Monthly Archives: March 2010

Obama Looking at Offshore Drilling, as a Means to an End

In a Reuters article, it was reported that the Obama administration is expected to announce by Wednesday its updated plan for oil and natural gas drilling in U.S. waters, including whether to allow exploration for the first time along the U.S. East Coast.

The administration plan could open up drilling across the nation that would ease our reliance on middle-eastern oil, or it could be another bait-and-switch tactic.  It’s hard to tell as:

The Interior Department and White House declined comment on Monday on whether Obama would speak to the issue in a speech slated for mid-morning on Wednesday at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

The question remains, why would Obama suddenly decide that offshore or expanded drilling makes sense?  He’s been a hard-line, anti-drill, hard-line, uber-environmentalist-friendly politician forever.  As with everything for Obama, there must be something in it for him.. and there is.

But Obama, who wants Congress to move a stalled climate change bill, has sought to reach out to Republicans by signaling he is open to allowing offshore drilling, providing coastlines are protected.

In a sudden realization that bi-partisanship is a good, Obama has decided to drop a carrot to the conservative side of the isle.  What the GOP must be wary of, is that the carrot will be pulled as soon as they bite.  The drilling moratorium was lifted by G.W. Bush, because it had been an executive order – easily reversible.  Imagine how easy it will be for Obama to change his mind right after Republicans vote for his cap and tax plan?

It may be difficult to believe that the administration could pull the rug out from anyone after getting their support, but consider that the health care reform act passed the CBO with the assumption that the Medicare pay-cut for doctors would continue.  Today there were rumors that Ms. Sebelius, Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary is working to rescind those cuts which would cause Obamacare to add to the deficit starting this year and continuing into the foreseeable future.

Doctors slated to have their Medicare reimbursements cut 21 percent on April 1 got a reprieve from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is delaying lowered payments until after Congress reconvenes.

Obama isn’t thinking about allowing increased drilling.  He’s campaigning for cap and trade, and he needs a few conservatives to go along – a few Republicans that want to lose their jobs.

Are Wealthy Americans Leaving the Country?

I thought I would share my process for gathering viewpoint and facts.  Perhaps others would offer to put articles together in the future, but if nothing else, a look into how I brainstorm a publication:

The high-middle and high-earners in America  pay for the majority of social programs implemented by Congress.

With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we’re seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich.

American Senators and Representatives should be thrilled, but instead disparage them for making the money that those Congressmen desperately need to tax.  What happens if they leave?

Perusing, one would find the following comment:

“LEAVE. Take your money and go. America will survive without you… So rather than ruin our country for the other 90% whom you despise. Go away. Take all of your precious money and go elsewhere. Even if it means depression we will be better off in the long run without your manipulation..”

Liberals would love to see anyone with capitalist or free-market ideals leave, but seriously, would they really?  Sure, the populist view is to hate the wealthy – go Robin Hood and such.

Last September, Bob Bauman reported that, “Indeed, the growing trend of Americans voluntarily ending their status as U.S. citizens — the only legal way by which they can escape U.S. taxes and government controls — has reached a new peak and shows no signs of abating.”  Heck, even the radical left site, reported that the Bush family bought thousands of acres in Paraguay.  Although Obama doesn’t see what he’s causing, apparently his predecessor and his family did.

How serious are these ex-patriots:

Interestingly, although such a move offshore means departing Americans may have to pay an exit tax that the Democrat Congress and George Bush imposed in 2008, lawyers say this is a price people have become more willing to pay this year, now that recession and decreased asset values has reduced the size of this onerous and unfair tax.

So why do the non-wealthy care?  The top 1% of all earners pay 40 percent of all taxes. Examine the recent health care bill that relies heavily on the wealthy to fund the measure.  If there are not enough wealthy people, the rest of will be left to foot the bill.  A cost the rest cannot afford.

Continuing to hate top-earners for working hard and taking risks is counter-productive.  At some point, the government has to realize that not everyone can work for unions for middle-class wages unless the government is willing to tax middle-class wages at much higher rates.  It is well-known that our legislative branch would never admit such a truth.   Why should they, it would cost them their precious seats.

Wealth Bulletin quotes Jay Krause, a partner at private-client specialist law firm Withers who says he’s seen a rise in those interested in expatriation lately

We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states “race to the bottom” and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.

The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation — even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.

