THE ENTERPRISE--THINKING ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS
IN THIS ISSUE:
- THINKING WHY SOCIETY EVOLVES; WAY BACK WHEN, GOVERNMENT WAS CREATED TO SERVE THE PEOPLE; COMPARED TO NOW, WHEN GOVERNMENT RULES THE PEOPLE
- HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW I SHOULD FEEL, PLEASE?
- --WHEN THE HEADLINE SAYS: "OBAMA PROMISES HEALTH OVERHAUL, GOP OR NO GOP." Thurs. Aug. 6, 2009
- --WHEN HERE'S WHAT I THINK I BELIEVE--(SUBJECT TO NEW INFORMATION)
- --HOW SHOULD I FEEL, WHEN I KNOW THAT "CAP & TRADE" IS BASED ON A BUNCH OF CRAP--OR WORSE?
- OKAY--BACK TO BUSINESS--IT'S THAT TIME OF THE YEAR--LATE SUMMER IS HERE
- BUSINESSES MUST START THEIR PLANNING PROCESS NOW--INCLUDING PLANS FOR UNPRECEDENTED CRISES
- IF YOU ARE "UP" ON "NEW MEDIA" YOU KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT--BUT...RISKY
- KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, AND INFORMATION LEADS TO KNOWLEDGE--& RISK OF CORRUPTION--DOESN'T IT?; IS AMERICA IS BEING CONTROLLED--IN SECRET (& IS AMERICAN BUSINESS AT RISK TOO)
- THERE IS A SOLUTION--IN 2010, ELECT DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO CONGRESS
- OBAMA'S LACK OF LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE IS SHOWING
- CAN'T STORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WASTE IN YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA?
- SOMETIMES THE BEST WAY TO SAY SOMETHING IS TO LET OTHERS SAY IT FOR YOU
- AP ENTERPRISE: Federal tax revenues plummeting
- Teeing Up the Middle Class—Joe the Plumber’s tax vindication is nigh.
- Those Forever Seeking Utopia Lose Freedom
- Subject: Pelosi Censors Republicans
- Assault on Seniors
THINKING WHY SOCIETY EVOLVES
I ask myself why I seem to gravitate back to what the government is doing--or not doing--even when I start out to write about business and life. I think this is why. Businesses are social institutions formed by people seeking ways to earn their way in the world and to provide for themselves, their families and loved ones. These businesses always start as a small, sometimes one person business and then grow--occasionally into behemoths of the size of Wal-Mart. I don't know if that's what Sam Walton had in mind, but there it is. Governments were institutions formed by groups of people (societies) in the interest of providing some structure to their surroundings, and also to provide central services--police, administration, public works, and so forth. For this, the government would levy fees (taxes) to pay for the services provided.
WAY BACK WHEN, GOVERNMENT WAS CREATED TO SERVE THE PEOPLE
Our founding fathers wanted as many things done and paid for locally as possible, and that is what the Constitution of the United States specifies. Independent states, doing their thing for their citizens bonded together into a "United" Federal system. The Federal government was intended to oversee what states couldn't do alone, or where interaction between states needed help. Legislatures were intended to think about the needs of their state and constituents and then pass laws to serve those needs, and so forth. The Congress was intended to do this where the states either couldn't do it for themselves, or a "national" law was better suited. The Judicial branch of government was intended to hear cases where there were differences about what the laws said--and meant. Interpretation of the intent of the legislative process was their job. The Executive branch--governors and the President--were supposed to oversee all this and assure that things got done (e.g., "executed), and that meant "signing bills into law" and acting as "commander in chief of the armed forces" whose job was to protect the citizens of the country from other nations or people who would interfere with our society.
