Interior to Restrict Mountaintop Coal Mining

Late last week the Department of the Interior announced that it was going to conduct stricter oversight of mountaintop coal mining, a process by which coal seams under mountaintops are exposed to mining equipment by dumping the rock and soil above it into lower-elevation areas nearby. This practice is common in the Appalachian Mountains.

I suspected something was underway a few months ago when I discovered that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement scrubbed post-reclamation photos of such sites. It turns out that the flat land created by this practice is actually often welcomed by locals as something with economic benefits.

It's true that disrupting that much rock and earth has environmental consequences. When rock is newly exposed to rainwater, soluble minerals including heavy metals will leach out until they've been depleted. Mountaintop mining can be disruptive to seasonal and minor streams and can diminish the water quality of larger streams and rivers.

But water pollution is primarily a local issue. Yes, water flows, but only in one direction. It's not clear why states, alone or acting jointly, couldn't deal with these issues in most cases.

Mountaintop mining is, however, a big deal for environmentalists for at least two reasons. First, they dislike the local effects--disruption of natural landscapes, water pollution, et cetera.

Perhaps more importantly, however, coal is the declared enemy of environmentalists. Burning it is carbon intensive and can produce unpleasant pollution (carbon dioxide is not a pollutant).

But coal-produced electricity is cheap, and electricity runs the modern world. For most people, it's a tradeoff worth making. For the most radical of environmentalists, those who pine for a world unsullied by man, it's not.

Fortunately for the rest of us, there aren't that many of them. Unfortunately for us, they currently have friends in high places.

A Lesson in Marginal Utility

We're finally replacing our current basic cable with Verizon FIOS (with DVR) on Tuesday! The channel lineup is outstanding and diverse, so kudos to Verizon for catering to its customers.

Having studied in Germany (Trier) back in 2003, I was happy to see that FIOS offers two German language channels: Deutsche Welle and ProSiebenSat 1 Welt. It would be good to refresh those language skills after six years of disuse.

But not so good that I'd pay $14.99 per month. I'd probably be willing to pay about a third of that. Especially since I can get a lot of content online through Netflix and otherwise.

On Health Bill, Lone GOP Supporter Got Played

One of the most surprising aspects of last night's House vote on the Democrats' plan to deepen the distortions in the health care sector was the lone Republican vote for it.



That vote came from none other than first-term Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-LA-02). He got played. The Democrats--including personal entreaties by the President--secured his vote by promising him lots of goodies to take home to his constituents.



He doubtless hopes it'll get him reelected. Remember, the first priority for the vast majority of elected officials is...to get reelected. And keeping the people who vote for you happy is the best way to do that.



But Louisiana's 2nd district has a Cook Partisan Voter Index Rating of D+25. That's a "safe seat" for Democrats. The only reason Cao won last year is that he was running against a deeply corrupt incumbent. He's a one-termer, plain and simple.



So why do I say he got played? Because his vote makes it marginally more likely for Democrats to be successful in the Senate without really affecting his likely defeat next year. One of the moderate Senate Democrats is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, whose reelection victory margin last year was underwhelming in the Year of Obama.



Now, Landrieu is only one of several moderate Democrat holdouts in the Senate who may ultimately prevent comprehensive healthcare legislation this year--despite their supposed filibuster-proof majority--but the bipartisan patina Democrats will now be able to claim can only make their efforts easier.



Despite having been played, Cao is no fool. Rather, his vote last night is symptomatic of the corrosive power-at-any-cost mentality that plagues political life. Instead of gracefully accepting his brief stint in Congress, he has abandoned principle in the vain hope of prolonging his tenure.

Ramming a Climate Bill Through Senate Committee is Politically Risky

This morning the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported the Kerry-Boxer climate bill (S. 1733: "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act) in a rather unusual fashion. Committee Republicans were insisting on further economic analysis of the legislation--a courtesy they extended to Democrats several years ago during the ultimately unsuccessful Clean Skies debate--before moving to mark up the bill. Chairman Boxer refused to wait and forced the bill through the committee despite a GOP boycott of the markup.

