Economics 101: Lesson 3

Listen up class. A scarce resource is one for which there is more demand than there is supply. We commonly think of things like gold, diamonds, and works of art by Monet as scarce and that would be true; however, even things like gasoline, electricity, bread, and corn are also scarce. If they weren't you wouldn't have to pay for them. You want a cup of seawater? No problem, you won't need any cash. Just stroll down to the ocean and take your fill. You want a cup of corn? Now you need some cash. With an understanding of scarcity firmly established let's turn our attention to controlling demand. There are two effective ways to control the demand for a product. The first is price. Raise the price and you will reduce the demand for that product. We see this occurring around us everyday. The other way is to ration. When we ration, we don't really control the demand in the true sense of the word, rather we control the demand by enforcing an artificially low demand on those who are in need of the product.
That brings me to health care, another scarce resource. Health care in the U.S. is a scarce resource and as such we can only control demand one of two ways. Either raise the price to a point where supply equals demand or ration health care. Our president continues to say that under the public option there will be no rationing and that we must reduce the price of health care in this country. Folks, you can't have both. It either has to be expensive or you have to ration it. I think the whole administration needs a better understanding of economics.

Diane Watson's Wonderful Cuba

Representative Diane Watson, a Democrat representing California's 33rd district, recently held a town hall where she extolled the virtues of Cuba, the Cuban health care system, Fidel Castro, and even the Cuban Revolution itself. At one point she called Fidel Castro "one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." Cuba must be a wonderful place. So wonderful that people by the hundreds or perhaps thousands are willing to strap enough inner tubes to a 1955 Ford pickup to make it barely float and then set out across nearly 100 miles of open, shark infested waters knowing they have little chance of survival in search of something - a better life. Now I don't know about you but those people don't sound like they are happy or satisfied with their situation. They sound desperate much like the immigrants who attempt to walk across the Arizona desert in the middle of July. Yeah, Cuba must be a wonderful place. I'll have to visit this wonderful place along with the other wonderful places in the world like Iran, North Korea, the Pashtun region of Pakistan. I am sure we will find some more bright leaders in those places too.

Cash for Clunkers & Public Health Care

It seems car dealers all over the country are pulling out of the government's "Cash for Clunkers" program where you can get $4,500 for trading in a car that gets less than 18 mpg as long as you purchase a car that gets good gas mileage. The reason they are pulling out is the program has cash strapped the auto dealers. You see, the dealers have to fund the purchase out of their own pocket and then apply for reimbursement from their friends in Washington D.C. and that process is taking so long that the dealers have run out of cash. Many are wondering if they will ever get paid. Of course, our Treasury Secretary has spoken out on the topic claiming everybody will get paid. He didn't say when. Now all this really wouldn't matter that much except that it's a demonstration of our government's ability to operate anything. If you think the government will be better at processing health care reimbursements, whatever you are smoking cannot be legal. I know I've asked this question before but nobody's provided a good answer as of yet, "Can anybody name anything the government got involved in that actually got better?" Didn't think so.

"Death Panels"

Here's the disclaimer: I am not in favor of national health care. Sarah Palin came out much stronger than that accusing at least one of the plans currently being debated in congress as containing a provision for what she called "death panels." That term might be a little harsh; however, it's really not that far from being fully factual. The president has quickly responded with his own rhetoric. No substance to the rhetoric and no real explanation of what is meant by the wording in the bill, just a reading of selective portions of it. Take a look at Sarah Palin's response to the president on her Facebook page here http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434. Beyond that I offer this example of where the government of Oregon refused to fund a chemotherapy drug for a cancer patient but offered to fund her doctor assisted suicide - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ojBgTyA7I. Not a chance I want to take.

Fool Me Once....

It's interesting to see the reactions to the agenda put forth by the Obama administration. While the president was looking for a grass roots movement, I don't think the current movement is quite in line with his plans. Apparently, our citizens value their own personal freedoms more than they value the "change" the president offered during the election season. The problem is, the "change" the president spoke of is not the same as the "change" he is offering. During the campaign he moved his rhetoric to the middle because he fully understood he could not get elected if he told the people really what he wanted to do. Now those same people who voted for him are surprised by where he is taking the country. That's the sad part because it was completely predictable. One only needed to look at the actions of Barack Obama over the previous twenty years. The actions, the people he kept company with, the voting record (when he actually voted), and the rest of that history painted a clear picture of the true Barack Obama. You see a chamelion can change its colors, but it's still a chamelion. A man like President Obama can change his rhetoric, but he is still the same Barack Obama who called for a single payer health care system back in 2003. To those of you who were fooled by the rhetoric in 2008, you will get another chance in 2012. This time I challenge you to examine the nominees, to look past the rhetoric of the campaign, to examine the actions of the nominees and their history, and to make a decision on what the nominee has spent a life becoming rather making a decision on what the nominee is telling you they will become. You were fooled once, if you're fooled again, shame on you.