Competition: Grocery Wars

From deep in flyover country, RSP's home of Chicago, IL to be exact, comes news of a vicious price war between grocery stores Jewel and Dominick's. So vicious in fact, Dominick's has cut prices up to 30% on what the company is calling "things the typical shopper will have on their list." Think staples, not impulse buys (exactly the wrong place to cut price).

Grocery stores are among the most competitive industries on Earth. The largest chain in the U.S. has net pretax margins of 2.5%. You can't go more than three weeks without food, but if you're willing to play catastrophe roulette, you can go three weeks without health insurance. So why is competition good at keeping costs down for something you absolutely cannot live without (food) but not good for something slightly lower (health insurance) on the hierarchy of needs?

Real competition in health care and health insurance (they aren't synonymous, mind you) isn't on the table. Because we've convinced ourselves health insurance is pre-paid health care we ignore how we're stoking demand for health care, raising costs for everyone. That's on top of defensive medicine and Medicare's fee-for-service model, which, amazingly, creates supplier-induced demand. That's why the public option is faux competition. It's designed to snare, at first, the chronically unemployed, the uninsurable and the least healthy. Its premiums, in the absence of subsidies, will be higher than the private market. Which means it will be subsidized, either directly or through price controls. It also means, over time, legal barriers to private coverage to catch healthier/younger people in the public option's tuna net. Ask a public option advocate this: if I consent to the public option, will you consent to a side-by-side national, mandate free insurance market?

There are undeniable failures within health insurance, one of which flows directly from our employment based system: the uninsurable (your kid gets diagnosed with a financially catastrophic disease and then you're unemployed). Private ownership is imperfect too but it's a stronger bond than the third party problem created by our current employer model. This will distance me from my conservative brethren, but I believe government has a proper role in protecting some of the uninsurable.

How's this for a little health insurance reform: access to a means tested pool for the uninsurable, a national mandate free market (in addition to, not in lieu of, mandates) and ending the employer tax preference. Throw in subsidies for the poor and a refundable tax credit for the premiums for kicks. One other thing, too: provider price lists.

That's change we can believe in!

Lepechauns, Loch Ness Monster and the Public Option

Ask a conservative if the press has a leftward bias, and he'll look like you just asked if humans need oxygen. My inclination is that those who go into political journalism think of themselves as the next Woodstein and tend to look for Watergates where they do not otherwise exist. Thus we get fake scandal after fake scandal. That such scandals are caused by Republicans/conservatives is icing.

That said, if you'd like an unambiguous sign of how bias toward the president works in real time, check out this story. It's titled "Majority of Americans Believe Health Care Myths." Silly things like believing the federal government will become more involved in personal health care decisions, or that wait times will go up, or that costs won't come down.

Only after reading a bit into the story do we learn that the myth believing majority believes in what the White House considers myths. That's not remotely the same thing as "Majority Believes in Myths." It just means a majority doesn't believe what the White House believes.

Look at the graph below from the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. Why would anyone in their right mind believe ObamaCare will cost more than advertised? Beats me.

Hypocrisy Never Takes a Vacation

The Washington press corps hated George Bush, but they loathed his Texas ranch even more. His visits during the Bush White House years, especially the annual relocation of the working White House every August, were derided as proof that he was a lazy leader who preferred the complete detachment of a dusty, remote family compound, even while ordinary Americans suffered through more modest vacations.

That’s all in their past now, all but forgotten, I suppose, during these past eight months of starry-eyed, tongue-tied “coverage” of the Kingdom of Barack Hussein Obama, the Great and (did we mention?) Black POTUS.

Bush was just some obnoxious rich (did we mention?) White guy who exploited the levers of evil capitalism to buy his own ranch. (To think, if he’d just erected an elaborate swing set they might have softened their criticism a bit). And no member of the liberal media cared that Bush ran one of the most buttoned-up administrations in many years. Meetings began on time. They were run effectively and efficiently. The work got done. Bush did not do the Washington social scene. He lived a disciplined life. He was physically fit. He did not smoke or drink. He went to church on Sunday. He showed up in Iraq when he was “on vacation”. But none of it mattered. What mattered was that they hated him.