The 12 committee Democrats voted 10-1-1 to report the bill: Baucus (D-MT) voted against it, and Carper (D-DE) didn't make it to the vote.
The following committee Democrats voted for it: Barbara Boxer (CA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Benjamin Cardin (MD), Bernie Sanders (VT), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Tom Udall (NM), Jeff Merkley (OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), and Arlen Specter (PA).

Without getting into the minimal benefits and large costs of the legislation, this vote appears to carry significant political risk for several committee members.

Baucus, Lautenberg, Merkley, and Udall aren't up for reelection until 2014, so this vote is unlikely to have much significance by then. The same is probably true for the 2012 class--Cardin, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Whitehouse--except in the (hopefully) unlikely event that the economy fails to recover by then.

For those up in 2010, however, facing the very real possibility that recovery will be slow and unemployment remain high for the next year, this vote is a bit of a gamble: whether the base energizing effects on turnout will outweigh the loss of swing voters, most of whom quite reasonably are more concerned about employment at the moment.

And then there's the inconvenient truth that global surface temperatures have been stable for the last decade and this year has been rather cold in the United States. Note that I'm making no claim regarding the future of global temperatures, simply laying out the factors that will affect voter perceptions at the polls next fall.

CQ Politics Race Ratings for 2010 Senate Races considers Boxer's California seat to be "safe", Gillbrand's New York seat as "Likely Democrat", and Specter's in Pennsylvania as "Leans Democrat." Yet polling on Real Clear Politics has Specter slightly behind fmr. Rep. Pat Toomey, and that's before his primary with Rep. Joe Sestak (and a former admiral), which is likely to force Specter further to the left.

In New York, Gillibrand could plausibly be defeated by either former Governor George Pataki or former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani. Neither has officially entered the race.

Boxer seems to be in the best shape of the three, although her advantage over presumed GOP challenger and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina has narrowed significantly in recent months.

Of couse, a year in politics is a very long time, and a lot could happen between now and then. Nonetheless, when reelection or early retirement can depend on a few points, a vote on a bill that many voters rightly perceive to damage American competitiveness and productivity is highly unlikely to improve these senators' prospects.

And to have the vote within 48 hours of major Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia seems bizarre. Then again, maybe the writing on the wall says if they don't get it done now, they never will.

Germany's Fusionist Election

Even as America's political class expands its dominance over the U.S. economy, German voters sent the opposite signal to Berlin in today's parliamentary elections.

Since Germany has proportional voting, the Bundestag has representation from five different parties. At the risk of major oversimplification, the major parties are roughly equivalent to the Republicans (Christian Democrats), Democrats (Social Democrats), Greens, Libertarians (Free Democrats, aka "Die Liberalen"), and Socialists. Of course, the latter three parties, though technically minor parties compared to the first two, bear little resemblance to their American brethren. Simply put, U.S. third parties have no prospect of attaining political power, so they radicalize much more than those in Germany and other proportional representation systems.

In any case, this election marks the end of the 'grand coaltion' of Social Democrats and Christian Democrats--a tenuous and relatively non-reformist coalition. The coming Christian Democrat and Liberal Democrat coalition is essentially a fusionist (in the Frank Meyer sense) coalition of conservatives and libertarians.

It's too soon to tell what policies they'll pursue, but tax relief and improving the business climate have been major parts of their platforms. This means casting off those regulations that are harmful, cutting spending, cutting taxes, and otherwise reducing the burden of government.

One hopes that they've learned from the Republicans that tax cuts without spending cuts doesn't really cut taxes, it just shifts that burden to the future. (Yes, my supply-side friends, I know that the dynamic effects of tax cuts can make up for part of the revenue loss, but rare is the tax cut that fully pays for itself.) Fortunately for Merkel and company, Germany's flabby welfare state offers plenty of fat to cut out.

Zum Wohl and viel Gluck!

Health IT from the Bottom Up

Today I attended the event "Explaining International Health IT Leadership" at The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation to release an ITIF report by the same name. In addition to the ITIF scholar who authored the report, the panel included experts from the small, relatively homogenous nation-states of Finland and Denmark.

The panel discussion focused on government initiatives to spur development of electronic medical records, telemedicine, and other innovations that Information Age consumers expect in many other sectors of the economy. One got the impression that the primary impediment to broad penetration of these technological advances is a lack of political leadership.

