Pending Fiscal Cliff and the Lame Duck Session

The election results are in and status quo was maintained after both major party candidates spent nearly $6 billion on the election. For the next 51 or so days Congress will meet in the "Lame Duck" session to tackle issues that will get our economy growing more that 1.4% it is currently growing at. The dark cloud hovering overhead is the looming "Fiscal Cliff". If Congress and the President are unable to cobble an alternative plan the Bush Era tax-cuts will expire at the start of the year and $1.2 trillion is cuts will take place - half in discretionary spending and the other half in defense spending.

The Congressional Budget Office has reported, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-22-2012-Update_to_Outlook.pdf, that if nothing is done the United States will face recession style numbers. Government spending would drop to 4% of GDP with GDP declining over the year by 0.5% and unemployment could top 9%. Going forward, 2014-2022, the CBO projects revenues would remain below 19% - when historically they average 18% - and spending would rise to 24% - yet current spending was 26% - of GDP. The dirty little secret to our budget issues is baseline budgeting that started back in the '70's.

The "Fiscal Cliff" would produce a short term pain with little long term gain as the CBO states but that is because after the "Fiscal Cliff" our government goes back to the same budgetary processes that has us in this mess to begin with. Granted I am not an economist but if our historically average revenues range, per the CBO, 16-18% of GDP then creating a budget that spends anything more than that range results in deficit spending.

That being said, if I had the ear of Congress and the President I'd encourage them to start by removing baseline budgeting and go back to zero based budgeting process. Make these programs, departments and areas that our Government spends money on prove to Congress that they require the money or need an increase in the budget.

Then I'd ask Congress and the President to establish guidelines that dictate the level of spending going forward. The guideline would be simple - spending is not to exceed 85% of revenues until our deficit represents 25% of GDP. Once we reach 25% of GDP in regards to debt then Congress can raise spending to 95% of revenues. Paying down our debt will allow interest rates to come up without fear of increasing our expense on existing debt while ensuring that Congress and the President works to keep debts low going forward too.

Debt rises to incredible heights yet Americans are blind

This morning I am reading Star Tribune and various other news sites I follow when I came across this headline: CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/) in the Washington Times. The headline enough raised my ire and should every American. Now, I have been railed against for my push of smaller government, more freedom and lower taxes platform. I hope this article puts things in perspective for those that believe I am "chicken little" on the size and scope of government.

The article notes that the Federal public debt when Obama took office was $6.3 trillion or $56,000 per household. That number has expanded to $8.2 trillion or $72,000 per household today. The CBO estimates that by 2020 we are on path to reach a debt of $20.3 trillion or $170,000 per household. I understand and acknowledge that Republicans, especially under Bush, lost their fiscal conservative way which lead to the historic election of Barack Obama. I recall last year when the unemployment rate hit 10% Vice President Biden noted that the Obama administration did not realize how bad the economy was and their numbers were off.

James Horney, a federal-budget analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said, " The biggest part of the deficit difference [between the Obama's administration and CBO numbers] is lower tax revenue due to the different economic assumptions." Horney is correct that the Obama administration has a rosary outlook but it is that thinking that tripped them up last year as unemployment surpassed 10%. We need to get Americans back to work and being productive. Too many of our manufacturing jobs are being outsourced and due to our mounting debt America is put in a conundrum. The conundrum is protecting America jobs while not alienating our ATM; China.

Sure the Fed could print money hand over fist but that will only lead to inflation and a deeper recession. So how do we jump start the economy and reverse the trend this article warns? To start we need to demand that our government go on a diet and that Americans be held accountable for their actions. Right now Obama is proposing incentives that will encourage banks to rework mortgages that are underwater for those that are unemployed. This new incentive will create more debt for taxpayers and further our co-dependence on Government solutions. It is unfortunate that people are losing their jobs and making the house payment is tough but that does not mean the government is the answer.

When will Americans realize that entitlements, cash for clunkers, tax credits and health care reform legislation are only hurting the future of America? We need to wake up and demand that government shrink and allow the private sector be allowed to work. We need to demand that more States Attorney General join the fight for State Rights against the growing tyranny of the Federal Government. Obama did not start us down that road but he is standing on the accelerator with both feet.

