After receiving one too many e-mails, post cards and other marketing pitches to extoll the virtues of ObamaCare, I felt compelled to send the following letter to Congressman Tim Bishop.

Dear Congressman Bishop,

 Judging by the e-mails and mail pieces the marketing program now begins.  To tell the 50%-60% of Americans who adamantly opposed ObamaCare, now that it has been signed into law, what good medicine it really is.  Before I point out the areas on which we disagree, I would first like to call for a sense of honesty in the debate on healthcare.  I applaud you for such honesty where you say on your glossy postcard that it was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense. I challenge you, however, on your opening sentence.

You begin your piece by stating, “On March 21^st, we stood up to big insurance companies and passed health care reform.”  Really?  How is using the full coercive power of the federal government to unconstitutionally force millions of Americans to buy the products of these big insurance companies, whether they want to or not, standing up to them?  I’ll bet Wal-Mart wishes you would get tough with them and require all Americans to shop there on Thursdays.  Are you next going to get tough with GM and Chrysler by passing legislation forcing us to buy a Malibu or a Ram pickup truck?  Of course you will probably smack them around and make them comply with tougher CAFE standards, but hey, that’s what big government is for, no?

I am still waiting to find out how spending $1-$2 trillion dollars results in reducing the deficit by $143 billion in the first decade.  This may be presumptuous but I have a suggestion on how to lower the deficit by $1-$2 trillion.  Repeal ObamaCare and start over.

Nothing in this legislation actually goes to the root cause of reducing the cost of delivering health care.  It’s all giant shell game about hiding whose pocket the money is coming from to really pay for the same old broken system.  Here are some of the “benefits” you point out in your mail piece:

•  Free Preventive Care Under Medicare – this eliminates co-pays and deductibles under Medicare. This doesn’t reduce what it costs medical professionals to deliver preventive medicine, it just lowers the price to consumers.  Economics 101 says when you decreases the price the demand goes up.  By eliminating co-pays and deductibles, someone has to make up this modest difference.  It is either the medical professional who has to eat the cost, driving up rather than reducing the cost of preventive care, or it will be subsidized by the rest of us through taxes.  You are betting that if every senior gets preventive care, more expensive treatments will be avoided later.  The real question is: how many seniors are not getting preventive care because they don’t have a $20 co-pay and of that group, how many turn out to have a serious disease that could have been prevented?  This is a much smaller group than all seniors.  You cannot make seniors go to the doctor for preventive care if they don’t want to, whether it is free or not. 
• Free Preventive Care Under New Private Plans– When I had my own small business, I provided our employees with healthcare.  I chose a plan that provided free preventive health care.  When I left that business and went out on my own, I tried to buy the same plan privately.  It had a high deductible, HSA account, and free preventive care.  Such plans are available, but not in New York unless you have poverty level income.  The marketplace has these plans available.  Government regulations prevent me from buying them.  Why do we need to spend $1-$2 trillion to give me a plan that the marketplace already provides if government will just get out of the way?
• Ensuring Value for Premium Payments – This is where you require plans to spend a certain percentage of premium dollars on medical services.  How does this control costs?  If the underlying costs increase 100%, does it make us feel warm inside that the 100% increase in premiums that will follow will go 80% toward medical expenses?  It’s still an increase in premiums of 100%.

 Let me stop analyzing your mail piece here.  Doctors are threatening to leave the medical practice because of this legislation which will lead to rationing. This plan does not address the underlying problem.

There is a simple way to reform health care by controlling the underlying cost of delivering medical care, rather than mandating more and more coverage and expense paid for by someone else.  We all pay in the end.  Here is a simpler way that does not cost $1-$2 trillion dollars but may take some of that courage you boasted about in your opening sentence. 