COMPARED TO NOW, WHEN GOVERNMENT RULES THE PEOPLE
We have a government that is taking over our lives more and more. That is not what we (or our forefathers) intended them to do. Of course many people are inept or weak willed, and would rather have some "benevolent dictatorship" care for them, especially if it will get the money to do so from others. I don't think the majority of Americans was a "dictatorship" no matter how distributed the power is between Congress and the President. Some are beginning to demonstrate their displeasure and the government doesn't like it one bit. The question is how far they'll go to silence the dissent. Iran learned how far its leaders would go. How far will ours go. Now, if those thoughts don't make you wonder how we can live freely in the American tradition, and operate our businesses in a free enterprise system in this kind of environment, under this sort of "regime," I don't know what will. That's how I start out with business and life and end up on politics and government--again.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW I SHOULD FEEL, PLEASE?
WHEN THE HEADLINE SAYS: "OBAMA PROMISES HEALTH OVERHAUL, GOP OR NO GOP." Thurs. Aug. 6, 2009
"President Barack Obama said yesterday that he's determined to get an overhaul of the health-care system this year and, if necessary without bipartisan support." Make no mistake about it, the US Health Care system needs "reform" or perhaps better said, major improvements. The argument should not be about that point. It should be about HOW, and the role the government plays in Health Care. If insurance companies are the bogeyman now (and sometimes they are) how much bigger and badder a bogeyman will the US government be?
WHEN HERE'S WHAT I THINK I BELIEVE--SUBJECT TO NEW INFORMATION
MURPHY'S LAW HAS A COROLLARY: IF YOU FORCE SOMETHING LONG ENOUGH YOU'LL BREAK IT.
Forcing a "solution" in which the government has all the answers is NOT the right answer. Finding a solution in which people feel they have a say, and involvement, and equity (including payment) in the outcome, is the answer. Quit making the so called 45 million uninsured the issue--that's a nonsense issue as I have described before. Start making transparency, accountability, effective administration (not a government strength), modern information technology for records, reforming the regulations about malpractice lawsuit (that drive over-testing, etc.) and making the role of each participant one that they are best suited to do. The government is good at requiring uniformity; terrible at actually operating anything successfully. It is good at accumulating information and enabling its use; it is terrible at making decisions because it is a political entity--pulled hither and yon by every faction and folly.
HOW SHOULD I FEEL, WHEN I KNOW THAT "CAP & TRADE" IS BASED ON A BUNCH OF CRAP--OR WORSE?
When he's done ramming this one through, the next one, is a "doozy" --based mostly on Al Gore's "made up" science and the desires of those who believe in it. This law, if passed, will send jobs out of the USA by the millions, because it will cost US companies huge amounts of money--costs which can only be passed on to consumers in higher prices. In a future issue I will profile in more detail, the work of one of Australia's more distinguished academics and his book: HEAVEN AND EARTH—Global Warming; The MIssing Science. In it, Dr. Plimer thoroughly, and with great evidence, proves that Al Gore was not just wrong, but hugely wrong. The report and organization upon which all of Gore's "science" was based (IPCC), "cooked the books," simply omitting "inconvenient" data and ignoring informed dissent. Why? For political reasons, it seems. There's be no need for a Cap & Trade "Tax" if CO2 is not the culprit causing global warming. I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize people have ever asked for one back? (Note: Plimer's book sold out its first 5 printings globally, and I had to wait several weeks just to find one. It should be available now on amazon.com.)
OKAY--BACK TO BUSINESS--IT'S THAT TIME OF THE YEAR--LATE SUMMER IS HERE
BUSINESSES MUST START THEIR PLANNING PROCESS NOW--INCLUDING PLANS FOR UNPRECEDENTED CRISES
This will be a difficult year to plan for. Recovery or not? Growth has been slow or negative for a year. Will this new year bring more slow business or a new recovery? Inflation, or not, and how much inflation? Changes in tax laws? Which ones, and how will they change? Changes in the value of the US$? Currency exchange rate fluctuations. Oil pricing fluctuating; and other commodity pricing just hanging in there? China's resurgence and continued global overcapacity for almost everything. Health care benefits and laws, and costs going UP, somehow--but how? And those pension plans need to be refilled after the stock market collapse--there's an unplanned hit to the P & L. You still have to put together a plan, a budget and then decide what to do about those and many other areas.
