spend.  This is like me bragging to my wife that I only spent $99,000 more than I made this year instead of the $100,000 that I planned to spend. For me a thousand bucks is not pocket change but what’s more important is the $99,000 that I did spend. And what’s more important for the country are the trillions of dollars that Obama is spending beyond what the government will “earn”.

But Obama knows that probably half the people who heard his comment will think he is talking about achieving a balanced budget — that is, no deficit spending. His team probably budgeted more than they meant to spend so that he could make this boast.

Based on a discussion I heard on Morning Joe this morning Obama apparently used the word “privacy” instead of “piracy” in making some remarks on the rescue of the ship captain taken hostage by pirates. He reportedly said something like: We have to take steps to eradicate privacy. Most likely he was reading from a teleprompter and the teleprompter had it wrong. Will this be Obama’s “misunderestimate” moment? Don’t count on it.

President Obama is embarking on another of his fantasies. He thinks he can rid the world of nuclear weapons. I would like to think that he is launching some very clever scheme to convince everyone else to destroy all their nuclear weapons while we secretly keep our own. But I don’t give him that much credit. I think he actually believes that giving up our nuclear advantage is the right thing to do.

Utopia would be a wonderful thing to achieve, but there is no chance that it will ever be achieved. No matter how nice we try to be there will always be someone looking for a weakness, a crack in the armor, an opening.  I would estimate that 99 percent or more of the world population would like nothing better than to live in peace, but it’s that other one percent that we have to worry about.  Among them are the power hungry and the crusaders. We can not afford to let our guard down for a second.

But that seems to be exactly what Obama wants to do. He wants to start destroying our nuclear capability as soon as the other nations possessing or developing a nuclear capability agree to do the same. I would expect Iran and North Korea to be the first two in line to sign the agreement. And then go back home and continue their development programs while laughing their asses off.

It’s an impossible goal, and Obama should know that. Sure, we can destroy all our nuclear weapons, but there is no way to ensure that everyone else destroys theirs. And there is no way to ensure that new weapons aren’t built to replace those destroyed.

Can you imagine a crime-mob boss seriously embarking on a mission to get the other mobs in his territory to destroy all their weapons and promise not to acquire more? Can you imagine the mobs actually abiding by the plan even after agreeing to it? Of course not. That’s why they’re called criminals. They don’t follow rules unless the rules work to their advantage. It’s a hard, cold fact that many nations are little different from crime-mobs.

Too many nations and factions know too much about the production of nuclear weapons for any kind of control to be 100 percent effective. Unfortunately it only takes one breach of the controls for havoc to be wreaked.

Dick and Jane are married and have three children. Dick has a job that pays him $50,000 per year. Jane takes care of their home and children. She has no income. They both agree that their lifestyle is somewhat depressed and would like to somehow give it a boost.

They mull over their options. Jane could get a job, but with child care expenses and the additional income tax they find that the additional net income would be very small, and not worth giving up her time at home with the kids. Dick could work longer hours or get another job, but he would then have very little time to spend with his family.

Then they have an epiphany. Why not just create a job within their household? Why not hire Jane to keep house and care for the kids and pay her $25,000 per year? This will raise their total income to $75,000 per year. But where will they get the money to pay her? Well, the options are to borrow the money or tax Dick’s income or some combination of both. They decide on the latter.

When their friends and relatives hear about the plan a few think it’s a wonderful idea but most have serious reservations. Some of the skeptics ask how taxing Dick to pay Jane is going to increase their combined real income. Others complain that borrowing the money will probably lead to bankruptcy or leave their kids with the debt down the road.

But Dick and Jane are undaunted. They’re too excited now about the hope and change coming to their lives.

President Barack Obama wants to develop a process for burning coal without releasing carbon into the atmosphere. He calls this “clean coal.” He says that a nation that put a man on the moon, surely should be able to develop clean coal.

It’s interesting to me that he makes that comparison. Putting a man on the moon was a very expensive government boondoggle. The moon program was conceived primarily as a response to the Soviets having beaten us into space with the first orbiting satellite, Sputnik. After about ten years and billions of dollars, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon on 20 July 1969. The last astronauts to walk on the moon did so in 1972. They left a plaque with this message: “Here man completed his first explorations of the Moon, December 1972.” In over 36 years we haven’t been back.

In other words, there was no real point in putting a man on the moon; we just wanted to show that we could do it. 

Actually, I suspect that Obama’s comparison is more apt than he would like to admit. I have no doubt that given enough money and time we can develop a clean coal burning process. But once we’ve done it we will probably realize that it is too expensive to use for any practical purpose.

