How predictable…
We all have been watching as Sen. Ted Kennedy slowly passed from the scene before our eyes. It is a sad thing indeed. Camelot has finally been laid to rest with the passing of the last scion of the original Kennedy Clan. It is a hard thing to watch, to see someone who has been so visible and so much part of the body politic for so many years fade away. Few can deny he was a very prolific and important legislator for his party and for the nation. But what also can‘t be denied either is that his reputation as a politician has been greatly tarnished by his sordid and questionable actions when not doing the peoples work on the floor of the Senate.
Sen. Robert Byrd, a man who is believed to be the greatest scholar and certainly the longest serving Senator in the history of the republic has called for the renaming of the excremental healthcare nationalization bill, H.R. 3200, after his late colleague. This happened within hours of the senator’s death; almost as if it had been planned in advance.
Many pundits and those in positions to comment on the opposition to Obamacare, predicted this possibility as far back as January when the healthcare agenda of the Democrats came to the forefront, and Senator Kennedy’s condition became more generally known and his prognosis was publicized. These seemingly callous remarks at the time by those who oppose the liberal agenda of the new congress and administration in the White House faded away but now seem prophetic now that the senior senator of Massachusetts has passed into history.
This also proves the desperation and lack of character of the Democratic leadership. They can’t seem to get it done with logical, reasoned, and factual arguments when it comes to the nationalization of healthcare. Even with decisive majorities in both houses of congress, they must resort to this cheap attempt to appeal to the emotions of the American people. It is without a doubt, the most cynical, calculated and blatantly disingenuous act to play on the emotions of the American people, and on their fellow legislators we have seen in some time. It proves that when all else fails, that when the people, who have seen just how bad this bill is going to be for them, who are revolting en masse against this ill-conceived piece of legislation, the liberal leadership of this nation will do anything including shameless emotionalism to accomplish their ends.
To borrow a much uttered axiom from the past; if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.
If you re-brand this hideous piece of legislative tripe after a respected deceased member of the Senate, it is still a hideous piece of tripe, period.
We can’t allow this callous and calculated act of emotionalism to cloud the issues that face us as we debate the attempt at a de facto governmental seizure of the health delivery system. As much as the storied Kennedy name carries so much emotional weight and indeed, mystique in so many quarters, in so many ways, we can’t let that redefine and obscure the facts that the nation can’t afford the largess of this plan. Nor can we afford to allow the government to make this big play power grab of something this important. There are too many unanswered questions. There are too many government fiats allowed in H.R. 3200 that should not be permitted. There are fiscal issues, privacy issues and treatment issues that should be the exclusive province of the patient/doctor relationship, not that of government apparatchiks with unlimited power and authority who can act with impunity and without recourse to those who will be under their control.
I make no secret of my distaste of the late senator. I didn’t see him as anything other than a man with many serious character flaws that has managed to dodge responsibility for actions that would have put any of the rest of us in prison for decades. Yes, he did some good things, and should be given kudos for those things, and yes, he was elected by the people of his state, but I think it was more sympathy for his family’s personal and public tragedies, rather that true merit, greatness, or legal scholarship that has allowed him to attain high office and skate away from the consequences of his actions. People in his position should be a cut above the rest of us; their personal and professional conduct, sense of honor, decorum and legal scholarship should be held to a higher standard that the average man on the street. No man is perfect, but he was so very far from perfect. Now in a trite attempt to save H.R.3200 by renaming it after Sen. Kennedy so the Democratic troops will rally around it shows just how much the leadership of the party in power has slid.
It is truly pathetic and we are not amused…. for is truly not a laughing matter…
We are not fooled either …and no matter how much lipstick you put on this legislative pig, it is still a pig.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Putting more lipstick on the pig.....
How predictable…
We all have been watching as Sen. Ted Kennedy slowly passed from the scene before our eyes. It is a sad thing indeed. Camelot has finally been laid to rest with the passing of the last scion of the original Kennedy Clan. It is a hard thing to watch, to see someone who has been so visible and so much part of the body politic for so many years fade away. Few can deny he was a very prolific and important legislator for his party and for the nation. But what also can‘t be denied either is that his reputation as a politician has been greatly tarnished by his sordid and questionable actions when not doing the peoples work on the floor of the Senate.
Sen. Robert Byrd, a man who is believed to be the greatest scholar and certainly the longest serving Senator in the history of the republic has called for the renaming of the excremental healthcare nationalization bill, H.R. 3200, after his late colleague. This happened within hours of the senator’s death; almost as if it had been planned in advance.
Many pundits and those in positions to comment on the opposition to Obamacare, predicted this possibility as far back as January when the healthcare agenda of the Democrats came to the forefront, and Senator Kennedy’s condition became more generally known and his prognosis was publicized. These seemingly callous remarks at the time by those who oppose the liberal agenda of the new congress and administration in the White House faded away but now seem prophetic now that the senior senator of Massachusetts has passed into history.
This also proves the desperation and lack of character of the Democratic leadership. They can’t seem to get it done with logical, reasoned, and factual arguments when it comes to the nationalization of healthcare. Even with decisive majorities in both houses of congress, they must resort to this cheap attempt to appeal to the emotions of the American people. It is without a doubt, the most cynical, calculated and blatantly disingenuous act to play on the emotions of the American people, and on their fellow legislators we have seen in some time. It proves that when all else fails, that when the people, who have seen just how bad this bill is going to be for them, who are revolting en masse against this ill-conceived piece of legislation, the liberal leadership of this nation will do anything including shameless emotionalism to accomplish their ends.
To borrow a much uttered axiom from the past; if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.
If you re-brand this hideous piece of legislative tripe after a respected deceased member of the Senate, it is still a hideous piece of tripe, period.
We can’t allow this callous and calculated act of emotionalism to cloud the issues that face us as we debate the attempt at a de facto governmental seizure of the health delivery system. As much as the storied Kennedy name carries so much emotional weight and indeed, mystique in so many quarters, in so many ways, we can’t let that redefine and obscure the facts that the nation can’t afford the largess of this plan. Nor can we afford to allow the government to make this big play power grab of something this important. There are too many unanswered questions. There are too many government fiats allowed in H.R. 3200 that should not be permitted. There are fiscal issues, privacy issues and treatment issues that should be the exclusive province of the patient/doctor relationship, not that of government apparatchiks with unlimited power and authority who can act with impunity and without recourse to those who will be under their control.