But if health care consumers want these things, why doesn't the market provide them? Well, to a certain extent, it does, but probably not as much as people want.

The vast majority of private sector health plans are purchased through an employer. This has at least two effects with respect to health IT.

First, employment decisions are generally made based on total compensation, which includes wages, benefits (medical and otherwise), and intangibles like opportunities for advancement, prestige, enjoyability of work, and so forth. This bundling prevents workers from exploring alternatives and selecting something that fits them best, as we do when we choose universities, automobiles, and homes. Instead, employee demands on health care providers are mediated by insurance companies AND employers, neither of whom can efficiently communicate the individual preferences of workers. As a result, neither the insurance market nor the providers face sufficient competition to drive the rapid innovation seen in other sectors.

Second, the linkage of employment to health insurance means that insurance coverage is very likely to change every time a worker changes employment. Electronic medical records may be a worthwhile investment when long-term relationships exist, and perhaps less so in a market with contractual instability.

Medical records also raise concerns about privacy. What is the appropriate level of privacy protection? No 'correct' answer exists--demand for privacy varies subjectively with individuals. Any one-size-fits-all standard will in fact not fit all, but will leave many people unhappy--both those who want more privacy and those who are willing to trade off some privacy for other benefits (like individually tailored advertisements).

Concerns are also raised about interoperability and standards. This is an important point, but one that markets have resolved time and time again--railroad track gauges and PC operating systems, just to name a few. Far better to encourage experimentation that gets us to the medical records equivalent of modern operating systems instead of locking us into something like Windows 3.1--once state-of-the-art, now completely obsolete.

Giving individuals more control over their health care dollars ought to force insurance companies and medical providers to innovate and offer these products and invent others simply to attract and retain customers. It's not at all clear that government leadership is the only way to get there.

Where are the Real Health Care Reforms?

For all of the rhetoric about reforming health care in the United States, Senator Baucus' proposal—like the other Democrat bills—is striking in how little reform it incorporates, at least in the right direction.

The root cause of many problems facing American health care today is the reliance on third party payment for medical expenses. Currently the government pays for about half of U.S. medical expenses. Roughly forty percent is paid by employers and insurance companies. Only about ten percent comes directly from health care consumers.

At the time of care, patients on average bear only about a tenth of the cost directly—the rest of the episode's cost comes from others: the insurance company to which the patient pays premiums or the government. Spending other people's money on oneself does not diminish a patient's concerns about quality, but incentives to be cost-conscious are weak. The result is excessive consumption of marginally useful or even potentially harmful procedures.

While risk sharing is an appropriate strategy for unexpected and potentially catastrophic care episodes, such insulation from having to confront the costs and benefits of alternative options systematically biases patients towards accepting more expensive and risky procedures with little or no net benefit than they otherwise would.

Would the Democrats' proposals help to properly realign the incentives facing consumers? No, they would make the problem worse.

Compelling all Americans to purchase insurance either through an employer or individual mandate—especially when combined with guaranteed issue, community rating, and minimum benefit requirements—would further entrench this overconsumption cost death spiral, as would more explicit government takeovers such as single-payer, government insurance, and co-ops. And since medical services would no longer be rationed by price, they would ultimately have to be rationed by quality degradations like long waiting times and denial of care.

When politicians and bureaucrats direct the allocation of resources, they are spending other people's money on other people, which gives them insufficient reason to monitor quality or cost as carefully as private actors spending their own money.

Another approach would empower consumers to make their health care decisions with full knowledge of the relevant costs and benefits. They would be free to choose the kind of plan that best fits their preferences, whether that would take the form of fee-for-service, prepayment (the health maintenance organization model), or catastrophic insurance with out-of-pocket payment for routine and expected care. After all, ‘government funds’ come from taxes, and ‘employer contributions’ mostly come out of employee compensation, so why not just let individual consumers control the money that funds their medical needs?

Two major (and many minor) obstacles prevent this consumer-driven market from becoming a reality: the preferential tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance purchases and poorly designed government programs.

Since employers can deduct health benefits from their taxable income but individuals cannot, workers are pushed into accepting whatever plan their employer happens to offer. Giving individually purchased health coverage the same tax treatment as employers receive would allow workers who prefer a different type of plan to cash out the portion of their compensation that employers currently divert into the so-called employer contribution to their workers’ health care. Policymakers have several options: tax credits, tax deductions, or, even better, large HSAs.

