Peter Orszag sat down with CNN's Fareed Zakaria recently, in his first interview since stepping-down as White House Budget Director. Of course, who needs a budget director when you don't have a budget (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/104635-dems-wont-pass-budget)? (Ba-dum-bum! Thank you, I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress.)
In that interview, Orszag attempted to dispel the notion that President Obama is a socialist- that, despite a July poll that found that 55% of likely voters found the term to fit the President either "well," or "very well." (I'd like to know what percentage of those who consider Obama to be a socialist are OK with that.) This poll wasn't conducted by the Wall Street Journal or Fox News, but by Democracy Corp, the polling firm of leading Democratric advisers James Carville and Stan Greenberg.
OK, Pete, he didn't nationalize the banks and he didn't scrap "the basic structure of our capitalist system." That's a bit like saying that just because the Health Care Reform legislation didn't include a government-run, public option, that the President doesn't support one, isn't it?
So you'll pardon me if I'm not entirely convinced, based on a lot of stammering followed by two examples from Mr. Orszag of how he might have been more socialist, that our President is not- call it whatever you want- I'll call it FAR-LEFT. 'Well, he didn't nationalize the banks,' is hardly an endorsement of the President as a free-market capitalist. In the amount of time you must have spent with Obama, can you not give one affirmative example that would suggest he believes in "the basic structure of the capitalist system"?
It's astonishing. Watch the clip as Zakaria gives Orszag every opportunity to be specific in dispelling the "myth"- "what is his core economic philosophy?...who is he?...but, tell us more, fill in the details." Orszag protests, "he's not a socialist," but he doesn't answer Zakaria's question- "who is he?"
Orszag concludes, "I don't know that his previous experience really speaks to...what his policy outlook is."
Well in that case, Pete, I don't know whether to be alarmed that you, of all people, 'don't know that his previous experience speaks to his policy outlook' or relieved that you seem to leave open the possibility that it might not. After all, by now most Americans know that his biological father was a socialist; his mother was described as a "fellow traveler"- a euphamism for a communist sympathizer (his parents met in a Russian language class in Hawaii); his mentor and father-figure during his formative years was Frank Marshall Davis, an admitted member of CPUSA (Communist Party USA). In Dreams From My Father, Obama admitted to choosing, among his friends, "the Marxist professors" in order "to avoid being mistaken for a sellout." Jerimiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Cass Sunstein, Wade Rathke, Andy Stern, Van Jones, Carol Browner, George Soros, etc...let's all pray that his previous experience doesn't speak to his policy outlook.
What about his rhetoric? You've probably heard Obama's 2001 radio interview, lamenting that the Constitution was a "charter of negative liberties" and that the "tragedy" that the Warren Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and...issues of political and economic justice..."
The "Joe the Plumber" incident was the first time many saw then-candidate Obama as a wealth-redistributor. I still recall what I considered to be his first "Joe the Plumber" moment; ironically, it took place well before (in political terms) America was introduced to Joe the Plumber, during the ABC debate when Obama was still battling Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party's nomination. Here, Charles Gibson asks the future-President a question regarding the possibility of raising the capital gains tax rate.
So, even if raising the capital-gains tax rate would mean a decrease in revenue to the federal government (and conversely, that a decrease would increase it), he still reserved the right to raise that rate "for purposes of fairness." His is an ideology rooted in what he deems as fair in order to "finance health care," etc., not what will stimulate the economy and increase tax receipts to the government. Rather, he dismisses the empirical, historical evidence that reducing the cap gains rate increases revenue. You tell me- is he drinking the socialist Kool Aid?
Of course, despite his remarks, the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill failed to address the loophole Obama referenced that allows hedge-fund managers' investment income to be taxed at the lower capital gains rate rather than being taxed as income (http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/08/financial-reform-bill-hedge-funds-opinions-columnists-larry-e-ribstein.html). Maybe that had something to do with the fact that hedge fund managers out-contibuted to Obama over McCain in the run-up to the Presidential election by more than two-to-one? Perhaps admitted socialist, convicted insider-trader, MoveOn.org founder, currency manipulator , and billionaire investor George Soros reminded Obama who was financing his campaign.
In the run-up to the financial reform bill, however, Obama had this to say:
What's particularly telling about the President's comments here is not just that he has the tamarity to suggest that those whom capitalists regard as most valuable to our economy and our American capitalist system- the innovators, the business owners, the job-creators- have "at some point...made enough money." What's most outrageous is that he 'doesn't begrudge success that's fairly earned' for one simple, selfish, dare-I-say "socialist" reason:
"We don't want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy."
That's a far-cry from Adam Smith. Smith was an inspiration to the Founding Fathers who believed in the "invisible hand" of the free market, in which two people enter into what Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman would later call "mutually beneficial arrangements," whereby each benefits by acting in their own self-interests. Smith wrote:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
Say what you want about Smith's economic philosophy, but contrast it with the President's remarks and ask yourself whether the notion that one engages in economic activity based on a larger responsibility to grow the economy is more Smith or Marx?
Among Marx's ten "measures" necessary to the communist revolution (The Communist Manifesto, pp. 93-94) are:
- "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Long a staple of the far-Left of the Democratic Party, the heavily progressive income tax and the class warfare rhetoric it engenders, have only ramped-up under the Obama Administration. Currently, 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax, and should the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire only for the "rich," the chasm between those with "skin in the game" and the zero-liability voter will only widen.
- "Abolition of all right of inheritance." The return of the estate tax in 2011 marks another milestone in advancing a leftist agenda for the Obama White House. How would you characterize a tax that confiscates up to 55% of one's "estate" (read: saved income that has already been taxed at least once) as "fair" unless your definition of fair was the redistribution of income? Quasi-socialist?http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-07-21-estatetax21_CV_N.htm
- "Free education for all children in public schools." Obama has shown a devotion to public education and the teacher's unions that borders on the fanatical. Despite the fact that his children attend an elite D.C. private school, early in his administration the President killed a very popular (and efficient) voucher program in Washington, D.C. that allowed disadvantaged and minority children in particular to attend private schools and escape the failing D.C. public schools.
In an interview last Friday, the former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, called Barack Obama "the most radical President in U.S. history, bar-none."
In 2008 The National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm#results) ranked then-Senator Obama "The Most Liberal Senator of 2007" (Biden was third). Bernie Sanders, "the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist," was FOURTH.
