Are Big Business and Big Government enemies? According to journalist and author Tim Carney, that story is a myth. Both Republicans and Democrats bilk taxpayers to benefit their corporate allies and K Street lobbyists, whether the issue is health care reform, climate change, or defense spending.
The Obama administration's bailouts and "stimulus" package(s) have taken the taxpayer-bilking to historic levels -- a remarkable achievement, considering the previous administration. And at the same time the president promises his health care overhaul will put patients first, the legislation he supports has corporate lobbyists once again lined up at the trough.
Bio
Michael F. Cannon
Michael F. Cannon is the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies. Previously, he served as a domestic policy analyst at the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee under Senator Larry E. Craig (R-ID), where he advised the Senate leadership on health, education, labor, welfare, and Second Amendment policy.
In addition, Cannon has worked as a health care policy analyst for Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation in Washington, D.C. Cannon has appeared on CNN, CNBC, C-SPAN, Fox News Channel, and NPR. His articles have been featured in USA Today, the New York Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Most recently, Cannon coauthored the book Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Timothy P. Carney
Tim Carney, CEI's Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow, is the author of The BIG Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money (Wiley, 2006).
He was a 2004-2005 Phillips Foundation Journalism fellow, and before that he was a political reporter for Bob Novak and Assistant Editor at Human Events. He is a columnist for America's Future Foundation's webzine Brainwash, and is a contributing editor to Human Events.
Ross Douthat
Ross Douthat is an associate editor at The Atlantic and the author of Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class (Hyperion, 2005), and The Party of Sam's Club, with Reihan Salam, which is forthcoming in 2008 from Doubleday.
He is the film critic for National Review, and he writes frequently on domestic policy, national politics, pop culture and religion.
Uwe Reinhardt
Uwe Reinhardt is James Madison Professor of Political Economy and Professor of Economics and Public Affairs. Recognized as one of the nation's leading authorities on health care economics, Reinhardt has been a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences since 1978.
He is a past president of the Association of Health Services Research. From 1986 to 1995 he served as a commissioner on the Physician Payment Review Committee, established in 1986 by Congress to advise it on issues related to the payment of physicians. He is a senior associate of the Judge Institute for Management of Cambridge University, UK, and a trustee of Duke University, and the Duke University Health System. Reinhardt is or was a member of numerous editorial boards, among them the Journal of Health Economics, the Milbank Memorial Quarterly, Health Affairs, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association.
(born Aug. 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.) 44th president of the U.S. (2009– ). Obama graduated from Columbia University (1983) and Harvard Law School (1991), where he was the first African American to serve as president of the Harvard Law Review. He moved to Chicago, where he served as a community organizer and lectured in constitutional law at the University of Chicago before he was elected (1996) to the Illinois Senate as a member of the Democratic Party. In 2004 he was elected to the U.S. Senate and quickly became a major national political figure. In 2008 Obama won an upset victory over former U.S. first ladyHillary Clinton to become the Democratic presidential nominee. He easily defeated Republican candidate John McCain and became the first African American president. In 2009 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
Excellent points. I too believe that politicians will take from 1 citizen and give to another citizen to whom it does not belong, purely to get reelected. I also know that most people in America will say, "Live free or die!," yet loudly scream, "Keep your hands off my Social Security (or college grant or food stamps or ag subsidies., etc., etc., etc." I'm not sure who it was, but a very bright person indeed said, "It is much easier to fight for your princioples than it is to live by them."
I believe Libertarian ideals should be maximizede, but the current Libertarian party's ideas are not acceptable to most Americans, because they focus too much on drug legalization, open borders, etc., etc., etc. I am not a pure Libertarian, but believe that when an issue has a challenge between who will maintain the decision making power - the citizen or the government - there had better be a damned good reason for government involvement, as well as enumerated Constitutional power to support it.
I prefer no Federal Government, and a case could be made for no State involvement, in education, but as it seems to be so deeply embedded in American Society, I agree that it should be done through vouchers or tax credits and NO government bureaucrats or departments politicizing the education of our children. I see no compelling reason for any Federal Involvement in education at any level. Since this began with the Department of Education, quality has gone down and costs have gone way up.
As an aside, and pertinent to this video, wasn't it interesting that pharma and health stocks sold off after the Massachussetts election? I think analysts realized that the gravy train and feeding at the public trough for these corporations would not occur. Obama and the CEOs of the pharma companies with whom Obama made a "partnership" must be furious about this.
I'd argue that true libertarianism is not politically doable. Case in point... even with all the protections in the US constitution... it was trampled. There are no libertarian states anywhere in the world. Politically it just does not work. It is just too easy for politicians to make promises and voters to accept them.
By joining the socialist's desire to give people free things with the libertarian idea of maximizing choice, you reach something that is politically doable. You really could not cut all funding for education today. Yet, you can most certainly introduce 100% school choice. It exists... just north of border in Alberta, Canada... or in Chile or Sweden... These are real solution found in the world today and are politically viable.
That removes the political and lobbying power. The money is retained in the hands of the people. It does not solve problems, but it does help solve the major ones of corruption and lobbying and centralization of powers and the lack of leadership and mentors the central government breeds.
