I am very worried about the future of this country. I fear the future, not out self-interest, but for the well being of my three children. I’ve historically not been too interested in politics during my 48 years, but the current administration’s policies have energized me. I was further energized to write these comments after I read about the liabilities that have been incurred by various levels of government (federal, state, and local). These liabilities include “official amounts” per government accounting standards, as well as “off the books” liabilities. The total amount of official and unofficial debt amounted to $127 Trillion. This mountain of debt is disturbing. I think about what combination of tax increases and/or budget cuts that would be required to reduce this debt to a sustainable level (in terms of our ability to service the debt). Given that the top 5% of taxpayers already pay 60% of income taxes, we would need a broad based tax increase, or higher taxes on the top 5%. The latter course reminded me of a quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher – “The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
I’ve also seen analysis that suggests that once you get to a Debt as a percentage of GDP level of 90%, you shave a full percentage point off of growth in GDP. With GDP running around $14-15 trillion, we are already there. Such an impact on the growth of the economy will not help with the unemployment problem, where over 9% of Americans are out of a job.
The pressure to do something about spending is complicated by the fact that the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of income taxes. What is the incentive of the bottom 50%, who pay the remaining 3% of income taxes to vote for candidates who espouse fiscal responsibility?
If we do not deal with these issues, ultimately, we will see a devaluation of the U.S. Dollar, higher interest rates (as creditors demand compensation for the weak currency, and further decline in the credit quality of U.S. Government bonds). However, right now, U.S. Government bonds are benefitting from a flight to quality given the turmoil in EU countries unsustainable debt and spending cycle. Clearly, we are headed in the same direction of the EU economies, in that government is too big, making promises that can’t be funded. Right now, we are able to finance those promises with debt, as U.S. government bonds are the “nicest house in a really bad neighborhood.”
Adding all of these issues together, I feel like I am standing on a train track while a high speed train is hurtling towards me and my family. What can I do? Is it possible that I am a fool for having saved for my kids’ college education, or saving for retirement, or saving for a rainy day? When those expenses come due, will my dollars be worth anything as a result of our governments’ fiscal irresponsibility?
As someone who was raised by “penny-pinchers,” who also wanted to provide for a quality education for their children, I am a saver. It’s in my DNA. However, with each passing day, I feel foolish for saving. It seems like our central bank is keeping rates low to encourage risk taking by investors. However, given the anti-free market policies of our current administration, it’s had to get too excited about taking on additional risk.
The current administration, despite having campaigned on platform that included respecting the Rule of Law, has turned into a bully. It started with banks (under President Bush), which were, in certain cases, bullied into accepting TARP funds, despite the fact that they didn’t want it and didn’t need it. Under Obama, the administration favored unions over secured bond holders at Chrysler. Then they denied white collar pensions at Delphi while preserving union penions. Then it spread to the health insurers, who are apparently seen by Obama as public utilities, not as profit seeking, shareholder own private entities. Now we have the President bullying BP into funding a “honey pot” of cash for spill victims. BP already said that they would cover these expenses, and if they did not, then the legal system would have made them. For a U.S. President to appoint himself Judge, Jury and Executioner worries me. If he can do this to a multi-national corporation, what protections do we have?
Put all of this together and I am very despondent about the America my children will inherit from the current generation.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
All is not lost (I hope)
With each passing day, I become more demoralized by the destruction of our economy, or liberty and our country. May respected polling organizations still indicate that a significant portion of the population sees Obama in a positive light. I try to keep a positive outlook, but some days, it just too much. I guess it comes from a staff of advisors, few of which actually worked for a living, but every day, Obama is demonizing some business. Does he know that the America's Free Market System has distinguished our country from the rest of the world? I often come back to some Rasmussen Data prior to the "approval" of Obama care. I took the data and organized it by the difference between "Strongly Oppose" and "Strongly Favor." There were 32 "slices" of the data. Twenty six of the thirty two slices has a net "Strongly Oppose" score. Looking at those in the "Strongly Oppose" camp, I was encouraged that not all those people who would arguably benefit from government handouts were in favor of the Health care Handout. So, I try to remind myself that average middle class folks are not in line for Obama's deficit funded handouts. There is hope. Below are the "slices" of the Rasmussen data that keep the light at the end of the tunnel lit.
Net Strongly Oppose (starting with most opposed):
Net Strongly Oppose (starting with most opposed):
- Republicans
- Conservatives
- Those making $75k-$100k
- Age 40-49
- Age 50-64
- Not sure of political ideology
- White
- "Other" party
- Income $60k-$75k
- Income $100k+
- Males
- Have Health Insurance
- Age 18-29
- Age 65+
- Females
- Income $40k-$60k
- Income $20k-$40k
- Age 30-39
- Moderates
- Those with no insurance
- Liberal
- Black
- Democrat
- Not sure (do you have insurance)
- Other (race)
- Income less than $20k
Friday, March 5, 2010
This is my recent letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal.
What would columnist Gerald Seib have the Republicans do? According to polls, Americans are against most of President Barack Obama's policies: his version of health-care reform, the cap-and-tax bill, the bailouts of the auto unions, wasting money in the stimulus package and out-of-control spending. When Republicans fight against these policies, are they being partisan or responsible?
We need to shrink government, lower the tax burden on individuals and companies, and take national security more seriously. Outside of that, I think gridlock is good. Do we really want either party to have a free ride in passing legislation?
Here is the link to the article (I hope it works)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704194504575031033202535438.html
What would columnist Gerald Seib have the Republicans do? According to polls, Americans are against most of President Barack Obama's policies: his version of health-care reform, the cap-and-tax bill, the bailouts of the auto unions, wasting money in the stimulus package and out-of-control spending. When Republicans fight against these policies, are they being partisan or responsible?
We need to shrink government, lower the tax burden on individuals and companies, and take national security more seriously. Outside of that, I think gridlock is good. Do we really want either party to have a free ride in passing legislation?
Here is the link to the article (I hope it works)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704194504575031033202535438.html
The President's Health Plan Won’t Cut the Budget Deficit
I have tried to move away from posting other people's work on my blog, but I think this commetary is worth sharing as it cuts the heart out of Obama's budget spin on his "Reform" proposal. This will equally apply to the CBO score (they can only score what they are given and have limited ability to acknowledge the "gimmicks" that are used by Obama & Team). The author of this piece is James Capretta, a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He served as an associate director at the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
One of the central arguments President Barack Obama has made on behalf of the health care plan he wants Congress to approve in coming weeks is that it would begin to address the problem of rising costs and thus also begin to bring down future federal budget deficits.
