The president says the US needs to "step on the gas" to revive our economy. His idea: pass his jobs bill, including extending his two percent Social Security (SS) payroll tax cut. The problem is that this president apparently does not know how to drive and neither do his advisers (economic council).
Here are my issues with his gas pedal. While it is nice for working Americans to pay less in taxes (always a good thing), economists agree the payroll tax reduction of 2% has had little affect on job creation.
Better put: Obama has tried to step on the gas pedal, missed it, and landed firmly on the brakes... Again.
We saw the same with the 2009 stimulus bill, his failed foray into governmental venture capitalism (Solyndra & others), and personalization of Corporate bankruptcy law (GM) and his uncanny ability to claim it is all someone else's fault. This may reveal why liberals despise capitalism: they cannot grasp the concept.
Since he obviously does not know how to drive, how could he possibly drive us out of the ditch?
But why should Americans turn down a payroll tax cut extension? You do not want the elderly to become homeless, or worse: move into your home, when they can no longer pay their bills and the government is completely out of money and a closed credit line.
The payroll tax is the source of all of SS's funding. All of it. The 2011 Social Security Trustees Report shows red ink in 2010 ("the first time since 1983"). This plan will put much more red on the ledger. And it wasn't so long ago that Democrats were wailing and gnashing their teeth over a plan to redirect 2% to do what? Voluntarily move two percent of the payroll tax into personal retirement accounts. If it was going to bankrupt SS under Bush, how is it helpful under Obama with eight million fewer workers paying into it?
Driving, creating jobs, balancing a budget, leading: It is all a mystery to our President. Time to show him the door.
Showing posts with label Hope Dollars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hope Dollars. Show all posts
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Friday, January 15, 2010
David Axelrod: Wrong on Wrong.
Mr. Axelrod, President Obama's Senior Adviser, has written a article designed to ridicule his opposition and confuse the electorate titled, "What Karl Rove got wrong on the U.S. deficit" at the Washington Post. According to his writing, he and others, including Carl Rove, were invited by the Washington Post for a sort of brainstorming session. Mr. Axelrod seems to only taken way this...
I saw this opinion piece referenced on the Huffington Post and could not resist calling Mr. Axelrod on his deliberate misuse of the facts and his attempt at rewriting history. The HPost only allows 250 words to be posted by the rabble (me) when they don't delete them altogether. So, I've revised and continued my rant here.
Here is how it went with more...
Dear Mr. Axelrod.
I want to thank you for revealing the true nature of our current government. Orwell’s characters surely have nothing on you and the rest of the White House's leadership. You have taken a modicum of truth and twisted the facts completely out of reality. The way you write them has little relation to the real story.
Let’s try to set the record straight.
So first, from what I've seen so far not many in the White House today know how the US government lawfully operates or even have a fundamental knowledge of the US Constitution. You will have to understand how our government is supposed to work according to the written and agreed to US Constitution. Recall that the government is in place to serve the people with power on loan from them, not to serve any politician or their advisers, cabinet members or anyone holding public office.
Quickly: Congress appropriates, the executive branch spends what the congress allows them (you) to spend. Both branches, along with the third branch, the US Supreme Court, are supposed to "support and Defend the Constitution of the Unites States." Simple, really. You will see how this is important very shortly.
You continue...
Answer: The Republican controlled congress.
Bill Clinton didn't spend a dime that was not appropriated by congress, revealing that they, not just the president, are responsible for the surplus.
But President Clinton also left office with the country in a recession. Your party quickly turned it into an Orwellian campaign slogan claiming President Bush "caused" it. No really. During the campaign of 2000, pundits were echoing Democrat strategist talking points, specifically, they claimed Bush was "talking down the economy" when he mentioned that the economy was slowing down.
This makes me wonder if the Democrats haven't been talking down the war and costing lives. Harry Reid on Iraq 2006, "This war is lost". But I digress.
The Bush Administration inherited a recession (Washington Post), followed with the extremist Muslims finally proving that they were at war with us on 9/11/2001. Something they (Islamic extremists) have known since 11/04/1979.
