As documented by Americans for Tax Reform, here are 18 of Senator Reid's tax hikes within H.R. 3590 with bill section and estimated cost. Which ones will cost you in terms of dollars or quality of service?
1) Individual Mandate Tax (Sec. 1501/$8 billion)
2) Employer Mandate Tax (Sec. 1513/$28 billion) - My boss chooses not to insure his employees, so YES.
3) Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Sec. 9001/$149.1 billion)
4) Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Sec. 9002/Min$)
5) Medicine Cabinet Tax (Sec. 9003/$5 billion)
6) HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Sec. 9004/$1.3 billion)
7) FSA Cap (Sec. 9005/$14.6 billion)
8) Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting tax (Sec. 9006/$17.1 billion)
9) Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Sec. 9007/Min$)
10) Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Sec. 9008/$22.2 billion)
11) Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Sec. 9009/$19.3 billion)
12) Tax on Health Insurers (Sec. 9010/$60.4 billion)
13) Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Sec. 9012/$5.4 billion)
14) Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Sec. 9013/$15.2 billion) - I've been doing so for years since I pay so much out of pocket, so YES.
15) $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Sec. 9014/$0.6 billion)
16) Hike in the Medicare Payroll Tax (Sec. 9015/$53.8 billion) - All workers pay this one, so YES.
17) Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Sec. 9016/$0.4 billion) - This is my new insurer, so YES.
18) Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Sec. 9017/$5.8 billion)
Taxes also stifle innovation and investment, so eventually all of these will affect us indirectly. Why should I support a bill that takes more money out of my pocket and leaves less for service to others from the heart? The federal government is there in very limited ways to serve us...not the other way around. Recent polls indicate a similar sentiment across the fruited plain. Does that matter to Reid et al?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Stable climate equals peace?
The black portions are a response to an article from the Heritage Foundation criticizing the President's (or teleprompter's) linking climate change and peace in his Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech. The red is my response.
"It is perception such as what is in this article that holds this world back from achieving peace, comfort for ALL classes, and progress for ALL countries."
So, if the world take steps to end climate change, which is constant, the world would have peace, all classes would be comfortable and all countries would enjoy progress? Even if man through his use of fossil fuels is causing more climate change now than ever, man was still warring against man, fewer classes were comfortable (royalty only?) and fewer countries were enjoying progress before his use of them. I do not contend that there has been less war since the industrial age, but can anyone honestly say that fewer people live better lives now than before the dawn of that age? It's certainly not equal, but it's better for those industrialized nations.
"Unbelievable…the only act that takes hope away is the act of ignorance and intolerance."
The President seems to be ignoring the science on climate change, that that big ball of fire some 8 million miles away has more to do with it than CO2 and that changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature, and the fallout of Climategate, indicating the peddlers of the theory ignored conflicting data, and he is intolerant of the views of thousands of scientists who question the theory of man-made climate change. For someone who won his office on the concept of "hope", are these acts of ignorance and intolerance now taking it away?
"No one is talking about preventing natural disasters. The problem is what our entrepreneurs are doing to the environment with their polluting factories and vehicles. Your President is talking about the reckless use of fossil fuels. Companies need to be held accountable for the damage they release into the atmosphere."
Their polluting factories and vehicles? Does this lady not benefit from the products of those factories or even drive a car? Who made the computer upon which she blogs? Who made the materials for the house in which she lives? Who made the food she eats? Who made the drugs she takes? Who made the car, even if it's a hybrid, that she drives?
The reckless use of fossil fuels is what Saddam Hussein did when he set Kuwaiti oilfields on fire, not people driving their cars to work to make a living. Is there any use of fossil fuels that would not qualify as reckless by this President?
I'm assuming that the "damage" to which she refers is CO2 as that is the topic of discussion at the Copenhagen climate summit. If we hold companies accountable for CO2, then we need to hold people and animals accountable for their CO2. Who will enforce that, and worse yet how will they enforce that? I also think that plants might object since they seem to like CO2.
"As for a “wealth reducer”, wealth is what it comes down to cease progress for the betterment of all man-kind, isn’t it: Money for the upper-class. Doesn’t anyone get it? It’s not about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do. It’s about the health and welfare of ALL people and the world that we reside in."
The article contends that if climate change laws are enacted and enforced, wealth will be reduced. The proponents of said laws claim they are doing it for the health and welfare of mankind. That sounds good, but I contend that it is about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do...that is the bureaucrats and politicians at the UN, EU and here at home. They all witnessed Algore enrich himself peddling man-caused climate change. Why can't they do it too?
"This President gives hope that there will be change, if America can squash it’s old selfish ways."
America like every other country has selfish people for sure, but America like few other countries has a free people, free to overwhelmingly respond to natural disasters at home (New Orleans hurricane and flooding) and around the world (Pakistan earthquake, Indonesian tsunami) with their wealth without even the government's suggestion, prodding or laws. The accumulation of wealth is not an indication of selfishness. They can certainly go hand-in-hand. St. Nicholas was born into wealth, but he gave it all away...by his choice, not the forceful hand of government. We are the most generous nation on earth because we have so much.
"It is perception such as what is in this article that holds this world back from achieving peace, comfort for ALL classes, and progress for ALL countries."
So, if the world take steps to end climate change, which is constant, the world would have peace, all classes would be comfortable and all countries would enjoy progress? Even if man through his use of fossil fuels is causing more climate change now than ever, man was still warring against man, fewer classes were comfortable (royalty only?) and fewer countries were enjoying progress before his use of them. I do not contend that there has been less war since the industrial age, but can anyone honestly say that fewer people live better lives now than before the dawn of that age? It's certainly not equal, but it's better for those industrialized nations.
"Unbelievable…the only act that takes hope away is the act of ignorance and intolerance."
The President seems to be ignoring the science on climate change, that that big ball of fire some 8 million miles away has more to do with it than CO2 and that changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature, and the fallout of Climategate, indicating the peddlers of the theory ignored conflicting data, and he is intolerant of the views of thousands of scientists who question the theory of man-made climate change. For someone who won his office on the concept of "hope", are these acts of ignorance and intolerance now taking it away?
"No one is talking about preventing natural disasters. The problem is what our entrepreneurs are doing to the environment with their polluting factories and vehicles. Your President is talking about the reckless use of fossil fuels. Companies need to be held accountable for the damage they release into the atmosphere."
Their polluting factories and vehicles? Does this lady not benefit from the products of those factories or even drive a car? Who made the computer upon which she blogs? Who made the materials for the house in which she lives? Who made the food she eats? Who made the drugs she takes? Who made the car, even if it's a hybrid, that she drives?
The reckless use of fossil fuels is what Saddam Hussein did when he set Kuwaiti oilfields on fire, not people driving their cars to work to make a living. Is there any use of fossil fuels that would not qualify as reckless by this President?
I'm assuming that the "damage" to which she refers is CO2 as that is the topic of discussion at the Copenhagen climate summit. If we hold companies accountable for CO2, then we need to hold people and animals accountable for their CO2. Who will enforce that, and worse yet how will they enforce that? I also think that plants might object since they seem to like CO2.
"As for a “wealth reducer”, wealth is what it comes down to cease progress for the betterment of all man-kind, isn’t it: Money for the upper-class. Doesn’t anyone get it? It’s not about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do. It’s about the health and welfare of ALL people and the world that we reside in."
The article contends that if climate change laws are enacted and enforced, wealth will be reduced. The proponents of said laws claim they are doing it for the health and welfare of mankind. That sounds good, but I contend that it is about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do...that is the bureaucrats and politicians at the UN, EU and here at home. They all witnessed Algore enrich himself peddling man-caused climate change. Why can't they do it too?
"This President gives hope that there will be change, if America can squash it’s old selfish ways."
America like every other country has selfish people for sure, but America like few other countries has a free people, free to overwhelmingly respond to natural disasters at home (New Orleans hurricane and flooding) and around the world (Pakistan earthquake, Indonesian tsunami) with their wealth without even the government's suggestion, prodding or laws. The accumulation of wealth is not an indication of selfishness. They can certainly go hand-in-hand. St. Nicholas was born into wealth, but he gave it all away...by his choice, not the forceful hand of government. We are the most generous nation on earth because we have so much.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Paying the bills
An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000,” could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
I wish I can say that $40 billion for an Afghanistan troop surge sounds like a lot of money, but after the $700 billion TARP bill last fall, the $787 billion stimulus bill in February, the $400 billion omnibus bill in the spring and the record $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2008-2009 fiscal year as well as the looming $800+ billion climate change bill, the looming $800+ billion health care reform bill and the $12+ trillion debt, $40 billion is peanuts. I'm happy to hear that the senator is concerned with increasing the federal debt load, but isn't it a little too late for fiscal responsibility? Does the cliche "stepping over a dime to save a penny" come to mind?
Unemployment is already high; raising their taxes won't help. What concerns me more is that eventually someone will have to pay for all of these new bills and programs, as well as the old existing ones, and the politicians will need more than just these wealthy taxpayers to do it. Will there come a day when we will be forced to turn over all of our wealth to them? If so, we will be slaves of the state.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
I wish I can say that $40 billion for an Afghanistan troop surge sounds like a lot of money, but after the $700 billion TARP bill last fall, the $787 billion stimulus bill in February, the $400 billion omnibus bill in the spring and the record $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2008-2009 fiscal year as well as the looming $800+ billion climate change bill, the looming $800+ billion health care reform bill and the $12+ trillion debt, $40 billion is peanuts. I'm happy to hear that the senator is concerned with increasing the federal debt load, but isn't it a little too late for fiscal responsibility? Does the cliche "stepping over a dime to save a penny" come to mind?
Unemployment is already high; raising their taxes won't help. What concerns me more is that eventually someone will have to pay for all of these new bills and programs, as well as the old existing ones, and the politicians will need more than just these wealthy taxpayers to do it. Will there come a day when we will be forced to turn over all of our wealth to them? If so, we will be slaves of the state.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Here's a question for you. Who said in so many words the best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it...Ronald Reagan or Hugo Chavez? Would you believe both?
Reagan is credited with saying, "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace."
Bloomberg reported in a November 8, 2009 news article, “Generals of the armed forces, the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one,” Chavez said in comments on state television during his weekly “Alo Presidente” program.
Were they both right or both wrong? Reagan was not satisfied with the status quo U.S.-Soviet relationship of MAD and detente. He promoted a stronger defensive position that ultimately led to the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall which happened twenty years ago today. Was there an ensuing peace with the Soviet Union? Do we still have it two decades later?
The U.S. agreement with Colombia, giving American troops access to seven Colombian bases is part of an effort to “strengthen and increase ties with countries in the region,” Robin Holzhauer, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, said by telephone. “We’ve done that with governments who want to have partnerships with us.” Colombia has said the agreement would help combat drug trafficking. Apparently, Chavez isn't buying it.
How much can nations increase their defenses without planting seeds of war in the minds of their neighbors? Will this U.S. agreement with Colombia start another mini-detente with Venezuela?
Reagan is credited with saying, "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace."
Bloomberg reported in a November 8, 2009 news article, “Generals of the armed forces, the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one,” Chavez said in comments on state television during his weekly “Alo Presidente” program.
Were they both right or both wrong? Reagan was not satisfied with the status quo U.S.-Soviet relationship of MAD and detente. He promoted a stronger defensive position that ultimately led to the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall which happened twenty years ago today. Was there an ensuing peace with the Soviet Union? Do we still have it two decades later?
The U.S. agreement with Colombia, giving American troops access to seven Colombian bases is part of an effort to “strengthen and increase ties with countries in the region,” Robin Holzhauer, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, said by telephone. “We’ve done that with governments who want to have partnerships with us.” Colombia has said the agreement would help combat drug trafficking. Apparently, Chavez isn't buying it.
How much can nations increase their defenses without planting seeds of war in the minds of their neighbors? Will this U.S. agreement with Colombia start another mini-detente with Venezuela?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Recessions & unemployment
I enjoyed the irony from today's AP.
"The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher. Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended."
Apparently ended? How do those newly unemployed people feel about the apparent end of the worst recession since the Great Depression? Is it even the worst recession since the Great Depression?
One of the rule-of-thumb definitions of a recession is two consecutive down quarters of GDP; by that definition the current recession started in the fourth quarter of 2007 which is not in dispute. If you assume that a recession ends after two consecutive up quarters of GDP, as AP apparently does, then we are "out of the woods" so to speak because the first, second and third quarters of this year saw changes in GDP of -6.4%, -0.7% and +3.5%, respectively; the last two quarters are "up".
While 3.5% is historically strong and -0.7% is a big shift in the right direction from -6.4%, it is driven primarily by private investment, namely residential investment which grew at 23.4% in the third quarter of 2009. This is probably due to a large number of people buying homes that were overpriced for years and the first time homebuyers tax credit. As the price of anything falls, more of it is purchased. However, this same residential investment figure had been negative (an average of -20%!) from the first quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2009. Wouldn't it be good to see a few more consecutive up, if not positive, quarters of residential investment specifically, private investment generally, private consumption and overall GDP before we conclude that the recession is over? (Government investment and consumption also factors into GDP, but what it invests and consumes must first be taken from the private sector.)
Also, if this is the worst recession since the Great Depression, then what was the 1983 recession? In 1983, unemployment was just as high and reached even higher (10.8%) before trending back, and inflation and interest rates were much higher then too (10.3% & 21.5%). Shouldn't we wait for numbers similar to or higher than these before we say that this recession was the worst? Well, since it's apparently over now, I guess it was not the worst recession.
Furthermore, "Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season. President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the [$24 billion]legislation."
Do these people realize that this is essentially a loan...and a buyoff? They probably do not know or don't care, but I bet Congress does. This President and Congress have already spent $1.4 trillion more this year alone than has been taken into the treasury. Since they don't have the money now, it must be borrowed or printed. Who has to pay back this loan or deal with the inflation down the road? The same people getting the "benefits" and their children will pay it back. Congress also has to keep the electorate happy at least until next November.
If the recession is over and unemployment remains high, then is this not a jobless recovery similar to the one over which Bush presided in his first term? Hiring usually lags behind GDP growth and that played out after the last recession. Will a similar recovery occur now?
"The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher. Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended."
Apparently ended? How do those newly unemployed people feel about the apparent end of the worst recession since the Great Depression? Is it even the worst recession since the Great Depression?
One of the rule-of-thumb definitions of a recession is two consecutive down quarters of GDP; by that definition the current recession started in the fourth quarter of 2007 which is not in dispute. If you assume that a recession ends after two consecutive up quarters of GDP, as AP apparently does, then we are "out of the woods" so to speak because the first, second and third quarters of this year saw changes in GDP of -6.4%, -0.7% and +3.5%, respectively; the last two quarters are "up".
While 3.5% is historically strong and -0.7% is a big shift in the right direction from -6.4%, it is driven primarily by private investment, namely residential investment which grew at 23.4% in the third quarter of 2009. This is probably due to a large number of people buying homes that were overpriced for years and the first time homebuyers tax credit. As the price of anything falls, more of it is purchased. However, this same residential investment figure had been negative (an average of -20%!) from the first quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2009. Wouldn't it be good to see a few more consecutive up, if not positive, quarters of residential investment specifically, private investment generally, private consumption and overall GDP before we conclude that the recession is over? (Government investment and consumption also factors into GDP, but what it invests and consumes must first be taken from the private sector.)
Also, if this is the worst recession since the Great Depression, then what was the 1983 recession? In 1983, unemployment was just as high and reached even higher (10.8%) before trending back, and inflation and interest rates were much higher then too (10.3% & 21.5%). Shouldn't we wait for numbers similar to or higher than these before we say that this recession was the worst? Well, since it's apparently over now, I guess it was not the worst recession.
Furthermore, "Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season. President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the [$24 billion]legislation."
Do these people realize that this is essentially a loan...and a buyoff? They probably do not know or don't care, but I bet Congress does. This President and Congress have already spent $1.4 trillion more this year alone than has been taken into the treasury. Since they don't have the money now, it must be borrowed or printed. Who has to pay back this loan or deal with the inflation down the road? The same people getting the "benefits" and their children will pay it back. Congress also has to keep the electorate happy at least until next November.
