Download audio here

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss impending elections in Greece, American’s growing dependence on the “safety net,” and why that path is unsustainable.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Greece’s Laos Party Calls For Immediate Elections
Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It
This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly
Ben: Our course remains unsustainable

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Download audio here

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss impending elections in Greece, American’s growing dependence on the “safety net,” and why that path is unsustainable.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Greece’s Laos Party Calls For Immediate Elections
Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It
This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly
Ben: Our course remains unsustainable

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Nothing typifies the inane cycle of government dependency and poverty more than the issue of healthcare.  Given that healthcare constitutes 18% of our economy and that millions of Americans are languishing under its crushing costs, it is important that we articulate healthcare reform from a position of strength.  We must demonstrate how it is socialist interventions in the marketplace that are responsible for high costs.  We must demonstrate how our policies will bring costs under control.

When discussing entitlements, conservatives must remember that the goal of healthcare reform is not to merely cut its costs to the federal budget; it is to alleviate the burden of government-run healthcare on the entire healthcare sector.  Any proposal to tweak the outlays for programs such as Medicare, without fundamentally reforming their anti-free-market structure, will only achieve minor savings, cause pain for those suffering from healthcare inflation, and incur the wrath of the largest voting bloc.

Medicare is socialized medicine for those over 65 in all but name only.  Its very presence in the market as the 800-pound gorilla has a counterintuitive effect of driving up the cost of healthcare, thereby forcing people to remain dependent on its broad shoulders.  Unless Medicare (along with Medicaid) is reformed as a defined contribution voucher system, instead of an open-ended market distorting behemoth, any attempt to raise the eligibility age or cut benefits would severely squeeze older healthcare consumers.

Now we learn that such a proposal would fail to stem the unsustainable trajectory of Medicare costs.

Last week, CBO published a report which suggests that a plan to gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 would save $148 billion over 10 years.  That may sound like a large sum, but when compared to projected outlays, it is infinitesimal.  According to the most recent CBO budget outlook, Medicare outlays will top $7.4 trillion over the next 10 years, with a 75-year unfunded obligation of $35 trillion.  And that is probably a conservative estimate.  Thus, pulling the trigger on raising the retirement age and incurring the wrath of seniors will only reduce outlays from $7.4 trillion to $7.25 trillion.  We’ll be broke before we reach that point anyway.

Read More →

Nothing typifies the inane cycle of government dependency and poverty more than the issue of healthcare.  Given that healthcare constitutes 18% of our economy and that millions of Americans are languishing under its crushing costs, it is important that we articulate healthcare reform from a position of strength.  We must demonstrate how it is socialist interventions in the marketplace that are responsible for high costs.  We must demonstrate how our policies will bring costs under control.

When discussing entitlements, conservatives must remember that the goal of healthcare reform is not to merely cut its costs to the federal budget; it is to alleviate the burden of government-run healthcare on the entire healthcare sector.  Any proposal to tweak the outlays for programs such as Medicare, without fundamentally reforming their anti-free-market structure, will only achieve minor savings, cause pain for those suffering from healthcare inflation, and incur the wrath of the largest voting bloc.

Medicare is socialized medicine for those over 65 in all but name only.  Its very presence in the market as the 800-pound gorilla has a counterintuitive effect of driving up the cost of healthcare, thereby forcing people to remain dependent on its broad shoulders.  Unless Medicare (along with Medicaid) is reformed as a defined contribution voucher system, instead of an open-ended market distorting behemoth, any attempt to raise the eligibility age or cut benefits would severely squeeze older healthcare consumers.

Now we learn that such a proposal would fail to stem the unsustainable trajectory of Medicare costs.

Last week, CBO published a report which suggests that a plan to gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 would save $148 billion over 10 years.  That may sound like a large sum, but when compared to projected outlays, it is infinitesimal.  According to the most recent CBO budget outlook, Medicare outlays will top $7.4 trillion over the next 10 years, with a 75-year unfunded obligation of $35 trillion.  And that is probably a conservative estimate.  Thus, pulling the trigger on raising the retirement age and incurring the wrath of seniors will only reduce outlays from $7.4 trillion to $7.25 trillion.  We’ll be broke before we reach that point anyway.

Read More →

When Mitt Romney was seeking the Republican nomination in 2008, he deflected criticism of Romneycare by blaming its disastrous effects on the liberal legislature in Massachusetts.  That was four years ago, when Romney was attempting to win the hearts of the conservative base as the alternative to John McCain.

This time around, as he seeks to eschew any ideological principles, Romney is pronouncing his signature healthcare reform as a meritorious and quite ideal plan, at least for his state.  In fact, in recent days, he has gone so far as to proclaim MassCare as a fundamentally conservative principle.

Here is what he had to say today on Fox and Friends [video]:

“I’m happy to stand by the things that I believe. I’m not going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign,” Romney said. “What we did was right for the people of Massachusetts, the plan is still favored there by three to one, and it is fundamentally a conservative principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care.” [emphasis added]

Romney owes Republican primary voters answers to two questions; one ideological and one political.

1) If Romneycare is built on such inviolable conservative principles; if Romneycare has been such an auspicious healthcare reform plan, then what is so terribly offensive about Obamacare?  Yes, we’ve heard that dubious distinction between state governments having the ability to promulgate tyranny, whereas the federal government is constrained by the constitution.  But why not amend the constitution so we can implement Romneycare (Obamacare) on a federal level?  Why not share your paramount success with the rest of the nation?

