In June 2010 while the American people were focused on the Gulf oil spill, Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13544. This EO indirectly links America’s health policy to the UN’s “voluntary” standard “Codex Alimentarius” (CA) – the UN’s worldwide plan for food standards – through the World Trade Organization. WTO has adopted CA as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection. As a participant in WTO, the United States must comply with “findings” by WTO on international trade policy disputes.
Specifically, Executive Order 13544, Section 6, paragraphs (f) and (g) state that the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council – yet another bureaucratic committee -- shall submit a report to the President annually that “contains specific plans to ensure that all Federal health-care programs are fully coordinated with science-based prevention recommendations by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”[Emphasis mine]
In other words, by embracing the standard that all programs outside of DHS are “science-based,” Americans must subordinate their freedom to choose what is right for them to the fiats of an international body. How so? All WTO has to do is claim that alternative medicines, vitamins, and health supplements are “non-scientific” or impose mandatory labeling / testing requirements that make them uneconomic, and they will be effectively banned, as a condition of trade.
Evidence exists to support that this scenario. In 1996, the German delegation to the Codex Alimentarius Commission put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs. The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation. At the 28th Session of the Commission, held in July 2005, the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements" were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines. Many member countries can choose to regulate dietary supplements as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category. Supplements are not explicitly banned, but the language subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, sets criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and requires that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources.
Actions like the one described above will result in alternative / homeopathic medicine, including supplements, being regulated out of existence. This is a direct assault on individual liberty: if enacted it will ultimately limit an individual’s medicinal choices to only those regulated by the federal government and "big "pharma. A point may come in every American citizen's life when pharmaceutical drugs may not be affordable, and he or she must rely more heavily on lower cost, homeopathic remedies. That is an individual’s choice, not the government's.
The President’s action violates every American’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is inconsistent with American values and adds more complexity to an already overly complex regulatory schema.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, May 16, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Commons Cent$: You Should Get More Than What You Pay For
Today was a bizarre day: first, I was approached by a woman at Starbuck’s who thought I was a liberal and then was sucked into a threaded discussion by what appeared to be a group of conservatives discussing whether or not the Ryan plan would save the Ponzi scheme we know as Medicare. I easily convinced the Starbuck’s patron she had seriously misjudged me. I am not so sure that I had any luck convincing anyone that whatever the Ryan plan “saves” is immaterial: Medicare in its current form is a Ponzi scheme much grander than anything Maddoff concocted and, not withstanding its arguable unconstitutionality, it is unsustainable on a purely economic basis.
To understand why Medicare and “entitlements,” in general, are economically unsustainable, one need only apply common sense and understand the simple psychological principle that all behavior is motivated, you only need to understand the motivation.
If the Government offers to an electorate a good or service, which they otherwise individually cannot afford, they demand it. “Hey, Kris is paying for it and, besides, I NEED it.”
Once the electorate becomes accustomed to receiving the good or service and figures out all they have to do is vote for it and not work to pay for it, they demand even more. “What’s going to happen to me, if I lose my coverage? I can’t afford it, but I can vote for Harry Reid, who will pass a law that Kris must pay for it, or he will go to prison. And besides, he can afford it.”
When the government cannot afford to cover the benefit anymore because too few people are working to support the “benefits” being drawn from the system (“tax revenues are down”), the Government passes euphemistically titled laws (“the Affordable Healthcare Protection Act”) to reduce the “price” (not the cost) of the good or service below what it actually costs to produce it ("make healthcare affordable for everyone"). This sends a false signal to the market that more supply exists than demand, so demand goes up further.
The people supplying the good or service (doctors in this case) become overwhelmed with work, are undercompensated for their work (hey, the government has set an “affordable’ price for the consumer), and are unable to invest in their practices because they are not covering their cost. Quality of care goes down, the practice suffers from lack of ongoing investment, and ultimately the doctor closes his practice or simply walks away.
Overwhelmed, the whole healthcare system collapses on itself and instead of price controlling the market, some so-called “overworked, underpaid” un-elected bureaucrat, who only works from 9 – 5, M-F rations healthcare. Waiting lines go up, and mortality rates for previously easily treatable, common diseases go up (but theoretically there is equality of outcome: “rich people” paying of the good or service die at the same average age as “poor people”).
