A few thoughts on today's "bi-partisan" health care summit. "Bi-partisan" is in quotes because it will only be bi-partisan from the standpoint that both Democrats and Republicans will be in the same room at the same time.
They can't do that- can they?
No matter what happens tomorrow, I have been convinced since December, and remain convinced, that the Senate is planning on using "reconciliation" to pass a final draft of the health care reform bill with 51 votes, rather than the normally-required 60. Reconciliation is a procedural rule which has been invoked by both Senate Republicans and Democrats over the years.
Reconciliation was intended to be used only in case of an impass on budgetary items- where failure to authorize the necessary spending would cause the federal government to literally shut down, fail to pay its employees, etc. It has been abused by both parties over the years; however, the White House and Democratic leadership in the Senate, rather than adhering to the Constitution, will ram health care reform through, and justify it based on the half-baked excuse that Republicans have invoked reconciliation before, too.
That's certainly true, but does it justify cramming a bill of this magnitude down the throats of the American people, the majority of whom oppose Democratic proposals for healthcare reform- particularly when getting sixty "yea" votes required the now infamous "Louisiana Purchase" and "Cornhusker Kickback" be inserted into the original Senate bill?
In any case, political-fallout-be-damned, Reid's going to push this through the Senate with a simple majority if necessary no matter what happens today. There's a lot of talk about whether Pelosi has the votes in the House or whether the House will vote first, etc. Those issues notwithstanding, if a health care reform bill comes to the Senate floor for a vote, reconciliation will be invoked; fifty-one (or fifty with Biden casting the tie-breaking vote) will be enough. Time to call your senators.
"I can't believe I ate the whole thing."
Hardcore fans of The Simpsons will immediately recognize Homer Simpson's senior yearbook quote- in this case it's a reference to the over-reaching of Congressional Democrats on this issue in their desire to do everything-at-once on healthcare reform. There's an inherent, and reasonable skepticism on the part of the American people when it takes Congress more than 2,000 pages to do anything.
Also, many Americans are fearful of the frenetic pace at which the Democratic Congress has been working to cram its agenda through, and with virtually no Republican support to boot. Against the backdrop of Obama's campaign promises of bi-partisanship and Nancy Pelosi's promise of "no earmarks" this legislature stands out in stark contrast. As the deficit grows more Americans are pushing back against the urgent need of the Democratic majority in Congress and the White House to 'do it all, do it now, and do it by any means necessary.' That's not the change people are looking for.
Baby Steps
President Obama seems to have resigned himself to the notion that, when it comes to health care reform, failure is not an option. His legacy is on the line, or so he seems to believe. It was surprising even to me, then, that rather than "pivot" and move to the center on healthcare reform in his State of the Union Address, as most political pundits predicted he would, Obama remained on the far-Left of this issue and further dug his heels in. This is further evidenced by the White House's release of its health care plan Monday morning (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100222/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare), which was largely a re-tread of the same ideas his party has been pushing all along.
If the White House and Congressional Democrats are serious about a bi-partisan solution on health care that the majority of Americans would support, they'll have to do two simple things differently than they have to this point.
First, they would make sure NOTHING in the bill gives any unfair exemptions to any particular groups- no special deals for certain states, no earmarks, no exemptions for union employees if the bill contains a tax on so-called "Cadillac plans" and, most importantly, members of Congress and all federal employees are all required to participate in the same plan or be subject to the same requirements and restrictions as everyone else.
Second, take an incremental approach. No 2,500-page monstrosity- no single bill, but a series of bills which can stand on their own merits and addresses a few agenda items at a time. Reform should begin with the issues about which there is most bi-partisan agreement and work backwards rather than the-other-way-around. Here are five key area where Democrats and Republicans could pass true bi-partisan reform:
Estimates on the amount of fraud perpetrated against the Medicare system each year range from 60-120 BILLION dollars a year! Let's suppose that there are thirty-million uninsured Americans (despite the fact that excluding illegal aliens and households making over $75,000 per year, the number of uninured is probably half of that); eliminating the fraud from Medicare alone would fund 166-333 dollars per month per uninsured American that they use toward the purchase of health care.
Given that every health care reform bill proposed by Congressional Democrats proports to pay for itself, in part, by scrubbing this fraud out of Medicare, three questions come immediately to mind:
First- what exactly makes lawmakers think they can eliminate fraud from Medicare?
Second, assuming that the federal government is competent and capable enough to eliminate Medicare fraud, why haven't they done so before now?
Third, wouldn't proving that they can clean up Medicare be a good jumping-off point for reform? Seriously, is there anything that's been proposed in the entire health care debate that makes more sense? Regulating commerce is an enumerated, Constitutional power of the federal government. If dishonest physicians and organized crime are bilking the American taxpayer out of billions of dollars, shouldn't stopping this be at the top of Congress' to-do list?
If Democratic lawmakers want to claim that this savings, as well as eliminating other "waste" from Medicare, is going to provide much of the funding for their health care reform legislation, how about they prove it can be done and go from there?
This is largely the "let the people purchase insurance across state lines" mantra, which has been a key piece of every Republican proposal for health care reform. Most Democrats have opposed it, mantaining that only a public option will create "choice and competition" and that the 'evil insurance companies' will collude on pricing no matter how many new carriers are introduced into the marketplace for consumers to choose from. I disagree.
Democrats can make this claim all they want- they still haven't offered a shred of proof for that argument, and if allowing competition across state lines doesn't drive down premiums, you still haven't cost the taxpayer a dime in additional governemnt spending. Let's try it and see what happens.
One caveat: this type of reform will be a bit sticky because most insurance plans are regulated at the state level and every state has its own department of insurance and its own state "mandates" as to what provisions policies sold in each state must include. Larger companies which have locations in multiple states do not have to comply with state mandates; instead they are requireds to comply with ERISA- the federal law regulating benefit and retirement plans.
Unlike most members of Congress, I am very wary of intruding on states' rights; however, we've got some very "creative" lawmakers on Capitol Hill these days. I'm sure they can work with the states to craft something which will make mandates more uniform on a state-by-state basis, thereby increasing competition and reducing administrative costs to insurers and consumers.
The empirical evidence regarding tort reform needs to be presented at the next Governor's conference, presented to the state legislatures, etc.- put everyone involved including the trial lawyers together and let them make their case, and let each state make its own determination.
The line of demarcation between states that have enacted tort reform and those who have not is already clear- in states that have not enacted it providers are fleeing and malpractice attorneys are flocking. What more evidence do we need?
4) Individual Empowerment:
This one is simple- encourage increased deductibility (higher contribution limits) on contributions made to medical savings accounts; increase portability of health insurance, including (rather than COBRA) allowing individuals who would lose their coverage when they lose (or quit) their job to convert to an individual policy or enter Medicaid for such time as they can demonstrate that they cannot afford individual coverage; finally, allow individuals who purchase their own health insurance the ability to deduct their premiums just as businesses are currently allowed to do.
5) Expand Medicaid:
When Barack Obama was running for President, he vowed to make "affordable" (without defining affordable) to the uninsured and those who can't afford insurance, 'the same coverage members of Congress have.'
As President, he's walked in lock-step with Congressional plans to radically transform the entire healthcare system and specifically exempt members of Congress and other federal employees from participating in the public option that's been proposed. That's not exactly the same thing.
Assuming the fraud and waste can be scrubbed from Medicaid and Medicare, those savings could be used to provide Medicaid coverage to the uninsurable and subsidize premiums for those who cannot afford to purchase health insurance on their own, whether they use their subsidy to purchase private insurance or pay for access to Medicaid or Medicare coverage.
Drink!
I don't know if anyone is actually planning on watching the health care summit, but the American people will finally have the opportunity to see their elected leaders debate health care reform on C-SPAN just like the President promised...a year-and-a-half ago. Let's face it, little will be accomplished today. Democrats will use this forum to paint Congressional Republicans as "the party of 'no'" and allies of the greedy, evil, insurance companies, validate their parking, and move full-steam ahead on passing their proposal for health care reform with no bi-partisan support. This is merely political theater for the American people- period.
That being said, if you do tune in for this six-hour dog-and-pony show, you might as well enjoy yourself and have some fun with it. You're going to need a drink, so might I suggest you invite your friends over and make a game of it. Depending on how you set up the rules you might need Speaker Pelosi's alcohol budget to get through it (http://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosis-in-flight-food-and-drink-costs-101000-2010-1). You can divide up these catch-phrases amongst the various players or break into teams- I wouldn't recommend everyone drink every time one of these happens, but you can make your own rules. Here are a few suggestions:
1) Each time a member of the summit mentions Insurance giant Wellpoint by name- someone has to drink. (Remember that when I say drink, I mean a sip- not an entire drink; you want to make it through the whole six hours- don't you?)
2) If someone specifically describes Wellpoint using the phrase "insurance giant"- that's two drinks.