I make no secret of my distaste of the late senator. I didn’t see him as anything other than a man with many serious character flaws that has managed to dodge responsibility for actions that would have put any of the rest of us in prison for decades. Yes, he did some good things, and should be given kudos for those things, and yes, he was elected by the people of his state, but I think it was more sympathy for his family’s personal and public tragedies, rather that true merit, greatness, or legal scholarship that has allowed him to attain high office and skate away from the consequences of his actions. People in his position should be a cut above the rest of us; their personal and professional conduct, sense of honor, decorum and legal scholarship should be held to a higher standard that the average man on the street. No man is perfect, but he was so very far from perfect. Now in a trite attempt to save H.R.3200 by renaming it after Sen. Kennedy so the Democratic troops will rally around it shows just how much the leadership of the party in power has slid.
It is truly pathetic and we are not amused…. for is truly not a laughing matter…
We are not fooled either …and no matter how much lipstick you put on this legislative pig, it is still a pig.
We all have been watching as Sen. Ted Kennedy slowly passed from the scene before our eyes. It is a sad thing indeed. Camelot has finally been laid to rest with the passing of the last scion of the original Kennedy Clan. It is a hard thing to watch, to see someone who has been so visible and so much part of the body politic for so many years fade away. Few can deny he was a very prolific and important legislator for his party and for the nation. But what also can‘t be denied either is that his reputation as a politician has been greatly tarnished by his sordid and questionable actions when not doing the peoples work on the floor of the Senate.
Sen. Robert Byrd, a man who is believed to be the greatest scholar and certainly the longest serving Senator in the history of the republic has called for the renaming of the excremental healthcare nationalization bill, H.R. 3200, after his late colleague. This happened within hours of the senator’s death; almost as if it had been planned in advance.
Many pundits and those in positions to comment on the opposition to Obamacare, predicted this possibility as far back as January when the healthcare agenda of the Democrats came to the forefront, and Senator Kennedy’s condition became more generally known and his prognosis was publicized. These seemingly callous remarks at the time by those who oppose the liberal agenda of the new congress and administration in the White House faded away but now seem prophetic now that the senior senator of Massachusetts has passed into history.
This also proves the desperation and lack of character of the Democratic leadership. They can’t seem to get it done with logical, reasoned, and factual arguments when it comes to the nationalization of healthcare. Even with decisive majorities in both houses of congress, they must resort to this cheap attempt to appeal to the emotions of the American people. It is without a doubt, the most cynical, calculated and blatantly disingenuous act to play on the emotions of the American people, and on their fellow legislators we have seen in some time. It proves that when all else fails, that when the people, who have seen just how bad this bill is going to be for them, who are revolting en masse against this ill-conceived piece of legislation, the liberal leadership of this nation will do anything including shameless emotionalism to accomplish their ends.
To borrow a much uttered axiom from the past; if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.
If you re-brand this hideous piece of legislative tripe after a respected deceased member of the Senate, it is still a hideous piece of tripe, period.
We can’t allow this callous and calculated act of emotionalism to cloud the issues that face us as we debate the attempt at a de facto governmental seizure of the health delivery system. As much as the storied Kennedy name carries so much emotional weight and indeed, mystique in so many quarters, in so many ways, we can’t let that redefine and obscure the facts that the nation can’t afford the largess of this plan. Nor can we afford to allow the government to make this big play power grab of something this important. There are too many unanswered questions. There are too many government fiats allowed in H.R. 3200 that should not be permitted. There are fiscal issues, privacy issues and treatment issues that should be the exclusive province of the patient/doctor relationship, not that of government apparatchiks with unlimited power and authority who can act with impunity and without recourse to those who will be under their control.
I make no secret of my distaste of the late senator. I didn’t see him as anything other than a man with many serious character flaws that has managed to dodge responsibility for actions that would have put any of the rest of us in prison for decades. Yes, he did some good things, and should be given kudos for those things, and yes, he was elected by the people of his state, but I think it was more sympathy for his family’s personal and public tragedies, rather that true merit, greatness, or legal scholarship that has allowed him to attain high office and skate away from the consequences of his actions. People in his position should be a cut above the rest of us; their personal and professional conduct, sense of honor, decorum and legal scholarship should be held to a higher standard that the average man on the street. No man is perfect, but he was so very far from perfect. Now in a trite attempt to save H.R.3200 by renaming it after Sen. Kennedy so the Democratic troops will rally around it shows just how much the leadership of the party in power has slid.
It is truly pathetic and we are not amused…. for is truly not a laughing matter…
We are not fooled either …and no matter how much lipstick you put on this legislative pig, it is still a pig.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ted Kennedy is gone... Camelot ends without a BANG ...
The Pinko-Commie Libs are making appeals to the masses to name the nationalization of healthcare legislation after Ted Kennedy......
Just when you thought that they couldn't stoop to lower levels, they come up with this little gem!!!
Naming this aberration of a bill after a guy who got away with manslaughter seems appropriate somehow... There is a symbiosis to this…
Name the bill that could codify the administrative manslaughter of those deemed unworthy of help by government fiat for a man who committed manslaughter… and got away with it… Yes, how appropriate indeed!!!
My Mary Jo rest in Peace finally....
Just when you thought that they couldn't stoop to lower levels, they come up with this little gem!!!
Naming this aberration of a bill after a guy who got away with manslaughter seems appropriate somehow... There is a symbiosis to this…
Name the bill that could codify the administrative manslaughter of those deemed unworthy of help by government fiat for a man who committed manslaughter… and got away with it… Yes, how appropriate indeed!!!
My Mary Jo rest in Peace finally....
Monday, August 17, 2009
Just a little something I heard this morning...
While listening to Neal Boortz on my morning commute, I heard Neal read a letter from a fictitious owner of a fictitious company about, based here in the Tidewater (Norfolk, to be precise) area, of southeastern Virginia. The letter was symbolic and profound in its reasoning. The letter to was to the employees and the families of those employees. It was simple, but quite eloquent. It explained why Obama's plan to fund all matter of programs via tax increases on the "RICH"...whomever they may be...depending on who in the Democratic party they ask, was a bad idea. I think it was as good an illustration of what can and will happen to many if not the preponderance of small businesses her in the United States if the Liberal Democrats continue to run amok in Washington D.C. We as logical, reasoned people must do all in our power to bring the ruinous brigands to heel as soon as possible be they destroy the nation via debt and tyranny. you can read this fantastic piece of prose at:
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/08/just-a-little-company-gettoget.html
Read this soon and pass it on to your friends.....
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/08/just-a-little-company-gettoget.html
Read this soon and pass it on to your friends.....
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Liberals twist the “General Welfare” clause to mean a “Right to Healthcare”
When we read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, it says:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The “general welfare” clause has been used repeatedly as justification by liberal elements and so-called “progressives” for many pieces of legislation over the last 75 years. It began in earnest with the election of the most imperial of all presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
More recently, the Clinton Administration took up the issue of so called health care reform arguing that there was great desire in the country to nationalize the private healthcare delivery system in this country and to model it on along the lines seen in other western democracies. The reasons on the surface seem benign enough, so that all citizens who had no existing private coverage may enjoy equal access to quality care. This all sounds great, even noble and desirable. The problem is that when you strip away the high sounding, warm and compassionate rhetoric, there were some real conceptual problems with the idea of universal healthcare.