Christian Kälin, a partner at residence and citizenship planning consultancy Henley Partners, said his firm has had a big rise in such inquiries.
He said: “Tax reasons might be the biggest reason why US citizens will want to drop their passports..” –

Jay Krause, a partner at private-client specialist law firm Withers, said: “The number of inquiries from US citizens wanting to expatriate from their citizenship has increased rapidly in the last year.” –

To become a resident of Costa Rico for instance only requires proving an income of $50,000 USD per year.  Put $1,000,0000 in the bank and cut a crappy 5% annual and you’re in.   That is nothing serious for a middle-upper earner in their mid-50’s.


  1. what would keep the wealthy here
  2. what is the worth of upper-middle income ($200,000) to the American economy
  3. Is the ObamEconomy more about bringing everyone to the same lower-middle class status?
  4. How does Obamacare and the financial reform bill increase Americans worth/income?

Businesses Stop Hiring Due to Health Care Reform

The new health care reform bill is having an effect: termination of full-time employees.  Small businesses cannot afford the mandate that hits once they have 31 employees and have at least one that gets their insurance through the government exchange – $2,000 per full-time employee .

Business owners will instead refuse to grow their businesses past 30 employees or will use contract labor instead of full-hires.  If a business takes on the 31st employee, their costs will either go up $180,000-$300,000 (if they buy insurance for everyone) or $60,000 if they just pay the $2000 penalty.  Obviously, no businessperson is going to see the value in hiring one or two more people at a minimum cost of $60,000 on top of the cost of the labor itself.  Not one.

Health care is not a right.  It is not something an employer must provide in order to hire someone.  The only thing an employer must do is pay someone a market-based wage for their work.  Health care is cost-of-living just like electricity or cable.  Americans do not have the right to electricity, in fact, many of us have gone without in lean times.  The government does not mandate that citizens have electricity and there is no expectation that employers will pay for us to have electricity.

Even big business is feeling the pain of Obama’s domestic agenda.  Catepillar has recently stated that the health care reform will cost it at least $100 Million in the first year alone.  With costs like that, a business has no choice but to cut back.

Employer-provided health care exists as a benefit.  Repeating that – a benefit.  If the Federal government wants to attempt to force individuals to buy health care, go for it and perhaps a constitutional challenge will right that ill.  Forcing someone to buy insurance for someone else under penalty of law.. what country is this?

Employees must only expect fair employment for a  market-based wage.  Expecting any more will most-certainly get them less.

CDN Predictions for Post-Health Care Reform America

No long narative, just the basic predictions:

  1. Health Care Premiums will rise at a faster rate than previously
  2. Americans will be forced to change health plans as their current plan is shut down
  3. The IRS will use “health care audit” as a reason to trigger a full audit of citizens’ finances
  4. America will lose its AAA bond rating (quality of our debt – affects how much we pay to service the debt)
  5. The national debt will accelerate, not decline (converse to Obama’s promise)
  6. Medicare cuts will not happen
  7. Medicare fraud and abuse will not be reduced
  8. Tax burdens on all Americans will be increased
  9. Doctors and other medical providers will walk away from provision of health care for anyone covered under Medicaid/Medicare
  10. Doctors will walk away from practicing medicine
  11. States will be forced to cut other programs to be able to handle the new load of Medicaid patients the bill requires (education, transportation, infrastructure, culture and arts will suffer)
  12. Obama will reverse his executive order that prevents public spending on abortion (or amends it to the same effect)
  13. As providers and insurers are forced out of the market due to the plan, Democrats will present full-on government-run health care (single payor)
  14. Congress will become increasingly disassociated from those it represents (polls vs. action)
  15. Democrats will lose both Houses of Congress
  16. Obama will lose his bid for re-election

I wish I could predict that health care reform would be repealed.  I cannot.  It will live on, I can only hope that it will be amended into something useful.  Its current form is expensive, ineffective, and dishonest.

Health Care Reform Passes 219-212 Without Consent of the Governed

Sunday evening, the House of Representatives passed the Senate version of health care reform.  The vote was 219 for and 212 against with not a single Republican voting for it.  Every Republican voted against it, and a large group of Democrats also opposed the legislation.  The American citizenry made it clear that this legislation was not popular nor desired in its current form.  Congress wasn’t listening.