Bi-Partisan Support for Drug Competition heads to day three of debate

For nearly two days now the Senate has been debating Sen. Bryon Dorgan (D-ND) amendment, http://c-span.org/pdf/Dorgan_admt120809.pdf, which would give Americans access to prescription drugs from other countries like Canada. The amendment offered has far reaching bi-partisan support, 19 sponsors and co-sponsors, but many on the floor and within the administration are highly critical due to the possibly endangerment to the United States medicine supply as well as being difficult to implement.

In a letter written by Margaret Hamburg, President Barack Obama's FDA commissioner, sent to Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) stated that Sen. Dorgan's amendment, "as currently written, the resulting structure would be logistically challenging to implement and resource intensive. In addition, there were significant safety concerns" (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/71307-fda-opposes-senate-drug-importation-amendmen). The same article notes that the Pharmaceutical industry is strongly opposed to the Dorgan Amendment as well, what a shock there as it would mean greater competitive forces thus reducing their bottom line while lowering drug costs to all Americans. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) spent several minutes on the Senate floor to express his concerns about "counterfeit Tamiflu" and other drugs because of how difficult it is to identify them. Sen. Menendez even echoed the concerns of express in the FDA letter.

Sen. Dorgan cited "a report from the Congressional Budget Office saying drug imports would result in savings of $19.4 billion over ten years by prodding manufacturers to lower domestic prices to compete with imported drugs" (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/December/09/Afternoon-Update.aspx). On the surface the amendment makes sense since increase competition, based on economics 101, will drive down costs. Right now drug companies enjoy a protective market in the United States which enables it easier for them recoup research and development costs. The amendment requires importers and exporters to register and submit to random sampling of the drug being sent and on-site inspections of their production facilities. I can see where the inspections could become cumbersome but do we allow that to derail a process that will help lower the cost of prescription drugs?

Well if you are a member of Congress it will depend on who your donors are. Last night HBO re-aired the latest Robin Williams comedy show that was taped, ironically, in Washington D.C. Although I think he had used this joke before, he mentioned that lawmakers should don logos of their donors on their suits much like NASCAR does on their cars and driver suits. Although many laughed, it does make sense. Especially as we go through healthcare reform debate. The Senate will pick back up the debate today on the Dorgan Amendment that if passed would derail any back room deal President Obama and PHARMA ironed out months ago.

Now, if Congress can apply the same logic, being attempting to bring down drug costs through an increase in competition, to the health care reform debate in general we will all benefit. The next step is now for them to increase competition for health care insurance options beyond adding just one option. I called Sen. Klobuchar office yesterday as well to ask why more in the Senate are not applying basic supply/demand to health insurance competition by opening up state borders and removing the anti-trust exemption. It will be interesting today to see how the Dorgan Amendment plays out.

Senate Health Care Debate Gets Good News/Bad News from the CBO

"In the greatest country on Earth, no American should die simply because they don't have health insurance. We have a historic opportunity to enact meaningful health care reform that will work to stabilize the economy, provide quality for millions of Americans," stated Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on the Senate floor Monday (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/senate-debate-begins-with-baitsmanship/). While one is hard pressed to locate a single America that does not feel reform is needed to control escalating insurance premiums and cost of health care. The trouble is that Congress is off the mark with either bill being discussed. The central tenet of the House bill is a public option while the Senate version has one with an opt-out clause. For the majority of the year thus far, Congress members have touted their take and pimped their vote all under the guise of health care reform.

I still, as of this post, not heard one signal argument that unequivocally demonstrates how adding only one option to the pool of options for health care is going to drive down costs and premiums so all can afford health care. In order for reform to have the desired affects – affordable choices and lower costs – Congress needs to scrap the public option and replace it with legislation that will open state borders for the purchase of health care insurance and remove the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy. Open up competition will lead to lower premiums. The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) estimates that in the best-case scenario that premiums would go down for most Americans by 2016 due to government subsidies while a worst-case scenario results in a little more than 10 percent of policyholders will experience a decrease even after the subsidies. In fact the CBO estimates that, under the worst-case scenario, the majority of Americans will see no effect or an increase up to 13 percent. The assessment can be seen at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf.