But will it?
The president’s plan has not yet been assessed by the Congressional Budget Office. But CBO has provided a cost estimate for the Senate-passed bill, upon which the president’s proposal is built. That estimate shows the Senate bill would reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion through 2019. CBO also says that the Senate bill would likely reduce projected deficits even more during the second decade of implementation.
But, as Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin noted at last week’s Blair House meeting, there are a number of reasons to be skeptical about this claim.
For starters, the Senate bill omits the president’s proposal to permanently restore a 21 percent reduction in Medicare’s fees for physician services, now in effect as of March 1. The administration estimates that overriding this cut will cost $371 billion through 2020. Last summer, the House planned to include a permanent repeal of the cut in its health reform bill. But when the president imposed a 10-year budget of $900 billion on the reform legislation, Democratic leaders decided to pull the physician fee spending out of it and pass it separately.
The health bill includes scores of Medicare provisions, touching on just about every aspect of the program. The only major Medicare provision not in the bill is the costly “doc fix.” And the only reason for the omission is to make the total cost of the health reform bill appear lower. But passing the “doc fix” in a separate bill doesn’t make the cost go away. When the president’s entire health care agenda, including the “doc fix,” is tallied up, there is no deficit reduction over the next 10 years.
Ryan noted in his remarks at Blair House that the Senate bill would start up a new long-term care insurance program for the disabled. Participants would be required to pay in premiums for a number of years before becoming eligible for any benefits. Consequently, in the new program’s early years, there would a surplus, which CBO estimates at $73 billion over 10 years. The president’s claim of deficit reduction depends on double-counting these funds, first as an offset for the larger health care bill and then as a revenue source for long-term care insurance benefits beyond the 10-year window of the CBO estimate. Not only that, but it also creates a new entitlement program where, like Social Security and Medicaid, the premiums collected are spent rather than accumulating so that future service can be paid with the accumulated reserves rather than growing debt.
Over the long run, what matters in terms of the budget in the president’s health plan are the entitlement expansions, the effectiveness of “bending-the-cost-curve” measures, and the tax increases and spending cuts used to pay for broadened insurance coverage.
CBO expects the cost of the new entitlement spending aimed at coverage expansion in the Senate bill – the premium subsidies in the exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid -- to reach about $200 billion by 2019 and then grow at a rate of 8 percent every year thereafter. 8% per year means that it will DOUBLE every 9 years. In other words, this new health entitlement spending is expected to escalate just as rapidly as Medicare and Medicaid have in the past. CBO does not expect the “delivery system reforms” in the Senate bill, which are mainly small initiatives and pilot programs, to amount to much of anything in terms of cost control.
So how would the president pay for another expensive and rapidly growing entitlement? First, he would try to slow the rate of growth in the Medicare program, but not with new measures to weed out wasteful spending. His claim of long-term deficit reduction comes mainly from across-the-board payment rate reductions for hospitals, nursing homes and other providers of Medicare services. They would get a lower inflation update every year, in perpetuity. But these kinds of cuts do nothing to improve the efficiency of patient care or reward quality.
The chief actuary of the Medicare program has said repeatedly that these cuts are unrealistic because they would continuously cut reimbursements without touching the actual costs of providing care. He expects many facilities would be driven into serious financial distress. And without these Medicare cuts, the Senate bill is almost certainly a long-term budget buster.
The Senate bill also includes the so-called “Cadillac tax,” a new fee imposed on insurers and employers offering high-cost plans. As passed, this provision would generate substantial revenue in the second decade of implementation because the threshold for what constitutes “high cost” would rise much more slowly than medical inflation. Eventually, virtually the entire country would be in plans deemed “high cost.”
The president is relying heavily on the large, second-decade revenue increase associated with this tax for his claim of long-term deficit reduction. But just last week, under heavy pressure from union leaders, the president proposed to delay the tax from 2014 to 2018, well past the point when he will have left office. It will now raise almost nothing over the next 10 years, but the administration still claims credit for the sizeable revenue that would come in a second decade. That revenue would materialize, however, only if future officeholders were more willing than their counterparts today to impose large new taxes on a broad cross-section of the American middle class. They care less about the middle class, it's members of organized labor that they care about.
The federal government is piling up new debt at rates not seen since World War II. As Warren Buffett said recently, what the country desperately needs is a serious plan to slow the pace of rising health care costs.
What the president’s plan would deliver, however, is dead-certain entitlement spending, financed with speculative revenue and spending cuts that almost certainly will not work as advertised. The president says Congress should pass his plan to improve the budget outlook. In fact, Congress should reject it to protect the budget from more unfunded entitlement obligations.
One of the central arguments President Barack Obama has made on behalf of the health care plan he wants Congress to approve in coming weeks is that it would begin to address the problem of rising costs and thus also begin to bring down future federal budget deficits.
But will it?
The president’s plan has not yet been assessed by the Congressional Budget Office. But CBO has provided a cost estimate for the Senate-passed bill, upon which the president’s proposal is built. That estimate shows the Senate bill would reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion through 2019. CBO also says that the Senate bill would likely reduce projected deficits even more during the second decade of implementation.
But, as Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin noted at last week’s Blair House meeting, there are a number of reasons to be skeptical about this claim.
For starters, the Senate bill omits the president’s proposal to permanently restore a 21 percent reduction in Medicare’s fees for physician services, now in effect as of March 1. The administration estimates that overriding this cut will cost $371 billion through 2020. Last summer, the House planned to include a permanent repeal of the cut in its health reform bill. But when the president imposed a 10-year budget of $900 billion on the reform legislation, Democratic leaders decided to pull the physician fee spending out of it and pass it separately.
The health bill includes scores of Medicare provisions, touching on just about every aspect of the program. The only major Medicare provision not in the bill is the costly “doc fix.” And the only reason for the omission is to make the total cost of the health reform bill appear lower. But passing the “doc fix” in a separate bill doesn’t make the cost go away. When the president’s entire health care agenda, including the “doc fix,” is tallied up, there is no deficit reduction over the next 10 years.
