Just say AHHH (while we shove this down your throat).

42% want Federal Government to address health care (Rasmussen Polls).

“You can’t write a bill based on CBO, you have to write a bill based on what’s best for the country and get CBO to score it,” Schumer said. “It’s all in good faith and good spirit…It’s complicated. It’s many issues, and it takes awhile,”  — Chuck Schumer

That’s the deal with these Progressives. They work on the arrogant assumption that they know better than “We the People” what we need.  No need for you to worry about inalienable rights endowed by your Creator, when we have these guys to decide what our rights should be.  Why wouldn’t they worry about that Rasmussen poll?  They are sure that they can buy enough votes with the entitlement end of this plan that the 68% of us who want them to  quit it, won’t matter.  It worked for Mary Landrieu.

In case you are wondering, here is the list that is working over the weekend with the White House to get to a compromise “Public Option” that they think they can pass.

Chuck Schumer – NY
Harry Reid – NV
Jay Rockefeller – WV
Sherrod Brown – OH
Tom Harkin – IA
Russ Feingold – WI
Mary Landrieu – LA
Ben Nelson – NE
Tom Carper – DE
Mark Pryor – AR
Blanche Lincoln – AR
Joe Lieberman – CT

Economic Stimulus or Bailouts and the Bathtub

Back in the ’80s I was working for a major US corporation that was trying to manufacture and market a computer to the consumer market before most consumers had any idea they wanted computers. The people in charge of marketing and sales came upon the idea of offering all sales outlets a no-risk stocking plan. To the best of my recollection, the way it worked was that an outlet could warehouse and stock as many as they wanted. Payment was only due upon final sale to a customer. In a nutshell, they created a massive distributed stocking pipeline that was then filled with product that was technically still owned by the company. Sales were entered on the books when the product shipped from the factory, ignoring the non-standard net-due agreements. There were plenty of people in the company who raised the alarm early-on that the plan violated accepted accounting practices. They pointed out that we were hiring, expending resources, and consuming material based on I.O.U.’s written to ourselves. The proponents kept pointing to the “sales” numbers; in their minds, eventual profits were assured.

However, once stores figured out that most consumers didn’t know they wanted computers, they began to want their stocking space back. When they product began to be returned, all that creative book keeping began to come unraveled. The company donated computers to schools until they were saturated. Truckloads then went in the local landfill. Hundreds of technicians that I helped hire and train had to find other work.

The “economic stimulus” bill kind of works the same way, though there are a few different possible scenarios.

1. The government removes money from the economy by taxing businesses and individuals, and places it into the economy by giving it to other businesses or individuals. On the macro scale, this is a little like bailing water out of the bath tub and pouring it back into the same bath tub. The people doing the bailing get counted as the recipients of “created” jobs. On the micro scale, how this looks depends on whether one is on the removing end or receiving end of the redistribution. One thing to keep in mind in assessing this approach is that the people who had money to be taxed are the ones who had figured out how to make a profit (and create jobs) and the “bailees” are those who had not figured out how to make a profit or create jobs. Which do you want to reward?
2. The government prints money and places it into the economy by giving it to businesses and individuals. This might seem to avoid the taxes of (1) but in practice it works the same way by diluting the profits and property of the ones who had previously been making things go. Say you invest in company A which issues 100 shares of stock with the potential of a total profit $10 per (initial) share in two years. After one year, the company runs out of operating capital and issues another 100 shares of stock without any real upside to the valuation or eventual potential. Your expected gain just went down by half.
3. The government borrows money to accomplish 2, with all of the detriment thereof, plus the added benefit of interest owed.

All of these approaches incorporate a cardinal rule of politics: the politicians decide how to redistribute the money removed from the economy in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of reelection.  Can this work?  Let’s  say I take money from Bill Gates for example, and give it to nine other “deserving” individuals.  Bill won’t like it.  But he only gets one vote, even though we took enough to get nine others to vote for me.  That’s the root of the problem we have now.  Politicians have become experts at bribing people to vote for them.  Voters vote based on perceived personal benefit rather than on any kind of principals.   It takes uncommon character for an individual to voluntarily refuse the government windfall because he recognizes that it is making him complicit in the Progressive plot to inject government into every transaction and decision.

I’m going to have to restate that quote from Alexis de Tocqueville:  “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Nothing new under the sun.

“But see, we are slaves today, slaves in the land You gave our forefathers so they could eat its fruit and the other good things it produces.   Because of our sins, its abundant harvest goes to the kings You have placed over us. They rule over our bodies and our cattle as they please. We are in great distress. Nehemiah 9:36, 37

With passage of the health care bill, the government will rule over our bodies.  “They” have been ruling over our cattle (and other livelihood) since the 16th amendment was ratified February 3, 1913.

But back up a little to Nehemiah 9:28  – “But as soon as they were at rest, they again did what was evil in Your sight. Then You abandoned them to the hand of their enemies so that they ruled over them. And when they cried out to You again, you heard from heaven, and in Your compassion You delivered them time after time.

