I just got my latest e-mail update from Congressman Tim Bishop and one cannot help but just shake his head. He leads off by mentioning his bogus survey, and tells the reader how (surprise!) people are concerned about taxes. Of course that is when Tim Bishop loses his way again.

You see Tim Bishop is a big supporter of the payroll tax cut. He is also a big supporter of big spending and big government. So let’s examine this closely. What is the purpose of the payroll tax? In the structure of the great Ponzi scheme that it is, the payroll tax goes to fund Social Security checks and Medicare. So a payroll tax takes away revenue from these programs. To put it another way, Tim Bishop is saying, “Let’s raid the piggy bank of today’s retirees and hand the bill to our children and grand children.” They will have to pay more than they did before because not only must they support the baby boomers who are now retiring they will have to make up the shortfall from this cut in funding. Tim Bishop is actually bragging about this.

Class Warfare

He then goes into the class warfare riff, about how nobody likes to pay taxes, that Republicans want to balance the budget on the backs of middle class taxpayers, etc. Okay, let’s talk about fairness. How fair is it that 47% of income earners pay no income tax? How politically dangerous would it be if that number increases to greater than 50%, such that the majority of voters pay no taxes, but the minority is demanded to pay more? Is that fair? Is that America?

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.” – James Madison, March 29, 1792, Essay on Property

But who do you want to believe? James Madison, the father of the Constitution, or Tim Bishop? It is income taxes, not payroll taxes, that go to the funding of the federal government. Tim Bishop attacks any curtailment of income taxes but makes not a peep about curtailment of runaway spending. No, we need to spend more on Solyndra, on bailouts, on Fannie and Freddie, on the Department of Education! We need to tax, tax, tax, he says.

He then attacks the Ryan budget. This is from a man whose party has not passed a budget, as required by law, in the Senate in nearly three years. This is from a man whose party leader, the president, has seen his budget go down in  a Democrat controlled senate 97-0, and he attacks Paul Ryan’s plan? What’s Tim Bishop’s plan? Oh, that’s right, stop the outsourcing of call centers overseas. That will get the economy humming.

He specifically attacks broadening the tax base.

“Base-broadening” is a Washington term for eliminating some of the credits and deductions that help middle-class families own a home, send their children to college, and afford healthcare.

No, Tim, broadening the tax base means getting more people into the workforce as taxpayers. Get it? Broadening the base, not squeezing more out of it. After squandering nearly a trillion dollars on the stimulus that promised us unemployment would not rise above 8%, it has not been below 8% since then. That is the worst record since the Great Depression, but of course that was all Bush’s fault.

It’s time to realize the hope and change experiment is over. It is time to get back to the principles of the founders which make this country great for over two centuries. It’s time to get rid of the politicians who keep throwing sand in the gears in the form of mountains of regulations. It is time to shrink government back to where it protected our rights and liberties rather than took them away to substitute them with the collective wisdom of politicians like Tim Bishop.

Tim Bishop says we need more spending, more stimulus, more debt, no solutions. I say, no more. 2012, the end of an error.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

It’s time for Romney and Gingrich to step up their games with the fall in mind and stop slinging mud at each other. I’ll give Santorum and Paul a pass at this point as although they are trailing far behind, they are trying to stay on the high road and true to their beliefs.

Tips for Mitt

It’s time to give up the ghost on RomneyCare. Okay, you were a govenor and states are sovereign and it looked like a good idea at the time. But your efforts to defend RomneyCare while attacking ObamaCare is one of the reasons that many conservatives don’t trust you. ObamaCare is largely resonsible for the birth of the Tea Party, the only birth that conservatives want associated with ObamaCare and Obama probably wishes it was an abortion instead. I think many conservatives would accept you saying, it appeared workable, no one had tried it before, states should be a laboratory for differnt approaches to governing, but this idea really didn’t work, and regardless of whether it worked or not, healthcare is not the constitutional responsiblity of the federal government. Then forcefully reitereate that you will end ObamaCare.