These two big issues, war and recession, along with the US Congress are the major cause of the deficits, not Bush’s economic policies. In fact Bush's tax policies reversed the recession and produced real GDP growth every year after 2001 until the 2008 when the congressional banking/mortgage/securities/illiquid assets crash and burn began its meltdown.
The funny thing is that President Bush, a truly classy individual, did not blame his predecessor for the recession and other problems. And doesn’t call Obama, and you, on your blame game.
Your "fiscal irresponsibility” remark misses the mark.
It was the regulations, or lack there of, produced by the US Congress that was "laissez-faire", with Rep. Barney Frank claiming that Fannie and Freddie were "fundamentally sound" and said Bush's proposals to fix them were "inane". Then after the fall in 2008 he voted for those changes. I would say that no one was watching AIG or the others, but somehow, I know that's not true. It seems the tax and spenders always have on eye on profit makers so they can tax and spend more. In his budget report in April of 2001, Bush asserted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "too large and over-leveraged" (Rove, WSJ) , but was shut down by Democrats in congress. Recall that the US Senate during President Bush's administration was not filibuster proof and Chris Dodd (D-Con) said the Bush recommendations were "ill advised" successfully filibustered any changes. In 2008 Senator Dodd supported the same changes.
Your next whopper,
The truth is the current Obama/Democrat led congress-owned recession is the worst since the Carter "malaise" of the late 1970's, with double digit unemployment, inflation and mortgage rates. The Great Depression was much worse where FDR kept the unemployment rate at 14-21% throughout most of his 3 administrations (see chart HERE). The financial market "crisis" of 2008 is nowhere near as troublesome as Carter's or FDR's Great Depression.
In more classic subterfuge, you say,
You,
We know, from watching the US Congress that no one in government knows what the word “stewardship” means (back to laissez-faire attitudes). And as for transparency; I'm afraid that there is a disconnect between the dictionary meaning of the term and the Obama White House definition. The president of "change" has changed nothing except running up the national debt and running down confidence in America.
The textbook examples of Orwellian speech continue under your,
Sure, you called for it, but you have no one who is capable of deciphering it even if it were fairly accurate. None of the president’s economists, nor even the president, have any real world experience. None have worked in the private sector in their adult life. Exactly how would anyone in the White House know how to address the economy in a helpful way? (I guess I’m being Orwellian now. You may be able do it in a helpful way, but the only help would go to the Obama administration.)
We know that spending was a problem and the President read his plan to us. Then he followed the speech by obligating another $420 Billion in hope dollars in March. He must have a short memory.
More...
And...
Mr. Axelrod says that the president has insisted that the health care reform not add to the deficit, but their is ample evidence that a smoke and mirror subterfuge is going on here. First the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says it will add a trillion dollars to the deficit, even with Medicare cuts. They cannot have that, so in a show of totalitarian power, the president calls the nonpartisan CBO head into his office and miraculously, the same reform plan will really reduce deficits by $132 billion.
And this...
One of the first rules of leadership is to take responsibility for one's actions. This president and his followers absolutely will not accept any responsibility for the state of this union.
As I've noted above, it is the US Congress that spends the money. They are mostly responsible for the deficits and the national debt. This president was a member of the congress that voted to spend all that money on wars, Medicaid, Medicare, the executive departments and on bailing out US and foreign banking and investment institutions, from 2007 to his inaugural. He was part of the majority that did not try reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even though they had the power to do so. Even previous congresses wouldn't take on Fannie and Freddie. All of your blaming Bush and others is nothing more than an attempt at slight of hand, to redirect the voters attention away from the real perpetrators: the US Congress. I have to tell you, it does not work and makes the president look amateurish.
But it is not all bad. I believe the president should have his own agenda and at times it may be at odds with the congress. This is how President Reagan ended up with deficits. He had an agenda and the US Congress had their agenda. The word of the decade was "compromise". Reagan took responsibility for the deficits on his watch, as did Presidents George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton and George W. Bush. None of them blaming their predecessor for the problems that were theirs to solve. They had leadership abilities and did compromise with each other. This president and this congress will not.
Obama is trying make a major shift from our market based economy to a government owned and operated economy and he along with the Democrat controlled congress are spending borrowed money at a breath taking rate.