Obama had to sell his soul to get this vote to go his way.  He issued an executive order that prohibits any public spending on abortions.  Of course, executive orders do not carry the force of law and can be changed on a whim without oversight or the consideration of Congress.

Pelosi is being given high praises as if she orchestrated this victory for the left, when it is apparent that Rahm is the leader of the charge for this occasion.

Insurance companies will now be required to cover those with pre-existing conditions at a restrictive relative premium to healthy folks.  Since the restriction is relative, insurance companies will have no choice but to raise everyone else’s rates to help cover the expense of covering expensive procedures for high-risk patients.  Taxes will be placed on medical equipment and pharmaceuticals- Costs will be passed onto insurance companies (who must pay them) and therefor passed onto insurance customers through higher premiums.  Congratulations, this bill will not lower your premiums.. not by a long shot.

The politics around the bills have been dishonest, on both sides.  The death panels were silly and gave liberals talking points where they had none.  This entitlement will be no more deficit reducing than Medicare and Social Security.  We can’t afford those two programs and we won’t be able to afford yet another one.

Everyone should look at their insurance premiums and the national debt late this year, right before they vote for their Representatives and Senators.  Did the deficit go down?  Did premiums go down?  (Both promised effects of this bill) Once the answer to both is no, grow a pair and vote your conscience.

Health Care Reform Bill Deficit Neutral: Health Care Reform Is Not

Democrats are citing the recent CBO scoring of the combination of S.3590 (the bill that passed the Senate in December) and H.R. 4872 (the Reconciliation Bill in the House) as proving that health care reform will reduce the national debt – it will not.  In order to get the bill to appear deficit neutral, Democrats had to do some interesting things in the bill such as terminating the entire guaranteed student loan program (which has what to do with health care?), make the fix to Medicare underpayments to doctors a separate bill (wait, isn’t that actually health care reform), push even more people on to Medicaid (which the states can’t afford),  and use investment taxes to pay for Medicare.

Terminating the Federal Family Education Loan program, otherwise known as Guaranteed Student Loans, means that middle-income families will now have to go to the government for college loans.  The government won’t be competing with anyone, have no reason to be more efficient or have better customer service than a competitor.  This is precisely why student loans were privatized decades ago.  It is interesting that how in September Obama said, “My guiding principle is and always has been that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works.”

What’s more important is why the administration would want this.  Of course, the $85 Billion revenue from this industry is attractive to anyone that can mandate that it belong to them.  Additionally, by sticking this in the health care bill, the income from it can be used to offset the costs of health care reform even though it has nothing to do with health care at all.

I have received a few emails stating that the bill only terminates the guaranteed student loan program, but doesn’t advocate that the Federal government is taking it over.  I was able to find the following information on the Congressional Budget Office website:

Dear Senator Gregg:
As you requested, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has prepared two estimates of the budgetary impact of the President’s proposal to eliminate the federal program that provides guarantees for student loans and to replace those loans with direct loans
made by the Department of Education.

The amendment goes on to taking the Medicare reimbursement fix (a.k.a. ‘Doc Fix’) out of the health care bill -$347 Billion in costs disappear out of the reform bill.  This move is intended to buy doctor’s votes by literally paying them more money.  Although Medicare underpays doctors by a serious amount and the doctors have to pay their staff, how will this cut health care costs?  We will finally pay the fair fee for the services provided under Medicare, but this equates to higher costs for those services.  That’s exactly why the Democrats had to get that out of the health care reform bill.

The reconciliation bill also adds additional citizens to state-funded Medicaid with inadequate funds to help pay for them.  State budgets don’t have the option of creating money to pay for programs.  They must balance their budgets annually.  This forces State legislatures to cut other programs so they can pay for the gigantic new health care program.  This doesn’t make health care less expensive, it just makes it less expensive for the Federal government.  The States will be forced to raise taxes to deal with this additional unfunded (or underfunded) mandate.

The final action adds additional Medicare taxes on investment income.  This will impact small and medium-sized business greatly.  Rental income, for instance, will continue to be taxed as income and will now also be hit with a special Medicare tax.

If  just the face value of these omissions is evaluated, the bill is going to save $130+ Billion from the deficit.  It will add over $150 Billion in the first ten years.  The problem is that the costs of more people being shifted Medicaid, providers leaving their practices,  and the fact that under-payment of Medicare procedures will dramatically raise non-Medicare premiums .. this bill will not health care costs, and will not lower premiums.

