Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Todd]

Todd  .. just curious, who did you vote for last time?

I didn't cast a vote for president last time.

Now, where's your answer on matters constitutional?

[jowcol]

Uh-oh, now the Constitution is being brought into it.  Tell us, James, from where in the Constitution did Thomas Jefferson derive the power to negotiate and Congress derive the power to fund the Louisiana Purchase?  Why even the red sage himself supposedly had misgivings, and unless you have a different version of the Constitution than I do, there is no express power to acquire territory by treaty.  Should we give it back?  (And that rascally Jefferson sent Marines to Tripoli without so much as a Declaration of War, too, showing an early penchant for naughtiness.) 

Also, do you favor repealing Marbury v Madison? 

Just want to get a feel for how strictly you interpret the Constitution.

Didn't the Constitution also replace the Articles of Confederation which allowed states to make their own currency? The aim was to discourage that practice. (athough, it would allow states to issue currency that was based on a Gold or Silver standard...)

[Lethevich]

Fair enough, but I'm interested in seeing which ideas you like and which you think are crazy.

So far from what I've picked up, I would count things like his casual dismissal of climate change being an immediate problem (as though when it had become a problem it could then be "worked on"). This is less of an issue when a standard Republican says it, but when Paul does, it comes along with the knowledge that he will slash research funding across all sciences, something which can't just have money thrown at it when needed and produce results, it requires a stable support base over many years. A problem like this cannot be solved by self-interest, it requires regulation. Ditto environmental regulation - I am not sure how something which affects wider biospheres can work when neighbouring states have different policies.

His de-regulation extending to things like removing mandatory immunisation for children, which could see the resurgence of diseases on the decline. While it's nice to think that people, if the curtains are lifted from their eyes, will suddenly begin to make the correct choices, various hysterias indicate the opposite. Things like this aren't purely a matter of personal freedom when your choice to do this is potentially spreading and breeding more virulent forms of viruses that can harm others.

It appears to me that the medicine industry is sustained in a large part because of government contracts. The assumption that a government will provide the money in the form of bulk purchases are what makes the expensive development process worth embarking on. Costs will be reduced as the production is refined, but it's the assumption of initial high-priced purchases that will give the research the green light in the first place. Paul proposes to import more medicine produced abroad to cut costs. Now, if states are expected to deal with medical purchases on an individual basis, with no wider federal government pressure not to skimp on what they offer coverage for, while the rest of the world is continuing with a different system more profitable to the medical industry because a certain level of medical coverage is enshrined in law, I don't see how this could even drive down medicine costs in the US. There would surely be international pressure to make Americans pay more for the drugs that the rest of the developed world have apparently subsidised, and these drugs won't even be made in America anymore, so it can't even be regulated against at home if things become too painful. Perhaps my amateur reading of this whole web of affairs is way off mark, but it seems as though there is something strange happening here.

His attitude towards security nets for the poor seems just plain risky. Why can a developed 'country' like Hong Kong have a highly business-friendly and low-tax framework while not leaving its poorest to the dogs, and not the Unites States? Paul's somewhat patronising-sounding promises of vouchers and the like for the poor sounds borderline demeaning and I don't believe that he will be particularly concerned if his policies do more harm in this respect, as they will be for a "greater good". In fact, he is intelligent enough to surely be expecting some of his policies to lead to unintended consequences.

[jowcol]

Obama got his party's nomination and was elected president, in strong part because he appeared articulate and presidential to a lot of voters.

I can't help but agree.  The fact that he's not getting a challenge from within his own party is unfortunate. 

[jowcol]

His de-regulation extending to things like removing mandatory immunisation for children, which could see the resurgence of diseases on the decline. While it's nice to think that people, if the curtains are lifted from their eyes, will suddenly begin to make the correct choices, various hysterias indicate the opposite. Things like this aren't purely a matter of personal freedom when your choice to do this is potentially spreading and breeding more virulent forms of viruses that can harm others.

Excellent points.  One of the most disturbing aspects of our health care system (and why we pay more to get less than the other "less enlightened" countries) is the lack of support for preventive care.  Why programs that have been shown to be as cost-effective as the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) ever every controversial is hard to determine.  The sad thing is that we pick up the tab for the uninsured sooner or later, but usually in worse situations or settings.