If the recession is over and unemployment remains high, then is this not a jobless recovery similar to the one over which Bush presided in his first term? Hiring usually lags behind GDP growth and that played out after the last recession. Will a similar recovery occur now?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Dealing with Iran
Consider the following excerpts from a NYT article dated October 29, 2009.
Mr. Ahmadinejad also suggested that Iran expected Western countries to honor payments for nuclear assistance it made before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran paid more than $1 billion to help build a French reactor in return for access to that reactor’s fuel. After the revolution, France reneged on the contract. “We have nuclear contracts,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said. “It has been 30 years, we have paid for them. Such agreements must be fulfilled.”
and
If Iran’s stated estimate of its stockpile of nuclear fuel is accurate, the deal that was negotiated in Vienna would leave the country with too little fuel to manufacture a weapon until the stockpile was replenished with additional fuel, which Iran is producing in violation of UN Security Council mandates.
So, while Iran's president violates a mandate from the UN, it wants the West to honor its contract with Iran made 30+ years ago. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black or payback for the West's breach of contract?
Mr. Ahmadinejad also suggested that Iran expected Western countries to honor payments for nuclear assistance it made before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran paid more than $1 billion to help build a French reactor in return for access to that reactor’s fuel. After the revolution, France reneged on the contract. “We have nuclear contracts,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said. “It has been 30 years, we have paid for them. Such agreements must be fulfilled.”
and
If Iran’s stated estimate of its stockpile of nuclear fuel is accurate, the deal that was negotiated in Vienna would leave the country with too little fuel to manufacture a weapon until the stockpile was replenished with additional fuel, which Iran is producing in violation of UN Security Council mandates.
So, while Iran's president violates a mandate from the UN, it wants the West to honor its contract with Iran made 30+ years ago. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black or payback for the West's breach of contract?
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Having it both ways?
I'm trying to resolve two seemingly contradictory AP articles regarding the economy. One dated October 20, 2009 is entitled "High jobless rates: The new normal?". The other one dated October 21, 2009 is entitled "Economy recovering in many areas, but not others." A few contradictions seem to exist.
While the former tells us to just get used to higher unemployment and a lower standard of living due mostly to a faltering auto and construction industries, the latter tells us that "pickups in housing and manufacturing activity are leading the budding recovery in most of the country". Economists and policy-makers say the former, and the Federal Reserve board says the latter. I think those two entities need to collaborate. Is the economy getting better or worse? Does the auto industry not comprise a significant part of manufacturing activity? Is the construction industry not primarily driven by housing? Are they improving or not? Is the worst over or yet to come?
The latter article continues to say that the gains in housing spurred on by the first-time homebuyer tax credit could fizzle after that credit expires at the end of November and that factories ramped up production to restock inventories depleted by the now-expired Cash for Clunkers program. So this budding recovery supposedly started by the infusion of government (i.e. taxpayer) money will falter once that money runs out or policies expire or change at their whim.
Does the AP want us to believe that there is just enough life in this economy to keep the same bums in office, but not quite enough life to not let them continue intervening for the "public good"? While government dangles a carrot in front of us, there is a buffet line awaiting us all if they would just leave us alone as the Constitution requires. We the people must hold them to it next November.
While the former tells us to just get used to higher unemployment and a lower standard of living due mostly to a faltering auto and construction industries, the latter tells us that "pickups in housing and manufacturing activity are leading the budding recovery in most of the country". Economists and policy-makers say the former, and the Federal Reserve board says the latter. I think those two entities need to collaborate. Is the economy getting better or worse? Does the auto industry not comprise a significant part of manufacturing activity? Is the construction industry not primarily driven by housing? Are they improving or not? Is the worst over or yet to come?
The latter article continues to say that the gains in housing spurred on by the first-time homebuyer tax credit could fizzle after that credit expires at the end of November and that factories ramped up production to restock inventories depleted by the now-expired Cash for Clunkers program. So this budding recovery supposedly started by the infusion of government (i.e. taxpayer) money will falter once that money runs out or policies expire or change at their whim.
Does the AP want us to believe that there is just enough life in this economy to keep the same bums in office, but not quite enough life to not let them continue intervening for the "public good"? While government dangles a carrot in front of us, there is a buffet line awaiting us all if they would just leave us alone as the Constitution requires. We the people must hold them to it next November.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tax cuts for the rich too!
The GOP recently sent a letter to the President outlining their solution to the increasing unemployment which stands a shade below 10%, the highest rate in 26 years. They outlined six specific proposals with which I agree in principle but failed to go far enough on the following proposal:
"Lower taxes for all taxpayers by reducing the current 15 percent rate to 10 percent and
reducing the current 10 percent rate to 5 percent. This will provide an immediate increase in income to every taxpaying family in America and free up capital to help small businesses hire more workers."
While I applaud tax cuts for people in these brackets, which includes me, how many of them are business owners much less ones that employ people? Low tax bracket people are employees. We may have a little more money to spend, but people in higher tax brackets would have little incentive to expand their businesses, give raises and/or higher more hands.
Those taxpayers in the higher tax brackets, such as my employer, are not specifically mentioned. Is this by design so as not to be asking for too much at once? Did the GOP forget to mention them? Certainly not. Why not be bold and go for the gold? If only these two lower rates are reduced, not every taxpayer will see an increase in income.
The higher tax rates currently stand at 25, 28, 33 & 35%. What will happen when those rates rise to 28, 31, 36 & 39.6%, respectively, in January 2011 when the "Bush tax cuts" expire?
I have heard some media outlets say that the recession is over. Others say it is waning now. Still others say the economy will recover next year. When those tax rates rise at the end of next year, another recession will result as capital is once again tied up in government hands or shifted to more friendly overseas tax environments. Government may expand, but not everyone wants to or can work for them. The public sector can only spend what they first take from the private sector. I believe even the thought of rising tax rates in 2011 will hinder investment now. If you knew of an upcoming increase in expenses, would you upgrade you cable service, buy that new car or higher another employee? Businesses must look years ahead to predict if an investment will payout so that they can stay in business and not layoff anyone.
The letter was signed by the following members of the GOP:
House Republican Leader John Boehner
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor
House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence
House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter
House Republican Conference Vice Chairman Cathy McMorris Rogers
House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions
Rules Committee Ranking Republican David Dreier
Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy
Congressman Roy Blunt
Employees should let them know that we want employers to get a tax cut too. The unemployed would do well to do the same if they want to work.
"Lower taxes for all taxpayers by reducing the current 15 percent rate to 10 percent and
reducing the current 10 percent rate to 5 percent. This will provide an immediate increase in income to every taxpaying family in America and free up capital to help small businesses hire more workers."
While I applaud tax cuts for people in these brackets, which includes me, how many of them are business owners much less ones that employ people? Low tax bracket people are employees. We may have a little more money to spend, but people in higher tax brackets would have little incentive to expand their businesses, give raises and/or higher more hands.
Those taxpayers in the higher tax brackets, such as my employer, are not specifically mentioned. Is this by design so as not to be asking for too much at once? Did the GOP forget to mention them? Certainly not. Why not be bold and go for the gold? If only these two lower rates are reduced, not every taxpayer will see an increase in income.
The higher tax rates currently stand at 25, 28, 33 & 35%. What will happen when those rates rise to 28, 31, 36 & 39.6%, respectively, in January 2011 when the "Bush tax cuts" expire?
I have heard some media outlets say that the recession is over. Others say it is waning now. Still others say the economy will recover next year. When those tax rates rise at the end of next year, another recession will result as capital is once again tied up in government hands or shifted to more friendly overseas tax environments. Government may expand, but not everyone wants to or can work for them. The public sector can only spend what they first take from the private sector. I believe even the thought of rising tax rates in 2011 will hinder investment now. If you knew of an upcoming increase in expenses, would you upgrade you cable service, buy that new car or higher another employee? Businesses must look years ahead to predict if an investment will payout so that they can stay in business and not layoff anyone.
The letter was signed by the following members of the GOP:
House Republican Leader John Boehner
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor
House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence
House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter
House Republican Conference Vice Chairman Cathy McMorris Rogers
House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions
Rules Committee Ranking Republican David Dreier
Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy
Congressman Roy Blunt
Employees should let them know that we want employers to get a tax cut too. The unemployed would do well to do the same if they want to work.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Resolutions
The United Nations Security Council recently passed a unanimous resolution calling for the world-wide end of nuclear weapons. That sounds wonderful. I hope it happens. It begs a few questions though.
Who will enforce it, and how will it be enforced? There were 14 resolutions over a decade's time essentially demanding that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "come clean" with his WMD. It took a small coalition of countries, including only two of the five permanent security council members (U.S. and U.K.), acting outside of the blessing of the U.N., to enforce those resolutions and ultimately discover that there was either not an imminent WMD program and threat or that it was secretly moved out of Iraq before the invasion in March 2003.
Did all countries possessing nuclear weapons vote for it? Yes and no. All of those countries on the council did so, but there are at least five other countries not on the council that possess, or are on the verge of possessing, nuclear weapons. These five countries are India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and North Korea. I would surmise that the former three, if council members, would have voted no since they have not even signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which they would give more consideration and should have more weight in a court than a resolution.
The latter two are not on the council, have not signed the treaty and are open about their intentions to fully develop those weapons or programs. In fact, one member of this council (U.S.) failed to get two other members of this council (China and Russia) to cite these latter two countries by name in this resolution.
What good is this resolution if its members could not enforce a less contentious resolution years ago? What good is this resolution if non-members possess nuclear weapons and have no intention of disarming or worse yet plan to accelerate the programs already in place? Will this resolution be just one more in a long line of "all talk and no walk"? Even children quickly discover that as long as they go punished for wrongdoing they are emboldened to continue in it.
Who will enforce it, and how will it be enforced? There were 14 resolutions over a decade's time essentially demanding that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "come clean" with his WMD. It took a small coalition of countries, including only two of the five permanent security council members (U.S. and U.K.), acting outside of the blessing of the U.N., to enforce those resolutions and ultimately discover that there was either not an imminent WMD program and threat or that it was secretly moved out of Iraq before the invasion in March 2003.
Did all countries possessing nuclear weapons vote for it? Yes and no. All of those countries on the council did so, but there are at least five other countries not on the council that possess, or are on the verge of possessing, nuclear weapons. These five countries are India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and North Korea. I would surmise that the former three, if council members, would have voted no since they have not even signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which they would give more consideration and should have more weight in a court than a resolution.
The latter two are not on the council, have not signed the treaty and are open about their intentions to fully develop those weapons or programs. In fact, one member of this council (U.S.) failed to get two other members of this council (China and Russia) to cite these latter two countries by name in this resolution.
What good is this resolution if its members could not enforce a less contentious resolution years ago? What good is this resolution if non-members possess nuclear weapons and have no intention of disarming or worse yet plan to accelerate the programs already in place? Will this resolution be just one more in a long line of "all talk and no walk"? Even children quickly discover that as long as they go punished for wrongdoing they are emboldened to continue in it.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
In defense of private solutions
From time to time I come across a local issue that perks my interest. An article on the front page of the Times Record News today reported that the owners of the local Castaway Cove water park would like the city to assume ownership. I could not disagree more with this idea.
This water park was built shortly after I arrived here in Wichita Falls over six years ago and opened in June 2004. Somehow, the owners have accrued over $4 million in debt despite annual gross revenue of $1.4 million. The article did not comment on their expenses or net revenue which I assume is negative since they want the city to assume its ownership. Why sell something that is generating profit?
The article also states that despite a total investment of $8 million over the past five years the property is valued at $10 million. So what's the problem? Why not put it on the open market for another individual or private entity to buy? Maybe this is too simple, but consider an offer of $5 million...the current owners could pay off their $4 million debt with change to spare, and the new owners would acquire it at half of market value. Why go to the city first?
One reason for the city-first option may be the short fuse; the owners say they will have to permanently close the park after it closes for the summer on Sunday September 13th. Are the owners not essentially looking for a bailout? Hmmm...where would they get the idea that the government could bail them out? The city recently made plans to take a federal grant to beef up our police force. Could it also be that much larger companies such as GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc., when faced with financial ruin, went straight to easy money Uncle Sam instead of the harsh but efficient open market via bankruptcy?
The last column of the article details how much of an asset this park is to the city in terms of attracting local residents, both civilians and military from Sheppard AFB, business parties, out-of-towners, tourism, etc. These will probably be some of the selling points made to the city council on Tuesday September 15th. Well, if the park is such an asset to the community, then why is it losing money? The same management group is slated to continue managing it if the city assumes ownership. If the park is losing money under their management, is this a good idea? No, it's worse. Whereas only private investors are losing money now, we the city residents would be losing money if the city assumed ownership. Have the owners considered all private, market options? Have they even considered new management? On this point, the article is silent.
Whenever government at any level assumes control or ownership of a private business, all residents of that city, county, state or country assume its liability against their will. Whenever a business or industry is profitable, investors will be attracted to the same, or repelled if unprofitable, by their own choice, i.e. they still have recourse.
That government entity, in order to get our vote or approval, will tell us that profit (assuming any is even made) will be earmarked for debt reduction, supplementing budgets or allow for tax cuts or at least lower future tax increases. That sounds good, but since when does any government run anything efficiently enough to make a profit? The feds have nearly $12 trillion in debt now and the big three entitlement programs have a present value of $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities and commitments.
We live in a time where cities, counties and states look for bailouts from Uncle Sam who can constitutionally print money out of thin air or borrow it from China. Whenever an individual or family spends more than it makes, they will eventually face a day of reckoning. When will that day come for our federal government, and who will bail them out? Whoever it is will have no recourse unless they leave the country.
This water park was built shortly after I arrived here in Wichita Falls over six years ago and opened in June 2004. Somehow, the owners have accrued over $4 million in debt despite annual gross revenue of $1.4 million. The article did not comment on their expenses or net revenue which I assume is negative since they want the city to assume its ownership. Why sell something that is generating profit?
The article also states that despite a total investment of $8 million over the past five years the property is valued at $10 million. So what's the problem? Why not put it on the open market for another individual or private entity to buy? Maybe this is too simple, but consider an offer of $5 million...the current owners could pay off their $4 million debt with change to spare, and the new owners would acquire it at half of market value. Why go to the city first?
One reason for the city-first option may be the short fuse; the owners say they will have to permanently close the park after it closes for the summer on Sunday September 13th. Are the owners not essentially looking for a bailout? Hmmm...where would they get the idea that the government could bail them out? The city recently made plans to take a federal grant to beef up our police force. Could it also be that much larger companies such as GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc., when faced with financial ruin, went straight to easy money Uncle Sam instead of the harsh but efficient open market via bankruptcy?
The last column of the article details how much of an asset this park is to the city in terms of attracting local residents, both civilians and military from Sheppard AFB, business parties, out-of-towners, tourism, etc. These will probably be some of the selling points made to the city council on Tuesday September 15th. Well, if the park is such an asset to the community, then why is it losing money? The same management group is slated to continue managing it if the city assumes ownership. If the park is losing money under their management, is this a good idea? No, it's worse. Whereas only private investors are losing money now, we the city residents would be losing money if the city assumed ownership. Have the owners considered all private, market options? Have they even considered new management? On this point, the article is silent.
Whenever government at any level assumes control or ownership of a private business, all residents of that city, county, state or country assume its liability against their will. Whenever a business or industry is profitable, investors will be attracted to the same, or repelled if unprofitable, by their own choice, i.e. they still have recourse.
That government entity, in order to get our vote or approval, will tell us that profit (assuming any is even made) will be earmarked for debt reduction, supplementing budgets or allow for tax cuts or at least lower future tax increases. That sounds good, but since when does any government run anything efficiently enough to make a profit? The feds have nearly $12 trillion in debt now and the big three entitlement programs have a present value of $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities and commitments.