1. Eliminate 3^rdparty payer.  If you invite me to dinner and you tell me that you’re picking up the tab and I am handed a menu with no prices on it, look out!  It’s gonna hurt.  Americans are smart consumers.  They will spend hours researching a car or flat screen TV before buying, because it’s coming directly out of their pocket.  They play a role in how much they pay.  That’s how markets work.  We do not have a free market in health care.  The way to do this is with high deductable insurance plans and Health Savings Accounts (HSA).  If you take the lower cost of the premium for the insurance piece and add the amount to fund the HSA, the costs are about the same as the premium alone on a traditional plan.  I went from a $10,000 annual premium for a traditional plan to a $5,000 premium cost for a high deductible with a $5,000 contribution to the HSA account.  If you want to help people with deal with the high deductable, help them fund the HSA accounts, but keep the buying decision in their hands.  Trust me, they will ask questions, they will shop around, because it’s their money and the less they spend, the more they keep.  Many HSA accounts have a provision to roll money over into an IRA if the account grows large.  This will take guts to implement because the public will have to be educated that they will come out ahead when they have the liberty to make their own choices.  You seem tough enough to ignore the will of the people to implement what you feel is good for them, why not implement something that will actually work?
2. Implement tort reform.  Not an experiment here or there.  If you want to show how tough you really are, stand up to the trial lawyers who fill Democratic coffers.  Implement the system they have in Britain.  No contingency fees and loser pays.  Maybe I’ll stop seeing commercials on my TV that promote a new drug, followed by a come on from a law firm to call them if you actually took the drug because, “you may be entitled to compensation.”  I have no problem with a person getting compensated when they have been harmed through the fault or negligence of a company.  Human life is not perfection.  We are all different.  Some of us can eat three eggs a day and never have a heart problem, others may look at a pat of butter and feel pains in their chest.  Lawyers shouldn’t get rich because humans are not perfect and companies can be bluffed into paying these extortionists rather than defending the case on the merits.  Lawyers  should get paid for the time they put into a case.  OB/GYN doctors are leaving the practice in droves because they cannot afford the malpractice insurance premiums.  Doctors are practicing defensive medicine ordering every possible test for fear they will be asked later, if a patient gets worse, why they didn’t order that other test.  When you add the cost of malpractice insurance on top of the cost of additional tests and procedures, it doesn’t get cheaper to deliver health care and you are not necessarily delivering better health care.  Let the doctors practice medicine, tell the lawyers to stop running a lottery.
3. Buy insurance across state lines.  As indicated previously, the plan I want to buy is available, but not in New York.  The market sees a need for such a product, I want to buy such a product, the government says no.  You want me to believe that now if we spend $1-$2 trillion the government will solve my problems.  Get the government out of my way, thank you very much.
4. Have more tailored insurance policies.  Why, as I approach the golden years, do I have to buy a health insurance policy that covers pre-natal care? In vitro fertilization? Sex change operations?  When I buy automobile insurance, I have about a dozen choices in every category about the kind of coverage I want.  How much deductible?  Do I want rental car reimbursement?  Roadside assistance?  Yet when choosing a health care policy, if I have a choice at all, it is a total package, take it or leave it.  Who decides what has to be included?  Is it me or the government regulators?  If I want to have free preventive care, fine let me choose that and adjust the premium accordingly.  If I want to pay the co-pay for free preventive care, give me that choice.  If we had more choices, as in a free market, costs will go down.  If the government says, everyone must take this, there is no competition and costs climb.
5. Control illegal immigration – If emergency room costs are driving up health care costs for all, and illegal immigrants use the emergency room as their primary care provider then it would follow if you controlled illegal immigration you would drive down health care costs.  Milton Friedman, the great economist, believed in open borders.  However, he also said you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.  It doesn’t work.
6. We need to have Medicare reform.  When Medicare passed the government projected that hospital coverage would grow to $9 billion by the early 1990s.  It actually grew to $66 billion a 700% error in their projection.  We hear again that we are going to crack down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and this time we really, really mean it.  Estimated at nearly $100 billion per year in waste and fraud, why can’t this be done without spending $1-$2 trillion?

 What you and this Congress passed is a disaster.  If the projections on this monstrosity “miss” by 700% like they did on Medicare, where do we go for a bail out?  Who is going to bankroll that one?  Your children?  Your grandchildren?  The six items I laid out cost next to nothing, why not try them first?  You can always go back later and say we need to do more.  But with ObamaCare, it could be a runaway train that no one can stop.  It is a giant shell game.  It doesn’t address the underlying cost of providing medical care, it only hides whose pocket is getting picked to pay the bill.