3) If someone accuses the Republicans of being obstructionists (can use another form of the word), that's a drink.
4) If they specifically use the phrase "party of no"- that's two drinks.
5) If someone references greedy insurance executives, drink.
6) Someone mentions tort reform, drink.
7) Someone mentions or implies the use of reconciliation, drink.
8) If anyone mentions the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers, Framers' intent, the enumerated powers of the federal government, or state's rights, everyone playing at home has to finish their drink (don't worry- this won't happen very often).
You get the idea. Feel free to make other rules and send me your suggestions as well. And if anything other than partisan bickering and political posturing takes place, if something substantial happens that both sides can build on...
Seems Democratic Strategist David Plouffe (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/26/david.plouffe/) is already making his presence in the Obama Administration felt. In an apparent effort to re-brand himself as a fiscal conservative, President Obama yesterday proposed putting a three-year freeze on discretionary spending increases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604154.html?hpid=topnews). Whether the "Obama as budget-hawk" brand is something the American voter will buy into or not, fiscal moderates and conservatives should lead the charge to get this proposal passed as soon as possible.
I know, I know- it's a drop in the bucket. Peter Roff at U.S. News and World Report notes that, "the White House claims the freeze will reduce total spending over the next decade by $250 billion. Under current services, the federal government will be spending $42.9 trillion. Even with the freeze, Obama and the Democrats in Congress get to spend...99.42 percent of what they were planning to."
And, yes, virtually every area of the federal government has already seen massive increases in spending under the Democratic Congress. Roth points out that "non-defense discretionary spending during Obama's first year in office grew by 17.4 percent. Freezing spending at that level over the next three years would still produce an average annual increase of 5.5 percent, which is faster than both the economy and wages are expected to grow." (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/26/the-obama-spending-freeze-is-simply-not-credible.html).
OK, so the so-called "freeze" would exclude the $80 billion-dollar jobs bill currently being considered in the Senate, as well as the remaining $500-plus billion of the $787 billion stimulus which is still unspent. So John McCain called for the same freeze in 2008 and was roundly rebuffed by then-candidate Obama, who said during their first Presidential debate, "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel." Now, it seems President Obama is right there with McCain, just a year late and billions of dollars short.
Yet as our President is fond of saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." "Drop in the bucket" or not, many political pundits have expressed skepticism that the proposed freeze will ever become reality, as it will likely be attched to a bill, much of the rest of which, Republicans will largely oppose, and will join with tax-and-spend Democrats to defeat.
That would be a mistake. The President has presented true fiscal conservatives on BOTH sides of the aisle with an opportunity to show the voters their budgetary bona fides going into the November elections. For "moderate" Democrats in red- or purple states this may be their best opportunity to assuage voters after voting for health care reform, cap-and-trade, etc; so-called RINO incumbents facing tough primary challenges can hope to shore up their conservative credentials as well.
Any Congressional Republicans and Democrats who are truly for smaller government, even if it's only a wee-bit smaller, need to do more than get on board with this proposal, they need to get out in front of it. That means immediately submitting a bill calling for the President's proposed three-year freeze. Get as many members of both parties as possible to co-sponsor the bill ON ITS OWN MERITS- no sweeteners, no earmarks, no piggy-backing onto another bill for the purpose of politiking, no additional legislation of any kind included. If it never makes it to the floor for a vote, those who obstruct it will pay a political price. If it makes it to the floor, it may become an effective barometer of where each member of Congress stands on runaway spending. As the saying goes, "You will know their names and I will make them famous."
Monetarily speaking, it isn't a substantial reduction, but that is precisely the reason only those legislators most hopelessly addicted to more-and-more spending would oppose the President's proposal.
It's more than a drop in the bucket- it's a first step in 'separating the wheat from the chaff' for the voter.
A study released early this year by the federal government's own Department of Health and Human Services concludes that the Head Start program "was found to yield no lasting results." (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60001)
That hasn't stopped Congress from pouring billions of additional dollars from its Economic Recovery Act into the program, which the HHS touts on its own website. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/acf/hs-ehs.html
And why shouldn't it? It's becoming a familiar, albeit counterintuitive, corrollary among proponents of bigger government that any time a big-government program fails to meet its objectives it must be due to a lack of funding. If these kids aren't acheiving lasting results as a result of their participation is these programs, it makes you wonder what they are learning?
Perhaps the most frustrating part of the health-care reform debate is that the opponents of the Democratic proposals for reform seem willing to slug it out on the individual issues related to health-care when they should first be asking existential questions about the role of the federal government and the United States Constitution in shaping reform and providing some boundaries and restraints to prevent the usurpation of more and more power by the central government.
There is no plan for national, government-run health care which can meet any Constitutional litmus test save the one where progressives can simply throw out the Constitution and re-interpret the general welfare and the commerce clause in any way they see fit.
For fiscal year 2007, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security comprised 43% of the U.S. budget. Tack on National Health Care and interest on the debt attributed to these programs and by 2019 (when all of the costs of national health care will have fully kicked-in),the price tag for these programs is estimated to reach nearly 70% of total government outlays. So, it's un-Constitutional and we can't afford it.
I know they both have white facial hair, but Uncle Sam isn't Santa Claus.
Here's a good op-ed from the WSJ I've been meaning to post:
The Lords of Entitlement
Every medical insurance decision will be subject to rationing by politics.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi defied policy logic and public opinion late Saturday night, ramming through the House a nearly 2,000-page health-care leviathan that counts as the biggest expansion of the federal government since the New Deal. As President Obama likes to say, this was a "teachable moment" about our current government.
The vote was 220 to 215, with 39 House Democrats joining all but one Republican in opposition. Mrs. Pelosi had to cajole and bribe her way to the magic 218, and the list of her promises must be stacked to the ceiling.
The lone Republican, Joseph Cao, represents a Democratic-leaning Louisiana district and extracted a promise that Mr. Obama would increase Medicaid payments to his state, and even then he only voted after Democrats had already hit 218. Let no one suggest this was the "bipartisan" health reform that Mr. Obama has long promised.
The bill is instead a breathtaking display of illiberal ambition, intended to make the middle class more dependent on government through the umbilical cord of "universal health care." It creates a vast new entitlement, financed by European levels of taxation on business and individuals. The 20% corner of Medicare open to private competition is slashed, while fiscally strapped states are saddled with new Medicaid burdens. The insurance industry will have to vet every policy with Washington, which will regulate who it must cover, what it can offer, and how much it can charge.
We have little sympathy for the insurers, or for that matter most of the other medical providers who signed on to this process only to claim now to be appalled by the result. The insurance lobby—led by Aetna CEO Ron Williams—made the Faustian bet that it could trade new regulations for more new subsidized customers who would face a tax penalty if they didn't buy their insurance. The Pelosi bill includes the regulation but guts the tax penalty because it's unpopular. Insurers will thus have to cover more sick people with fewer dollars, as healthy folk opt out of coverage until they are sick.
This writing was on the wall months ago, but the insurers chose to play an inside game rather than shape public opinion. Judging by their weekend statement—criticizing the House bill but vowing to seek "bipartisan" reform—they will now throw themselves at the mercy of the Senate. Good luck with that. The real victims are their customers, most of whom will pay more for insurance as the new mandates raise costs.
Associated Press
Mrs. Pelosi's craftiest political turn was a last-minute compromise to strip federal funds from insurance plans that cover abortions. The deal—negotiated by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak and supported by the National Right to Life Committee—gave cover to 40-some Democrats to support the larger bill.
However, as subsidized costs soar, government will have no choice but to ration medical care, starting with the aged and grievously ill. Is pre-natal life more valuable than the elderly? We're reminded of the way pro-lifers supported Anthony Kennedy over Laurence Silberman for the Supreme Court in 1987 merely because Mr. Kennedy was a Catholic who claimed to personally oppose abortion. Mr. Stupak played the right-to-lifers like a Stradavarius.
The real importance of the abortion uproar is as preview of the politics that will dominate every medical coverage issue if ObamaCare becomes law. Every decision of what to insure or not—when an MRI can be used, or whether a stage-four breast cancer patient can get Avastin or some future expensive drug—will become subject to political intervention over moral disputes or budget constraints. Heretofore, these decisions have largely been made between a doctor and patient. This is the real "right to life" issue.
Perhaps the most unsurprising news in this drama was the collapse of the Blue Dog "deficit hawks." Enough of them always cave in the end to give Mrs. Pelosi her way. It's nonetheless worth noting the surrender of that most vocal scourge of deficits, Tennessee's Jim Cooper, who voted aye on grounds that the bill can be improved in the Senate.
But Max Baucus's Finance Committee bill includes a similar gimmick of making the numbers look good by using 10 years of new taxes to finance only seven years of spending (six in the House). The deficits explode in the second decade and beyond in both bills.