IF YOU ARE "UP" ON "NEW MEDIA" YOU KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT--BUT...RISKY
How about your plans to incorporate those "new media" into your business processes, advertising, promotion, etc. This week's DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) that shut down Twitter and affected several other such "social networking" sites might give you pause (and it was all about an attack on a totally different site and entity). Early adopters, like the "old time pioneers," catch a lot of "arrows"--and in cyberspace, nobody has yet figured out how to create real security. In fact, the government still can't keep the top "Cyber Security" spot filled (neither could Bush) because it is a technology spot and they all want to politicize it. Fair warning: Proceed prudently. Back up your plans and back up your files, put in better passwords, new firewalls and virus protection. Plan on how to protect critical information when it is floating around on iPhones, Blackberries, and in WiFi land. And for goodness sake, make a recovery plan. If/when an attack happens, you'll be glad you did. Will you be ready?
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, AND INFORMATION LEADS TO KNOWLEDGE--& RISK OF CORRUPTION--DOESN'T IT?
Any business person knows how true this statement can be. When you are operating blind--or in the dark--all sorts of bad consequences can be the result. Decisions are often made on wrong or incomplete information. Then wise decisions become foolish ones. If the media dispersing misinformation confuses and misdirects part of the population, even worse consequences result. The wrong people gain power. The remainder are just kept "in the dark," or ignored, or labeled radicals and agitators. When actions are taken without the consent of the governed--without even the awareness of the governed, it sounds more like Putin's Russia than the USA. This is exactly how government controlled countries operate. Scary--in the extreme.
IS AMERICA IS BEING CONTROLLED--IN SECRET (& IS AMERICAN BUSINESS AT RISK TOO)
Not only is the mainstream media choosing to be blind (mostly) to what's happening. That would be reason enough to be seriously concerned. It's worse than that. Are the leaders of Congress are hiding the true actions in a veritable cloak of secrecy--in direct violation of their own rules of operation. Ironically, the previously pro-Obama Associated Press news syndicate is increasingly sounding the alarm. Just one of several such articles is posted below. Os this the first sign of a government that must rule by secrecy showing its ugly head.
THERE IS A SOLUTION--IN 2010, ELECT DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO CONGRESS
Elections are designed to allow an informed electorate to replace representatives who do not represent them properly. That presumes the the electorate has enough information to even know about the misrepresentations. But don't be "thugs." Don't be "mobs." Wait, don't be "astroturf" either. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions are so far from understanding the feelings of mainstream America that she is facing a revolution within her own party--from a group of moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats. Even Lou Dobbs is in trouble with CNN for speaking out of turn--repeatedly--and against the "policy" of CNN. Wasn't it news that these "town halls" turned ugly? That "Tea parties" were just real people airing their fears and concerns? Look for CNN to find a reason to throw Dobbs "under the bus" if he doesn't straighten his act out.
TEA PARTIES CONTINUE--MOST MEDIA TURNS A BLIND EYE--BUT THE TRUTH "BOILS OVER"
Did I miss something or is a revolution is brewing in the USA? Thousands of Americans are turning out (voluntarily) to express their fear, rage and displeasure at their government representatives' hubris, behaviors and performance. Some CNN reporters challenge and demean people at such gatherings. Bad idea. Government officials use disparaging names and accuse Americans speaking out with all sorts of bad behaviors. Worse idea. My old friend Rick Maurer is an expert on change, and Rick has always advised me that trying to "overcome resistance" is a sure way to "stiffen it," and make it more resistant. Isn't that what's happening?