The bottom line is Karl Rove is correct. The congressional Democrats "will run up more debt by October than Bush did in eight years." Heck, they already have.
"Of all the claims Rove made, one in particular caught my eye for its sheer audacity and shamelessness -- that congressional Democrats "will run up more debt by October than Bush did in eight years."He then starts in with a revisionist view of recent history that excludes important information (an effect of tunnel vision) and fills it in with his self-serving version.
I saw this opinion piece referenced on the Huffington Post and could not resist calling Mr. Axelrod on his deliberate misuse of the facts and his attempt at rewriting history. The HPost only allows 250 words to be posted by the rabble (me) when they don't delete them altogether. So, I've revised and continued my rant here.
Here is how it went with more...
Dear Mr. Axelrod.
I want to thank you for revealing the true nature of our current government. Orwell’s characters surely have nothing on you and the rest of the White House's leadership. You have taken a modicum of truth and twisted the facts completely out of reality. The way you write them has little relation to the real story.
Let’s try to set the record straight.
So first, from what I've seen so far not many in the White House today know how the US government lawfully operates or even have a fundamental knowledge of the US Constitution. You will have to understand how our government is supposed to work according to the written and agreed to US Constitution. Recall that the government is in place to serve the people with power on loan from them, not to serve any politician or their advisers, cabinet members or anyone holding public office.
Quickly: Congress appropriates, the executive branch spends what the congress allows them (you) to spend. Both branches, along with the third branch, the US Supreme Court, are supposed to "support and Defend the Constitution of the Unites States." Simple, really. You will see how this is important very shortly.
You continue...
"The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion."Pop quiz, class: Who did the appropriating? (This means gathering up the funds from various sources to be spent in the service all Americans
Answer: The Republican controlled congress.
Bill Clinton didn't spend a dime that was not appropriated by congress, revealing that they, not just the president, are responsible for the surplus.
But President Clinton also left office with the country in a recession. Your party quickly turned it into an Orwellian campaign slogan claiming President Bush "caused" it. No really. During the campaign of 2000, pundits were echoing Democrat strategist talking points, specifically, they claimed Bush was "talking down the economy" when he mentioned that the economy was slowing down.
This makes me wonder if the Democrats haven't been talking down the war and costing lives. Harry Reid on Iraq 2006, "This war is lost". But I digress.
The Bush Administration inherited a recession (Washington Post), followed with the extremist Muslims finally proving that they were at war with us on 9/11/2001. Something they (Islamic extremists) have known since 11/04/1979.
These two big issues, war and recession, along with the US Congress are the major cause of the deficits, not Bush’s economic policies. In fact Bush's tax policies reversed the recession and produced real GDP growth every year after 2001 until the 2008 when the congressional banking/mortgage/securities/illiquid assets crash and burn began its meltdown.
The funny thing is that President Bush, a truly classy individual, did not blame his predecessor for the recession and other problems. And doesn’t call Obama, and you, on your blame game.
Your "fiscal irresponsibility” remark misses the mark.
It was the regulations, or lack there of, produced by the US Congress that was "laissez-faire", with Rep. Barney Frank claiming that Fannie and Freddie were "fundamentally sound" and said Bush's proposals to fix them were "inane". Then after the fall in 2008 he voted for those changes. I would say that no one was watching AIG or the others, but somehow, I know that's not true. It seems the tax and spenders always have on eye on profit makers so they can tax and spend more. In his budget report in April of 2001, Bush asserted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "too large and over-leveraged" (Rove, WSJ) , but was shut down by Democrats in congress. Recall that the US Senate during President Bush's administration was not filibuster proof and Chris Dodd (D-Con) said the Bush recommendations were "ill advised" successfully filibustered any changes. In 2008 Senator Dodd supported the same changes.
Your next whopper,
"deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression",is another fabrication. Unemployment is at 10+%, inflation is 0% (supposedly), and growth is stalled, but slowly coming up in the third quarter of 2009.
