|
Published: February 14, 2009 10:07 pm
Readers' Forum: Feb. 15, 2009
Free trade in America has its down sides
The main problem with the analysis of free trade provided recently by Arthur Foulkes ( Feb. 6) is that he glosses over the most thorny and controversial issue: free trade often damages the economic interests of some groups even while it enhances those of others.
For example, when construction firms in the U.S. take advantage of steel from foreign countries that is priced below what domestic producers bring to market, the interests of American steel firms and steel workers are damaged. Foulkes is correct that the foreign producer and their workers are made better off by the trade, as are domestic construction firms and their customers. But by ignoring the interests of domestic suppliers and workers in his analysis, Foulkes casually dismisses popular suspicion of foreign trade as simply engendered by ignorance.
Not true. The suspicion is based on the quite real and stark losses of income that trade causes. Opponents of free trade have good reasons for their position.
What standard trade theory proposes is that the gains to the winners in free trade outweigh the costs to the losers, and so society is on the whole better off. Although this proposition can also be questioned in many cases, for those in which it does hold this net gain by itself does nothing to help those who have lost their jobs or businesses to more open trade. The much discussed (but yet unresolved) problem is how to arrange some transfer of income from the trade winners to offset the income lost by the trade losers, so that all in society can benefit from a more open trading system.
Until this is solved, there will continue to be people opposed to more open trade, not out of ignorance but because trade imposes very real, concrete losses on them.
Ignoring the social conflict inherent to trade issues leaves us with incomplete analysis and possibly unjust policies.
— Richard Lotspeich
Department of Economics
Indiana State University
Health care reform still badly needed
Health care reform may have lost Tom Daschle, but thousands of Hoosiers still demand real change.
Former Sen. Tom Daschle’s withdrawal from the nomination for secretary of Health and Human Services and director of Health Care Reform in the White House is seen as a blow to the health care reform that President Obama campaigned on. But as the president’s spokesperson said, the health care problem in this country is bigger than any one person, even Tom Daschle.
We are a growing national movement. A grassroots movement in Indiana has been building since last summer to fight for real health care reform, and will not be set back by this recent announcement. Health care reform is bigger than one person, and it will take all of us to make health care reform a reality in 2009. This campaign, Health Care for America Now (HCAN), is fighting for a uniquely American solution that gives you real choice and a guarantee of quality coverage you can afford.
On a national level these health care reform principles are supported by President Obama and more than 175 members of the 111th Congress. In Indiana, we are led by Central Indiana Jobs with Justice, and have formed a grassroots movement of students, community organizations, faith based groups, people of color, seniors, women’s groups and labor unions, and we’re growing everyday.
Together we can win in 2009. Hoosiers know it’s getting tougher to get good, affordable health care no matter how hard we work. Even if we take responsibility for ourselves and our families and make good choices, there is still no guarantee we will get what we pay for. We need an American solution to the health care crisis now. Across the country, we are asking Members of Congress to join with President Obama and support quality, affordable health care we all can count on in 2009.
Americans know it’s getting tougher to get good, affordable health care no matter how hard we work. Even if we take responsibility for ourselves and our families and make good choices, there is still no guarantee we will get what we pay for.
Here’s what we’re fighting for.
Coverage you can afford:
• Health coverage that is affordable for every person, family, and business.
• Coverage with premiums and out-of-pocket costs based on your ability to pay.
• Government acts as a watchdog, setting and enforcing rules so private insurance companies can’t deny coverage or raise rates based on health history, age, or gender.
Comprehensive benefits you can count on:
• Standard, comprehensive health care benefits that meet your needs from preventative to chronic care.
• Low out-of-pocket costs (like co-pays) so you can afford to get medical care when you need it.
• Choice of doctors and hospitals.
Choice of Private or Public Health Insurance Plan:
• Keep your current private insurance plan or join a new public health insurance plan.
• The choice of a new public health insurance plan is a guaranteed backup that will always be there to ensure quality, affordable health care coverage no matter what.
Equal access to quality care:
• Equity in health care access, treatment, research, and resources to people and communities of color and strengthen health services in low-income communities.
One thing is crystal clear: If we want health reform that works for us, we cannot trust the health insurance industry’s so called “reform proposals” that put their profits before our health. We need comprehensive reform that includes the choice of a public health insurance plan so we’re no longer at the mercy of the private insurance companies and our health care needs come first. We must hold Congress and President Obama accountable for the health care reform we’re demanding.
— Allison Luthe
Community Organizer
Central Indiana Jobs with Justice
Indianapolis
So far, this is not ‘change’ we need
This is in response to a follow-up letter by Chuck Pattenaude regarding his comments to Al Morrison’s letter:
My first statement is that I don’t recall what Mr. Morrison wrote but feel that I can certainly respond to the “narrow minded” and “We can’t do any worse than the last eight years” statements spewed by Mr. Pattenaude.
As of today, President Obama has been in position for 11 days and I can say with great disappointment that I’m just stunned. Let’s take a look at what has transpired thus far.
Penning the closing of a facility (Guantanamo Prison) without any plan on how that is going to happen is ridiculous. There has been plenty of time to formulate a plan and then tell us exactly what that plan is. We don’t need an execution of a campaign promise that is incomplete and poorly thought out. Leaving the door open to “CHANGE” his mind is not decisive or prudent.
Signing an executive order regarding lobbyists and have not only the president ignore it but also the new secretary of the Treasury too? I realize that this order is to only “limit” but to jump all over it immediately is a joke. Sounds like the old saying “do as I say and not as I do”. That doesn’t seem to fit “CHANGE”.