Again, why are we allowing Congress to pass a bill that does not achieve the goals in all scenarios? Why not allow market forces to work through increase competition? Some may argue that free market forces are not enough. To that I agree slightly. To assist free market forces the government will need to repeal the anti-trust exemption. Let's demand true reform from Congress. If the CBO is correct and the best-case scenario does take place, we will be looking at higher taxes in order to fund government rule health care. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme every done if we allow our Congress to pass "reform" in its present state. Neither bill will start for at least three years after passage. In the meantime our "reform" does nothing but collect taxes; taxes that will have to be raised to cover the costs.

That being said, it is time for Congress to pass true reform that takes effect immediately and does not raise our taxes. As Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states" This is not delivering huge premiums savings to the insured. But the flip side is that here's a bill that reduces the deficit, covers 30 million people and has the promise of lowering premiums in the long run" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004391_2.html?hpid=topnews). I don't know about the rest of you but Government said that Social Security was going to be there for me when I retire and we all know that it will be insolvent in the near future. If the bill does nothing but establish more government in our lives then why are we sitting idly by and allow Congress to pass "reform" that reforms nothing and will raise our taxes?

Beware of China’s Role in the Health Care Debate

Americans stay on your toes this weekend as the Democrats in the Senate look to vote this Saturday to bring Sen. Reid's health care reform bill to the floor for debate. In order to open debate, on the bill, the Senate will need 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor. Republicans are looking to stall the process by requiring the bill be read word-for-word which is something typically motioned waived and accepted without objection. Normally I agree with dispensing of the reading but in this case it is extremely important that the entire bill be read. By reading the entire bill, Americans can be assured that our elected officials are not voting, again (Stimulus Bill), without reading the bill in its entirety. Per Senate rules all bills are to be read three times on three separate legislative days. Reading the bill once is sufficient and I hope that Republicans do not use this procedure to delay a vote.

The CBO scored the Senate bill and put the price tag at $849B over ten years. The Senate version, according to the CBO, would reduce the deficit by $127B. The CBO report can be seen here: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf. Part of the scoring includes the belief that 1/3^rd of States will opt-out of the program and the start of the public option is push backed to 2015. A few concerns here: 1. What if no States opt-out? 2. If reform is needed, why are we waiting until 2015?

I understand that if a public option is passed and a Health Benefits Advisory Committee is established it will take time to iron the red tape out but 6 years? Do our elected officials believe that we are naïve and stupid? I think so. During those six years it will give the government an opportunity to tie the public option, Medicare, and Medicaid to the States in a manner that if they opt-out it will cost them Federal funds much in the same manner the transit dollars were tied to the lowering of the DWI limit, speed limit, and drinking age. The States need to learn, and the citizens of those States, that we cannot continue to allow the growing beast in Washington D.C. to exert so much power over our lives. Thomas Jefferson sums it up best, "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

Concerns are already being raised by Governors over the Senate health care bill because it will shift responsibility to paying for the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid onto the States. My hope is that the States will now finally use this abuse of Federal power to exert their 10^th Amendment rights. The trouble is that too many States have become drunk on the Federal tit and may not be sober enough to fight for their rights. Granted we are the United States but our Founding Fathers wrestled with the concept of a central government leading to tyranny. In just over 200 years we have seen the central government of the United States grow in power and stature.

We hope that all elected officials are looking out for the best of all Americans but let's face it, what is good for California may not be applicable for Minnesota and vice versa. Government ought to be local. The role of our Federal Government is a growing beast that must be tamed before it consumes us all and ruins the great land we have all come to cherish. The mounting debt and unchecked actions by the Federal Reserve already have our biggest benefactor worried about repayment of debt. China is not looking favorably on the actions of the United States and is looking to replace the American dollar as the standard world currency.