Sincerely yours,

The marketing juggernaut is just getting warmed up, but instead of standing fascinated while your Congressman plays 3-card Monty, ask him or her the tough questions.  Ask them calmly, respectfully, and don’t let them dance.  If they dodge your question, ask it again.  If they don’t… fire them in November.

Who doesn’t love a freebie?  Who does not get a thrill of good fortune by finding money in the street, no matter how insignificant the amount?  We may not believe in the Tooth Fairy, but many of us believe we have a rich benevolent uncle, Uncle Sam, who is willing to lavish upon us his wealth if only we would ask.  The sad truth is that Uncle Sam is not rich, but penniless and is running a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Health Care for $20

One of the major reasons that health care costs are rising out of control is that no one is minding the store.  While Washington twists itself in knots to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic of health care, we have little to no say in how our health care dollars are spent.  Our health care “insurance” system is not really insurance.  Insurance is meant to protect us from a financial catastrophe.  Going to the doctor for a checkup is not a catastrophe.  Paying a $20 co-pay for that checkup is like finding money on the street.  There is no way anyone can get a physical exam, except by a hooker, for $20.  It is a good idea to get a physical checkup every year?  Yes, then pay the bill and ask what you are paying for and make sure you need it.  You take your car in for service don’t you?  Do you file an insurance claim when you do?  Can you get it done for $20.  Let’s get real.  What we have is called third party payer and when someone else is picking up the tab, do we care what it costs?  Really?  But someone is picking up the tab.  Look in your other pocket, because you are.  If you are generally healthy and you get your annual checkup, your insurance premium (here in New York at least) will probably run around $10,000 per year.  But, hey, you only paid $20 for that physical!  What if you paid the full amount for the physical, say, $500.  What if your insurance premium was cut to $5,000 because you would pay most routine medical costs out of your pocket and what if you could put the $4,500 left over ($10,000 original premium, minus $5,000 current premium, minus $500 cost of checkup), into a tax free account that can be used for future medical expenses or retirement if you don’t use it?  If you are a young person and stay healthy into your mid-40s, you would have accumulated over $90,000 in your medical savings account and you still have catastrophic insurance coverage and the government stays out of the picture.

Retirement for Free

Like many well intentioned Government programs, Social Security, enacted during the Great Depression, seemed like a good idea at the time.  When enacted there was about 15 workers paying in for each recipient drawing out.  Today there are about a little over 3 workers paying in for each beneficiary.  Bernie Madoff would blush at the audacity of it.  On top of that the money that is paid into Social Security can only be “invested” in Treasury Securities so the return is lousy, but safe.  People reacted to Social Security by saving less because the government safety net was there.  Had people been encouraged to save for their own retirement, they would not be leaving their children this legacy of a ticking time bomb.  So today, many young people feel the government’s hand in their pocket when they look at the FICA line on their pay stub, but don’t believe they will ever get a penny back.  Nice concept.

Bring Home the Bacon!

What’s the measure of a good Congressman or Senator?  Bringing home pork for the district, no?  If you are like me, you get flyers every year or several times per year, touting how Congresswoman Jones obtained federal funding for that pier at the amusement park.  With 435 Congressmen you can count on this, for each $1 that your Representative brings home $434 leaves the Treasury for each of the other Congressional districts and probably more, depending on the power and seniority of your Representative.  Guess who’s paying for that Turtle Crossing in Florida?  that bridge to nowhere in Alaska? that airport in Johnstown, PA that no one uses?  That’s right, you are.  What if we decided locally if we really needed a pier at the amusement park, and if we did, pay for it ourselves?  Then we could let the people of Florida decide if they want to build a turtle crossing, the people of Alaska decide if they wanted a bridge to nowhere and the people of Pennsylvania decide if they wanted an airport that no one used.  Then we could cut federal taxes by an equal amount to keep them out of mischief and help us pay for these projects if we really wanted them.