When Bill Clinton was elected President, one of the first priorities of his administration was to begin the process of establishing a universal healthcare program. First Lady Hillary Clinton, in league with others, were tasked by the President to come up with a viable program. The problem was that the plan that was formulated was far too ambitious in scope. Specifically, they attempted to provide universal coverage and private market regulation, drafted regulations that required private employer mandated coverage. They also planned enforcement of regulations and coverage via a “national health board”, and to transform the delivery system for medical care through a “managed care” model. Attempting any one of these objectives would have been difficult at best, but attempting all at the same time, and attempting to plan them in secret, was the only spark needed to begin the firestorm of opposition that would see this plan laid waste, never to be revived for the entirety of the Clinton presidency.
With the election of Barrack Obama, the dominant liberal wing of the Democratic Party has once again taken up the gauntlet and moved with what some see as precipitous speed to ram though both the House and Senate a new bill, H.R. 3200, the so called “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”.
This bill has been touted as a solution to the problem of insuring the 45 million people the administration claims are not covered by health insurance and who need to be covered by some sort of scheme. This plan to provide coverage for so many people has become the signature legislative issue of Obama’s first year in the White House. It has also become the single most contentious issue of the new President’s term. So contentious in fact that in spite of massive majorities in both the House and Senate, there has been a massive groundswell of anger among most conservatives and many moderates who had supported Obama’s election to the Presidency.
One of the major points of contention is the cost, estimated to be in excess of 1 TRILLION dollars. Another point of contention is more esoteric; that the federal government has no constitutional authority to in effect, nationalize the health delivery system of the nation. This is a very serious point as it will mean that no longer are your health care decisions exclusively under your personal control, but now the shared purview of government bureaucrats, who will have a say as to what levels of care you will receive and who as well as what will be paid for services rendered. In deed, they may have the FINAL say.
One of the major justifications is the “Responsible Nation” principle; that a responsible, wealthy, modern, industrialized nation-state has an obligation, indeed a responsibility, to provide this sort of universal medical program for its citizens. They cite the other nations of the world as example, with the same kinds of programs the Democrats wish to emulate. Their justification being that we, the United States, the leading democracy, the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet, should be able to provide care for all.
They also use the argument that healthcare is a right, granted by the Constitution as described in the preamble, specifically, the “General Welfare” clause. They who wish this sort of program reason that the very health of the citizenry must be looked out for and that this justifies their attempt to initiate and execute the nationalization of nearly 20% of the national economy. It all sound so reasonable, so humane, so compassionate, until you strip all the rhetoric away and see that it is: a complete fabrication that can’t be sustained.
The Constitution has many parts. The preamble is designed to state broad goals of government. Some are quite specific. “Establish justice” implies that government should be the agent to ensure that justice be meted out fairly to all. “Provide for the common defense” states plainly that the government has the obligation to defend the realm from enemies both foreign and domestic. The line “promote the general welfare’ has been expanded and stretched far beyond what the original framers of the document intended. The intention was that government should encourage the general prosperity by preventing if possible, ill-conceived, damaging or improper acts from occurring that violated the enumerated powers, thus harming the general welfare of the state and its people. The constitution was writen giving specific responsibilities to federal government, outlined absolute rights of the citizens (the Bill of Rights) and left the states and the individual citizenry all other powers not specifically enumerated in the document.
The problems we find ourselves in today are directly attributed to the damage done by the Roosevelt Administration nearly 80 years ago.
In the 1930’s, limited, constitutional government was threatened, then destroyed when Franklin Roosevelt attempted to get many of his “New Deal” policies passed through congress and into law. We were in the middle of a depression and the economy was in a shambles. The programs that were passed were challenged by many and then eventually found their way to the Supreme Court. After much argument and serious judicial review, the laws were found to be unconstitutional. These challenges began in 1935 and over the next 16 months, the court reviewed 10 specific laws and struck down 8 of them as failing to meet the test of constitutionality; they violated the premises of “enumerated powers” granted to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Any powers not specific to this article are reserved to the states or to the citizens.
Roosevelt desired powers similar in scope to those needed in time of war to accomplish his goals. The economic emergency he felt justified his actions. Like today, many very poorly considered, poorly drafted pieces of legislation were put through with very little if any debate. Some were not even printed up prior to a vote so they could be read and reviewed, and were simply passed without any review. Since the president and his party enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, there was little the opposition could do to stop it. Very similar conditions exist today as then.
After the Supreme Court struck down these laws, the President, in effect, declared war on the Supreme Court. In March of 1937, in a “Fireside Chat” radio broadcast, he stated;
“we have therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.”
In a letter to a representative from Pennsylvania, he urged passing of the National Bituminous Coal Conservation Act, in spite of the knowledge of the doubtful nature of its constitutionality.
The elections of 1936 further empowered and emboldened the Democrats and gave further power to Roosevelt to enact his policies. What happened next was what historians refer to as the “The Revolution of 1937” when the President began an active , punitive campaign against the last bastion of conservative, constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, The United States Supreme Court. The president attempted to “pack the court” by adding additional justices to the bench, using the pretext that the elderly justices, many of whom were over 70 years of age, needed the additional help due to the excessive case load.
This was an obvious subterfuge, but sufficiently scared the Chief Justice, Charles Evan Hughes, that he attempted to formulate a plan to protect the courts traditional role as “guardian of the Constitution”. His actions were based on the premise that loosing a tactical fight with Roosevelt over some issues would prevent losses on a larger scale in order to allow for ultimate judicial supremacy on more weighty and important issues later.
The make-up of the court was fairly even with 3 more liberal justices, 2 moderates, 4 conservatives; Hughes was one of the 2 moderates. The other moderate, Justice Roberts, was encourage to move left of center to remove the impetus for Roosevelt’s court packing scheme. Unfortunately, the rulings that were made then have given us many legacy issues that we have today, one specifically, Social Security, continues to be one of the biggest wealth transfers in the country. The justification for all that Roosevelt did was the “general welfare’ section of the preamble.
From the moment Chief Justice Hughes caved, and the principle of “general Welfare” as justification for government larges was made legal precedent, the public had in effect, been granted access, via their elected representatives, to the public purse for private use, through entitlement programs. This was the first trip down the slippery slope that has now become economic disaster for us today nearly 80 years later. One wonders what Mr. Chief Justice Hughes would say if he were alive today to see what he had wrought.
In 1951, Justice Roberts wrote:
“In looking back, it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge…an insistence by the court on holding federal power to what seemed it’s appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our duel structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government.”