Everyone knows that politics is not beanbag. It is a full contact sport, but just be careful with taking things out of context to twist their meaning. There should be enough differences between you and Gingrich, to present your plans and let the people decide. Keep it clean, no hitting below the belt.

Tips for Newt

It’s time to put on your big boy pants. If you think Romney is tough, wait until you get in the ring with Obama. He will have no compunction about lying about your record. If your excuse for not doing as well in the last two debates is that you never stood next to someone on the same stage who lied about your record, you have a rude awakening coming. If most of your supporters are salavating to see you debate Obama and this is all it takes to knock you off your debating game, throw in the towel now, please!

You need to come clean on what you did for Freddie Mac. Obama is still blaming the economy on the Bush years and the terrible mess he was handed, the center of which was the housing meltdown. If you don’t put on the table exactly what your role was and what you were paid to do, Obama will have a field day saying, “For the past four years we have been trying to recover from the housing crisis, and do you really want to put someone in the White House who caused it? De we really want to go back there?” Newt, you have to get this out now and put it behind you if he can.

It’s Obama and the Economy, Stupid

If we don’t get Obama out of the White House, ObamaCare will be permanant. If you thought Obama had socialist leanings before, imagine what they will be if he no longer has to face the electorate? If the past three years haven’t been painful enough, what will happen with a Republican Congress and an Obama presidency? Obama will try to run on a “do-nothing” Congress this fall but that’s a tough sell with the Democrats in Control of the Senate, but if the Republicans take both chambers and Obama stonwalls for two years, he can make that argument in 2014, “It’s a Republican Congess and we are stonewalled. I need a Democratic Congress to work with.” We may see a reverse landslide to 2010. Let us not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This should be an easy election to win, if we don’t screw it up ourselves.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Don’t pay attention to what you are hearing from Obama’s supporters. What they really want may be the opposite of what they are saying.

Let’s start with some basic math. Forty percent of Americans self-identify themselves as conservative, twenty percent as liberal, leaving forty percent in the middle. For a conservative to win, they have to hold their base (40%) and pick up twenty-five percent of those in the middle (25% of 40% equals 10%). That will give them fifty percent of the vote. Liberals, on the other hand, need to hold their base (20%) and pick up seventy-five percent of those in the middle. The last time the Republicans nominated a true conservative, Ronald Reagan it was two blow-out victories. Liberals will argue that the time before that Republicans picked Barry Goldwater and it was a blow-out the other way. This is true, but I believe there were some mitigating circumstances. First, if Goldwater was elected he would have been the third U.S. president in less than three years. America might not have been ready for that. Then there was the famous Johnson ad suggesting that Goldwater was ready to start a nuclear war.

What is different since then? America is ready for a new president, as they were when Jimmy Carter was in office. The is no threat of an all out nuclear war, although there are nuclear dangers. Last, I turn to a famous quote by Winston Churchill, “If you are twenty, and you are not a liberal you have no heart. If you are forty, and you are not a conservative, you have no brain.” We are a more conservative country now.

Mitt Romney

I believe Obama would prefer to run against Romney. Conservatives do not embrace Mitt Romney. So right out of the gate, he is at risk of losing part of his base. To succeed he has to pick up more of the middle. In an Obama vs. Romney match-up, don’t think the race card will not be played. It will be done in a subtle way. For example, the main stream media will probably run more stories about race in America, inequality, unemployment among minorities, suggesting it is racially motivated. If enough white guilt can be kept alive, Obama gets another shot. In a debate, Obama can go right after Romney and say I based ObamaCare on RomneyCare, and don’t deny it. Romney is immediately on the defensive. Obama will try to narrow the differences between him and Romney. As the governor of a blue state, Romney had to take some positions  to get elected. Obama will highlight those. If he can make the case of who do you want to vote for, the honest upfront liberal, or the pseudo liberal in Republican clothing, it will be another Obama-McCain match.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry has stronger conservative credentials, but has lost support over his immigration stance. That means an even tougher hill to climb, capturing more of the middle with stronger conservative credentials than Romney. The other negative is that Perry’s debate performances have been dismal. I don’t think Obama will have a hard time pushing Perry’s hot buttons in a debate and if he can bait him into an outburst, Perry’s done.