Let’s Get Organized

There was a time in our history where labor unions performed a valuable service.  In those times when many industrial jobs were unskilled or semi-skilled, employers could dismiss someone on a whim and replace them within the hour.  Unions gave those workers some counterbalancing power and fairer treatment.  Today, we have a much more sophisticated economy and workers have more skills and mobility.  Union membership has declined accordingly, in the private sector at least.  Why is union membership still growing in the public sector?  What is different about workers in the public sector that they still need unions?  Are we suggesting that all government workers are unskilled?  Why do teachers need a union?  Are they not skilled such that they could sell their services to the highest bidder?  Why do unions fight merit pay for teachers?  Why are school principals, the de facto CEO of the school and who in New York easily make six figures, unionized?  Do you get an idea why our K-12 public school system is trailing the world in performance?

In Michigan, privately owned small businesses that provided day-care services suddenly discovered that they were part of a union and union dues were being withheld from their government contractual payments.

Ms. Berry owns her own business—yet the Michigan Department of Human Services claims she is a government employee and union member. The agency thus withholds union dues from the child-care subsidies it sends to her on behalf of her low-income clients. Those dues are funneled to a public-employee union that claims to represent her. The situation is crazy—and it’s happening elsewhere in the country.

Ms. Berry, runs “The Berry Patch” a private day care center she operates from her home catering to low income clients.  The money that was once paid to her, now goes to a union that does little for her.  She is “self employed and wants nothing to do with the union.”  Don’t you think we need more of these tactics in America?  Card Check anyone?

Going Postal

And let’s not forget the Postal Service.  As postal rates are again scheduled to increase on January 4, let’s look at this paragon of efficiency, that is actually authorized by the Constitution.  In 2008, the Postal Service lost $3 billion, and the Postmaster General John Potter pulled down $800,000 in compensation including $135,000 in incentive bonuses.  What do we have to pay this guy if he actually breaks even?  Also, let us not forget this is also a very heavily unionized operation.

Don’t Worry, You Won’t Feel a Thing

During World War II, FDR needed to raise more revenue to pay for the war.  Fearing a backlash, his team hit upon the idea of payroll withholding.  Knowing the potential backlash that would result when taxpayers had to write that big check on April 15th, he rightly figured that if he took a little bit each week, he could take a lot more in total.  Statists in Washington have never looked back.  It’s like the tax that was imposed on telephone service to pay for the Spanish American War that is still in place today.  Instead of picking our pockets every week, what do you think most Americans would say about the size of the federal government if they had to write one big check on April 15th?  There would be no tax rebates, because there would be no tax withheld.  Do you think Americans would force Congress to sharpen their pencils and scale back the size of government?

Help is On the Way

Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help!’”  But perhaps the best example of how far from our founding principles our government has strayed comes from Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut as she spoke during a House End of Year Wrap Up Session:

“This House–we understand, we’re there,” she said.  “You can count on us because we believe that it’s our moral responsibility to make sure that you and your family need our help.” 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t need the House of Representatives making sure I need their help.  I need as little interference as possible from them.  Their meddlesome intrusions in our lives is killing what made this country great.  It is a point we cannot make often enough.

Dumb

Of all the analogies that he could have picked  to sell his idea of a public health care option, President Obama chose the U.S. Postal Service. See video ( UPS and FedEx are Doing Fine).  “UPS and FedEx are doing fine, it’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”  Okaaaaaaaaay, so that is supposed to convince us that creating a health care system modeled on the post office is a good idea.  The interesting thing is that he prefaced that dumb statement by describing a public option that was “self sustaining.”  In other words, it was on an equal footing and not running deficits.  Excuse me, Mr. President, but the Postal Service is on target to lose $7 billion this year and the head of the postal service is in line for an $800,000 bonus.  Brilliant!

It also has appeared to escape the President’s notice that UPS and FedEx came into being to address the shortcomings of the postal service and the postal service has been struggling to be more like UPS and FedEx.  Express Mail, Priority Mail, does anyone believe those products would exist if FedEx didn’t exist?  The postal service was the problem, UPS and FedEx were the solution.  So Barack Obama wants to spend $1 trillion to create a problem to compete with the solutions.