Another point about rampant deregulation.  Currently the financial incentives in the American Health Care system are to render a service, not to make people healthy.  The Fee-for service paradigm is a major part of what is wrong, and deregulation will only make it worse.  At least Obama was willing to raise the issue, but the ACA (Obamacare) only tangentilly addressed this issue through Accountability Care Organizations.   Letting the market take care of it will continue to accelerate the spiral unless we allow emergency rooms and hospitals to turn away the uninsured-- which is pretty drastic.

It appears to me that the medicine industry is sustained in a large part because of government contracts. The assumption that a government will provide the money in the form of bulk purchases are what makes the expensive development process worth embarking on. Costs will be reduced as the production is refined, but it's the assumption of initial high-priced purchases that will give the research the green light in the first place.  Paul proposes to import more medicine produced abroad to cut costs.

It looks to me that you are talking mostly about Pharma here.  (Remember that Medicare Part D, which is a large contributor to the spike in govt costs was not originated under Obama.)   The need for subsidizing is strongest when treating less common conditions.  Pharma companies don't mind investing as much if there will be a large audience.  From what I've read, the biggest expense in pharmaceutical development is not the guys in white coats in a lab, but in recruiting for clinical trials.  Our privacy and HIPAA regulations make it very hard and expensive to staff trials-- and this is one case where I feel that softening HIPAA regulations could lesson one cause of the increase in costs.



In terms of the government and costs , projections during the end of the Bush era showed that the US (Under medicare) was going to be the single largest payer of healthcare costs in the US by 2015 or so-- and this was assuming that nothing was done.   

I agree about the ability of states to support some of this.  Anyone who thinks states will be more efficient and devising 50 solutions to the same problem may not have worked with them much.


The fetish for vouchers sounds like a good idea-- but in experience with charter schools on No Child Left Behind, , 40 % of the charter schools had worse scores.

His attitude towards security nets for the poor seems just plain risky.

I agree.  Even if you don't care for the poor,  somebody will need to pick up the tab when someone who has untreated diabetes needs to be hospitalized and treated for end stage renal failure for many times the cost.    Most non-profits and organizations incorporated as hospitals are not allowed to turn away uninsured patients.  But they need to recover costs somehow.

The hysteria about advanced directives (Sarah Palin's "death panels", a term later she denied was to be used literally) is another contributor, given the amount of spending given towards end of life care is a major chunk of health care spendin.  I haven't found a US study, but in an austrailian one, it was estimated that 30% of the patients in end of life situations were not able to make decisions for care, and and not provided an advance directive.  An advanced directive is not just about pulling the plug-- you can specify you want every possible step taken to prolong your life, no matter how unpleasant they may be.   

We need to think about quality of life as well.  A recent study showed patients with lung cancer lived longer (and better) when they moved straight to hospice care.  I lost my mother a year ago to cancer-- and the decision to move to hospice care gave her several bright months, and actually better care than the hospital provided.   (The local hospice better addressed some of her symptoms when she was admitted, and she was released alive, and lived 4 more months in her home as she wished.   She was happier, and I believe here insurance company was, as well) This should be a patient's decision-- not one driven by fear of lawsuits, or by the profit incentive of costly medical interventions.

A blind faith that the government, or free enterprise, knows best and will naturally work for the greater good is dangerous. In that sense,I view progressives and Libertarians with a bit of caution, as both have a utopian world view that just doesn't line up with what seems (to me) to be reality.

[jowcol]

 of course, this guy is a Democrat, but I still think that by far the best one in the race is Vermin Supreme.  No one comes close.

http://www.youtube.com/v/DFXXAuDK1Ao

[Karl Henning]

A blind faith that the government, or free enterprise, knows best and will naturally work for the greater good is dangerous. In that sense,I view progressives and Libertarians with a bit of caution, as both have a utopian world view that just doesn't line up with what seems (to me) to be reality.

Aye, both the guvmint and the free market benefit from good watchdogs.