The health care reform being proposed by Congress will only exasperate the problem. We can achieve reform without $900B bills. The Federal Government needs to be reminded of their limited role and I hope citizens of the different States realized that too. More is at stake than reform of the health care system with the two bills floating through Washington D.C. Our future as a country rides on the shoulders of our States to exert the power granted them in the United States Constitution to stand up the tyranny of central government that resides in Washington D.C. Or fear the wrath of the debt collector.

Whether you agree or disagree with actions being taken on health care reform be wise to the beast that grows in Washington D.C. Be wise to the mounting debt and the day of reckoning when the debt collector comes calling. It is not too late to stem the tide. Call your local representatives and Governors to lit the fire of defending the 10^th Amendment and reclaim what is rightfully the States.

Obama Deficit reaches new heights with more to come!!!!

Normally I do not blog on Saturdays but when I walked out to get my paper and read the headline in Star Tribune "Deficit Surges to New Records" I felt compelled to write. The 2009 deficit reached $1.42T which is three times more than any year in the history of the United States. The spin on Capitol Hill is that it is less than predicted, $1.6T, by the CBO. Then again the CBO had counted on the passing of Health Care and Cap and Trade in their projections. Imagine where our deficit would be if these two piece of legislation passed as the Democrats wish. The new service article in the Star Tribune said the deficit mark is "more than the total national debt for the first 200 years of the Republic, more than the entire economy of India, almost as much as Canada's, and more than $4,700 for every man, woman and child in the United States."

So please, everyone send in your check so we can pay down our debt. If the Democrat led Congress does not turn fiscally responsible, we will need to send in bigger and bigger checks to the government or see an economic ruin far worse than the "collapse" of the financial markets. Again, please send in your share of the deficit that the Democrats have increased to new heights or prepare for an onslaught of new taxes; i.e. fat tax, sin tax, and health care tax.

Health Care Reform delay is symptom of larger political problem

The Senate Finance Committee will vote on Chairman Max Baucus bill today. The Baucus Bill is to cost $856B, protect nearly 29M uninsured over the next decade while trimming the federal deficit by $49B over the next decade per the Congressional Budget Office. Under the Baucus Bill all Americans will be mandated to have "qualified health insurance coverage by 2013" (Baucus Bill). All Americans will either purchase private insurance or public insurance through the exchange. Why wait until 2013? Why not start with months of passage?

Currently all Federal employees use an exchange to purchase their own insurance. If that system works so well then let's open up the doors for the rest of America. People on both side of the conversation are frustrated at the delays that are taking place to pass reform. The big question is being missed here. Neither side of the argument wants to enact true reform because they will upset either their base or the donors they rely on to fill the re-election coffers.

The Founding Fathers warned of the dangers of political parties. President George Washington said during his final "farewell" address in 1796 (http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/elections_campaigning/news.php?q=1208746351):

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It wasn't until when Adams and Jefferson ran against each other that the political party formation saw its birth. The lobbying that is going on Capitol Hill, on an array of topics, is a symptom of a bigger illness. The illness is the manner in which America elects their officials. It is not just on the National level either. Evidence can be seen in the Governor Race already in full gear in the state of Minnesota. Even though the election is not until 2010, many Democrats and Republicans have thrown their name in the hat to gain their party nomination. Why? Reform is needed now. Last Presidential election cycle we saw an insane amount of money raised by Sen. Obama and his opponent Sen. McCain.

Government has grown. It is through that growth that people have and continue to see Government as "Big Business". Nearly all election cycles in my lifetime, with few exceptions, have seen only two viable candidates. By viable I mean a candidate that has one of the two mainstream political machines behind them. Having only two viable options has established a prevailing thought at the polling booth of "choosing between the lesser of two evils." Granted Minnesota did see Jesse Ventura shock the mainstream parties by winning the Governorship of Minnesota but that was a rare situation. People like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have attempted to break the strangle hold the Democrats and Republicans enjoy.