OBAMA'S LACK OF LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE IS SHOWING
Following George W. Bush should have been an easy act. But whoops, the old inexperience factor is biting the silver-tongued president. Like a teleprompter falling and breaking, Obama's approval ratings are dropping, but his credibility is dropping even faster. He is and was a rookie with no prior (meaningful) legislative and leadership experience except as a community organizer. Talking smoothly about the issues with a TelePrompTer's aid and steering those issues through a faction-filled, contentious Congress are two different things. Obama appoints marginal candidates who just happen to be minorities, or have skeletons in their closets, and dares the media and Congress to challenge him. Then, when backed into the corner, he plays the race card. Really. He doesn't need to do that. In fact, it hurts his credibility when he does. WARNING: A revolution is brewing. All of you who voted for him--I hope you are happy with how things are going. I'm sure not, and I think millions of other Americans are not either--many of whom voted for him--ONCE. (Remember, 46 MILLION did NOT vote for him last time around and I'd bet a lot more are wondering why they did.)
CAN'T STORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WASTE IN YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA?
How about this alternative? It would solve two problems.
THE PENTAGON IS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MONEY TO BE SPENT ON LUXURIOUS JETS
Government officials need private jets to get around. There's no question about that. Congressional leaders (darn it) even need special considerations in their travel. So do military and executive branch dignitaries. It wouldn't look right for Hillary Clinton to be walking down the jetway from a US Airways flight along with some traveling business people and a granny from down south. However--if you have not ever been on a Gulfstream G-series private jet (I have) you cannot imagine the luxurious setting. If auto company execs shouldn't be using such private jets to fly into DC and explain why they are running huge deficits, maybe our government leaders (who are creating the granddaddy of all deficits) might rethink buying "used planes" at great prices. There should be plenty of them around.
SOMETIMES THE BEST WAY TO SAY SOMETHING IS TO LET OTHERS SAY IT FOR YOU
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTH OF THE REST OF THIS ISSUE, BUT IT IS GOOD STUFF. SCAN IT AND READ WHAT INTERESTS YOU.
What follows are articles from various sources: The AP, The WSJ, The Congressional Record, and Thomas Sowell (published in IBD). However, regardless of where these were published, it is the thread that runs through them that is revealing.
SETTLE IN AND READ...YOU'LL SEE WHAT I MEAN. Then do your own checking. Then decide what you think should be done. When you have done this, let me know if my concerns are misplaced or not.
Best, John
=========================
THE USA BEING SPENT INTO IRREPARABLE HARM--UNLESS IT IS STOPPED FAST (YES, BUSH'S GOP STARTED IT--BUT OBAMA'S WORSE!!)
AP ENTERPRISE: Federal tax revenues plummeting
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and
Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation's plate and
struggling to find money to pay the tab. The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the
biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8
trillion.
Other figures in an Associated Press analysis underscore the recession's impact: Individual income tax
receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago. Corporate income taxes are down 57 percent. Social
Security tax receipts could drop for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes are on pace to
drop for only the third time ever.
The last time the government's revenues were this bleak, the year was 1932 in the midst of the
Depression. "Our tax system is already inadequate to support the promises our government has made," said Eugene
Steuerle, a former Treasury Department official in the Reagan administration who is now vice president of
the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. "This just adds to the problem."
While much of Washington is focused on how to pay for new programs such as overhauling health care —
at a cost of $1 trillion over the next decade — existing programs are feeling the pinch, too.
Social Security is in danger of running out of money earlier than the government projected just a few
month ago. Highway, mass transit and airport projects are at risk because fuel and industry taxes are
declining.
The national debt already exceeds $11 trillion. And bills just completed by the House would boost domestic
agencies' spending by 11 percent in 2010 and military spending by 4 percent. For this report, the AP analyzed annual tax receipts dating back to the inception of the federal income tax in 1913. Tax receipts for the 2009 budget year were available through June. They were compared to the same period last year. The budget year runs from October to September, meaning there will be three more
months of receipts this year.