*Update 3-19*  From Associated Press:

Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.


From an article

Shelley Berkley said, “Every one of my hospitals is operating in the red” and the legislation as written “is not going to turn that around,” she said.

Meh, I don’t feel better for being right.

Reconciliation Bill Posted: Summary and Full Text Inside

H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, has been posted.  We’ll be combing through the full text of the bill to add to our health care reform page, but wanted to make the .pdf easy to find for our readers.  Since it is an amendment to the Senate bill everything will be relative to the legislation that passed the Senate.  The high-points located so-far (including some notes for myself during the detailed review):

  • Student loan reform – is in this bill (Big Government of health care not enough!?!?!?!)

    • Termination of Federal Family Education Loan Appropriations
    • Termination of interest rate limits
    • Termination of Federal subsidies that keep interest payments low
    • Termination of FFEL PLUS loans
    • Termination of Federal Consolidation loans
    • Termination of unsubsidized Stafford loans for middle-class
  • More tax credits given to pay for individual premiums (how are they paying for this?)
  • Changes the penalty amount individuals must pay if they choose to stay uninsured (or under-insured)
  • Changes employer responsibility to make the first 30 uncovered employees “free”
  • Gives $1 Billion to Health and Human Services to administer the reform
  • $250 rebate and 75% discounts on drugs in 2020 to close the donut hole (where do these discounts come from?)
  • Freezes Medicare Advantage payments at current levels (will cause more providers to walk away from accepting this plan – but that’s intended)
  • “Corn Husker Kick-back” removed: would have allowed for Nebraska to get 100% matching funds from govt.
  • Gives “Corn Husker Kick-Back” to all states
  • Matches Medicaid payments to physicians to those made by Medicare
  • Increases Federal funding to Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and N. Marianas by $2 Billion and raises the caps on Medicaid spending for those territories
  • Additional reviews of medicare payments to prevent fraud and waste
  • Increases fraud and waste fund by $250Million over the next 10 years
  • 90-day review period for medical equipment fraud suspicion
  • 80% reduction in revenue collected by high-cost plan excise tax (where are they making up for this?).  Tax will be delayed until 2018 and adjusted for inflation
  • Investment income will now be included in the taxable base calculation for those that make over $200,000
  • Delays fees on name-brand drugs used by individuals in government health plans until 2011.  (more money to make up with something else)
  • Tax on medical devices to 2014 (can’t wait to see what makes up for this money)
  • Prohibition of lifetime limits, excessive waiting periods, and requires dependent child coverage until age 26
  • Increases funding of “Community Health Centers”

What’s Not in the bill that we’ve seen so far?:

  • language to remove public funding of abortion
  • language to remove the exemption of labor unions from the cadillac insurance plan tax (gifts to the friends of Obama)
  • Gatorade and Louisiana purchase still in (bought votes)

Regional Pharmacies Dropping Medicaid Ahead of Health Reform

The New England Journal of Medicine, recently published a survey where roughly half of all physicians that responded would leave the profession if the current health care reform went into effect.  Many critics of the survey discounted it saying that pushing more people into Medicaid would not cause a health care crisis.

Unfortunately, it already is.  The Seattle Times reported on Wednesday that as of April 16, Washington State Walgreens would no longer take new Medicaid patients.  This is after Bartell Drugs had done the some previously.

In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a “continued reduction in reimbursement” under the state’s Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.

Basically, the government-run health care in Washington is unable to reimburse the drug stores at even break-even (zero profit).  How long until the State has no choice but to start up Health and Human Services Drug Stores for Medicaid patients?  It isn’t that far fetched to apply the same thing to doctors and hospitals.

Democrats: Any Means to an End on Health Care

Just a few days ago, Nancy Pelosi said that she liked the idea of the Slaughter process, otherwise known as deem and pass, because then no one in the House would have to vote on the Senate bill.

In an interview on Fox News this evening, the President voiced a similar opinion by saying, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate”.  Why would he be bothered with the fact that Congress is making moves to pass legislation without the consent of the governed?  Why would he care that his policy is so unpopular that it cannot be passed using standard legislative process?  He should.

Social Security was not passed this way, Medicare was not passed this way and those are unsustainable entitlements that were not unpopular.

The CBO is not expected to score the current batch of fixes to the Senate bill tonight.  It would appear that Sunday, at the earliest, is when a vote may take place – some kind of vote anyway.