Orszag won't be the last Obama apologist, put forth to try to quash the growing public perception that the President is a socialist. And that's the only good news here, because he did a piss-poor job of it- but Obama's own past, his rhetoric, and his policy decisions in his first year-and-a-half as President aren't pointing in any other direction, are they?
If you were a socialist and you weren't going to vote for the socialist candidate, who would you vote for? Who's to the Left of him- Nancy Pelosi? Dennis Kucinich?
If President Obama wants to distance himself from the "socialist" moniker, he'll have to find a better advocate than Orszag- one who can get beyond the "he's not a socialist" mantra 55% of Americans disagree with and cut to the heart of Zakaria's (and America's) question- the one he's had more than a year-and-a-half to answer:
At the heart of the health care reform debate is this assertion that health care is a right. As I argued in my article on health care reform "(h)ealth care is not and cannot be, by definition, a Constitutional right."
"The Founding Fathers believed that rights...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."
Of course, a Constitutional argument will hardly deter the most ardent, far-left supporters of government-run health care. They don't stop at the Constitution- they deem health care to be a human right. The American people need to consider the broader implications of "health care as a right" (of any kind) beyond whatever makes it into the final bill.
The final version of this bill will be revealed at the end of this week and rushed to a vote the following week, before legislators break for Easter recess and return to their home districts to face their constituents. The House bill will contain some concessions aimed at getting so-called moderate Democrats on-board, especially Bart Stupak and his "gang of twelve" who are holding out to keep federal funding for abortion out of the bill. If the bill passes the House it will be rammed through the Senate using reconciliation.
But don't expect the "health care is a right" crowd to be satisfied with that. Consider the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/01/pelosi-new-health-care-ready-days/) concerning her expectations of the re-worked bill. "It will be a much smaller proposal than we had in the House bill because that's where we can gain consensus. But it will be big enough to put us on a path of affordable, quality health care for all Americans..."
"Put us on a path," she says. Translation: "We ain't done yet."
After all, if health care is a right, and if "quality health care for all Americans" is the end-game, where exactly will this "path" ultimately lead us? Here's a glimpse into the future of health care.
First, coverage must be universal. If health care is a human right, this means coverage for illegal aliens. Of course, that isn't in the bill; however, it isn't a coincidence that the week after the House passed its original health care reform bill, Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez introduced an immigration bill that would "that would open a path to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/us/politics/16immig.html?_r=1). Gutierrez represents Illinois' 4th District- guess where that is?
Illegal immigrants won't be included in the final health care reform bill, but if the goal is to cover "all Americans" and then provide a "path (there's that word, again) to citizenship" for illegal immigrants, isn't that the same thing? And if the Left wants to do this, fine, but let's be honest about what providing care to millions of newly-minted citizens will do to access and costs- because this isn't in the bill the Congressional Budget Office scored.
Furthermore, "coverage for all" will eventually be mandated. This means the young and healthy will see their costs rise the most. Universal health care will not work otherwise; the care of the old, the sick, and the poor must be subsidized by the young, the healthy, and the wealthy. Although most current proposals for funding reform have focused on the wealthy, such as taxes on those with so-called "Cadillac" health plans, medical device manufacturers, and evil insurance companies, the proposal to require health insurance or force those who elect not to carry health insurance to pay a penalty is a sign of things to come.
Any health insurance program, public or private, which requires coverage of pre-existing conditions and regulates price increases will necessarily increase premiums on younger, healthier persons in its risk pool to subsidize the loss leaders in the pool. Fines for uninsured individuals and employers who do not provide coverage to their employees are not enough because such a program adversely selects against itself; the young and healthy need to be in the pool to prevent a "death spiral." Politicians aren't being honest about this aspect of reform, but former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich had this to say about the hard truths of health care reform they would tell you if they were honest.
Did you get that? Reich, a liberal Democrat and a supporter of government-run health care, says these are the outcomes we can look forward to- 'higher costs for the young and healthy, less care for the elderly, and less innovation.' Makes you wonder what the American people are so worried about, doesn't it? Perhaps that's why Democrats are pushing one enormous bill rather than a measured, incremental, bi-partisan approach.
Another class of people who won't be permitted to opt-out of the current system will be the providers of health care themselves. There's been a lot of talk about the possibility that more and more physicians will refuse to treat Medicare patients if their reimbursement rates are cut (as has been proposed) to cover the cost of the health care overhaul. The so-called "doctor fix" may not happen immediately, but look for reimbursement rates for physicians treating any government health care recipient to gradually decline. And, since health care is a right, physicians can't be allowed to refuse treatment for anyone.
And what does that mean for the best specialists and facilities such as Cancer Treatment Centers of America, the Mayo Clinic, M.D. Anderson, etc., which boast better outcomes and higher survival rates? Health care is a right, isn't it? Do we allow one class of people more speech than others? More second amendment rights? If we have equal rights, shouldn't that mean equality of access and outcomes?
Perhaps health care facilities and providers will function much like our schools- all are required to contribute to public schools whether they send their children there or not. Would some be allowed, to purchase supplemental coverage or go outside the plan with their own dollars to be treated at a private hospital? Would the best facilites cater primarily to the wealthy and to federal employees who will not be subject to the strictures of the new health care reforms?
Lastly, since health care is a right, if anyone cannot afford care, it must be provided to them free of charge. This means those who can afford care will be forced to pay even more than they already do subsidizing those who can't.
Does all of this sound implausible? This is the Left's so-called "path." A right to health care means tax-payer subsidized access for all that no person can opt out of and no provider can decline, which will raise premiums for the young and healthy, increase taxes, reduce access to care for the elderly, drive up costs, discourage medical innovation, and increase the control the federal government has over our lives.
Let's put that to a vote and see who supports it. This bill may not get us there, but it's "big enough to put us on a path..."
In the Travel section of this past Sunday's Chicago Tribune, columnist Ed Perkins blasts San Francisco-area restaurants for adding a "'health' charge" to diner's bills in what Perkins labels a "scam...to cover the employers' mandatory contribution to the City's 'Healthy San Francisco' health-coverage system."
Scam or not, the outcome is a predictable one- and it may be coming to a restaurant or hotel near you.
As I've observed before, businesses don't ultimately pay taxes (http://prasifkapolitics.typepad.com/the_politics_of_accountab/2008/10/corporations-do.html). The idea that increased taxes aren't unlimately borne by individual investors, consumers, and employees (and on a large enough scale, the broader economy) is a complete canard- and this is just one more example that proves it.