Government programs fail to give their beneficiaries ownership of the funds that finance their care. Giving Medicare recipients the option to choose a health-status-adjusted voucher and allowing states more flexibility in serving needy populations would further develop an individual insurance market.

Removing barriers to interstate competition in health insurance could also spur lower costs, more innovation, and more regulatory competition between the states.

Unfortunately none of the Democrats' proposals would empower health care consumers in these ways or much otherwise. They would instead consolidate the status quo of third-party payment for routine expenses and further concentrate the power of the political class.

Palin Case Highlights Need for Tort Reform

Today's Washington Post has a very fair article about Sarah Palin's resignation from Alaska's office of governor. For the most part, she was sick of the attacks on her and her children. What a shocker: a decent, small-town person gets thrown into the national political spotlight and recoils at the viciousness of the modern political arena.

What jumped out at me though, is that her new-found fame or notoriety (depending on your perspective) has attracted a series of lawsuits that have put her family $500,000 in debt. I can't speculate on the merits of those lawsuits, unfamiliar as I am with the details, but suppose they're all frivolous and the Palins are exonerated in every case. They win, but they're still out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Is that justice?

The need for tort reform couldn't be clearer. The answer is for states to switch to a loser-pays rule, where the victor has no liability for his/her legal fees (and the federal government should stay out of it). Alaska has taken steps in this direction. Virtually every other developed nation has rightly adopted this rule. It would discourage frivolous lawsuits, while ensuring that injured parties can still obtain justice.

Some--like the trial lawyers associations--will claim that this would prevent legitimate cases from being undertaken. Not so. Where loser-pays exists, a competitive market for tort insurance is available at premiums that depend on the potential size of the payout and the probability of success. Most of the time, the law firm--not the plaintiff--will cover the premium.

It doesn't make sense to clog the courts with cases that lack merit or to subject innocent parties to ruinous legal fees because someone doesn't like their politics. If the Palins are found to be liable in one or more cases, they should justly pay. But if they are found to have no culpability, for them to be saddled with debt from legal fees will be a miscarriage of justice.

Another Problem with Employer-Provided Health Insurance

As my wife and I prepare for the birth of our first child, we've become familiar with some of the truly marvelous technology that has emerged over the last few decades.

Among the most astonishing and promising possibilities is the harvesting of blood from the umbilical cord just after the baby is born. The stem cells contained in the cord blood already have the potential to treat or cure a host of diseases, not only for the child, but also for the mother and her close relatives.

The price of collecting the blood typically exceeds $1000 with an annual storage fee of over $100. Considering their potential benefits, investing in preserving these cells strikes me as a heck of a bargain.

Since the potential to save money in the long run is quite substantial, you would expect health insurers to pick up part of the tab.

I was surprised to learn that my wife's employer-based health coverage does not include this, except in the limited circumstances where a potential beneficiary already has an applicable condition.

In other words, unless a close relative is afflicted by something nasty at the time of the infant's birth, the parents get to pick up the full tab or go without. And should the cord blood not be preserved, the insurance company could later be on the hook for a more expensive alternative.

Businesspeople are not stupid (or at least they don't leave money on the table). If health insurance companies actually expected to save money on cord blood therapies, they would doubtless cover and even promote it.

What's going on? Is the potential effectiveness of cord blood exaggerated? No--the current benefits are quite impressive--but that's irrelevant.

Young workers typically change jobs every few years, which means their health insurance coverage changes as well. If the chances of coming down with something (the sum of the probabilities of cord-blood-treatable ailments over the remaining years of coverage) and the resulting savings from cord blood therapies outweights the cost of cord blood collection and storage, insurers will cover it.

That they don't suggests that the benefits do not exceed the costs to the insurance companies over the time horizon they expect their beneficiaries to be with them.

What's to be done? Mandating coverage of this option would solve this problem, but only by increasing costs to other people and introducing other unintended consequences.

Perhaps the emergence of additional treatments would push the insurance cost-benefit estimation over the tipping point, making a policy response irrelevant.