The Democrats are criticizing those who are questioning the use of the reconciliation and the Slaughter rule.  I would counter that if the policy was not so terrible, if the bill was not a gift to unions and friends of Obama, if the legislation was not an evil, transition step towards single-payor.. the parliamentary side-steps would not be necessary.  It isn’t just the back-room deals and dishonest approaches to passing the bill that is worrysome, it is the idea that these under-the-table mechanisms are required to pass such important legislation.

Pelosi has made it clear that she intends to get this bill passed by doing, “whatever it takes”.  Perhaps they should all consider that the end to their means, may be their termination as members of Congress.

Increasing Number of States Telling Feds to Keep Away from Our Guns

A recent Rebellion in America article states that five states: Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Tennessee and now South Dakota have made it illegal for the Federal government to enforce or enact laws on personal firearms manufactured and kept within state lines.

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds has signed into law his state’s version of a Firearms Freedom Act that first was launched in Montana. It already is law there, in Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, which took the unusual step of specifying criminal penalties – including both fines and jail time – for federal agents attempting to enforce a federal law on a “personal firearm” in the Cowboy State.

More than twenty other states have introduced similar legislation and six more are considering it.  The Northeast and Pacific coast represent the majority of hold outs, but there is some peppering in the great lakes and upper mid-west.

The recent affront to State’s rights is becoming something that the individual states are deciding to fight back against.

“As the federal government has radically overstepped is constitutional limitations in the past year or so, an explosion of states have begun re-asserting their rights not only with regard to firearms, but also in shielding themselves against government health care, cap and trade global warming taxes, and more,”   .. “that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.” .. “When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens..”

We can only hope that this is a trend that will extend to health care, cap and trade, over-regulation and the rest of the current administrations over-reaching into our lives.

Cancer Patient Who Wrote to Obama Will Not Lose Home, May Get Aid

Obama has no problem misleading America as long as the citizenry is effectively duped into supporting the worst entitlement bill in the country’s history.  Purposefully omitting the fact that health care costs are rising, rising premiums are just a symptom, demonizing the insurance industry’s razor thin margins (1-3%), and now.. embellishing the story of a cancer patient to play on the sympathies of Americans.

Just a few days ago, Obama had a rally in Ohio where he stated that Natoma Canfield would lose her home and could not make it without government-run health care.  As usual… he’s not telling you everything. reported that the hospital treating her, the Cleveland Clinic, will not go after her home and is pretty sure she will get the help she needs – without the government:

“She may be eligible for state Medicaid … and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. … In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something,” he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

“Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home,” he said.

Health Care Reform's Impact on Rising Premiums

Obama and Congressional Democrats are pushing health care reform as the answer to rising health care premiums.  The populist approach to forcing through unpopular legislation is certainly the method of operation of the administration and they are continuing to use it by demonizing insurance companies with their massive 1-3% profit margins… massive.

Why are premiums rising?  Greedy insurers?  Nope, health care costs are rising and insurers have to pay them.  Your co-pay is still $25.00 or $35.00, but that diagnostic test increased in cost by 50%.. the money has to come from somewhere.

What does this bill do to control the costs of the actual health care… nothing.  Not a thing.  In fact, it increases the insulation between the health care consumer (you) and the cost of the service.  Consumers don’t shop around for the best deal on an office visit or diagnostic test.. because they don’t pay for them.  Patients don’t ask if a less-expensive lab test might be good enough, because they don’t pay the bill.

If Congress gets their way, they will be able to limit what insurers can charge (premiums).  In short,  the insurance companies will have to take on the riskiest of consumers, but won’t be able to recover the costs of insuring them.

This is a thinly-veiled strategy by which Congress intends to run the private insurance industry out-of-business so that it can replace it with government-run health care without your consent. Then they can return it to declining coverage, denying procedures, and rising premiums (and taxes) once the private competition is dead.

Surely Congress wouldn’t do something without the “consent of the governed”.  One would expect that the actual bill would certainly be voted on.  Nope.