There was little erosion in the intervening years due to World War II, the Korean War, and the fairly conservative years under both Eisenhower and Kennedy. It wasn’t until the Johnson administration that we saw the complete disintegration of the “enumerated powers” barrier.
The arrival of the “Great Society” programs were the death knell to States and individual rights and the breach that allowed the federal government to provide “something for everyone”. Congress lacked the political will or fiscal discipline to reign in spending. In the name of social justice and egalitarianism, the government, using the justification of improving the “general welfare”, once again, began routinely running massive deficits that have continued to this day in ever increasing amounts. There has been virtually unlimited tax/borrow and spend activities without any real abatement. The spending that can be justified using “general welfare” as a basis has allowed Congress and the President to enter into a bidding war with the public, each out-bidding the other in the attempt to buy the favor of the people. Individuals within and outside of Congress compete for votes and power by attempting to out promises the other to gain advantage and hence, more power via the public purse.
As of today, August 13, 2009, the United States is the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world. We have this year, accumulated $1.3 TRILLION in additional debt which is nearly 4 times the debt of the previous year. The total accumulated public debt of the United States is approximately $12 TRILLION dollars. The amounts seem impossible, almost unfathomable. But it is real and a fatal danger to our Republic and our traditional way of life. This debt must be paid off someday by someone- perhaps, our grandchildren or great grand children.
It may take that long….
Now the new Obama administration, even more liberal, even more “populist” than we have seen before, possibly even more damaging than Roosevelt’s administration was, has risen to power and has begun a process to in effect, nationalize the health delivery system of the nation. They make many claims, promises much to assuage the fears of the masses, but it is clear that if they get their way, we will see the greatest hit against the original intent of Constitutional government since 1937. It will definitely be the greatest reduction of personal freedom and liberty ever seen in modern times and We the People, could well see the public debt increase to the point of national insolvency.
This must stop…
In order to save the Republic, we must stop and then begin to roll back the trend to spend public money for maintenance of individual people and the financing of private enterprise like the bail-outs and “stimulus” payments we have seen pass this year. We need constitutional amendments that repeal the income tax, the most regressive, and debilitating tax on prosperity there is, and to limit the scope of taxing and spending power that can be done at the federal level. We must insist in a “Balanced Budget” amendment that will force under penalty of law, the Congress and the Executive Branch to account for all monies spent and collected and report it to the people, then balancing the spending of government funds to match revenues in each budget year. The several states need to reassert their traditional roles and insist on their sovereign rights and prerogatives by reasserting their authority under the 10th Amendment. If the Federal government encroaches, the states and individual citizens must act either individually or collectively to put down the encroachment on their prerogatives.
By conducting themselves as they did, President Roosevelt and Chief Justice Hughes, set into motion much of the framework that now encumbers and entangles us today. James Madison, when asked specifically about the “General Welfare” clause, if it was a grant of unlimited power, he replied in a letter to Henry Lee, “If not the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment (the Constitution) should be thrown into the fire at once!”
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The “general welfare” clause has been used repeatedly as justification by liberal elements and so-called “progressives” for many pieces of legislation over the last 75 years. It began in earnest with the election of the most imperial of all presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
More recently, the Clinton Administration took up the issue of so called health care reform arguing that there was great desire in the country to nationalize the private healthcare delivery system in this country and to model it on along the lines seen in other western democracies. The reasons on the surface seem benign enough, so that all citizens who had no existing private coverage may enjoy equal access to quality care. This all sounds great, even noble and desirable. The problem is that when you strip away the high sounding, warm and compassionate rhetoric, there were some real conceptual problems with the idea of universal healthcare.
When Bill Clinton was elected President, one of the first priorities of his administration was to begin the process of establishing a universal healthcare program. First Lady Hillary Clinton, in league with others, were tasked by the President to come up with a viable program. The problem was that the plan that was formulated was far too ambitious in scope. Specifically, they attempted to provide universal coverage and private market regulation, drafted regulations that required private employer mandated coverage. They also planned enforcement of regulations and coverage via a “national health board”, and to transform the delivery system for medical care through a “managed care” model. Attempting any one of these objectives would have been difficult at best, but attempting all at the same time, and attempting to plan them in secret, was the only spark needed to begin the firestorm of opposition that would see this plan laid waste, never to be revived for the entirety of the Clinton presidency.
With the election of Barrack Obama, the dominant liberal wing of the Democratic Party has once again taken up the gauntlet and moved with what some see as precipitous speed to ram though both the House and Senate a new bill, H.R. 3200, the so called “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”.
This bill has been touted as a solution to the problem of insuring the 45 million people the administration claims are not covered by health insurance and who need to be covered by some sort of scheme. This plan to provide coverage for so many people has become the signature legislative issue of Obama’s first year in the White House. It has also become the single most contentious issue of the new President’s term. So contentious in fact that in spite of massive majorities in both the House and Senate, there has been a massive groundswell of anger among most conservatives and many moderates who had supported Obama’s election to the Presidency.
One of the major points of contention is the cost, estimated to be in excess of 1 TRILLION dollars. Another point of contention is more esoteric; that the federal government has no constitutional authority to in effect, nationalize the health delivery system of the nation. This is a very serious point as it will mean that no longer are your health care decisions exclusively under your personal control, but now the shared purview of government bureaucrats, who will have a say as to what levels of care you will receive and who as well as what will be paid for services rendered. In deed, they may have the FINAL say.
One of the major justifications is the “Responsible Nation” principle; that a responsible, wealthy, modern, industrialized nation-state has an obligation, indeed a responsibility, to provide this sort of universal medical program for its citizens. They cite the other nations of the world as example, with the same kinds of programs the Democrats wish to emulate. Their justification being that we, the United States, the leading democracy, the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet, should be able to provide care for all.
They also use the argument that healthcare is a right, granted by the Constitution as described in the preamble, specifically, the “General Welfare” clause. They who wish this sort of program reason that the very health of the citizenry must be looked out for and that this justifies their attempt to initiate and execute the nationalization of nearly 20% of the national economy. It all sound so reasonable, so humane, so compassionate, until you strip all the rhetoric away and see that it is: a complete fabrication that can’t be sustained.
The Constitution has many parts. The preamble is designed to state broad goals of government. Some are quite specific. “Establish justice” implies that government should be the agent to ensure that justice be meted out fairly to all. “Provide for the common defense” states plainly that the government has the obligation to defend the realm from enemies both foreign and domestic. The line “promote the general welfare’ has been expanded and stretched far beyond what the original framers of the document intended. The intention was that government should encourage the general prosperity by preventing if possible, ill-conceived, damaging or improper acts from occurring that violated the enumerated powers, thus harming the general welfare of the state and its people. The constitution was writen giving specific responsibilities to federal government, outlined absolute rights of the citizens (the Bill of Rights) and left the states and the individual citizenry all other powers not specifically enumerated in the document.
