The Virginian Pilot (June 26,2009) reported that Congressman Glenn Nye, D-2nd District of Virginia, authored and passed an amendment to the 2010 $680 billion defense appropriation bill that cancels spending $46.3 million to dredge the harbor at Mayport, FL. The purpose of the dredging was to prepare the Mayport harbor to receive a new carrier, which the Navy had previously indicated they might transfer from Norfolk (Nye’s District) to Mayport, next year. Nye said that the amendment was not a hard sell in the house: “I think we had the power of logic on our side.” Nye, and his two republican co-sponsors, asserted that it does not make sense to authorize spending money for the dredging when the Navy has yet to definitively decide if it will deploy the carrier. Let's see ... if the port were dredged, that might favorably influence the Navy to redeploy the carrier, don't you think? Its also true it is not in Norfolk's interest to do so.
I find it amazing that in the case of the carrier -- which represents millions of dollars of revenue to the local economy – that the congress will delay spending money until it has a plan. But, in the case of bailouts, energy policy, and healthcare, congress is willing to spend trillions of dollars before any plan is in place.
The difficulty appears to be determining when logic is on your side.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Friday, June 26, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Supplemental Appropriations Act 2009 - Open Letter to Congressman Glenn Nye
While I agree on continuing to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not agree with combining continuing funding resolutions for the war on terror with other funding. I would prefer seeing an up or down vote on defense matters.
Also, it is my recollection that Bush's continuing funding resolutions were ~$60B whereas this administration's continuing funding resolution is over ~$100B. Both parties' resolutions contain other funding measures. My recollection is that the democrats were irrate at continuing resolutions by Bush, but simply pass those proposed in a democratically controlled congress. Where is the outrage? What is the difference, other than an additional $40B for social programs? You guys are amazing in your ability to obfuscate the truth! However, I believe there are some of us that are watching and evaluating. Perhaps its time to be fiscally and morally responsible.
Also, it is my recollection that Bush's continuing funding resolutions were ~$60B whereas this administration's continuing funding resolution is over ~$100B. Both parties' resolutions contain other funding measures. My recollection is that the democrats were irrate at continuing resolutions by Bush, but simply pass those proposed in a democratically controlled congress. Where is the outrage? What is the difference, other than an additional $40B for social programs? You guys are amazing in your ability to obfuscate the truth! However, I believe there are some of us that are watching and evaluating. Perhaps its time to be fiscally and morally responsible.
Open Letter to Congress and The President of the United States
I agree with 90% of what Bob Basso presents in his portrayal of Thomas Paine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA). Perhaps you guys in congress AND the president need to wake up and smell the coffee. To the extent that I am able, I will see to it that each of you is not returned to office. You are out of contact with the American people.
This message was sent via Congress.org, which uses the Capwiz·XC system. Congress.org is a free public service of Capitol Advantage and Knowlegis, LLC. You may access Congress.org here: http://congress.org
This message was sent via Congress.org, which uses the Capwiz·XC system. Congress.org is a free public service of Capitol Advantage and Knowlegis, LLC. You may access Congress.org here: http://congress.org
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Lions, Tigers, and Health Scare – Oh My!
Its six months after Obama took the oath of office of the Presidency of the United States, and the car industry is for all practical purposes nationalized. The next target is healthcare.
As the administration’s argument goes, the impetus for big government reform is that, based on Census Bureau estimates, between 40 million and 50 million Americans are medically uninsured. Based on this fact, the administration further asserts that the uninsured are either not receiving healthcare or, if they are, that it is too expensive, inferior, and inefficient. They then infer from the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution that “healthcare“ is a “right” to be secured by Government and that the cost and inefficiencies in the current system can be remedied only by having private insurers compete with the federal government. Stated simply, the problem is big, the problem involves a constitutional right, and the problem can only be solved by government.
The Problem is Big
According to the Heritage Foundation, the 40M to 50M uninsured number includes “ roughly 7 million … illegal immigrants; roughly 9 million … persons on Medicaid; 3.5 million … persons already eligible for government health programs; and approximately 20 million [who] have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.” So where is the problem other than adults who should take personal responsibility for their own health by personally investing in it. Otherwise, the proposal pays $1.5T over ten years to cover 7M illegal immigrants. This may be popular with social progressives who would like to attract this voting base, but not with the 53% of Americans who pay 100% of the Federal Income Tax.