Ryan noted in his remarks at Blair House that the Senate bill would start up a new long-term care insurance program for the disabled. Participants would be required to pay in premiums for a number of years before becoming eligible for any benefits. Consequently, in the new program’s early years, there would a surplus, which CBO estimates at $73 billion over 10 years. The president’s claim of deficit reduction depends on double-counting these funds, first as an offset for the larger health care bill and then as a revenue source for long-term care insurance benefits beyond the 10-year window of the CBO estimate. Not only that, but it also creates a new entitlement program where, like Social Security and Medicaid, the premiums collected are spent rather than accumulating so that future service can be paid with the accumulated reserves rather than growing debt.
Over the long run, what matters in terms of the budget in the president’s health plan are the entitlement expansions, the effectiveness of “bending-the-cost-curve” measures, and the tax increases and spending cuts used to pay for broadened insurance coverage.
CBO expects the cost of the new entitlement spending aimed at coverage expansion in the Senate bill – the premium subsidies in the exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid -- to reach about $200 billion by 2019 and then grow at a rate of 8 percent every year thereafter. 8% per year means that it will DOUBLE every 9 years. In other words, this new health entitlement spending is expected to escalate just as rapidly as Medicare and Medicaid have in the past. CBO does not expect the “delivery system reforms” in the Senate bill, which are mainly small initiatives and pilot programs, to amount to much of anything in terms of cost control.
So how would the president pay for another expensive and rapidly growing entitlement? First, he would try to slow the rate of growth in the Medicare program, but not with new measures to weed out wasteful spending. His claim of long-term deficit reduction comes mainly from across-the-board payment rate reductions for hospitals, nursing homes and other providers of Medicare services. They would get a lower inflation update every year, in perpetuity. But these kinds of cuts do nothing to improve the efficiency of patient care or reward quality.
The chief actuary of the Medicare program has said repeatedly that these cuts are unrealistic because they would continuously cut reimbursements without touching the actual costs of providing care. He expects many facilities would be driven into serious financial distress. And without these Medicare cuts, the Senate bill is almost certainly a long-term budget buster.
The Senate bill also includes the so-called “Cadillac tax,” a new fee imposed on insurers and employers offering high-cost plans. As passed, this provision would generate substantial revenue in the second decade of implementation because the threshold for what constitutes “high cost” would rise much more slowly than medical inflation. Eventually, virtually the entire country would be in plans deemed “high cost.”
The president is relying heavily on the large, second-decade revenue increase associated with this tax for his claim of long-term deficit reduction. But just last week, under heavy pressure from union leaders, the president proposed to delay the tax from 2014 to 2018, well past the point when he will have left office. It will now raise almost nothing over the next 10 years, but the administration still claims credit for the sizeable revenue that would come in a second decade. That revenue would materialize, however, only if future officeholders were more willing than their counterparts today to impose large new taxes on a broad cross-section of the American middle class. They care less about the middle class, it's members of organized labor that they care about.
The federal government is piling up new debt at rates not seen since World War II. As Warren Buffett said recently, what the country desperately needs is a serious plan to slow the pace of rising health care costs.
What the president’s plan would deliver, however, is dead-certain entitlement spending, financed with speculative revenue and spending cuts that almost certainly will not work as advertised. The president says Congress should pass his plan to improve the budget outlook. In fact, Congress should reject it to protect the budget from more unfunded entitlement obligations.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Remarks by the President on Health Care "Reform" and My Comments
For Immediate Release March 3, 2010
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON HEALTH CARE REFORM
East Room
1:50 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, all of you, for joining us today. And I want to thank Julie, Barbara, Roland, Stephen, Renee, and Christopher, standing behind me -- physicians, physicians assistants, and nurses who understand how important it is for us to make much needed changes in our health care system. Thanks for coming even though you were hand picked to be there and applaud my comments!
I want to thank all of you who are here today. I want to specially recognize two people who have been working tirelessly on that -- on this effort, my Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius -- (applause) -- as well as our quarterback for health reform out of the White House, Nancy-Ann DeParle. (Applause.) You've made multiple revisions to my "Reform" bills. I would also like to thank the Republican Party and the American people. If it were not for their steadfast opposition of the prior versions of my "Reform" bills, I wouldn't be able to tout this bill
We began our push to reform health insurance last March, in this room, with doctors and nurses who know the system best. And so it’s fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close.
Last Thursday, I spent seven hours at a summit where Democrats and Republicans engaged in a public and very substantive discussion about health care. This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. And since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health care has been said -- (laughter) -- and just about everybody has said it. (Laughter.) So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and America’s businesses. I have to bash insurance companies because I think people hate insurers more than they hate me.
Now, where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the American people. Health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. Families can’t afford it. Businesses can’t afford it. The federal government can’t afford it. Smaller businesses and individuals who don’t get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. And insurance companies freely ration health care You talk about controlling costs, but that is what insurers do. You may not like it, but it's better than one of your czars deciding what is covered. based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; who can pay and who can’t. That's the status quo. That's the system we have right now. Bullshit! Per the "conservative" Washington Post, "Although polls have consistently shown that just over half of Americans think the health-care system is in need of reform, a substantial majority say they are satisfied with their own insurance and care."
Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a serious problem for America. And we agree that if we do nothing -– if we throw up our hands and walk away -– it’s a problem that will only grow worse. Nobody disputes that. More Americans will lose their family's health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. More small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. More insurance companies will deny people coverage who have preexisting conditions, or they'll drop people's coverage when they get sick and need it most. And the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. On all of this we agree. So the question is, what do we do about it? So, he finally recognized that Medicare and Medicaid are sinking the government. Wasn't it that long ago, that Medicare and Medicaid expansions were the savior de jour for Obamacare?
On one end of the spectrum, there are some who've suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. Yeah, that was you! And though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic. Yeah, the Republicans and the American people taught you that lesson.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry -- whether it's state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. The argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. I disagree with that approach. I'm concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care. So, you recognize the fact that healthcare costs are rising, yet magically, insurance companies are not able to raise premiums? Do you think managed care companies are public utilities? There are few ways to control costs - ration care (you tried that and failed), institute price controls (you're going to try that with drug companies), or shift some of the burden of healthcare costs paid by healthcare consumers (currently 12-13 cents per dollar of hearlthcare spending). While that would be the best way to control costs, you know it would be a hard sell, so you ignore that option.
So I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance. I don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients. Will this also apply to Medicare and Medicaid? If so, then seniors could get the virtual colonoscopies that Obama is allowed to get now, but Medicare will not allow seniors to have this option. You act like Medicare and Medicaid don't tell doctors, nurses and physician assistants what they can and cannot do?