Now, given that Perkins writes for the travel section of a newspaper, he can be excused for not being an economic guru; however, his conclusion is as lamentably ignorant as it is predictable. "(I)t seems to me that hidden mandatory fees are becoming prevalent enough to warrant some sort of government action."
Gread idea, Ed. How about mandatory price controls for restaurants and other travel-related businesses? How about a new government bureaucracy to present new compliance challenges, cost-and-pricing audits to which such businesses must devote additional time and manpower, further impacting its bottom line?
Perkins points out that,"Normally I write about practical information travelers can use, and I avoid taking 'there oughta be a law' soapbox positions."
That's a good policy, Ed. I can certainly see why. I wonder who you voted for in the last election.
The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a “health” charge added to restaurant bills. This scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.
By Ed Perkins, Tribune Media Services
February 28, 2010
Nothing succeeds in the travel industry like a bad idea. The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a "health" charge added to restaurant bills. As far as I know, this scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.
The rationale for this one is to cover the employers' mandatory contribution to the City's "Healthy San Francisco" health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer's bill to cover this charge.
The restaurants' excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they're paying for employees' health coverage. That's the same excuse hotels use when they add "resort" or "housekeeping" fees to unsuspecting guests' room bills. It's the same excuse airlines would use to exclude fuel surcharges from their advertised fares if the Department of Transportation would allow them. And it's sheer nonsense. Employees' health insurance is no less of a cost of doing business than rent, property taxes, food costs, security services and all the other inputs businesses require to operate. To single out health care for a separate surcharge is unwarranted.
The restaurants adding this fee self-righteously proclaim, "It's not hidden; we print a notice on our menus." But that, too, is nonsense: Presumably, restaurants could apply that same rationale for extra fees to cover the cost of electricity, heat or linen service. I haven't seen any reports yet that San Francisco hotels are adding a similar charge. But hotels aren't shy about piling on other fees and charges.
So far, I haven't heard of "health" fees anywhere other than San Francisco. But, as noted, bad ideas travel fast, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it copied in one form or another by restaurants in other areas.
What can you do to avoid this fee? Presumably, not many of you would feel strongly enough about this minor scam to get up and walk out of a restaurant the minute you saw a notice about such a fee. And you probably wouldn't feel like making a fuss when you're paying your bill, either. But when you leave, you can certainly let the restaurant know that you resent this deception and that you won't be returning.
I've noted before — and you have undoubtedly found out firsthand — that hidden mandatory fees have become a bane of travelers and of consumers generally. The reason seems clear: As more and more of you use the Internet to compare prices, suppliers find it increasingly important to make their first-screen prices look as low as possible. As a result, they've taken to carving out part of what should be the true base price and instead adding it in only later — sometimes before you buy, sometimes not until later.
Currently, mandatory extra hotel fees are far more troublesome than restaurant fees. Trip-Advisor (tripadvisor.com) posts more than 72,000 traveler reports of unexpected hotel fees of various types. Although some of those reports obviously cover the same hotels, the number of hotels resorting to this deception has got to be in the thousands.
Normally I write about practical information travelers can use, and I avoid taking "there oughta be a law" soapbox positions. But it seems to me that hidden mandatory fees are becoming prevalent enough to warrant some sort of government action. The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to police deceptive advertising, but it moves at a glacially slow pace and even then gives wide latitude to miscreants. What consumers need is some sort of overall national "buyability" standard for advertised prices, along with robust enforcement authority. Certainly, such a requirement is workable; it works pretty well right now for airfares.
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?
I am a Libertarian. I believe in the United States Constitution. I believe in Founding Principles- individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited federal government power, federalism, state's rights, and free market capitalism. By now you must know that people such as myself are:
Bloggers, political pundits, and politicians on the Left have ascribed such labels to opponents of the Democratic agenda, and particularly members of the Tea Party movement since it emerged last Spring. Nevertheless, there's been a lot of lecturing from the same factions on civility and bi-parisanship.
They have railed against the senior citizens at Town Halls for, horror of horrors- raising their voices. They've branded Tea Party protestors as extremists.
They cried, "foul" when Joe Wilson made his regrettable outburst, "You lie!" during President Obama's speech to Congress on healthcare. Despite the fact that the President's speech to that point had been made up almost-entirely of finger-wagging charges against Congressional Republicans, accusations of obstructionism, political pandering to special-interests, and fear-mongering propaganda, the timing of Wilson's remarks was clearly a breach of decorum.
Accordingly, Wilson contacted the White House directly and personally apologized immediately after the speech. That wasn't good enough for the Dominatrix of Discipline, the Mistress of Manners, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. No, the Speaker immediately called for a second apology from Wilson, this time to his fellow representatives on the floor of the House. When Wilson refused, the Speaker offerd a "resolution of disapproval" against Wilson, like a dog-owner, rubbing the offending animal's nose in its own feces.
Not that Madame Pelosi has been inclined to ball-gag or spank the real House bad-boy, Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson. Grayson recently alleged on the House floor that the Republican health care plan was for the sick to "die quickly," and stated in an appearance on MSNBC that, with regards to former Vice President Dick Cheney, "I have trouble listening to what he says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking.”
Last month, during a radio interview on The Alex Jones Show (Jones is "committed" 9/11-Truther from my home town of Austin, TX- I know his work well) Grayson referred to a former female adviser to then-Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake as a "K-Street whore." Quite civil.
In addition to the lack of outrage from feminist groups, Pelosi was, of course, decidedly mum. Not that the Golden (State) Shower Queen has any genuine interest in bi-partisanship, which might require her to actually reprimand Grayson in some way. Recall her response to the media when asked whether allegations by House Republicans were true that they were completely shut out of the process of crafting the 800 billion-dollar stimulus bill last Winter: "Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election." No, the Spanker of the House only punishes incivility, only decries a lack of bi-partisanship when it suits her own perverse purposes.
It's important to note that at the time of her comments most polling indicated that the majority of the American people opposed the stimulus bill, certainly in-part due to the fact that most members of Congress conceded they hadn't even read the damn thing. Opposition to single payer health care is gaining traction for the same two reasons: the lack of willingness on the part of the far-Left to entertain any conservative solutions for reform (http://prasifkapolitics.typepad.com/the_politics_of_accountab/2009/08/a-solution-for-health-care-congress-and-the-free-market.html) and their willingness to cram it down the American people's throat A.S.A.P.- 'Why waste time reading it?'
