President Obama on Science

President Obama has recently committed huge amounts of resources to science.  Is it bad to support science and scientific research?  Absolutely not.

However, the problem is that the funding mechanism for this scientific research is unconstitutional and unethical.  President Obama does not say to the American people, “You need to pay more for government-directed scientific research funding, and so we are at work now to determine the best way to take your money for this purpose; we will most likely increase our catastrophic indebtedness.”

He does not say this, and I do not think he means this, either.  President Obama, like most people, does not have a problem with a government of our size and cost.  In fact, he’d prefer it to be bigger.  Nor does he see taxation (including inflation) as inherently coercive and morally problematic, as I do, and as I believe our founding fathers did.

Another problem is that a false argument is constructed: you are either for us (our proposed government program) or opposed to scientific growth.

In reality, one can be opposed to the funding mechanism yet still highly supportive of voluntarily-funded (rather than coercively-funded) scientific research.

It is an unfortunate thing indeed for our allegedly post-partisan president to play such petty games.

Good News on China

Reading this article gives me great hope in the future.

To see China investing in Taiwan, and the continuation of increasing ties and connections between the island and the mainland is very positive news indeed.

Why is it such great news?

One reason is the theology that contention is of the devil, and so reconciliation is a move away from the adversary’s ways and tactics and towards the Savior’s ideal of unity.

Another reason is that the closer relations between Taiwan and China become, the less likely a worldwide conflict will stem from their animosity (less than ten years ago, relations were significantly frostier between the two).  Avoiding world war, in my opinion, is always a good thing.

A third is that closer ties between Taiwan and China and the inevitable economic growth to follow is a great example to the rest of us to avoid isolating ourselves from each other, both as individuals and as nation-states.  For instance, are sanctions really that effective at punishing governments we oppose?  Are they moral?

A fourth, and perhaps the most important, is that a greater opening of China to the outside world will eventually result in the preaching of the Gospel on mainland China.  I am a firm believer the day is coming when the Gospel will be proselyted, at some level, in mainland China, and this type of information makes me think the day is increasingly closer.

Watts Up With That?

Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist, has a very interesting blog that should appeal to most skeptics of mainstream discussions of global warming.  It’s called Watts Up With That?

There’s a recent post about some very embarrassing science information from Congressman Henry Waxman of California.  It is very scary that such an individual is one of those responsible for judging the best solution to manmade global warming.

Another post talks about thin ice at the North Pole in the late 1950s.  Thin arctic ice is not a new phenomena.

A third attacks an article that appeared widely in mainstream media a year ago about arctic ice disappearing completely in 2008.

Is More Government the Answer?

This article indicates another problem (one of many) with our health care system: a doctor shortage.

The mainstream answer surprises no one: more government intervention.  President Obama will have a tough time with this one: how do we increase the number of doctors in the country?

Let’s pretend we live in a true market (unregulated) economy.  (We don’t, and I know we don’t, but let’s pretend anyway.)

The market has a number of ways to solve this problem, and does so automatically, without coercion, and without indebting future generations.  As doctors become more scarce, their wages rise.  Patients (doctor’s customers) start figuring out alternate solutions to avoid paying for increasing medical bills: visit a nurse practioner first before a doctor, practice preventative medicine, home care, etc.

Doctors, fearing a loss in business, and entrepreneurs, seeing a profit opportunity, decide to open lower cost clinics to meet increasing needs.

This all takes place without coercion or force, and is completely voluntary.

Now back to the real world.  What will probably happen is that there will be some new government program or initiative which will probably cost more to the taxpayer than it is worth to patients while delivering less than is promised to both doctors and patients.  It will strive to increase access to medical care while claiming to keep costs low.  One way to do this is by implementing waiting lists.  It’s also possible that one group (i.e. big pharmaceutical or insurance companies) will benefit from this deal at the expense of the taxpayer, doctors, and patients.

The bottom line is that it is government intervention which has caused this shortage.  As individuals like Dr. Ron Paul have noted, removing that intervention can reduce the shortage and resolve the problem quickly.  Increasing intervention (which is almost sure to happen) will exacerbate the problem or transfer it somewhere else.

Some Simple Numbers

I’m a mathematical simpleton: I like numbers, but not too many and only when I can understand them and how they all fit together.

For instance, let’s consider the federal budget since 1996:

2010 United States federal budget – $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget – $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget – $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget – $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget – $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget – $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

So here we have over a doubling of government spending in 14 years.  Is this in anyway sustainable?  Do we need twice the government now we needed 14 years ago?  Some of these increases year-to-year may seem slight, but for me, $200 billion is no chump change!

And consider this: if President Obama thinks a $780 billion stimulus package would help the economy, I suggest he slash the federal budget by $2 trillion dollars and see what kind of stimulus is really possible!  In fact, let’s do an exercise to see what would happen if he did.

President Obama says that the $780 billion is justified to save or invest in 2.5 to 3 million jobs.  Let’s suppose that it results in 2.5 million new jobs (highly unlikely, in my opinion).  Let’s calculate the price per job: $312,000 of taxpayer money.

Now, let’s consider how much those jobs cost when done voluntarily.  US GDP (a measure of total economic power) is roughly $13.7 trillion.  There’s about 130 million employees, if there’s full employment.  With unemployment running at about 8 percent, let’s call it 119,000 employees in the U.S.  Total cost per employee: $115,126.  That’s about a third of the price per job.

Now let’s say he puts $2 trillion back in the economy (for me, government spending is money taken out of the economy) by slashing government.  Based on the price per employee of $115,126, how many jobs would be created from this type of stimulus?  17,372,270.  That would solve our unemployment problem and then some.

What does this tell us?  At the very least, it illustrates the idea that the market is much more efficient at allocating resources than the government (roughly three times as much). 

Also consider that if the $2 trillion of government spending was pulled from areas which hamper job growth and restrain businesses from starting and growing, how much easier it would be for a small business owner to get going and hire people.

Now that’s a stimulus package.