Herman Cain

I think Herman Cain is who Obama’s team fears the most. Conservatives are embracing Cain, so he seems to be in the best position so far to hold the base. The race card is out of play. Cain has been working on getting his positions down on policy, but when gets it, he knows his material. He does not need a teleprompter to deliver a speech. He has executive experience like Romney and Perry, but not in government. Which could be a bad thing, or it could be a good thing. The bad thing is that government experience helps in knowing what levers to pull. The good thing is that you don’t accept that’s the way it has always been, you ask why? If no one can give you a good reason, stop doing it. That could be huge with today’s bloated government. I have no concerns about a one-on-one debate between Obama and Cain.

The Abortion Issue

There is a big kerfuffle over what Cain said in response to a question on abortion. He said it was a personal decision. Here is the actual clip;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPKYYDefMV4

Cain makes a couple of points and Piers Morgan tries to set the usual trap. Cain clearly and emphatically says he is pro-life. He also talks about the federal government’s role in abortion since, after all, he is running for a federal office. Abortion is not in the Constitution, either for or against. There is no Constitutional right to kill your child. Prior to the disastrous Roe v. Wade decision, it was left up to the states, which is where it should be. So Morgan goes for the trap, find a difficult personal dilemma, put your guest in that role and try to get them to contradict himself. Cain didn’t bite, but he fell short in his explanation. What he later explained he meant by a personal decision was that when faced with such a dilemma, you are going to follow your beliefs, talk about it with your family, maybe get spiritual counseling, but the last thing you will probably do is a Google search on what the law is. As Reid Buckley wrote about his family in An American Family: The Buckleys,  “The solidarity that our parents fostered in their children was remarkable. God, Family, Country…and in that order.” You do what you believe is right and sort out the consequences later.

The Media

The media is attacking Cain because he is the front-runner and they see him as a big threat to Obama, mainly because they will lose the race card, their favorite tool. After all what can Janeane Garafolo say now? What can they attack the Tea Party about? Obama will be forced to run on his record, his healthcare, his immigration policy.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

National Debt Clock A Long Time Ago When the Debt was Only $6 Trillion

Today the House of Representatives voted on a bill HR 2650, called the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill to get the runaway debt and deficit spending under control. The bill passed the house 234-190, will all but 9 Republicans voting for it and all but 5 Democrats voting against it. Tim Bishop voted no.

I had an opportunity to watch some of the floor debate and the Democrats wasted no time in going in to scare and distort mode. Almost every Democrat who rose to speak said the bill was an attack on Medicare and protecting the rich.

Medicare

But what are the facts on Medicare?

• Medicare is in dire need of reform. Medicare is the second largest federal program and is growing at a staggering 7% a year.  Its costing taxpayers nearly $500 billion a year, with long-term liabilities in excess of $38 trillion. Medicare spending is expected to double over the next decade.
• Conservatives have a plan to save Medicare. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has offered a plan, which passed the House on April 15th, that would save Medicare for current retirees and future generations without rationing or benefit cuts. The Ryan plan would inject choice and competition into the program, and thus save money by making Medicare more efficient. The plan would take effect  in 2021, and would not affect current seniors. Everyone born before 1956 could keep their current Medicare, exactly as it is.
• The Democrats’ Medicare plan is rationing and benefit cuts. Democrats vehemently oppose the Ryan plan. Instead, their plan is to cut $500 billion out of Medicare, in order to fund their massive new ObamaCare entitlement. They created a rationing board of 15 unelected bureaucrats, known as IPAB, to impose these cuts. IPAB will slash what Medicare pays doctors and hospitals to the  bone. As a result, seniors will have trouble finding a doctor who will take them. Mr. Obama’s own Medicare experts predict 15% of hospitals will go out of business.
• The Ryan plan will allow patients to choose their Medicare plan. Starting in 2021, the Ryan plan would enroll new Medicare seniors in the same kind of health care program that Members of Congress enjoy today. Seniors will be able to choose the coverage that best meets their individual needs from a list of competing high-quality health plans. Why do Democrats oppose giving seniors the same good health care Congress enjoys?