The problems we find ourselves in today are directly attributed to the damage done by the Roosevelt Administration nearly 80 years ago.
In the 1930’s, limited, constitutional government was threatened, then destroyed when Franklin Roosevelt attempted to get many of his “New Deal” policies passed through congress and into law. We were in the middle of a depression and the economy was in a shambles. The programs that were passed were challenged by many and then eventually found their way to the Supreme Court. After much argument and serious judicial review, the laws were found to be unconstitutional. These challenges began in 1935 and over the next 16 months, the court reviewed 10 specific laws and struck down 8 of them as failing to meet the test of constitutionality; they violated the premises of “enumerated powers” granted to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Any powers not specific to this article are reserved to the states or to the citizens.
Roosevelt desired powers similar in scope to those needed in time of war to accomplish his goals. The economic emergency he felt justified his actions. Like today, many very poorly considered, poorly drafted pieces of legislation were put through with very little if any debate. Some were not even printed up prior to a vote so they could be read and reviewed, and were simply passed without any review. Since the president and his party enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, there was little the opposition could do to stop it. Very similar conditions exist today as then.
After the Supreme Court struck down these laws, the President, in effect, declared war on the Supreme Court. In March of 1937, in a “Fireside Chat” radio broadcast, he stated;
“we have therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.”
In a letter to a representative from Pennsylvania, he urged passing of the National Bituminous Coal Conservation Act, in spite of the knowledge of the doubtful nature of its constitutionality.
The elections of 1936 further empowered and emboldened the Democrats and gave further power to Roosevelt to enact his policies. What happened next was what historians refer to as the “The Revolution of 1937” when the President began an active , punitive campaign against the last bastion of conservative, constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, The United States Supreme Court. The president attempted to “pack the court” by adding additional justices to the bench, using the pretext that the elderly justices, many of whom were over 70 years of age, needed the additional help due to the excessive case load.
This was an obvious subterfuge, but sufficiently scared the Chief Justice, Charles Evan Hughes, that he attempted to formulate a plan to protect the courts traditional role as “guardian of the Constitution”. His actions were based on the premise that loosing a tactical fight with Roosevelt over some issues would prevent losses on a larger scale in order to allow for ultimate judicial supremacy on more weighty and important issues later.
The make-up of the court was fairly even with 3 more liberal justices, 2 moderates, 4 conservatives; Hughes was one of the 2 moderates. The other moderate, Justice Roberts, was encourage to move left of center to remove the impetus for Roosevelt’s court packing scheme. Unfortunately, the rulings that were made then have given us many legacy issues that we have today, one specifically, Social Security, continues to be one of the biggest wealth transfers in the country. The justification for all that Roosevelt did was the “general welfare’ section of the preamble.
From the moment Chief Justice Hughes caved, and the principle of “general Welfare” as justification for government larges was made legal precedent, the public had in effect, been granted access, via their elected representatives, to the public purse for private use, through entitlement programs. This was the first trip down the slippery slope that has now become economic disaster for us today nearly 80 years later. One wonders what Mr. Chief Justice Hughes would say if he were alive today to see what he had wrought.
In 1951, Justice Roberts wrote:
“In looking back, it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge…an insistence by the court on holding federal power to what seemed it’s appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our duel structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government.”
There was little erosion in the intervening years due to World War II, the Korean War, and the fairly conservative years under both Eisenhower and Kennedy. It wasn’t until the Johnson administration that we saw the complete disintegration of the “enumerated powers” barrier.
The arrival of the “Great Society” programs were the death knell to States and individual rights and the breach that allowed the federal government to provide “something for everyone”. Congress lacked the political will or fiscal discipline to reign in spending. In the name of social justice and egalitarianism, the government, using the justification of improving the “general welfare”, once again, began routinely running massive deficits that have continued to this day in ever increasing amounts. There has been virtually unlimited tax/borrow and spend activities without any real abatement. The spending that can be justified using “general welfare” as a basis has allowed Congress and the President to enter into a bidding war with the public, each out-bidding the other in the attempt to buy the favor of the people. Individuals within and outside of Congress compete for votes and power by attempting to out promises the other to gain advantage and hence, more power via the public purse.
As of today, August 13, 2009, the United States is the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world. We have this year, accumulated $1.3 TRILLION in additional debt which is nearly 4 times the debt of the previous year. The total accumulated public debt of the United States is approximately $12 TRILLION dollars. The amounts seem impossible, almost unfathomable. But it is real and a fatal danger to our Republic and our traditional way of life. This debt must be paid off someday by someone- perhaps, our grandchildren or great grand children.
It may take that long….
Now the new Obama administration, even more liberal, even more “populist” than we have seen before, possibly even more damaging than Roosevelt’s administration was, has risen to power and has begun a process to in effect, nationalize the health delivery system of the nation. They make many claims, promises much to assuage the fears of the masses, but it is clear that if they get their way, we will see the greatest hit against the original intent of Constitutional government since 1937. It will definitely be the greatest reduction of personal freedom and liberty ever seen in modern times and We the People, could well see the public debt increase to the point of national insolvency.
This must stop…
In order to save the Republic, we must stop and then begin to roll back the trend to spend public money for maintenance of individual people and the financing of private enterprise like the bail-outs and “stimulus” payments we have seen pass this year. We need constitutional amendments that repeal the income tax, the most regressive, and debilitating tax on prosperity there is, and to limit the scope of taxing and spending power that can be done at the federal level. We must insist in a “Balanced Budget” amendment that will force under penalty of law, the Congress and the Executive Branch to account for all monies spent and collected and report it to the people, then balancing the spending of government funds to match revenues in each budget year. The several states need to reassert their traditional roles and insist on their sovereign rights and prerogatives by reasserting their authority under the 10th Amendment. If the Federal government encroaches, the states and individual citizens must act either individually or collectively to put down the encroachment on their prerogatives.
By conducting themselves as they did, President Roosevelt and Chief Justice Hughes, set into motion much of the framework that now encumbers and entangles us today. James Madison, when asked specifically about the “General Welfare” clause, if it was a grant of unlimited power, he replied in a letter to Henry Lee, “If not the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment (the Constitution) should be thrown into the fire at once!”
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Poetic Justice.......
I recently receive an e-mail from a friend that had a letter attached. The letter was from a corporate CEO who was addressing the subject of how the business was going to survive in the new political and economic environment. Here is the text of the letter:
Dear Employees,
As the CEO of the organization, I have resigned myself to the fact the Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and Government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But, since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal estate of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.
So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found that sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change, I gave it to them.
I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
Poetic Justice!!!!!
Dear Employees,
As the CEO of the organization, I have resigned myself to the fact the Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and Government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But, since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal estate of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.
So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found that sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change, I gave it to them.