Ah, but then there is BHO. Obama is a self-made former community organizer with only a modest multi-million dollar Chicago home (that he didn’t overpay for, or maybe didn’t pay one dime for), but with no “ranch” as a refuge from the angry mobs who reject his Socialist vision for America.

The Washington Kool-Aid Corps has fallen over itself to point out that the Obamas are paying for the $35,000-a-week private home they are using as vacation HQ this week on Martha’s Vineyard. No one will dig into the facts to learn who is actually underwriting the vacation. Someone or some group of someones is. They did it for Bill Clinton back in the day. It doesn’t matter. Poor Barack needs a break. He has been working so hard to jam change down our throats. He won the Presidency but the campaigning has not stopped. So many speeches. So many teleprompters. Leave him alone. Leave those beautiful children alone. Leave First Lady Michelle alone.

Forgotten (or simply ignored) of course is that Obama transforms the “demands of the office” into an endless procession of family trips across Europe and Africa, and, more recently, to the Grand Canyon. And how can we forget “date night” to Manhattan? Or Michelle’s shopping spree in London with the girls? And the Obama family’s post-election trip to a private enclave on the island of Oahu last Christmas. Bush did not pull this kind of crap.

The Washington press — the gang of impostors who last week feigned sadness upon the death of legendary reporter Bob Novak, a man with whom it has nothing in common — would be utterly shocked to go back and review the list of world leaders and dignitaries hosted by President Bush in Crawford, Texas. It is staggering. Yet, Obama comes under zero criticism in recent days for his failure to pick up the phone to 10 Downing or Edinburgh to express America’s outrage that the government of Scotland has released the Lockerbie Pan Am bomber to Libya.

If you doubt the hypocrisy that attends Obama’s first “official” vacation as 44th President, please compare and contrast between the here and now and four short years ago.

Associated Press, Aug. 24, 2009: Close Obama friends — including White House senior adviser (and former Chicago slumlord) Valerie Jarrett and Chicago physician Eric Whitaker — planned to join the family for what White House officials described as a long-overdue break from the daily jostling of Washington.

“There are no official events scheduled in the week ahead. I anticipate that he’ll play golf a number of times,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Friday.

Ahead for the first family: likely trips for ice cream and salt water taffy, possibly a bike ride and plenty of quiet time at a secluded 28-acre private estate that rents for $35,000 a week.#

USA Today, Aug. 3, 2005: Except for last year when he was campaigning for re-election, Bush has spent every August at his ranch since becoming president. With this trip, he has made 51 ranch visits.#

Huffington Post, July 22, 2009: When Barack Obama kicks off his flip-flops on the Martha’s Vineyard sand next month, he’ll be adding a modern note to the island’s black history that stretches back three centuries. Decades ago, the island was a summer sanctuary for middle-class black families unwelcome elsewhere. Martin Luther King Jr. swam and wrote there.#

The Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2005: President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of — nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time. The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening to clear brush, visit with family and friends, and tend to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

The more vociferous among Bush’s foes have noted that he spent a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he should have been more attentive to warning signs. To Bush and his advisers, that criticism fundamentally misunderstands his Texas sojourns. Those who think he does not remain in command, aides say, do not understand the modern presidency or Bush’s own work habits.#

Finally, there are few — maybe zero — high profile comedians who will poke fun at Barack Hussein Obama, and certainly there will be no comedy bits about the fact that Obama delayed his arrival onto Martha’s Vineyard to await the passage of Hurricane Bill. Hillary Clinton, the diminished Secretary of State, was probably howling by contrast.

But, as for President Bush, the late night comedy writers were not similarly restrained. To wit:

“Hurricane Katrina has been particularly hard on President Bush, who was forced to end his vacation two days early. He was supposed to be clearing brush in Texas until Friday. Now he’s going to get back to the White House tomorrow. You know, if he doesn’t use his vacation days, he loses them, so this is hard on everybody.” — Jimmy Kimmel

“President Bush is going on his annual vacation. The White House says he goes to his Texas Ranch to unwind. I’m thinking, when does he wind?” — David Letterman

“As you know, President Bush is taking five weeks off. It’s like he’s still in the National Guard.” — Jay Leno

What do you suppose the writers will propose when Obama visits Hyannis this week to meet with a dying Ted Kennedy? What one-liners will be generated as Obama luxuriates on 28 private acres while the war in Afghanistan deteriorates, even as the deficit builds and the outlook for Democrats up for re-election in 2010 worsens?