We live in a time where cities, counties and states look for bailouts from Uncle Sam who can constitutionally print money out of thin air or borrow it from China. Whenever an individual or family spends more than it makes, they will eventually face a day of reckoning. When will that day come for our federal government, and who will bail them out? Whoever it is will have no recourse unless they leave the country.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Federal government intervention or not?
I suspect one of the reasons a majority of people are opposed to health care reform as currently proposed by the federal government, specifically H.R. 3200, is the fact that it grants too much authority to them over the most personal matters, those best left to individuals, families or at worst the states.
Obama said during a February 2008 debate, "When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo," Obama said. "And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families. It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped," he said. "And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better," Obama continued.
Obama also said during an April 2007 debate that he should have fought to cut off Schiavo's food and water earlier. "And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure that Schiavo's parents were not allowed to pursue arguments in federal court."
As gut-wrenching as that whole situation was to me at the time and as much as I still shake my head in disbelief that government at all levels failed to protect this innocent life, I bring it up again only to make this point: Obama was opposed to federal government intervention in a health care situation worthy of it, when a citizen was denied due process by Florida's state courts who ordered the removal of food and water, but he is now in favor of federal government intervention in a health care situation where the Constitution grants them no right whatsoever so to do.
Are the President and Congress people of their word? They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Central to this is doing only what it allows and refraining from what it does not allow. Behold some of the very recent, relatively small programs taken on by the federal government, such as stimulus checks and cash for clunkers, that have, to be kind, been mismanaged. What makes them think they can manage our $2+ trillion health care system, even with its current imperfections, any better than we the people? They have yet to earn my confidence.
Obama said during a February 2008 debate, "When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo," Obama said. "And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families. It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped," he said. "And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better," Obama continued.
Obama also said during an April 2007 debate that he should have fought to cut off Schiavo's food and water earlier. "And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure that Schiavo's parents were not allowed to pursue arguments in federal court."
As gut-wrenching as that whole situation was to me at the time and as much as I still shake my head in disbelief that government at all levels failed to protect this innocent life, I bring it up again only to make this point: Obama was opposed to federal government intervention in a health care situation worthy of it, when a citizen was denied due process by Florida's state courts who ordered the removal of food and water, but he is now in favor of federal government intervention in a health care situation where the Constitution grants them no right whatsoever so to do.
Are the President and Congress people of their word? They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Central to this is doing only what it allows and refraining from what it does not allow. Behold some of the very recent, relatively small programs taken on by the federal government, such as stimulus checks and cash for clunkers, that have, to be kind, been mismanaged. What makes them think they can manage our $2+ trillion health care system, even with its current imperfections, any better than we the people? They have yet to earn my confidence.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Charity
I heard a talk-radio host this past week chastise one of his callers that, as someone who goes to church, he should be ashamed of himself for not supporting government-run health care reform...or is it health insurance reform now. The host suspected the caller was a Christian but was actually a Jew. The point was that he read and believed in the Bible, or at least some portion thereof.
I was left with the impression that the teachings of the Bible should guide policy-making, or our voice and vote, and more specifically justify government-run health care. Now, I thought we religious people were supposed to keep our faith out of the public square. (Maybe the biggest example is abortion. People in the pro-life movement abhor abortion because it takes an innocent human life which the government is supposed to protect at all levels of development, but that's Biblical.) When, if at all, should the Bible guide policy-making? Is it a violation of the ACLU's beloved "wall of separation", a phrase Thomas Jefferson coined in a personal letter to a church not a clause of the Consitution, to use the teachings of the Bible to justify public policy?
The host believed in taxation to support those in need; the caller believed, as do I, in individual charity, not in mandated charity, to support those in need. (Is it really charity if it's mandated? Give to those in need or go to prison. Well, let me think about it.) The caller also believed in individual responsibility and was then asked where in the Bible that was taught. He could not immediately cite a verse, but now that it's acceptable use the Bible to justify our positions in the policy-making, at least for this debate, here are just a few of the many exhortations to work and to give to those in need.
Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. Proverbs 10:4
He who gathers crops in summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. Proverbs 10:5
He who works with his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment. Proverbs 12:11
Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slavery. Proverbs12:24
The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. Proverbs 13:4
All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty. Proverbs 14:23
He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Epesians 4:28
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Proverbs 14:31
He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward him for what he has done. Proverbs 19:17
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. 1 Thess 4:11-12
So should the teachings of the Bible guide policy-making? Yes, in the sense that they should guide its adherents heart, voice and vote whether they be citizens or politicians and in the same way that the Koran would guide a Muslim citizen or politician.
As a Christian, I feel that it's the mandate of the individual, not the government, to support those in need whatever the need may be. Some of us may be discouraged by our lack of money to do so, but wouldn't we all have more of it if the government at all levels would not take so much. Even if money is tight, we have an even more valuable and personal resource...time.
I was left with the impression that the teachings of the Bible should guide policy-making, or our voice and vote, and more specifically justify government-run health care. Now, I thought we religious people were supposed to keep our faith out of the public square. (Maybe the biggest example is abortion. People in the pro-life movement abhor abortion because it takes an innocent human life which the government is supposed to protect at all levels of development, but that's Biblical.) When, if at all, should the Bible guide policy-making? Is it a violation of the ACLU's beloved "wall of separation", a phrase Thomas Jefferson coined in a personal letter to a church not a clause of the Consitution, to use the teachings of the Bible to justify public policy?
The host believed in taxation to support those in need; the caller believed, as do I, in individual charity, not in mandated charity, to support those in need. (Is it really charity if it's mandated? Give to those in need or go to prison. Well, let me think about it.) The caller also believed in individual responsibility and was then asked where in the Bible that was taught. He could not immediately cite a verse, but now that it's acceptable use the Bible to justify our positions in the policy-making, at least for this debate, here are just a few of the many exhortations to work and to give to those in need.
Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. Proverbs 10:4
He who gathers crops in summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. Proverbs 10:5
He who works with his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment. Proverbs 12:11
Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slavery. Proverbs12:24
The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. Proverbs 13:4
All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty. Proverbs 14:23
He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Epesians 4:28
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Proverbs 14:31
He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward him for what he has done. Proverbs 19:17
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. 1 Thess 4:11-12
So should the teachings of the Bible guide policy-making? Yes, in the sense that they should guide its adherents heart, voice and vote whether they be citizens or politicians and in the same way that the Koran would guide a Muslim citizen or politician.
As a Christian, I feel that it's the mandate of the individual, not the government, to support those in need whatever the need may be. Some of us may be discouraged by our lack of money to do so, but wouldn't we all have more of it if the government at all levels would not take so much. Even if money is tight, we have an even more valuable and personal resource...time.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Extreme vs. mainstream speech
DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said Republican operatives and special interests are funding and organizing these groups in an effort to stop Obama's top domestic priority...health care reform also described by me and others as the public option, government-run health care, single-payer health care or universal health care.
"The right wing extremists' use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the president's citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are," he said. "This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 ... and it is bound to backfire again."
How many times was Bush depicted as a devil by left wing extremists as some Congressman (TX Rep. Doggett) are now being depicted? Remember a few years ago when Hugo Chavez spoke to the UN, right after Bush had spoken, and described the residual smell of sulfur?
How many times was Bush hung in effigy by Iraq war protesters both in this country and across the world as are some Congressman at these townhalls?
How many times, prior to both the 2000 and 2004 elections, was Bush's National Guard service questioned by his opponents as Obama's citizenship is now being questioned by members of both parties? It's not the facts that matter only the seriousness of the charge, right?
Remember when IL Senator Durbin described the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay to a Nazi concentration camp or a Soviet gulag? How many times did the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein refer to Bush as Hitler during his trial?
I thought all of these things were out of the mainstream prior to the last two election cycles but they seemed to serve the Democratic party pretty well? I sure thought they took the GOP to the cleaners. All of those words and actions were lauded as free speech. Will it backfire on the GOP or will it serve them well in the next election?
"The right wing extremists' use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the president's citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are," he said. "This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 ... and it is bound to backfire again."
How many times was Bush depicted as a devil by left wing extremists as some Congressman (TX Rep. Doggett) are now being depicted? Remember a few years ago when Hugo Chavez spoke to the UN, right after Bush had spoken, and described the residual smell of sulfur?
How many times was Bush hung in effigy by Iraq war protesters both in this country and across the world as are some Congressman at these townhalls?
How many times, prior to both the 2000 and 2004 elections, was Bush's National Guard service questioned by his opponents as Obama's citizenship is now being questioned by members of both parties? It's not the facts that matter only the seriousness of the charge, right?
Remember when IL Senator Durbin described the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay to a Nazi concentration camp or a Soviet gulag? How many times did the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein refer to Bush as Hitler during his trial?
I thought all of these things were out of the mainstream prior to the last two election cycles but they seemed to serve the Democratic party pretty well? I sure thought they took the GOP to the cleaners. All of those words and actions were lauded as free speech. Will it backfire on the GOP or will it serve them well in the next election?
Friday, July 31, 2009
Deconstructing the language of the left
Here is an 7/31/09 excerpt from a Joe Klein op-ed in Time magazine, the same magazine that has only put President Obama on its cover 12 times in the past year. This one paragraph is loaded with premises which are peddled by the left and for far too long have been accepted by shallow-thinkers. They are entilted to their opinion but there is only one truth.
"There are only two sorts of legislation that seem to pass these days: things that have to pass, like budgets - and cotton-candy giveaways, like tax cuts or the wildly irresponsible, unfunded Medicare drug bill that George W. Bush enacted. Occasionally, responsible actions take place in the budget process. Bill Clinton spent most of his political capital on deficit reduction, which helped fuel the economic boom of the 1990s. Obama has just managed to kill the F-22, an anachronistic fighter jet. Very, very occasionally a special interest will take it on the chin - as the teachers' unions did when Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated a testing regimen the teachers didn't like. But the passage of landmark legislation like the health-industry reforms that Obama is seeking has become about as common as politicians who refuse to run television ads. It just doesn't seem to happen anymore."
1. Cotton-candy giveaways - Since when is letting the people, yes even the rich, keep more of their own money (i.e. property) called a giveaway? The left assumes that the government is giving us something that belongs to them first and foremost. No. A tax cut is simply the government taking less money from us.
2. Wildly irresponsible and unfunded Medicare drug bill - Why is it wildly irresponsible? Aren't we supposed to take care of our nation's elderly? Isn't that what a compassionate society does? Wasn't the drug bill just an extension of the 35 year old Medicare program which was the hallmark of the Great Society programs of the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House? Maybe it's because GWB enacted it and the GOP is not supposed to be compassionate. And why is it unfunded? Is the Medicare trust fund depleted? No, but it's on its way with over $36 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Are senior citizens not paying their premiums, or are we workers not paying our +/-1% Medicare withholdings? Not unless we want to go to jail. Since someone else is perceived to be paying the bill, seniors won't look for the best deals and costs will rise.
3. 1990's deficit reduction - Who was responsible for deficit reduction? Would Clinton have even had a balanced budget if the GOP-controlled House not given him one to sign? And did it really lead to an economic boom? Despite Clinton presiding over a tax increase early in his first term, taxes were still much lower than they were before one of the greatest executives, Ronald Reagan, promoted and presided over the largest tax cuts ever seen since income taxes became constitutional.
4. No Child Left Behind - So what if teachers' union "took it on the chin". The name of the bill was "No Child Left Behind" not "No Teacher Union Left Behind". Aren't our great public schools in place for the benefit of our children? I certainly agree that teachers need to be compensated for their work as long as it's commensurate with their students' better or improved test scores, reading and math levels, etc.
5. Landmark legislation - Why lament the slow to no passage of landmark legislation? Why lament the process of debate within each chamber of Congress and out here in the heartland? I for one do not want fast passage of landmark legislation especially on something as big, far-reaching and personal as health care reform. Our system of government was established for just such slow to no passage of legislation.
As we question the news, so we must also question their opinions which sometimes look the same.
"There are only two sorts of legislation that seem to pass these days: things that have to pass, like budgets - and cotton-candy giveaways, like tax cuts or the wildly irresponsible, unfunded Medicare drug bill that George W. Bush enacted. Occasionally, responsible actions take place in the budget process. Bill Clinton spent most of his political capital on deficit reduction, which helped fuel the economic boom of the 1990s. Obama has just managed to kill the F-22, an anachronistic fighter jet. Very, very occasionally a special interest will take it on the chin - as the teachers' unions did when Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated a testing regimen the teachers didn't like. But the passage of landmark legislation like the health-industry reforms that Obama is seeking has become about as common as politicians who refuse to run television ads. It just doesn't seem to happen anymore."
1. Cotton-candy giveaways - Since when is letting the people, yes even the rich, keep more of their own money (i.e. property) called a giveaway? The left assumes that the government is giving us something that belongs to them first and foremost. No. A tax cut is simply the government taking less money from us.
2. Wildly irresponsible and unfunded Medicare drug bill - Why is it wildly irresponsible? Aren't we supposed to take care of our nation's elderly? Isn't that what a compassionate society does? Wasn't the drug bill just an extension of the 35 year old Medicare program which was the hallmark of the Great Society programs of the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House? Maybe it's because GWB enacted it and the GOP is not supposed to be compassionate. And why is it unfunded? Is the Medicare trust fund depleted? No, but it's on its way with over $36 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Are senior citizens not paying their premiums, or are we workers not paying our +/-1% Medicare withholdings? Not unless we want to go to jail. Since someone else is perceived to be paying the bill, seniors won't look for the best deals and costs will rise.
3. 1990's deficit reduction - Who was responsible for deficit reduction? Would Clinton have even had a balanced budget if the GOP-controlled House not given him one to sign? And did it really lead to an economic boom? Despite Clinton presiding over a tax increase early in his first term, taxes were still much lower than they were before one of the greatest executives, Ronald Reagan, promoted and presided over the largest tax cuts ever seen since income taxes became constitutional.
4. No Child Left Behind - So what if teachers' union "took it on the chin". The name of the bill was "No Child Left Behind" not "No Teacher Union Left Behind". Aren't our great public schools in place for the benefit of our children? I certainly agree that teachers need to be compensated for their work as long as it's commensurate with their students' better or improved test scores, reading and math levels, etc.
5. Landmark legislation - Why lament the slow to no passage of landmark legislation? Why lament the process of debate within each chamber of Congress and out here in the heartland? I for one do not want fast passage of landmark legislation especially on something as big, far-reaching and personal as health care reform. Our system of government was established for just such slow to no passage of legislation.
As we question the news, so we must also question their opinions which sometimes look the same.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Mandatory healthcare?
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin hosted a townhall meeting recently and fielded this question from audience member Robert Broadus.
"I decided not to get the health insurance. That's working out for me because I'm able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual...that I have to buy health care or else you're going to fine me $2,500 every year I don't get it? Our founding fathers assured us we have a Bill of Rights and I want to see you uphold that," Broadus said in an increasingly emotional voice and to scattered applause.
Cardin responded by asking Broadus what would happen if he became sick, broke a bone, had a car accident and ended up in an emergency room. "You don't pay. You are part of the population that shifts its costs over to a person who does pay, and they're paying for you," Cardin said.
Explaining how hospitals have often to absorb those costs, Cardin said many hospitals would chose simply to leave the community. "I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance," Cardin said.
First of all, the senator assumes that this man will not pay his medical bills. Didn't this man just say that he has chosen to forgo insurance so that he can spend his money elsewhere like perhaps on an HSA or simply some other "rainy day" fund for medical mishaps? Why can't this man choose to spend his money how he wants? Doesn't the senator enjoy this right?
Secondly, why are those costs shifted over to people who do pay? Because it's federal law that hospitals cannot refuse emergency care of any kind. Simply show up and be treated. It sounds like utopia. Well, if it's "free", or if someone else is paying for it, why wouldn't people take advantage of it? I think everyone understands that when prices drop, demand and usage increases. If there wasn't a law requiring emergency care, meaning hospitals would be able to collect some payment upon service, people would be more particular with their use of it and would set aside money for that inevitable "rainy day". However, because demand for healthcare has increased, its cost has increased.