In a market economy, wealth is not "distributed" deliberately in the first place, and therefore cannot be RE-distributed. What you are talking about is a coercive government activity (taxation to pay for things other than the necessary functions of government) which is theft, plain and simple. Professor Richard Epstein talks about this extensively in his excellent book, TAKINGS, which talks about the Constitutional implications of many governmental actvities, including taxation as it relates to the "takings" clause - " . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation . . . " Is the money I earn "private property?" I believe it is and I feel some governmental actions are adequate trade offs for the taking and meet eminent domain requirements - things like defense, roads, ports, etc. are in themselves compensation for the "taking" of my money (my property), as long as the expenditures are done prudently. What compensation do I receive, other than purely theoretrical compensation, from the confiscation of my money (my property) through taxation (under penalty of jail), for agriculture subsidies? College tution for other peoples' kids? The Senate Barber Shop? Defense spending for items not requested by the joint chiefs? Midnight basketball? Drugs for senior citizens? Food stamps for others? Nancy Pelosi's jet? Corporate bail outs? Freddie Mac? Fannie Mae?
Government is too big and has intervened into too many areas for which they have no Constitutionally enumerated powers. This is very, very serious. I realize the difficulties that the Interstate Commerce Clause and the 16th Ammendment cause. They are used as loopholes that apparently have "emanations and penumbras" (sorry, Justice Brennan) that seem to make our legislators think they can trample over our individual liberty. Many citizens complain about it until someone suggests they pay for their own college, or save for their own retirement, or purchase their own medicine or that their business needs to compete without subsidy. In these cases, people can come up with some very creative, common sense sounding reasons why THEIR benefits are essential, but EVERYONE ELSE'S welfare is the problem.
How can a man be free if he does not meet the responsibilities of a free man? Socialism strips a man of initiative and self respect and makes a man feel his fellows owes him things he should supply for himself. I do not see how a society can exist for long, economically, morally or in terms of public tranquility when the people are not responsible for themselves.
It is easy to say, but very hard to do - The Federal Government should be cut dramatically and should focus on its enumerated powers. People in power will always exceed the bounds of their authority if permitted to do so. We already know that all politicians are corrupt and their influence can be bought. The important question is, are the American people able to regain their self-sufficiency and liberty and realize it is immoral for politicians to confiscate the hard earned wealth of their fellow citizens and transfer it to them for things they should be responsible for. Sadly, I am not optimistic.
I myself used to be a socialist. Until I realized that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... Socialism almost always ends up meaning big group of bureaucrats in charge... and hence results in such problems.
What I've found is that both true socialists and libertarians share similar views on their hatred for big corporation... the main difference.
Socialists think the big business has power and the only antidote to it is big government.
libertarians think the only reason big business has power is BECAUSE of government.
I true think the way forward is for libertarians and true socialists to unite. A really odd alliance in some people's minds. But not so if you read liberal thinkers like John Locke.
Libertarians will have to accept things like wealth redistribution (which I don't have a big problem with).
Socialists will have to accept that choice is paramount and learn to accept things like vouchers to fund health care and education instead of centralizing power in big central government (which tends to corrupt itself).
I love the Cato Institute. They understand clearly what Americans do not seem to, or perhaps they do understand, but have a "keep your hands off my entitlements" attitude. The problem is not lobbyists. The problem is not corporations. The problem is GOVERNMENT. The best way to assure lobbyist and corporate involvement and influence in legislation is for the government to insert itself into the workings of the free market beyond a very general scope of anti-trust laws.
If the government is going to tax, regulate or otherwise interfere with a business or industry, businesses would be nuts not to lok out for their interests and to assert pressure to protect the businesses' interests. The solution - keep the government out of the market in almost every case.
I really enjoyed, both for their intellectual substance as well as their humor, the comments of Dr. Reinhart. I would love to take an economics class from him. He seems to be an equal opportunity critic of both the right and the left and I am certain he challenges the assumptions of those idealistic, smart, yet naiive college students and challenges them to think critically.
The only hope for America is to actually shrink the expense, scope and influence of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens and challenge Americans to be free citizens again, with alll of its opportunities and responsibilities.
How is it possible for so many seniors to have no savings to live a dignified life in retirement? Investing a very small amount on a regular basis over the course of a lifetime in a total market index fund or S & P 500 Index fund is possible for almost everyone. How is moral or just to pay retirement benefits to a person with sufficient income to live comnfortably?
I consider myself to be liberal, but I found myself agreeing with almost all of the views the speakers expressed in the video.
The title is a bit misleading because there is no mention of "bankrupting," and as the speakers repeatedly pointed out: the problems of having special interest corporate lobbying and deal making with government are pervasive with either prominent American party in power. One speaker specifically pointed out that the ad hominem within the title is not productive. Near the end, there was actually a thoughtful, constructive discussion on implementing health care reform, most specifically a single payer health care system.
Criticism seemed to fall heavily and equally on both sides of the aisle. 'Conservative'(in the Pro-Republican sense of the word) snipes were minimal.
The themes of the discourse were that:
1. Legislators being lobbied is a major problem because it leads to deals with legislation that benefit the lobbying organizations.
2. Big business loves government programs because they can often negotiate a highly beneficial deals, and many types of regulation are anti-competitive to smaller business.
It's a shame that the title is so sensationalist in a way that endears it to 'teabaggers' while making 'old punk rockers' like me automatically file under tenuously-scientific quasi-religious dreck.
I was genuinely surprised at how much I enjoyed this video.
member. 