How about trying to shove down the throats of taxpayers a so-called stimulus package? This looks like a Nancy Pelosi shopping spree bent on creating huge debts. These are debts that we cannot afford. For President Obama to act as if he wasn’t aware of what this plan contained flies in the face of his promise to go line by line and eliminate wasteful spending. Pork, earmarks and ignorance all sound like “Same old same old”. We appreciate the “change” on that one.
What about his cabinet choices? One should surround themselves with good and successful people. So what were his choices? Nominating Bill Richardson for the Commerce secretary position who withdrew because of legal problems which were known. Tim Geitner for secretary of the Treasury who had IRS tax issues and was fully aware of it (I’m not buying that it was a regrettable mistake). His responsibilities include the IRS. Hillary Clinton, I won’t even go there. And now, Tom Daschle who has his own tax problems. When will we stop tolerating poor behavior and what assurances do we have they won’t continue? Not very good vetting at all on these choices and once again it raises questions about the president’s decision making.
What of this sneaky ploy to seat a Republican senator from New Hampshire knowing full well that the state’s governor is a Democrat and would replace the senator with a Democrat thereby giving them control of the Senate. Don’t tell us this is all about bipartisanship. Being sneaky and manipulative is not the type of “change” we need either.
How about an executive order to prohibit torture and that we will follow the regulations set forth in the Army field manual. Of course, no mention of how this will effect “all” agencies. We reserve the right to keep some of our options under wraps. We’ll call that “saying one thing but meaning another”. We are dealing with people that will cut your head off without a second thought and you want to give them a reason to not fear you. I certainly know that is not “change” I can agree with when it undermines the security of our country and its people.
Don’t sit there and condemn the policies that provide you the freedom and protection by which you live under. I am not aware of any individual that has died from torture or that it was ever their intent to kill the individual receiving the torture.
I could go on but I feel that this highlights enough. Some of us have not gotten caught up in the celebrity aspects of this new administration nor do we have a blind following that doesn’t see what’s going on here. Saying one thing and then doing another is hypocrisy and I see nothing here that constitutes “change”.
Do I want President Obama to fail in his responsibilities; absolutely not. But don’t criticize the past eight years when you have yet to see what the next four years will bring us. I often hear people say that it can’t get any worse, but guess what, it can and it will with this kind of “change."
— Jim Bloom
Terre Haute
Indiana is suffering under Gov. Daniels
This letter is about politics concerning the governor of our great state of Indiana.
The good thing is that after the first few days in January 2013, we won’t have to put up with Mr. Major Moves after that. The bad news is we will have to put up with this Bozo for four more lousy years.
So far this guy has leased or sold our toll road to a foreign country, raised taxes on tobacco, got his all-day kindergarten, wanted to privatize the lottery, got his daylight-savings time, invented his H.I.P., and Inshape program, eats at some hick-town restaurant so he could persuade the rural folks to vote for him and most likely did. He stayed overnight at some farm house to make the farm people think he’s all for them. Don’t forget he privatized welfare.
Four more years of this guy’s lies? I can’t believe that this guy got voted back in after all the garbage this guy’s put on this state.
And look what he’s doing now, cutting spending for higher education and state agencies while keeping schools and public safety programs near previous funding levels. The cuts may be painful, Mr. Major Moves said, but they are needed. Means a lot of agencies would get less cash.
Mr. Moves said the state would protect the $1.4 billion it has in its main checking account and reserves, in case the economy gets even worse, and the budget would be balanced without accounting gimmicks or tax increases, he said.
But Democrats say Mr. Moves’ proposal lacks a key component needed to rescue the state from recession — jobs. Too bad this guy doesn’t give the lawmakers a good reason to impeach him for doing something he’s not supposed to.
I hope the next governor is actually for the people and the state and not just for himself or herself.
I’m getting sick of these bureaucrats putting the tobacco companies down, but you never hear any of them putting the breweries down.
This is it for this letter, but I plan on writing at least two more letters, one about the local Chamber of Commerce. Don’t worry, I won’t be bashing them, as one guy put in a letter, and the next one will be about cell phones and cable TV, providing this letter, if they decide to publish it, gets published soon.
By the way, Mitch (Major Moves) Daniels is the worst governor this state’s ever had.
— John Weddle
Brazil
Of implications and explanations
I appreciate Jim Hughes responding to my letter printed Feb. 8. Before answering, I will explain my letter in which I related three shocking discoveries.
First, ethanol in gasoline acts as if it has an energy content of zero. We have all seen alcohol on fire or a flambeyd food and know it must have some energy. Readers may question Consumer Reports on their results.
Secondly, I mentioned the test for HIV has a very high false positive rate. (Now, I do not even believe there is an HIV virus but we all know the test “they” say “they” perform is for the HIV antibodies. They test for 20 proteins and if three are positive, “they” have a positive HIV test. That’s U.S., in some European countries the criterion is four positive proteins. Four positive proteins needed would, I guess, produce less false positives.) To many readers it may be shocking to hear of state legislators forcing many healthy persons to take possibly harmful treatment.
A third discovery was that the exalted positions of dairy and meat were found to be sacred cows (yes, pun intended). More vegetables in our diet seem to be called for. This is shocking for some.
Mr. Hughes has problems with my stating perhaps a fourth shocking fact. This is that “… education professionals do not have to disclose payment from companies whose products they are testing.” I do not dispute the assertions by Mr. Hughes that universities and his journal require disclosure statements. One source in the food question, T. Colin Campbell, author of “The China Study”, has found problems with research and disclosures. I believe Mr. Campbell is alive and retired.
If I implied education professionals don’t ever have to disclose payment, I apologize.
— Ed Gluck
Terre Haute
|
|
Print this story
E-mail this story
