Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
Department of Agriculture1—elevated to Cabinet level at a time when agricultural employment in this country was 70–80 percent of the population. In 2008, agricultural employment was about 2–3 percent of the population. Why do we still need it? –Liberty’s Lifeline
The haggling over the 2011 fiscal year budget is reaching a climax. Later this week House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan will present his budget plan for FY 2012. It promises to be extraordinary and you can expect fireworks to soon follow.
I received an e-mail from my congressman touting his efforts to fight outsourcing. In a global economy, it escapes my why this is a good thing and why we need more businessmen in Congress and fewer professional politicians and academics. So I penned the following response.
2010 was a tumultuous year. The Tea Party really found its voice and let it be heard. A huge shift in power in Congress came on Election night, but Pelosi, Reid and company tried to do in four weeks what they couldn’t do in two years. But that shouldn’t be surprising; they didn’t respect the will of the people when the people rose up against ObamaCare, why should they respect the voice of the people on Election Day?
On the December 17, 2010 edition of the O’Reilly Factor, Bill had a debate with two ladies of the liberal persuasion. One of them was Dr. Caroline Heldman, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Occidental College. Asked what the government owes its citizens, Dr. Heldman responded, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Let me stop there before continuing the quote. Those are our founding ideals as stated in the Declaration of Independence. It followed from the Founders’ belief that “all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
I am currently working on the cover design for my forthcoming book, which will also be called Liberty’s Lifeline, and on the cover will be a drawing of the Statue of Liberty. When the artist drew it, they left the tablet in Lady Liberty’s left arm blank. My advisors suggested that I come up with something that describes the nature of the book that can fit on the tablet. It’s not much of a canvas, especially when it is drawn to fit on the cover of a 6”x9” book.
Comments submitted in response to a previous post, “The Progressive War on Federalism,” focused on the Electoral College and a movement called the National Popular Vote (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com) bill. Rather than argue against my point it only seemed to reinforce it. The objective of this movement, which before this commenter’s contribution I was unaware of, is to abolish, or should I say neuter, the Electoral College and replace it with the direct election of the president. This movement looks to further weaken the states and move us away from federalism and toward a strong monolithic central government. Here is my analysis.
Did you hear the news on broadcast television what Al Gore said about Ethanol? Neither did I. You have to dig a little further to find news that goes against the progressive grain.
In their pledge of openness and transparency in government the House of Representatives takes some pride in putting the health care bill online for 72 hours before voting on it. Sounds like a good step, no? Well… that is until you to the math. If the bill they are voting on is 2,500 pages long you would only have 1.7 minutes to read each page provided you did not eat, sleep, rest your eyes, use the restroom for three straight days!
We have Nancy Pelosi’s famous cry for support, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. Turn one-sixth of the economy over to the government, first, then find out what’s behind door number 1, door number 2, or door number 3. If you remember from that game show, what was behind one of the doors was a real stinker. The problem here is we got all three doors.
AT&T reports that they are writing off $1 billion to pay for compliance with the new health care bill. Guess where they are going to get that $1 billion? That’s right watch your phone bill. You are going to be paying for this health care monster in places you never imagined. Caterpillar announced they were writing off $100 million, John Deere $150 million, and AK Steel $31 million. So look for more expensive roads, farm equipment (food), and more expensive cars. This is from companies that have figured this out in less than a week. It will take time for thousands of other companies to tally up the cost.
Henry Waxman to the Rescue
But don’t worry folks, Congressman Henry Waxman is riding to the rescue:
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, said he would hold a hearing next month to investigate the effects of the law on big companies. He asked the chief executives of Caterpillar, Deere & Company and Verizon for financial data to document the projected impact of the law on their companies, and he asked them to explain their accounting methods.
“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs,” Mr. Waxman said, adding that he would be concerned if it drove up costs.
