http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192008/news/regionalnews/spitzer_lets_215_killers_go_loose_496829.htm

SPITZER LETS 215 KILLERS GO LOOSE

Records show that 12 of the 19 current members of the Parole Board were appointed by Pataki.

According to the 2008 Statistical Abstract of the United States, health expenditures accounted for 15.3% of GDP in the United States in 2004, up from 8.8% of GDP in 1980. That is vastly more than healthcare’s share of GDP in Canada (9.9%), France (10.5%), Germany (10.9%), Denmark (8.9%), Norway (9.7%), or Sweden (9.1%), all countries with publicly financed universal health insurance (see attached spreadsheet). In the United Kingdom, which also has public provision of health care via the National Health Service, healthcare only accounted for 8.3% of GDP. Italy and Japan have some of the longest-lived people in the world, but their healthcare expenditures absorbed only 8.4% of GDP and 8.0% of GDP, respectively. And not only did the U.S. have the highest health care expenditures as a share of GDP in 2003/2004, it also had the largest increase since 1980. So, from a public policy perspective, how large should U.S. healthcare expenditures be as a share of GDP? Well, according to public policy how large should U.S. entertainment expenditures be as a share of GDP? How large should housing expenditures be as a share of GDP? How large should travel expenditures be as a share of GDP? Perhaps you get the idea. That is not the right question.

The majority of economists trained in the classical tradition believe there is a public policy tradeoff between distributional equity and economic efficiency; to get more of one, you get less of the other. But the U.S. health care finance system is an exception to that rule, as it is both inequitable and inefficient. You read about the inequities in my prior post; this post is about the economic damage. By tying the availability of affordable health insurance to group plans provided by employers, the current system prevents many workers from moving to jobs where they could be better compensated. It also dissuades them from becoming entrepreneurs, or becoming freelancers by choice, if that is what they would prefer. Therefore, the link between employment and health insurance has created a kind of economic serfdom for millions of Americans. For low, moderate, and middle income households lacking health insurance, since an serious illness or injury would wipe them out, the lack of such insurance means it is irrational to save. And, the burden of providing health insurance for middle-aged and older people has made older companies — and communities — uncompetitive with newer, growing firms and taxing jurisdictions. This sets up a merry-go-round in which the former are abandoned for no other reason than the age distribution of their employees, stranding those employees and residents and wasting capital, infrastructure and other resources. That issue is going to become critical as large swaths of suburban and Sunbelt America go into decline in the wake of the housing bust, and confront fiscal crises similar to what older northern cities faced in the 1970s.

There are many reasons for inequality. Some are blessed, by God and by nature, with great intelligence, athletic ability, or beauty; others cursed by congenital handicaps, disabilities, and diseases. Some are born into loving and stable families; others into broken homes filled with drugs and abuse. Some parents have the money required to induce the broader society to provide their children with extensive resources and support; others have little money, and must raise their children in unsupportive environments. All these advantages and disadvantages are present even before a person begins to make his or her own choices and mistakes. For the worst off, mistakes made in youth – with drugs, violence, sexuality, relationships, learning – often cannot be recovered from later on. Some of us would like to see government policies reduce the level of this “naturally occurring inequality,” and some would not.

Rudy Giuliani's truly pathetic showing in the Michigan Republican Primary – he finished 6th with 2.8%, over 30,000 votes behind Ron Paul has been largely ignored by the pundits who are instead talking about Romney's win and what happens next.

In fact some of the pundits are saying the results help Rudy.

But Michigan continues a pattern of Rudy's support dropping in every state from sky high poll numbers to a low number of actual votes.

Let's look back at some facts that Rudy's campaign doesn't want anyone to remember.

At the beginning of 2007, Rudy led every poll in Iowa. According to Real Clear Politics, there were 4 polls made public between January 16 and February 18 and Rudy led them all, with 29% in the Feb. 18 poll. As recently as the November Iowa State University poll, he was 3rd with 16% of the vote. But when the Iowa Republicans actually voted, Rudy finished 6th with 3.5%!

Twenty-five years ago those running the federal government made my generation, and those after, a promise: pay a vastly higher regressive payroll tax throughout your lives and accept a later retirement age, and Social Security will be there to keep you out of poverty in your later years. That promise was made by the eight Republicans and seven Democrats, led by Alan Greenspan and appointed by President Reagan, who made up the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform, by the Congress that adopted its recommendations, and by the President who signed them into law in 1983. With all the extra payroll taxes since collected over and above those required to pay benefits, plus interest, the rest of the federal government owed Social Security nearly $1.9 trillion dollars as of FY 2006. And now for the two questions that cut through all the bullshit about Social Security.

Where will the rest of the federal government get the $1.9 trillion to pay back Social Security? Well, it will either have to drastically increase taxes, drastically slash other services and benefits, or drastically increase the federal budget deficit – leading to even higher taxes or even greater service and benefit cuts when those higher debts have to be paid. In other words it is those of at the back end of the baby boom, and those younger, would have to sacrifice to pay Social Security back. The federal government has no money of its own. It will have to get it from us. But wait a minute! If we have already been paying in extra for Social Security in the past, how come we will have to pay for it again in the future? Because the extra money that was collected in the past was spent in the past, and substituted for the personal income tax that was cut in the past. Not only that, but during the past 25 years the federal government borrowed even more money on top of that, and we will have to pay that back too.

Tuesday brings us the news that Gerald Rafshoon and Doug Bailey, founders on Unity 08 have started something called DraftMichaelBloomberg.com<

According to Elizabeth Benjamin at the Daily Politicker –

Unlike some of the other efforts, one of which is already circulating petitions to get Bloomberg on the ballot in Virginia, Bailey and Rafshoon said they will not be running a ballot-access campaign. Instead, they will be raising money to focus on wooing the mayor and building public support with an ad campaign – both on-line and in print.