It is time for Congress to establish shorter election cycles and make room for others to join the fray. The type of reform required is to limit the campaign cycle to four months. No longer will candidates be required fundraise because all elections will be public and public funds will be used. On the National scene, the candidates will no longer be voted as a package. The top two vote getters will become President and Vice President regardless of "party" affiliation which is how our Founding Fathers had it. All candidates will participate in a series of public debates. Then in November citizens of the United States will vote as they have done for years.

Making reform to the process of electing political figures will assist our Government as our elected representatives will no longer have to fundraise and can concentrate on doing the job they are elected to do. This way we will no longer have to read "Democrats, who have traditionally depended on trial lawyers for political donations, have also shied away from protecting doctors form frivolous lawsuits if they adhere to safety standards and treatment protocols" (The Boston Globe). Or "Republicans hope linking House Speaker to Democrats can turn centrist districts" (Wall Street Journal). At the end of the day our government grows larger, our freedoms eroded, our ability to "throw the bums out" is in the hands of PAC's, and the vision of Founding Fathers is becoming a distant memory.

Sen. Bunning’s Transparency Amendment a delay tactic?

I have been watching the Senate Finance Committee meetings over the past few days and it has been very entertaining. Sen. Baucus is getting his time in the spotlight and is making the most of it. Much of the amendment voting has gone along party lines. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-NY) issued an amendment on Wednesday that would have required that a final and complete cost analysis be completed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In addition to making the CBO analysis public the amendment would require the Senate Finance Committee to post the final bill for 72 hours prior to voting on it. Sen. Bunning defended his amendment by saying, "This bill will affect every American and I think it is our duty to provide full disclosure of all the facts. I don't see anything wrong with the committee taking a few extra weeks to ensure we get this right and so that all members of Congress and the public are given the opportunity to read the language and know what the true cost is."

Sen. Bunning's amendment makes sense. A similar bill was offered in the House that would have required members of the House of Representatives to wait 72 hours to ensure everyone had an opportunity to read any bill prior to passage. Why are Democrats in such a hurry to pass legislation that will have far reaching affects? Everyone agrees that health care reform is needed and as the president has said, 80% of the reform is agreed upon it is just the final 20% that is in question. While President Obama has championed transparency then why the Senate Finance Committee, and the rest of Congress doesn't, not adopt a 72 hour "reading" period prior to passing any legislation.

In respect to the Bunning amendment, Sen. John Kerry (D-Ma) claimed the amendment, "fundamentally a delay tactic". Where is this delay tactic? If the bill is complete and ready for vote, why not allow the CBO to score the bill and allow the public to see the bill? In order for the CBO to properly score any bill they require full legislative language to be completed. Sen. Snowe (R-Me), the only real hope on the Finance Committee for bipartisan action, was visibly frustrated during the debate of the Bunning amendment. "I don't understand the resistance," said Sen. Snowe. She went on to question, "What is the rush? Is there something happening in two weeks that we cannot wait?"

Sen. Baucus rush is to get a bill to the floor of the Senate before October 15^th when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed (D-Nv) warned that reconciliation will be considered if major progress has not be made. If Sen. Reed is serious in using a procedural move, meant for budget issues, to complete passage of health care reform, that is the rush or the "happening" that Sen. Snowe is inquiring about. It is time for Congress to put aside partisan politics and procedural moves and enact true reform that includes choice, drives down cost, and includes tort reform. Unfortunately none of the bills being discussed does all of this.

Baucus Bill increases taxes on all Americans

Today the Senate Finance committee will start their overhaul of the Baucus bill. At last report there are 500 plus amendments proposed to the bill. One of the hot button items in the Baucus bill to be discussing the 35% excise tax on insurers "Cadillac plans" they offer. The "Cadillac plan" is defined as policies with a yearly premium cost of $8000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. The excise tax is expected to generate $215B over 10 years. Michael Tanner, a health policy analyst at the Cato Institute, warns, "They're assuming that everybody's going to keep offering and buying these Cadillac plans. A 35% tax is huge" (Los Angeles Times). President Obama and other Democrats have chimed the 20% gross margin that insurance companies enjoy and it is time for them to share the wealth. Are we naïve to believe that insurance companies will not pass along the 35% excise tax among all the plans they offer thus "taxing" low and middle class by increasing premiums on non-Cadillac plans.