[Karl Henning]

of course, this guy is a Democrat, but I still think that by far the best one in the race is Vermin Supreme.  No one comes close.

Could be his year . . . .

[Todd]

Didn't the Constitution also replace the Articles of Confederation which allowed states to make their own currency? The aim was to discourage that practice. (athough, it would allow states to issue currency that was based on a Gold or Silver standard...)

Yes, constitutional government replaced the failed (or at least failing) one established under the Articles.  Article 1, Section 10 allows states to accept gold and silver as legal tender, but it prevents them from coining money.  Everyone framing the Constitution knew the problems of competitive currencies at the state level, Madison and especially Hamilton among them.

After the demise of the Second Bank of the United States, though, much of the country used what was in effect competing currencies issued by banks.  Guess what, there were problems.  Such bank notes were often exchanged at discounts immediately (ie, inflation out of the gate), and counterfeiting was rampant.  Not until the Civil War did things change, out of necessity.

I mentioned in my post the risk of inflation and the decline of purchasing power

Yes, indeed, fiat currency has and will erode purchasing power.  That is a far better condition that the vast increase in relative debt burden imposed by deflation caused by switching to hard money.  Mild inflation helps regular citizens; mild deflation harms them.  Severe forms of either hurt most people, though the wealthy always benefit relative to everyone else during periods of deflation.

However, with our nation facing major economic and financial problems (such as the debt, deficits, trade imbalances, etc.) you have to wonder how long we can continue this.

This is not a convincing statement.  The fiscal problems the US has can all be solved by retooling fiscal policies.  Debt itself is not an issue.  Get the long term, publicly held debt down to the 50-60% (or maybe a bit higher even) of GDP range, and there's plenty of room for fiscal policy if needed.  Get the long term deficit-to-GDP ratio down to around 3%, and there won't be any issue borrowing at reasonable rates, and again, fiscal policy flexibility is ample.  Trade imbalances are the least of the concerns, especially if the US gets its fiscal house in order.  Trade stats are known to be unreliable and out of date in some cases – eg, not counting intrafirm trade properly, misappropriating value added figures, etc.  It would be nice to have less of a trade imbalance, I suppose, but remember that none other than Adam Smith himself pointed out that trade deficits means the country running the deficit is, in effect, getting goods at a relative discount.  It's a bogeyman suited best for political fear-mongering.  Further, none of these have anything to do with gold standard.

Without some kind of change our dollar won't be the world's reserve currency and we won't be able to borrow against it.

Correct, without fiscal restraint, the US dollar will continue to lose preeminence more rapidly than it otherwise would.  But it's going to, anyway.  Over the next several decades, as China continues to grow, its currency will become more significant and the dollar less so on world markets.  Returning to the gold standard will do nothing to alleviate this.  All it will do is restrict policy options.  That is bad.

As you know, for RP its the end of the Fed and the return to a Gold Standard. Will that happen? I doubt it, but the goal for RP with the legislation was to scare the Fed into acting more responsibly simply by giving citizens the choice.

What does "giving citizens a choice" mean?  Return to pre-Civil War monetary conditions?  That's purely reactionary and premised on wishful thinking.  The gold standard is being touted as a solution to problems it cannot solve.

It's always interesting to read the writings of supporters of the gold standard go on about gold.  But why gold?  Gold itself has no intrinsic value.  It is assigned value by those who use it.  Same with all other forms of money throughout history.  Like fiat currency.  Somehow, though, gold is supposed to offer a sound basis for money.  But then there's not enough, so people want silver.  (Hell, it's even in the Constitution.)  That is, they want more money.  Why not toss platinum, beryllium, titanium, zinc, copper, or any other valuable metal into the mix.  All are traded on markets; all can be priced.  Artificially anchoring a nation's currency to an arbitrarily selected store of value doesn't offer the touted solutions and benefits.  It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to live in the 19th Century.

[jowcol]

Could be his year . . . .

I would like to see Vermin apply his fairy dust to Santorum- hopefully before the South Carolina Primary.