Congress gave themselves a handsome $174,000 salary. Does anyone believe they would skimp on their own healthcare? So why is it a bad idea if seniors have the same plan as Congress?

President Obama’s Plan

The Democrats also talked about Obama’s plan. What plan? As several Republican lawmakers said, “If you have a copy of that plan on paper, slide it over, we’d like to see it.” But there is no plan from the Democrats, just like there has been no budget for the last two years. They say Obama is proposing $3 in spending cuts for each $1 increase in taxes. Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes, that was the deal Tip O’Neill negotiated with Ronald Reagan. They got the tax increases, but the spending cuts never happened. Reagan was lied to. So now President Obama is playing Lucy and he wants Speaker Boehner to be Charlie Brown. No thanks. If it’s not on paper, it doesn’t exist.

Even as they tried to demonize the Republican proposal they couldn’t help themselves; they had to keep talking about the need for “investment” which to Democrats is just a code word for spending. They don’t invest anything. Investing is what the evil rich do, the Democrats job is to take it from them and give it to their backers.

The Democrats also attacked the Republicans for wanting to change the Constitution. How it would be hard to spend money in an emergency or in a time of war. Which is just another lie. There are provisions in the bill to exceed the limits with a super majority. But leaving these lifetime politicians, many of whom never held a job in the private sector, to curb their own appetites to spend their way to reelection, reminded me of budgeting in the private sector. When the business was facing tough times the word came down for everyone to cut. Inevitably people would push back and say, “everything in my budget is critical, I can’t cut anything, you’ll have to get it elsewhere.” That response was typically met as follows. “You can cut it, or I will, but it will be cut. If you cut it, you can decide how it will least impact your responsibilities, but being further removed if I cut it you probably won’t like it.” That’s how it works in the private sector and that is how it will work with the Balanced Budget Amendment. Tough choices have to be made.

In 2007 after the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the Treasury took in more tax revenue than at any time in our history. This is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. Congress cannot tax their way out of this and trying to do so will kill the already moribund economy. Tim Bishop, are you listening?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NddO5yMxicw&feature=player_embedded

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

(This is the last of a series of articles focusing on topics presented at the Cato Policy Perspectives 2011 conference held at New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel on Friday, April 8, 2011)

“What a difference a year makes” is short assessment of ObamaCare presented by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute. “It cannot be fixed, it has to be repealed,” was his blunt conclusion.

As long as you are not Rip Van Winkle you should know by now that as Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass the bill, to find out what is in it.” Well, we’re finding out. We found out that it was true ObamaCare does double count $500 billion in savings, there are thousands of organizations asking for waivers from the program, and the individual mandate has been struck down by several courts.

Mr. Cannon pointed out that the indivdual mandate requires people to obtain more healthcare than they want and he also described several case studies:

• Deamonte Driver — He was on Medicaid. He had a toothache. He couldn’t find a dentist that took Medicaid patients. The infection from his abscess spread to his brain. He died.
• Draven Smith — He was expelled from school twice in four years. He could not find a doctor under Medicaid to deal with his behavioral health problem.

ObamaCare is pitching bringing all uninsured people under Medicaid and Medicare. This was the big solution to our national health care problem. I don’t think Deamonte or Draven would agree.

Two other case studies pointed to the perverse incentives for insurance companies to drop certain kinds of coverage such as 24 hour nursing service because it attracts sick people. Child only coverage is being dropped across the country. Doctors are seeing reimbursement rates being curtailed so they are not accepting Medicare patients.

It is almost as if ObamaCare is designed to destroy the health care system we have in this country so that a government run system will have to step into the void. As an example, it effectively killed an insurance product that would have guaranteed that the insured could get coverage at some time in the future. Isn’t that one of the major complaints about our current health care system? The free market came up with a solution, but it has since been dropped because of ObamaCare.

Repeal and replace.

Not to leave this subject on a grim note, I had the privelage of meeting economist Mark Skousen at the event and he told me that he was the star of a recent video I had seen parodying ObamaCare. I share it with you here.

