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.

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.

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.

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.

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.