[Karl Henning]

Kamikaze Gingrich

Romney has it wrong. Gingrich's attacks on him are the very essence of free enterprise: They're helped by campaign finance laws that sell elections to the highest bidder. For those Republicans who thought that unlimited political contributions would be a good thing for their party, it's a delicious irony that a casino billionaire is using his money to underwrite a populist assault on the GOP front-runner.

RTWT here.

[Lethevich]

@jowcol: pharmaceutical industry was indeed the word that I was scrambling for Thanks for your post, it was a great read.

A blind faith that the government, or free enterprise, knows best and will naturally work for the greater good is dangerous. In that sense,I view progressives and Libertarians with a bit of caution, as both have a utopian world view that just doesn't line up with what seems (to me) to be reality.

This in particular is what affects me the most when I try to think about politics. I have a terminal case of moderation - not really meaning I prefer a status quo, but I would like to find a sensible middle ground between all radical points of view, to temper the worst aspects and hopefully gain the better ones. Unfortunately this requires just as much effort as radicalism itself, and as such is even more politically unviable because it has no easy taglines to describe it -_-

[Karl Henning]

Good clean fun:

Romney's toughest competitor [in New Hampshire] turned out to be Ron Paul, who's running not a campaign but a crusade. He used his speech Tuesday night to explain why the Federal Reserve is a nexus of pure evil, why compassionate government is invariably cruel and why virtually all events beyond U.S. borders can be blithely ignored. I know Romney's not the most dazzling campaigner, but I think he can take this guy.

[jowcol]

@jowcol: pharmaceutical industry was indeed the word that I was scrambling for Thanks for your post, it was a great read.

This in particular is what affects me the most when I try to think about politics. I have a terminal case of moderation - not really meaning I prefer a status quo, but I would like to find a sensible middle ground between all radical points of view, to temper the worst aspects and hopefully gain the better ones. Unfortunately this requires just as much effort as radicalism itself, and as such is even more politically unviable because it has no easy taglines to describe it -_-

For me, it's not so much a matter of being radical or status quo, but addressing the problems first, and not the ideology.   Ideology typically limits choices, and requires people to address complex issues with yes-no answers.   All of this "pledge signing" hysteria has made it worse. 

As you put it though, it is unviable.  People want to be told each election is a simple choice between good and evil, and don't want to bear the burden of freedom to view each problem as a separate problem.  As the Grand Inquisitor told Christ in the Brothers Karamazov, people just want easy answers and bread, and to unload that uncomfortable burden of freedom.  It's terrifying to live in a world where problems and solutions are complex and constantly changing, when you aren't carrrying a score card the boils everything down to two simple choices.   

[jowcol]

If there is truth to what you are saying and lots of people in your country place so much value on such superficial things it's very unfortunate.

I fully agree.  We get what we deserve.   Although, I'm enough of a cynic  to believe that the US is not the only country that votes based on superficial impressions.

[Karl Henning]

Don't kid yourself, James: Looking at the substance of Dr Paul's positions ain't the slam-dunk you are fond to imagine. And let's say it again: If he cannot function as a legislator, what confidence should anyone have that he can function as an executive?  And the record shows he cannot function as a legislator.

[Todd]

he has all the qualities that make up a 'great' leader who truly stands from something real, and his record backs that up in spades.

At this point, I have to think that James has been joking the whole time.  If not, this post demonstrates a fundmental difference in perception of reality. 

[Florestan]

Just curious: does anyone here think that the US President, whoever he be, acts alone and on his own? That his theoretical ideas can be translated tale quale in the real world? That an uncompromisingly (is this a word?) principled approach to whatever, from social security to immigration to foreign policy and everything in between, works better than flip-floping (i.e, realism and pragmatism)?

Oh, and a specific question for James: it can be inferred form your posts that you're not American - may I ask what country are you a citizen of, and whom did you vote for in the last elections? TIA for answering.

[Karl Henning]

Just saw this at washingtonpost.com:

What Paul and Darth Vader have in common

[Todd]

Just curious: does anyone here think that the US President, whoever he be, acts alone and on his own?

I would certainly hope no one thinks that. 

Seeing this reminds me of one of Truman's quips about Eisenhower before the '52 election: He'll issue orders and then nothing will happen.  (I can't remember the exact quote, but that's the gist of it.)