Now, the proposal I put forward gives Americans more control over their health insurance and their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Heard that before. I'll reserve judgment until we see the bill. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Heard that before. I'll reserve judgment until we see the bill. I can tell you as the father of two young girls, I would not want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor. Yet, not too long ago you were advocating an entire government bureaucracy to do that very thing!
Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system. First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a preexisting condition. Which, in isolation will drive up insurance premiums in the absence of an individual mandate. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California Arbitrary? The Insurance Commissioner of California approved those rate increases as a result of rising costs incurred by Wellpoint -- up to 39 percent increases in one year in the individual market. Those practices would end.
Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves -- because if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. And yet, this is the first version of Obamacare to acknowledge this.
The reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance market where insurance companies give better coverage and better rates, because they get more customers. It's an idea that many Republicans have embraced in the past, before politics intruded.
And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it's going to provide better deals for people than they can get right now in the individual marketplace, then we'll offer you tax credits to do so -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. After all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well off are able to get coverage through Medicaid. So it's the middle class that gets squeezed, and that’s who we have to help.
Now, it is absolutely true that all of this will cost some money -- about $100 billion per year. $100 billion, that's "Walking around" money for Obama. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care -- but a lot of it is not spent wisely. And who is to blame for this unwise spending? Patients? Doctors? Nurses? Physician Assistants? Your suggest you know better? A lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. So within this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go towards making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies; Will this be more industry taxes that will be passed on to the ultimate consumer? set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain a lot of money and a lot of profits as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance; and we're going to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share on Medicare No downside to taxing the rich, so long as they are not members of the AFL-CIO, SEIU or UAW.
The bottom line is our proposal is paid for. And all the new money generated in this plan goes back to small businesses and middle-class families who can't afford health insurance. It would also lower prescription drug prices for seniors. Because the Pharmaceutical Industry thought it was better to offer that concession rather than risk the rath of the the Chicago Cosa Nostra. And it would help train new doctors and nurses and physician assistants to provide care for American families.
Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions -- families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care --- ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade. By ripping off "rich" beneficaries!
Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to a trillion dollars over the next two decades -- brings down our deficit. We'll see what the CBO has to say. Those aren't my numbers; those are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress in terms of how much stuff costs. Is he talking about the Senate Bill or this version?
So that's our proposal. This is where we've ended up. It's an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. This is as close to a "Thank You" as our fellow "Obstructionists" will get. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans --- including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform, and curbing waste and fraud and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform -- provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans. And you had nothing to do with those back room deals?
Now, despite all that we agree on and all the Republican ideas we've incorporated, many -- probably most -- Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I've put forward. A childish "I dare you."
Now, some also believe that we should, instead of doing what I'm proposing, pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say we just can't afford to help them right now --- which is why the Republican proposal only covers 3 million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million.
The problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can't prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions; you can't limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets. The insurance reforms rest on everybody having access to coverage. And you also don't do anything about the fact that taxpayers currently end up subsidizing the uninsured when they're forced to go to the emergency room for care, to the tune of about a thousand bucks per family. You can't get those savings if those people are still going to the emergency room. So the fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all of these problems at once.
Now, both during and after last week's summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, I don't see how another year of negotiations would help. Well the last year (against your will) has resulted in a better bill.
Moreover, the insurance companies aren't starting over. They're continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade, or even more. The American people, and the U.S. economy, just can't wait that long. A majority of American want your to either start over or scrap the effort alltogether, So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Excluding members of Organized labor, since when do you or Congress give a shit about the American people?
We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for the past year but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the Children's Health Insurance Program, that was used for COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and, by the way, for both Bush tax cuts --- all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority. Have you forgotten all the times you labeled reconcilation as an "Abuse of Power?"
I, therefore, ask leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. (Applause.) And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well --- every family, every business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician’s assistant. Make your voice heard. What would you have the rest of us do?
This has been a long and wrenching debate. It has stoked great passions among the American people and their representatives. And that's because health care is a difficult issue. It is a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have been solved long ago. As all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. And as a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding. I think we would all agree that you are the king of "political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding."
But that’s not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead. That's not an excuse for us to walk away. We can’t just give up because the politics are hard. I know there’s been a fascination, bordering on obsession, in this media town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. How will this play? What will happen with the polls? I will leave it to others to sift through the politics, because that’s not what this is about. That’s not why we’re here. But it will be the reason you are sent packing!
This is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. This is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has. This is about what reform would mean for middle-class families who will be able to afford health insurance for the very first time in their lives and get a regular checkup once in a while, and have some security about their children if they get sick.
This is about what reform would mean for all those men and women I’ve met over the last few years who’ve been brave enough to share their stories. When we started our push for reform last year, I talked to a young mother in Wisconsin named Laura Klitzka. She has two young children. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but then later discovered it had spread to her bones. She and her husband were working and had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt. And now she spends time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well.
This should not happen in the United States of America. And it doesn’t have to. (Applause.)
In the end, that's what this debate is about. It's about what kind of country we want to be. The founding fathers have already defined what this country is. It's been that way for nearly 234 years. We don't need you to redefine America. To the extent that that has not dawned on you is disturbing. It's about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.
So at stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for you to raise the white flag. Do not pretent that you are acting with the interests of the American people. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. (Applause.) And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.
Thank you very much, everybody. Let's get it done. (Applause.) To my fellow Americans, we have to wait nearly 3 years before Obama runs for reelection. We have a lot of work to do to further weaken this far left President. It starts with the 2010 elections. Let's get it done (no applause expected)!!!
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government." -- Thomas Paine
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON HEALTH CARE REFORM
East Room
1:50 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, all of you, for joining us today. And I want to thank Julie, Barbara, Roland, Stephen, Renee, and Christopher, standing behind me -- physicians, physicians assistants, and nurses who understand how important it is for us to make much needed changes in our health care system. Thanks for coming even though you were hand picked to be there and applaud my comments!
I want to thank all of you who are here today. I want to specially recognize two people who have been working tirelessly on that -- on this effort, my Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius -- (applause) -- as well as our quarterback for health reform out of the White House, Nancy-Ann DeParle. (Applause.) You've made multiple revisions to my "Reform" bills. I would also like to thank the Republican Party and the American people. If it were not for their steadfast opposition of the prior versions of my "Reform" bills, I wouldn't be able to tout this bill
We began our push to reform health insurance last March, in this room, with doctors and nurses who know the system best. And so it’s fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close.