Is there a way out of the financial mess? A key factor is the economy's health. The future of current programs — not to mention the new ones Obama is proposing — will depend largely on how fast the economy recovers from the recession, said
William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center. "The numbers for 2009 are striking, head-snapping. But what really matters is what happens next," said Gale, who previously taught economics at UCLA and was an adviser to President George H. W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "If it's just one year, then it's a remarkable thing, but it's totally manageable. If the economy doesn't recover soon, it doesn't matter what your social, economic and political agenda is. There's not going to be any revenue to pay for it."
A small part of the drop in tax receipts can be attributed to new tax credits for individuals and corporations enacted in February as part of the $787 billion economic stimulus package. The sheer magnitude of the tax decline, however, points to the deep recession that is reducing incomes, wiping out corporate profits and straining government programs.
Social Security tax receipts are down less than a percentage point from last year, but in May the
government had been projecting a slight increase. At the time, the government's best estimate was that Social Security would start to pay out more money than it receives in taxes in 2016, and that the fund would be depleted in 2037 unless changes are enacted.
Some experts think the sour economy has made those numbers outdated. "You could easily move that number up three or four years, then you're talking about 2013, and that's not very far off," said Kent Smetters, associate professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania. The government's projections included best- and worst-case scenarios. Under the worst, Social Security
would start to pay out more money than it received in taxes in 2013, and the fund would be depleted in 2029. The fund's trustees are still confident the solvency dates are within the range of the worst-case scenario, said Jason Fichtner, the Social Security Administration's acting deputy commissioner. "We're not outside our boundaries yet," Fichtner said. "As the recovery comes, we'll see how that plays out."
The recession's toll on Social Security makes it even more urgent for Congress to address the fund's
long-term solvency, said Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., chairman of the Senate Aging Committee. "Over the past year, millions of older Americans have watched their retirement savings crumble, making the guaranteed income of Social Security more important than ever," Kohl said.
President Barack Obama has said he wants to tackle Social Security next year, after he clears an already crowded agenda that includes overhauling health care, addressing climate change and imposing new regulations on financial companies. Medicare tax receipts are also down less than a percentage point for the year, pretty close to government projections. Medicare started paying out more money than it received last year. Meanwhile, the recession is taking a toll on fuel and industry excise taxes that pay for highway, mass transit and airport projects. Fuel taxes that support road construction and mass transit projects are on pace to fall for the second straight year. Receipts from taxes on jet fuel and airline tickets are also dropping, meaning Congress will have to borrow more money to fund airport projects and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Last week, Congress voted to spend $7 billion to replenish the highway fund, which would otherwise run out of money in August. Congress spent $8 billion to replenish the fund last year. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees fuel taxes, is working on a package to make the fund more self-sufficient. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which doesn't back many tax increases, supports increasing the federal gasoline tax, currently 18.4 cents per gallon. Neal said he hasn't endorsed a specific plan. But, he added, "You can't keep going back to the general fund."
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
=========================
YOUR TAXES WILL GO UP--NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE--ONE WAY OR ANOTHER--COUNT ON IT!!! IRONICALLY, IF THE GOVERNMENT TOOK ALL THE TAXABLE INCOME FROM THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS (THE TOP 5%) IT WOULD ONLY AMOUNT TO $1.4 TRILLION--NOT NEARLY ENOUGH TO PAY FOR ALL THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS AND OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SPENDING.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
AUGUST 4, 2009, 5:25 P.M. ET
Teeing Up the Middle Class
Joe the Plumber’s tax vindication is nigh.
Few of President Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges were more definitive than his vow that anyone making less than $250,000 a year “will not see their taxes increase by a single dime” if he was elected. And he was right, very strictly speaking: It’s going to be many, many, many billions of dimes.
Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” White House economist Larry Summers wouldn’t repeat Mr. Obama’s pre-election promise. “It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,” Mr. Summers said—except, apparently, when his boss is running for office. Meanwhile, on ABC’s “This Week,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also slid around Mr. Obama’s vow and said, “We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically. And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”
These aren’t even non-denial denials. The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it.