Using a tactic called “deeming”, Nancy Pelosi is planning to pass the Senate bill in the House, without a single Representative actually voting on it.  Instead, they would vote on bunch of fixes to the Senate bill.  In other words, Pelosi’s House will vote on the bill they like, not on the Senate’s version – which is actually required by the Constitution.  What happens if the Senate doesn’t accept the House’s changes?  The Senate bill would pass without the House having approved it.  Complicated, convoluted, disconcerting..  because it’s just wrong.  Because everyone knows this could never happen in a manner consistent with our Declaration of Independence or Constitution.  Constitutional lawyers are hopefully sharpening their pencils, crisis is coming.

If “deeming” is to be used for something this impactful, imagine which rights they can stomp on next.. without your consent, without actually voting on them.  Call them, call them now.  Send emails, be concerned .. be very concerned.

Obama's Deficit Panel Marginalized by .. Obama

President Obama house been touting his intent to put together an executive panel to review approaches to trim the soon to be $14 trillion federal debt.  His newest addition to the panel demonstrates that the President is not serious about doing much of anything on the deficit.

Obama recently appointed the leader of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Andy Stern, to the Commission on Fiscal responsibility and Reform.  One of the largest expenses in government is the federal payroll.  Recent news reports have demonstrated that Federal employees are already compensated at higher levels than their private company counter-parts.  Stern’s interest would be in increasing wages and benefits for precisely that group of people.  This is a conflict of interest and more-than-likely an attempt to buy Stern’s continued support during the upcoming Congressional and Presidential elections – both of which are looking stark for progressive Democrats.

Honesty in Health Care Debate

Reading the stories in the news about health care for the last few weeks, it had become obvious that no one has a grasp on where we really are, what the real problem is or how we should solve it.

The liberal plan has clown car-like reforms in it.  Sure, there are alot of them, but it’s going to explode and be ineffective at best… funny for anyone not living in the U.S.

The Republican plan is trying to do it in small steps.. because they are the minority and can’t get a more aggressive plan passed (don’t forget conservatives did pass the only recent change to health care law – presription drugs for Medicare).

So what are we left with?  A problem that neither party is willing to address.  To put it plainly, they are both.. the parties of “no”.

The liberals are putting their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that the main problem with our system is that consumers are too insulated from the cost of the product they wish to consume.  When you go to the doctor, you don’t care what he/she is actually charging for the procedure becuase you insurance pays for all but $25.00 of it.

If the consumer had to price-shop providers, then the doctors/hospitals would be forced to find ways to control costs simply to attract customers.

In Obama’s model, we further insulate the consumer from the cost of the product by putting the government into the mix.  How can any sane individual think that by adding an extra layer of complexity, we can reduce cost?

What sane person can think this way?  Perhaps no sane folks, but who said those supporting univeral health care were sane?

Obama's Plans Add Trillions to the Debt in Current Decade

Tax-and-spend liberalism has been replaced by spend and don’t tax enough radical liberal policy.  It’s not sustainable and definitely not fiscally healthy.  In a Washington Post article they state:

President Obama‘s proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday. Proposed tax cuts for the middle class account for nearly a third of that shortfall.

Most would look at that statement and blame the spending as the whole problem when realistically, it’s the tax cuts on the middle class.   Yes, I’m a fiscal conservative, and yes, I think that taxes should only be used to pay for those things the Congress has enumerated powers for which it can collect.  I just decided to dig into the message a bit deeper.  It’s obvious tha even the liberals are realizing that by simply over-taxing the upper-end of the tax bracket (otherwise known as those who hire employees), they can’t pay for their extremist agenda.

Many of us have been trying to tell them that for decades.  Cutting middle-class taxes and putting the burden onto 1% of the high-end payers is a recipe for stagflation.  Jimmy Carter tried this same formula (along with price controls) and failed miserably (actually, he failed quite successfully).

Blaming middle-class tax cuts for revenue shortfalls is only realistic if we are also saying that we are spending too much money because of lower class needs.   Democrats cannot have it both ways.  Either you believe that the middle class makes too much money or you think that the lower class demands too many services.  At some point they will have to make a decision… but I am certain SEIU, AFGE (Government Employee’s Union… as if they aren’t overpaid/excessively-benefited already), AFL-CIO, UAW, and others are doing more to protect their own exorbitant revenues than help their members.

The government does not do studies or make press releases on the ridiculous salaries of union executives.  Certainly no one wants to discuss the impact that unions have on the American trade deficit.  Union leadership is no longer preventing grievances against it’s workers – now they are just protecting their own revenue streams, let the competitiveness of American companies be damned.

« Older Entries