I’m sorry to have to say this, but he has to be the dumbest man in the House of Representatives. Members of the House are supposed to REPRESENT the people. The people have been screaming their opposition to this for months. Obama dared his opposition to campaign on repealing his prized piece of…er, work. Here’s news for you Mr. President, according to a Rasmussen poll 55% of Americans favor repealing this monstrosity.
But let me get back to Mr. Waxman, who is surprised that health care costs could actually increase. Listen to the American people:
Most voters still believe cost is the biggest problem with health care in America today, but most also think passage of the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats will drive costs even higher.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% rate cost as the biggest problem, a finding that has been consistent for months.
If Mr. Waxman got his head out of the sand or wherever else he conveniently parks it, and out into the fresh air, he might have realized that he is among the very few who actually believe this was going to lower costs, because there is nothing in this bill that addresses costs. It’s all about tweaking reimbursements to health care providers, which will accomplish nothing but drive doctors and other providers out of business, ration health, and expand government control. Oh, but wait, that is the Democrats plan.
The Silver Lining
But there is a silver lining. Communist dictator Fidel Castro loves it!
Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency
Bill O’Reilly, do you still think President Obama is not a socialist?
There’s a commercial that has been running recently that shows someone considering the purchase of a consumer item and they ask question after question about the product. In the next scene they are in the doctor’s office and when the doctor asks if they have any questions they hesitate and then say, “No.” The message is that you should ask as many questions of your doctor as you would of the salesman selling you a flat screen TV.
What if the flat screen TV were free? Or what if it was limited to a $20 co-pay? Would the consumer ask as many questions? The consumer is probably asking the questions because he or she is about to lay out $1,000 of their own money. If the TV costs you only $20 do you bother with the questions? If the TV doesn’t work, you can go buy another for $20, no?
For most of our health care plans we have what is called 3rd party payer. We go see the doctor and except for a nominal co-pay, someone else picks up the tab. But what if the health care consumer was put front and center in the process? How would that look?
Insurance as Insurance
We call it health care insurance, but it doesn’t look like any other insurance we may own. We buy insurance to protect ourselves from financial catastrophe, not to cover everyday expenses. If our house needs a paint job, we don’t file a claim on our homeowner’s insurance. If we need gas for our car, we don’t ring up the gecko at Geico. When we need food we don’t submit the grocery receipt to our life insurance company. So why is virtually every expenditure related to health submitted to our insurance company?
I was once covered by a health insurance plan, through my company, that cost around $10,000 per year. I was healthy and didn’t often need a doctor, but that didn’t affect my insurance premium. I found a plan that was a “high deductable” plan with a Health Spending Account. It worked like this. My insurance premium was cut from $10,000 to $5,000. In addition I opened a Heath Spending Account (HSA) that I could fund with up to $5,000 per year, tax deductable. So overall, if I fully funded HSA, the cost was still $10,000. So why do this?
The plan came with a high deductable of $4,000 per year, in other words, the first $4,000 were paid by me, not the insurance company. I could use the money in my HSA to cover that. But the kicker is that the money in an HSA rolled over from year to year and if I never used it, I could roll it into an IRA later. Do you think there is a strong incentive there for me to be involved in my medical care? Do you think I would ask more questions, before going to the doctor and when I met with him? You bet I would.
The Broken Health Care System
But how does our government screw this up? Easy. When I left that company and was out on my own and tried to buy the same type of policy I found that many plans were available until I told them where I lived. “You live in New York? Sorry, that plan is not available in New York for an individual. It is only available through companies.” I checked with my state insurance regulator and they said, “Sure, we have a plan like that for individuals. Do you make over $27,000? Oh, you do? Then it’s not available.”
So a plan that involves the consumer in making informed health care choices, which is the only way market forces can truly come into play, was not available for me by government dictate. But the federal government wants to take over health care and give it to everyone on the model of 3rd party payer where the consumer doesn’t care a whit what it costs.