The liberal establishment is even further along in finally admitting that Mr. Obama wasn’t, er, telling the truth. A piece in the New York Times over the weekend declared in a headline that “the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say.” And it quoted Leonard Burman, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury who now runs the Brookings Tax Policy Center, as saying that “This idea that everything new that government provides ought to be paid for by the top 5%, that’s a basically unstable way of governing.” They’re right, but where were they during the campaign. In an editorial on February 26, “The 2% Illusion,” we wrote that the feds could take 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning more than $500,000 and still have raised only $1.3 trillion even in the boom year of 2006. The rich are fewer and less rich now, while the Obama budget is nearly $4 trillion.
Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money. So they’re proposing an income tax surcharge on “the wealthy,” but that won’t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.
Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion. They’re also teeing up average earners with their cap-and-tax energy bill. Mr. Obama had hoped that cap-and-tax would raise some $646 billion over a decade, but Democrats in the House had to give most of that away in bribes to business to pass their bill. To finance ObamaCare, they’re also proposing another 10-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax on firms and individuals that don’t purchase health insurance. But this won’t raise enough money either.
So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.
The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=========================
SOME PEOPLE JUST WANT TO BE TAKEN CARE OF--ESPECIALLY IF ITS WITH SOMEBODY ELSE'S MONEY. NO WORK, JUST SOME KIND OF "WELFARE" BUT WITH A MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT NAME. LIKE AN "ASSISTANT COMMUNITY ORGANIZER?"
Those Forever Seeking Utopia Lose Freedom
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Monday, August 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT
"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice."
If we can be so easily stampeded by rhetoric that neither the public nor the Congress can be bothered to read, much less analyze, bills making massive changes in medical care, then do not be surprised when life-and-death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands — and out of the hands of your doctor — and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.
Let's go back to square one. The universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to "solve" our "problem." If we are, then there will be a never-ending series of "solutions," each causing new problems calling for still more "solutions." That way lies a never-ending quest, costing ever increasing amounts of the taxpayers' money and — more important — ever greater losses of your freedom to live your own life as you see fit, rather than as presumptuous elites
dictate.
Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.
Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said, "It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated" and "I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes." But today's crusading zealots are not about to tolerate evils or infirmities. If insurance companies are not behaving the way some people think they should, then their answer is to set up a government bureaucracy to either control insurance companies or replace them.
If doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies charge more than some people feel like paying, then the answer is price control. The actual track record of politicians, government bureaucracies or price control is of no interest to those who think this way. Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks, but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.
If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about — the high cost of a major medical expense — the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate. Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.
But politicians in the business of distributing largesse — especially with somebody else's money — cannot resist the temptation to pass laws adding things to insurance coverage. Many of those who are pushing for more government involvement in medical care are already talking about extending insurance coverage to "mental health" — which is to say, giving shrinks and hypochondriacs a blank check drawn on
the federal treasury.
There are still some voices of sanity today, echoing what Edmund Burke said long ago. "The study of human institutions is always a search for the most tolerable imperfections," according to professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago.
If you cannot tolerate imperfections, be prepared to kiss your freedom goodbye.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc. & IBDEditorials.com
====================
SO MUCH FOR TRANSPARENCY--NOW HOW ABOUT SOME "CONSPIRACIES???? THIS IS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, NOT SOME BLOGGER. THIS IS AN INSIDER WONDERING WHAT'S HAPPENING, BECAUSE HE SITS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE AISLE, AND HIS OPINION AND HIS VOTE, DON'T SEEM TO COUNT ANY MORE. IT SEEMS WE NEED TO ELECT SOME NEW PEOPLE ON HIS SIDE OF THE AISLE IF OUR GOVERNMENT IS TO QUIT HIDING THINGS.