The House also contains a new government long-term insurance program that starts collecting premiums in 2011 but doesn't starting paying benefits until 2016 and then runs out of money in 2029. North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad called it "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of" in an interview with the Washington Post in late October. Mr. Cooper has with a single vote made his entire career irrelevant.
Yet 39 other Democrats were given a pass on the vote, as the leadership knows how unpopular this bill is in most of America. They know this legislation is not the result of some national consensus in favor of expanding state power. Its passage was possible only because of temporary liberal majorities that are intent on fulfilling their dreams of a cradle-to-grave entitlement state. If they lose Blue Dog seats, or even their majority, in the short term, so be it. As the party of government, Democrats believe they will benefit in the long run from a much larger government.
Unless the Senate has an epiphany of common sense, Americans will be paying the bills for this willful exercise for generations to come.
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
Democrats are franticly looking to get something done on health care, even if it means branding concerned citizens skeptical of a government option as extremists, much as they had with Tea Party participants.
Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee issued the following statement regarding the recent backlash against their proposals for health care reform:
“The Republicans and their allied groups- desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill - are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.”
I’m quite confident, without doing any research, that the DNC never made similar attempts to marginalize the demonstrators being bused to the homes of AIG executives, or members of Code Pink who showed up at W’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, or members of ACORN or the New Black Panther Party who turned up on election day brandishing clubs in an attempt to intimidate voters who hadn’t yet seen the light on “hope and change."
Desperation is in the air. The afterglow of the November elections is dissipating and popular support for the Democratic brand of reform is dwindling; despite that, Democratic plans for universal health care may still become reality with some properly applied arm-twisting of “Blue-Dogs” by Congressional leadership. They recognize the urgency of getting something done and despite its unpopularity with a large number of Americans there has still never been a better time to sell government health care to the People. You can believe they will be doing just that during this August recess.
This is not just due to the overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the Executive. No, despite recent setbacks, advocates of a government option could hardly have hoped for better circumstances in which to press their agenda. Doubtless more Americans than ever are open to some kind of reform and few would disagree that health care in America has become too expensive.
Consider, too, that fewer people than ever before develop a close relationship with a single, family doctor. In an increasingly mobile society, many people don’t spend enough time in one place to develop a significant relationship with any particular physician; also fewer people are having children, which further reduces the necessity of a close relationship with a physician.
Furthermore, the decades-long trend toward employer-provided health care means that even when remaining in one place geographically, an employee may still end up financially incented to change physicians, either because his or her company changes its health insurance provider and their current physician isn’t in the new provider’s network, or perhaps a job change within the same area to another company that’s insured with a different provider- same net effect. And some, such as those who tend to go to a physician only when ill, simply choose the network physician who can see them soonest in their time of need.
Thus, when opponents of the current proposals for health care reform suggest that, ‘a federal bureaucrat is going to come between you and your physician,’ it isn’t personal and it doesn’t resonate for many Americans. Besides, some would argue that a bureaucrat is already making health care decisions; “he just works for an insurance company instead of a government agency.”
In the end, that last sentiment may be the coup de grace in making government-run health care a reality, if that day ever comes. Many people simply don’t differentiate between a public and a private option. If anything, many who have seen the cost of health insurance and health care increase so rapidly without a government option are inclined to attribute these increases to the evil profit motive and assume the government option will be a more benevolent, more affordable one. Clearly the federal government isn’t averse to operating at an ongoing loss, after all.
Another reason there has, until recently, broader support for a government option is that one word, that signature catch-phrase of the left, “change.” Americans are tired of the status quo, and they don’t see anyone promising anything other than the status quo, even as their health care premiums continue to rise.
Republicans can cry foul and point out their alternative proposals for reform (consideration or debate of which have, of course, been roundly rejected by the Democratic majority), but the fact is, they may have brought a public health care option down on us all. The Republican Party had control of Congress for twelve years (six of those with a Republican in the White House) and they failed to do anything on health care except pass the largest single entitlement program since the Johnson Administration; of course, the ill-conceived Medicare Prescription Drug Program, like any good government entitlement, came in vastly over-budget (Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion Estimate Dwarfs Bush's Original Price Tag- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html).
(Paul Krugman overestimates Canadian enthusiasm for socialized health care)
It’s still my contention, though, that government-run health care in the United States is a terrible idea, and I’ve said so frequently. I’ve also been asked frequently, “So what would you do to fix health care, then?” The answer begins with “diagnosing” what is wrong with the health care system and outlining some important considerations- not an uncomplicated matter.
1) Health care is not and cannot be, by definition, a Constitutional right.
The Founding Fathers believed that rights, as defined in the Declaration of Independence and further articulated in the Constitution, were God-given, that we were “endowed by our Creator with…unalienable rights.” Rights, as the Framers described them, could not be bestowed upon you by government, but only by government infringed. They wrote extensively about this understanding that rights were innate and natural; rights did not require legislation. It is your right to speak your mind or own a firearm or worship as you please- those are rights; if the government (meaning taxpayers) subsidizes your speech or worship, or purchases your firearm for you, that’s an entitlement.
So, if providing one person with health care requires the sacrifice of someone else- if it must be compelled by government redistribution of resources from one person to another- it isn’t a right in the sense that the Framers of our Constitution meant it, which is the only appropriate context here. You may feel “entitled” to it, and you may argue that you deserve health care (even when it must be provided by someone else’s labor), but let’s get away from this Constitutional “right to health care” nonsense.
Anyone who says health care is a Constitutional right doesn’t understand the Constitution; anyone who advocates making it a Constitutional right doesn’t like or believe in the Constitution. The former group I call ignorant; the latter I call Progressive. We must first all admit, even proponents of government-run health care, that it isn’t a right.
2) The broad strokes of any proposal are obviously open to criticism; however, a fair assessment requires avoiding what Michael Cloud calls “The Utopian Fallacy.” In other words, “Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.”
Any solution out there doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than either the current system or proposals for a government-run system. There may be no “perfect” solution to the “health care crisis,” but neither has welfare cured poverty nor Social Security guaranteed a sound retirement for all of its beneficiaries. Policy is never as flawless in its execution as it is in theory.
3) The health care crisis in America is not a crisis of care- it is a crisis of cost, and perhaps of coverage, but not care.
Reform advocates can lament the “47 million uninsured in this country” all they want. The fact remains that nearly twenty percent are illegal aliens (which the Democratic Congress has never denied its proposals would cover; quite the opposite, most maintain doing so will further reduce costs by keeping them out of emergency rooms) and nearly half the uninsured could afford coverage if they wanted to pay for it. These tend to be the “young and bullet-proof” crowd.As to the former, last time I checked, illegal aliens can have a difficult time purchasing insurance here, so naturally they fall into that category. Regardless of whether you feel we should be obligated to cover them, that they make up a substantial portion of the uninsured is worth mentioning.
The point is that people who require medical care are not typically being deprived of that care, or at least I have yet to see compelling evidence to the contrary. Texas has the highest rate of uninsured residents in the United States (in some part due to its high population of illegal aliens), and spent more than $600 million dollars treating the uninsured in 2006- that’s state funds. It is estimated that Texans paid an average of $1,551 in additional health care premiums “due to the unreimbursed cost of care for the uninsured in 2005.”
Under any plan, someone pays for those who don’t have coverage, but that doesn’t mean the uninsured are refused care. I think the American people would be more open to a dialogue about providing care, if only to the uninsurable- which is a far smaller number than the uninsured and, at least, a more fiscally responsible proposal. Why must the far Left insist on coverage for everyone?
4) An honest assessment reveals that it’s largely been government interference that led to the health care crisis in the first place.
FDR’s WWII era wage controls to curb wartime inflation led employers to offer health care as an alternative to prohibited wage increases. The first HMO’s were created in this period, for example, largely to cover a number of unions. Subsequently, LBJ’s Great Society created Medicare and Medicaid. These were the major steps away from privatization that have paved the way for our current crisis.
5) When I talk about a plan for health care reform that restores free-market principles to the health care system, I am arguing for a true, free-market solution, not for “big business” or special interests that dominate the current system.
There are roughly 1,200 lobbyists on Capitol Hill representing the pharmaceutical companies ALONE. While some would argue that unregulated businesses created the financial crisis, others would blame excessive government interference. I would suggest that big government and big business are often fused at the hip, and that it is becoming more and more difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. While the majority of jobs in this nation are with small and mid-sized companies, large conglomerates have forged an obscene alliance with big-government. Consider this quote from a recent New York Times article on New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s fundraising alliance with big business:
“Mr. Schumer's political rise -- he moved in 1999 to the Senate, where he now has a party leadership post -- paralleled Wall Street's growing influence in Washington. As more Americans invested in the markets and financial institutions had a greater global reach, the industry came to rival the manufacturing sector as a driving force of the United States economy. And in the 1990s, Democratic officials developed close links to a new generation of Wall Street leaders -- labeled ''New Moneycrats'' by one author -- who shared a free-market agenda.