Last Thursday, I spent seven hours at a summit where Democrats and Republicans engaged in a public and very substantive discussion about health care. This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. And since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health care has been said -- (laughter) -- and just about everybody has said it. (Laughter.) So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and America’s businesses. I have to bash insurance companies because I think people hate insurers more than they hate me.
Now, where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the American people. Health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. Families can’t afford it. Businesses can’t afford it. The federal government can’t afford it. Smaller businesses and individuals who don’t get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. And insurance companies freely ration health care You talk about controlling costs, but that is what insurers do. You may not like it, but it's better than one of your czars deciding what is covered. based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; who can pay and who can’t. That's the status quo. That's the system we have right now. Bullshit! Per the "conservative" Washington Post, "Although polls have consistently shown that just over half of Americans think the health-care system is in need of reform, a substantial majority say they are satisfied with their own insurance and care."
Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a serious problem for America. And we agree that if we do nothing -– if we throw up our hands and walk away -– it’s a problem that will only grow worse. Nobody disputes that. More Americans will lose their family's health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. More small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. More insurance companies will deny people coverage who have preexisting conditions, or they'll drop people's coverage when they get sick and need it most. And the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. On all of this we agree. So the question is, what do we do about it? So, he finally recognized that Medicare and Medicaid are sinking the government. Wasn't it that long ago, that Medicare and Medicaid expansions were the savior de jour for Obamacare?
On one end of the spectrum, there are some who've suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. Yeah, that was you! And though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic. Yeah, the Republicans and the American people taught you that lesson.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry -- whether it's state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. The argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. I disagree with that approach. I'm concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care. So, you recognize the fact that healthcare costs are rising, yet magically, insurance companies are not able to raise premiums? Do you think managed care companies are public utilities? There are few ways to control costs - ration care (you tried that and failed), institute price controls (you're going to try that with drug companies), or shift some of the burden of healthcare costs paid by healthcare consumers (currently 12-13 cents per dollar of hearlthcare spending). While that would be the best way to control costs, you know it would be a hard sell, so you ignore that option.
So I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance. I don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients. Will this also apply to Medicare and Medicaid? If so, then seniors could get the virtual colonoscopies that Obama is allowed to get now, but Medicare will not allow seniors to have this option. You act like Medicare and Medicaid don't tell doctors, nurses and physician assistants what they can and cannot do?
Now, the proposal I put forward gives Americans more control over their health insurance and their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Heard that before. I'll reserve judgment until we see the bill. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Heard that before. I'll reserve judgment until we see the bill. I can tell you as the father of two young girls, I would not want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor. Yet, not too long ago you were advocating an entire government bureaucracy to do that very thing!
Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system. First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a preexisting condition. Which, in isolation will drive up insurance premiums in the absence of an individual mandate. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California Arbitrary? The Insurance Commissioner of California approved those rate increases as a result of rising costs incurred by Wellpoint -- up to 39 percent increases in one year in the individual market. Those practices would end.
Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves -- because if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. And yet, this is the first version of Obamacare to acknowledge this.
The reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance market where insurance companies give better coverage and better rates, because they get more customers. It's an idea that many Republicans have embraced in the past, before politics intruded.
And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it's going to provide better deals for people than they can get right now in the individual marketplace, then we'll offer you tax credits to do so -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. After all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well off are able to get coverage through Medicaid. So it's the middle class that gets squeezed, and that’s who we have to help.
Now, it is absolutely true that all of this will cost some money -- about $100 billion per year. $100 billion, that's "Walking around" money for Obama. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care -- but a lot of it is not spent wisely. And who is to blame for this unwise spending? Patients? Doctors? Nurses? Physician Assistants? Your suggest you know better? A lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. So within this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go towards making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies; Will this be more industry taxes that will be passed on to the ultimate consumer? set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain a lot of money and a lot of profits as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance; and we're going to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share on Medicare No downside to taxing the rich, so long as they are not members of the AFL-CIO, SEIU or UAW.
The bottom line is our proposal is paid for. And all the new money generated in this plan goes back to small businesses and middle-class families who can't afford health insurance. It would also lower prescription drug prices for seniors. Because the Pharmaceutical Industry thought it was better to offer that concession rather than risk the rath of the the Chicago Cosa Nostra. And it would help train new doctors and nurses and physician assistants to provide care for American families.
Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions -- families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care --- ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade. By ripping off "rich" beneficaries!
Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to a trillion dollars over the next two decades -- brings down our deficit. We'll see what the CBO has to say. Those aren't my numbers; those are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress in terms of how much stuff costs. Is he talking about the Senate Bill or this version?
So that's our proposal. This is where we've ended up. It's an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. This is as close to a "Thank You" as our fellow "Obstructionists" will get. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans --- including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform, and curbing waste and fraud and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform -- provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans. And you had nothing to do with those back room deals?
Now, despite all that we agree on and all the Republican ideas we've incorporated, many -- probably most -- Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I've put forward. A childish "I dare you."
Now, some also believe that we should, instead of doing what I'm proposing, pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say we just can't afford to help them right now --- which is why the Republican proposal only covers 3 million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million.
The problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can't prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions; you can't limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets. The insurance reforms rest on everybody having access to coverage. And you also don't do anything about the fact that taxpayers currently end up subsidizing the uninsured when they're forced to go to the emergency room for care, to the tune of about a thousand bucks per family. You can't get those savings if those people are still going to the emergency room. So the fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all of these problems at once.
Now, both during and after last week's summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, I don't see how another year of negotiations would help. Well the last year (against your will) has resulted in a better bill.
Moreover, the insurance companies aren't starting over. They're continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade, or even more. The American people, and the U.S. economy, just can't wait that long. A majority of American want your to either start over or scrap the effort alltogether, So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Excluding members of Organized labor, since when do you or Congress give a shit about the American people?
We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for the past year but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the Children's Health Insurance Program, that was used for COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and, by the way, for both Bush tax cuts --- all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority. Have you forgotten all the times you labeled reconcilation as an "Abuse of Power?"
I, therefore, ask leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. (Applause.) And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well --- every family, every business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician’s assistant. Make your voice heard. What would you have the rest of us do?
This has been a long and wrenching debate. It has stoked great passions among the American people and their representatives. And that's because health care is a difficult issue. It is a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have been solved long ago. As all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. And as a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding. I think we would all agree that you are the king of "political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding."