Are there ways to improve healthcare? Absolutely.  Increase competition across state lines, outlaw frivolous lawsuits… hey, there’s an idea.  How about setting up a panel to decide if a lawsuit is real or frivolous?  If it is ruled frivolous hit the law firm that brought it with 3x the expenses of the other side.  You would kill two birds with one stone.  Sharply curtail or eliminate frivolous lawsuits and dry up donations to the Democrats who are dead set on having government run every detail of our lives.

Dumber

Just when you thought President Obama and the main stream media in his pocket could downplay the Biden-like  postal gaffe, along comes Jesse Jackson, Jr., to explain what Barack Obama really meant.  See video here (Jesse Jackson, Jr. explains).  How more scary can it be to think that someone so ignorant of the world around him and economics gets to vote on a government takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy.  Let me take it point by point.

• “The public option is a stamp, it’s e-mail” – the last time I looked e-mail was private, not public, perhaps that’s why everyone uses it and it work’s exceedingly well.
• “Because of e-mail and because of the postal system, it keeps DHL from charging $100 for an overnight letter” — er, no.  First of all e-mail, which is private Congressman, is a complementary service to overnight. You can overnight a cell phone to some one, you can’t e-mail it to them.  If you are legally required to have a handwritten signature, you can’t e-mail that.  Got it?  Second point, the lack of performance from the postal service is what created a market for DHL, UPS, and FedEx.  The stamp doesn’t keep DHL form charging $100 for an overnight letter, it is UPS and FedEx that keeps DHL from charging $100 for an overnight letter by charging less.  That is called competition, it is called capitalism, it is called a free economy.

He also said this, which is not in the video:

“The post office is universal. It reaches the rural areas. It reaches the urban areas. It reaches where DHL, and UPS, and Fedex will not go. And so in the barrios and the ghettos and the trailer parks of our nation…”

We don’t know if DHL, and UPS, and FedEx would go there because it is ILLEGAL to compete with the post office for first class mail.  Doesn’t he know this?  When facing more competition companies in a free economy tend to cut prices, but what has happened to the price of a first class stamp?  The price of a first class stamp has increased 440% since 1975.

Public Reaction

These two “sales pitches” alone should have you run screaming to the nearest town hall meeting or tea party event.  Pelosi says these town hall meetings are organized events?  Well I guess they are.  They are organized by the colossal stupidity of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Schumer, Dowd, Obama, Jackson Jr., thinking they could slip this by unnoticed by the American people.  The American people are fed up with them and they are not going to take it anymore.

If you look at President Obama’s record on what he says one day and one he says later when reality sets in, are we really ready to believe him when he says,

“Whatever plan we design upholds three basic principles,” he said. “First, the rising cost of health care must be brought down; second, Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have, or to choose a new doctor or health care plan if they want it; and third, all Americans must have quality, affordable health care.”

He told us we absolutely had to pass his $787 Billion stimulus package or the unemployment rate would hit 9%, but if the package passed, the unemployment rate would be held to 8%.  It didn’t work.  Unemployment is at 9.1% and climbing.  He said bankruptcy for the auto companies would be disastrous for the economy.  After pouring billions into the auto companies, where are they?  In bankruptcy.  It is estimated that his health care “solution” would cost between $1 and $1.6 trillion. Why should we believe it?  What has he told us he would do that has actually come to pass?  North Korea?  Iran?

What confidence do we have that the government can do anything, other than national defense, better than private industry?  The postal service?  Amtrak? Farm subsidies? Earmarks? Speaking of healthcare what about Medicare and Medicaid?  In a report from March 2008:

“We need to act quickly and effectively to address Medicare’s fiscal health, including enacting the steps proposed in the President’s budget, which would postpone the insolvency date of the Part A trust fund for ten years,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt.

A Modest Proposal

Before attempting to overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. Economy, why doesn’t the Obama Administration fix Medicare and Medicaid?  Show us your stuff Mr. President. Not your charm, not your winning smile. The campaign is over.   Prove that you can make these government programs work before you take on any more massive health care undertakings.

Two Doctors Operating. A Lawyer, A Bureaucrat, and An Insurance Agent Oversee the Procedure

In the category, be careful what you wish for, Ted Kennedy should be careful about pushing through Universal Health Care reform.  It has been reported that this effort has taken on a sense of urgency because of Mr. Kennedy’s brain cancer.  But what if we already had national health care?