Mr. Schumer became a magnet for campaign donations from wealthy industry executives, including Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; John J. Mack, the chief executive at Morgan Stanley; and Charles O. Prince III, the former chief executive of Citigroup. And he was not at all reluctant to ask them for more.”
I think the Times gets it mostly right here, except for their criticism of the “free-market agenda.” Again, excessive entanglement or political influence taints the free market. It is critical to understand the inherent contradiction at work here; while “businessmen” may advocate the virtue of free-market principles, individual businesses tend not to. In any business, as in life, self-preservation is a fundamental virtue. Businessmen will collaborate with statesmen to preserve themselves or increase their edge over the competition.
This cuts to the chaos created by excessive government interference. All businessmen believe in competition, but ask them if they would prefer to have a personal monopoly in their industry rather than labor in a competitive environment, and what would you expect them to say?
Government, whether due to corporate influence or purely political motives, cannot be allowed to undermine natural, competitive forces. The free market cannot work unless business extricates itself from political interference. So, too, the possibility of political patronage, corporate welfare, bailouts, or other favoritism manifested in policy cannot exist. Government can regulate, but it shouldn’t reward, shouldn’t pick favorites- Goldman Sachs wins, Lehman Brothers loses and so forth.
The efficiencies achieved by competition, as Adam Smith intended, as our forefathers intended, are not assured when, for example, Bush’s Medicare prescription drug bill prohibits negotiation of drug costs with the drug companies. Or consider our subsidy of corn-based ethanol, as opposed to the more efficient sugar-based ethanol. Clearly a political, rather than an economic, decision to reward a specific group.
Lobbyists, special interests, the opportunity to affect the favorable treatment of one company over another or one industry over another cannot exist. No favorable treatment or interference in the markets beyond right-headed regulation can be permitted under any circumstances. Limit excessive government influence on business and vice versa.
We can only estimate the full cost of litigation- of medical malpractice insurance, what many physicians refer to as defensive medicine, and an unnecessary increase in utilization due to the threat of litigation, and its total impact on health care costs. Consider, for example, how many medical students now avoid certain specialties due to greater liability and its associated costs (http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090707/REG/907079998).
The average neurosurgeon pays roughly $200,000 per year in medical malpractice insurance premiums.What is the economic impact or the impact to care of this country producing, say, ten fewer gifted neurosurgeons or oncologists in the next 10 years? What does that do to care in an industry where the number of actual physicians has remained stagnant for years and the growth rate for nursing is around one percent? Where is the incentive to bring more qualified nurses and physicians into health care under the current system, let alone under a government system? How will efficiencies be achieved without a system that actually grows the number of health care providers?
In any case, there is no Democratic proposal for health care reform that includes any attempts at tort reform, which might mitigate the concerns of the best and brightest in our society and incent them to become doctors or nurses, to become the specialists we need rather than avoiding the attendant liability associated with those choices. Consider again the proposition that health care is a right. Consider that most hospitals (even private ones), given that right, collect less than fifty cents for every dollar they bill. As health care costs and the number of uninsured in this country increase, hospitals and physicians are being asked to bear a greater part of that cost, to make do with less because health care is a right- right?
Again, should government pick favorites based on contrived rights? What if the federal government legislated that 30% of all trial lawyers’ billable hours were devoted to pro bono work? Or that architects and home builders spend 20% of their time working for Habitat for Humanity? Of course it’s been government’s obsession with winning loyalty among various groups or exercising various controls that’s brought health care to this point to begin with. FDR proclaimed that his “Second Bill of Rights” included a Constitutional right to recreation. So, who should subsidize your next vacation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights)
This is how health care is different from most industries, and why free market forces there have been largely quashed:
7) Health care is already quasi-socialized.
Proponents of single-payer, government-run health care would argue that, ‘we’ve tried the free market, and it hasn’t worked.’ No, we haven’t- not in decades.In actuality, we’ve moved further and further away from the free market. Forty-six cents of every dollar spent on health care in this country is government funded- Medicaid, Medicare, Tri-Care (veterans’ benefits), S-Chip, various state-run health care programs, etc. Insurance companies typically reimburse physicians and hospitals for procedures at or near the Medicare reimbursement rates; so, in essence, the government has become the de facto standard as to how care is provided and what procedures qualify for reimbursement.
Even employer-paid health care has contributed to the problem of stifling free market principles, as private-sector employees and government workers alike are effectively distanced from an understanding of the true cost of their care. Often, they only understand what portion of the bill they are required to pay. Thus there is little incentive to consumers to manage not only their care but their costs- ‘it’s the same co-pay no matter how it actually costs,’ or ‘there’s only a $10 savings to me to buy the generic so I won’t,’ less incentive to shop for a better deal on the cost of a procedure, and so forth.
The provision by private employers of health insurance coverage to their employees, it could be argued, was necessitated by the creation of similar benefits in the public sector and unions, with which it must compete for labor. While that, in and of itself, isn’t inherently wrong, it does mean that the government model has had the effect of making us all less free. The choice to receive greater direct financial compensation in exchange for being responsible for your own health care coverage, for example, simply isn’t available. This creates an entitlement mentality even among employer-paid private sector health care plans, where employees often do not view these benefits as an additional form of compensation.Insurance companies typically reimburse physicians and hospitals for procedures at or near Medicare reimbursement rates; so in essence, the government plans have become the standard for reimbursement. Medicare is the largest single health plan in the country, and often also largely a de facto standard for how care is provided, what procedures are covered, etc. for private insurance.has contributed to the problem that real market forces haven't been at work in the health care industry in a lon
So, government intrusion is largely responsible for the problems in health care today, and if it isn’t obvious by now why that is:
8) Government is inefficient and wasteful. The free market works better.
The Founding Fathers wanted a limited central government, so they designed a system that would keep federal government meddling in state, local, and individual affairs to a minimum. The Framers wanted strife between the popularly-elected House and Senate (which was elected by the state legislatures prior to the Seventeenth Amendment), between large states and small, and between the three branches of the government. They sought to limit central government power to a few, essential functions such as defending the Republic and regulation of interstate commerce. Clearly, they did not believe, as progressive would argue today, that the general welfare clause was an open invitation to the federal government to do anything it pleased in the name of the collective good.
The Framers believed in the free market- that the proprietor of a business, the laborer, the consumer, would all act in their own self-interest and that the freedom to pursue those interests would produce the best overall outcome: the proprietor would pay labor a competitive wage to attract the necessary talent to produce a quality product that a the consumer would want; the laborer would work hard and improve his skills to maintain employment, gain promotion, perhaps learn a trade in order to become an entrepreneur; the consumer would seek out goods which met his requirements and were priced competitively. If the proprietor failed to live up to his end of the bargain, the consumer could always get his product elsewhere and labor could always gravitate toward a business which provided a better wage for its skills.
This is the argument for the free market; however, even free markets are not perfect. Business owners will sometimes treat workers unfairly, workers may steal or cheat their employers or the customer, and consumers may steal from or otherwise cheat businesses. The Founding Fathers understood that such behavior, particularly the exploitation of consumers or labor by business, would not be rewarded over the long-term though, and, thus, markets would largely police themselves. Thus government must regulate only where necessary and refrain from involvement elsewhere:
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself (emphasis added)."
--James Madison, The Federalist No. 51
Remember that it was the British Crown’s tax on the American colonists’ tea that led to the Boston Tea Party, one of the key events leading to the American Revolution. The colonists were protesting not only new taxes on tea, but a government-run monopoly on the supply of tea, with the East India Trading Company providing it, and a number of other goods, to the colonies. The East India Trading Company was chartered by Queen Elizabeth I in 1600. By 1773, “the Parliament of Great Britain (had) imposed a series of administrative and economic reforms and by doing so clearly established its sovereignty andultimate control over the Company. The Act recognized the Company's political functions and clearly established that the ‘acquisition of sovereignty by the subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right.’” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company)
Again, what we have instead of free markets today is often a competitive bidding or collusion among big-business and other special interests to influence big-government via campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, or the prospect of government taxation or control as with the auto companies, financials, proposed controls on executive pay, etc.
The federal government has embraced its obligation “to control the governed,” but it does not “control itself.” It favors particular industries over others, particular companies over others, various special interests over others. It does more than regulate, it too often directs behavior. Politicians are men, and as men, are no angels themselves. They may craft policy to reward trial lawyers over doctors, labor unions over investors, hedge fund managers and oil speculators over consumers, the pharmaceutical companies over Medicare beneficiaries, and the collective good over individual liberty.
Today, former elected officials and government insiders sit on the boards of major corporations, not because they understand commerce, but because they wield political influence. Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton Administration, is “a member of the boards of United Technologies Corporation, Schlumberger, Ltd., the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless and Legal Affairs… Even though she had no previous training or experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines. During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal,” for which none of the participants has yet been brought to account. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gorelick)
A true free market exists when the central government only regulates, but does not participate in health care system (commerce in general for that matter). Consider the characteristics of a truly free market, and contrast those with the characteristics of public sector programs:
In a free market the costs of goods and services are understood.
