Over the years I have often noted the air of unreality that surrounds most liberal policy proposals. They often boil down to government action surrounded by wishful thinking with not a clue as to what the consequences will be. Obamacare is a culmination of this mentality. John Hinderaker at Powerblog gives us another prime example:
I have written that on the Left, a “wonk” is any liberal who can multiply and divide. But liberals often trip over even that low threshold. Take, for example, this piece by Norman Ornstein in National Journal. Ornstein–a friend, former colleague at AEI and occasional debating opponent of Steve Hayward–proposes a modest solution to the problem of economic inequality and the declining fortunes of America’s middle class:
The first iteration of KidSave, in simple terms, was this: Each year, for every one of the 4 million newborns in America, the federal government would put $1,000 in a designated savings account. The payment would be financed by using 1 percent of annual payroll-tax revenues. Then, for the first five years of a child’s life, the $500 child tax credit would be added to that account, with a subsidy for poor people who pay no income [tax]. The accounts would be administered the same way as the federal employees’ Thrift Savings Plan, with three options—low-, medium-, and high-risk—using broad-based stock and bond funds. Under the initial KidSave proposal, the funds could not be withdrawn until age 65, when, through the miracle of compound interest, they would represent a hefty nest egg. At 5 percent annual growth, an individual would have almost $700,000. …
Imagine if we adjusted the KidSave rules so that at certain pivot points in life, individuals could withdraw a portion of their nest egg to pay for college expenses or a down payment on a house or a medical or other emergency, or even the creation of a small business, while still making sure that a substantial share of the funds would stay in a retirement account. We could ameliorate many of the problems facing hard-pressed middle-class and working-class families and encourage entrepreneurship, while protecting a major nest egg for retirement years.
So let’s get this straight: you give a kid $3,500, and in 60 years, at 5%, he has $700,000? Ornstein refers to “the miracle of compound interest,” but this would be a miracle more akin to that of the loaves and fishes. A reader who is an expert in finance corrects the math:
Ornstein states that inequality can be alleviated through this mechanism because “…through the miracle of compound interest, they would represent a hefty nest egg. At 5 percent annual growth [sic], an individual would have almost $700,000.” [emphasis added]
Now this struck me as highly implausible for a very simple reason. It was immediately and intuitively apparent to me that the numbers were — not slightly, not somewhat, not arguably — but wildly inaccurate. Anyone who has ever done even a bit of bond or loan math would, without any calculation, also immediately know that $1000+$500*5 (about $4,200 at 5%) over 60 years could not possibly accumulate to “almost $700,000” at “5% annual growth [sic]”. I calculated that with a 5% annual rate of return, even compounded continuously, the funds accumulate to only about $84,000, not even close: off by a factor of more than 8 times! In fact, it would require a 9% annual rate of return, 80% greater than assumed, compounded continuously, to accumulate $700,000. (It took about 30 seconds to run these numbers.)
This is not a trivial mistake like a proofreading oversight, or a quibble about arcane calculations or analysis. It is a major error, a fundamental misconception, and not incidental to the main point: it has the effect of completely undermining the entire proposal! An average freshman majoring in business at a middling university after about 5 weeks wouldn’t make such an obvious and fundamental error! And yet not only did Ornstein base his proposal on such an embarrassing mistake but apparently NO ONE at the National Journal in an editorial role had the wit to see such a laughably obvious problem with the argument.
I don’t mean to single out Ornstein. I think the point is more about the MSM incompetence and New Class pretensions of intellectual and moral entitlement to rule. We should keep this (admittedly egregious) example in mind whenever we read the standard MSM formulation, as parodied by Mickey Kaus, purporting to support a liberal proposal on supposedly objective, rational well-informed opinion: “growing numbers of experts say that studies show that…blah, blah, blah…”
Note, too, that for Ornstein’s proposal to mean what he thinks it means, the 5% has to be a real rate of return. I am no finance guy, but it was immediately obvious to me that Ornstein’s numbers are ridiculous. If you could turn $3,500 into $700,000 in 60 years at 5%, I wouldn’t be practicing law these days. As Rocky said to his two goldfish, “If you guys could sing and dance, I wouldn’t be doin’ this.” Money, unfortunately, does not sing and dance as hypothesized by Ornstein. Continue reading
In the face of an ever-emerging “culture of death,” the ancient truth that death is a mystery and not a “problem” is needed more than ever. To designate death as a problem implicitly suggests a need for a remedy, which underlines the modern assumption of possession of the resources necessary to exercise technical mastery over the “problem”—in this case, death. The predominance of the technical solution over the respectful awe rightly due in the face of something greater than us puts mankind in quite a predicament.
The Church, as Pope John Paul II attentively reminded us in Redemptor Hominis, is the guardian of transcendence. This image of the Church is particular fitting in dealing with complex ethical questions of life and death. In recent times, the very mystery of death—real death—has been debated extensively as it relates to the theory of “brain death,” which is effectively interrelated to ethical questions regarding organ donation.
Catholics see death in the light of divine revelation. Death, the fruit of original sin, now exists as the means by which we participate in the Passover of Our Lord, passing from death into new life. Death is not the end of our human existence; to say otherwise would be an embrace of the fallacious pagan trap of modern philosophical thought overflowing with agnostic existential anxiety over this very unsettling question.
Modern technology has profound moral implications, both for good and for evil. This is manifestly clear in the ongoing scientific and public debate concerning human stem cell research. To say the least, stem cells have revolutionized the field of regenerative medicine and the course of its future. Stem cells have the remarkable potential to provide therapies to treat Parkinson’s, Huntington’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, as well as spinal cord injuries, damaged heart tissue, cancers and a host of other illnesses. Continue reading