The social progressives justify this healthcare scenario and other social programs as a “right” based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution which 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 [emphasis mine] 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 & Spottswoode (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.
What is it about logic and common sense that liberals do not get? If they wish to better mankind, then they should eliminate an inefficient, ineffective government from being the middleman and use the wealth THEY create to: (1) directly meet the needs they see; (2) build and invest in non-profits; or (3) ASK their family, friends, or church for a handout. If asking is so painful, perhaps they would opt to get a job.
Progressives have perverted the old sayings that served this country well: instead of “charity starts at HOME,” they believe “charity starts at HUD.”
If something does not change, we all will need to learn the new progressive tagline: “you SHOULD GET MORE than what you pay for.”
To understand why Medicare and “entitlements,” in general, are economically unsustainable, one need only apply common sense and understand the simple psychological principle that all behavior is motivated, you only need to understand the motivation.
If the Government offers to an electorate a good or service, which they otherwise individually cannot afford, they demand it. “Hey, Kris is paying for it and, besides, I NEED it.”
Once the electorate becomes accustomed to receiving the good or service and figures out all they have to do is vote for it and not work to pay for it, they demand even more. “What’s going to happen to me, if I lose my coverage? I can’t afford it, but I can vote for Harry Reid, who will pass a law that Kris must pay for it, or he will go to prison. And besides, he can afford it.”
When the government cannot afford to cover the benefit anymore because too few people are working to support the “benefits” being drawn from the system (“tax revenues are down”), the Government passes euphemistically titled laws (“the Affordable Healthcare Protection Act”) to reduce the “price” (not the cost) of the good or service below what it actually costs to produce it ("make healthcare affordable for everyone"). This sends a false signal to the market that more supply exists than demand, so demand goes up further.
The people supplying the good or service (doctors in this case) become overwhelmed with work, are undercompensated for their work (hey, the government has set an “affordable’ price for the consumer), and are unable to invest in their practices because they are not covering their cost. Quality of care goes down, the practice suffers from lack of ongoing investment, and ultimately the doctor closes his practice or simply walks away.
Overwhelmed, the whole healthcare system collapses on itself and instead of price controlling the market, some so-called “overworked, underpaid” un-elected bureaucrat, who only works from 9 – 5, M-F rations healthcare. Waiting lines go up, and mortality rates for previously easily treatable, common diseases go up (but theoretically there is equality of outcome: “rich people” paying of the good or service die at the same average age as “poor people”).
The social progressives justify this healthcare scenario and other social programs as a “right” based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution which 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 [emphasis mine] 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 & Spottswoode (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.
What is it about logic and common sense that liberals do not get? If they wish to better mankind, then they should eliminate an inefficient, ineffective government from being the middleman and use the wealth THEY create to: (1) directly meet the needs they see; (2) build and invest in non-profits; or (3) ASK their family, friends, or church for a handout. If asking is so painful, perhaps they would opt to get a job.
Progressives have perverted the old sayings that served this country well: instead of “charity starts at HOME,” they believe “charity starts at HUD.”
If something does not change, we all will need to learn the new progressive tagline: “you SHOULD GET MORE than what you pay for.”
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
USA Overboard: Port Side
In the Virginian Pilot editorial “Going Overboard in Quest for Oil” (Pilot, May 10, 2011), the Pilot implies that Rep. Rigell and Rep. Wittman abandoned reason and, like lemmings, voted en masse with the their “partisan bosses … to force Virginia to exchange its interests for what amounts to promises that have proven empty time and time again.” In its tirade, the Pilot cites some facts. But facts are not necessarily the same as truth, although that is a hard concept for progressives – even when they actually use facts – to accept.
Assume the Pilot was right on two points: “… the United States does not have enough oil to affect global markets” and “ … despite the fact that if there is oil off Sandbridge, it will be years before it hits the pump.” Add to these “facts” that: (1) America has more energy reserves from ALL sources than any other country in the world and (2) technologically and economically it is feasible to extract oil based products from shale, coal, and sources of oil supply which 40 years ago were non-economic. The problem statement changes: it is not that we do not have sufficient fungible sources of energy to “bend” the cost curve; it is that we conflate “engineering economics” with “political science.” Put bluntly, if all options were on the table and the free market were allowed to work, oil off the coast of Virginia will not be extracted if is not technologically and economically viable to do so. However, by irrationally raising public fear, the progressive left hopes to raise regulatory transaction cost and eliminate energy options they don’t like. That is the same path we ventured down 40 “years ago” with nuclear energy, which is now considered “green.” Today, if we had safe, abundant nuclear energy like France, which is 80% nuclear, we would be converting coal to oil and driving electric vehicles.