Yet the far-Left isn't interested in those concerns. Instead, they dismiss the polls. They deride the Tea Party protesors. They call them names. Even "journalists" from what White House Communications Director Anita Dunn calls 'credible media outlets' still derisively refer to Tea Party protestors as "tea baggers."
Just three weeks ago on ABC's This Week, self-avowed liberal jounalist E.J. Dionne predicted, “Republicans have a real problem because to win some of these seats such as Delaware, they need moderate candidates like Mike Castle, but look at that race in upstate New York, the special election for the House where Republicans nominated a moderate (read:liberal) Republican, DeDe Scozzafava, and then the Conservative Party in New York State put up a right-wing candidate (Doug Hoffman) supported by the tea-baggers…”
(Hoffman, not the most charismatic guy in the world, managed to get more than 45% of the vote, even though Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. Democratic pundits naturally tout this as a victory; however, a conservative, third-party candidate who was a late entry in the race and was leading in the polls when the contest was a three-way race and a Democratic victor who still failed to win a majority of the voters in New York's 23rd district (Scozzafava still received 6% of the vote) is hardly a mandate for the far-left agenda in this country.)
Host George Stephanolpoulos (which I believe is Greek for- "my ancestors inter-bred with Hobbits and all I got was this lousy talk show") passed to Peggy Noonan: “This hard-core part of the base is a world unto its own right now, the tea bag movement…”
While neither Noonan nor the other embedded conservative on This Week, George Will, raised any objection to the use of the tea-bagger term, Noonan did defend the legitimacy of the movement: "This country saw, this summer, an awakening if you will- an August awakening of people at Town Halls coming forward. Republicans and Independents, and some Democrats coming forward…”
Awakening? Yes. Civility? Of course not. For the uninitiated, the idea of ascribing the tea-bagger moniker to Tea Party protestors is widely attributed first to MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow, although frequently invoked by Keith Oberman and CNN's Anderson Cooper. It is meant to be an offensive term:
"Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio."
(And no, this isn't a joke. Urban Dictionary actually has the second definition of teabagging exactly as it appears above)
Get it? Calling Tea Party Protestors "Tea Baggers" is a supposedly clever way of saying that they “suck balls.” One isn't surprised to get that kind of banality from the Huffington Post or MSNBC, or even Gloria Vanderbilt, Jr.- but programs like This Week have long had a reputation for maintaining the pretense of credibility, if not objectivity- that despite the fact Stephanopoulos is a former Clinton staffer and a participant in the weekly White House conference calls with key members of the Obama staff including advisor David Axlerod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
Perhaps that's who ABC News is taking their cues from. (It's certain that if, when Bush were President, we learned members of Fox News were included in weekly strategy conference calls with Karl Rove and Josh Bolten the Left would be up-in-arms.) Tea Party protestors have been raising objections over being referred to as Tea-baggers since at least April. Expecting us to believe that Stephanopoulos and Dionne don't understand the sexual, insulting, uncivil connotation associated with the Tea-bagger label is a lot like expecting us to believe that Charles Gibson wasn't aware of the ACORN corruption scandal days after it broke.
Charlie, it's bad enough you didn't actually know what the Bush doctrine was (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html) when you chose to leer down your spectacles at Sarah Palin; now you expect the American people to believe you didn't know about the ACORN scandal? Somehow I think you either just didn't want to talk about it or you're not much of a journalist. It's your job to know what's going on, even if you fail to cover it.
New York Times liberal bomb-thrower Frank Rich also weighed in on the race in upstate New York three days before the election, in a charming piece titled, The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/opinion/01rich.html). I was disappointed to find that Rich failed to explain how advocating for less government makes one a Stalinist, but I was not surprised at the bile that was poured out on the Tea Party Protestors in his column:
"(S)uch farces have become the norm for the conservative movement — whether the participants are dressing up in full “tea party” drag or not.
The battle for upstate New York confirms just how swiftly the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama."
Nice. I wonder, what exactly is tea party "drag"? Apparently, it's whatever members of a "wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat 'its own' (which, presumably, Rich considers to be a Republican so liberal she received the ACORN endorsement over her Democratic opponent) as it is to destroy Obama" would wear while they "tea bag" one another.
Outrageous. The far-Left controls the leadership in both chambers of Congress and the White House, and dominates "mainstream" broadcast and print media. It has the financial backing of George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, every hedge fund manager on Wall Street, Labor Unions, trial lawyers, and an army of paid bloggers, advocacy groups, and community organizers at its disposal. Yet it mocks and attacks everyday Americans exercising their Constitutional rights to free speech and assembly as Stalinists. Racists. Un-American. Tea-baggers.
Shit. They must be right. Or are they missing something? Are they simply blinded by partisanship and allegiance to themselves and special interests? Have they been "preaching to the converted" in Washington, D.C. too long?
Tuesday's election results- when two states the President carried handily a year ago elect Republican Governors by overwhelming margins (including a Democratic incumbent in one of the "bluest" states in the country) and a late-entry, third-party candidate in New York with no experience runs a liberal Republican out of a House race- are significant. They represent a teachable moment for all elected officials and political pundits- especially for those on the far-Left who hoped to marginalize the growing number of Americans, the majority, who oppose single payer health care, who think the country is moving in the wrong direction, who feel their elected officials are not listening to them but lecturing them and calling them derisive and even vulgar names. (Notice the clever caption at the bottom of the screen: "Capitalist 'Tools'")
Instead of mocking the American people, the Left would do well to understand a few things:
First, this isn't about race, and it isn't about Obama. Barack Obama won fifty-three percent of the vote in the Presidential election. Early into his term, his approval rating was in the high sixties. Surveys reveal that he remains quite popular and the majority of Americans like him personally (http://people-press.org/report/545/obama-approval-steady). That's in stark contrast to his declining approval ratings on the issues most integral to the Left-wing agenda, such as the economy and health care, and the majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
You have to wonder if it's ignorance, ideology, or sheer stupidity on the part of the Left that they fail to recognize the legitimacy, the integrity of this "awakening of people at Town Halls coming forward...Republicans and Independents, and some Democrats..."? Of course Liberals mock the Tea Parties, the Town Halls and any opposition, saying "Why didn't you do anything when Bush was President?"