You may think your health insurance premiums are high, but that presumes that you know what they are, as you do with most things in the free market. A gallon of milk costs three dollars; a Gulfstream G550 will set you back roughly $65 million. We know this because the fiscally responsible Democratic Congress just bought three of them. Global warming implications notwithstanding, how many people could you provide with health insurance for $200 million? (http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2009/08/congress-orders-three-elite-gulfstream.html)
With the federal government, however, the costs are typically obscured. Federal highway taxes represent the single largest portion of the cost of a gallon of gas (greater than profits to the oil company, cost of exploration, refining, transportation et al). How many people actually know how much? What about the other goods and services you purchase? Taxes on businesses are passed along in the cost of the products they produce. What percentage of the consumer goods you buy makes its way back to Uncle Sam? Who can say?
This is the modus operandi of big government. Payroll taxes and federal income taxes are taken out of your paycheck before you receive any compensation for your labor. This was not always the case. Prior to World War II, most people wrote an annual or quarterly check to the Treasury. During the war, the federal government began the practice of withholding to create more cash flow to meat wartime funding requirements. FDR said that when the war ended, so would the practice of withholding- it didn’t. (Here’s a good piece on the increasing burden of government taxation from 2005: http://www.thisonly.org/Articles/Income%20taxes,%20social%20security,%20and%20tax%20reform.htm)
Of course, if you do live in a big-government state like California, your only recourse is moving. If the rest of the country keeps barreling down the path toward “nanny-statism” you’ll have no recourse at all, and neither will the rest of us- which is the second major difference between the free market and a public option:
In a free market, participation is voluntary, and actions have consequences.
Sure, you may have done some stupid things with your money. There was that time in college you couldn’t quite make rent because you “needed” a giant bean bag chair, a really bitchin’ lava lamp, and Allman Brothers tickets, but you learned a valuable lesson. You learned the difference between wants and needs. You learned a lesson in personal responsibility.
Big government isn’t interested in you learning that lesson. Even as government requires that all citizens participate in its entitlement programs (either as recipients or taxpayers), advocates of public solutions will demonize the profit motive of private business. This is because big government advocates aren’t interested in preserving choice and trusting you to choose responsibly- they have a better idea. Big government programs exist precisely because some people behave irresponsibly.
This is not a question which is up for debate. Yes, there are some people in this country who are genuinely unfortunate. (I personally believe these people usually pick themselves back up eventually- which is all entitlement programs are supposed to help them do); there are also a lot of people who chose to cut class to smoke weed with their friends, blow off their jobs, or rack up staggering levels of credit card debt and buy cars and homes they couldn’t afford. There are people who don’t save, who don’t aspire to work but expect their needs to be met (by someone else) due to right of birth.
Legal immigrants to this country are eight times more likely to become millionaires that native-born American citizens! These are people who are often not fluent in English. Frequently, if they are educated, their degrees, professional education and designations, training and experience are not recognized here- so they must start at the bottom; often they come here with nothing, and still are eight times more likely to become millionaires.
This is more than a case of taking care of the “less fortunate” in our society. There is a growing entitlement mentality in this country, and government programs are mandatory because, whereas capitalism aims to entice those who can pay for goods and services, these programs air generally aimed at the least common denominator in our society- the least ambitious, the least responsible, the least able or willing to provide for themselves. This requires the participation of responsible taxpaying citizens to provide for what Andrew Wilkow calls, the “zero liability voter,” those with no skin in the game, those who use far more in government programs and services that they will ever be expected to contribute. Those the rest of us subsidize.
As Thomas Jefferson said, “the government that governs least governs best, because the people discipline themselves.” It is not necessary for the people to discipline themselves when government seeks to insulate people from the consequences of their actions in order to win their political loyalties. This is a far more insidious motivation than the pursuit of profit because, over time, subsidizing irresponsibility in the spirit of collectivism always erodes individual freedom.
This is a critical characteristic of big government- critical to its understanding. Jefferson and the other Framers made it clear that liberty both drives, and requires, individual responsibility. Big government advocates are not advocates of liberty, they are advocates of “freedom from responsibility,” much easier to sell to the American people.
This cuts to the heart of the relationship between liberty and personal responsibility under an entitlement system. If the taxpayer, as Wilkow argues, has a moral obligation to fund government entitlements to the less fortunate, it means the relationship between liberty and responsibility is severed; the taxpayer bears the responsibility, whereas the recipient gets the liberty afforded by the taxpayer. What is the moral obligation of the recipient of benefits to the taxpayer? Under an entitlement mentality, there is none.
Thus, the government can only remove individual responsibility at the expense of liberty and choice, another critical difference:
In a free market, there is choice.
Not only is participation in government programs mandatory- it’s limited. There’s only one government retirement plan for ordinary people- Social Security; it’s redistributive, inefficient, and on the verge of bankruptcy. The same would apply to a government-run health care plan- a one-size-fits-all approach. Again, government presents one compulsory solution based on the needs of the least common denominator and the political motivation to redistribute wealth and reallocate benefits.
With a free market there is no monopoly, but typically a number of options. For example, in the case of saving for retirement, individuals may choose to purchase any combination of commodities such as gold, mutual funds, stocks, bonds, CD’s, REIT’s or real estate, etc. and create a portfolio that fits their objectives and their tolerance for risk. Furthermore, they may choose from a variety of financial institutions to do so, including a number of banks, brokerage firms, and mutual fund companies. They can pay for professional advice or money management services, or they may manage their own investments through an online trading account, or employ some combination of services as they see fit.
Thus, the existence of choice in the free market creates competition and accountability. This drives pricing, service and innovation. A private business must be responsive- not stagnant. If its competitors can provide better service, better pricing, or a better product, a business risks losing its customers. Government has no such motivation to compete or innovate. Big government seeks to give, not to create.
Again, look to Social Security. In existence for more than seventy years, when it was created the “Normal Retirement Age” to collect full benefits was set at sixty-five. At that time, the average life expectancy in the United States was sixty. Yet even as the average life expectancy increased, and the number of recipients vastly increased, even as projected future obligations to an increasing number of retirees increased, the federal government simply increased payroll taxes- at least 24 times according to the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/cda01-07.cfm).
Not until 1983 did the government make any modifications to Social Security other than raising benefits to account for inflation and raising payroll taxes. When it finally did, it raised the Normal Retirement Age for the first time, and payroll taxes yet again. No proposals for privatization, no “outside the box” approaches to reform, and no efforts to repay the depleted Social Security trust through fiscal discipline- just tweak the retirement age and raise payroll taxes again. That’s the kind of innovation we get in Washington, D.C.
What if the entire financial services industry continued to operate for nearly half a century under the assumption that most people wouldn’t live past age sixty-five? Of course, inefficient, unresponsive businesses will fail in the long run; failed government programs go on forever, and their costs typically go up, whereas innovation often drives prices down. The cost of a Model T, for example, was cut in half after Henry Ford developed the assembly line without government assistance.
Even with regards to health care, which, as I’ve said, is not working in a true free market under the current system, the profit motive and what few remaining market forces are at work have proven to drive greater medical innovation in the United States anywhere in the world. This spring, the National Center for Policy analysis released a report (http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba649.pdf) finding that the United States had a hand in at least eight of the ten most important recent medical innovations, far more than any nation, let alone any nation that provides national, government-funded health care. Again, there will be little incentive to innovate under socialized medicine, only to distribute, regulate, and ration care.
Another advantage of the free market over a government solution is that the power of commerce to influence behavior is limited. Businesses cannot compel people to buy their stock, force their employees to accept unfair working conditions (and let’s face it, the taxpayer “works” part-time paying for government services), purchase their products or services, pay a greater price for the same product or service as someone else based on income (as the federal government does), or repeatedly gouge consumers. As long as there is competition, businesses must run efficiently in order to attract labor, investors, and customers.
Also, in the free market there is regulation. Businesses are regulated by government; however, government must, as Hamilton noted, ‘be obliged to regulate itself.’ Further, government is less accountable, or at least, made to account for itself less frequently. Businesses are accountable to their customers, their owners or shareholders, their Board of Directors, and to the government. Elected officials face a performance evaluation every two-to-six years, while in the free market stock prices fluctuate daily. Sales figures, profits, and losses are reported every quarter.
Typically, too, politicians face only one competitor- the other “major” party. Further, nearly half the population does not vote, and much of the voting population may be either uninformed, vote consistently along party lines, or vote based on their general feelings about a particular political party rather than the particular candidates on the ballot. (Voter redistricting is also structured to favor the incumbent candidate.) The result is a predictable one- Congressional incumbent re-election rates typically exceed ninety percent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation)
With that kind of job security, where is the incentive on the part of our elected officials to be fiscally responsible, to consider the long-term implications beyond the next election, or worry about the United States Constitution? Rather, they remain more preoccupied with how best to buy votes and remain in power.