Informed Health Care in Action
Fortunately, my experience being involved in health care choices didn’t evaporate with my ability to get the insurance plan of my choice. I was advised by my doctor that I was of the age to start screening for colon cancer. The most effective way to do this is through a procedure known as a colonoscopy. I will spare you the details of the procedure.
As an informed consumer I looked up the risk factors for colon cancer:
Okay, I have none of the above. What is the chance of dying of colon cancer? In the U.S. the chances are 0.017% and that is based on the whole population, regardless of whether or not you have any of the behaviors listed about, or about the same chance as being killed in a car crash. I decide to have the procedure.
The procedure gives me a clean bill of health and the recommendation is to repeat the procedure every 5-10 years. In processing my insurance claims, to be paid by a 3rd party, I noticed that the procedure cost $3,000 about evenly divided between the doctor performing the procedure, the anesthesiologist, and the hospital. So if I have the procedure as recommended, it would cost $10,000 – $20,000 to screen for an illness for which I had low risk, no history, none of the bad behaviors, a current clean bill of health. No thanks. If I had the plan that I wanted that could be $10,000 – $20,000 in my retirement plan. How many other possible diseases should I screen for and pay similar sums? As a consumer I am making a risk/reward judgment and in doing so, I have reduced health care expenses in the United States by $10,000 – $20,000.
In the ObamaCare plan, that money will be spent because the typical consumer doesn’t care if the procedure is done every year because it has no financial impact on them. Do you think that is why health care costs continue to rise? What doctor is going to take a chance that he did not recommend that procedure and find out that you and your trial lawyer are asking him why he didn’t because you contracted colon cancer?
The counter argument will be, “Well what if you get colon cancer and you could have prevented it if you had screened for it? What is that going to cost and who is going to pay for it?” Well, with my liberty still intact, I can make some further decisions. I still have that money, and more of it, in my HSA that I can use. If the cost of treatment exceeds $4,000 then my insurance company can use that premium money that I have been paying them for years without them having laid out one dime over that period due to my good health and good choices, to help with my treatment. Or I can make the personal decision, if I am say 80 years old, that I had a pretty good run and I would rather leave my wealth to my family, if the government isn’t salivating to grab that, than to spend it all to eke out another few years. I can choose to go quietly into that good night.
Liberty and Tyranny
I want to have the liberty to make those choices. Everyone having the liberty to make those choices will bend the cost curve down. The medical community, which is a business, will have the incentive to find a way to drive down the cost of a $3,000 procedure to say $300. If they did so, I just might show up every 5 – 10 years at that price. That’s how markets work. If your flat screen TV set, or your medical procedure is too expense the demand drops. If you find a way to keep lowering (get that? lowering) the cost the demand will rise. But if you don’t pay the bill, if you don’t see the bill, you don’t care about the bill. If you don’t care about the bill and no one else does, then the government gets involved and the problem doesn’t get solved. Your liberty gets taken away along with your money and the government tells all their stupid citizens what to do, because, after all, government knows best. Right?
A recent article in the New York Times, “Once Stigmatized, Food Stamps Find Acceptance,” talks about how Food Stamps are now, thankfully, accepted and people can get the help they deserve.
I remember the first time I encountered food stamps. I was in line at the grocery store behind a woman with a cart piled high and among its contents were soda, potato chips, and other tasty luxuries. When the bill was tallied, she took out her book of food stamps and handed them to the cashier. I related this story to a friend who told me that you can’t use food stamps on junk food so it must have been applied against the other items in the cart. Even so, I thought back to when I grew up. We weren’t poor but we were no where near rich. Things like soda and potato chips were a rarity reserved only for those times when relatives were coming from a distance for a visit. Otherwise it was home brewed ice tea and supermarket generic cookies. But even those treats weren’t purchased through a subsidy of our food staples.