But that’s not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead. That's not an excuse for us to walk away. We can’t just give up because the politics are hard. I know there’s been a fascination, bordering on obsession, in this media town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. How will this play? What will happen with the polls? I will leave it to others to sift through the politics, because that’s not what this is about. That’s not why we’re here. But it will be the reason you are sent packing!
This is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. This is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has. This is about what reform would mean for middle-class families who will be able to afford health insurance for the very first time in their lives and get a regular checkup once in a while, and have some security about their children if they get sick.
This is about what reform would mean for all those men and women I’ve met over the last few years who’ve been brave enough to share their stories. When we started our push for reform last year, I talked to a young mother in Wisconsin named Laura Klitzka. She has two young children. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but then later discovered it had spread to her bones. She and her husband were working and had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt. And now she spends time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well.
This should not happen in the United States of America. And it doesn’t have to. (Applause.)
In the end, that's what this debate is about. It's about what kind of country we want to be. The founding fathers have already defined what this country is. It's been that way for nearly 234 years. We don't need you to redefine America. To the extent that that has not dawned on you is disturbing. It's about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.
So at stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for you to raise the white flag. Do not pretent that you are acting with the interests of the American people. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. (Applause.) And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.
Thank you very much, everybody. Let's get it done. (Applause.) To my fellow Americans, we have to wait nearly 3 years before Obama runs for reelection. We have a lot of work to do to further weaken this far left President. It starts with the 2010 elections. Let's get it done (no applause expected)!!!
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government." -- Thomas Paine
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A modest (by his standards) proposal for Obamacare we can support
One of the biggest obstacles to Obama's preferred version of Health Care Reform is the push back from private, for profit entities. They correctly view Obamacare as a threat to their growth and profits. If they were not profit seeking entities focused on growing their businesses (an unfortunate necessity of shareholder owned entities), they could go along with the Presidents reform package. That's the rub; They are profit seeking and they have a duty to maximize the value of the company for the benefit of shareholders. To the extent that the profit motive stands between the healthcare products and services and patients in need, my modest proposal for the President is as follows. There are 173 Health Care companies in the S&P 1500 (500 Large Cap, 400 Mid Cap and 600 Small Cap companies). Of these 173 companies, 162 generate profits. In fact, the total profits of these 162 companies is $115.6 billion dollars. The market capitalization of these companies is $1.4 trillion. I would think that Mr. Obama could buy all of these companies if he offered a healthy premium of 20%. Now, spending $1.7 trillion is a lot of money, but I'm sure Uncle Ben could order some more paper and ink. Now, with the profit motive no longer serving as an obstacle to getting the health care products and services to those who need them, it would seem like the stars would be aligned for Progressive nirvana. Just think of the things the government could do with complete ownership of the Health Care complex. They could:
- Stop seeking approval of products that have no proven clinical benefits
- No more needless tests and procedures
- No uncompensated care
- Use comparative research to decide what products to sell and which to kill
- Cut compensation of the government officials running these entities
- You could immediately eliminate direct-to-consumer advertising
- You could eliminate your sales force, as you would be selling products to yourself
- You could lower, if not eliminate price increases for your products and services
- In fact, you could sell your products at cost!
- You could eliminate the cost and distractions of patent challenges, as you own everybody
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
I am proud to be an American
It wasn't that long ago that I was angry about the 2008 Presidential vote. I saw it as American voting for big government, for handouts, for moving to the left for personal gain. I was wrong. I now think that many well meaning folks believed that Obama meant what he said. Clearly, he campaigned on one set of policies, but has advanced very different policies. I've had a growing sense of pride in America as people have recognized their error, and have moved in the opposite direction. The election "upsets" in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts are clear messages that Americans have had enough of the "Lurch to the Left." In fact, a recent Rasmussen poll indicated that 75% of voters are at least somewhat angry at the governments current policies. 63% say it would be better for the U.S. if most of Congress was not re-elected. Americans, like myself make mistakes, but we learn from our mistakes. My pride as an American was reinforced last weekend. We were at a swim meet, and as is custom, we sing the Star Spangled Banner before competition begins. However, at the beginning of the last session, the audio system malfunctioned. After some prodding from the announcer, everyone in the pool area sang the SSB acappella. It was a reminder that the core of America are hard working, law abiding, family oriented patriots. Now I'm the kind of guy that gets a lump in my throat when the SSB is being performed, but this night was especially powerful, and I thought to myself that "I am proud to be an American!"
Monday, January 25, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Be careful what you wish for!
The Risk of Catastrophic Victory (from Wall Street Journal)
Obama is in the midst of one. Can the GOP avert one of their own?
By PEGGY NOONAN
Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.
If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, "You didn't even waste our time successfully."
What a blunder this thing has been, win or lose, what a miscalculation on the part of the president. The administration misjudged the mood and the moment. Mr. Obama ran, won, was sworn in and began his work under the spirit of 2008—expansive, part dreamy and part hubristic. But as soon as he was inaugurated ,the president ran into the spirit of 2009—more dug in, more anxious, more bottom-line—and didn't notice. At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about. The great recession changed everything, but not right away.
In a way Mr. Obama made the same mistake President Bush did on immigration, producing a big, mammoth, comprehensive bill when the public mood was for small, discrete steps in what might reasonably seem the right direction.
The public in 2009 would have been happy to see a simple bill that mandated insurance companies offer coverage without respect to previous medical conditions. The administration could have had that—and the victory of it—last winter.
Instead, they were greedy for glory.
It was not worth it—not worth the town-hall uprisings and the bleeding of centrist support, not worth the rebranding of the president from center-left leader to leftist leader, not worth the proof it provided that the public's concerns and the administration's are not the same, not worth a wasted first year that should have been given to two things and two things only: economic matters and national security.
Those were not only the two topics on the public's mind the past 10 months, they were precisely the issues that presented themselves in screaming headlines at the end of the year: unemployment and the national-security breakdowns that led to the Christmas bomb plot and, earlier, the Fort Hood massacre. "That's two strikes," said the president's national security adviser, James Jones, to USA Today's Susan Page. Left unsaid: Three and you're out.
Just as bad, or worse, the president's focus on health care allowed the public to infer that his mind was not focused on our security. He'd frittered his attention on issues that were secondary and tertiary—climate change, health care—while al Qaeda moved, and the system stuttered. A lack of focus breeds bureaucratic complacency, complacency gives rise to slovenliness, slovenliness results in what was said in the report issued Thursday: that, faced with clear evidence of coming danger, the government failed, as they're saying on TV, to "connect the dots." Dots? They were boulders.