Would Kennedy Receive Treatment?

Ted Kennedy will be 77 on Sunday.  I wish him well.  However in an opinion piece by Betsy McCaughey, she quotes Tom Daschle, who nearly became the architect of health care reform before his tax problems derailed his nomination.

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

In other words, sorry Ted, since any treatment is not likely to significantly prolong your life such that the expense would be justified, no treatment will be paid for.  You will just have to pay it yourself or die.  I guess the good news is that Senator Kennedy, like Senator Dascle, and most of the ruling class who pass these commandments down from Mount Capital Hill, are rich enough to pay for private treatment, if it is allowed by law.  If not, they are rich enough to take a “vacation” to, say, India and while on vacation wander into a facility their for treatment by American trained Indian doctors.

But what about you and me?  Oh dear, you better get your affairs in order.

Health Care Reform You Can Believe In

As long as the treatment received by a patient is paid for by someone other than the patient, the patient really doesn’t care what it costs.  The liberal solution is to have the government take it over, and a bunch of bureaucrats will “act on your/our behalf” and make those decisions.  The outcome of which is that you better stay healthy.  Because if you don’t, you may not get treatment until you wait a very long time for your turn, or you may not get treated at all, if the bureaucrats rule the resultant quality of life is just not worth it.

Here’s what we should really look at doing:

• Get the consumer of health care actively involved. How?  It’s being done today with high deductible health care plans coupled with a Health Savings Accounts.  The insurance company negotiates lower treatment costs and pays them only after a hefty deductible has been paid that year.  The patient is then in a position of shopping for the best health care and deciding on what treatments and tests, in conjunction with their doctor they will or will not have.  The Health Savings Account is where the patient can put funds, pre-tax, and then use those funds to pay the expenses not covered by the insurance.
• Tort Reforms.  Get the Lawyers out of the Examining Room. Too many doctors, in my opinion, are practicing defensive medicine.  They think of every possible test so that if something does not go perfectly with the treatment they won’t get sued for the test they didn’t perform.  Let’s follow the British System — fixed fees for the attorneys instead of a percentage of the settlement, and loser pays.  There are too many cases of people getting a $12 million settlement or judgment for something stupid (think of the woman at McDonalds who spilled coffee in her crotch and sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot).  In these cases the lawyers typically ask for no money unless they get a settlement and when they do they get 1/3 ($4 million in this example).  It’s like buying a lottery ticket.  Who wouldn’t take a free lottery ticket on a jackpot of millions?  But who really pays for all these law suits and settlements?  That’s right you and me in insurance premiums we cannot afford now.
• Increased Insurance Competition. Right now most insurance is regulated by the states and in many cases policies available in one state are not available in others.  Let’s open up the competition.  If we have more insurance companies competing for our business, we are likely to get better and more creative policy choices.
• More Tailored Insurance Policies If my wife and I are beyond the point of having children, then let me buy a policy that does not cover childbearing, birth control, well baby care.  If I am young and starting out and I want those things, there are other coverages that pertain to older people that I may not want at this stage in my life.  Let’s allowed tailored policies that reflect my actual insurance needs.
• Immigration Control.  The same people who are pushing socialized medicine are, for the most part, the same people who favor open borders.  However, where do all the illegals go for the health care needs including having babies (new citizens)?  They go to the only health care provider they know, the local emergency room.  This is also probably the most expensive form of health care delivery and since they are illegal, they’re not paying for it, the rest of us are.  I think immigrants built this great country and almost each and everyone of us can point to our forebears who came here as immigrants.  I am in favor of immigration now and in the future.  I believe these are hard working and basically good people.  BUT, they have to come here legally and follow the process.  If they are not here legally, they should be deported.
• Medicare Reform.  You probably want to sit down for this one, but shocking as it may seem this massive government programs loses billions upon billions of dollars every year to fraud.  Who pays?  Right!  You and me.  In higher payroll taxes, and in higher health care costs as doctors and hospitals have to make up the shortfall somewhere else to stay in business.