In the final analysis, however, the linkage between employment and health coverage prevents insurance portability, which prevents the insurers' incentives from being aligned with our long-term health status. Equalizing the tax treatment of health care for all purchasers and removing other institutional barriers to a more competitive health insurance marketplace would go a long way towards getting our insurers to worry about preventive measures.

In our current world of distorted incentives, however, my wife's insurance won't cover this potential life-saver. So we will. After all, it's our baby.

Obama's Fresh Start with Iran

I've been less than impressed with President Obama's approach to economic issues, but there may be some hope for him yet on foreign policy.

CNN reports that Obama "reached out to Iran on Friday -- the start of the Iranian New Year -- in a video message offering 'the promise of a new beginning' that is 'grounded in mutual respect.'"

Of course, no one wants Iran to possess nuclear weapons--the major recent impediment to normalizing relations--but can we live with it? Do the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and nuclear arsenal represent a sufficient deterrent to bad action?

And while most people don't want a nuclear Iran, we do want a peaceful and prosperous democratic republic to emerge in the heartland of the former Persian empire.

Most of that task falls to Iran's leaders, but U.S. policymakers can make a difference.

If normalizing relations reduces their fear of U.S. military action, they'll be less likely to elect hardliners and focus on other issues, the economy first among them. Robust cultural exchange can help promote understanding and economic partnerships. Reducing trade barriers (to zero?) would enhance bilateral commerce and facilitate both of our economic growth.

Obama's on right track with Iran. Let's hope he follows through.

The Ever Expanding Backpack of State

It strikes me that government is something like a backpack.

If you're planning to take an all-day hike, you'll want to take some essentials: a Swiss army knife, some snacks, a compass, and a few other things, depending on where you are and how long you'll be out.

But if you're only going to be out for a day, there's no need to bring a tent, sleeping bag, cooking gear, and waders (unless you're going fishing). That stuff would just weigh you down.

There's a sweet spot between carrying too little and too much, depending the nature of the trip and what the hiker is willing to risk lacking versus unneccessarily lugging around. Too little can leave you in a bind, while too much slows the hiker down and makes the journey less pleasant.

So too with government and the productive sector. The core functions are right there in the Constitution: national security, courts for adjudicating disputes, regulating money, preventing restrictions on intrastate trade, and so forth. The benefits far outweigh the burdens for these.

Corporate welfare, earmarks, and the criminalization of just about everything represent the dead weight. The benefits for the few special interests are dwarfed by the burdens for the rest of us.

You can also get too much of a good thing--like a hiker with 50 pounds of food or a government that maintains armaments far greater than necessary to ensure self-government and the protection of vital interests. And there's the grey area.

But as the government burden increases, the private (productive) sector strains more and more under the weight, its (metaphorical) steps slowing. Hong Kong becomes the United States, which becomes Germany, which becomes India, which becomes Zimbabwe, Haiti, or North Korea, each of which is in almost utter collapse.

No wonder that the markets continue to tank: accumulating burdens with no prospects of relief in sight.

Fairfax Budget Blues & School Choice

The County of Fairfax in which I now live is facing large budget deficits. I've just started to go through the Proposed FY2010 Budget, but I was struck by this image of proposed expenditures.

Spending on schools is a huge portion of the budget: $1.79 billion, or 54% of 3.31 billion, and that figure may exclude some relevant costs.

The projected enrollment for the current 2008-2009 school year is 168,384. If enrollment doesn't change that much, that works out to almost $11,000 per student per year.

Some have touted vouchers and education tax credits as the silver bullet to education quality problems, but they seem to be overlooked in budget discussions. We usually assume that spending less gets you less--and shortchanging our children's futures is obviously unacceptable--but isn't it possible that at least some of the spending isn't adding much to their education?

Andrew Coulson over at Cato crunched the numbers to see what would happen if Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, and New York adopted an education tax credit, and he finds massive cost savings.

If savings in Fairfax County are anything comparable, something like this could take care of the budget crunch, improve choice, and enhance educational quality all at once. At least it's worth a look.

More budget analysis to come...

Free Market Environmentalism

Utah Governor Huntsman has been calling for Republicans to be more moderate on environmental issues, apparently putting him at odds with the bulk of his party.

What is it about environmental issues that so turns off conservatives? After all, many of them are outdoor recreationists, and all of us value clean air and water.

