Thanking Mike Rosen

I suppose we should all be grateful to Mike Rosen for his eagerness to educate his frequently confused readers. A few weeks ago he enlightened teachers about the fine points of free market economics ("Teaching teachers about pay," The Denver Post, March 17, 2010) and just today he offered a lesson about the business world ("Meaning of laissez faire," The Denver Post, April 8, 2010) You can tell how the need for these little lessons frustrate poor Mike by some of the word choices he uses. He laments "dunderheaded" legislation "pouring" out of the Democratic legislature. He demeans a "self-described executive" who had a hard time following Rosen's argument in a March 25 column ("Democrats against business").

Rosen goes on to relate how he explained to the "confused businessman" the logic behind his argument. He ended this little story by concluding that "The confused businessman must be a Democrat." Honestly, how does Mr. Rosen manage to put up with all this confusion from his dull minded (Read: Democratic) readers?

I'm going to put myself in harm's way by admitting that I frequently am at a loss after plowing through Rosen's ad hominem arguments. I would prefer it if he would resort to facts rather than name calling when putting forth his opinions and puzzling conclusions.

For instance, he explained to the "confused businessman" above that the work sharing program laid out in Senate Bill 28 would cost the state more than the alternative: simply laying off a smaller number of workers. Why? Because the couple of people who might be laid off without the bill and paid unemployment insurance would have an incentive to quickly find new jobs to replace their lost pay, while the 20 or so workers who would get less hours and less pay in the job sharing proposed by SB 28 would presumably have little incentive to find better paying jobs with a full work week. That may or may not be true, but the fact that I am less than convinced by this argument doesn't make me a dunderhead. It just makes me someone who would like to hear arguments couched in data and statistics rather than conservative talking points.

Rosen also states as fact that under a work sharing program, an employer would be getting fewer hours and less productivity from his best workers. But in a world without SB 28 the lucky employer could just lay off his "least-efficient" workers (you know, the ones Rosen alludes to earlier who would have an incentive to go out and get another job), thereby insuring the quality of his product. This also might be true. It also might be a crock. My problem with Rosen (my problem with all conservative pundits) is that he writes and talks as if he was the incontestable bearer of meaning on whatever subject he happens to be analyzing. Since he apparently has no data to back himself up, has it ever occurred to Mr. Rosen that he might be wrong and SB 28 might be just what the doctor ordered? An admission like that would make a column I would love to read.

He makes other assertions that lose me. The problem with Democrats he says is that they believe they can save the economy by meddling with it. This is crazy he asserts because an "international market economy . . . is far too complicated for any collection of bureaucrats to understand or control." That might be so, but then who is able to understand and/or control it? Even Mr. Rosen would have to agree, (well, maybe not) that the laissez faire thinking deregulation bred in our market economy the last decade or more didn't work. Does he really think that more of the same is the way to go?

He ends his argument with two points, one a complete fiction, the other a refusal to face reality. His fiction says that by spending hundreds of billions of dollars and accumulating trillions in debt, Obama and the Democrats have accomplished "pitifully little." I have two problems with that statement. First, the idea that Obama and the Democrats (sounds like a great punk band) are solely responsible for the economic spot our country is in is patently absurd. Second, for every economist who thinks "pitifully little" has been accomplished I can supply two who assert the opposite and credit Obama and the Democrats with saving the economy.

His second point is that as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Colorado's Tri-County Health Department spent $10.5 million to promote "healthy eating and physical activity." Rosen loudly asserts that one would have to be crazy to believe that spending money on health concerns would have any appreciable effect on our economy. Well Mike, put me down for not being in my right mind. I think it was $10.5 million wisely spent. By the way, scores of doctors and economists agree with me.

I can't wait for your next piece. I love being educated.