Thirdly, if the senator thinks there is cost shifting now, how much more will there be under this new entitlement program with all of its regulations and bureaucracy not to mention this $2500 per year fine! More regulations usually mean higher costs.
Finally, if you think the use of healthcare is excessive now with only a majority of the population being insured and thinking healthcare is free or low cost, what happens when everyone has health insurance? Having insurance gives people the impression that someone else is paying for their healthcare therefore they use it more often. Actually, more people paying directly for their own healthcare will lower its costs, as the government says it desires, without sacrificing quality.
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of healthcare which means it is left to the states or the people to debate and decide. The only "overriding public" interests with which he and his 534 colleagues need to concern themselves are enumerated in the Constitution, primarily defense, immigration, bankruptcy, military governance, war declaration, money supply, commerce between states and other countries and patents.
I recently read a blog post by someone claiming that our fundamental right to life includes healthcare. Does it also include food, clothing and shelter? Are these not more basic than healthcare? After healthcare, are these next on the list of things our compassionate federal government will ensure that we have? Who will pay for them? Who will define how much and what kind of each are appropriate and "necessary" for each individual?
"I decided not to get the health insurance. That's working out for me because I'm able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual...that I have to buy health care or else you're going to fine me $2,500 every year I don't get it? Our founding fathers assured us we have a Bill of Rights and I want to see you uphold that," Broadus said in an increasingly emotional voice and to scattered applause.
Cardin responded by asking Broadus what would happen if he became sick, broke a bone, had a car accident and ended up in an emergency room. "You don't pay. You are part of the population that shifts its costs over to a person who does pay, and they're paying for you," Cardin said.
Explaining how hospitals have often to absorb those costs, Cardin said many hospitals would chose simply to leave the community. "I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance," Cardin said.
First of all, the senator assumes that this man will not pay his medical bills. Didn't this man just say that he has chosen to forgo insurance so that he can spend his money elsewhere like perhaps on an HSA or simply some other "rainy day" fund for medical mishaps? Why can't this man choose to spend his money how he wants? Doesn't the senator enjoy this right?
Secondly, why are those costs shifted over to people who do pay? Because it's federal law that hospitals cannot refuse emergency care of any kind. Simply show up and be treated. It sounds like utopia. Well, if it's "free", or if someone else is paying for it, why wouldn't people take advantage of it? I think everyone understands that when prices drop, demand and usage increases. If there wasn't a law requiring emergency care, meaning hospitals would be able to collect some payment upon service, people would be more particular with their use of it and would set aside money for that inevitable "rainy day". However, because demand for healthcare has increased, its cost has increased.
Thirdly, if the senator thinks there is cost shifting now, how much more will there be under this new entitlement program with all of its regulations and bureaucracy not to mention this $2500 per year fine! More regulations usually mean higher costs.
Finally, if you think the use of healthcare is excessive now with only a majority of the population being insured and thinking healthcare is free or low cost, what happens when everyone has health insurance? Having insurance gives people the impression that someone else is paying for their healthcare therefore they use it more often. Actually, more people paying directly for their own healthcare will lower its costs, as the government says it desires, without sacrificing quality.
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of healthcare which means it is left to the states or the people to debate and decide. The only "overriding public" interests with which he and his 534 colleagues need to concern themselves are enumerated in the Constitution, primarily defense, immigration, bankruptcy, military governance, war declaration, money supply, commerce between states and other countries and patents.
I recently read a blog post by someone claiming that our fundamental right to life includes healthcare. Does it also include food, clothing and shelter? Are these not more basic than healthcare? After healthcare, are these next on the list of things our compassionate federal government will ensure that we have? Who will pay for them? Who will define how much and what kind of each are appropriate and "necessary" for each individual?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Judge Sotomayor & Abortion
In questioning Judge Sotomayor on Wednesday July 15th, TX Senator Cornyn asked her to explain the following words from a 1996 speech: "change, sometimes radical change, can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes" and "a given judge or judges may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction".
Judge Sotomayor responded to this question by saying in part, "I also spoke about the fact that society evolves in terms of technology and other developments, and so the law is being applied to a new set of facts."
Can we conclude from her statement, made under oath, that, based on advancements in technology and developments in medicine presumably, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which asserted a woman's consitutional right to abortion at any time during her pregnancy since the fetus is not yet a person, could be seriously challenged and possibly overturned due to "a new set of facts"?
Consider this advice and rhetorical question from OK Senator Coburn, OB-GYN, who pressed her quite a bit on the abortion issue. "And—which bring(s) me back to the technology again. As recently as six months ago, we now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception. And I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues—is we have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those. And all of us are dependent at different levels on other people during all stages of our development from the very early in the womb, outside of the womb, to the very late. And it concerns me that we are so inaccurate—or inaccurate's an improper term— inconsistent in terms of our application of logic."
Now I understand that if a state's law defines death but not life, then she would, or should, be bound by that law and not by her feelings. However, suppose a state's law defines both death and life, as the good doctor does; technology now exists to prove it. Also suppose that a woman in that state has an abortion. Would the Roe vs. Wade precedent give her and/or the aborting doctor a pass, or would they have violated that state's law as well as the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments?
Which party has more protection under the 14th amendment...the woman and her doctor or the baby? Shouldn't they have the same since it guarantees "equal protection of the law." If the baby is aborted after state law says it's alive, then it was deprived of life without due process.
She claims the interpretation of laws can and will change as "society evolves in terms of technology and other developments." Thanks to the free market, our society and its technology have evolved to confirm that viable life exists much earlier in a pregnancy that once thought. If heartbeat and brainwaves aren't indicative of life, what is? Would this be enough for her and a majority of her fellow justices to overturn the most contentious court decision of our day?
Judge Sotomayor responded to this question by saying in part, "I also spoke about the fact that society evolves in terms of technology and other developments, and so the law is being applied to a new set of facts."
Can we conclude from her statement, made under oath, that, based on advancements in technology and developments in medicine presumably, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which asserted a woman's consitutional right to abortion at any time during her pregnancy since the fetus is not yet a person, could be seriously challenged and possibly overturned due to "a new set of facts"?
Consider this advice and rhetorical question from OK Senator Coburn, OB-GYN, who pressed her quite a bit on the abortion issue. "And—which bring(s) me back to the technology again. As recently as six months ago, we now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception. And I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues—is we have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those. And all of us are dependent at different levels on other people during all stages of our development from the very early in the womb, outside of the womb, to the very late. And it concerns me that we are so inaccurate—or inaccurate's an improper term— inconsistent in terms of our application of logic."
Now I understand that if a state's law defines death but not life, then she would, or should, be bound by that law and not by her feelings. However, suppose a state's law defines both death and life, as the good doctor does; technology now exists to prove it. Also suppose that a woman in that state has an abortion. Would the Roe vs. Wade precedent give her and/or the aborting doctor a pass, or would they have violated that state's law as well as the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments?
Which party has more protection under the 14th amendment...the woman and her doctor or the baby? Shouldn't they have the same since it guarantees "equal protection of the law." If the baby is aborted after state law says it's alive, then it was deprived of life without due process.
She claims the interpretation of laws can and will change as "society evolves in terms of technology and other developments." Thanks to the free market, our society and its technology have evolved to confirm that viable life exists much earlier in a pregnancy that once thought. If heartbeat and brainwaves aren't indicative of life, what is? Would this be enough for her and a majority of her fellow justices to overturn the most contentious court decision of our day?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Going green or saving green?
Does every hotel now have one of those "Save the planet" tags in the room? I'm wrapping up a 10 day vacation, and every hotel room we've used has had one. The latest one reads the following:
Save Our Planet
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of gallons of water and a lot of detergent.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night, and would prefer to have your sheets changed, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will reuse today."
Do people really think that by having their hotel bedsheets washed every day that they are destroying the planet? Are we human beings really that powerful? Is it the planet or its animals we are destroying?
Do people think they are doing their good deed for the day by not having their sheets washed? Does this exempt us from serving our fellow man who is infinitely more valuable than the earth?
If we are just another evolving species fighting for survival, then why can't we pursue cleanliness everywhere every time at all costs? Aren't all detergents "environmentally friendly" thanks to capitalism? Can't dirty water be cleaned again thanks to capitalism? We as an advanced society do have that power.
Do you wash your bedsheets everyday? I assume the answer is no. For us single guys, especially during college, we may wash them once a quarter or as I did once a semester. (I know...gross.) For us married guys, we may wash them a little more often like once a week thanks to our wives. Why don't we wash them everyday though? Well, it takes some of your time, and it uses water and electricity. At home, the later two affect the bottom line. In the hotel business, all three do so especially the labor. So aren't hotels really asking us to help them save money which may in turn be passed onto us hotel guests?
Would it be that earth-shattering to ask guests the following:
Save Your Money
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of dollars of your money in the form of labor, clean water and electricity.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night and would prefer to have your sheets changed and have a cleaning fee added to your final bill, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will save money today."
Save the planet if you want, but I prefer to save me or someone else some green. Not doing laundry everyday will just save me more time and money to serve my fellow man.
Save Our Planet
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of gallons of water and a lot of detergent.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night, and would prefer to have your sheets changed, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will reuse today."
Do people really think that by having their hotel bedsheets washed every day that they are destroying the planet? Are we human beings really that powerful? Is it the planet or its animals we are destroying?
Do people think they are doing their good deed for the day by not having their sheets washed? Does this exempt us from serving our fellow man who is infinitely more valuable than the earth?
If we are just another evolving species fighting for survival, then why can't we pursue cleanliness everywhere every time at all costs? Aren't all detergents "environmentally friendly" thanks to capitalism? Can't dirty water be cleaned again thanks to capitalism? We as an advanced society do have that power.
Do you wash your bedsheets everyday? I assume the answer is no. For us single guys, especially during college, we may wash them once a quarter or as I did once a semester. (I know...gross.) For us married guys, we may wash them a little more often like once a week thanks to our wives. Why don't we wash them everyday though? Well, it takes some of your time, and it uses water and electricity. At home, the later two affect the bottom line. In the hotel business, all three do so especially the labor. So aren't hotels really asking us to help them save money which may in turn be passed onto us hotel guests?
Would it be that earth-shattering to ask guests the following:
Save Your Money
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of dollars of your money in the form of labor, clean water and electricity.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night and would prefer to have your sheets changed and have a cleaning fee added to your final bill, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will save money today."
Save the planet if you want, but I prefer to save me or someone else some green. Not doing laundry everyday will just save me more time and money to serve my fellow man.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
News vs. Opinion
When I read a news story, I want only the facts, not opinion. Everyone has an opinion and can form one, but not everyone has the facts. This blog is an editorial. I comment and interject my opinion on news stories. I have noticed more so over the years though that even news stories are full of opinion sometimes in a subtle manner.
Consider the following excerpt from a July 29 Reuters story on the recent climate change bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"The bill has also split the religious community -- an important constituency in many states.
While some religious groups have banded together to lobby for the legislation, some conservative religious activists are mobilizing against it."
Why are religious groups who oppose this legislation termed "conservative" and "activists" but religious groups who support this legislation termed "groups" and not termed "liberal" and "activists"? Are those who support it normal while those who oppose it out of the mainstream?
Why are religious groups who oppose this legislation cast as "mobilizing against it" but religious groups who support this legislation cast as banding "together to lobby for" this legislation? Are those who support it peaceful, community-minded and doing it for the public good while those who oppose it violent and gearing up to fight it as for war?
Watch out for the adjectives used in news stories. They can change the entire tone of the "news".
Consider the following excerpt from a July 29 Reuters story on the recent climate change bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"The bill has also split the religious community -- an important constituency in many states.
While some religious groups have banded together to lobby for the legislation, some conservative religious activists are mobilizing against it."
Why are religious groups who oppose this legislation termed "conservative" and "activists" but religious groups who support this legislation termed "groups" and not termed "liberal" and "activists"? Are those who support it normal while those who oppose it out of the mainstream?
Why are religious groups who oppose this legislation cast as "mobilizing against it" but religious groups who support this legislation cast as banding "together to lobby for" this legislation? Are those who support it peaceful, community-minded and doing it for the public good while those who oppose it violent and gearing up to fight it as for war?
Watch out for the adjectives used in news stories. They can change the entire tone of the "news".
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Public option
Last night from the White House, ABC News aired a townhall-type meeting entitled "Questions for the President: Prescription for America." It was intended to be a forum for doctors, patients and health care experts to ask President Obama challenging questions on his health care proposals.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky led off the questioning by asking the President if he would sacrifice the health of his own family by putting them in a government plan, the so-called "public option". He responded, “If it’s my family member, it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care. But here’s the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that’s being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.” It sounds like he has little confidence in the current private health care system. Note that he did not explicitly answer whether he and his family would ever live under such a public plan.
I contend that the answer lies not in his words, or lack thereof, but in his actions. Consider where he and his wife decided to send their two girls. Do they attend a D.C. public school? Nope. They attend Sidwell Friends, a private school. Here's a little more background on that issue from a 11/21/08 NYT story...
The Obama family had considered two other private institutions, Georgetown Day School and Maret School, for their girls, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7. But Sidwell has long been described by some as the Harvard of Washington’s private schools. Its tuition runs as high as $29,442 a year.
“A number of great schools were considered,” said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Obama. “In the end, the Obamas selected the school that was the best fit for what their daughters need right now.” Mayor Adrian M. Fenty of Washington strongly lobbied the Obamas to consider a public school, but that was apparently never an option.
What was wrong with the education "public option", a.k.a. public schools, Mr. President? One Forbes survey conducted two years ago ranked D.C.'s public schools 95th out of 97 school districts in terms of "bang for the buck". That may be one reason it was never an option for the Obama's, but is it even an option for the lower to middle class population? Hasn't this "public option" been forced on lower to middle class people who can't afford both the property taxes paying for those often underperforming public schools and the tuition at often excelling private schools? (See a previous blog on DCOSP.)
Who really believes that the President will subject himself and his family to the health care "public option"? Who really believes that this "public option" will always be an option for us? Who believes that this "public option" will always provide quality service?
He and the elites do; I don't.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky led off the questioning by asking the President if he would sacrifice the health of his own family by putting them in a government plan, the so-called "public option". He responded, “If it’s my family member, it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care. But here’s the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that’s being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.” It sounds like he has little confidence in the current private health care system. Note that he did not explicitly answer whether he and his family would ever live under such a public plan.
I contend that the answer lies not in his words, or lack thereof, but in his actions. Consider where he and his wife decided to send their two girls. Do they attend a D.C. public school? Nope. They attend Sidwell Friends, a private school. Here's a little more background on that issue from a 11/21/08 NYT story...
The Obama family had considered two other private institutions, Georgetown Day School and Maret School, for their girls, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7. But Sidwell has long been described by some as the Harvard of Washington’s private schools. Its tuition runs as high as $29,442 a year.
“A number of great schools were considered,” said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Obama. “In the end, the Obamas selected the school that was the best fit for what their daughters need right now.” Mayor Adrian M. Fenty of Washington strongly lobbied the Obamas to consider a public school, but that was apparently never an option.
What was wrong with the education "public option", a.k.a. public schools, Mr. President? One Forbes survey conducted two years ago ranked D.C.'s public schools 95th out of 97 school districts in terms of "bang for the buck". That may be one reason it was never an option for the Obama's, but is it even an option for the lower to middle class population? Hasn't this "public option" been forced on lower to middle class people who can't afford both the property taxes paying for those often underperforming public schools and the tuition at often excelling private schools? (See a previous blog on DCOSP.)
Who really believes that the President will subject himself and his family to the health care "public option"? Who really believes that this "public option" will always be an option for us? Who believes that this "public option" will always provide quality service?
He and the elites do; I don't.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Questioning Judge Sotomayor
The GOP is feeling pressure to "keep the gloves on" so to speak during the Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Judge Sotomayor. Why the pressure...and from whom?
An few excerpts from a June 24th AP news story speak volumes.
