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".
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)