The American people did- they voted. The Democratic Congress and President were swept into power in the last two elections on a wave of disenchantment on the part of American voters with Republican excesses- not a single spending bill vetoed by President Bush in the six years the Republican Party controlled Congress, runaway earmark and pork-barrel spending, bridges to nowhere, increased deficit spending, a housing downturn, a stock market downturn, soaring energy costs, and finally the 780 billion-dollar TARP monstrousity.
Amidst this decline Americans gave Obama the benefit of the doubt that he would govern from the center and not the far-Left. They believed his promises that he would "go line-by-line through the budget" and cut wasteful spending, make affordable to the uninsured "the same health care members of Congress have," eliminate earmarks, that his would be "the most transparent administration ever," that he would "not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days," and that the majority of Americans would not see their taxes go up one dime.
This is what the American people, especially the moderates and independents who tend to swing elections, voted for- no this far-Left agenda. Why the sudden disenchantment with the Left? What are the flat-earth liberals missing? Consider the timeline. Housing prices began their decline in 2006 but foreclosuers didn't reach crisis proportions until late 2007, which is also when the stock market began its precipitous decline; however, in fiscal year 2007 unemployment averaged 4.6% and the deficit actually declined for the third consecutive year to $161 billion (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/10/05/deficit-for-fiscal-2007-slides/).
In 2008 the economy worsened, consumer confidence and spending declined, the deficit increased to $455 billion, oil and gas prices hit record highs in the Summer of 2008, and by November unemployment was 7% and rising. The $787 billion TARP passed in September by the Democratic Congress and signed into law by Bush, we were told, was necessary to keep our economy from slipping into another Great Depression and save our economy.
Since the November elections the Left has crammed down the throats of the American people, tea-bagging the taxpayer-if you will, an $800 billion stimulus the majority of Americans opposed, a record-setting $4 trillion budget, an omnibus bill with more than 8,500 earmarks, and the House has passed an $900 billion health care bill, all despite promises of fiscal restraint. TARP dollars have been allocated largely based on political patronage, often going to troubled banks with political connections rather than to relatively healthy banks to spur lending and relieve the frozen credit markets (as the bill was designed to do).
Now unemployment is over ten percent, Congress is calling for a second stimulus, the projected deficit for 2009 is $1.7 trillion dollars, and projected future deficits, which dwarf the Bush deficits, and are "unsustainable" according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/)
Cap-and-trade threatens to increase energy costs for all Americans, card-check threatens state's rights and labor, and the Administration demonizes capitalism and the profit motive at every turn. It asks its supporters to inform on their fellow citizens (remember flag@whitehouse.gov?) and threatens private companies in an effort to squelch dissent on health care reform.
This is not race or political party. It's not about "astroturf" or "manufactured outrage." It's about runaway government spending. Sweetheart mortgages for Senators and tax evading Representatives. It's about ending the "culture of corruption" in Washington. It's about looting taxpayer money for to reward Party loyalists, who in-turn provide elected officials with campaign contributions and political capital (in the private sector it's called money laundering and bribery). It's about doing what's best for the American people, not marginalizing your opponents.
Yes, the Democratic Party "won the election," but the far-Left has made a serious miscalculation if they believe that the American people sanctioned this agenda, this lack of transparency, bi-partisanship, and fiscal discipline, this corruption and political patronage. The hypocrisy of Stephanopolous decrying, "this hard-core part of the base is a world unto its own right now, the tea bag movement…" is completely lost on the Democratic leadership because the "hard-core part" the Democratic base is its leadership. Another case-in-point as to how out-of-touch that leadership was when Democratic Senator Charles Schumer explained recently that 'the American people don't care about pork-barrel spending.'
Of course I would disagree with the Senator. And the rest of his golden-shower liberal friends. And the Pacific Rim-Jobbers on the West Coast. And Mass-holes like John Kerry and Barney Frank. If that sounds uncivil, so be it. I'm a little fed up with Nancy Pelosi's delicate sensibilities. Not only is she a hypocrite, she's into S & M- socialism and Marxism.
What's important for legislators like Pelosi to understand is that civility is not falling in lock-step with their agenda. Americans have a vote, but they also have a voice. The 2008 election was not your rubber stamp to ram every progressive program through without answering to the people any further. The open disdain and name calling by the Left suggests that they believe they have an overwhelming mandate from the American people and that there will be no political price to pay for their politics (because these people are a small percentage of the population or they are "astroturf"); Or, like Bill Maher, they believe the American people are just too stupid to understand just how stupid they really are,and they need the government to take care of them.
It's funny that, from Maher's perspective, if the government offers the people "free" health care, the Americans who say, "No thanks, I'd rather not rely on the government for my health care and I won't be compelled to do so" are the "stupid" people. Only a liberal could come up with something that counterintuitive. This should come as no surprise. An unofficial poll, conducted by me, reveals that most hard-core leftists think Americans are stupid.
Well, Bill, it wasn't with 60 percent of the vote, but Americans elected these clowns...
We'll see if they get any smarter between now and the 2010 elections. You and your friends keep mocking them and see if that helps.
"I have shown repeatedly my independence, willing to cross party lines when I thought the interests of the American people in Pennsylvania...required it. Take one example: There's a bill on employees choice known as Card Check, which would take away the secret ballot and impose mandatory arbitration. I said when I made the switch I'm still against that bill." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30535930/page/3/)
These were the words of Arlen Specter, in his first television appearance since changing his political affiliation from Republican to Democrat, on Meet the Press on May 3rd. This Labor Day, however, Senator Specter appeared with Joe Biden at a rally in Pittsburg, PA in support of the Employee Free Choice Act, the very "card check" legislation Specter presented in May as proof of his "independence." The Associated Press report's headline read, "Biden, Specter Push 'Card Check on Labor Day.' (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_labor_day_biden/2009/09/07/257111.html)
(True to form, Specter, left, "would rather switch than fight" on Card Check)
Now, Specter is actively campaigning for a bill that threatens to eliminate the secret ballot in the workplace, and which could lead to open intimidation by pro-union advocates against employees who are not in favor of unionizing their workforce- causing them to "reconsider" their position.
Perhaps more disturbing, if "Card Check" becomes the law of the land, it would effectively trump the rights of so-called "right to work" states (http://www.chamberpost.com/2009/02/over-180-state-and-local-chambers-say-no-to-card-check.html) to keep trade unions from requiring membership and the payment of dues (a portion of which goes to the organization's preferred political candidate) as a condition of employment.