Subject: Pelosi Censors Republicans
By Rep. John Carter (R-TX)
07/16/2009
Monday night Democrats voted to shut down the U.S. House Representatives rather than allow a handful of Republican Congressmen to speak on the floor. What could have been so offensive or frightening about our discourse that Speaker Pelosi felt she had to protect her party by gagging free speech in the House?
In fact, we had planned to speak on the lack of transparency of the House since Democrats took control.. We had planned to criticize Speaker Pelosi for repeatedly denying Members, the media, and the public to right to read legislation before it was voted on. We were set to discuss House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s statement last week that if his Members were required to read the Democrats’ healthcare reform package before it was voted on, it would fail.
So the Speaker obviously feels that if the public is truly aware of her party’s agenda, they will reject it. She is now making sure the public is kept in the dark by trampling the centuries-old democratic traditions of the House.
What are those traditions? Every day that the House is in session, following the final vote of the day, representatives are allowed the privilege of free speech on the House floor in what is known as “Special Orders.” They may speak for one minute, five minutes, or one hour segments, and must request their time in advance. Time is allocated equally to both parties on a first-come basis.
Since the advent of live C-SPAN coverage of the House, this has provided a national televised outlet for both Republicans and Democrats to speak to the nation on topics they feel were not adequately addressed during regular order in the House, during which the Democrat majority has the parliamentary ability to limit debate and speeches.
Special Orders therefore frequently serves as a political safety valve if the party in the majority becomes too dictatorial during debate, using their majority status to truly oppress the minority’s ability to debate and offer amendments. That is now the case in the House, with the Democrat majority under Pelosi repeatedly rejecting House rules to ram a far-left agenda through before the public has time to learn what is actually in the bills. This is what we were committed to bring to public light.
House rules require a bill be publicly posted for three days before it can be voted on. That basic rule was written by none other than Thomas Jefferson as part of the original rules package of the House, as it is essential to the survival of representative democracy.
The House can waive that rule if it chooses on specific occasions. The Republican-controlled House chose to waive it when considering the Patriot Act in 2001 following the terror attacks of 9-11. They thought there was enough of a national defense emergency to just bring the bill to the floor for a vote. But Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats have chosen to ignore the rule on every major issue taken up by the House this year, including:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - The Obama Stimulus: This one just had to pass that very day because time was a-wastin’ in getting those new jobs coming. We couldn’t wait for Members to read it. But then the President waited four days to sign it into law while he spent the weekend in Chicago , and months later none of the new jobs have come into existence.
The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization (SCHIP): Speaker Pelosi couldn’t wait on this one either, although the deadline for reauthorization was still two months away.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Lilly was peddled as covering decades-old wage discrimination cases, but after waiting 20 years, Congress couldn’t wait one more day to let Members actually read the thing.
The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009: No excuses at all on this one. They just didn’t want the details known.
The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009: This one has been languishing since last October, but we suddenly had to pass it that day.
The AIG Bonus Tax Act: This had to get through right then, don’t mind the details, we just had to go after those bonuses. Only when we read what passed after the fact, the bill contained waivers for all of the same executives the bill was supposed to reign in, many with curiously close ties to Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Tim Geithner.
The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009:
No rush whatever on this one time-wise, the Democrats just didn’t want people talking about the hundreds of billions given to foreign banks that should have gone to our troops.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act/National Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax:
No excuse was offered on this one, the Speaker just didn’t want anybody reading Henry Waxman’s 300 page amendment he sneaked in overnight before we were forced to vote. Three weeks later, the Senate shows no intention of taking up the bill before the opening day of dove season, if then.
There’s a reason all these bills are listed. The list constitutes every major policy bill undertaken by Congress this year. House Democrats are not just waiving the three-day rule -- they have destroyed it, and are intentionally pushing their agenda to the floor with blindfolds on the media and the public. This constitutes an astonishing and chilling acceleration of the assault on representative democracy that began in earnest this January.