"The Republican messaging from now through the confirmation hearings beginning July 13 includes issues popular among conservatives: Sotomayor's commitment to Second Amendment gun rights, her opinions on whether the Fifth Amendment protects against public takings without just compensation and on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment."
"The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee even questioned whether Sotomayor sufficiently opposes terrorism..."
"Republicans said they have clarified their strategy in recent days by documents Sotomayor has turned over to the Judiciary Committee in advance of her confirmation hearings. But it was clear that with only seven Republicans on the 18-member panel and Hispanics and women already wary of the GOP, the party needs to tread carefully with any outright criticism of the first Latina nominated to the high court."
The first question is why? Because they (named below) don't want an honest debate on core, easy-for-the-public-to-grasp Constitutional issues. In cases related to the 2nd (arms), 5th (private property) & 14th (equal protection) amendments, she has at least joined opinions ruling against these basic civil rights. These very recent cases are Maloney v. Cuomo, Didden v. Village of Port Chester and Ricci v. DeStefano, respectively. In the case of terrorism, she had done extensive work for a group formerly named the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. "This is a group that has taken some very shocking positions with respect to terrorism," GOP Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said. Sessions said the group, now called Latino Justice PRLDEF, in 1990 came to the defense of Puerto Rican nationalists who 36 years earlier had wounded five lawmakers during an attack on the House while it was in session.
The second question is from whom? The very tone of the last included AP excerpt indicates the press for one along with those the press cites, namely Hispanics and women. Do you remember any pressure on Democrats to "keep the gloves on" during confirmation hearings for the black D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas nominated by GOP President George H.W. Bush to sit on the Supreme Court? How about the black, female California Supreme Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown or the latino Assistant U.S. attorney and Assistant Solicitor General Miguel Estrada nominated by GOP President George W. Bush to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? Was there any fear of a backlash from blacks, women or Hispanics by fighting these upstanding nominees? Absolutely not. I remember Thomas' hearing; I agree with his assessment of it as a "high-tech lynching". Brown waited 22 months to be confirmed. Estrada waited 28 months before withdrawing his name. The latter two were filibustered which in my opinion was unconstitutional.
When someone tells you that you're wasting your time asking tough but legitimate questions of a Supreme Court nominee who may make decisions of national consequence for a generation or, in general, doing what is in your heart, that's the time to move full steam ahead. Who believes that the GOP has any chance of currying favor with women or Hispanics if they stand down? Not all women and Hispanics will be offended by tough questions of this latina because some if not most of them do not see themselves first as women or Hispanics but as U.S. citizens. Our government officials are obligated to uphold the Constitution no matter which constituencies might be offended. If they want to change it, there is a process to do so.
An few excerpts from a June 24th AP news story speak volumes.
"The Republican messaging from now through the confirmation hearings beginning July 13 includes issues popular among conservatives: Sotomayor's commitment to Second Amendment gun rights, her opinions on whether the Fifth Amendment protects against public takings without just compensation and on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment."
"The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee even questioned whether Sotomayor sufficiently opposes terrorism..."
"Republicans said they have clarified their strategy in recent days by documents Sotomayor has turned over to the Judiciary Committee in advance of her confirmation hearings. But it was clear that with only seven Republicans on the 18-member panel and Hispanics and women already wary of the GOP, the party needs to tread carefully with any outright criticism of the first Latina nominated to the high court."
The first question is why? Because they (named below) don't want an honest debate on core, easy-for-the-public-to-grasp Constitutional issues. In cases related to the 2nd (arms), 5th (private property) & 14th (equal protection) amendments, she has at least joined opinions ruling against these basic civil rights. These very recent cases are Maloney v. Cuomo, Didden v. Village of Port Chester and Ricci v. DeStefano, respectively. In the case of terrorism, she had done extensive work for a group formerly named the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. "This is a group that has taken some very shocking positions with respect to terrorism," GOP Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said. Sessions said the group, now called Latino Justice PRLDEF, in 1990 came to the defense of Puerto Rican nationalists who 36 years earlier had wounded five lawmakers during an attack on the House while it was in session.
The second question is from whom? The very tone of the last included AP excerpt indicates the press for one along with those the press cites, namely Hispanics and women. Do you remember any pressure on Democrats to "keep the gloves on" during confirmation hearings for the black D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas nominated by GOP President George H.W. Bush to sit on the Supreme Court? How about the black, female California Supreme Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown or the latino Assistant U.S. attorney and Assistant Solicitor General Miguel Estrada nominated by GOP President George W. Bush to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? Was there any fear of a backlash from blacks, women or Hispanics by fighting these upstanding nominees? Absolutely not. I remember Thomas' hearing; I agree with his assessment of it as a "high-tech lynching". Brown waited 22 months to be confirmed. Estrada waited 28 months before withdrawing his name. The latter two were filibustered which in my opinion was unconstitutional.
When someone tells you that you're wasting your time asking tough but legitimate questions of a Supreme Court nominee who may make decisions of national consequence for a generation or, in general, doing what is in your heart, that's the time to move full steam ahead. Who believes that the GOP has any chance of currying favor with women or Hispanics if they stand down? Not all women and Hispanics will be offended by tough questions of this latina because some if not most of them do not see themselves first as women or Hispanics but as U.S. citizens. Our government officials are obligated to uphold the Constitution no matter which constituencies might be offended. If they want to change it, there is a process to do so.
Monday, June 22, 2009
More unintended consequences of laws
From a June 19th Bloomberg news story...
Discover Card Chief Executive Officer David Nelms said new U.S. safeguards for credit-card holders will mean higher interest rates, more fees and fewer loans industrywide. As a Discover card holder, this at least concerns me and will be a reason to keep a closer eye on the fees. However, I guarantee you that if some creditors increase interest rates, assess user fees, increase late fees or make fewer loans, even to customers in good standing, they will lose customers to a creditor who does not do so or does not do so as much. “There are many consumers that actually will not benefit,” Nelms, 48, said yesterday in an interview after Riverwoods, Illinois-based Discover reported second-quarter results. “Some of the unintended consequences are going to be difficult for customers.”
This is the credit industry's response to H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009, which was signed into law by President Obama on May 22. It must have been popular; it passed the Senate 90-5 and the House 361-64. It will set limits on credit-card rate increases and fees, as well as set curbs on marketing. The law was passed after complaints that credit-card firms deliberately confused customers to drive up profit. How can you prove that they deliberately confused customers? How many confused customers testified to such activity? I have made a late payment a time or two over the years and have been assessed fees but not because I was confused. If I was, it wasn't their fault. Isn't paying my bills by the due date my responsibility? Will I not learn my lesson better if I have to pay late fees and/or higher interest rates? Furthermore, why would you purposefully confuse your customer base which is your revenue stream? Sure there would be short-term profits, but as word spreads of such practices, would not those seeking credit patronize other more ethical firms and result in lower profit or even bankruptcy for those unethical firms?
MasterCard Inc. said this month that some of the industry’s practices were “unfair” and “deceptive.” Why would MasterCard "shoot themselves in the foot"? Were they above all of this "deception"? Did they lobby Congress to write such a law so as to bring down their competition?
Discover won’t be hurt as much as some competitors because it didn’t engage in some of the disputed practices, Nelms told analysts. Still, the U.S. rules will drive up average annual percentage rates on card loans and consumers may find it harder to get credit, Nelms said in the interview. Hmmm. Was the law not intended to limit rate increases?
“Most consumers have benefited enormously from risk-based pricing,” Nelms said. “Those that kept their credit in good standing have had historically low rates over the last 10 years. I see that unwinding.” Responsible consumers are rewarded for their responsibility with lower rates, and irresponsible consumers are penalized for their irresponsibility with higher rates. This may not seem fair, but consumers do not have a right to credit. Credit is a privilege that comes with responsibility. Demonstrate to creditors that you can pay back your debts, and you can have more credit.
Nelms told analysts on a conference call Discover will pull back “dramatically” on offers to transfer balances from competing cards at discounted rates, and that the discounts may not last longer than six months. Some banks have offered balance transfers at 0 percent rates that last more than a year. I know some people who stay afloat by transferring balances every six months or until their interest rate increases. What happens when a firm removes that feature? Will they not lose clients? What if the whole industry removes that feature? What recourse will those consumers have but to pay higher rates?
Visa Inc. Chief Financial Officer Byron Pollitt said June 10 that card issuers may impose annual fees in response to the legislation. Nelms said his company was the first to offer no annual fee, and it’s too early to tell whether that policy will be abandoned. “I’m not ruling it out, and it could vary by product,” he said. “We’re going to evaluate all our options, but we don’t have current plans to put in annual fees.” Since Visa cannot just absorb losses without reducing their stock's value or even going bankrupt, their responsible consumers may have to pay for their irresponsible consumers via higher fees.
Discover will keep its “cash back” program that refunds a percentage of a cardholder’s purchases, Nelms said. That's good to know. As someone who pays the balance every month, why else would I use a credit card? If I can get some value in the form of a reduced balance, actual cash or a gift card, why would I not take advantage of it since the purchases will cost the same whether I pay in cash or credit?
No matter what the government does, people will naturally seek the highest return on their investment and the lowest cost of credit. This is the free market at work; there will always be competition for good investments and cheap credit. Lawmakers may feel better about themselves and have something to tell their constituents during re-election campaigns, but in the course of correcting a perceived "unfairness", they only distort activities that result from natural laws and usually hurt the people they intend to help.
Discover Card Chief Executive Officer David Nelms said new U.S. safeguards for credit-card holders will mean higher interest rates, more fees and fewer loans industrywide. As a Discover card holder, this at least concerns me and will be a reason to keep a closer eye on the fees. However, I guarantee you that if some creditors increase interest rates, assess user fees, increase late fees or make fewer loans, even to customers in good standing, they will lose customers to a creditor who does not do so or does not do so as much. “There are many consumers that actually will not benefit,” Nelms, 48, said yesterday in an interview after Riverwoods, Illinois-based Discover reported second-quarter results. “Some of the unintended consequences are going to be difficult for customers.”
This is the credit industry's response to H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009, which was signed into law by President Obama on May 22. It must have been popular; it passed the Senate 90-5 and the House 361-64. It will set limits on credit-card rate increases and fees, as well as set curbs on marketing. The law was passed after complaints that credit-card firms deliberately confused customers to drive up profit. How can you prove that they deliberately confused customers? How many confused customers testified to such activity? I have made a late payment a time or two over the years and have been assessed fees but not because I was confused. If I was, it wasn't their fault. Isn't paying my bills by the due date my responsibility? Will I not learn my lesson better if I have to pay late fees and/or higher interest rates? Furthermore, why would you purposefully confuse your customer base which is your revenue stream? Sure there would be short-term profits, but as word spreads of such practices, would not those seeking credit patronize other more ethical firms and result in lower profit or even bankruptcy for those unethical firms?
MasterCard Inc. said this month that some of the industry’s practices were “unfair” and “deceptive.” Why would MasterCard "shoot themselves in the foot"? Were they above all of this "deception"? Did they lobby Congress to write such a law so as to bring down their competition?
Discover won’t be hurt as much as some competitors because it didn’t engage in some of the disputed practices, Nelms told analysts. Still, the U.S. rules will drive up average annual percentage rates on card loans and consumers may find it harder to get credit, Nelms said in the interview. Hmmm. Was the law not intended to limit rate increases?
“Most consumers have benefited enormously from risk-based pricing,” Nelms said. “Those that kept their credit in good standing have had historically low rates over the last 10 years. I see that unwinding.” Responsible consumers are rewarded for their responsibility with lower rates, and irresponsible consumers are penalized for their irresponsibility with higher rates. This may not seem fair, but consumers do not have a right to credit. Credit is a privilege that comes with responsibility. Demonstrate to creditors that you can pay back your debts, and you can have more credit.
Nelms told analysts on a conference call Discover will pull back “dramatically” on offers to transfer balances from competing cards at discounted rates, and that the discounts may not last longer than six months. Some banks have offered balance transfers at 0 percent rates that last more than a year. I know some people who stay afloat by transferring balances every six months or until their interest rate increases. What happens when a firm removes that feature? Will they not lose clients? What if the whole industry removes that feature? What recourse will those consumers have but to pay higher rates?
Visa Inc. Chief Financial Officer Byron Pollitt said June 10 that card issuers may impose annual fees in response to the legislation. Nelms said his company was the first to offer no annual fee, and it’s too early to tell whether that policy will be abandoned. “I’m not ruling it out, and it could vary by product,” he said. “We’re going to evaluate all our options, but we don’t have current plans to put in annual fees.” Since Visa cannot just absorb losses without reducing their stock's value or even going bankrupt, their responsible consumers may have to pay for their irresponsible consumers via higher fees.
Discover will keep its “cash back” program that refunds a percentage of a cardholder’s purchases, Nelms said. That's good to know. As someone who pays the balance every month, why else would I use a credit card? If I can get some value in the form of a reduced balance, actual cash or a gift card, why would I not take advantage of it since the purchases will cost the same whether I pay in cash or credit?
No matter what the government does, people will naturally seek the highest return on their investment and the lowest cost of credit. This is the free market at work; there will always be competition for good investments and cheap credit. Lawmakers may feel better about themselves and have something to tell their constituents during re-election campaigns, but in the course of correcting a perceived "unfairness", they only distort activities that result from natural laws and usually hurt the people they intend to help.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Hidden costs of free health care
As I consider the health care debate raging in our nation, or maybe worse only in our capital, I can't help but think of the phrase,"There's no such thing as a free lunch." When I am on company business out of town, I keep track of my meals and hotels and get reimbursed at the end of the month. At the time, it seems free, but the company ultimately pays those expenses which is just that much less that they can pay me. Whenever you go shopping, you may see a larger than normal package saying,"20% more FREE!" or you may see a car commercial say,"0% financing for 60 months". Such advertising might give you the impression that you're getting something for nothing. Obviously, that company could not just give away their product or service; somebody, probably you, is paying for it. You will never get that extra 20% unless you buy the normal amount, and you will never get a 0% loan unless you buy the car.
Now apply this logic to health care. To counter the estimated health care system overhaul 10-year pricetag of $1,000 billion, President Obama recently boasted of $600 billion in “savings” for the same time period. However, in the fine print, over half of that "savings" would come from tax hikes on those earning over $250,000 a year, closing loopholes and charging higher fees for some government services.
So while we are being told this will be free health care for all, it comes at a cost to the rich, those taking advantage of tax loopholes and those using some government services, whatever that means. Well, I earn less than $250,000 a year, so there is no cost to me there.
However, I am taking advantage of tax laws such as the mortgage interest, property tax and charitable giving deductions. It has been proposed by some politicians to reduce the amount you can deduct. Will this not this essentially raise your tax burden? Is this the loophole to which He is referring?
Also, while only a small percentage of taxpayers earn over $250,000 per year, I bet that they employ the remainder earning under that amount. In all of my years of being employed, it was always by a rich person, group or company not by the poor, and as I stated in an earlier post, when you raise their taxes, which is just one more cost of doing business, they must either raise their prices, unless it's a commodity, or cut other costs such as labor.
In summary, what good is it to lower the cost of my health care if it will result in higher income taxes, higher government fees or worst of all no job?
The White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said, “We are making good on this promise to fully finance health care reform over the next decade.” On the backs of whom...the producers?
Consider SCHIP, what I believe to be a precursor and warmup to universal health care. Congress earlier this year expanded this program by increasing the federal cigarette tax by 62 cents per pack. However, Dr. Adam Goldstein, director of the University of North Carolina Tobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program recently said that it was not inconceivable that adult smokers, now more than 20 percent of the population, could be reduced to less than 5 percent in 20 years. Besides the additional restrictions on smoking advertising, one of the factors that could cut into tobacco use is this higher tax. Eventually, the funding for SCHIP will dry up. Do you think that SCHIP will just dry up with it? If you do, you must be smoking something other than cigarettes. To paraphrase a great President, "A government program is the closest thing to eternity that we'll see on earth."