Most likely, conservatives recoil from the redistributionist, anti-market, anti-corporate, and collectivist strains within the modern environmentalist movement that impose bureaucratic micromanagement on private decision making.

Current environmental statutes impose heavy burdens on the private sector, but some of them have significant public benefits as well--especially those that reduce air pollution.

Is it possible to have more effective protection of air, water, soil, biodiversity, and climate while reducing the costs of those efforts? Absolutely yes.

What to do:
- Transfer control over local problems to local authorities. It makes no sense to restore land to agriculture quality (as Superfund requires), when it's intended to be redeveloped into a factory, a shopping center, or a parking lot. When 'federal' money is at stake, no one cares about the cost, but more local decisions would better weigh costs and benefits.
- Replace current pollution control requirements with a pollution fees. This allows emitters to decide how best to reduce pollution and gives them a continuing incentive to reduce emissions. To maintain international competitiveness, the funds from these fees should be used to reduce taxes on investment.
- Address climate change first through 'no-regret' policies, then through emissions fees that pay for reduced taxation of savings and investment. No-regret policies are good economic policies that have the side benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These include ending all subsidies for agriculture (including fishing and forestry), energy (fossil AND alternatives), and rural and coastal development; removing all trade barriers; encouraging adoption of tradable water permits, especially in the West; and moving towards privatization of transportation infrastructure.

This list is hardly comprehensive, but it's a good starting point. Current laws to protect the environment are horribly inefficient and counterproductive, and many bear the stamp of political opportunism rather than sober policy analysis. Environmental protection can also be fiscally responsible and economically wise.

Governor Huntsman is quite correct if he means that Republicans would be wise to adopt a free market environmentalism.

Democrats could keep their political edge on those issues by beating Republicans to the punch on adopting incentive-based environmental policies. Of course, that would mean giving up micromanagement of the private sector.

Markets v. Government: What Works?

In the wake of the financial crisis, I keep hearing claims about the discrediting of free markets. To begin with, there's a compelling narrative that the financial crisis was caused by government intervention rather than free market excess.

As to whether government intervention can get us out of this mess, it may well be that individuals and businesses--especially in the financial sector--need to reduce the amount of debt they carry. This podcast argues that this process of deleveraging (reducing debt) is necessary and may take years, but that government policy is trying to prevent this. But delaying spring cleaning keeps the house dirty.

The turmoil in heavily regulated financial markets sheds light on some important questions: which parts of the economy are we happiest with and which make us miserable, and does any link exist between government involvement and our level of satisfaction?

As a middle-class consumer, what works well for me?
- The internet.
- Retailing.
- Reading material like books and magazines.
- Restaurants

What drives me crazy?
- The post office (a government monopoly on first class mail).
- Flying (government owns the airports and air traffic control system, runs the security).
- Health care (government uses tax dollars to pay for half, tilts playing field against individual coverage, regulates health provision and insurance, and on and on).
- Commuting to work (government ownership precludes road expansion or other ways to reduce congestion, such as variable rate tolls).

Now, is there a pattern, or am I just cherry picking?

Well, whenever I've come across something that doesn't work the way it should, I've almost always found that politicians have messed up the incentives for producers to respond appropriately to their customers.

Does greater intervention yield greater dissatisfaction? I have no doubt.

Politicians: Missing the Point, Again

Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-Toledo) gave a speech on the House floor a few minutes ago lamenting the power that China, OPEC countries, and other unpleasant governments in Africa, Latin America, and Asia possess over the United States.

The source of that power? Their decision whether to buy U.S. government-issued debt. Here’s the argument: by selling off their accumulated U.S. Treasury Bonds or by simply refusing to buy more, they could cause the value of the dollar to crash relative to other currencies. They can supposedly use this leverage to influence U.S. policy.

Leaving aside the fact that a weak U.S. dollar would increase our exports (a policy she favors) because U.S.-produced goods would be cheaper for foreigners, it was striking that she railed against the symptom without even mentioning the cause.

If not for persistent deficits (column D), our government would have no need to issue debt in the form of bonds. Of course, eliminating the deficit requires cutting spending (the reasonable course), raising taxes (an especially bad idea during a recession), or some of both.

But then again, most politicians are known better for empty rhetoric than for making real decisions.