In fact, I believe Rep. Rigell and Rep. Wittman, among others, recognize that the solution to our energy problems is to start now if we want to be energy independent in 40 years, embrace all technologically viable energy sources, and let them compete on their intrinsic economics not on fear, hybperbole, villiany, and politics.
Assume the Pilot was right on two points: “… the United States does not have enough oil to affect global markets” and “ … despite the fact that if there is oil off Sandbridge, it will be years before it hits the pump.” Add to these “facts” that: (1) America has more energy reserves from ALL sources than any other country in the world and (2) technologically and economically it is feasible to extract oil based products from shale, coal, and sources of oil supply which 40 years ago were non-economic. The problem statement changes: it is not that we do not have sufficient fungible sources of energy to “bend” the cost curve; it is that we conflate “engineering economics” with “political science.” Put bluntly, if all options were on the table and the free market were allowed to work, oil off the coast of Virginia will not be extracted if is not technologically and economically viable to do so. However, by irrationally raising public fear, the progressive left hopes to raise regulatory transaction cost and eliminate energy options they don’t like. That is the same path we ventured down 40 “years ago” with nuclear energy, which is now considered “green.” Today, if we had safe, abundant nuclear energy like France, which is 80% nuclear, we would be converting coal to oil and driving electric vehicles.
In fact, I believe Rep. Rigell and Rep. Wittman, among others, recognize that the solution to our energy problems is to start now if we want to be energy independent in 40 years, embrace all technologically viable energy sources, and let them compete on their intrinsic economics not on fear, hybperbole, villiany, and politics.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The 2011-2012 Virginia Beach Budget Battle: I See Trouble on the Way
The Virginian Pilot’s article “Good News, Bad News” (Pilot, May 4, 2011) reports that that Virginia Beach real estate and personal property taxes will remain unchanged, but homeowners will start paying a trash bill and higher storm water fees. In the City Manager's inimitable words “If we kick the can down the road again, we’ll pay more later …” I guess he hasn’t noticed, but it is later, we are paying more, and we do not have any more money to pay (See blog $2B or not $2B: That is the Question).
The article implies that fee increases and raising the debt limit are needed to save Virginia Beach’s aging infrastructure. That is not what the proposed budget suggests. The year-to-year increase in proposed expenditures is approximately $35M. Buried in the $1.7B City Budget Proposal Executive Summary, the table entitled “City and School Expenditures by Expenditure Account” reveals that of the $35M increase, $20M is related to salary, $15M is related to fringe benefits, and $6M is related to increases in pay-as-you go capital improvement projects, which is offset by $6M in other operating categories. Similarly, the $176M increase in the debt limit is not intended to improve basic infrastructure such as water and sewer, but to fund private / public sector projects that favor big business, such as the convention center hotel and redevelopment of the dome site.
Virginia Beach citizens are late to the game. The budget approval process is moving toward a May 10, 2011 vote, and the only public input was solicited at a public meeting on April 21, Maundy Thursday. In spite of a clear message – that now is not the time to raise taxes , raise the debt, and increase spending – which was sent to City Council by Republican Party conservatives, the Virginia Taxpayer Alliance, Campaign for Liberty, and the Hampton Roads Tea Party, it appears that City Council intends to do so.
Immediately following the public meeting, the Hampton Roads Tea Party (HRTP) provided City Council with a letter identifying areas in which it proposed $43M in spending cuts. While some of the recommended cuts may not be able to be made this year because of ongoing contractual obligations, HRTP has stated that it will be watching closely to ensure that:
1. Council makes sure that the City does not obligate itself to similar expenditures in the future and takes the necessary steps to not perform or privatize services that are non-core, discretionary / core, discretionary and are more appropriately performed by private enterprise;
2. Council makes clearly visible the funding of Comprehensive Plan “sustainability” initiatives that are tied to unelected, third-party mandates and drive up the cost of business (i.e., “green” building requirements that have increased the cost of proposed new schools and facilities and have questionable ROI); and
3. Council establishes performance benchmarks that ties City performance to costs and performance standards in the private sector and not to other government entities and cities that are clearly inappropriate (i.e., benchmarking Virginia Beach to Fairfax County).