Card Check legislation is nothing more than a shameless effort to unionize America from the ground-up, which effectively rewards labor unions, long a staunch Democratic voting bloc, for their support and also promises to shore up their numbers for Dems in the years to come- sort of like giving organizations such as ACORN stimulus money, AND letting them take the 2010 census and just knowing they'll do the "right thing." (Fortunately, the recent exposure of ACORN's bad behavior have taken them out of consideration for the census- http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/14/breaking-senate-votes-to-defund-acorn/).
This is political gerrymandering by the Democratic leadership in the White House and Congress, as it seeks to further consolidate its power at the expense of the states, individual businesses, and the individual worker, all without a mandate from the U.S. Constitution; members of the SEIU, Acorn, and other organizations (the so-called "paid volunteers") will descend on states like Texas and Mississippi, pushing private sector employees to "empower themselves." The New York Times, MSNBC, and Nancy Pelosi will praise this "grass-roots movement by workers' rights advocates everywhere."
Many businesses in these states will lose their competitive advantage over businesses in widely unionized states- the states that, not coincidentally, have the highest levels of unemployment and the most economic turmoil today. Union workers, like government workers, do make significantly more than private sector workers. Also like the federal government, many unionized industries such as the automakers- are broke.
Card Check would also have the effect of making an increasing number of U.S. businesses less competitive in the global marketplace. Union supporters who look to union leadership to protect their jobs and decry the export of manufacturing jobs overseas are missing the point: Jobs are leaving highly unionzed states for right-to-work states or being exported overseas because the union model has become a bloated albatross around the neck of American commerce.
No matter- what's important to the far Left in this country is equality, not of rights or opportunities, but of outcomes- even if their policies do nothing more than make everyone equally miserable. Still, I can't recall a time in our recent history that the elected majority in Congress and the White House were so openly hostile to such a large portion of the electorate as is clearly the case today. Even as Democrats paint Tea Party protestors as racists and diminish critics of runaway spending and government-run health care, they make it clear that Senator Specter is right where he belongs.
Dictionary.com defines duplicity as "deceitfulness in speech or conduct; speaking or acting in two different ways concerning the same matter with intent to deceive; double-dealing." In the last two national elections, duplicity has clearly been embraced as an effective political strategy of the Democratic Party.
Consider that in 2006 the Democrats seized the majority in both houses of Congress, promising to "end the culture of corruption in Washington, D.C." In the midterm elections disillusioned voters, fed up with the Republicans and their "bridge(s) to nowhere," seized on Democratic promises of reform. Socially conservative Democratic candidates in traditionally conservative strongholds, key states and districts (such as Jim Webb in Virginia) across the country, who opposed Bush's then-unpopular war in Iraq, won independents across the nation- giving the Democrats their first Congressional majority since 1994.
(Jim Webb)
Webb is a Naval Academy grad, a Vietnam-veteran, and all-around tough guy who served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan- the kind of "moderate" Democratic strategists knew could win a large number of independents and perhaps even siphon-off a few conservative votes. Still, he and his newly elected, so-called moderate Democratic colleagues in both houses promptly rolled-over and voted Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, John Murtha, Charles Rangle, et al- the most liberal members of Congress, to the most prominent Congressional leadership positions. This paved the way for an acceleration of Congressional spending, numerous Democratic scandals, and an increase in political patronage.
In 2008 the Democratic Party increased its majority in Congress and won the White House using similar tactics- blaming Bush and twelve years of Republican majorities in Congress for the recent economic downturn and the lack of success in Iraq. Again, Dems promised a more centrist, more moderate approach than Bush, Cheney, and their gang of "neo-cons."
Likewise, during his campaign, candidate Obama promised Americans who could not afford private healthcare "the same health care members of Congress have," ; that he would "consider" offshore drilling (when oil was nearly $150/gallon and 70% of the Amican people were clamoring, "drill here, drill now,")- he's now reversed himself; that it was 'not the job of the federal government to pick winners and losers,' ; that there would be no lobbyists in his administration; that he would accept federal matching funds in the general election; that he would "go line-by-line through the budget" and cut wasteful spending (Congress passed a record-breaking, four-trillion-dollar budget); that he would eliminate earmarks (Congress passed an omnibus bill with 8,500 earmarks); that his would be "the most transparent administration ever" ; that he "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
Not only has he broken every one of those campaign promises- it's difficult to find a major issue regarding which Barack Obama hasn't, at one time or another, painted himself to be more to the center as a candidate than he has shown himself to be as President of the United States. Still, that's become the modus operandi of the Democratic Party; they've expoited the trust of the American people to an astonishing degree. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise to the Democratic Party to find their support waning after selling the American people a proverbial bill of goods in the last two elections.
Now, Democrats are admittedly looking to insert a "trigger" mechanism to force a public option on health care even though the majority of the American people oppose a public option:
Democrats such as Speaker Pelosi can feign dismay or decry racism and "astroturf" all they want; the American people haven't suddenly changed. What's changed is the leadership on the far Left finally showing its true colors. The People were fed up with runaway spending under Bush- now they are fed up with a Democratic Congress that promises moderation leading up to the election and delivers something quite different after an election. A stimulus bill most Americans are opposed to, "cap and trade," a record-breaking budget, earmarks galore, TARP, etc. Dems may consider their victory a mandate from the people; they would be better served to either stick to their promises or remember these words from The Outlaw Josey Wales:
"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"?
Before I get into any new material tonight, let's re-visit the entry on the 2008 presidential election which began the prasifkapolitics blog and see if I was prescient. For those of you with "MTV" attention spans, I've pulled out most of the red meat below:
"DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE- THIS NATION CANNOT TAX ITS WAY OUT OF A RECESSION AND IT CANNOT SPEND ITS WAY OUT, EITHER. Only a return to fiscal discipline can turn this country around."
"I don't care if it's a family of four, a corporation, or our federal government- there is one lesson to be learned from the current financial crisis: you cannot spend, lend, or borrow more than you can afford year-after-year and expect this financial house of cards not to fall in on itself eventually."