I am wondering if the Obama administration thinks it vaguely dishonorable to be popular. If you mention to Obama staffers that they really have to be concerned about the polls, they look at you with a certain . . . not disdain but patience, as if you don't understand the purpose of politics. That purpose, they believe, is to move the governed toward greater justice. Just so, but in democracy you do this by garnering and galvanizing public support. But they think it's weaselly to be well thought of.
In politics you must tend to the garden. The garden is the constituency, in Mr. Obama's case the country. No great endeavor is possible without its backing. In a modern presidency especially you have to know this, because there will be times when history throws you a crisis, and to address it you may have to do an unpopular thing. A president in those circumstances must use all the goodwill he's built up over the months and years to get through that moment and survive doing what he thinks is right. Mr. Obama acts as if he doesn't know this. He hasn't built up popularity to use on a rainy day. If he had, he'd be getting through the Christmas plot drama better than he is
The Obama people have taken to pointing out how their guy doesn't govern by the polls. This is all too believable. The Bush people, too, used to bang away about how he didn't govern by the polls. They both added unneeded stress to the past 10 years, and it is understandable if many of us now think, "Oh for a president who'd govern by the polls."
If Mr. Obama is extremely lucky—and we're not sure he's a lucky man anymore—he will get a Republican Congress in 2010, and they will do for him what Newt Gingrich did for Bill Clinton: right his ship, give him a foil, guide him while allowing him to look as if he's resisting, bend him while allowing him to look strong.
***
Which gets us to the Republicans. The question isn't whether they'll win seats in the House and Senate this year, and the question isn't even how many. The question is whether the party will be worthy of victory, whether it learned from its losses in 2006 and '08, whether it deserves leadership. Whether Republicans are a worthy alternative. Whether, in short, they are serious.
I spoke a few weeks ago with a respected Republican congressman who told me with some excitement of a bill he's put forward to address the growth of entitlements and long-term government spending. We only have three or four years to get it right, he said. He made a strong case. I asked if his party was doing anything to get behind the bill, and he got the blanched look people get when they're trying to keep their faces from betraying anything. Not really, he said. Then he shrugged. "They're waiting for the Democrats to destroy themselves."
This isn't news, really, but it was startling to hear a successful Republican political practitioner say it.
Republican political professionals in Washington assume a coming victory. They do not see that 2010 could be a catastrophic victory for them. If they seize back power without clear purpose, if they are not serious, if they do the lazy and cynical thing by just sitting back and letting the Democrats lose, three bad things will happen. They will contribute to the air of cynicism in which our citizens marinate. Their lack of seriousness will be discerned by the Republican base, whose enthusiasm and generosity will be blunted. And the Republicans themselves will be left unable to lead when their time comes, because operating cynically will allow the public to view them cynically, which will lessen the chance they will be able to do anything constructive.
In this sense, the cynical view—we can sit back and wait—is naive. The idealistic view—we must stand for things and move on them now—is shrewder.
Political professionals are pugilistic, and often see politics in terms of fight movies: "Rocky," "Raging Bull." They should be thinking now of a different one, of Tom Hanks at the end of "Saving Private Ryan." "Earn this," he said to the man whose life he'd helped save.
Earn this. Be worthy of it. Be serious.
====================================================================
"We" need a game plan. What do Americans want us to do? How do we go about doing those things (maybe we won't do all)? Can we have a candid conversation with the electorate about what needs to be done? We hear they are worried about out of control spending. Will they share the burden of cutbacks? They want entitlement reform. Are they willing to allow the "deal" to be modified? In 1994 we had the "Contract with America." We misread the election then (it wasn't about the contract, it was dissatisfaction with Clinton). Clearly Obama misread his election as a mandate for his policies. He will pay for that assumption this year and beyond (hopefully). We need to learn from this history. Don't misinterpret the upcoming elections. It's more about dissatisfaction with an overreaching party who is focused on the wrong things. If we are to fully capitalize on this opportunity to stop Obamanomics in their tracks, we need to be THE ANSWER in short order. Once the campaigns are over, we are on the hook for turning the battleship around!
Let's hope the GOP "get's it." Noonan would say NO. Let's hope the GOP is listening!
Obama is in the midst of one. Can the GOP avert one of their own?
By PEGGY NOONAN
Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.
If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, "You didn't even waste our time successfully."
What a blunder this thing has been, win or lose, what a miscalculation on the part of the president. The administration misjudged the mood and the moment. Mr. Obama ran, won, was sworn in and began his work under the spirit of 2008—expansive, part dreamy and part hubristic. But as soon as he was inaugurated ,the president ran into the spirit of 2009—more dug in, more anxious, more bottom-line—and didn't notice. At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about. The great recession changed everything, but not right away.
In a way Mr. Obama made the same mistake President Bush did on immigration, producing a big, mammoth, comprehensive bill when the public mood was for small, discrete steps in what might reasonably seem the right direction.
The public in 2009 would have been happy to see a simple bill that mandated insurance companies offer coverage without respect to previous medical conditions. The administration could have had that—and the victory of it—last winter.
Instead, they were greedy for glory.
It was not worth it—not worth the town-hall uprisings and the bleeding of centrist support, not worth the rebranding of the president from center-left leader to leftist leader, not worth the proof it provided that the public's concerns and the administration's are not the same, not worth a wasted first year that should have been given to two things and two things only: economic matters and national security.
Those were not only the two topics on the public's mind the past 10 months, they were precisely the issues that presented themselves in screaming headlines at the end of the year: unemployment and the national-security breakdowns that led to the Christmas bomb plot and, earlier, the Fort Hood massacre. "That's two strikes," said the president's national security adviser, James Jones, to USA Today's Susan Page. Left unsaid: Three and you're out.
Just as bad, or worse, the president's focus on health care allowed the public to infer that his mind was not focused on our security. He'd frittered his attention on issues that were secondary and tertiary—climate change, health care—while al Qaeda moved, and the system stuttered. A lack of focus breeds bureaucratic complacency, complacency gives rise to slovenliness, slovenliness results in what was said in the report issued Thursday: that, faced with clear evidence of coming danger, the government failed, as they're saying on TV, to "connect the dots." Dots? They were boulders.
I am wondering if the Obama administration thinks it vaguely dishonorable to be popular. If you mention to Obama staffers that they really have to be concerned about the polls, they look at you with a certain . . . not disdain but patience, as if you don't understand the purpose of politics. That purpose, they believe, is to move the governed toward greater justice. Just so, but in democracy you do this by garnering and galvanizing public support. But they think it's weaselly to be well thought of.