Citizens are also very concerned about the City raising the per capita debt limit to raise hundreds of millions of dollars over the next several years to fund private / public partnerships. Government is not the public’s investment banker. Government’s purpose is not to pick winners and losers in the private sector in order to grow government revenue. Government should be in the business of constitutionally-limited governance that provides a level playing field for all. The City should limit its focus to public safety, education, and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, public buildings, etc.)
It appears that it is not going to be easy to win back fiscal control over our City government. But it is a battle many of us are willing to fight. Maybe Council is better served by listening to the inimitable words of Creedence Clearwater Revival, “I see the bad moon arising … I see trouble on the way … I see bad times today.”
The article implies that fee increases and raising the debt limit are needed to save Virginia Beach’s aging infrastructure. That is not what the proposed budget suggests. The year-to-year increase in proposed expenditures is approximately $35M. Buried in the $1.7B City Budget Proposal Executive Summary, the table entitled “City and School Expenditures by Expenditure Account” reveals that of the $35M increase, $20M is related to salary, $15M is related to fringe benefits, and $6M is related to increases in pay-as-you go capital improvement projects, which is offset by $6M in other operating categories. Similarly, the $176M increase in the debt limit is not intended to improve basic infrastructure such as water and sewer, but to fund private / public sector projects that favor big business, such as the convention center hotel and redevelopment of the dome site.
Virginia Beach citizens are late to the game. The budget approval process is moving toward a May 10, 2011 vote, and the only public input was solicited at a public meeting on April 21, Maundy Thursday. In spite of a clear message – that now is not the time to raise taxes , raise the debt, and increase spending – which was sent to City Council by Republican Party conservatives, the Virginia Taxpayer Alliance, Campaign for Liberty, and the Hampton Roads Tea Party, it appears that City Council intends to do so.
Immediately following the public meeting, the Hampton Roads Tea Party (HRTP) provided City Council with a letter identifying areas in which it proposed $43M in spending cuts. While some of the recommended cuts may not be able to be made this year because of ongoing contractual obligations, HRTP has stated that it will be watching closely to ensure that:
1. Council makes sure that the City does not obligate itself to similar expenditures in the future and takes the necessary steps to not perform or privatize services that are non-core, discretionary / core, discretionary and are more appropriately performed by private enterprise;
2. Council makes clearly visible the funding of Comprehensive Plan “sustainability” initiatives that are tied to unelected, third-party mandates and drive up the cost of business (i.e., “green” building requirements that have increased the cost of proposed new schools and facilities and have questionable ROI); and
3. Council establishes performance benchmarks that ties City performance to costs and performance standards in the private sector and not to other government entities and cities that are clearly inappropriate (i.e., benchmarking Virginia Beach to Fairfax County).
Citizens are also very concerned about the City raising the per capita debt limit to raise hundreds of millions of dollars over the next several years to fund private / public partnerships. Government is not the public’s investment banker. Government’s purpose is not to pick winners and losers in the private sector in order to grow government revenue. Government should be in the business of constitutionally-limited governance that provides a level playing field for all. The City should limit its focus to public safety, education, and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, public buildings, etc.)
It appears that it is not going to be easy to win back fiscal control over our City government. But it is a battle many of us are willing to fight. Maybe Council is better served by listening to the inimitable words of Creedence Clearwater Revival, “I see the bad moon arising … I see trouble on the way … I see bad times today.”
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Gas or Hot Air – The Sequel
According to Thomas Rosch in the Wall Street Journal (“Obama’s Political Price Gouging,” Opinion Section, May 2, 2011), the President and his Attorney General are forming a new “working group” to investigate “price gouging” at the gas pump (“White House’s Task Force to Probe Oil, Gas Markets,” U.S. News, April 22). This working group will come under the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which was constituted to prevent fraud in the financial and lending markets. This group will duplicate the functions of existing agencies – the Federal Trade Commission – which is already empowered to investigate and prevent “price gouging.”
Besides spending money on two different organizations to work at cross purposes on the same “problem,” this action demonstrates just how clueless the President really is: simple math demonstrates that it is the government itself that is “price gouging” the American public.