There is optimism behind the Baucus bill as it moves the conversation forward. "While we each have outstanding concerns we wish to see addressed, Senator Baucus has taken an important and critical step forward with this legislation, which is budget neutral and reduces future health care costs," says a statement signed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Me), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct), and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5937). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does acknowledge the plan does reduce the federal deficit in the long term through revenue generated from the excise tax on "Cadillac plans" and savings in the Medicare program.

What if the revenue from the "Cadillac plans" does not materialize? Historically speaking when taxes are raised, i.e. capital gains, the government realizes less revenue. In the case of health care, the excise tax may see the elimination of "Cadillac plans" and an increase in premiums of lesser plans to spread the tax. The increase premium is essentially a tax on Americans. Many will argue that premiums will increase regardless if nothing is done. I agree with that statement but let's not make it worse. We all agree something needs to be done to reduce premiums and other costs within the system. But to place an excise tax on plans that insurance companies are offering does nothing but raise potential revenue for the government while not lowering costs.

During his one-on-one conversation with George Stephanopoulos, President Obama was pressed that having a health care mandate on Americans is essentially a tax. The president responded that it is "not true" that mandating individuals obtain health care is a tax, but as Politico.com pointed out that the president is wrong. The Politico points out that on page 29 of the Baucus bill states "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax" and mentions later in the bill "The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed." Is it okay now to call the president a "Liar"? The H.R. 3200 bill also calls for a tax "on individuals without acceptable health care coverage". Both bills would violate President Obama's campaign promise that no one making less than $250,000 will see their taxes raised by one cent.

President Obama, in his conversation with Stephanopoulos, rebutted on the excise tax and mandate tax that "the first thing we've got to understand is you've got what is effectively a tax increase taking place on American families right now. The Kaiser Family Foundation report just came out last week. Health Care premiums went up 5.5 percent last year, at a time when the rest of the economy, inflation was actually negative. So that is a huge bite out of people's pockets." True premiums have increased and will continue to increase if nothing is done but none of the bill in Congress assist in stabilizing cost let alone driving them downward. To drive costs down we need competition. The public option and/or the Co-Op option do nothing to increase competition. To really increase competition is to open the borders of the states and allow people from one area of the country to purchase health care coverage from other areas of the country.

Instead the government feels mandating that all citizens obtain coverage along with the public option and/or Co-Ops is the answer. They are dead wrong. The mandate is a tax even though the president fails to realize that. George Stephanopoulos asked President Obama "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?" To which the president responded with "Well, hold on a second, George. Here – here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average –our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on." Stephanopoulos continued to press the tax issue by breaking out the Merriam Webster's Dictionary to define tax which ticked off the president. In the end President Obama said that "I absolutely reject that notion" in reference the mandate of health care coverage is a tax even though it states it both the Baucus bill and H.R. 3200.

Now that being said will President Obama sign a bill of similar fashion after his pledge not to increase taxes on those making less than $250,000. The rest of the week will be focused on the Senate Finance Committee. It will be interesting to see how the political games are played and what the Baucus bill looks like afterwards. Many say that the health care reform is not an easy task; yet I contend certain aspects are. Why doesn't Congress not act on those aspects?

President Obama needs to be specific tonight on health care reform

Tonight at 7 P.M. CST President Obama will address a joint session of Congress in an attempt to guide them in developing a health care reform bill for him to sign into law. President Obama wanted Congress to pass health care reform before the August recess for good reason; the message on health care reform is no longer being controlled by the White House. The August recess allowed, those really concerned, to review the House bill and get an opportunity to participate in town hall meetings. While not every member of Congress held open forums, they did hold meetings of some sort to hear from constituents on the issue of health care. No one denies, okay maybe one person, that health care costs are growing out of control and reform is needed. The disagreement is how much reform is required to bend the cost curve downward.