"One (candidate, McCain) vows to veto government pork-barrel spending and earmarks- the other requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks in less that 100 days in the United States Senate and is calling for nearly a trillion dollars in new spending. One has bucked his party on spending, on global warming, on immigration reform, on campaign finance reform, on Bush's tax cuts (because they were not offset by spending cuts), on torture (i.e.- water-boarding), and has reached across the aisle as far left as to Ted Kennedy to spearhead legislation he believed was more important than partisanship; the other co-sponsored a bill with Chuck Hagel (the Republicans' answer to Joe Lieberman) once. Obama criticizes McCain for voting with Bush 90% of the time; however, when Obama wasn't voting "present" he voted with his party 97% of the time. Who has the greater record of bi-partisanship?"
"...ask yourself, will a Democratic President with no record of bi-partisanship who voted with his party 97% of the time do anything to hinder his Democratic colleagues who will likely increase their majority in both houses of Congress? Ask yourself whether fiscal sanity or political corruption prevailed when we had a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President who was not truly a fiscal conservative, and who vetoed only one spending bill in his first six years as president?"
"I would contend that the Democratic presidential candidate does not represent change at all; he represents the same wasteful spending and patronage that has long be the modus operandi of the party in power..."
"Help like Barack Obama is proposing always takes the form of another big-government solution; help like that we just don't need. It's time to step up and tell all of our elected officials that "goodies" won't buy our vote, and that the long-term economic stability of our nation is too important to pass a bankrupt nation on to future generations."
"I can further assure you that (Obama), Nancy, "Save the Planet" Pelosi and Harry Reid will see to it that expanded offshore drilling will NEVER happen. In his last debate, Obama said we needed to "consider" offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive solution. Pretty slick Barack, but 70% of the country already supports more drilling and he's still parsing words. If his political cronies in Congress oppose it, does he have a track record of siding against his party and with the people? Hardly."
Here's the original, unadulterated rant:
My Manifesto: POTUS 2008
(Author's note: I am a Libertarian- not a Republican; I have voted in every Presidential election since the age of 18 and have never voted for a member of either major party, but this particular election, despite my considerable problems with both major parties, is too important to cast a "protest vote." This letter began as an e-mail to the McCain campaign and snowballed from there. Please read it- I think it's important.)
Let's talk about how this refundable tax credit Obama is proposing will work. Barack Obama insists that while 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax they still deserve to share in his middle-class tax cut because they pay 7.65% of their income in payroll taxes; that's true, but so does everyone else in this country who has earned income (in addition to the income taxes they pay), and self-employed individuals typically pay double that because they are both employee and employer and employers are required to "match" our payroll taxes with another 7.65%.
In a case such as this, where does that leave someone who is self-employed or a small business owner and making a net income of $250,00 per year or more? Paying a marginal income tax rate of 39.5%, paying 15.3% of all income in payroll taxes if the cap is removed entirely as the senator originally proposed- that's a 150% increase in payroll taxes on the person in this example, and paying a capital gains tax rate up from its current 15% to 20, 28, or 30%- again, depending on which Obama proposal you want to look at. Add to that sales tax, property tax, taxes and user fees on utilities, business permits, vehicle registration, state and/or federal permits, matching payroll taxes for any employees, often paying all or a portion of their employees' health insurance, the cost of which is high in part due to federal health insurance mandates, the cost of tax preparation for the business due to the complicated morass that is our current tax code, costs associated with any required code compliance and on and on and on. This is what Obama wants to do to the small businesses that create the majority of the private sector jobs in this country.
The big problem with Obama's argument, and he knows it, is that payroll taxes (as opposed to income taxes) are supposed to specifically fund Social Security (6.2% of the 7.65%), Medicare, and unemployment benefits. An individual earning $35,000 per year and paying no federal income tax, under the Obama plan, would now also receive a refundable tax credit against the $2,667 they paid in payroll taxes into Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits. I presume that an individual such as this will still receive full Social Security and Medicare benefits when the time comes (and full unemployment benefits should he or she lose their job), so where is Senator Obama going to get the money to subsidize these benefits that are already in large degree (50%) subsidized by their employer and also subsidized by higher income earners under the current system?
The answer is obvious- Obama has already said we may need to raise payroll taxes, and he has talked about taking the cap off of the payroll tax wage base (while paying no incremental increase in Social Security or Medicare benefits to those income earners who are impacted by this massive tax hike); oh, and let's not forget the income and capital gains tax increases he has proposed for the $250,000-plus crowd.
This is the direction Senator Obama wants to take this country. If he has his way, many lower income earners, if they stay that way in perpetuity, will continue to pay no federal income tax, little or no payroll tax (some will actually receive money), and still receive full benefits, paid for by their employer and other taxpayers; if that isn't a redistribution of wealth and a prelude to full-blown socialism, I don't know what is.
I know that Barack Obama is telling the American people that he is proposing the same type of tax increases that Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress enacted in 1992 that 'turned our economy around, pulled us out of the Bush recession, led to untold prosperity, etc.' That's a lie. For two years after the Clinton tax increases the economy went decidedly...sideways; unemployment remained around 7 percent (higher than it is now), federal deficits remained at or near all-time highs, and real wages remained stagnant. In 1994 the Republicans won the majority in both houses of Congress, and, with President Clinton's signature, gave us welfare reform, spending reform, cut the capital gains tax rate, etc. It was only then that the economy began to improve and that eventually led to the run-up in the stock market and the four years of budget surpluses Clinton supporters speak so fondly of today (1998-2001).
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE- THIS NATION CANNOT TAX ITS WAY OUT OF A RECESSION AND IT CANNOT SPEND ITS WAY OUT, EITHER. Only a return to fiscal discipline can turn this country around. As Jim Swanson, Chief Investment Strategist for MFS recently said, "cyclical downturns have historically been connected to credit excesses. This time is no different." Credit excesses, hum? Does that sound anything like what we've had for the last eight years- six years of Bush and his big-government "conservatives" and two years of Nancy "I need a bigger jet" Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional Majority?
I don't care if it's a family of four, a corporation, or our federal government- there is one lesson to be learned from the current financial crisis: you cannot spend, lend, or borrow more than you can afford year-after-year and expect this financial house of cards not to fall in on itself eventually. Any economist NOT working for the federal "givernment" would tell us, has told us, that long-term deficit spending leads to inflation, a reduction in the value of our currency, higher interest rates, and economic downturn. While the Fed has artificially kept interests rates low, all that has served to do was put more people into more homes they couldn't afford, and, with so many Americans in the market for a new home, created a seller's market and a run-up in home prices- that proverbial housing "bubble." Now, as interest rates are still being kept artificially low, credit has become tight. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when you squeeze a balloon on one end to make it smaller, the other end gets bigger. Think about it.