What happens when the funding or "savings" for this much larger program dries up? When the rich are poor, the tax deductions are gone and people cannot afford to pay other government fees, who will fund this program? Will this program die on the vine?
In another example, H.R. 1256, brand new anti-smoking legislation that gives the FDA sweeping authority to regulate tobacco products, will be paid for by a new user fee imposed on the industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that assessments could rise from $235 million in 2010 to $712 million in 2019. Again, will the industry absorb these costs or will the consumer, in this case the smoker? The FDA will have to expand to enforce this legislation. After all smokers either die or quit smoking because they can no longer afford the extra fees and taxes, will this expanded FDA contract?
Here are just three government programs either passed into law, about to be passed into law or going to be passed into law that make promises of free health care (golden eggs) but gloss over their direct costs not to mention their indirect costs. What happens when the golden goose that laid those eggs is killed?
Now apply this logic to health care. To counter the estimated health care system overhaul 10-year pricetag of $1,000 billion, President Obama recently boasted of $600 billion in “savings” for the same time period. However, in the fine print, over half of that "savings" would come from tax hikes on those earning over $250,000 a year, closing loopholes and charging higher fees for some government services.
So while we are being told this will be free health care for all, it comes at a cost to the rich, those taking advantage of tax loopholes and those using some government services, whatever that means. Well, I earn less than $250,000 a year, so there is no cost to me there.
However, I am taking advantage of tax laws such as the mortgage interest, property tax and charitable giving deductions. It has been proposed by some politicians to reduce the amount you can deduct. Will this not this essentially raise your tax burden? Is this the loophole to which He is referring?
Also, while only a small percentage of taxpayers earn over $250,000 per year, I bet that they employ the remainder earning under that amount. In all of my years of being employed, it was always by a rich person, group or company not by the poor, and as I stated in an earlier post, when you raise their taxes, which is just one more cost of doing business, they must either raise their prices, unless it's a commodity, or cut other costs such as labor.
In summary, what good is it to lower the cost of my health care if it will result in higher income taxes, higher government fees or worst of all no job?
The White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said, “We are making good on this promise to fully finance health care reform over the next decade.” On the backs of whom...the producers?
Consider SCHIP, what I believe to be a precursor and warmup to universal health care. Congress earlier this year expanded this program by increasing the federal cigarette tax by 62 cents per pack. However, Dr. Adam Goldstein, director of the University of North Carolina Tobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program recently said that it was not inconceivable that adult smokers, now more than 20 percent of the population, could be reduced to less than 5 percent in 20 years. Besides the additional restrictions on smoking advertising, one of the factors that could cut into tobacco use is this higher tax. Eventually, the funding for SCHIP will dry up. Do you think that SCHIP will just dry up with it? If you do, you must be smoking something other than cigarettes. To paraphrase a great President, "A government program is the closest thing to eternity that we'll see on earth."
What happens when the funding or "savings" for this much larger program dries up? When the rich are poor, the tax deductions are gone and people cannot afford to pay other government fees, who will fund this program? Will this program die on the vine?
In another example, H.R. 1256, brand new anti-smoking legislation that gives the FDA sweeping authority to regulate tobacco products, will be paid for by a new user fee imposed on the industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that assessments could rise from $235 million in 2010 to $712 million in 2019. Again, will the industry absorb these costs or will the consumer, in this case the smoker? The FDA will have to expand to enforce this legislation. After all smokers either die or quit smoking because they can no longer afford the extra fees and taxes, will this expanded FDA contract?
Here are just three government programs either passed into law, about to be passed into law or going to be passed into law that make promises of free health care (golden eggs) but gloss over their direct costs not to mention their indirect costs. What happens when the golden goose that laid those eggs is killed?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Government assistance
Note the following excerpts from an AP news story June 11th in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and my comments:
"Jaylynn Banks and her family have moved four times since the Cedar River burst its banks last June and flooded a huge swath of Cedar Rapids, including their neighborhood. Their home, like those of hundreds of others here, is too damaged to inhabit, so they pay rent along with their mortgage, all on an annual income of about $20,000 after taxes. With their living situation in constant flux, Banks said they've been living day-to-day, unable to plan for the future."
"State officials estimate they need $150 million to buy out the 1,041 properties in three of the worst affected areas, each with its particular issues and eligibility for federal money."
First of all, I didn't think people with such low income had to pay taxes. Secondly, how can they pay rent and mortgage AND live day-to-day on $20,000 a year? I would only guess that the mortgage on the $140,000 average property in Cedar Rapids would be at least $12,000 per year and rent on what she later calls a "nice rental property" would be another $6,000 per year leaving $2,000 per year for the other basic needs of food and clothing. That would be pretty tight. How do you do it? Well, here's how.
"The Federal Emergency Management Agency quickly stepped in to provide flood victims with emergency cash. Banks said the $11,000 the agency gave her family paid for clothing, food and shelter and got them through what was otherwise a miserable year. But FEMA scaled back its assistance after the immediate crisis had passed and the long-term assistance has been slow to materialize."
Do they really mean slow to materialize or will never materialize? FEMA does not have unlimited funding for all of the 1,000+ households? It will not last forever; it cannot. Congress is already spending more money than it has even after being told to "pay as you go". They are already printing half of what they spend.
"A lot of families have future plans. We're going to do this this summer. We're going to do this next year. We cannot do that," said Banks, who has pasted colorful signs, including one reading 'Obama, please help us', in and around her damaged home."
Yes, Mr. President, don't you hear the cry of real, hurting, downtrodden people coming from an area struck by a massive flood over a year ago? Aren't these the exact kind of people you say you want to help with taxpayer, I mean government money? What did you do for them while in the U.S. Senate last year? What have you done for them as President this year?
"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees long-term community rebuilding, announced $3.7 billion in new disaster grants for 11 states Wednesday, including $516 million for Iowa. That money will help, but Iowa's still far short of the $8 billion to $10 billion in aid state officials estimate is needed for recovery, including more than $5 billion for Cedar Rapids alone."
Could he and Congress have not added a mere $10 billion earmark to the $787 billion stimulus bill this past February? Could they not have bailed out flood victims instead of banks, car companies and insurance companies who were paying millions in bonuses to their executives and handsome benefits to unions?
"Of the three hardest-hit areas, the area closest to the river will be turned into a park and its 192 properties are eligible to be bought out by FEMA. In the second area, which is a bit farther from the river, all 377 houses will likely be destroyed to make room for a levee. But the Army Corps of Engineers hasn't decided on its placement, and may not until December 2010, leaving homeowners with as much as 18 more months of waiting. Residents with homes in the third area, a working-class neighborhood with 664 homes, including the Banks', will be allowed to remain, but many don't have the resources to renovate or rebuild. Residents have been told to wait up to six more months before the city will know if it has enough money to buy them out. "
Are they really going to wait that long for government to do something? Do they have no family, friends, churches or other charitable organizations to which they can go for much more immediate help?
My town was hit by one of those 100 year floods nearly two years ago. The city and county asked FEMA for help, which took a while or may even still be in the waiting, but they also formed a task force that went out to the private sector for help. Churches, individuals and civic organizations such as the University Kiwanis Club stepped up to the plate with financial and labor assistance.
People will never be pleased with government assistance, and the people from whom money is taken to then be given away certainly aren't pleased. Forced wealth redistribution will increase misery for rich and poor alike.
"Jaylynn Banks and her family have moved four times since the Cedar River burst its banks last June and flooded a huge swath of Cedar Rapids, including their neighborhood. Their home, like those of hundreds of others here, is too damaged to inhabit, so they pay rent along with their mortgage, all on an annual income of about $20,000 after taxes. With their living situation in constant flux, Banks said they've been living day-to-day, unable to plan for the future."
"State officials estimate they need $150 million to buy out the 1,041 properties in three of the worst affected areas, each with its particular issues and eligibility for federal money."
First of all, I didn't think people with such low income had to pay taxes. Secondly, how can they pay rent and mortgage AND live day-to-day on $20,000 a year? I would only guess that the mortgage on the $140,000 average property in Cedar Rapids would be at least $12,000 per year and rent on what she later calls a "nice rental property" would be another $6,000 per year leaving $2,000 per year for the other basic needs of food and clothing. That would be pretty tight. How do you do it? Well, here's how.
"The Federal Emergency Management Agency quickly stepped in to provide flood victims with emergency cash. Banks said the $11,000 the agency gave her family paid for clothing, food and shelter and got them through what was otherwise a miserable year. But FEMA scaled back its assistance after the immediate crisis had passed and the long-term assistance has been slow to materialize."
Do they really mean slow to materialize or will never materialize? FEMA does not have unlimited funding for all of the 1,000+ households? It will not last forever; it cannot. Congress is already spending more money than it has even after being told to "pay as you go". They are already printing half of what they spend.
"A lot of families have future plans. We're going to do this this summer. We're going to do this next year. We cannot do that," said Banks, who has pasted colorful signs, including one reading 'Obama, please help us', in and around her damaged home."
Yes, Mr. President, don't you hear the cry of real, hurting, downtrodden people coming from an area struck by a massive flood over a year ago? Aren't these the exact kind of people you say you want to help with taxpayer, I mean government money? What did you do for them while in the U.S. Senate last year? What have you done for them as President this year?
"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees long-term community rebuilding, announced $3.7 billion in new disaster grants for 11 states Wednesday, including $516 million for Iowa. That money will help, but Iowa's still far short of the $8 billion to $10 billion in aid state officials estimate is needed for recovery, including more than $5 billion for Cedar Rapids alone."
Could he and Congress have not added a mere $10 billion earmark to the $787 billion stimulus bill this past February? Could they not have bailed out flood victims instead of banks, car companies and insurance companies who were paying millions in bonuses to their executives and handsome benefits to unions?
"Of the three hardest-hit areas, the area closest to the river will be turned into a park and its 192 properties are eligible to be bought out by FEMA. In the second area, which is a bit farther from the river, all 377 houses will likely be destroyed to make room for a levee. But the Army Corps of Engineers hasn't decided on its placement, and may not until December 2010, leaving homeowners with as much as 18 more months of waiting. Residents with homes in the third area, a working-class neighborhood with 664 homes, including the Banks', will be allowed to remain, but many don't have the resources to renovate or rebuild. Residents have been told to wait up to six more months before the city will know if it has enough money to buy them out. "
Are they really going to wait that long for government to do something? Do they have no family, friends, churches or other charitable organizations to which they can go for much more immediate help?
My town was hit by one of those 100 year floods nearly two years ago. The city and county asked FEMA for help, which took a while or may even still be in the waiting, but they also formed a task force that went out to the private sector for help. Churches, individuals and civic organizations such as the University Kiwanis Club stepped up to the plate with financial and labor assistance.
People will never be pleased with government assistance, and the people from whom money is taken to then be given away certainly aren't pleased. Forced wealth redistribution will increase misery for rich and poor alike.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Pay Czar
I will continue to write about these unconstitutional czars and administration activities even if Congress demands and receives full accountability from them. Here is some information about yet another czar and yet another attack on the private sector.
Note the following excerpts from the NYT business section on June 7th:
"The strictest oversight of all will come from Mr. Feinberg, the administration’s compensation czar, who will actively vet all executive compensation changes at the companies that have received more than one taxpayer lifeline."
"But under the administration’s new plans, even companies that repay the taxpayer money will not escape some form of oversight on their compensation structure."
"Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plans to testify on compensation on June 18, and that may be when he outlines the principles for the entire industry. Those principles will be permanent: when bailed-out companies return the government money, they will still have to follow those principles."
I see two major problems highlighted in this news story. First, the President plans to appoint a person who is not accountable to Congress for actions that may very well affect all of the financial sector, even that portion which did not take a federal "bailout" in the first place. Will Congress stand by while their Constitutional authority is usurped?
Second, will this "czar" really regulate unbailed out companies and companies who have returned or plan to return their government loans? Will Congress stand by while this "czar" exceeds the original intent of TARP, while itself unconstitutional, in addition to the Constitution itself?
They say that this regulation will only apply to companies getting more than one bailout. What or who will stop them from regulating single-bailout companies? What or who will stop them from regulating companies that never took a bailout? What or who will stop them from regulating ALL companies in these great United States? What or who will stop them from regulating ALL compensation, not just executive salaries?
I believe that you are a target for regulation no matter what you earn under the current political class.
Note the following excerpts from the NYT business section on June 7th:
"The strictest oversight of all will come from Mr. Feinberg, the administration’s compensation czar, who will actively vet all executive compensation changes at the companies that have received more than one taxpayer lifeline."
"But under the administration’s new plans, even companies that repay the taxpayer money will not escape some form of oversight on their compensation structure."
"Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plans to testify on compensation on June 18, and that may be when he outlines the principles for the entire industry. Those principles will be permanent: when bailed-out companies return the government money, they will still have to follow those principles."
I see two major problems highlighted in this news story. First, the President plans to appoint a person who is not accountable to Congress for actions that may very well affect all of the financial sector, even that portion which did not take a federal "bailout" in the first place. Will Congress stand by while their Constitutional authority is usurped?
Second, will this "czar" really regulate unbailed out companies and companies who have returned or plan to return their government loans? Will Congress stand by while this "czar" exceeds the original intent of TARP, while itself unconstitutional, in addition to the Constitution itself?
They say that this regulation will only apply to companies getting more than one bailout. What or who will stop them from regulating single-bailout companies? What or who will stop them from regulating companies that never took a bailout? What or who will stop them from regulating ALL companies in these great United States? What or who will stop them from regulating ALL compensation, not just executive salaries?
I believe that you are a target for regulation no matter what you earn under the current political class.
Benefits of Domestic Oil
According to a Human Events post on 9/11/08, 23.5 million acres of federal property (land and water), which is 25.6% of the 91.5 million federal acres currently under lease, is producing 1.6 million BOPD. If this is so, then statistically speaking could we not extrapolate production to 42.9 million BOPD if all 2,460 million acres of federal property was under lease (1.6 million BOPD * 2,460 acres / 91.5 acres)? This extrapolated production rate of 42.9 million BOPD is more than half of the average May 2008 through February 2009 global production rate of 73.3 million BOPD per the June 2009 issue of JPT.
I realize that this is a very optimistic extrapolation, one that you might expect from a government bureaucracy trying to sell some new program. I would be skeptical of someone who told me that ALL federal property has economic reserves under it. However, the U.S.A. produces a total of about 5 million BOPD, which is about 1/3 of total consumption. Wouldn't we then only need another 10-15 million BOPD to be self-sufficient? Is it asking too much to believe that all federal property would yield this much, a 1/4 to a 1/3 of my extrapolated figure?
Wouldn't it be nice to create and keep jobs here and boost our economy? "Big Oil" might move back home if allowed to explore here.
Wouldn't it be nice to be a net EXPORTER of oil for a change? OPEC might be at our mercy. At least terrorists would no longer be funded by the U.S. How much would our Middle East foreign policy change if we were energy self-sufficient?
Wouldn't it be nice to flood our treasury with all of the resulting lease payments and production and severance tax revenue that responsible elected officials could use to pay down the national debt and shore up the "ticking time bombs" of social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.? I realize that requires quite a bit of faith.
Of course this will not happen overnight, but it will never happen if the other 96.3% of federal property is never leased out.
I realize that this is a very optimistic extrapolation, one that you might expect from a government bureaucracy trying to sell some new program. I would be skeptical of someone who told me that ALL federal property has economic reserves under it. However, the U.S.A. produces a total of about 5 million BOPD, which is about 1/3 of total consumption. Wouldn't we then only need another 10-15 million BOPD to be self-sufficient? Is it asking too much to believe that all federal property would yield this much, a 1/4 to a 1/3 of my extrapolated figure?
Wouldn't it be nice to create and keep jobs here and boost our economy? "Big Oil" might move back home if allowed to explore here.
Wouldn't it be nice to be a net EXPORTER of oil for a change? OPEC might be at our mercy. At least terrorists would no longer be funded by the U.S. How much would our Middle East foreign policy change if we were energy self-sufficient?