I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
Poetic Justice!!!!!
Greetings from "The Mob"....
I have to laugh at Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats who seem somewhat upset that We, The People, have risen up in righteous indignation, to protest the government’s attempt to, in effect, nationalize the American health delivery system though the so-called “Public Option” insurance system. As Arlen Spector, Nancy Selibus, and many others in Congress and the Senate are discovering, a majority of the citizenry showing up are very upset with their actions to fundamentally change the system we enjoy today. We have seen “Town Hall” meetings turn into free-for-alls where house members and Senators have been called to task for their seeming lack of knowledge, concern, and reckless zeal to get this program through the congress without even being read or seen in finished version, then debated. What they seem to forget it that they work for us, and we will not simply sit by and let them ramrod though another faulty, ill-conceived piece of legislation.
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has called those of us who vociferously object to any intrusion in a system that is the best in the world at delivering state of the art medical services, a bunch of Un-American, NAZI-ish, thugs. Personally, as a former service member who has served this nation in time of war and peace, resent the characterization of common people, concerned for their very lives and the lives of those they love as essentially unpatriotic at best or seditious and even fascist at worst.
People like Ms. Pelosi and her liberal, Democrat colleagues, criticized efforts to combat Islamo-fascism and terrorism guise of terrorists like Al Queda in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were very vocal and even violent protests against the “War on Terror”. Some criticized the protestors as being “Un-American” and “Un-patriotic”.
That was wrong.
They who protested had a right to voice their dissatisfaction of policy as that is their constitutional right. It is clear no however, that now the shoe is on the other foot. Now the liberal establishment, lead by Obama, Pelosi and their sycophants, both in and outside of government, are getting to experience the sort of resentment, vitriol and anger that they themselves regularly put out against the previous administration for it’s policies. How can they claim to be serving America and her interests, but show such hatred and condescension to regular Americans?
It’s simple really. They don’t like regular Americans.
If you are Not a UNION member, or a liberal activist member of some organization like ACORN, or if you are able to take care of yourself, and don’t need to live off government larges, they see you as the “enemy” and as an obstacle to their agenda and objectives. Specifically, an obstacle to their objective: to nationalize the health delivery system and ultimately create a single payer medical system here in America. They deny this, of course, but it is the stated objective as articulated by Barack Obama as far back as 2003, when he addressed the AFL-CIO and touted the idea as something that may take a decade or two to accomplish; that it was an achievable goal, provided that they (the Democrats) took back control of the House, Senate and White House.
Well, they have and now done just that, and in spite of his denials now that he only wants a “public option” (some sort of publically funded insurance program), we see from the Democratically controlled House of Representatives, a plan that is nothing more than a plan to begin the slow death of the best system of public and private payer plans in the world today. It is amazing and nearly incomprehensible that so many can’t see the obvious and fundamental change that this will cause if it passes both houses of Congress and is sighed into law.
So many of us who have followed this whole process see that the now-desperate Democrats and the Chicago Gangster/Daley Machine transplants in the White House are beginning to resort to the vilest tactics that their collective histories can recall to get what they want at our expense. Just like days of old, they are using intimidation and thug tactics reminiscent of the days when guys like Hoffa, Fitz Wallace, and Tobin used to “get the rank and file in line.” They are calling on folks from SEIU Service employee’s International Union (the Purple Shirts) and others to shout down, intimidate and even rough up and physically confront those who object to the Democrat agenda. There has been no violence at any of the “Town Hall” meetings until the Unionists showed up and began their tactics. There have been scuffles and arrests and the blame has been put on those who are objecting to these so-called reforms.
To make matters even more suspect, some Congress members and Senators have decided that they will not have meetings with constituents, but will have phone conferences and one-on-one’s in their district offices. This dodge tactic is basically a way to avoid facing their critics and to limit the scope and volume of decent that is voiced to them. They can then say that they (the member) did their due diligence; that they had a public discourse, and that they now can vote with a clear conscience. What they don’t truly understand is just how far behind the power curve they really are in regard to public feelings on the issue of Health Insurance/ Health Care Reform. They think by using “Chicago Tactics” that they can just run roughshod over opposition that they will ultimately win the day. We must continue to apply pressure to all branches of the government involved in this naked attempt to destroy private health insurance and to nationalize health delivery in this country.
One way to fight this process is to vote in the next series of off-year elections that will occur very soon in most states. We must hand the liberal Democrats a stunning and complete defeat to show them and their party that we, solid, thoughtful and independent and conservative minded people will not tolerate government meddling in private affairs, medical choices and additional public debt that would result from a “public option” health plan.
We all see regularly how well Medicare and Medicaid are run: constant mismanagement, lack of funding, constant quality and service availability issues and a host of other short comings. Now the Democrats want to put an additional 45 MILLION people on what is in effect, medical welfare. There are serious questions like:
Who will pay for this?
Who will be allowed to use the plan?
Will U.S. Taxpayers have to pay for the healthcare of illegal aliens?
Will Medicare and Medicaid go away and this new program replace them?
Will government employees be forced to use this plan in place of their existing coverage?
Where will the 45 Million uninsured get their care?....Where will all the extra doctors, nurses, medical and lab staff, administrators and facilities come from when all these people come on line as covered persons?
Who will pay for these facilities, equipment and who will train all the additional people to staff new facilities?
Who will be exempted from this plan…and why? This is a big question as I understand there are “protected classes” of people that are exempted from this new plan.
If there are no good answers to these questions, then this whole idea needs to be scrapped and shelved until reason and logic are restored to the process, because the many hundreds of pages we have seen amount to nothing more than typical Government meddling, as well as potential fiscal suicide.
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has called those of us who vociferously object to any intrusion in a system that is the best in the world at delivering state of the art medical services, a bunch of Un-American, NAZI-ish, thugs. Personally, as a former service member who has served this nation in time of war and peace, resent the characterization of common people, concerned for their very lives and the lives of those they love as essentially unpatriotic at best or seditious and even fascist at worst.
People like Ms. Pelosi and her liberal, Democrat colleagues, criticized efforts to combat Islamo-fascism and terrorism guise of terrorists like Al Queda in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were very vocal and even violent protests against the “War on Terror”. Some criticized the protestors as being “Un-American” and “Un-patriotic”.
That was wrong.
They who protested had a right to voice their dissatisfaction of policy as that is their constitutional right. It is clear no however, that now the shoe is on the other foot. Now the liberal establishment, lead by Obama, Pelosi and their sycophants, both in and outside of government, are getting to experience the sort of resentment, vitriol and anger that they themselves regularly put out against the previous administration for it’s policies. How can they claim to be serving America and her interests, but show such hatred and condescension to regular Americans?
It’s simple really. They don’t like regular Americans.