So, here we are. As Americans, we are faced with an important choice. It's true that this is an historic election; however, it is not about the race or age or gender of the candidates. It's not about Charles Keating or William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright. This election, first and foremost, is about the direction of this country going forward. One presidential candidate wants to take a hatchet to the federal budget, the other- a scalpel. One vows to veto government pork-barrel spending and earmarks- the other requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks in less that 100 days in the United States Senate and is calling for nearly a trillion dollars in new spending. One has bucked his party on spending, on global warming, on immigration reform, on campaign finance reform, on Bush's tax cuts (because they were not offset by spending cuts), on torture (i.e.- water-boarding), and has reached across the aisle as far left as to Ted Kennedy to spearhead legislation he believed was more important than partisanship; the other co-sponsored a bill with Chuck Hagel (the Republicans' answer to Joe Lieberman) once. Obama criticizes McCain for voting with Bush 90% of the time; however, when Obama wasn't voting "present" he voted with his party 97% of the time. Who has the greater record of bi-partisanship? (http://ridgeliner7.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/final-debate-complete-breakdown-of-obamas-lies-distortions/)
Our nation is in trouble. We are tens of trillions of dollars in debt. The Social Security and Medicare trusts have been emptied out by our legislators and soon the baby boomers will begin retiring en masse (if they can afford to), meaning less payroll tax revenue and a massive increase in federal government obligations, while currently Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments already make up 43% of our federal budget outlays.
Meanwhile, runaway spending, mismanagement, and corruption on Capitol Hill are still rampant. Chris Dodd, the single biggest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Obama was a close second after only three years in the U.S. Senate) tried to insert millions in pork for ACORN into the $700 billion bailout. This is the same Chris Dodd who received a sweetheart mortgage from Coutrywide in exchange for his "support" of these lenders that he and other ranking Democrats "encouraged" to sell the zero-down, no income documentation, and adjustable rate mortgages to unqualified borrowers in the name of providing "affordable" housing, which, like all big-government programs, actually comes at a very high price.
Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee overseeing Fannie and Freddie stymied every effort to reform the GSE's and said in 2003 amidst criticism over their management and lack of oversight, "These two entities-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-are not facing any kind of financial crisis...The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html).Here is the man responsible for overseeing these two entities, to this day denying any wrongdoing, fiddling while Rome burns.
While it may not sound like it thus far, to me this is not simply a partisan issue- it is an issue of requiring fiscal discipline and sanity from our elected officials, Republican and Democrat alike. Republicans like George W. Bush, Trent Lott, and Ted Stevens (with their "bridge to nowhere" spending proposals), are culpable as well (Lott-to his credit- has admitted as much, but, as former member of Congress, what does he have to lose?); however, ask yourself, will a Democratic President with no record of bi-partisanship who voted with his party 97% of the time do anything to hinder his Democratic colleagues who will likely increase their majority in both houses of Congress? Ask yourself whether fiscal sanity or political corruption prevailed when we had a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President who was not truly a fiscal conservative, and who vetoed only one spending bill in his first six years as president?
One thing is certain, runaway spending has only gotten worse in the last two years with substantial Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate- so much for fettering out corruption as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid promised to do upon taking the helm on Capitol Hill. I would contend that the Democratic presidential candidate does not represent change at all; he represents the same wasteful spending and patronage that has long be the modus operandi of the party in power on Capitol Hill, especially when left unchecked by the White House, either because their ideas are one-in-the-same or due to a large Congressional majority unchecked by an unpopular, lame-duck president, as is the case today.
A scalpel just won't "cut it" anymore. Now is not the time for minor surgery. The patient is on the table. He's fat and bloated, lazy and complacent. He's had type two diabetes for years and has let it go unchecked because he can't overcome his appetite for government sweeteners. An infection is now spreading rapidly through his legs. Only a double amputation can save his life- we hope.
Is this an exaggeration of our present condition? I don't think so. The late Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate in economics warned of the enticement of "creeping socialism." Barak Obama wants to add health care to the list of things the government provides directly to the people (at a cost to the taxpayer, of course); Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters threatened in hearings with oil company executives that the federal government "would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. ." (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65111) Now, Democratic Congressmen, in light of the current financial crisis, are proposing eliminating 401k plans in favor of a mandatory government savings plan: October 8th: "TheHouse Education and Labor Committee held a hearing today on "The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers' Retirement Security." Members of the committee directly questioned whether the current voluntary defined contribution system should be continued, with some members noting their support for its replacement with a mandatory government program."
Those all sound like great ideas. After all, the federal government has done such a great job bankrupting Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, and managing the budget, why wouldn't we hand our retirement saving and our health care over to these trial lawyers, too, and let them nationalize entire industries to boot? Why? Because any student of history knows that more government is rarely the answer.
I know that the popular version of the story of the Great Depression was that Herbert Hoover's lassiez faire economic policies ran the country's economy into the ground and FDR's New Deal rescued it; however, a majority of economists today (that's economists people, not historians or teachers) believe Roosevelt's massive expansion of government, wasteful spending, and economic isolationism actually prolonged the Great Depression. In fact, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, and many other of our recent economic failures were all creatures of FDR's much-lauded New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx). So, in large part, our recent economic woes can be traced back to the New Deal, the single largest expansion of the federal government in our nation's history. Are we really going to do this again?
Whether you call it socialism, socialism-lite, or an expansion of our federal government- more government is rarely the answer. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." Before any of you think of casting a vote which will cede unchecked power to politicians who make no qualms about their intentions to increase the size and scope of the federal government, who show no inclination to "discipline themselves," I might remind you of the old joke about the three biggest lies ever told: "the check is in the mail,"; "I'll still respect you in the morning,"; and, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Help like Barak Obama is proposing always takes the form of another big-government solution; help like that we just don't need. It's time to step up and tell all of our elected officials that "goodies" won't buy our vote, and that the long-term economic stability of our nation is too important to pass a bankrupt nation on to future generations.
P.S.- 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; I can further assure you that he, Nancy, "Save the Planet" Pelosi and Harry Reid will see to it that expanded offshore drilling will NEVER happen. In his last debate, Obama said we needed to "consider" offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive solution. Pretty slick Barak, but 70% of the country already supports more drilling and he's still parsing words. If his political cronies in Congress oppose it, does he have a track record of siding against his party and with the people? Hardly.