More Liberty Under Fire

The government in proposing universal health care wants to mandate that everyone must have health care coverage.  You will not have the liberty to choose.  The government demands that you comply:

“comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance.”

That’s the requirement, now comes the heavy hand of government:

“The ideas discussed include a proposal to penalize people who fail to comply with the “individual obligation” to have insurance.”

You must obey!  The government has spoken!

Here’s a novel idea.  How about implementing the above points first and fix the broken system that we have before we throw it out and install another new, massive, government program.  After all we can always go to the government solution in the end, confident in the knowledge that these programs work extremely well and efficiently. (e.g., Fannie Mae {bankrupt}, Freddie Mac{bankrupt} , Social Security {bankrupt}, Medicare {bankrupt}, US Postal Service {$6 billion deficit, while CEO get $850,00 salary}).

What Would the Founding Fathers Say?

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored.  Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. – John Adams

At 06:00 this fine Saturday morning, the Obama folks released an analysis by their economic team of how their economic stimulus package is supposed to work (see full text here).  Quite frankly, I think there would be more stimulus from handing out coupons to Starbucks for a good shot of Joe, than this stimulus plan suggests.

Among the first things to catch my eye was the following statement:

“It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.”

There’s nothing like a good caveat to start off an explanation of how you’re going to spend nearly $1 trillion.  It brings to mind the old economic joke of how economists have successfully predicted eight out of the last five recessions.  While I understand the need to explain that these economists don’t have a crystal ball, you wish they were sitting at the table with a much smaller pile of our chips.

The thrust of the plan calls for “ substantial investments in infrastructure, education, health, and energy. “  To me that translates into bigger government than we have now.  Infrastructure is largely government owned.  There is also a significant lag effect in infrastructure projects.  Education is also government run.  After over $1 trillion in spending by the Department of Education, our education system is no better and probably worse than when it started.  Teacher employment has skyrocketed with the goal of making class sizes smaller with no demonstrable improvement in learning.  So, let’s pour more money into that arena and make sure we saddle communities with higher property taxes for years to come.  Sounds great!  Where do I sign up?  But, it does make the teacher’s unions happy.

Another chunk of the stimulus packages is to provide:

“State fiscal relief designed to alleviate cuts in healthcare, education, and prevent increases in state and local taxes.”

In other words, let’s take money from one government entity and give it to another, the reason being so that they don’t have to run a deficit at the state level.  Instead, we’ll run a deficit at the federal level.  Brilliant!

When you look at the charts, here’s where it really gets interesting.  The plan says it will take 5 years for unemployment to return to a 5% level, which is higher than pre-recession levels and it will reach this level with or without a stimulus package.  The difference is that the stimulus package will provide faster relief in the intervening period.  Their forecast is that unemployment will peak at 8% in 3Q09 with the stimulus, and at 9% in 2Q10, without the stimulus.  So we are to spend ¾ of a trillion dollars for a 1% improvement in the unemployment rate, for four years.  That’s an additional $193 billion a year for four years to get us to the same place we would be without the stimulus.  What the analysis doesn’t show is the stimulative impact on the economy of not having a $775 billion dollar deficit to pay off after the economy recovers.

The analysis then addresses the effect of tax stimulus:

“It is important to note that the jobs effects of temporary broad-based tax cuts would probably be considerably smaller. Large proportions of temporary tax cuts are saved, blunting their stimulatory impact on output and employment. The prototypical recovery package only provides for the first two years of the Making Work Pay tax cut. Our analysis assumes that households treat the tax cut as permanent in determining their short-run spending.” {emphasis added}

I would take that argument a step further.  As we saw earlier in 2008, there was a minimal stimulative effect from the $300-$600 tax credit that was issued.  Given a finite dollar amount, as the proposal states, most people are inclined to save rather than spend it.  I would argue that tax relief of any fixed dollar amount, that would be realistic as we can’t give everyone a check for $1 million, is going to have a limited stimulative effect on the economy.  However, when you cut tax rates, the stimulative effect is genuine and long lasting.  Why?  In the Obama plan, the tax relief is $500 or $1000, depending on if you file individually or jointly.  If I know that I am getting $500, regardless of how much I work, the stimulative effect of the $500 depends on what portion of my income that is. But like the $300, it is likely going to be used in these times for saving or paying down debt.  The fact that I may, and I repeat, may get another $500 next year, isn’t likely going to make me splurge on a new car.  However, if I know that my taxes will be lower on every dollar I earn, because of lower tax rates,  I am encouraged to produce more, work more, keep more, and spend more.