You know what to do.  If not, here is a hint: 2 Chronicles 2:14 — if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

A Day Late and a Dollar Short …

… where I came from that colloquialism is used to describe someone who exhibits lackluster commitment toward achieving true success.  The Commander in Chief is ninety days late and a fair number of troops short on his “strategy” for Afghanistan.  I have been reading the declassified version of the report that General McChrystal delivered to the Secretary of Defense on August 30th.  Today is December 1st.  The General made a compelling argument about time being of the essence in that report.  His strategy is clear and cogent and makes irrefutable common sense.  I pray that God will uphold our troops in spite of the lack of support in the Oval Office.  I have never before in my lifetime questioned that the President was on the same side as American troops in the field.  God help us.

Thanks, US Military Personnel!

This Thanksgiving weekend, as I enjoy time at home with my family, those of you who are standing tall in our military to protect American freedoms have been on my mind.  I thank you all, though mere gratitude seems a paltry offering compared to your sacrifice.  (In the same way that we have to recognize that Jesus’ sacrifice for us can never be repaid by human effort.)  I served six years in the U.S. Navy down toward the end of the Vietnam war, so I know something of what it is like to be young and away from loved ones for extended periods.  (I also know that my NAVY service was like a vacation cruise compared to the daily life of many of you who are currently in harm’s way.)  I am humbled by your dedication to duty and your willingness to sacrifice for the rest of us.  Thank you!  You are in my prayers.  May God bless and protect you.

Leave my sovereignty alone!

Because I live in the Eastern wilds of Iowa, as one might discern from earlier posts, I recently watched the C-Span video of Senator Chuck Grassley’s speech before the Saturday vote on whether to advance the health care bill (HR 3590) for debate.  Senator Grassley countered the Democratic stance that “nothing is worse than doing nothing” with compelling economic evidence that “this bill is worse than doing nothing”.  I thank Senator Grassley for endeavoring to be a voice of reason amidst chaos.  I have held the opinion that Senator Grassley has been part of the big-government problem.   But lately, I think he is learning to listen to his constituents and actually “gets it”.  He is taking much heat from the left for his opposition to the liberal agenda.   Which means that he is standing up for me.

Though Grassley’s speech fell on deaf ears in the Senate, I think it is important to give voice to the truth anyway. Often the Old Testament prophets were ignored, even when their predictions were dire. Once the truth had been spoken, those on whom the coming calamity fell were without the excuse of ignorance.  Occasionally, the people listened and disaster was averted.   I pray that happens in this case.

As bad as the Democratic health care plan is on the economic front, I find it filled with intolerable encroachments on our individual sovereignty.  I am unwilling to sell my freedom for the promise of  “affordable” health care.  Consider this: if the plan really had merit, people would flock to it voluntarily. There would be no need to enforce participation via the Internal Revenue Service, or to embed criminal penalties for non-participation.

I don’t want anyone to get the idea that I have my head buried in the sand on the need for insurance reform.   I have a health savings account out of which I pay all medical expenses until my family has met a $5000 deductible.  This means that unless something catastrophic happens, all (absolutely all) medical expenses come out of my own pocket.  With these plans, the insured has a strong incentive to manage costs.  It is impossible to delude oneself into the perspective that one of these high-deductible plans constitutes an entitlement.  The last two years, since I have been on this plan we have not met the deductible, so the insurance company has paid out precisely zero.   Still, this year the cost of the policy is going up 37% on top of the 24% that it went up last year.   Why?  Because most plans are not like mine.  Most have a higher premium paid by the employer, and a low deductible.  Once the deductible is met, the only thing that restrains the policy holder is a complicated set of rules set by the insurance company.  I envision this problem getting much worse under government control.   If the Federal Government can’t figure out how to move mail without the Post Office requiring a “bailout”, I would say the chance of a favorable outcome on the much more complicated issue of health care is very low.  The rhetoric attached to this debate is rife with unrealistic claims, and it isn’t even out of the gate yet.

If the Senate really wanted to improve the situation, they would tackle some specific problems (like how to provide incentives for self-restraint or tort reform) instead of trying to write behemoth bills to take over the health care industry.  Why does the bill take the form it takes?  Because it isn’t about reforming health care.  It’s about taking over.  It’s about making it illegal to decide for yourself what is best for you and then making you pay for something you didn’t need or want.

The President of the United States of America Bowing Down …

…  to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah at the G20 meeting in April,  to the Emperor of Japan in November.  Do you want to speculate whether he is planning to bow to the U.N. to surrender the sovereignty of our nation in the name of fighting climate change?  That sovereignty was won at great cost and has been protected at great cost, up until now.