I can only assume they will suffer an enormous case of writers’ block.

The Gateway to the Ultimate Prize

Unfortunately, today the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, has engaged in behavior that endangers all American citizens. He has appointed a special prosecutor that will investigate CIA interrogators who questioned some of the most dangerous individuals on the planet in an effort to protect all of us. Even CIA Director Leon Panetta is opposed to this and has reportedly said that he will resign as a result.

There have already been investigations of those who allegedly abused the terrorist detainees. These investigations resulted in exactly one prosecution and subsequent conviction (a CIA contractor abused a terrorist with a flashlight).

By allowing this to happen, President Obama has started down the path of investigating the Bush Administration for its conduct of the War on Terror (which according to the Obama Administration does not exist). This is the gateway to prosecution of the Bush Administration officials who drafted the memos on enhanced interrogation techniques. However, I do not think that the witch hunt will stop there. The ultimate prize for the far left of the Democratic Party is the prosecution of Vice President Cheney. That is, in large part, what this is all about. I also would hate to think that this action is being taken by the Administration in an effort to take away the focus away from their failing health care plan.

So, what we have here in the criminalization of policy between succeeding administrations. Every American should think long and hard as to whether this is what they want. This type of behavior is more suited to banana republics where the current government sets up “truth commissions” to criminalize the policies of its predecessor.

The consequences to our peaceful transfer of power between administrations will be undermined. It will prevent the current occupant of the Oval Office, whomever he happens to be, from receiving frank and open advice from his advisers and attorneys. Staff members will not be willing to engage in a free exchange of ideas with administration colleagues if they believe that they will be subject to criminal prosecution for their analyses at some indeterminate time in the future. Mr. Obama has left open the possibility of criminal prosecution because one lawyer has a different legal analysis than another.

Next, it becomes difficult to recruit qualified people to work in the government. Why would anyone want to give up a lucrative career in the private sector to enter public service if the results of that work culminate in a jail sentence? The relatively small salary of a public official, combined with an overly intrusive vetting process already make a career in a Presidential administration less than ideal. The threat of criminal prosecution may be the final straw that prevents qualified individuals from serving their nation.

Also, Mr. Obama’s statement opens the possibility of the criminalization of policy differences between Administrations. Clearly, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, President Bush was presented with circumstances that are different than those currently facing President Obama. President Bush made the decision to allow for enhanced interrogations based upon the world as it existed at that time. Mr. Bush put in place policies that some may find objectionable. President Obama, as Mr. Bush’s successor, is free to make the determination that Mr. Bush’s policies were incorrect, inappropriate and/or no longer necessary. However, criminalizing the policy decisions of his predecessor establishes an incredibly poor precedent for all of Mr. Obama’s successors.

In addition, it has a chilling effect on those heroic Americans who are currently serving in uniform or working in the intelligence community. How motivated will they be to pursue their craft in attempting to obtain information from terrorists in their custody that is vital to our national security? Based these investigations, it is very possible that critical information that could save the lives of thousands of US citizens will never be obtained so as to stop a terrorist attack.

The President is once again showing us that he is not up to the task of being Commander-in-Chief. He is continuing to show our enemies that he is weak. It is particularly troubling that at the exact same time that Mr. Obama is begging our allies to take the terrorists that are currently (and thankfully) detained at Guantanamo Bay, he is now looking to incarcerate brave American citizens who answered their country’s call to service. What message does that send to those who would do us harm?

Smart Move

Irrespective of one's views on Ben Bernanke and his performance (mine: big thumbs up) BHO is smart to get ahead of this issue now. Should CIA interrogation investigations suck up all the remaining oxygen in Washington, there's no upside to a will he/won't he soap opera for either BHO or public markets.

Great vacation, ready to start posting again.