From an article in Reason this past Monday before Obama’s speech:

“Lets break this down. Its nice to see that the change we can believe in won’t alter the way Washington plays games with taxpayer money. We can give Obama the benefit of the doubt until we hear from him later this week, but if “officials” are really committed to “historical and empirical evidence” of how to get out of a recession, they won’t stimulus spend. Japan spent 10 years–its “lost decade”–trying to spend its way out of recession and wound up doubling unemployment and increasing the debt level above GDP. “Historically” real tax cuts for the wealthy and business world increased productivity and national growth, but they aren’t politically savvy, so we’re unlikely to see those too.”

So the search is for “popular” tax cuts, not effective tax cuts.

If you ask someone today which president is most responsible for the Great Depression, the answer will likely be Herbert Hoover.  However, Hoover was president for only three years of the Great Depression, while Roosevelt was president for eight of those years.  So while Hoover, without question, make some key errors that made the situation worse, Roosevelt couldn’t find his way out of the problem for almost three times as long, and yet the Democrats are using Roosevelt as a model but saying we have to do it bigger.  Are you getting a little concerned now?

Obama can use this to his advantage.  Just like Roosevelt and Hoover, Obama can and will blame the economic problems all on George W. Bush, for as long as Obama remains in office.  No matter what he does or fails to do, he can point to Bush and then to the Great Depression and say, hey, these things take a long time to fix.

Another point the Reason article makes is that recipients of the Obama tax cuts are very likely to be people who do not pay income taxes:

“While Americans know better what to do with their money than the federal government, many people got those checks who didn’t pay taxes in the first place, so they got other people’s money back. That redistributory system doesn’t encourage growth, it just hands out money.”

Americans do know better what to do with their money.  So here’s my prescription for the economic problem:

• Make the Bush tax cuts permanent
• Explore making the tax cuts deeper, going back to the rates that Reagan put in place starting the longest peacetime expansion in history.  Face it folks, if you want to get the economy moving, you have to give tax relief to people who actually pay taxes.  That’s were the money is, and it will be put to work to invest in businesses and create jobs, not to pay off the credit cards.
• Start dismanteling the federal government.  It is too big, it spends too much money, programs that start never end, and it is eating up too much of the economy.
  • Why is education a federal issue?  Kill the Department of Education
  • Why is the Department of Agriculture as big as it is when only 2%-3% of the population work in agriculture
  • Why are food stamps a federal program rather than being at the state or local level?
  • Why can’t we fix Social Security and Medicare.  The average return on Social Security investments is about 1%-2% per year, which is dismal
  • Why was the Grace Commission report, prompted by Reagan and finding about $400 billion in savings, largely ignored?
  • Why is our tax code, that is estimated to cost taxpayers $200 billion per year to comply with, not replaced with a flat tax?
• Kill the uncertainty overhanging the economy.  Tell businesses that the bailout window is CLOSED. Go back to running your businesses like you should, or face the consequences of your actions.  Government should clearly state what it will do and what it won’t do.  Without that, everyone will sit on the sidelines waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Once people stop waiting to hear what the government plan is, they will set about doing what they have to do for themselves.  Many of the problems that got us into this mess were caused by the government (Fannie, Freddie, Community Reinvestment Act, bailing out this company but not that one, keeping interest rates too low for too long, enormous deficit spending).  How any sane person thinks that “only the government” can get us out of it, escapes me.  This great country has enjoyed tremendous growth and prosperity through much of its history, with government playing a very small role.  But government programs and initiatives (New Deal, Great Society) have saddled us with a host of problems that we will be dealing with for many years to come.  It’s time that when the doorbell rings and we open it to hear, “I’m from the federal government, and I’m here to help you,” that we slam the door and follow the age old advice, “If you want something done right, do it yourself.”