More on the Space Race (Or Lack Thereof)

A few days ago, I wrote an article about President Obama’s decision to cease funding our manned space program and put an end to any plans NASA had for returning to the moon. My friend Ira Schwartz wrote a follow up article a few days later. Collectively, these were the two most commented on articles in the history of this column.

As most of you will recall my article was full of memories from my childhood growing up in New York. It also dealt with some of the reasons why the space program is a necessity. Many of you disagreed.

In my prior article, I mentioned and stressed the national pride created by the Space Program to the United States and it citizens. This is true. The space program in the 60’s did bring a lot of national pride to the country. Unfortunately, what is left of the space program does not.

Why? The answer unfortunately is very simple. We have not had a visionary regarding space exploration in the White House since the resignation of Richard Nixon. Since that time, NASA has been the easiest chopping block because many people think that it is nothing more than a source of pride. “Since there is no more “space race”, there is no need for NASA.” This is another statement that I grossly disagree with.

NASA brings jobs, technology, and lastly, national pride.

During the heyday of NASA in the 1960’s and 1970’s there, were thousands of people employed either directly or indirectly by NASA, as well as thousands employed by its contractors and subcontractors. For example, besides the obvious employment in Houston at Mission Control and Florida at the Kennedy Space Center, there were thousands of people employed all over the country.

Grumman Aerospace on Long Island, one of NASA’s biggest contractors, employed hundreds on Long Island when it was awarded the contract to build the Lunar Modules. I am proud to say that my father was actively involved in the construction of the LEM. Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) was involved in the construction of many NASA items. As was Boeing and a slew of others. A partial list of NASA Contractors can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_contractors.

In fact, the top 25 NASA contractors in 2008 included: Lockheed Martin, California Institute of Technology, Honeywell, ITT, University of California System and University of Arizona System. The full list of the top 25 can be found at: http://www.govexec.com/features/0808-15/0808-15s13s1.htm.

In plane and simple language NASA means jobs. But, that’s not all: The Space Program also means advances in science and technology.

A list of common items that are a direct result of the space program and space exploration includes: integrated circuits, scratchproof lenses, composite golf clubs, high-density batteries, blue-blocking ultraviolet sunglasses, the computer mouse and freeze-dried food. For a partial list, please see: http://www.independentmail.com/news/2009/jul/20/technology-nasa-space-program-continues-touch-ever/ , and http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/oct/HQ_08255_SPINOFF_08.html.

Today I was listening to CNN and they were talking about the launch of one of the final planned manned space missions. The Challenger took off in a flawless nighttime launch yesterday. During the discussion on CNN, it was stated that NASA is already planning 8,000 layoffs as a result of President Obama’s decision last week. That does not include any people that will be laid off at the myriad of NASA contractors. Is this the right thing to do during a recession? Maybe save some of the money on welfare and entitlement and put it into NASA.

This is just more evidence of the current administrations short sightedness. So, forget about the national pride, forget about technology. Keep NASA funded just for the jobs. And, maybe our children and grandchildren might have something to remember, especially if their dad is still employed.

© 2010 by Frank T. DeMartini Permission will be granted freely to copy upon inquiry.

"Broken" Health Care by Craig Covello

I work as a project manager for the IT component of a large healthcare organization. Usually the work feels rewarding, especially when you can see the tangible results of the project team's efforts. But on days like today, it is especially satisfying. I made a difference in the life of a 17-year-old cancer patient. Let me explain.

For a long, long time, our organization has been trying to implement wireless LAN guest access for use by patients and their families on laptop computers and smart-phones. No big deal, right? Well maybe not for Starbucks, but in a hospital setting we have to be very careful with frequencies and bandwidth utilization so that clinical information systems are not degraded, or worse attacked, as a result of Internet surfing by the public. We finally arrived at a solution. At 9:00 PST last night, we flipped the switch. Wireless guest access is now available on the entire hospital campus.

The truth is we were not planning on flipping the switch quite this soon. There's additional work to be done regarding generation of public relations announcements, but we decided to activate the system early because of a special circumstance. It seems that there was a young man who was admitted three months ago and is still undergoing chemotherapy. To make matters worse, this kid won't be going home for at least another three months. In the meantime, he's staring at the four walls of an isolated sterile room. Sure, there's the occasional mind numbing diversion of "reality" television, but how much of that can even healthy person take? (I don't think anyone's writing television scripts anymore, right Frank?) Our organization's hospital administrator was sensitive to this situation, so she gave me a call inquiring if there was any way we could expedite campus-wide access to the Internet, specifically for the benefit of this particular patient. What could I say? The answer, of course, was yes. We made this a priority. It was available as of this morning. In fact, I had the privilege of delivering a laptop to this teenager. Both he and his mother were very grateful. Can you imagine a 17-year-old diagnosed with cancer and stuck in a hospital room without being able to communicate with his friends via e-mail or Facebook for the past 3 months?