The truth is the current Obama/Democrat led congress-owned recession is the worst since the Carter "malaise" of the late 1970's, with double digit unemployment, inflation and mortgage rates. The Great Depression was much worse where FDR kept the unemployment rate at 14-21% throughout most of his 3 administrations (see chart HERE). The financial market "crisis" of 2008 is nowhere near as troublesome as Carter's or FDR's Great Depression.
In more classic subterfuge, you say,
“Economists across the political spectrum agreed that to deal with this crisis and avoid a second Great Depression, the government had to make significant investments to keep our economy going and shore up our financial system.”And that’s where you lose my confidence in government's ability to handle economic issues. The president should see this as a clear learning moment to stop interfering with the free market system. The government had to do something, but it wasn’t obligating $700 Billion to hand over to the former employers of Secretary Paulson (Goldman-Sachs) among other supporters. The money that this country does not have I now refer to as “Hope Dollars”, as everyone hopes that the program will work, and they hope that America’s lenders won’t cut off the spigot and politicians hope they won't get the blame when it doesn't work. I had also thought that federal level politicians hoped that it would also get paid back. But I now know, after the next grotesque abuse of the US Constitution known as “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act“ where you obligated another $787 Billion that you do not have in pork programs, that no one in the White House or the majority in congress are concerned about it at all.
You,
“Obama administration's rigorous stewardship added transparency and accountability…”What!
We know, from watching the US Congress that no one in government knows what the word “stewardship” means (back to laissez-faire attitudes). And as for transparency; I'm afraid that there is a disconnect between the dictionary meaning of the term and the Obama White House definition. The president of "change" has changed nothing except running up the national debt and running down confidence in America.
The textbook examples of Orwellian speech continue under your,
“At the same time, we also recognize that we need to address the long legacy of overspending in Washington.That is why, shortly after taking office, Obama instructed his agency heads to go through the budget page by page, line by line, to eliminate what we don't need to help pay for what we do."What! Again.
Sure, you called for it, but you have no one who is capable of deciphering it even if it were fairly accurate. None of the president’s economists, nor even the president, have any real world experience. None have worked in the private sector in their adult life. Exactly how would anyone in the White House know how to address the economy in a helpful way? (I guess I’m being Orwellian now. You may be able do it in a helpful way, but the only help would go to the Obama administration.)
We know that spending was a problem and the President read his plan to us. Then he followed the speech by obligating another $420 Billion in hope dollars in March. He must have a short memory.
More...
"As a start, the president proposed billions of dollars in cuts, and he'll continue to fight for them and others in the upcoming budget."Yes, Billions in cuts from Medicare, Medicaid and the defense budget. I seem to recall the demonization of Speaker Newt Gingrich when he spoke of, but tried to implement, a program to reduce the overhead in Medicare, characterizing it as "withering on the vine". Democrats grabbed this single phrase and turned it into 'evil Gingrich wants to end Medicare and Medicaid' when no such thing was recommended. Where are these people now that the President wants to cut over $500 Billion from Medicare in actual cuts.
And...
"Obama had been more successful in getting his proposed cuts through Congress than his predecessor was in any of his eight years in office."Of course he did. President Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate and a majority in the US House of Representatives. President Bush did not have this luxury.
Mr. Axelrod says that the president has insisted that the health care reform not add to the deficit, but their is ample evidence that a smoke and mirror subterfuge is going on here. First the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says it will add a trillion dollars to the deficit, even with Medicare cuts. They cannot have that, so in a show of totalitarian power, the president calls the nonpartisan CBO head into his office and miraculously, the same reform plan will really reduce deficits by $132 billion.
And this...
"But the course correction that was so badly needed after the previous administration has begun in earnest."You know, it become so common place for this administration to continuously blame anyone they can (other than themselves) including the previous administration, so-called greedy CEO's and "Wall Street Fat Cats", for those things that go wrong that it is expected. And most all of it as a consequence of government's meddling in areas they know nothing about.
One of the first rules of leadership is to take responsibility for one's actions. This president and his followers absolutely will not accept any responsibility for the state of this union.