New York is now actively recruiting new food stamp recipients in all languages imaginable. It seems that it is not enough to provide the service but you have to make sure that everyone who can get food stamps is taking advantage of them. Let’s see, government employees paid by taxpayers going all out to make sure that a taxpayer funded program is using as much taxpayer money as possible including a program on Rikers Island (the city jail) to enroll inmates as they leave. The article describes one woman who was actively recruited to join the program:
A big woman with a broad smile, Ms. Bostick-Thomas swept into the group’s office a few days later, talking up her daughters’ college degrees and bemoaning the cost of oxtail meat.
“I’m not saying I go hungry,” Ms. Bostick-Thomas said. “But I can’t always eat what I want.”
Okay, I’m going to go out on a limb here. By a “big woman” can we take that observation to mean she is not lacking in caloric intake? She says she doesn’t go hungry. She talks about her daughter’s college degrees. So why are taxpayers tasked with helping her eat what she wants? And what is that anyway? Steak? Lobster? Twinkies? Ice cream? Why aren’t the daughters with their college degrees helping their mother? Maybe they could invite her over once a week and feed her the foods she favors? And if they are not local, why not ship her a box of Omaha Steaks? Why does some other taxpayer have to pick up the tab for her after they worked hard to feed their own family?
The Other Side of the Coin
On the other side of the coin, from the budget of the same Department of Agriculture, we pay farmers not to grow food in the form of farm subsidies. Why? Well, if we didn’t, the prices of farm products, aka food, would become too cheap for the farmers to make a decent living. In my simple economic model of supply and demand that would seem to indicate that maybe we have more farmers than we need. But you see farming is a way of life as much as it is an occupation, and taxpayers must be sensitive to preserving that way of life whether or not it is economically justified. I am sure there are several million unemployed people in this country who would like to have their jobs subsidized. Unemployment compensation is when the government gives you a check (actually its funded by your employer) when you lose your job. Farm subsidies are when the government (no employer funding here) pays farmers to keep working at their job.
Add to that another government program to pay farmers to produce corn to make ethanol, another uneconomic subsidy. Ethanol is pitched as a substitute for gasoline, but it takes a lot of energy to make it, it cannot be transported via pipeline like petroleum products, and when the corn is diverted to produce ethanol, the cost of almost all food goes up. Corn is used for feed for cattle, as seed to produce corn, for corn syrup as a sweeter. So on top of regular farm subsidies, we have ethanol subsidies to further drive up food prices. In the case of corn syrup, sugar could be a substitute, but our government places a very high tariff on imported sugar, to protect our domestic sugar producers.
Coming Full Circle
So, on the one hand we have several government programs, funded by taxpayers, that drive up the price of food. Then we have another program, taxpayer funded, to help people buy food because food is too expensive. And then we have government workers and programs, taxpayer funded, that are actively marketing the food stamp program to overweight people, who never go hungry, have college educated children who could help them but don’t seem to, so that the recipient can eat the things she wants to. But if you see a problem with this, don’t worry. Michele Obama is about to use more taxpayer dollars to launch a program to fight childhood obesity. Can we get off this Merry-Go-Round?
How about we shut down the Department of Agriculture? It’s function is not in the Constitution and so it should not exist at the federal level. End farm subsidies. If that means we have a few less farmers, so be it. The American people do not owe anyone other than themselves a way of life. To the farmer who can make it, you have my complete admiration. End ethanol subsidies. If ethanol is a viable fuel, it should be able succeed on its own, not because Archer Daniels Midland spends millions on agricultural lobbyists. Negotiate free trade agreements so that our successful farmers, instead of being paid not to produce, produce and sell their goods around the world. Likewise end high tariffs that protect our farm products. These steps should lower the cost of food.
With lower food costs we shouldn’t need a food stamp program. End it at the federal level along with the Department of Agriculture. If there continues to be a need it will probably be a much smaller one and let each state decide if it wants to start its own program. Also, with everyone saving on food there is a greater likelihood for people to contribute to food banks to help the truly needy. But to have one government program create a problem and another government program to try to solve it is lunacy.
With our economy hurtling toward a cliff with out of control spending, we don’t need to be on both sides of a problem.