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkH_aaaSOP0&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

You almost have to wonder, why in the world did he run for president? Was he swept up in the ego trip? Was he reading too much into his own press clippings? Did the historic opportunity of being the first real black president, sorry Bill Clinton, in U.S. history overwhelm a careful consideration of what the job entailed?

For those who believe in federalism, as James Madison said, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.” As the powers of the federal government are (supposed to be) few, so are the responsibilities of the President of the United States; important and focused, yes, but few. So why does President Obama look to avoid those few responsibilities and get involved in so many that are not in his purview?

From golf, to beer summits, to healthcare, to golf, to conferences on bullying, to golf, and now on guns, he seems to find that which is least related to his job to focus his energies and those of his administration. Even senators from his own party decry his lack of leadership on perhaps the most important issue of the day, spending and the debt. The Middle East is in flames and he talks tough but does nothing.

A Gun Summit

A deranged man in Tucson, Arizona, slipped through the cracks of existing laws that prohibit the sale of a gun, under both Arizona law and federal law to someone who is mentally ill or a drug user. Jared Loughner is guilty of both, but no one bothered to take the step to have a court declare him mentally unstable and no one made sure the system was updated with his drug use. If the laws on the books aren’t enforced, what will the addition of more laws do, other than further curtail liberties?

Of course that does not stop President Obama from wading in. On his team he picks Eric Holder and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I hope I am not being overly critical by saying, with the Middle East crumbling into chaos, a major ally recovering from an earthquake and tsunami in the Far East, and the function of the State Department being how we interface with other nations, am I the only one who thinks HRC is probably a little busy right now, or should be?

Then there is Eric Holder, who wouldn’t know a terrorist if he were jumping up and down on his desk screaming Allahu Akbar, while sweeping a sword inches over his head. Who sees Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia as just a couple of guys from the ‘hood hanging out. Who will twist himself in paroxysms to avoid saying in Congressional hearings that the possibility that Major Nidal Hisan was a radical Islamist, instead saying, “No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”

One of the knee jerk comments you hear from the gun opponents if you criticize gun restrictions is, “Should we allow machine guns!!” Considering that the U.S. government and this president have abdicated their responsibility to defend our border, even to the point of putting signs up 100 miles inside our country warning travelers that it is unsafe to travel in parts of Arizona, the idea of a couple of .50 caliber machine guns mounted on the roof of some rancher’s home in that area might not be a bad idea. With drug cartel members active in that area with automatic weapons, why not?

A Simple Approach

Let me suggest a simple approach. The laws should not be about what property you own, but what you do with it. Laws should apply to actions, not who we are, what we own, or what we think. The rules can and should be different for people who have violated laws by their actions or who have diminished capacity to safely operate something that could be dangerous. Felons should not be allowed to buy a gun nor someone who is mentally unstable. We are allowed to drink. We are allowed to drive. We are not allowed to drink and drive. The prohibited action is the combination of the two. If you drink and drive repeatedly, you don’t get to drive at all.

Our government should not stand in the way of its citizens being able to defend themselves. In a Supreme Court case Warren v District of Columbia, it was ruled that a police department is not responsible for failing to protect its citizens. It should be my responsibility to protect myself and my family. The Supreme Court seems to agree that you cannot blame the police if they do not respond.

So Hillary, go back to the State Department and focus on foreign policy not on guns. Mr. Holder, try being our chief prosecutor not a busybody. Mr. President, put away the golf clubs and start figuring out how to cut a very large slice out of the $1.6 trillion deficit you are running. If you didn’t want the job in the first place, you shouldn’t have asked for it.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

President Barack Obama released his budget blueprint on the same day the White House says it expects the budget deficit for the current fiscal year ending in October to hit $1.65 trillion. His budget calls for spending cuts of $1 trillion spread out over ten years. 