As I've noted above, it is the US Congress that spends the money. They are mostly responsible for the deficits and the national debt. This president was a member of the congress that voted to spend all that money on wars, Medicaid, Medicare, the executive departments and on bailing out US and foreign banking and investment institutions, from 2007 to his inaugural. He was part of the majority that did not try reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even though they had the power to do so. Even previous congresses wouldn't take on Fannie and Freddie. All of your blaming Bush and others is nothing more than an attempt at slight of hand, to redirect the voters attention away from the real perpetrators: the US Congress. I have to tell you, it does not work and makes the president look amateurish.
But it is not all bad. I believe the president should have his own agenda and at times it may be at odds with the congress. This is how President Reagan ended up with deficits. He had an agenda and the US Congress had their agenda. The word of the decade was "compromise". Reagan took responsibility for the deficits on his watch, as did Presidents George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton and George W. Bush. None of them blaming their predecessor for the problems that were theirs to solve. They had leadership abilities and did compromise with each other. This president and this congress will not.
Obama is trying make a major shift from our market based economy to a government owned and operated economy and he along with the Democrat controlled congress are spending borrowed money at a breath taking rate.
The bottom line is Karl Rove is correct. The congressional Democrats "will run up more debt by October than Bush did in eight years." Heck, they already have.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Some Bloggers. Sheesh
Some bloggers censor their blogs. I would like to believe that the main attraction to to blogging is the free exchange of ideas.
However, while looking for a quote on public health care insurance, I came across "GOP Lies About American Health Care", Our Rants & Raves - Politics, by Michael Boh. It appears that Mr. Boh is only interested in opinions that match his own. I posted a rebuttal to his rant at about 9 PM Tuesday night and it yet to appear. I normally wouldn't be spending time ranting about someone else's blog, but this guy is just way too in the can for the Democrat policies and President Obama, while spewing hate for opposing politicians, and, apparently, opposing opinions.
Of course I have no problem with managing one's own blog, but censoring for opposing opinions is un-American. Especially when he says, "All opinions are welcome!"
I kind of liked Mikey's rules and thought I might plagiarize them for this blog. He'll never see it, so it would probably not be a problem. Here are his, very reasonable rules. Some of which he has violated.
Rules
1. Write your own. (Did that)
2. Respect to be respected. (Did that)
3. Debate the topic at hand. (Did that)
4. Cite only reputable facts. (a matter of opinion)
5. No distractions, distortions. (a matter of opinion)
6. No "F" bombs, sexual language. (Did not do that)
7. No harassing, abusing bloggers. (Did not do that)
All opinions are welcome! Michael (Not so much)
You can read Mikey's rant and decide if I violated any of his rules.
My post to Rants and Raves:
Mr. Boh's response:
by Michael Boh said...
However, while looking for a quote on public health care insurance, I came across "GOP Lies About American Health Care", Our Rants & Raves - Politics, by Michael Boh. It appears that Mr. Boh is only interested in opinions that match his own. I posted a rebuttal to his rant at about 9 PM Tuesday night and it yet to appear. I normally wouldn't be spending time ranting about someone else's blog, but this guy is just way too in the can for the Democrat policies and President Obama, while spewing hate for opposing politicians, and, apparently, opposing opinions.
Of course I have no problem with managing one's own blog, but censoring for opposing opinions is un-American. Especially when he says, "All opinions are welcome!"
I kind of liked Mikey's rules and thought I might plagiarize them for this blog. He'll never see it, so it would probably not be a problem. Here are his, very reasonable rules. Some of which he has violated.
Rules
1. Write your own. (Did that)
2. Respect to be respected. (Did that)
3. Debate the topic at hand. (Did that)
4. Cite only reputable facts. (a matter of opinion)
5. No distractions, distortions. (a matter of opinion)
6. No "F" bombs, sexual language. (Did not do that)
7. No harassing, abusing bloggers. (Did not do that)
All opinions are welcome! Michael (Not so much)
You can read Mikey's rant and decide if I violated any of his rules.
My post to Rants and Raves:
This is incredible.
The singular cause of skyrocketing health care costs is the federal government.
Medicare and Medicaid set prices, control access and reduce the paying customer base for private insurance. The US Congress setup these programs while being influenced by lobbyists from the pharmaceutical, hospital, and doctors' organizations.