The following is based upon a blog I wrote May 18, 2008, when the Democrat-controlled Congress saw gas prices rising and the political left attacked the oil companies. Does it sound familiar?
“Congress is holding congressional hearings this week. They are beating up the oil executives in hopes that they will reduce their salaries so that the common man can make it to work tomorrow. At $4.00 per gallon for gas, reducing gas prices through means other than the law of supply and demand has become a national pastime. What have we learned from this circus?
“Congress has learned that the cost of a barrel of crude represents about 75% of the cost of a gallon of gas. Corporate profit represents 4% of the cost of a gallon. What about the other 21%?
“Well, here are some facts from the Energy Information Administration. In 2005, when gas was $2.27 per gallon, component costs were: (1) 10% distribution and marketing; (2) 18% refining cost and profit; (3) 19% Federal and State taxes; (4) 53% crude oil price. So, subtracting out the present day cost of the oil (75%) and profit (4%) and assuming the other costs remain proportionate to those in 2005, we can reliably state the following:
1. 75.0% goes to the crude oil provider (principally OPEC, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico).
2. 9.3% goes to Federal and State government.
3. 6.8% goes to refining;
4. 4.9% goes to distribution and marketing; and
5. 4.0% of a gallon of gas goes to oil company profits.”
Miracle of miracles! The oil companies are making less than 50% of that collected by the state and federal government AND the state and federal governments take no business risk. In fact, the government’s “profit” increases directly as the price of a gallon of gas rises, with no downside risk. Maybe we should ask our representatives, who seem not to understand economics OR basic math, to take a pay cut. Then again, maybe we can harness the energy in the hot air. We know they will never vote to use clean coal, oil in Anwar, or nuclear energy, which are in abundant supply.
The point today is the same as the point made in 2008: it’s not the oil companies that are “gouging” the American public. It is our government. Our Organizer in Chief needs to be sent a message: the average American is fed up with it, understands his game, and will stand with the free market before we stand with him.
A last thought: if the Republican-controlled Congress wishes to save some money, it should defund the President’s so-called “working” group. It might be good to remind him that Congress holds power over the purse.
Besides spending money on two different organizations to work at cross purposes on the same “problem,” this action demonstrates just how clueless the President really is: simple math demonstrates that it is the government itself that is “price gouging” the American public.
The following is based upon a blog I wrote May 18, 2008, when the Democrat-controlled Congress saw gas prices rising and the political left attacked the oil companies. Does it sound familiar?
“Congress is holding congressional hearings this week. They are beating up the oil executives in hopes that they will reduce their salaries so that the common man can make it to work tomorrow. At $4.00 per gallon for gas, reducing gas prices through means other than the law of supply and demand has become a national pastime. What have we learned from this circus?
“Congress has learned that the cost of a barrel of crude represents about 75% of the cost of a gallon of gas. Corporate profit represents 4% of the cost of a gallon. What about the other 21%?
“Well, here are some facts from the Energy Information Administration. In 2005, when gas was $2.27 per gallon, component costs were: (1) 10% distribution and marketing; (2) 18% refining cost and profit; (3) 19% Federal and State taxes; (4) 53% crude oil price. So, subtracting out the present day cost of the oil (75%) and profit (4%) and assuming the other costs remain proportionate to those in 2005, we can reliably state the following:
1. 75.0% goes to the crude oil provider (principally OPEC, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico).
2. 9.3% goes to Federal and State government.
3. 6.8% goes to refining;
4. 4.9% goes to distribution and marketing; and
5. 4.0% of a gallon of gas goes to oil company profits.”
Miracle of miracles! The oil companies are making less than 50% of that collected by the state and federal government AND the state and federal governments take no business risk. In fact, the government’s “profit” increases directly as the price of a gallon of gas rises, with no downside risk. Maybe we should ask our representatives, who seem not to understand economics OR basic math, to take a pay cut. Then again, maybe we can harness the energy in the hot air. We know they will never vote to use clean coal, oil in Anwar, or nuclear energy, which are in abundant supply.
The point today is the same as the point made in 2008: it’s not the oil companies that are “gouging” the American public. It is our government. Our Organizer in Chief needs to be sent a message: the average American is fed up with it, understands his game, and will stand with the free market before we stand with him.
A last thought: if the Republican-controlled Congress wishes to save some money, it should defund the President’s so-called “working” group. It might be good to remind him that Congress holds power over the purse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)