To put it another way, the cuts that the president is proposing will be less than the deficit in the first year alone, projected at $1.1 trillion. So the debt leviathan will continue to grow and with it, the interest payments required to satisfy it. While the nation is staggering under this massive and growing debt, this president still wants to spend $53 billion building high speed railroads. Such a program may create jobs to build such railroads and create jobs to man the trains, stations, and track, but they are make-work jobs that will be a burden on future budgets and future generations because anyone with a room temperature IQ knows that these trains will operate at a deficit, just like Amtrak does.

While showing extraordinary focus and determination in ramming his healthcare and other socialist programs down the throat of Americans that do not want them, his knees buckle when it comes to showing leadership on cutting the vast and growing entitlement programs.

 ”It is a patronizing plan that says to the American people that their concerns are not his concerns,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said.

Also, noticeably absent from the president’s budget was most of the recommendations of the bipartisan budget panel he created via an executive order. There’s nothing like spending tax dollars on a show panel to buff up your fiscal “cred” before an election and then ignoring the results afterwards to build on your reputation for cynicism.

 Erskine Bowles, the Democratic chairman of the fiscal commission, said the White House budget request goes “nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare.” – Washington Post

So there you have it folks, even Democrats are saying the president’s budget doesn’t go far enough. It will be up to the newly elected Republicans and the Tea Party who will hold those Republican’s feet to the fire, to get that job done.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

President Obama met with leading Hispanic legislators Robert Menendez, Nydia Velázquez, and Luis Guitierrez.  It is believed they were there to discuss language being added to a Pentagon policy bill at the behest of Harry Reid, who is desperately trying to hold on to his seat by energizing the Hispanic vote to come out for him on November 2.  The language would provide a path to citizenship to any illegal alien who came to this country before the age of sixteen, stayed here five years, complete high school and either served two years in the military or completed two years of college. 

Of the twelve or so million illegal immigrants in this country now, I wonder, how many either meet these qualifications or are very near to doing so?  This won’t get them to the voting booth on November 2, but it is meant to appeal to all others who support amnesty.  At the same time, if this passes those who benefit from the bill will be reminded constantly that it was those wonderful Democrats who pulled this stunt off and expect to be repaid with their votes in all future elections.

Let’s walk this through.  A person comes here, perhaps with their family perhaps not, before the age of sixteen.  Requirement number one is that he or she graduates from high school.  Okay, so they go to a public school that is funded by taxpayers.  Next requirement is that they spend two years in the military or two years in college.  For the military, which is also a taxpayer funded job, there are risks, not the least of which is putting your life on the line, but it also provides additional training.  From my perspective anyone who is not a citizen of the United States but is willing to die to defend it, is alright in my book and has earned the right to become a citizen, but come here legally, okay?  The alternative option is to complete two years of college.  That seems a much tougher option because we all know how much college costs.  Or has that changed too?

As part of ObamaCare, that’s right ObamaCare the massive takeover of healthcare in this country, it also made Sallie Mae (Student Loan Marketing Association) the sole provider of government backed student loans, pushing banks out of this business.  Another government takeover and another Government Sponsored Entity (GSE).  Can you name two other GSEs?  That’s right Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for which you are already on the hook for $140 billion.  But back to our story. 

What does this have to do with illegal immigration?  Well, Sallie Mae backed student loans are guaranteed by the government.  If the student ultimately fails to pay the loan, in the past, the government protected the banks by making sure they got repaid.  Now by pushing those pesky banks out of the way, who might aggressively try to collect the money, if the government extends a student loan to an illegal immigrant and the immigrant doesn’t pay it, oh well, you and I can pick up the tab, get it?  Voila! Free scholarships for illegal aliens to help them stay out of the military, complete their two year college requirement, be eternally grateful to the Democrats who gave them this pathway to citizenship, and you get the bill for public school, and college or the military. 

They break the law to come into this country, you pay to give them an education, grant them citizenship and so they can become loyal Democrats who will vote for more government to take away your liberties and transfer wealth from you to them.  Sounds like a plan.  I’ve got a better plan and it begins on November 2.  Throw the bums out and repeal all the trash they left behind.  Better yet, you can tell them now, “Don’t even think of putting this in the Pentagon bill and if you do we want the Republicans to block it.” What do you think?

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.