The People Look for an Ox to Gore

A commentator has finally noticed and begun to make a little noise about a particular segment of the public sector's work force.

"But it's also noteworthy that one of the most generous defined-benefits public-employee pension plans in the country isn't being mentioned in this discussion. There is a branch of the federal government that lets you retire after 20 years on the job, even if you're under age 40, and guarantees immediate benefits of 50% of your final salary for the rest of your life. That branch is the military. If you joined the army at age 18, and retired in 2011 at age 38 as a $55,000-a-year sergeant (pay grade E-8) after an unexceptional career, you would be entitled to $26,000 per year for the rest of your life, plus cost-of-living adjustments. The average 40-ish retiring sergeant would put the taxpayers on the hook for over $1m in lifetime retirement pay. That's not counting a lifetime of free medical care from the VA. And the military doesn't have a pension fund; the Pentagon budget's $18 billion in retiree pay this year will be paid directly by taxpayers."

This post is not really designed to advocate a position on this but to simply reflect a fiscal reality combined with the point of view of those not in the service. I'm sure many of the state workers around the nation feel that they are owed their pensions, but the money is not there and the taxpayers are beginning to revolt. I'm sure that the private sector employees who have been removed from the pension plans they had through bankruptcy and the actions of the PBCG think they were owed what was contracted but they didn't get it either. I'm sure the retirees who thought they signed on for medical care for life and then were thrown out of the military hospitals in the mid 90's thought they were owed and yet they were shown the door. I'm sure the people who collect off of SS and Medicare think they are owed... but the programs are bankrupt. This nation has a history of bailing on such things. George Washington apologized to his officer corp for the betrayal of the congress after the Revolutionary War. MacArthur cleared out the veterans on orders from Hoover. On and on...

While the nation may love its military, I would not expect the American people who are struggling themselves to have a tremendous concern for the ability of a segment of the population to retire at 38 years old with millions in pensions. I would not expect them to think that granny should take cuts in medicare and SS so that the military guy can get his retirement. I don't know what will happen, but I'm fairly certain there will be a substantial change in the military retirement system... at least as it was presented to those who signed up over the years.

Do the tax payers owe the military? No. Like any other life it was chosen by the people who entered into it. While it is certainly unfair perhaps that people signed up with one set of information from what later on came to be recognized, there is a burden on those in a system to observe the exterior things that can effect it. Nobody is immune to reality. There is nothing in my mind more sacred about what they do than anyone else who takes a role in civilizations preservation. Guy who keeps the water system going... provides electricity... gets the food to the store... they provide value too. Should the contract be honored? Sure. But bankruptcy relieves us all of our burdens... the nation will declare it too.

This is what Change Looks Like...

And so Obama or at least his party passed health care 'reform'. There really was no doubt. The expansion of the state is eternal until the nation is bankrupt. The lies used to pass this program are really no different than any lie used by the government to spend any of its money. It is always about delivering something for nothing and how once it is delivered all of the cares and concerns of the public will be taken care of.

Here is the reality check. Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources. Health resources are finite. Care will always be rationed. It will be either rationed by price or by time. Right now we ration more monetarily, though we certainly are primarily socialized medicine now. The future will ration more by time.

For your reading pleasure here are some short field trips...

• Ron Paul
• Walter Williams
• Ann Coulter

For those of you who wanted this next step in the progression of national bankruptcy congratulations... enjoy your line. For those of you who abhor this action... too bad. You lost the war at least as far back as the early 1900's and certainly before the beginning of my life.

I leave you with these words from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Very appropriate for the times.

"I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago," said Dr. Hendricks. "Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward.

I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything - except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve.' That a man who's willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards - never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy.

I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind - yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn.

Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it - and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't"

Practical Libertarianism

I admit to having strong libertarian leanings. Simply meaning that I feel that the general philosophy of the country should be one of minimal government and individual liberty. However, I do like to descend from the mountains of ideology and attempt to apply the principles to the world in which I live. I find that is rarely something libertarians like to do. As a movement it seems to lack the ability to paint a picture of what life would be like, how certain issues would be handled or even any historical examples of its success. Ron Paul makes some headway in this area, but he is obviously more intelligent than many of the ilk.

I recently posted the following query at Vox Popli, the blog of WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day.

This might be as appropriate a place as any to query the libertarian minded... Gary North posits that the Big 3 will soon be bankrupt and even further rushing to shed their retirement liabilities. Certainly North has been wrong in times past (Y2K), but he does put forth some good evidence... here is the question. What is the obligation of the Big 3 to the people with whom they had the contract with for those retirement benefits? How does that contract square with their obligation to their current contracted employees and the contracts (if they are viewed as such) with their stock holders? Should the companies be dismantled to provide payouts to prior workers in spite of the effect that would have on the economy? Should the prior contract workers be forced to eat the loss? It seems obvious a libertarian would not believe that the government should intervene. This is the type of bread and butter non theoretical issue that I imagine people would want addressed by those with a libertarian philosophy before turning over the keys to the kingdom.

I had hoped that someone would at least take a stab at the issue. I was not surprised when there were no takers. Certainly it may have simply been that no one was interested or that they felt it was a poor question. I tend to think it was more that people do not like to take on a challenging issue when they can employ hyperbole and ideology in big rant fests and flame wars.

I did attempt another angle in engaging an ongoing discussion that involved the trade philosophy of Pat Buchanan. I will confess to having free trade leanings, but that I find Mr. Buchanan's trade thoughts compelling and worthy of inspection. The free trade true believer of course showed up with the following tactics... a) claim that I do not know what free trade is b) link articles that are strictly repetitious theory c) avoid answering any questions about real world evidence. Intellectual giants are some of these ideologues.

I am interested in people making solid attempts to answer cultural and economic questions from the libertarian point of view with a little more depth then I commonly encounter. If there is no depth to the people... perhaps there is no depth to the movement.

Book Review #6

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner

Many people have heard of Freakonomics. If you have not read it, you may still be familiar with the conclusion it reached on abortion and crime rates and with the controversy this caused Bill Bennett. On the whole it is a fascinating concept. The ideas of following data wherever it may lead and what the study economics can be used for.

The book as a whole is presented in a very readable style. And the various chapters while readable in an independent fashion manage to tie together in a loose overall theme.

I hope there is a sequel as it seems that there is no end to the directions you could go with this concept.