More government, especially a "public Program", will only make it worse. Look to the lesson of the great state of Hawaii. They instituted public health care insurance to compete with private insurance and fill in the the insurance gap. Hawaiians dropped their I-have-to-pay-for-it-out-of-my-pocket insurance for the better deal of the state program.
Some competition, aye?
Since the state cannot print their own hope dollars, they closed it after 7 months.
The lie is not the with the Republicans on this. The lie is that Obama's program will be competition.
The lie is that it will reduce costs. Only competition will do that. And competition is what Obama is trying to destroy.
Moveitright.blogspot.com
Mr. Boh's response:
by Michael Boh said...Mover/GR - I had to reject your recent comments for the following reason(s): they include misleading and/or disreputable facts (Rule #4) as well as distrations/distortions (Rule #5).
Unlike most "conservative" blogs, I will post comments that disagree with my own. However, I will not do it if I feel they are designed to mislead or disrupt the issue being discussed. Have a good day. June 24, 2009 7:55 AM
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Cash for Clunkers Passes
I dislike being a pessimist all of the time, but...
Cash for Clunkers, officially known as Consumer Assistance Recycle and Save Act of 2009, pretends to offer consumers vouchers worth up to $4500.00 to trade in their presumed "gas guzzler" for more fuel efficient vehicles. You can find out how much your vehicle can qualify for at Fuel Economy.gov
So this will turn out to be another in the long line of Democrats in government, and Republicans going along for the ride, using voter dollars to buy votes from them. This one will likely be a zero some gain for car buyers and a boon to the UAW, who Democrats in government unquestioningly support. (Just look at the auto industry's government imposed failures that led to government supervised bankruptcies for proof. The result is the UAW receives a 17% ownership in General Motors. Now that is collective bargaining!)
What I predict will happen is this: Automobile manufacturers and Dealers, who are offering $1000 -$10,000 off of MSRP for new vehicles, will now be offering $500 to $5500 off MSRP. it will be a zero sum gain for consumers, and will be another government handout to autoworkers.
So we, as consumers, have to decide what we are going to do with this new free benefit. Use it or not?
I'm going to say "take it", and here is why. This government is going to ensure that gasoline prices become prohibitively expensive. They don't want to drill for domestic oil and natural gas and they want to squander billions on "alternative energy" and "green" research. They have spent us into a real hole already and are planning many more new spending programs, the most aggressive being "Public health care insurance".
So get a vehicle that will last and gets better gas mileage. Use your own money (Cash for Clunkers) to help pay for it. If your a good negotiator, it may be helpful. If you can, you should take as much advantage of this program as possible.
Go in to trade in your "high pollutin' gas guzzler". Just remember: It's a trick.
Cash for Clunkers, officially known as Consumer Assistance Recycle and Save Act of 2009, pretends to offer consumers vouchers worth up to $4500.00 to trade in their presumed "gas guzzler" for more fuel efficient vehicles. You can find out how much your vehicle can qualify for at Fuel Economy.gov
So this will turn out to be another in the long line of Democrats in government, and Republicans going along for the ride, using voter dollars to buy votes from them. This one will likely be a zero some gain for car buyers and a boon to the UAW, who Democrats in government unquestioningly support. (Just look at the auto industry's government imposed failures that led to government supervised bankruptcies for proof. The result is the UAW receives a 17% ownership in General Motors. Now that is collective bargaining!)
What I predict will happen is this: Automobile manufacturers and Dealers, who are offering $1000 -$10,000 off of MSRP for new vehicles, will now be offering $500 to $5500 off MSRP. it will be a zero sum gain for consumers, and will be another government handout to autoworkers.
So we, as consumers, have to decide what we are going to do with this new free benefit. Use it or not?
I'm going to say "take it", and here is why. This government is going to ensure that gasoline prices become prohibitively expensive. They don't want to drill for domestic oil and natural gas and they want to squander billions on "alternative energy" and "green" research. They have spent us into a real hole already and are planning many more new spending programs, the most aggressive being "Public health care insurance".