If you are Not a UNION member, or a liberal activist member of some organization like ACORN, or if you are able to take care of yourself, and don’t need to live off government larges, they see you as the “enemy” and as an obstacle to their agenda and objectives. Specifically, an obstacle to their objective: to nationalize the health delivery system and ultimately create a single payer medical system here in America. They deny this, of course, but it is the stated objective as articulated by Barack Obama as far back as 2003, when he addressed the AFL-CIO and touted the idea as something that may take a decade or two to accomplish; that it was an achievable goal, provided that they (the Democrats) took back control of the House, Senate and White House.
Well, they have and now done just that, and in spite of his denials now that he only wants a “public option” (some sort of publically funded insurance program), we see from the Democratically controlled House of Representatives, a plan that is nothing more than a plan to begin the slow death of the best system of public and private payer plans in the world today. It is amazing and nearly incomprehensible that so many can’t see the obvious and fundamental change that this will cause if it passes both houses of Congress and is sighed into law.
So many of us who have followed this whole process see that the now-desperate Democrats and the Chicago Gangster/Daley Machine transplants in the White House are beginning to resort to the vilest tactics that their collective histories can recall to get what they want at our expense. Just like days of old, they are using intimidation and thug tactics reminiscent of the days when guys like Hoffa, Fitz Wallace, and Tobin used to “get the rank and file in line.” They are calling on folks from SEIU Service employee’s International Union (the Purple Shirts) and others to shout down, intimidate and even rough up and physically confront those who object to the Democrat agenda. There has been no violence at any of the “Town Hall” meetings until the Unionists showed up and began their tactics. There have been scuffles and arrests and the blame has been put on those who are objecting to these so-called reforms.
To make matters even more suspect, some Congress members and Senators have decided that they will not have meetings with constituents, but will have phone conferences and one-on-one’s in their district offices. This dodge tactic is basically a way to avoid facing their critics and to limit the scope and volume of decent that is voiced to them. They can then say that they (the member) did their due diligence; that they had a public discourse, and that they now can vote with a clear conscience. What they don’t truly understand is just how far behind the power curve they really are in regard to public feelings on the issue of Health Insurance/ Health Care Reform. They think by using “Chicago Tactics” that they can just run roughshod over opposition that they will ultimately win the day. We must continue to apply pressure to all branches of the government involved in this naked attempt to destroy private health insurance and to nationalize health delivery in this country.
One way to fight this process is to vote in the next series of off-year elections that will occur very soon in most states. We must hand the liberal Democrats a stunning and complete defeat to show them and their party that we, solid, thoughtful and independent and conservative minded people will not tolerate government meddling in private affairs, medical choices and additional public debt that would result from a “public option” health plan.
We all see regularly how well Medicare and Medicaid are run: constant mismanagement, lack of funding, constant quality and service availability issues and a host of other short comings. Now the Democrats want to put an additional 45 MILLION people on what is in effect, medical welfare. There are serious questions like:
Who will pay for this?
Who will be allowed to use the plan?
Will U.S. Taxpayers have to pay for the healthcare of illegal aliens?
Will Medicare and Medicaid go away and this new program replace them?
Will government employees be forced to use this plan in place of their existing coverage?
Where will the 45 Million uninsured get their care?....Where will all the extra doctors, nurses, medical and lab staff, administrators and facilities come from when all these people come on line as covered persons?
Who will pay for these facilities, equipment and who will train all the additional people to staff new facilities?
Who will be exempted from this plan…and why? This is a big question as I understand there are “protected classes” of people that are exempted from this new plan.
If there are no good answers to these questions, then this whole idea needs to be scrapped and shelved until reason and logic are restored to the process, because the many hundreds of pages we have seen amount to nothing more than typical Government meddling, as well as potential fiscal suicide.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Bring the cash home!! We need it here....
I heard something this week that really surprised me. On a morning talk show, I heard that private U.S. investment overseas amounted to somewhere in the neighborhood of
13.8 to 14 TRILLION dollars. I went to the Bureau of Economic Analysis website and looked up the last report they issued back in July, 2008; the actual number on their chart was 14.98 TRILLION dollars. These are dollars that are in effect, lost to America. These dollars are lost to businesses here that need capitol for expansion, and for entrepreneurs wanting to start business and industry here in America. We must find a way to entice these dollars back here to our shores where American workers, American entrepreneurs and consumers can benefit.
How can we accomplish this? How can we return these invested dollars that have been getting better returns than U.S. investments, back to our shores? The solutions are obvious. We must give incentives that are, at worst, revenue neutral to Government and that are revenue positive for the investor.
Those thousands of billions of dollars earn great returns for the investors and generate no revenue for our government in taxes, and no benefit to the vast majority of the nation. If government policy was altered to encourage those dollars back onshore, we would all benefit. The easiest way is to make any investment here more attractive than a similar investment overseas. The easiest way to do that is to change tax law to encourage investment in America. The extraordinarily high corporate tax rate, the second highest in the world, and the confiscatory rates on capitol gains drive dollars overseas, have driven dollars away from this country. What precisely should be the government’s response?
1. Eliminate any capitol gains on returned dollars that are invested here.
2. Exempt these dollars from corporate or personal tax liability on the profits.
The obvious response from many who favor the tax system as it is, would violently object to this suggestion. They would say that this is a break for the rich and that normal, average Americans would get nothing out of such a deal. I would argue that as of now, they get nothing anyway. Dollars overseas raise no revenue for the government. Although the government would be forsaking immediate gratification by taxing these dollars, they would notice an immediate change in available liquidity in the private sector as dollars entered our economy. As businesses were started or expanded, more workers would be employed and tax revenue would increase as payrolls began to increase and as commerce increases. This was seen in the 1920’s, 1960’s and in the 1980’s when tax rates were cut by the Reagan administration.
It is interesting to note :
1. The increases in the 1920’s after the income tax was re-established by constitutional amendment, The share of the tax burden paid by the individuals seen as rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) rose drastically as rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich increased from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928. It wasn’t called the “Roaring 20’s “for nothing!
2. In the 1960’s, President Kennedy’s tax cuts increased revenue by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose only 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
3. In the Reagan years, the share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners increased by nearly 10%. The percentage climbed from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent of earners saw the share they pay in income taxes climb even more drastically; from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent by the close of 1988.
If the U.S. government implemented these sorts of tax policies, the increase in tax revenue would be demonstrable as has been seen on 3 separate occasions in the last century. These increases are by no means the only actions the government needs to engage in. Spending deficits must be brought under control, and the existing public debt must be brought down.
What must occur is a corresponding decrease in public spending in concert with the increases in revenues to conquer the debt. This would in turn, increase confidence in the U.S. economy overseas and at home. It would reduce interest rates as government would no longer be competing with the private sector for capitol. The available pool of investment capitol would increase, and investment in research and development would rise. We must do everything possible to encourage the increase reconstruction of the U.S. manufacturing base and the U.S. energy base.