Wouldn't it be nice to flood our treasury with all of the resulting lease payments and production and severance tax revenue that responsible elected officials could use to pay down the national debt and shore up the "ticking time bombs" of social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.? I realize that requires quite a bit of faith.
Of course this will not happen overnight, but it will never happen if the other 96.3% of federal property is never leased out.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Misuse of First Amendment
Consider the lead paragraph of a June 5th news story by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily.
An adviser on the campus of UCLA has edited a student's personal graduation statement to remove her reference to "my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," citing policy in the Department of Molecular, Cell & Development Biology (MCDB).
My first reaction was, of course, that this was a violation of the First Amendment's religion and speech clauses. Then I thought...can a university, even one taking federal funds, violate the First Amendment? Doesn't it read, "Congress shall make no law..."? If UCLA, or even its Dept of MCDB, on its own, issues a policy or guideline restricting the content of their students' writings, speeches, classroom discussions or the extent of their on-campus activities, as unpoular as it would be, what amendment or constitutional law will have been broken? Doesn't that student already have recourse? Can that student not attend a different school if he or she feels "oppressed" by this one? It may not be an easy transition, but it can still be done within this great country of seemingly unlimited choices. I know of at least one college (Hillsdale) in this country that embraces the values embodied in our U.S. Constitution and would welcome this student.
The official statement released by UCLA in response to the student's complaint reads as follows:
"Because the reading is by the university, not the students, to avoid the appearance that the university was advocating one religion over the other, guidelines were established so that messages would not include references to particular religions. The department and the university support the First Amendment and in no way intended to impinge upon any students' rights. Thus, upon review, and recognizing that the intent of the ceremony is for all students to have a chance to say something at graduation, the department will continue to make clear to the audience that the statements are the personal statements of each student and will read statements as originally submitted by the students."
So what's the problem? If the policy is to allow statements to be read as submitted, then let the statement stand with the disclaimer that it is a personal statement. If a Muslim student said "Allahu Akbar" in his or her statement, would the department or university edit it in like manner? I don't like the way UCLA lays claim to the First Amendment though. They say they support it, but then they have guidlines that fly in its face. As I said earlier, as a private entity, UCLA should be left alone in their policy-making to be as free or as oppressive as they would like. It reminds me of non-profit organizations; they cannot lawfully engage in political behavior or endorse candidates, but isn't the very law, made by Congress, requiring non-profits to refrain from such behavior, or risk losing their tax-exempt status, a violation of the First Amendment?
My final question is this. Does the acceptance of federal money, in any amount, even by student loans, force a university to abide by the U.S. Constitution? Let's set aside for a brief moment my disgust and disagreement with the use of federal money for education at any level; it should be left to the states and the people. If one of the "strings" attached to that federal grant is that universities receiving those funds will abide by the First Amendment, or the so-called "separation of church and state", then haven't they themselves violated the First Amendment? Remember that "Congress shall make no law...". Citizens, whether individually, together as non-profit organizations, together as universities or in any group cannot violate the First Amendment!
Remember that the U.S. Constitution, espcially the Bill of Rights, spells out what the federal and state governments cannot do to you.
An adviser on the campus of UCLA has edited a student's personal graduation statement to remove her reference to "my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," citing policy in the Department of Molecular, Cell & Development Biology (MCDB).
My first reaction was, of course, that this was a violation of the First Amendment's religion and speech clauses. Then I thought...can a university, even one taking federal funds, violate the First Amendment? Doesn't it read, "Congress shall make no law..."? If UCLA, or even its Dept of MCDB, on its own, issues a policy or guideline restricting the content of their students' writings, speeches, classroom discussions or the extent of their on-campus activities, as unpoular as it would be, what amendment or constitutional law will have been broken? Doesn't that student already have recourse? Can that student not attend a different school if he or she feels "oppressed" by this one? It may not be an easy transition, but it can still be done within this great country of seemingly unlimited choices. I know of at least one college (Hillsdale) in this country that embraces the values embodied in our U.S. Constitution and would welcome this student.
The official statement released by UCLA in response to the student's complaint reads as follows:
"Because the reading is by the university, not the students, to avoid the appearance that the university was advocating one religion over the other, guidelines were established so that messages would not include references to particular religions. The department and the university support the First Amendment and in no way intended to impinge upon any students' rights. Thus, upon review, and recognizing that the intent of the ceremony is for all students to have a chance to say something at graduation, the department will continue to make clear to the audience that the statements are the personal statements of each student and will read statements as originally submitted by the students."
So what's the problem? If the policy is to allow statements to be read as submitted, then let the statement stand with the disclaimer that it is a personal statement. If a Muslim student said "Allahu Akbar" in his or her statement, would the department or university edit it in like manner? I don't like the way UCLA lays claim to the First Amendment though. They say they support it, but then they have guidlines that fly in its face. As I said earlier, as a private entity, UCLA should be left alone in their policy-making to be as free or as oppressive as they would like. It reminds me of non-profit organizations; they cannot lawfully engage in political behavior or endorse candidates, but isn't the very law, made by Congress, requiring non-profits to refrain from such behavior, or risk losing their tax-exempt status, a violation of the First Amendment?
My final question is this. Does the acceptance of federal money, in any amount, even by student loans, force a university to abide by the U.S. Constitution? Let's set aside for a brief moment my disgust and disagreement with the use of federal money for education at any level; it should be left to the states and the people. If one of the "strings" attached to that federal grant is that universities receiving those funds will abide by the First Amendment, or the so-called "separation of church and state", then haven't they themselves violated the First Amendment? Remember that "Congress shall make no law...". Citizens, whether individually, together as non-profit organizations, together as universities or in any group cannot violate the First Amendment!
Remember that the U.S. Constitution, espcially the Bill of Rights, spells out what the federal and state governments cannot do to you.
Friday, May 29, 2009
More czars and promises?
Note the lead paragraph of an AP article, "America has failed for too long to protect the security of its computer networks, President Barack Obama said Friday, announcing he will name a new cyber czar to press for action."
Here is yet another czar being unconstitutionally named with neither the Senate's confirmation nor their vestment of said appointment in the office of the President, the courts of law or the heads of departments as laid out in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.
The article further expounded, "Overall, computer company executives and members of Congress hailed Obama's announcement as a good first step, while warning that there is much hard work still to be done."
Apparently, some if not all members of Congress are aware of this czar appointment...and
applaud it! Why are they not more possessive of their authority? Are they bogged down in more important things like creating universal healthcare?
Also, when I hear Congress saying "there is much hard work still to be done", I fear that is code speak for spending more taxpayer money. They will at least have to hire someone. How is that expenditure covered...in the auto-pilot, unreviewed annual budget increases? Don't you wish they wouldn't "work" so hard.
At least one Senator, from the northeast no less, is on record expressing concern. The article noted, "'Placing a strategy 'czar' in the White House will hinder Congress' ability to effectively oversee federal cybersecurity activities and will do little to resolve the bureaucratic conflicts, turf battles, and confusing lines of authority that have undermined past cybersecurity efforts,' said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee."
I grow tired of seeing an ever expanding, unchecked executive branch with which I strongly disagree on principle and on Constitutional grounds. Does it also not bother you that these are called czars? Wasn't that a term used to describe rulers in pre-revolution Russia?
Another point in the article mentioned that "He assured the business community, however, that the government will not dictate how private industry should tighten digital defenses. And he made it clear that the new cyber security effort will not involve any monitoring of private networks or individual e-mail accounts. The Internet, he said, should remain open and free." Is this yet another government promise on which we should hang our hats? Note that the Social Security Trust Fund established in 1939 would be "raided" by Congress starting in 1965. So much for that promise.
No more czars, no more promises. Both only lead to more government control and less individual freedom.
Here is yet another czar being unconstitutionally named with neither the Senate's confirmation nor their vestment of said appointment in the office of the President, the courts of law or the heads of departments as laid out in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.
The article further expounded, "Overall, computer company executives and members of Congress hailed Obama's announcement as a good first step, while warning that there is much hard work still to be done."
Apparently, some if not all members of Congress are aware of this czar appointment...and
applaud it! Why are they not more possessive of their authority? Are they bogged down in more important things like creating universal healthcare?
Also, when I hear Congress saying "there is much hard work still to be done", I fear that is code speak for spending more taxpayer money. They will at least have to hire someone. How is that expenditure covered...in the auto-pilot, unreviewed annual budget increases? Don't you wish they wouldn't "work" so hard.
At least one Senator, from the northeast no less, is on record expressing concern. The article noted, "'Placing a strategy 'czar' in the White House will hinder Congress' ability to effectively oversee federal cybersecurity activities and will do little to resolve the bureaucratic conflicts, turf battles, and confusing lines of authority that have undermined past cybersecurity efforts,' said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee."
I grow tired of seeing an ever expanding, unchecked executive branch with which I strongly disagree on principle and on Constitutional grounds. Does it also not bother you that these are called czars? Wasn't that a term used to describe rulers in pre-revolution Russia?
Another point in the article mentioned that "He assured the business community, however, that the government will not dictate how private industry should tighten digital defenses. And he made it clear that the new cyber security effort will not involve any monitoring of private networks or individual e-mail accounts. The Internet, he said, should remain open and free." Is this yet another government promise on which we should hang our hats? Note that the Social Security Trust Fund established in 1939 would be "raided" by Congress starting in 1965. So much for that promise.
No more czars, no more promises. Both only lead to more government control and less individual freedom.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Stem Cells
The following comments were submitted to the National Institute of Health regarding their stem cell guidelines public comment period ending 5/26/09:
I oppose the use of federal money for the purpose of funding any stem cell research or treatment, both adult (ASC) and embryonic (ESC). While the only results thus far of ESC research has been the destruction of human life at its earliest stage, ASC research has resulted in the treatment of cancer, juvenile diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease thereby improving the quality of life for thousands of people. However, federal money should neither be used to promote the former that seems to gather no steam on its own nor should it be used to promote the latter which should do well enough on its own with private investment. Congress' specific enumerated power is "to promote the progress of science...by securing for limited times...to inventors the exclusive right to their respective...discoveries." When Congress appropriates money from the Treasury for this research rather than promoting it through patents and such, they violate the mandates and limits of the Constitution to which its members swore an oath.
If you would also like to submit your comments for consideration, or at least soundoff, go to the following website:
http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add_update.htm
or by mail
NIH Stem Cell Guidelines
MSC 7997, 9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7997
I don't think my comments will be well received based on the rhetoric and record of those in power, but I will speak nonetheless until they silence me.
I oppose the use of federal money for the purpose of funding any stem cell research or treatment, both adult (ASC) and embryonic (ESC). While the only results thus far of ESC research has been the destruction of human life at its earliest stage, ASC research has resulted in the treatment of cancer, juvenile diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease thereby improving the quality of life for thousands of people. However, federal money should neither be used to promote the former that seems to gather no steam on its own nor should it be used to promote the latter which should do well enough on its own with private investment. Congress' specific enumerated power is "to promote the progress of science...by securing for limited times...to inventors the exclusive right to their respective...discoveries." When Congress appropriates money from the Treasury for this research rather than promoting it through patents and such, they violate the mandates and limits of the Constitution to which its members swore an oath.
If you would also like to submit your comments for consideration, or at least soundoff, go to the following website:
http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add_update.htm
or by mail
NIH Stem Cell Guidelines
MSC 7997, 9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7997
I don't think my comments will be well received based on the rhetoric and record of those in power, but I will speak nonetheless until they silence me.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Stimulating dead people or stimulating U.S. to death
I had a few observations about the following story:
"Dead People Get Stimulus Checks
Published : Thursday, 14 May 2009, 5:28 PM EDT
MYFOXNY.COM - This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.
Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream was expecting a $250 stimulus check. But when her son finally opened it, they saw that the check was made out to her father, Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He'd been a U.S. citizen when he left for Italy in 1933, but only returned to the United States for a seven-month visit in 1969.
The Santopadres are not alone. The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.
The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange this is, some of the checks were made out to people -- like Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system."
On a relatively light note, I wonder how many of these same dead people voted in the last election. Anytime I hear about a state, district or county with more votes than registered voters (Washington state governor's race a few years ago or Minnesota's Senate race last year), it makes me wonder about the reason for the difference.
On a more serious note though, see that the feds blamed a "rushed schedule" for the error. As noted on an earlier post, why do they have to hurry? Why must these bills be rushed through Congress? Why must the resulting laws be written in such a way that implementation must be done so quickly? It strains credulity that, even as bloated as these bureaucracies already are, there are still not enough people and resources to execute these laws. Maybe that's why they were the only major sector to add jobs last month...to keep up with this massive expansion of federal power.
Secondly, what if a private entity conducted their business in this manner? For instance, suppose an investment company begins paying out your retirement funds to another person at a different address or to someone who was an investor living at your address but is now dead. Would you continue doing business with them? Would you invest with them if you heard of such a track record of negligent practices? Private entities realize that if they conduct their affairs in such a manner, they will be out of business. This is why competition and free markets are good; it is a natural check on errors, accidental or purposeful. Most people don't need to be told to look for the lowest cost, highest quality product or service.
Folks, we only have one federal government hence its Constitutionally-limited powers, of which cutting stimulus, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, bailout etc. checks is not one. If it becomes too burdensome and error-prone, what recourse do we have? The states have almost infinite latitude in their laws (limited only by the Constitution); let them experiment with such affairs. Then watch people migrate away from irresponsibly-run states and towards responsibly-run states. Again, this will act as a natural check on errors, accidental or purposeful.
Finally, how does a one-time $250 check stimulate the economy? What would you do with it? Prudent people would or should pay off debts if they have them; that's what we did with last year's checks. Others will buy merchandise which will help clear business' stock this month, but what happens the next month? Unless people get that money every month, they will not change their buying habits, and businesses will not hire people to produce and sell more merchandise that will only sit on the shelves. They need to see steady strains on supply and higher demand. Instead of taking a portion of people's money only to give it back to them later to spend one time, why not let them keep a greater portion of their money to spend every month? I would not buy a new car and assume a payment based on a Christmas bonus, but I would do so based on a raise which is all a tax cut really is.
Let us insist that our government foster a stimulating environment for the all of the living by getting out of our lives with their rules and taxes.
"Dead People Get Stimulus Checks
Published : Thursday, 14 May 2009, 5:28 PM EDT
MYFOXNY.COM - This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.
Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream was expecting a $250 stimulus check. But when her son finally opened it, they saw that the check was made out to her father, Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He'd been a U.S. citizen when he left for Italy in 1933, but only returned to the United States for a seven-month visit in 1969.
The Santopadres are not alone. The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.
The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange this is, some of the checks were made out to people -- like Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system."
On a relatively light note, I wonder how many of these same dead people voted in the last election. Anytime I hear about a state, district or county with more votes than registered voters (Washington state governor's race a few years ago or Minnesota's Senate race last year), it makes me wonder about the reason for the difference.
On a more serious note though, see that the feds blamed a "rushed schedule" for the error. As noted on an earlier post, why do they have to hurry? Why must these bills be rushed through Congress? Why must the resulting laws be written in such a way that implementation must be done so quickly? It strains credulity that, even as bloated as these bureaucracies already are, there are still not enough people and resources to execute these laws. Maybe that's why they were the only major sector to add jobs last month...to keep up with this massive expansion of federal power.
Secondly, what if a private entity conducted their business in this manner? For instance, suppose an investment company begins paying out your retirement funds to another person at a different address or to someone who was an investor living at your address but is now dead. Would you continue doing business with them? Would you invest with them if you heard of such a track record of negligent practices? Private entities realize that if they conduct their affairs in such a manner, they will be out of business. This is why competition and free markets are good; it is a natural check on errors, accidental or purposeful. Most people don't need to be told to look for the lowest cost, highest quality product or service.
Folks, we only have one federal government hence its Constitutionally-limited powers, of which cutting stimulus, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, bailout etc. checks is not one. If it becomes too burdensome and error-prone, what recourse do we have? The states have almost infinite latitude in their laws (limited only by the Constitution); let them experiment with such affairs. Then watch people migrate away from irresponsibly-run states and towards responsibly-run states. Again, this will act as a natural check on errors, accidental or purposeful.