Healthcare is a Right
The social progressives point to what is referred to as the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) to justify healthcare and other social programs as a “right.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 states “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” From a social progressive’s perspective, this authorizes limitless government spending to take care of the masses. Unfortunately, this was not the perspective of James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution. James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792 in a letter to Henry Lee, “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.” [Brant, Irving the Fourth President - A Life of James Madison Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers) Ltd. London, 1970] Instead, the Founding Fathers saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for government provision of charity. Madison observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” [Madison, Hamilton, Jay in Federalist, No. 10] In other words, if charity were the responsibility of the government, the process would be (and has) become compromised and politicians would conspire with special interest to trade votes. The New Deal was characterized by this type of political corruption. [Folsom, B., New Deal Or Raw Deal, © 2008] The Founders, I believe, intended the General Welfare Clause to be interpreted as the pre-amble to the specifically enumerated powers that follow in the remaining clauses of Article 1, Section 8, which specifically define the terms introduced in Clause1.
Only Big Government Can Solve this Problem
Big government is not good at solving large problems: politicians’ behavior is generally motivated by political expediency and the next election cycle. George Santayana wrote in Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In other words, perhaps one should look to government’s past success in solving large problems, like Social Security, before another 20% of the economy is nationalized. When an accountant quizzed Roosevelt about the Ponzi scheme-like economic issues with social security, he said “I guess you are right about the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through … with those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.” [“Statements on Taxes by Members of this Administration in 1939,” in Morgenthau Diary, January 5, 1939]. Roosevelt’s perspective proved to be correct. Seventy years later, Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid have an off-balance sheet liability of $50T to $55T. This is equivalent to the annual GDP of all the people on the planet (currently 6B) working for one year or approximately 4 years of the GDP of the United States. In fact, Social Security, like nationalized healthcare, was presented as insurance, when in fact the “revenue” received from current payees was never invested in a sinking fund, but instead was transferred to the treasury, in exchange for an IOU, to meet ongoing obligations. The federal government makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.
I could expand the list of examples of government mismanagement beyond social security to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Amtrak, and others. In fact, I cannot think of one large government project that has been brought in on scope, on time, on budget and then economically operated. So suppose I am incorrect, the progressives faith in government management is well placed, and Obama is correct: 50M people need to receive healthcare and currently are not receiving it because they are uninsured. Well the bad news is even the Chief Organizer cannot appoint a Medical Czar who can create a sufficient number of qualified, licensed MDs, within the next ten years, to cover the new demand (some subset of ~45M people) that will be placed on the system. Because of caps placed on licensure of doctors in the 1980s and 1990s, during which period the population grew by 45 million, and the fact that over 200,000 licensed physicians start to retire in 2012, sufficient medical doctor capacity will not be available to meet the demand unless the government attracts doctors from abroad. So, according to the law of supply and demand, either the price will go through the roof OR care will have to be rationed. Personally, at the age of 60, I do not like this last option, given that I have acted responsibly to fund my own retirement, medical care, and (hopefully) some small pittance of social security.
Conclusion
I am opposed to the government competing with private enterprise in the area of healthcare. I think Obama has it backwards. Maybe just maybe, healthcare is a mess because the government has imposed itself in the free market. Instead of private insurers’ greedy profit motive, the lack of substantive tort reform, layers of regulation, and establishing artificial prices for services in Medicare and Medicaid have contributed to a system that is broken. Currently more than 1,500 private companies provide health insurance: competition is not an issue. Government intervention will only use the power of the public purse to impose further mandates that will break the system further. In the process, government will tax us further, making us into economic slaves with unaffordable healthcare.
Last, if the government is such a great manager, why are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid facing economic collapse? Using the social progressive's logic, perhaps government could use some competition from private enterprise. Sorry, I forgot, that was a Republican proposal.
As the administration’s argument goes, the impetus for big government reform is that, based on Census Bureau estimates, between 40 million and 50 million Americans are medically uninsured. Based on this fact, the administration further asserts that the uninsured are either not receiving healthcare or, if they are, that it is too expensive, inferior, and inefficient. They then infer from the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution that “healthcare“ is a “right” to be secured by Government and that the cost and inefficiencies in the current system can be remedied only by having private insurers compete with the federal government. Stated simply, the problem is big, the problem involves a constitutional right, and the problem can only be solved by government.