The "Gang of Six" is trying to hammer out an idea. The Republicans have a proposal but are unable to get it out of committee or get it scored by the CBO. Republicans do not want to release the plan before it can be scored by the CBO which is politics. I have had the opportunity this summer to witness first hand a number of C-SPAN session of Congress and can attest to Republicans ideas are not given real consideration in committees. The Liberal Left members of the Democrat party have drawn the line in the sand that if reform does not include a public option then they will not vote for reform. The Conservative Right is dead set against the public option and it appears many "Blue" dog Democrats are as well. President Obama campaign on bringing people together; yet he cannot find common ground with members of Congress without creating uproar from the base of the Democrat party.

Thus far the President has touted that "if you like your health care you will be able to keep it." Unfortunately his rhetoric does not match what is being done in Congress which is not a bad thing since there is suppose to be separation of powers. Then again, it his party that is in power and one would think they'd be on the same page. The current HR 3200 bill penalizes companies if they do not offer insurance equal to what the public option will offer. A bit of hypocrisy presents itself here. People in general are happy with the coverage but are unhappy at the rising cost of being covered. Why do we need to penalize companies if people are happy with their insurance cover? Let's not confuse the issue though.

I find it interesting that during the campaign and after taking office President Obama looked to places like Canada and England health care systems as models his administration would emulate. Recently President Obama said, "I've said that the Canadian model works for Canada. It would not work for the United States, in part simply because we've evolved differently. So, we've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem" (NYtimes.com). A "uniquely American" approach does not restrict freedom of choice or look to the government for the answer; rather free market ideals are what make our current system a "Uniquely American" approach.

The trouble with the current system is that the free market concept of competition is confined by state borders. By deregulating the health care system to allow one in Minnesota to purchase health care coverage from an insurer in Arizona will increase competition thus reducing costs. If the primary goal is to reduce costs then why not start reforming health care by doing this? America's deficit is spiraling out of control and opening up competition does not cost taxpayers any money; Budget neutral!!!!!

Back in June I was challenged by one of my progressive friends to provide an outline for health care reform which I did in my blog entry, Outline of Health Care and Tax Reform, on June 10, 2009. I recognize that my idea of health care reform does not provide all the answers but it does provide a solid base of ideas that would be budget neutral. One aspect that I neglected in my blog entry back in June was to include tort reform. Without solid tort reform the cost curve will not trend downward.

I am hoping that tonight President Obama will lay out specific plans or changes to current bills of health care reform. The time for lofty rhetoric has past; the time for specific language is required. Without specifics the American public fears will only be heightened. According to Scott Rasmussen, "those opposed to Mr. Obama's reform appear to have momentum on their side. Polling last weekend showed that 48% of voters rate the U.S. health-care system as good or excellent. That's up from 35% in May and up from 29% a year ago. Only 19% now rate the system as poor, down from 37% a year ago. It appears that the prospect of changing health care has made the existing system look better to a lot of people" (Wall Street Journal).

The sliding poll numbers are even more reason why President Obama needs to get specific on health care reform and display how the reform will benefit all Americans. I am one of the 48M uninsured in America right now and it is by choice. Because unemployment is just a portion of my previous income level the cost of health care increases but not due to an increase in cost rather due to the decrease in income. Now there are options for health care coverage that is less expensive and affordable than COBRA or any of those offered in Minnesota but I cannot take advantage of that because the coverage is in another state. I look forward to the speech tonight and hope that President Obama can produce on his campaign promise for health care reform that allows those with coverage to keep their coverage for as long as they are employed at their current employer.

Health Care: Obama's Waterloo!!!

“This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. It is about a health care system that is breaking American families,” President Obama responded to Sen. DeMint’s assertion that health care overhaul “could be the president’s ‘Waterloo’”(Obama Challenges GOP Critics on health care, www.msnbc.com, 7/20/09). As the debate over how to bend the curve of cost in health care, the political hot potato continues to snag sound bites instead of looking at the key issues. In reality the Democrats do not need a single Republican vote to pass health care reform. Politically speaking they do because if the CBO, and other groups, are correct and the reform only produces financial burden on the states and future generations the Democrats NEED to share the blame.