Representative democracy works when a U.S. Representative listens to the input of their constituents, and votes the way the majority of their district would vote. Only a Representative can’t listen if no one has ever seen the bill, or had time to provide input. They have to vote blind, which for too many, is voting the way their leadership tells them.
This is what Republican House Members were going to the floor to say Monday night. We were set to decry the loss of openness in the House. Instead, we were met with a slammed door by Democrats, who are now committed to burying truth along with democracy.
The Democrats are the majority -- for now. They chose to silence debate on the floor by gagging House Republican Members from using their historical right to speak after the close of the day. But they cannot stop us from speaking outside the halls of Congress and letting the American public know the truth about their ongoing attack against the very foundations of a free Republic.
Mr. Carter, a Republican, represents the 31st District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives
=====================
IF YOU ARE CLOSE TO, OR OVER AGE 65--WATCH OUT--THIS ADMINISTRATION COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH!!!! I HAVE MET BETSY AND SHE IS ONE SMART LADY. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT SHE HAS DISCOVERED. THEN LET YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS TOPIC.
Assault on Seniors
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OPINION, JULY 23, 2009, 12:09 A.M. ET
By Betsy McCaughey, Ph. D.
Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.
The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.
The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.
When comparative effectiveness research appeared in the stimulus bill, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R., La.) a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.” He and Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) proposed amendments to no avail that would have barred the federal government from using the research to eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age.
In a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House budget chief Peter Orszag urged Congress to delegate its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This measure is designed to circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.
Driving these cuts is the misconception that preventative care can eliminate sickness. As President Obama said in a speech to the American Medical Association: “We have to avoid illness and disease in the first place.” That would make sense if most diseases were preventable. But the two most prevalent diseases of aging—cancer and heart disease—are largely caused by genetics and their occurrence increases with age. Your risk of being diagnosed with cancer doubles from age 50 to 60, according to the National Cancer Institute.
The House bill shifts resources from specialty medicine to primary care based on the misconception that Americans overuse specialist care and drive up costs in the process (pp. 660-686). In fact, heart-disease patients treated by generalists instead of specialists are often misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly. They are readmitted to the hospital more frequently, and die sooner.
“Study after study shows that cardiologists adhere to guidelines better than primary care doctors,” according to Jeffrey Moses, a heart specialist at New York Presbyterian Hospital. Adds Jeffrey Borer, chairman of medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center: “Seldom do generalists have the knowledge to identify the symptoms of aortic valve disease, even though more than 10% of people over 75 have it. After valve surgery, patients who were too short of breath to walk can resume a normal life into their 80s or 90s.”
While the House bill being pushed by the president reduces access to such cures and specialists, it ensures that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon, the state is denying some cancer patients care that could extend their lives and is offering them physician-assisted suicide instead.
The harshest misconception underlying the legislation is that living longer burdens society. Medicare data prove this is untrue. A patient who dies at 67 spends three times as much on health care at the end of life as a patient who lives to 90, according to Dr. Herbert Pardes, CEO of New York Presbyterian Medical Center.
What is costly is when seniors become disabled. In a 2007 Health Affairs article, researchers reported that surgeries to unclog arteries and replace worn out hips and knees have had a major impact on steadily reducing disability rates. And non-disabled seniors use only one-seventh as much health care as disabled seniors. As a result, the annual increase in per capita health spending on the elderly is less than for the rest of the population.
Nevertheless, Medicare is running out of money. The problem is the number of seniors compared with the smaller number of workers supporting the system with payroll taxes. To remedy the problem, the Congressional Budget Office has suggested inching up the eligibility age one month per year until it reaches age 70 in 2043, or asking wealthy seniors to pay more. These are reasonable solutions—reducing access to treatments and counseling seniors about cutting life short are not. Medicare has made living to a ripe old age a good value. ObamaCare will undo that.
Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a patient advocate, chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York State.
=======================
"Government is supposed to work for the people; not vice versa."
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959 http://www.mariotti.net http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------
Comments