If a business owner were to use money in his company’s pension plan to pay business expenses or fund an expansion, he would be dragged away in handcuffs. Likewise, he must assure that the pension plan meets “minimum funding requirements” by maintaining assets of at least eighty percent of what would be necessary to meet all present and future benefit obligations to his retired employees.
Congress, on the other hand, has been taking money out of the Medicare and Social Security trusts since the Johnson Administration. That’s four decades over which Medicare and Social Security funds that were supposed to remain in the “lock box” of their individual trusts have been being emptied for other government spending. No minimum funding requirement, no assets trust- just trillions of dollars worth of IOU’s from the federal government. Forty years of government theft and broken promises to repay the money removed from the two trusts, and still little outrage about this decades-long theft and massive debt. How’s that for accountability?
Ultimately, when government ventures outside its Constitutional parameters, it hasn’t had a lot of success. Do you trust the government to get it right this time? Do you trust the “more government” solution? What evidence, what confidence can you possibly have- what experience that would lead you to believe that a country that spends far more than any other in the world per student in its public schools would produce the mediocre results we do when compared to other industrialized countries can manage eighteen percent of the US economy?
Ask yourself, is it coincidence that all of the industries which have contributed most to the financial meltdown are the ones who are most heavily regulated by, dependent on, or intertwined with government- financials, automotive, insurance companies, lending, housing, energy? That the areas of consumer spending with the highest rates of inflation are ones with high levels of government subsidy, such as health care, college tuition, and housing?
Our current President has said that 'it shouldn’t fall to the government to be picking winners and losers': More and more, that's all this Congress and the White House have done, and it hasn't improved anything. Fossil fuels lose, alternative fuels win; Chrysler preferred debt holders lose, United Autoworkers wins; Lehman Brothers is allowed to collapse, Goldman Sachs gets a bailout- the political motivations behind which I won’t delve into at this time.
If you look at the states that are in the worst financial shape, they are the ones that already have the highest taxes, the most state and local government programs, and typically a higher percentage of union employees as opposed to right-to-work states with low taxes and fewer programs. Poverty and unemployment rates are also higher these states- California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts.California, Ohio, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey.Goldman whose rampant speculation in oil significantly contributed to last summers skyrocketing oil and gas prices and who will make millions tading carbon-offset credits on the open market if "cap in trade" becomes law). This active, selective interference is beyond regulation- it is direct interference. Next time a contract comes up to upgrade a federal offices auto fleet- think GM will get the contract or Ford (regardless of the competitiveness of the bid). Is that fair to Ford shareholders, employees, etc?
If liberal, big-government ideology is the path to prosperity, how have such policies fared at the local level? Here are the ten cities with the highest poverty rates in the country:
Detroit, MI (1st) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo , NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984
Cleveland, OH (4th)hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor
St. Louis, MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor
Milwaukee, WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908
Philadelphia, PA (9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952
Newark, NJ(10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907
The areas of consumer spending the costs of which we have seen increase vastly more rapidly than inflation are the ones with the highest levels of government subsidy, such as health care, college tuition, and, until the bubble burst, hous 2) The areas of consumer spending the costs of which we have seen increase vastly more rapidly than inflation are the ones with the highest levels of government subsidy, such as health care, college tuition, and, until the bubb
Ask yourself why we continue to look to big government programs or handouts, regardless of the party that advocates them? This is not only about health care- it’s about whether big government solutions work or look good on paper. America needs to decide whether the security blanket of big government is going to prevail over the seemingly outmoded concept of individual liberty.
Private businesses are prohibited from competing with the Post office or Amtrak, yet both still operate at a loss. Medicare is defrauded of $60-100 billion annually. Combined, Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty trillion dollars! Government spending as a percentage of GDP is now at 41% - the same as Canada. Forty three percent of last year’s budget went to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security obligations; with its share of interest on the debt it’s accumulated, that’s roughly half our budget on three massive entitlement programs.
Are we really considering layering on another massive, wasteful, ineffective, mandatory government program? What compelling reasons could anyone have to believe that this program will be different? And what confidence does Congress have in an effective government-run option, given that they’ve chosen to exempt themselves from participating in it?
No, the free market isn’t perfect- but for every Enron, AIG, or Bernie Madoff, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of examples that prove that the free market still works better than government bureaucracy. And lest we forget that the federal government often plays a hand in the failings of commerce, it is big government who selects (and oversees) the contractors who engage in price gouging, that failed to uncover the largest Ponzi scheme in America when it was first reported to them ten years ago.
It is the government that coerces the free market in an effort to influence what cars it builds, to whom it loans money, and what it can charge for health care services. It is government who makes the rules- the problem is, government has simply become too big to enforce them. Perhaps smaller, Constitutional government is the answer. At least, that’s where I’d start.
(Assuming I could get everything I want) The Solution:
1) Apply the 10th Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The United States was not created as a Democracy, whereby 51% of the total population could tell the other 49% what to do. The United States was meant to be a Republic of independent states. The concept of majority rule while assuring minority rights is fundamental to our nation; it permeates almost every aspect of our system of governance- the criminal justice system (rights of the accused), our electoral college, system of representation (with its equal representation of the smaller states in the Senate), property rights, and on and on.
This also includes the rights of individual states and citizens, which should rightly be invoked in all matters where powers are not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. And nowhere in the United States Constitution does it state as a power of the federal government to provide health care or health insurance to the people. States must assert their 10th Amendment rights to reduce federal government meddling, not only in health care, but in all areas not specifically delegated to it.
By assert, I mean in the courts- repeatedly and not on issues confined to health care- but a coordinated, persistent campaign by the states to assert their constitutionally reserved rights until the federal government gets the message to back off. The federal government has intruded in state matters for decades with relative impunity. The Judiciary must be compelled to address the issue of states’ rights and either stand on the side of the individual states or impart to the central government power it was not meant to have, and do so on the record.
Further, I would suggest that individual states could then implement their own reforms; I would suggest requiring catastrophic coverage for all residents, just as they do liability insurance for drivers. Catastrophic coverage for all citizens would be far less expensive than carrying full-blown health insurance coverage and indemnify the taxpayers and healthcare providers from subsidizing claims over a certain amount, say $25,000.
States would determine the minimums, whether to require coverage for illegal aliens, etc. Individuals wanting more coverage could purchase individual policies to fill in the gaps for less expensive, more common utilization, office visits, prescription drugs, etc., which are the larger component of health insurance premiums.
2) Repeal the 17th Amendment:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution”
Under Article I, Section III of the United States Constitution, US Senators were to be chosen by the vote of their respective state legislatures. This was meant to serve as a part of the overall system of checks and balances, making the Senate a more deliberative, less populist body than the House- appointment by the state legislatures would buttress states’ rights.
Isn’t it fascinating, the rate at which federal government power has expanded since the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 directed that Senators be elected by popular vote? Now, Senators are more accountable to Senate and Party leadership (read: the federal government) for overt support and funds to finance their next re-election campaign.
Now, in the Senate as in the House, it’s get along to go along. Repealing the 17th Amendment would mitigate political expediency in the Senate and, effectively, in Congress as a whole.
3) Tort Reform:
Not so heavy handed as to deny deserving plaintiffs quality representation, but enough to keep frivolous litigation to a minimum.
4) Regulatory and Legislative Reforms:
No more corporate welfare, no more subsidies, no more federal government money for non-profit organizations, issue advocacy groups, etc. All are forms of influence peddling, taxpayer funded favoritism.
One set of rules, tax laws, etc. for for-profit entities, one set of rules for non- or not-for-profit entities (or as close to it as possible). If businesses or non-profits can’t make it without subsidy- they can’t make it. Individual states or municipalities may offer tax incentives to draw in businesses or organizations; however, the federal government should stick to regulation. If government wants to stimulate the economy, perhaps it should cut corporate tax rates for all businesses- not just some.
Obviously certain industries will be regulated differently that others, but within those industries application of regulations, tax treatment, and so forth should be uniform. It is not the role of government to exert influence towards a political end or pick favorites. The free market will decide what the consumer wants and what organizations receive charitable contributions.
Campaign finance laws need to be beefed up. No campaign contributions from GSE’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are quasi government entities and should remain above the fray. If corporations want to lobby for broader reforms such as lowering corporate income tax rates or changes in regulatory laws, fine; however, there can be no semblance of direct quid pro quo aimed to give one company a competitive edge in the marketplace.
Further, members of Congress should not be investigating themselves; rather than a bi-partisan committee made up of fellow legislators who may have a political axe to grind, someone outside of Congress, even outside the partisan (who are we kidding?) Justice Department should be handling ethics investigations and complaints.