While I agree that reform is needed but let’s not try to ram it through without making sure it doesn’t exist mandates on States and other agencies that are fiscally disabling. Sometime during the late 80’s to today the State Rights have been eroded by ever increasing mandates by the Federal Government. A prime example is No Kid Left Behind program that forces ADHD and other kids with special needs back into the mainstream classrooms in exchange for Federal dollars. Another example is the use of highway funds to push the .08 legal limit and soon to be café standards. For if a state does not institute either billions of dollars in Federal money will go elsewhere.

So when people say let’s take our time on Health Care and do it right the first time, we do not need a President that runs short on patience and diligence. The very same President that is pushing for a public option that will, according to the CBO, strain state budgets. The only saving grace is the President does not have the power, at least not yet, to control the CBO reporting or fire members of the CBO as he did with an Inspector General earlier this year.

Tim Kaine, in a mass email message, stated when talking about the Republican platform on health care is that “Their plan is simple: oppose health care reform as a political ploy to weaken the President and defeat his entire agenda of change. But if we follow the Republican “Party of no” and do nothing, we’ll not only ensure more of the same but saddle our children and grandchildren with a growing burden on exploding costs and declining care that they may never overcome.” Really Mr. Kaine, are you sure you are not looking at the President’s plan?

Now the pundits have touted that Republicans have not offered an alternative. Republicans have and most recently were working with Blue Dog Democrats to find a bipartisan plan. The trouble is the compromised plan does not call for a public option. No matter which side of the fence one falls when it comes to health care reform, all agree something needs to be done.

Moving forward we need to pressure our Congress to act intelligently, diligently, and in a manner that will produce reform that actually drives costs down. They can start by telling the President “No!” to a public option. Or at least “No!” until it has been determined that the cost curve is trending downward. I am one of the millions of American’s without health care and I do not want it provided for me by the government. Assist me in obtaining private health insurance, I can live with that. As the stimulus bill has done nothing to curb the economic landscape, please do not act with similar haste with health care.

CBO Warns Obama's Plan will increase costs not reduce them

I wasn’t going to discuss Health Care today but in watching the House Energy & Commerce committee and heard that the 75 page amendment that is being discussed is also being discussed by the Ways & Means and the Judiciary committees at the same time. Many of the provisions in the amendment not specifically funded while other elements are funded only for 2010 with a blank check for 2011 and so forth. The amendment being discussed as well has not been scored by the CBO.

CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said before the Senate Budget Committee that “sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount” in regards to reducing public spending on health care. CBO director Elmendorf went on to say that the bills floating through Congress “significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.” President Obama and Democrats are trying shove Health Care reform upon Congress as a means to reign in Medicaid and Medicare costs but Elmendorf retorts, “the cure is being raised” by the legislation being pushed in both houses of Congress.

The concerns by Elmendorf are echoed by Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), as reported in the Washington post today, chair of the House Blue Dog Coalition’s health care task force, “There’s no way they can pass this bill on the House floor. Not even close.” Why, again I ask, is the President trying ram through health care reform and not allow Congress to read all the legislation prior to voting on it. An amendment by Rep. Sullivan is being discussed by the House Energy & Commerce committee even though it has not been fully read by all members of committee; which is the second amendment discussed this morning not been read prior. WHAT!!!!!

We all saw and heard the haste given to passing the Stimulus Bill earlier in the year when not one member of Congress read the bill prior to passage. The issue of Health Care is a large complex issue and the President wants to ram it through. Once again I ask why? What is he afraid of? Is he afraid the CBO numbers will just get worse or is he hoping for swift passage so the CBO cannot properly score the reform?

With that said, I’d like to update my readers on the topic of Maj. Cook and his lawsuit. Judge Clay Land dismissed the case after defense argued that Maj. Cook’s suit is “moot” because orders of deployment were previously revoked. While the logic applied by Judge Land is sound, it does not put to rest the central issue of the lawsuit; Obama’s eligibility to become President of the United States. A point was raised after I posted the discussion on the lawsuit as to how the Army acted so quickly to revoke deployment, I pose this question: What hand did the White House have to play in the quick revoking of deployment of Maj. Cook?