The Problem is Big
According to the Heritage Foundation, the 40M to 50M uninsured number includes “ roughly 7 million … illegal immigrants; roughly 9 million … persons on Medicaid; 3.5 million … persons already eligible for government health programs; and approximately 20 million [who] have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.” So where is the problem other than adults who should take personal responsibility for their own health by personally investing in it. Otherwise, the proposal pays $1.5T over ten years to cover 7M illegal immigrants. This may be popular with social progressives who would like to attract this voting base, but not with the 53% of Americans who pay 100% of the Federal Income Tax.
Healthcare is a Right
The social progressives point to what is referred to as the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) to justify healthcare and other social programs as a “right.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 states “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” From a social progressive’s perspective, this authorizes limitless government spending to take care of the masses. Unfortunately, this was not the perspective of James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution. James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792 in a letter to Henry Lee, “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.” [Brant, Irving the Fourth President - A Life of James Madison Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers) Ltd. London, 1970] Instead, the Founding Fathers saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for government provision of charity. Madison observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” [Madison, Hamilton, Jay in Federalist, No. 10] In other words, if charity were the responsibility of the government, the process would be (and has) become compromised and politicians would conspire with special interest to trade votes. The New Deal was characterized by this type of political corruption. [Folsom, B., New Deal Or Raw Deal, © 2008] The Founders, I believe, intended the General Welfare Clause to be interpreted as the pre-amble to the specifically enumerated powers that follow in the remaining clauses of Article 1, Section 8, which specifically define the terms introduced in Clause1.
Only Big Government Can Solve this Problem
Big government is not good at solving large problems: politicians’ behavior is generally motivated by political expediency and the next election cycle. George Santayana wrote in Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In other words, perhaps one should look to government’s past success in solving large problems, like Social Security, before another 20% of the economy is nationalized. When an accountant quizzed Roosevelt about the Ponzi scheme-like economic issues with social security, he said “I guess you are right about the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through … with those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.” [“Statements on Taxes by Members of this Administration in 1939,” in Morgenthau Diary, January 5, 1939]. Roosevelt’s perspective proved to be correct. Seventy years later, Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid have an off-balance sheet liability of $50T to $55T. This is equivalent to the annual GDP of all the people on the planet (currently 6B) working for one year or approximately 4 years of the GDP of the United States. In fact, Social Security, like nationalized healthcare, was presented as insurance, when in fact the “revenue” received from current payees was never invested in a sinking fund, but instead was transferred to the treasury, in exchange for an IOU, to meet ongoing obligations. The federal government makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.
I could expand the list of examples of government mismanagement beyond social security to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Amtrak, and others. In fact, I cannot think of one large government project that has been brought in on scope, on time, on budget and then economically operated. So suppose I am incorrect, the progressives faith in government management is well placed, and Obama is correct: 50M people need to receive healthcare and currently are not receiving it because they are uninsured. Well the bad news is even the Chief Organizer cannot appoint a Medical Czar who can create a sufficient number of qualified, licensed MDs, within the next ten years, to cover the new demand (some subset of ~45M people) that will be placed on the system. Because of caps placed on licensure of doctors in the 1980s and 1990s, during which period the population grew by 45 million, and the fact that over 200,000 licensed physicians start to retire in 2012, sufficient medical doctor capacity will not be available to meet the demand unless the government attracts doctors from abroad. So, according to the law of supply and demand, either the price will go through the roof OR care will have to be rationed. Personally, at the age of 60, I do not like this last option, given that I have acted responsibly to fund my own retirement, medical care, and (hopefully) some small pittance of social security.
Conclusion
I am opposed to the government competing with private enterprise in the area of healthcare. I think Obama has it backwards. Maybe just maybe, healthcare is a mess because the government has imposed itself in the free market. Instead of private insurers’ greedy profit motive, the lack of substantive tort reform, layers of regulation, and establishing artificial prices for services in Medicare and Medicaid have contributed to a system that is broken. Currently more than 1,500 private companies provide health insurance: competition is not an issue. Government intervention will only use the power of the public purse to impose further mandates that will break the system further. In the process, government will tax us further, making us into economic slaves with unaffordable healthcare.
Last, if the government is such a great manager, why are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid facing economic collapse? Using the social progressive's logic, perhaps government could use some competition from private enterprise. Sorry, I forgot, that was a Republican proposal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)