This could be someone (or a group of some ones) out of the Judiciary branch such as a retired justice. In any case members of Congress (and former members of Congress) need to be made to account for the practice of trading political favors for campaign contributions, speaking fees, and salaried seats on corporate boards.
Penalties need to be made tougher as well, including the potential for substantial fines and jail time (in addition to loss of one’s seat). Stronger penalties should be applied to businesses that seek to gain a competitive edge through legislative channels. Further, the authority should be established to remove Congressmen from office simply for violating the spirit of ethics laws, attempts to circumvent them rather than breaking them, similar to “conduct unbecoming” in the military.
No $300,000 price break on your home because the wife of a campaign contributor purchased the lot next door. No “Friends of Angelo” break on your mortgage. The Framers intended for members of the legislature travel to Washington and make the laws, then go home and live by them, not be above them. Members of Congress already make a healthy salary and the vast majority are already wealthy to begin with. No more special favors. You are an ordinary citizen who has been honored by your state or district with the privilege of representing the people. Stick to your job description.
5) TERM LIMITS!
6) Medical/Health Savings Accounts and Tax Incentives for Individual Insurance:
Responsible, rather than irresponsible behavior, by individuals should be rewarded. Increasing incentives for individuals to carry their own coverage (which is portable, and thus eliminates the risk of losing coverage due to termination) should be provided. Further, individuals should be able to make tax deductible contributions to medical savings accounts to cover co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance, hospice care, etc.
Such accounts should be flexible- they should be invested as the account-holder chooses (within reason), gifted or willed to a dependent; the important thing is that the funds not be managed by the federal government.
7) Tax Incentives for Employers:
Further, employers should be incented to increase each employee’s compensation for their employees by a percentage or dollar amount comparable to the cost of providing basic health insurance to the individual or comparable to the cost of basic individual coverage in the marketplace. Also, tax incentives could be provided for employers to make contributions to their employees’ medical savings accounts.
8) Allow insurance companies to customize coverage more:
State mandates make it impossible to sell the same policy in Texas as you sell in California; in many of these states, for example, a sixty year old, post-menopausal female must still carry pregnancy coverage on their policy. In many states, all policies are required to include mental health and substance abuse benefits, which drive up the cost as well.
Allowing insurers to sell a customizable policy and for each individual insurance company to sell across state lines (and the same types of coverage) would cut down on the administrative nightmare that is the current system. It also increases the number of competitors across every state.
Allowing every person to decide if they want to purchase only state-mandated catastrophic care, more expensive albeit relatively basic expanded care, or a full blown “Cadillac” policy will drive costs down because individual consumers are presented with many choices- co-pay or only co-insurance, which benefits to include, etc. Further, if everyone pays for at least catastrophic care, this too increases the risk pool as it drives down the costs absorbed by the insured when the uninsured face a catastrophic event.
9) Medicare Reform:
First, instead of creating a new program for the uninsurable, Medicare or Medicaid would cover the uninsurable- not the uninsured. The number of uninsurable or those whose pre-existing conditions that make health insurance unaffordable to them can’t be more than five to ten percent of the 40-plus million uninsured the “public option” seeks to cover.
Assuming that the uninsurable can still work, I would require they pay at least a fixed percentage of their total income to the plan- no totally free lunch when the government provides you with something you can’t get on your own. That should particularly be the case when someone failed to carry even minimal coverage prior to their illness or their insurer would have been forced to cover them regardless of their condition; pre-existing is often another way of saying, “I didn’t have health insurance when I got sick because I didn’t want to pay for it- now I need it and can’t get it, so someone ought to give it to me.”
Here, too, beef up enforcement to cut down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud. As mentioned before, $60-100 billion dollars is defrauded from the Medicare system annually. Stealing taxpayer money under the pretense of providing care is the worst kind of bad behavior, and should be punished accordingly. More resources should be devoted to flushing the fraud out of the system; they will pay for themselves ten-fold.
10) Big government phase-out:
Over time government needs to pull out of the business of providing health care at all- with the only exceptions being the destitute and the uninsurable. There is a far smaller price tag associated with those groups, and as people move out of these groups they are expected, as we expect of most grown-ups, to be responsible. One thing liberals don’t seem to understand is that society does not consist of fixed groups, but is a dynamic mix of people whose situations can and do change over time. Not everyone who is rich today will be rich a year from now, and the same can be said of the poor.
People’s lives, their situations change, or that is to say, they change them; however, human nature being what it is, they are far less inclined to take steps to change them with the federal government fostering a sense of dependency, a sense of entitlement, and the mentality that they are helpless victims who cannot improve their situations. As has been said many times, government programs should be a “hand up,” not a “hand out.”
That said, I would begin by exempting anyone who has never paid into Medicare from paying into or participating in it and work backwards from there.
Excessive government interference not only enslaves those who rely on entitlements, it makes the rest of us who are expected to “be patriotic” and pay for those entitlements less free. There is no free lunch- no one receives something for nothing unless someone else pays for it. So the next time someone tells you the government should provide health care, ask him if he has some free time and offer to drive him to the doctor and pay his bill. At the end of the day, that's what he expects, isn't it?
Your senators and your representative are home for the August recess. You can find them at: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml; call them and ask them what compelling reason they have to believe single-payer or government run health care will work? Ask them where it is provided for in the United States Constitution?
And I'll ask you, how many times did I mention "you know who"?
Although the Democratic Congress, the Obama Administration, and the media have all seen fit to blame the current economic crisis exclusively on the Bush Administration, there are, as they say, two sides to every story. I'm was certainly not a fan of the runaway spending of the Republican Congress in its six years under Bush, and the record will reflect that "W" has proven himself to be no fan of fiscal conservatism and smaller government. His medicare prescription drug benefit, for example, was the single largest increase in entitlement spending since the Johnson Administration.
However, it was the (subprime-lending, CDC's, etc.) housing crisis, and lack of responsible government oversight of GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that ultimately toppled this economic house-of-cards (and that also included irresponsible Democratic appointees to the GSE's and incompetent regulation of the financial markets by political cronies at FINRA and the SEC)- oversight which was controlled by powerful congressional Democrats such as Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank and New York Senator Chuck Schumer.
What will the Democratic Congress do to likes of Schumer, Frank, and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, who apparently exchanged political favors for campaign contributions and sweetheart loans from lenders like troubled Countrywide mortgage? Most likely, nothing- just as I predicted in October when I began this blog: "I can assure you of this, Barack Obama will see to it that no Democratic senator or representative will 'swing' for their roles in the current financial crisis." See for yourself.
...until I can come up with a better title. My friend Neil sent me this (he is the author), and I'm happy to pass it along. Unfortunately I only had time to give it a quick "once over." I will (perhaps) modify the title and certainly add my own comments (a few come to mind) at my earliest convenience. If you'd like to take a look at his blog, where he has posted this article as well, I have included the link at its conclusion.
Atlas Hasn’t Shrugged- Yet.
"Very frankly, Madam Speaker, I respectfully submit there is not a person alive who knows what is in this bill."
Representative Stan Parris (R-VA), 25 September 1986, on the House floor during debate of the Tax Reform Act of 1986
"The last man nearly ruined this place; he didn't know what to do with it.
If you think this country's bad off now, just wait till I get through with it!
The country's taxes must be fixed, and I know what to do with it.
If you think you're paying too much now, just wait till I get through with it!"
Rufus T. Firefly, Duck Soup (1933)
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 signaled a new era of government and created a baseline for all future adjustments to the tax code.The second of the Reagan tax cuts, passed by a Republican Senate and a Democratic House, the legislation sought to correct where the first attempt, the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981, misfired; it broadened the tax base by reducing the number of brackets, deductions, and tax rates for taxpayers.The effect was a restoration of a key factor to a burgeoning economy – incentive.
The tax reform, the most comprehensive since World War II, lowered the top marginal tax rate from 50% to 28% which resulted in an additional $202 billion to the coffers of the Internal Revenue Agency ($244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989). It also more closely aligned the taxation of capital gains with the average marginal income tax rates (although personal income taxes have since regained preferential status, reaching a high of 39.6% under the 1993 increase by a Democratic Congress and White House.)President-elect Obama now seeks to realign capital gains and personal income taxes, but at higher rates.
[As an aside, this is the last time I will use the term "capital gains tax" as it is semantically vague and generally misunderstood. As capital gains are the monetary results of investment and risk, I shall, going forward, refer to them as the "double investment tax". It provides a clearer picture of the double taxation from the government - first, on the corporation that creates a profit, and second, on the investor who provided the investment to realize that profit.]
On 22 October 1986, when Ronald Reagan signed the tax reform into law, he stated:
"But for all tax reform's benefits, I believe that history will record this moment as something more: as the return to the first principles. This country was founded on faith in the individual, not groups or classes, but faith in the resources and bounty of each and every separate human soul."