Read More →

When Mitt Romney was seeking the Republican nomination in 2008, he deflected criticism of Romneycare by blaming its disastrous effects on the liberal legislature in Massachusetts.  That was four years ago, when Romney was attempting to win the hearts of the conservative base as the alternative to John McCain.

This time around, as he seeks to eschew any ideological principles, Romney is pronouncing his signature healthcare reform as a meritorious and quite ideal plan, at least for his state.  In fact, in recent days, he has gone so far as to proclaim MassCare as a fundamentally conservative principle.

Here is what he had to say today on Fox and Friends [video]:

“I’m happy to stand by the things that I believe. I’m not going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign,” Romney said. “What we did was right for the people of Massachusetts, the plan is still favored there by three to one, and it is fundamentally a conservative principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care.” [emphasis added]

Romney owes Republican primary voters answers to two questions; one ideological and one political.

1) If Romneycare is built on such inviolable conservative principles; if Romneycare has been such an auspicious healthcare reform plan, then what is so terribly offensive about Obamacare?  Yes, we’ve heard that dubious distinction between state governments having the ability to promulgate tyranny, whereas the federal government is constrained by the constitution.  But why not amend the constitution so we can implement Romneycare (Obamacare) on a federal level?  Why not share your paramount success with the rest of the nation?

Read More →

During Saturday night’s GOP debate, Mitt Romney demonstrated once again why he is failing to gain traction with the conservative base.  He continues to muddle the distinction between Obama’s policies and true free-market doctrine.  Romney consistently invokes progressive policy doctrines, while tempering them with banal flavors of conservatism.

We must remember that every time a candidate failed to draw a sharp intellectual distinction between himself and the Democrats, that candidate was relegated to the ash heap of history.  So far, Republican voters appear to have internalized that lesson.

Here are some examples of Romney’s insipid expression of ‘conservative’ policy.

Taxes/Class System

“His [Gingrich's] plan in capital gains, to remove capital gains for people– at the very highest level of income is different than mine. I’d– I’d– eliminate capital gains, interest, and dividends for people in middle income. So– we have differences of viewpoint on– on some issues. But– but the real difference, I believe, is our backgrounds. I spent my life in the private sector.

I– I understand how the economy works. And I believe that for Americans to– to say goodbye to President Obama and elect a Republican, they need to have confidence that the person they’re electing knows how to make this economy work again and create jobs for the American middle class.” [...]

“And– and in my view, the place that we could spend our precious tax dollars for a tax cut is on the middle class, that’s been most hurt by the Obama economy. That’s where I wanna eliminate taxes on interest dividends and capital gains.” [emphasis added]

Romney goes on to criticize Gingrich for not joining him in recognizing a class system and spending “our precious tax dollars” only on middle class taxpayers.  This is exactly what we mean when we say Romney is Obama-light.  He doesn’t believe in raising taxes on the rich, but he believes in the pale pastel alternative of tax cuts only to certain “classes”.  Worse, he views tax cuts as a means of “spending” as opposed to a means of returning wealth to its original owners.  Accordingly, he believes that those “expenditures” should be granted to the right people.

Read More →

During Saturday night’s GOP debate, Mitt Romney demonstrated once again why he is failing to gain traction with the conservative base.  He continues to muddle the distinction between Obama’s policies and true free-market doctrine.  Romney consistently invokes progressive policy doctrines, while tempering them with banal flavors of conservatism.

We must remember that every time a candidate failed to draw a sharp intellectual distinction between himself and the Democrats, that candidate was relegated to the ash heap of history.  So far, Republican voters appear to have internalized that lesson.

Here are some examples of Romney’s insipid expression of ‘conservative’ policy.

Taxes/Class System

“His [Gingrich's] plan in capital gains, to remove capital gains for people– at the very highest level of income is different than mine. I’d– I’d– eliminate capital gains, interest, and dividends for people in middle income. So– we have differences of viewpoint on– on some issues. But– but the real difference, I believe, is our backgrounds. I spent my life in the private sector.

I– I understand how the economy works. And I believe that for Americans to– to say goodbye to President Obama and elect a Republican, they need to have confidence that the person they’re electing knows how to make this economy work again and create jobs for the American middle class.” [...]

“And– and in my view, the place that we could spend our precious tax dollars for a tax cut is on the middle class, that’s been most hurt by the Obama economy. That’s where I wanna eliminate taxes on interest dividends and capital gains.” [emphasis added]

Romney goes on to criticize Gingrich for not joining him in recognizing a class system and spending “our precious tax dollars” only on middle class taxpayers.  This is exactly what we mean when we say Romney is Obama-light.  He doesn’t believe in raising taxes on the rich, but he believes in the pale pastel alternative of tax cuts only to certain “classes”.  Worse, he views tax cuts as a means of “spending” as opposed to a means of returning wealth to its original owners.  Accordingly, he believes that those “expenditures” should be granted to the right people.

Read More →

It’s only 12 Days until primary and the conservative Jason Sager (CAN-R-FL-05) needs your help defeating the progressive-lite Richard Nugent (CAN-R?-FL-05)! This is the important race here in Florida’s Fifth, because the primary is the general election here!

Want reasons to support Sager? Here are just a few reasons:

Read More →

Primary update, from Florida’s Fifth Congressional District. It is a race to the finish here and nither candidate is going to give up without a fight.

Read More →