Like on a lot of other issues the country is divided on allowing same-sex couples to marry. To me the idea of two men or two women marrying one another is comical. But I’m not queer so what do I know.

I’ve read that there is evidence that homosexuals like the idea of being able to marry more than actually getting married. Whatever their motives it seems to me that we could all benefit from putting this issue behind us. So I’m offering a solution. Let’s allow them to narry instead of marry. (At first I was going to recommend the terms quarry, quarried and quarriage but decided it probably wouldn’t sell.) This should satisfy the same-sex couples without corrupting the institution of marriage.

Narriage would be legally equivalent to marriage except for one thing. I would incorporate into narriage an element not included in marriage. It’s difficult for same-sex couples to produce offspring (in fact, I don’t think it has ever been done) so I would provide a legal route for them to build a family. I would allow them to legally team up with another narried couple of the opposite sex. This team of two men and two women could then set about producing children for both narried couples. The details of how they do this would be left to them, except that the couple to have legal custody of a child would be declared before conception.

Ideally the two couples would function as an extended family. After all, the kids are all siblings, half-siblings or pseudo-cousins. If they stay close and visit often all the kids will have both women and men as role models. The kids could call their biological parents mom or dad even if they don’t live with them, and they could call the others aunt or uncle even if they do live with them.

Narriage then is marriage plus. It carries all the benefits of marriage and then some. So it’s put up or shut up time for same-sex couples. Do you really want the benfits of marriage or do you just want to make a political point?

Let me see if I can lend a little perspective to the magnitude of our national debt — which is reported to be about 10.7 trillion dollars. The population of the United States is estimated to be about 304 million. If I divide 10.7 trillion dollars by 304 million people I get about $35,200 per person. So each man, woman and child in the US would have to cough up over $35,000 to retire our national debt. A family of five would have to fork over more than $175,000. Are you ready to do your part when called on?

My wife and I are holding about $14,000 worth of Treasury Notes, but even after forgiving those we would still owe $56,000.

But what if we could tap everyone in the world to help us out? The world population is estimated to be about 6.7 billion. After doing the arithmetic I get $1,600 per person. Our national debt comes to $1,600 for each man, woman and child on this planet. Mind boggling.

If I assume an average annual percentage rate of 5 percent the interest alone on the debt is about $17,000 per second. That’s right, I said per second. We pay about a million dollars per minute. While you were reading this post we paid about a half million dollars in interest.

I haven’t confirmed this but I’ve read that it takes all the income taxes collected from West of the Mississippi River to pay the interest on the debt.

Despite this almost incomprehensible debt President Obama and the Congress want to pile on another trillion or two.

Paul Krugman, a Princeton professor and New York Times columnist, recently won a Nobel Prize for his work in economics. You might think he’s a pretty smart dude when it comes to economic stimuli and other money matters, but his recent column doesn’t support that in my humble opinion. He attempts to convince his readers that in jump-starting the economy it’s much better for the government to spend money directly than to put money in the hands of the people, through tax breaks, and let them spend it. I don’t buy his arguments. Here’s one of the three points he makes:

Write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

I’ll give Krugman the benefit of the doubt and assume that he believes government is the best judge of how to spend the people’s money only part of the time.

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

Do you suppose Krugman doesn’t know the difference between income taxes and user fees? Most people don’t complain as much about user fees as they do about income taxes. They know that if we are to have a national highway system it has to be paid for somehow and a tax on fuel is a reasonably fair way to do that. The same is true of the air traffic control system. If you don’t fly you don’t pay the fee. Those who do fly pay for the ATC system. If you drive less than others you don’t pay as much for the highway system as the others.

Further, Krugman wrongly assumes that a government-run ATC system is the only alternative. He assumes that the only alternative is midair collisions. Not so. One alternative is for the airlines to cooperatively operate their own ATC system. But no matter how it’s done there is a cost and the air travelers will have to pay it.

The people are more likely to object to their income taxes being used to provide a 50 million dollar stimulus of the National Endowment for the Arts.

The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.

Krugman keeps slipping in the “always” modifier. Perhaps nobody does really believe that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. But a lot of people believe that it usually is.

Krugman casually dismisses the value of money saved. He apparently believes that the money must be spent in order to help the economy. But I thought we were in a credit crunch. It seems to me that, provided the savers aren’t stuffing the money in their mattresses or burying it in their backyards, the saved money will become available to borrowers who will then spend it on things they need. That is, those that don’t need to purchase something are making purchases possible for those that do.

This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.

Me thinks Krugman’s arguments are a bit nonsensical. They are clearly not Nobel-winning-professor caliber.