Barack Obama, almost 22 years to the day after that legislation was signed, revealed what he thought of those first principles. On 12 October 2008, he famously told a voter that "It's not that I [Obama] want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody...I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
President-elect Obama has also expressed interest in nearly doubling the double investment tax from its current rate of 15% to “what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent” (emphasis added), which is partially correct.In 1997, President Clinton signed Republican-sponsored legislation restoring the rate to its pre-1986 level, or 20%, which stayed effective until 2003 when the Bush tax cuts lowered it again.In each instance, the result was increased revenue.In 2002, treasury revenues from the double investment tax totaled $49 billion.After lowering the rate, revenues soared to $110 billion.This unlocking effect allowed a broader base of investors to move stock without punitive tax rates taking an undue amount of profit.
Recalling Representative Parris’ statement during debate of the 1986 tax law, I now believe he is largely correct that elected officials voted not fully aware of the bill’s contents.At a minimum, few, if any, voted understanding the full range of unintended consequences.By bumping the tax rate to 28%, the federal government, over the next four years, took in 13% less revenue at the higher rate.Conversely, this is the locking effect in which investors hold on to stock to avoid higher tax brackets.
These two examples demonstrate what the Laffer Curve has argued for decades – that at a higher rate of taxation, revenues decline.To make the argument using the most extreme examples, a tax rate of 0% will produce no tax revenue, as zero multiplied by any number is always zero.Likewise, a tax rate of 100% will also produce zero tax revenue, as workers will purposefully cease production since they will realize none of its benefits.
Mr. Obama can reinvigorate the economy, but not by the way he suggests.Revenue histories demonstrate that low personal income tax rates and low double investment tax rates increase revenue.By introducing a tax package based on these historic principles, he’d signal to the diverse class of investors that he is serious about economic recovery.
(This is an editorial written by Cal Thomas which appeared in this morning's Boston Herald.)
Remember when Democrats lamented the growing budget deficit and spoke of the burden our children and grandchildren would face if we didn’t put our fiscal house in order? That was when Republicans ran the federal government and Democrats opposed tax cuts. Now that Democrats are about to be in charge, concern about the deficit has disappeared and spending plans proliferate, even though the national debt has passed $ 10 trillion.
The latest, but by no means the last supplicant at the public trough, is the auto industry, which wants a bailout to save jobs because its cars are not selling. There is a reason for that and it can be summed up in five words: The United Auto Workers Union ( UAW).
Half of the $ 50 billion the auto industry wants is for health care for its current and retired employees. According to the Wall Street Journal, ‘‘ on average, GM pays $ 81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to its U. S. hourly workers.’’ Those increased costs have added $ 1,600 to the price of every vehicle GM produced. In February 2008, after General Motors offered buyouts to 74,000 employees, the Center for Automotive Research estimated the average wage, including benefits, for current GM workers had dropped to $ 78.21 an hour. New hires pulled down a paltry $ 26.65. GM, now facing a head- on collision with reality, has taken an important step toward fiscal responsibility by announcing the elimination of lifetime health care benefits for about 100,000 of its white- collar retirees.
Contrast this with non- union Toyota, whose total hourly U. S. labor costs, with benefits, are about $ 48 per hour. Is it any wonder that Toyota is outselling American automakers and from plants that have been built on U. S. soil? According to The Heritage Foundation, ‘‘ typical hourly employee at a Toyota, Honda or Nissan plant in America makes almost $ 100,000 a year in wages and benefits, before overtime.’’
The Heritage Foundation also notes, ‘‘ If Washington really wants to help Detroit, they could end the regulatory nightmare that prevents profitable, fuel- efficient cars from reaching market.’’ Ford, they say, has begun selling a car that gets 65 mpg, but they’re not selling it in America. Why? Because it runs on diesel fuel and environmentalists ‘‘ have fought to keep taxes high and refinery capacity low.’’
Better to renegotiate the labor contracts, retrain workers for other jobs or help them get hired at the Japanese auto plants in America than to subsidize a failed economic model for the sake of political gain.
(Good editorial from Monday's Wall Street Journal. If you aren't reading The Journal, you should be; it's not just about the stock market, but the broader economy. Don't let the name fool you.)
In the Washington mind, there are two kinds of private companies. There are successful if "greedy" corporations, which can always afford to pay more taxes and tolerate more regulation. And then there are the corporate supplicants that need a handout. As the Detroit auto makers are proving, you can go from being the first to the second in the blink of an election.
For decades, Congress has never had a second thought as it imposed tighter emissions standards on GM, Ford and Chrysler, denouncing them for making evil SUVs. Yet now that the companies are bleeding cash, and may be heading for bankruptcy, suddenly the shrinking Big Three are the latest candidates for a taxpayer bailout. One $25 billion loan facility has already been signed into law, and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) wants another $25 billion, this time with no strings attached.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met last week with company and union officials, and they later sent a letter urging Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to bestow cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp) on the companies. Barack Obama implied at his Friday press conference that he too favors some kind of taxpayer rescue of Detroit, though no doubt he'd like to have President Bush's signature on the check so he won't have to take full political responsibility.
We hope Messrs. Bush and Paulson just say no. The Tarp was intended to save the financial system from collapse, not to be a honey pot for any industry running short of cash. The financial panic has hit Detroit hard, but its problems go back decades and are far deeper than reduced access to credit among car buyers. As a political matter, the Bush Administration is also long past the point where it might get any credit for helping Detroit. But it will earn the scorn of taxpayers if it refuses to set some limits on access to the Tarp. If Democrats want to change the rules next year, let them do it on their own political dime.
A bailout might avoid any near-term bankruptcy filing, but it won't address Detroit's fundamental problems of making cars that Americans won't buy and labor contracts that are too rich and inflexible to make them competitive. As Paul Ingrassia notes nearby, Detroit's costs are far too high for their market share. While GM has spent billions of dollars on labor buyouts in recent years, they are still forced by federal mileage standards to churn out small cars that make little or no profit at plants organized by the United Auto Workers.
Rest assured that the politicians don't want to do a thing about those labor contracts or mileage standards. In their letter, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid recommend such "taxpayer protections" as "limits on executive compensation and equity stakes" that would dilute shareholders. But they never mention the UAW contracts that have done so much to put Detroit on the road to ruin. In fact, the main point of any taxpayer rescue seems to be to postpone a day of reckoning on those contracts. That includes even the notorious UAW Jobs Bank that continues to pay workers not to work.
A Detroit bailout would also be unfair to other companies that make cars in the U.S. Yes, those are "foreign" companies in the narrow sense that they are headquartered overseas. But then so was Chrysler before Daimler sold most of the car maker to Cerberus, the private equity fund. Honda, Toyota and the rest employ about 113,000 American auto workers who make nearly four million cars a year in states like Alabama and Tennessee. Unlike Michigan, these states didn't vote for Mr. Obama.
But the very success of this U.S. auto industry indicates that highly skilled American workers can profitably churn out cars without being organized by the UAW. A bailout for Chrysler would in essence be assisting rich Cerberus investors at the expense of middle-class nonunion auto workers. Is this the new "progressive" era we keep reading so much about?
The car makers say that bankruptcy is unthinkable and "not an option." And bankruptcy would certainly be expensive, not least for Washington itself, which could be responsible for 600,000 or so retiree pensions through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. In that sense, the bailout is intended to rescue the politicians from having to honor that earlier irresponsible guarantee. But at least that guarantee would be finite. If Uncle Sam buys into Detroit, $50 billion would only be the start of the outlays as taxpayers were obliged to protect their earlier investment in uncompetitive companies.
* * *
If our politicians can't avoid throwing taxpayer cash at Detroit, then they should at least do so in a way that really protects taxpayers. That means handing a receiver the power to replace current management, zero out current shareholders, and especially to rewrite labor and other contracts. Anything less is merely a payoff to Michigan politicians and their union allies.
Typically, Wall Street reponds favorably to the election of a new POTUS, regardless of their party affiliation. That didn't happen this time around; on the contrary, the DJIA dropped more than 900 points in the two days after the election, and was down again on Monday. The Asian markets were down overnight, and the markets appear poised for yet another down-day today.
There's an underlying uncertainty as to whether Obama's economic policies will further hamper an already-weak economy (to say the least). If Barack Obama wanted to do something to help Wall Street and help prop up a faltering economy, he needed to say only one thing:
"I have no plans to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the highest-income Americans, nor will I increase the capital gains rate in this current economic environment."
This one comment would have given investors and small businesses at least some assurance that until the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, there would be a "window of certainty" on capital gains and income taxes.
Uncertainty about the short term is one of the things keeping trading volume and new investment light. President-elect Obama has missed an opportunity to allay some of that uncertainty. Could that be because he's more concerned with implementing his tax increases sooner rather than later than he is with making allowances for the current economic climate?
Clearly, that's the message he's sent to Wall Street.