In politics you must tend to the garden. The garden is the constituency, in Mr. Obama's case the country. No great endeavor is possible without its backing. In a modern presidency especially you have to know this, because there will be times when history throws you a crisis, and to address it you may have to do an unpopular thing. A president in those circumstances must use all the goodwill he's built up over the months and years to get through that moment and survive doing what he thinks is right. Mr. Obama acts as if he doesn't know this. He hasn't built up popularity to use on a rainy day. If he had, he'd be getting through the Christmas plot drama better than he is
The Obama people have taken to pointing out how their guy doesn't govern by the polls. This is all too believable. The Bush people, too, used to bang away about how he didn't govern by the polls. They both added unneeded stress to the past 10 years, and it is understandable if many of us now think, "Oh for a president who'd govern by the polls."
If Mr. Obama is extremely lucky—and we're not sure he's a lucky man anymore—he will get a Republican Congress in 2010, and they will do for him what Newt Gingrich did for Bill Clinton: right his ship, give him a foil, guide him while allowing him to look as if he's resisting, bend him while allowing him to look strong.
***
Which gets us to the Republicans. The question isn't whether they'll win seats in the House and Senate this year, and the question isn't even how many. The question is whether the party will be worthy of victory, whether it learned from its losses in 2006 and '08, whether it deserves leadership. Whether Republicans are a worthy alternative. Whether, in short, they are serious.
I spoke a few weeks ago with a respected Republican congressman who told me with some excitement of a bill he's put forward to address the growth of entitlements and long-term government spending. We only have three or four years to get it right, he said. He made a strong case. I asked if his party was doing anything to get behind the bill, and he got the blanched look people get when they're trying to keep their faces from betraying anything. Not really, he said. Then he shrugged. "They're waiting for the Democrats to destroy themselves."
This isn't news, really, but it was startling to hear a successful Republican political practitioner say it.
Republican political professionals in Washington assume a coming victory. They do not see that 2010 could be a catastrophic victory for them. If they seize back power without clear purpose, if they are not serious, if they do the lazy and cynical thing by just sitting back and letting the Democrats lose, three bad things will happen. They will contribute to the air of cynicism in which our citizens marinate. Their lack of seriousness will be discerned by the Republican base, whose enthusiasm and generosity will be blunted. And the Republicans themselves will be left unable to lead when their time comes, because operating cynically will allow the public to view them cynically, which will lessen the chance they will be able to do anything constructive.
In this sense, the cynical view—we can sit back and wait—is naive. The idealistic view—we must stand for things and move on them now—is shrewder.
Political professionals are pugilistic, and often see politics in terms of fight movies: "Rocky," "Raging Bull." They should be thinking now of a different one, of Tom Hanks at the end of "Saving Private Ryan." "Earn this," he said to the man whose life he'd helped save.
Earn this. Be worthy of it. Be serious.
====================================================================
"We" need a game plan. What do Americans want us to do? How do we go about doing those things (maybe we won't do all)? Can we have a candid conversation with the electorate about what needs to be done? We hear they are worried about out of control spending. Will they share the burden of cutbacks? They want entitlement reform. Are they willing to allow the "deal" to be modified? In 1994 we had the "Contract with America." We misread the election then (it wasn't about the contract, it was dissatisfaction with Clinton). Clearly Obama misread his election as a mandate for his policies. He will pay for that assumption this year and beyond (hopefully). We need to learn from this history. Don't misinterpret the upcoming elections. It's more about dissatisfaction with an overreaching party who is focused on the wrong things. If we are to fully capitalize on this opportunity to stop Obamanomics in their tracks, we need to be THE ANSWER in short order. Once the campaigns are over, we are on the hook for turning the battleship around!
Let's hope the GOP "get's it." Noonan would say NO. Let's hope the GOP is listening!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Someone tell the pay czar to check out State & Local Governments!
States are exhibiting the type of fiscal responsibility that we need at the Federal level. That being said, it seems that there is room for more cuts. According the the CATO Institutes Tax and Budget Bulletin, State & Local employees total compensation and availability of benefits is significantly better than the private sector. This is true across the board, from high union share to low union share. Who would have thought the government would be a plush gig? According to CATO, in 2008, wages and benefits of $1.1 trillion accounted for half of total state and local government spending. This is close to the compensation share at Wall Street firms! This is important for other reasons - it's not uncommon for State and Local Pension/Benefit plans to be significantly underfunded (i.e. guess who picks up the tab?). Below are the key tables from the CATO report (link to full report below).
Monday, January 11, 2010
Taking Chance - Movie Review
I stopped by the local Blockbuster recently looking for movies to watch over the weekend. Given the cold and snow, I thought I should get several movies. One movie I chose without any idea what the movie was about was "Taking Chance" with Kevin Bacon. I was so surprised by this movie, and I would highly recommend this movie. It reminds one how wonderful this country is and how patriotic the majority of Americans are. The movie is about two people, Private First Class Chance R Phelps (19) and Lieutenant Colonel Michael "Mike" Strobl. We never really meet Chance, as he was killed in action on Good Friday in 2004. Strobl expressed an interest in performing "escort duty." We find out late in the movie that Strobl if feeling gulity that some of the men he served with in Desert Storm were serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the time this takes place, Strobl has an administrative job with the Marine Corps Base Quantico in Quantico Virginia. Strobl is assigned to escort the remains of Chance Phelps to his final resting point in Wyoming. The story follows Strobl and Chance as they make their way from Dover Air Force Base to DuBois, WY. All along the way from the mortuary team at Dover who prepared Chance's body for the coffin (cleaning him, cleaning his personal effects, dressing him in full dress) to all the people Strobl encounters as he flies from Dover to Philadelphia, to Minneapolis and finally Billings, MT. The respect that Chance is shown along this journey is very moving. The gratitude shown by the Phelps family and the friends and aquaitances of Chance is very much a surprise to Strobl. He seems like he got more out of the experience than anyone. Strobl ends his story with the following "I left DuBois in the morning before sunrise for my long drive back to Billings. It had been my honor to take Chance to his final post. Now his is on the high ground overlooking his town. I miss him."
It is hard to think about the fact that there are soldiers out there every day carrying out this difficult duty to honor our fallen with honor, dignity and respect. The military doesn't get much respect these days, and that starts with "Our" President. I hope the escorts, the families and those still serving know that the average American holds them in the highest regard. This movie is worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