So get a vehicle that will last and gets better gas mileage. Use your own money (Cash for Clunkers) to help pay for it. If your a good negotiator, it may be helpful. If you can, you should take as much advantage of this program as possible.
Go in to trade in your "high pollutin' gas guzzler". Just remember: It's a trick.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The left's universal health care plan, explained at Think Progress, The Case For A Public Health Care Plan, tries to make the case for government run "competitive" Medicare replacement. The smartest people in the room say that they want a "new public health insurance plan that can compete with private insurers equally and transparently within an insurance exchange" and is "on a level playing field with private health insurance plans". In several major sections, they describe the benefits, as they see them; Lowers cost, improves quality, designing fair public-private competition.
Is this a smart idea and will it accomplish those goals?
Uh, no. It is not a smart plan unless your goal is to wipe out private insurance companies and make virtually everyone dependent on the government's largess.
First off, it is impossible for private insurers to compete with government. Proffering the idea that it can be done "competitively" is pure nonsense designed to influence the slow witted, the uninformed and the gullible. Recall that the federal government is allegedly a "non-profit" organization with the ability to print money (hope dollars) and force us to pay for their mistakes.
Take the lesson from the Great State of Hawaii. In the editorial, Study: Hawaii's Lessons in the Perils of Universal Health Insurance,
Congresses, state and federal, have a long grand tradition of unintended consequences. Normally, average citizens shouldn't worry too much about it, but in recent months their unintended consequences have cost us at least 6 million jobs, over $500,000.00 in debt to each household (TARP, Stimulus, budgets, etc.), and a breakdown of traditional families.
Finally, Hawaii had to rescind the law after 7 months to save their budget and to save those privately insured voters who were going to take a beating from their government. Just like President Obama is planning on doing to you.
Medicare and Medicaid spiraled up in a similar fashion and continues to spiral out of control even now. The US Congress created Medicare in 1965 (H.R. 6675) and have changed it many times. But nothing they've changed has helped to lower health care costs.
The power of government is a free market killer when abused by those who do not understand the US Constitution, the American way, or capitalism.
Republican Plan: A one page idealistic document at this point, looks a lot like an Obama campaign speech, only less substance.
My plan: There is a simple fix to health care in America: Tax cuts, tort reform and get government out of the way.
A direct one or one dollar tax cuts to those who buy their own health care insurance. It will incentivise individuals to buy their own insurance. This will be hard to enact because it would remove the need for our earnings from the US Congress. They don't like that sort of talk either.
Tort reform. Too many judgments are based on emotion rather medical fact. This vastly increases the cost of liability insurance for doctors, nurses, hospitals and emergency medical services. While I believe in holding medical personnel and pharmaceutical companies responsible for their services and products, the laws that allow any law suit to turn a "victim" into a prize winner needs to change.
Liability judgments have the additional consequence of making free clinics extinct. Remember them? Free clinics used to be everywhere and doctors along with other medical personnel could provide pro bono services to the poor. No more. It costs too much and the government is taking care of the poor, right? Not.
Government has been unfairly competing against private insurance companies with Medicare and Medicaid, as mentioned above. With the government's lack of oversight billions of dollars are wasted each year on fraud and abuse of the system. The answer is to get rid of that system.
Is this a smart idea and will it accomplish those goals?
Uh, no. It is not a smart plan unless your goal is to wipe out private insurance companies and make virtually everyone dependent on the government's largess.
First off, it is impossible for private insurers to compete with government. Proffering the idea that it can be done "competitively" is pure nonsense designed to influence the slow witted, the uninformed and the gullible. Recall that the federal government is allegedly a "non-profit" organization with the ability to print money (hope dollars) and force us to pay for their mistakes.
Take the lesson from the Great State of Hawaii. In the editorial, Study: Hawaii's Lessons in the Perils of Universal Health Insurance,
Highlights from the study:and it ran way over budget.• Before expanding government programs to create “universal” health insurance, policymakers should consider states' experiences with similar efforts.
• Hawaii created a universal health insurance program in hopes of reaching the uninsured population, but found that more than eight in ten of those who enrolled previously had insurance. Lawmakers decided to terminate this program just seven months after its launch.