What does any of this have to do with politics?

Well, it occurred to me walking out of the hospital that there has been a lot of negative press regarding American healthcare lately. Even Obama himself said "Our health-care system is broken: expensive, inefficient, and poorly adapted...” Nancy Pelosi was also quoted as saying - ““You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll poll vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care passed for the American people.” She speaks as if to imply that there is no health care for the American people at all. Time for a reality check. There is no national "crisis", and now it looks like Obama has put health-care reform on the back burner. If it was truly a national crisis, why would he give it such a casual mention 30 minutes into the State of the Union address? More on that later.

Obama used the term "broken". The definition of "broken" means that something is not working. That's not the case here. We certainly have issues regarding escalating healthcare costs which need to be addressed, but not by having the federal government take over under the guise of reducing costs. Far too many examples have been cited illustrating how the federal government's control of anything actually increases costs. To say otherwise is disingenuous. And it also implies that escalating costs are caused by a greedy free market. Politicians have vilified insurance companies over this issue, but have you heard much commentary regarding the improvement in care over the past 15 years? Has this health care debate said anything about the cost of research, which roughly doubled 1994 between 2003? Miracles cost money. How much is a life worth? These are tough questions. It is easier to target an industry and attack it than being honest about where the money is being spent.

There have also been a lot of alarming statistics thrown around regarding the number of uninsured Americans. The White House believes this number is about 45 million people, or 15% of the population. Other studies suggest it's closer to 3% when you consider those who choose not to have insurance or those who are between jobs. I don't know which statistic is closer to the truth, but based upon my experience listening to this administration, it's probably closer to 3% than 15%. Yes, the unemployment rate is currently 9.7% and certainly much higher if we consider people who have stopped looking for jobs and are no longer counted. But the number of individuals sans healthcare does not necessarily mirror the number of unemployed, since health insurance plans typically cover households. These households may have spouses who provide family coverage. No matter. Even if we use the most liberal number of 15%, it still means that 85% of Americans have health insurance and they want to keep it in place.

And if our system is so "inefficient", why do we offer some of the best care in the world? Case in point: the 60-year-old Canadian premier Danny Williams recently came to the United States for heart surgery to correct a rare aneurysm. Canadian officials believe that there is an adequate cardio care in places like Ontario, but they also admit that no one in their entire country has much experience with treating William's rare condition. He's in good company with other Canadian officials who have sought US healthcare as lifesaving alternative to Canada's nationalized health system. This list includes Quebec’s Robert Bourassa in 1990 and Parliament's Belinda Stronach in 2007. These examples are purely anecdotal, but they are telling.

My personal opinion? Healthcare is not "broken". Healthcare is in the cross-hairs of the government because that's where a lot of money is these days. If the White House numbers are correct, forcing 45 million people into federally mandated, administered and under-funded healthcare programs will not reduce costs, but it sure is a good way to skim a percentage off the top for government coffers. This concept will also introduce layers of additional bureaucracy which will do nothing but complicate this situation, put additional barriers between the doctor-patient relationship, limit choices and reduce the overall quality of care. That's a strong statement, but stop and reflect for a moment the possibility of politicians in Washington making health care decisions for you. Oh, by the way, it was proposed that Congress be exempt from the plan and that Unions be exempt from certain types of health care taxation. Also telling.

Some may think that this article touches on a stale topic. After all, Obamacare is dead, right? Wrong. It failed publicly, so be prepared for stealth mode. Rename it, break it into smaller pieces and repackage it. Delay the schedule. Work behind the scenes to get federal control over the healthcare system. Remember what the queen of the Air force taxi service said: "we'll poll vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get (nationalized) health care passed for the American people.”

Let's say Nancy gets her way. Fast forward 10 years and I wonder how the situation with our 17-year-old cancer patient would be if Obamacare was implemented. Would he have a private room as he does today? Would he have a hospital administrator advocating on his behalf in order to lift his spirits with free Internet access? Would his family be able to afford an insurance policy that would pay for a hospital stay in excess of six months? Would he receive the best care, as judged by his physician? Or would he simply be told by a federal employee to go home after two weeks with a med dispenser because of the new, "efficient, government healthcare?