When the President of the United States represents us in front of foreign dignitaries, his office exists because of brave men who endured freezing conditions with General Washington at Valley Forge.  When he travels to Japan on state business, he has a nation to represent because men like my father signed up to defend her after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  In the European Theater, men like my uncle , who was killed at Saint-Lô during the Battle of Normandy, added to the sacred honor of trust that the holder of the Office of the President should stand tall for.  Day after day, from the founding until now, brave men and women have sacrificed to uphold our nation in ways this President cannot fathom.

The scripture says that every knee will bow before Jesus Christ.  I say the President should bow before none other.

 

 

The Protection Racket

I was listening to Chris Baker ably filling in for Glenn Beck this morning. He was interviewing Congressman Ted Poe of the second district of Texas. Congressman Poe has a long history serving as a Judge before taking his present office, so I was interested in his comments about how little thought was put into the constitutionality of the health care bill passed by the House over the weekend.

I heard other comments this morning on an earlier program about the portions of the new bill that will use the Internal Revenue Code to force purchase of health insurance. I thought this was too outrageous to believe, so I looked it up.  For example, see section 422 of H.R. 3962.  It is the first time in history that the United States Government has endeavored to force Americans to buy a product.

So, that got me to thinking about the protection racket. An enforcer tells a business owner that he needs to buy “protection” to “insure” something bad doesn’t happen. If the business owner doesn’t go along, well… something bad may happen.

How about prosecution and jail? Is that bad? The IRS is not constrained to due process. Would it be bad if enforcement was done under the authority of the IRS? It’s ironic isn’t it? The tax code has often been used as leverage in battling racketeering. Now, I guess it will be the other way around. The tax code is to be used as an aid.

I’m sorry. Some of you are going to have to explain to me how this “healthcare” situation is different that the type of conspiracy and racketeering that the Attorney General has usually been known to prosecute.

I think Congressman Ted Poe is right on the mark about the dubious Constitutionality of H.R. 3962. But I wonder if those who voted for it in the House shouldn’t be liable for conspiracy and racketeering charges.  Again, if my logic is flawed, explain it to me.

“Don’t worry, it’s not going to happen.”

“Don’t worry, it’s not going to happen.”  That’s what the guys at work have been telling me about H.R 3200 / 3962.   But, there it is, through the House.   While I was attending the Iowa Tea Party Statewide Convention to network with others of semi-like mind, the Democratic members of the House stayed for the weekend and exercised their majority.

If I read the polls correctly,  those Democratic representatives are so sure that they know best, the opinions of the majority of you just don’t matter.  It’s not like I have personally been asleep at the switch;  my own representative Leonard Boswell has been certain that he knows better than I for a long time.  When I call his office or send an email (frequently),  I always get a cordial explanation of why it is imperative that he do exactly the opposite of what I wanted.  Isn’t it great to be well represented?  I met some at the Tea Party Convention who want to run for Boswell’s seat.  I will pick one, and work tirelessly for his campaign.

I think I heard an elated victory speech from Speaker Pelosi.   Seems she gushed there was a cap on costs, but no cap on benefits.  I wonder if I could interest her in buying my perpetual motion machine design to solve the energy problem?

The system of checks and balances instituted by our wise founders only prevents the government from metastasizing  if  “We the People” don’t fill the Congress with Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.  Those polls are logically troublesome.  It seems like those elected should more closely represent the desires of those who elected them.  Perhaps the problem was too many votes cast against George Bush, instead of for the real desires of the people casting the vote.  Hmm.

H.R. 3962 – Just say NO!

From Nancy Pelosi’s blog The Gavel:

MYTH: “Health insurance reform will lead to rationed care for everyone.”

FACT: Under America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, there is not one provision in the bill that gives any “government bureaucrat” the ability to determine what treatments an individual can receive.
____________
Well, the truth will out.  The pro-government-health-care propaganda mill has shrilly denied that the government heath care plan would lead to rationing.   Reasonable people, of course, understand that resources are not infinite.  We are well acquainted with the problems with entitlements.

The H.R. 3200 bill cited by Ms. Pelosi’s “Myth Busting” comment above has now been incorporated into H.R. 3962.   So, I suppose technically the Speaker could claim the comment is obsolete.  (Isn’t she in charge up there?)   I cite from page 25 of the 1990-page bill itself, now that it has exited cloaked status:

(2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS. – If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.

To deny that such rationing must exist is irrational.  But,  this revelation shows how far voters should trust the assertions of the Democratic majority in either Chamber of Congress or in the Executive — no matter how loudly they are proclaimed or whom is being vilified.

Reading the ‘‘Affordable Health Care for America Act’’ [H.R. 3962] is reminiscent of reading the tax code (with good reason). This behemoth bill will establish a massive government bureaucracy that will be just like dealing with the I.R.S. If you are in support of this bill now, you need to imagine what it would be like having to clear your every health related decision with an agent of the Internal Revenue Service. If we allow our “representatives” to pass this monstrosity, it will be a sad day for us and for our children.