• Government programs to create free or subsidized insurance will encourage many who currently have private insurance to join the government program. This is inefficient and will ultimately erode the private insurance system in the United States.
Congresses, state and federal, have a long grand tradition of unintended consequences. Normally, average citizens shouldn't worry too much about it, but in recent months their unintended consequences have cost us at least 6 million jobs, over $500,000.00 in debt to each household (TARP, Stimulus, budgets, etc.), and a breakdown of traditional families.
Finally, Hawaii had to rescind the law after 7 months to save their budget and to save those privately insured voters who were going to take a beating from their government. Just like President Obama is planning on doing to you.
Medicare and Medicaid spiraled up in a similar fashion and continues to spiral out of control even now. The US Congress created Medicare in 1965 (H.R. 6675) and have changed it many times. But nothing they've changed has helped to lower health care costs.
The power of government is a free market killer when abused by those who do not understand the US Constitution, the American way, or capitalism.
Republican Plan: A one page idealistic document at this point, looks a lot like an Obama campaign speech, only less substance.
My plan: There is a simple fix to health care in America: Tax cuts, tort reform and get government out of the way.
A direct one or one dollar tax cuts to those who buy their own health care insurance. It will incentivise individuals to buy their own insurance. This will be hard to enact because it would remove the need for our earnings from the US Congress. They don't like that sort of talk either.
Tort reform. Too many judgments are based on emotion rather medical fact. This vastly increases the cost of liability insurance for doctors, nurses, hospitals and emergency medical services. While I believe in holding medical personnel and pharmaceutical companies responsible for their services and products, the laws that allow any law suit to turn a "victim" into a prize winner needs to change.
Liability judgments have the additional consequence of making free clinics extinct. Remember them? Free clinics used to be everywhere and doctors along with other medical personnel could provide pro bono services to the poor. No more. It costs too much and the government is taking care of the poor, right? Not.
Government has been unfairly competing against private insurance companies with Medicare and Medicaid, as mentioned above. With the government's lack of oversight billions of dollars are wasted each year on fraud and abuse of the system. The answer is to get rid of that system.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Barry's New Toy: General Motors
Reuters is reporting the American people now own a majority share of General Motors. With the government unwilling to reduce spending and printing money like it's someone elses problem, I wonder if taxpayers will be offered an automobile in lieu of tax return checks.The highlight will be that Barry and Barney Frank get to pick what car you get. GM (Government Motors) Obamamobiles* for everyone. Barry and his friends know this is all you really need, right?
Cute
The new GM (Government Motors) proudly introduces the 2010 Obama...
This car runs on hot air and broken promises. It has three wheels that speed the vehicle through tight left turns. It comes complete with two Teleprompters programmed to help the occupants talk their way out of any violations. The transparent canopy reveals the plastic smiles still on the faces of all the "happy" owners.
Comes in S, M, L, XL and 2XL.
Note: This picture and description arrived in an email that has been forwarded all over the place. I did a search and found it everywhere and I do not know who to cite and thank for it. But it sure is timely. Whoever: Thanks for the laugh.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Change Social Security. Why?
I received an email from US House Representative Vern Buchanan. He represents the district I live in and I've sent many emails to him and I recommend contacting your representative whenever you get the chance.
This one was in response to his email poll that read...
That is what I think of they way government is being run these days.
This one was in response to his email poll that read...
I responded as indicated, then followed up with an email. It read...Yesterday, The Washington Post reported that Congress might consider an overhaul of Social Security due to the concern that the program’s benefits will not be sustainable over the long term.
Dear Representative Buchanan,
In reference to your request for input on changes to Social Security, I'd like to add a clarification.
I responded by answering "no changes".
If the government can print TRILLIONS of "hope Dollars" to ensure executives that donate to their causes get paid on time (TARP) and to pay for the pet projects and supporter payouts the Democrats have kept in their desk drawer until the right time came along, the government can surly print BILLIONS more to pay for Social Security.
The fact is that if government was not raiding the social security trust fund, there would be no need to make changes to it.
I hope you see my point and I thank you for your service.
That is what I think of they way government is being run these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