The health care system is not broken. Ask the teenager.

© 2010 by Craig Covello. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Is Denmark So Bad by Michael Cochrane

Last fall this column published an article on Swedish Socialism.  Here is an article that is not really a followup, but again points to the problems with European style Socialism that our president is so in love with.  This time case in point, Denmark.  So, as written by my colleague, Michael Cochrane . . . . .

The other day I caught a portion of a story on NPR’s “All Things Considered” about tax rates in Denmark. It seems that every year there is a report issued that lists every country in decreasing order of tax rates, and apparently Denmark tops the list year after year as the nation with the highest tax rates.

I didn’t quite catch the percentage of income taxation, but the NPR story did point out that there is a 25% value added tax on all goods and services, and a 200% tax on new automobile purchases! Yes, you heard correctly. To buy a vehicle worth $20,000, a Dane would have to shell out $60,000! I suspect that most of what one earns in Denmark is paid to the government through either income taxes or VAT.

You might expect the Danish government to provide ample benefits and social services for this high rate of taxation, and you’d be right. In addition to free, universal health care, there is a retirement entitlement, and unemployment benefits are paid for up to four years. Most of the people interviewed for the NPR story were actually very happy to pay these high taxes because of all the benefits they received.

A Danish economist and university professor was interviewed who said that, on the whole, the Danish system of social welfare allows employers to be very agile in terms of hiring and firing. Employees can be let go (and rehired) very easily, but with generous unemployment benefits, they usually don’t worry about income. The only downside he suggested was that, “Some people will take the opportunity to stay unemployed because they're paid to stay unemployed”, leading to slower economic growth.

Having lived in Europe on three occasions, I really appreciate the orderliness and security one experiences there. You go to any café in Europe and you can expect a relatively high level of service. Roads and streets are well built and well maintained. Houses are constructed to last hundreds of years. The standard of living seems to be uniformly high.

So, did we get it wrong in the USA? Has Denmark in particular and Europe in general figured out the secret of the ideal utopian lifestyle?

Somehow, though I will be the first to admire all Europe has to offer, I don’t think their economic wonderland can last. In the years immediately following World War II, the Germans, and indeed all of Western Europe, worked feverishly to rebuild their devastated nations. Within only a decade or two, Western European countries had returned to a standard of living nearly on a par with that of the United States. Europeans, particularly the West Germans, worked very hard and productively, building an enviable economy and high living standards for her citizens. When I was first stationed in Germany in 1980, virtually no Germans used credit cards. But in the last three decades, the European worker through the agendas of social democracy, has seen his work week reduced to 35 hours, his vacation increased to more than six weeks per year (in addition to Christmas holiday break) and has acquired numerous other social benefits. Increasingly, Europeans want both the benefits of the welfare state and the income to choose a consumerist lifestyle – buying on credit, having the latest gadgets, better cars, etc.

You can’t have it both ways.

Ultimately, government cannot directly contribute to the growth of an economy. Only business activity can do that. Governments can only redistribute wealth, they cannot create it. To be sure, governmental policies can create an economic environment conducive to the creation of wealth, but they cannot by themselves “grow the pie” larger.

So, should we in the USA emulate the European style of social democracy? It is certainly tempting. However, it’s important to realize that the United States is orders of magnitude larger than Denmark, or even Germany, in terms of population and size of the economy. What might work for delivering services for taxes paid in Denmark would be utterly unworkable in the US. Our Constitution is structured in such a way that it only proscribes limited functions to the Federal government, and reserves the remainder to the States and the people. This suggests that our citizens would be better served if Federal taxation were minimized, with social services primarily provided at the State and local level, where there is more of a direct relationship between the people and the government.

I’m willing to be proved wrong, but I think that the best balance between government and the private sector in providing needed services is to default to minimum essential governmental services, particularly at the Federal level. This gives maximum freedom to individuals to choose their own destiny. It tends to foster a robust and resilient economy where localities are free to choose the degree to which they are taxed and receive local government benefits.

Ultimately, I believe that welfare states tend to stifle the individual initiative and innovation necessary for lasting economic development and the growth of living standards. It may be only a matter of time, but I think that the trend in Europe toward increasing reliance on the benevolence of the state will result in an ultimately unsustainable system in danger of collapse. My hope is that if and when that collapse comes, it will not be catastrophic.

© 2010 by Michael Cochrane. All rights reserved. Used with permission.