Friedman on Economic Fallacy
The late Dr. Milton Friedman cogently expels one of the most persistent economic fallacies regarding the government, spending, and producing. Take 3 minutes and be enlightened and entertained.
The late Dr. Milton Friedman cogently expels one of the most persistent economic fallacies regarding the government, spending, and producing. Take 3 minutes and be enlightened and entertained.
The role of the Pay Czar, according to Obama, is to have the government beat up and chop up the (large) compensation practices of the companies whom the government bails out, under the guise of fairness and necessity. In truth, the companies have almost all paid the bailouts back and it hasn’t cost the government too many millions except, perhaps, with AIG who hasn’t returned all of their funds. Nonetheless, we were told it was essential to have this agent put in place to handle this dire problem.
This begs the question: if the government is so intent on bullying the compensation of those “overpaid” for their services, why then are they not doing the same for the public sector? Now there’s a real place which could stand more than a mere trimming. Such cuts, in the form of reduced compensation and decreased pension plans, would serve to keep our government and public service unions at least a little less bloated.
Certainly, if the Obama administration were to follow its self-avowed principle to scale back organizations that are overcompensated, they should look no further than the government itself. Considering our staggering deficit situation, as stewards of the taxpayer’s money, the public arena should be — must be — drastically reduced to be in line with the private service sector.
During the health care debates last year, there had been much talk and support on the Left for the concept of a “public option” in the bill. The rationale behind this, according to the federal government, was that there is not a sufficient free market for health insurance in some parts of our country.
Accordingly, they deemed it their job to get consumers the best coverage at the best price, by offering a competing a public option, seemingly on par with private insurers.
I believe the promulgation of the public option was deceitful. There was never going to be an equal footing, as the Government would severely limit the range of allowable insurance and then use its financial and political muscle to gain customers, as acknowleged by Senator Chuck Schume, among others. Nevertheless, it had so much support that it was included in most of the drafts of the health care bill.
Reflecting on the merits of the public option argument as we debate how to reign in our excessive government spending, my question is this: if this “public option” was viewed as a necessity in terms of competition and cost, why should there not be a “private option” in every area that the Government – federal, state, local – has staked out an unnecessary monopoly for itself?
Other than National Defense and the Criminal Court Systems, there appears to be no reason – other than creation of a power base to enable the bloated government salaries that we see today – that the private sector should not be given an opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
Based on the government’s rationale, there should be a “private option” in virtually every area of public service.
I missed the part where we changed our Constitution. Thanks for the update, Chuck!
“We have three branches of government. We have a House, we have a Senate, and we have a President”…