Finally, how does a one-time $250 check stimulate the economy? What would you do with it? Prudent people would or should pay off debts if they have them; that's what we did with last year's checks. Others will buy merchandise which will help clear business' stock this month, but what happens the next month? Unless people get that money every month, they will not change their buying habits, and businesses will not hire people to produce and sell more merchandise that will only sit on the shelves. They need to see steady strains on supply and higher demand. Instead of taking a portion of people's money only to give it back to them later to spend one time, why not let them keep a greater portion of their money to spend every month? I would not buy a new car and assume a payment based on a Christmas bonus, but I would do so based on a raise which is all a tax cut really is.
Let us insist that our government foster a stimulating environment for the all of the living by getting out of our lives with their rules and taxes.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Universal, single-payer health care
Have you noticed some of the subtle ways government justifies its encroachment on our liberty? Perhaps the best example is in our health care system. I predict that once the government pays for and therefore controls our health care, they will also control the decisions affecting our health which is nearly everything we do.
At one time in our country, before my time, each person or family was responsible for his or her or their own health care. They could eat McDonald's every day of the week, smoke as many cigarettes as they wanted, work 12 hour days, get sun burned, etc. and live with the consequences of those actions, or inactions, whatever they may be. While I don't necessarily agree that doing these things will lead to heart attacks, lung cancer, stroke, skin cancer, etc., we have all heard of research and reports that have contended so. At one time, eating eggs resulted in high cholesterol, but my wife's grandmother has done so for years and has below-normal cholesterol. A smoker in my office building is one of many in his family who has smoked for decades, and they have all lived longer than the average person. I frequently hear that overwork causes stress which can lead to heart problems. On the other hand, I also know middle-agers and up with skin cancer who baked in the sun in their younger years before there was sunscreen and warnings of the sun's harmful rays. While mostly anecdotal, these stories illustrate that there are exceptions to the rule because no two people are alike. They also tell me that unless you are financially paying the consequences for your actions, the party who is paying will tell you what, or what not, to do based on the latest scientific research or the consensus thereof.
For some reason, in 1965, we the people decided to let our government enact what I believe are the progenitors of universal, single-payer health care, namely Medicare and Medicaid. These are centerpieces of of President Johnson's "Great Society". Some call it the New Deal Part II, but it should be called the Raw Deal Part II. Why did the Greatest Generation and some of the Baby Boomers allow this to happen? Did they not want to see the elderly, the poor or the single-parent family suffer? Did they not have the foresight to see that one day these programs, while originally intended for only a select few citizens, would morph into a system that would crowd out the free market, even be extended to non-citizens and eventually tell us how to live our lives?
With very few exceptions, what do politicians want? Even more following the Constitution and serving the people, they want to be re-elected. How does that happen? Well, it takes alot of money to run ads and pay people to get out your name and message, but it certainly doesn't hurt to keep saying yes to new entitlement programs, such as the Prescription Drug bill or Medicare Part D pushed by Bush 43, as well as expanding existing programs to more voters, I mean people. The long arm of Medicare's coverage has slowly encroached on more seniors of course as the Greatest Generation lives longer and Baby Boomers retire, disabled people and wealthier seniors who either could afford their own health care or had private coverage with their former employer. Eventually, this will catch up to the politicians and we the working-class, taxpaying people.
The latest Medicare trustees report indicates that the present value of the program's excess costs is $85.6 trillion! This is the cost if the existing program remains unchanged. What happens if we get universal, single-payer health care when everyone is in the system? All of the politicians are aware of this projected debt and have to know that there are only two solutions to the problem: increase taxes on the working class to pay the benefits promised to the retired and disabled class or cut the benefits to the retired and disabled class. Either option will anger one of these constituents, but I contend that only one will work in the long run for the "common good".
Option 1 - Increase taxes: Whereas the government has confiscated an average of about 19% of United States Gross Domestic Product since Medicare's birth, they would have to confiscate the entire annual US GDP, currently at $14 trillion, every year for the next six years. This assumes that we would keep working hard for free for the next six years. Any volunteers? There simply is not enough wealth in this country for everyone to have Cadillac health care under the current structure.
Option 2 - Cut benefits: While not publicly announced, this is what they know they will have to do once everyone is on the dole. When all private health care is crowded out, they will have no choice because the choices will have been crowded out. Everyone currently on private health care is accustomed to getting what they want immediately and for a varied price. This is one of the benefits of our free market; competition forces lower costs and higher quality. When all of those people demand that same quality service and treatment from the single-payer (i.e. government), there will be a price to pay in terms of dollars and quality. While premiums may start at little or none, they will rise once the sytem gets strained even further than it already is. Benefits will be cut. What do these cuts look like? Consider the following from a recent committee report posted on the Congressional Budget Office website:
"By themselves, premium subsidies or mandates are insufficient to achieve universal coverage, but near-universal coverage is possible using a combination of approaches, such as enacting enforceable individual mandates along with subsidies for low-income people, creating a voluntary system that combines subsidies that cover a very large share of the costs of insurance with a process that facilitates enrollment, encouraging the purchase of less extensive coverage could reduce treatments of minimal benefit, enrollees would face higher cost sharing or tighter management of their care, health IT, preventive care"
Note the terms "enforceable", "individual mandates", "encouraging the purchase of less...", "higher cost sharing", "tighter management". What is meant by individual mandates? Would that have anything to do with the lifestyle choices such as those listed earlier? Is higher cost sharing code for higher premiums? Who will be more tightly managing my care? These are not terms that I associate with liberty, freedom, the United States of America and her founding documents. Between premiums, doctor's visits and drugs, I may be paying over $1,000 per month for my family's health care, but at least we can decide when and where to spend those dollars and how to live our lives. After the competition is gone though, what stops the remaining provider from doing, or not doing, whatever they want?
There's a saying, "If you think health care is expensive now, what until it's free." Politicians like to tell us that as Americans, we are entitled to free, unlimited health care. That's good for the politician but not for the "common good" which is what they are charged with protecting. Universal, single-payer health care is just like any Ponzi scheme...the early investors benefit the most, not from some legitimate return but from the investments of others, and just like the Madoff Ponzi scheme, the later investors will be the last ones without a chair when the music stops. True leaders would tell all Americans that as such you are entitled to freedom from government encroachment especially in decisions regarding your health and everything that affects it.
Say NO to universal, single-payer health care.
At one time in our country, before my time, each person or family was responsible for his or her or their own health care. They could eat McDonald's every day of the week, smoke as many cigarettes as they wanted, work 12 hour days, get sun burned, etc. and live with the consequences of those actions, or inactions, whatever they may be. While I don't necessarily agree that doing these things will lead to heart attacks, lung cancer, stroke, skin cancer, etc., we have all heard of research and reports that have contended so. At one time, eating eggs resulted in high cholesterol, but my wife's grandmother has done so for years and has below-normal cholesterol. A smoker in my office building is one of many in his family who has smoked for decades, and they have all lived longer than the average person. I frequently hear that overwork causes stress which can lead to heart problems. On the other hand, I also know middle-agers and up with skin cancer who baked in the sun in their younger years before there was sunscreen and warnings of the sun's harmful rays. While mostly anecdotal, these stories illustrate that there are exceptions to the rule because no two people are alike. They also tell me that unless you are financially paying the consequences for your actions, the party who is paying will tell you what, or what not, to do based on the latest scientific research or the consensus thereof.
For some reason, in 1965, we the people decided to let our government enact what I believe are the progenitors of universal, single-payer health care, namely Medicare and Medicaid. These are centerpieces of of President Johnson's "Great Society". Some call it the New Deal Part II, but it should be called the Raw Deal Part II. Why did the Greatest Generation and some of the Baby Boomers allow this to happen? Did they not want to see the elderly, the poor or the single-parent family suffer? Did they not have the foresight to see that one day these programs, while originally intended for only a select few citizens, would morph into a system that would crowd out the free market, even be extended to non-citizens and eventually tell us how to live our lives?
With very few exceptions, what do politicians want? Even more following the Constitution and serving the people, they want to be re-elected. How does that happen? Well, it takes alot of money to run ads and pay people to get out your name and message, but it certainly doesn't hurt to keep saying yes to new entitlement programs, such as the Prescription Drug bill or Medicare Part D pushed by Bush 43, as well as expanding existing programs to more voters, I mean people. The long arm of Medicare's coverage has slowly encroached on more seniors of course as the Greatest Generation lives longer and Baby Boomers retire, disabled people and wealthier seniors who either could afford their own health care or had private coverage with their former employer. Eventually, this will catch up to the politicians and we the working-class, taxpaying people.
The latest Medicare trustees report indicates that the present value of the program's excess costs is $85.6 trillion! This is the cost if the existing program remains unchanged. What happens if we get universal, single-payer health care when everyone is in the system? All of the politicians are aware of this projected debt and have to know that there are only two solutions to the problem: increase taxes on the working class to pay the benefits promised to the retired and disabled class or cut the benefits to the retired and disabled class. Either option will anger one of these constituents, but I contend that only one will work in the long run for the "common good".
Option 1 - Increase taxes: Whereas the government has confiscated an average of about 19% of United States Gross Domestic Product since Medicare's birth, they would have to confiscate the entire annual US GDP, currently at $14 trillion, every year for the next six years. This assumes that we would keep working hard for free for the next six years. Any volunteers? There simply is not enough wealth in this country for everyone to have Cadillac health care under the current structure.
Option 2 - Cut benefits: While not publicly announced, this is what they know they will have to do once everyone is on the dole. When all private health care is crowded out, they will have no choice because the choices will have been crowded out. Everyone currently on private health care is accustomed to getting what they want immediately and for a varied price. This is one of the benefits of our free market; competition forces lower costs and higher quality. When all of those people demand that same quality service and treatment from the single-payer (i.e. government), there will be a price to pay in terms of dollars and quality. While premiums may start at little or none, they will rise once the sytem gets strained even further than it already is. Benefits will be cut. What do these cuts look like? Consider the following from a recent committee report posted on the Congressional Budget Office website:
"By themselves, premium subsidies or mandates are insufficient to achieve universal coverage, but near-universal coverage is possible using a combination of approaches, such as enacting enforceable individual mandates along with subsidies for low-income people, creating a voluntary system that combines subsidies that cover a very large share of the costs of insurance with a process that facilitates enrollment, encouraging the purchase of less extensive coverage could reduce treatments of minimal benefit, enrollees would face higher cost sharing or tighter management of their care, health IT, preventive care"
Note the terms "enforceable", "individual mandates", "encouraging the purchase of less...", "higher cost sharing", "tighter management". What is meant by individual mandates? Would that have anything to do with the lifestyle choices such as those listed earlier? Is higher cost sharing code for higher premiums? Who will be more tightly managing my care? These are not terms that I associate with liberty, freedom, the United States of America and her founding documents. Between premiums, doctor's visits and drugs, I may be paying over $1,000 per month for my family's health care, but at least we can decide when and where to spend those dollars and how to live our lives. After the competition is gone though, what stops the remaining provider from doing, or not doing, whatever they want?
There's a saying, "If you think health care is expensive now, what until it's free." Politicians like to tell us that as Americans, we are entitled to free, unlimited health care. That's good for the politician but not for the "common good" which is what they are charged with protecting. Universal, single-payer health care is just like any Ponzi scheme...the early investors benefit the most, not from some legitimate return but from the investments of others, and just like the Madoff Ponzi scheme, the later investors will be the last ones without a chair when the music stops. True leaders would tell all Americans that as such you are entitled to freedom from government encroachment especially in decisions regarding your health and everything that affects it.
Say NO to universal, single-payer health care.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
100 Days of Irony
Isn't it ironic that while the President tells us to make sacrifices for the "common good", he lives a lavish lifestyle? Where has he cut back? Food? No. He serves $100 per pound steak at White House parties and has chefs flown into D.C. from Chicago to make his favorite pizza. Clothes? No. His wife wears $540 sneakers while working at a DC food bank. Travel? No. He and his security entourage used about 9000 gallons of fuel on their Earth Day tour while again telling us to cut back on our fuel usage to "save the planet". We still have the freedom to travel five hours across the state four times a year to see close grandma in Midland or 10 hours out of state once a year to see far grandma in St. Louis or three days across the country once a year to see my cousin get married in the San Juan Islands. We would have to make these trips for 22 years in a row to use what he did in one day, and while I asked nobody else to support these trips, he forced me to support his trips through mytaxes.
Isn't it ironic that while the President and Congress desire local control of radio stations and local programming, they intend to force it on those stations from on high, with the heavy-hand of the federal government, namely the FCC and community boards reporting to them?
Isn't it ironic that while they want what "works" in education, regardless of ideology, they kill programs that work, such as the DCOSP discussed in an earlier post?
Isn't it ironic that while they want to keep the government, at ALL levels, out of the decision of a woman who wants an abortion, or should I say wants to end an innocent life, they desire the government at the highest level to be intimately involved in the medical decisions of all people through the single-payer health care plan? Are you overweight? Sorry, that surgery would be a waste of "our" money until you lose some weight. Are you a senior citizen? Sorry, you won't live long enough to benefit from that surgery. Do you have cancer? Sorry, treatment is too expensive.
Isn't it ironic that while four non-TARP, hedge fund debt holders in Chrysler are asked to take about $0.30 for every dollar invested, the UAW is given the full value? One of those bond holders said, "What we're looking for is a reasonable payout on the value of the debt . . . more in line with what unions and Fiat were getting." George Schultze, the managing member of the hedge fund Schultze Asset Management, a Chrysler bondholder, said, "We are simply seeking to enforce our bargained-for rights under well-settled law." Most private entities agreed to take the loss, but four said no deal because they expect their contract to be honored. The UAW will be getting a majority share and Fiat, the government and private entities will make up the difference.
Isn't it ironic that while harsh or extreme terrorist interrogation techniques (including, yes, waterboarding) do get valuable intelligence for the thwarting of attacks on the people of this country, to which the documents themselves, the former VP, the current CIA director as well as the President himself admitted, they will no longer conduct them? Who are they trying to protect...us or them? The question is who are they Constitutionally-obligated to protect?
I'm sure they are more ironies to discuss and more to come.
Isn't it ironic that while the President and Congress desire local control of radio stations and local programming, they intend to force it on those stations from on high, with the heavy-hand of the federal government, namely the FCC and community boards reporting to them?
Isn't it ironic that while they want what "works" in education, regardless of ideology, they kill programs that work, such as the DCOSP discussed in an earlier post?
Isn't it ironic that while they want to keep the government, at ALL levels, out of the decision of a woman who wants an abortion, or should I say wants to end an innocent life, they desire the government at the highest level to be intimately involved in the medical decisions of all people through the single-payer health care plan? Are you overweight? Sorry, that surgery would be a waste of "our" money until you lose some weight. Are you a senior citizen? Sorry, you won't live long enough to benefit from that surgery. Do you have cancer? Sorry, treatment is too expensive.
Isn't it ironic that while four non-TARP, hedge fund debt holders in Chrysler are asked to take about $0.30 for every dollar invested, the UAW is given the full value? One of those bond holders said, "What we're looking for is a reasonable payout on the value of the debt . . . more in line with what unions and Fiat were getting." George Schultze, the managing member of the hedge fund Schultze Asset Management, a Chrysler bondholder, said, "We are simply seeking to enforce our bargained-for rights under well-settled law." Most private entities agreed to take the loss, but four said no deal because they expect their contract to be honored. The UAW will be getting a majority share and Fiat, the government and private entities will make up the difference.
Isn't it ironic that while harsh or extreme terrorist interrogation techniques (including, yes, waterboarding) do get valuable intelligence for the thwarting of attacks on the people of this country, to which the documents themselves, the former VP, the current CIA director as well as the President himself admitted, they will no longer conduct them? Who are they trying to protect...us or them? The question is who are they Constitutionally-obligated to protect?
I'm sure they are more ironies to discuss and more to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)