We need to focus investments into areas of the country where unemployment and de-industrialization have occurred, but we must make it friendly for entrepreneurs and large businesses to start or expand in these areas, to reduce overhead, and to reduce interruptions in production and productivity. In areas where new business is desired, “Special Economic Zones” need to be established. Right to work laws need to be established to allow wages and work rules to be set by employers and individual workers. America is in a global economy, and employers need the flexibility and freedom to set and adjust wages and staffing levels without the additional burden of Union entanglements. All tax liability on capitol gains need to be waived indefinitely in these zones, and corporate income taxes need to be cut to a fraction of levels that exist today.
It has been demonstrated that if we enacted these steps, we would undoubtedly experience a financial, economic and industrial renaissance on the order of what we has in the 1950’s when we were the most prosperous nation on the planet. As countries like Communist China, and India, and other nations in the Far East and Europe rise to challenge us, we need to get our house in order now, before it is too late.
13.8 to 14 TRILLION dollars. I went to the Bureau of Economic Analysis website and looked up the last report they issued back in July, 2008; the actual number on their chart was 14.98 TRILLION dollars. These are dollars that are in effect, lost to America. These dollars are lost to businesses here that need capitol for expansion, and for entrepreneurs wanting to start business and industry here in America. We must find a way to entice these dollars back here to our shores where American workers, American entrepreneurs and consumers can benefit.
How can we accomplish this? How can we return these invested dollars that have been getting better returns than U.S. investments, back to our shores? The solutions are obvious. We must give incentives that are, at worst, revenue neutral to Government and that are revenue positive for the investor.
Those thousands of billions of dollars earn great returns for the investors and generate no revenue for our government in taxes, and no benefit to the vast majority of the nation. If government policy was altered to encourage those dollars back onshore, we would all benefit. The easiest way is to make any investment here more attractive than a similar investment overseas. The easiest way to do that is to change tax law to encourage investment in America. The extraordinarily high corporate tax rate, the second highest in the world, and the confiscatory rates on capitol gains drive dollars overseas, have driven dollars away from this country. What precisely should be the government’s response?
1. Eliminate any capitol gains on returned dollars that are invested here.
2. Exempt these dollars from corporate or personal tax liability on the profits.
The obvious response from many who favor the tax system as it is, would violently object to this suggestion. They would say that this is a break for the rich and that normal, average Americans would get nothing out of such a deal. I would argue that as of now, they get nothing anyway. Dollars overseas raise no revenue for the government. Although the government would be forsaking immediate gratification by taxing these dollars, they would notice an immediate change in available liquidity in the private sector as dollars entered our economy. As businesses were started or expanded, more workers would be employed and tax revenue would increase as payrolls began to increase and as commerce increases. This was seen in the 1920’s, 1960’s and in the 1980’s when tax rates were cut by the Reagan administration.
It is interesting to note :
1. The increases in the 1920’s after the income tax was re-established by constitutional amendment, The share of the tax burden paid by the individuals seen as rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) rose drastically as rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich increased from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928. It wasn’t called the “Roaring 20’s “for nothing!
2. In the 1960’s, President Kennedy’s tax cuts increased revenue by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose only 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
3. In the Reagan years, the share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners increased by nearly 10%. The percentage climbed from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent of earners saw the share they pay in income taxes climb even more drastically; from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent by the close of 1988.
If the U.S. government implemented these sorts of tax policies, the increase in tax revenue would be demonstrable as has been seen on 3 separate occasions in the last century. These increases are by no means the only actions the government needs to engage in. Spending deficits must be brought under control, and the existing public debt must be brought down.
What must occur is a corresponding decrease in public spending in concert with the increases in revenues to conquer the debt. This would in turn, increase confidence in the U.S. economy overseas and at home. It would reduce interest rates as government would no longer be competing with the private sector for capitol. The available pool of investment capitol would increase, and investment in research and development would rise. We must do everything possible to encourage the increase reconstruction of the U.S. manufacturing base and the U.S. energy base.
We need to focus investments into areas of the country where unemployment and de-industrialization have occurred, but we must make it friendly for entrepreneurs and large businesses to start or expand in these areas, to reduce overhead, and to reduce interruptions in production and productivity. In areas where new business is desired, “Special Economic Zones” need to be established. Right to work laws need to be established to allow wages and work rules to be set by employers and individual workers. America is in a global economy, and employers need the flexibility and freedom to set and adjust wages and staffing levels without the additional burden of Union entanglements. All tax liability on capitol gains need to be waived indefinitely in these zones, and corporate income taxes need to be cut to a fraction of levels that exist today.
It has been demonstrated that if we enacted these steps, we would undoubtedly experience a financial, economic and industrial renaissance on the order of what we has in the 1950’s when we were the most prosperous nation on the planet. As countries like Communist China, and India, and other nations in the Far East and Europe rise to challenge us, we need to get our house in order now, before it is too late.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Update on the "Cash for Clunkers" program
The Dept. of Transportation has refused to release data on the 157,000 rebates issued thus far for review or analysis by Congress or the public.
It would be nice to see what sorts of vehicles are being bought with the help (cash) from the public purse. Are domestic automakers reaping the benefit from these "clunker coupons" or are foreign automakers getting the lion's share of congressional largess? We may never know until all the dust has settled and billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on this boondoggle.
Initial estimates that have been seen indicate that 6 out of 10 sold via this program are either Toyota, Hundai, or Honda. There is no indication if the vehicles sold are even ones made in the good old U.S. of A.
Before we spend another 2 BILLION dollars on this U.A.W. welfare program, let's see where the cash is going and who is really benefiting.
It would be nice to see what sorts of vehicles are being bought with the help (cash) from the public purse. Are domestic automakers reaping the benefit from these "clunker coupons" or are foreign automakers getting the lion's share of congressional largess? We may never know until all the dust has settled and billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on this boondoggle.
Initial estimates that have been seen indicate that 6 out of 10 sold via this program are either Toyota, Hundai, or Honda. There is no indication if the vehicles sold are even ones made in the good old U.S. of A.
Before we spend another 2 BILLION dollars on this U.A.W. welfare program, let's see where the cash is going and who is really benefiting.
Cash for Clunkers runs out of gas...and it should!
The senate is having problems convincing republicans to approve further spending on the “Cash for Clunkers” program that ran out of money this week.
This should be a slam-dunk for the Democrats, but apparently it isn't. The additional $2 billion sought was to allow the program to continue so that Americans can get a subsidy to swap out less efficient, polluting gas guzzlers for more efficient, cleaner vehicles. These subsidies are from $3500-$4500 per qualifying vehicle. One of the problems with this program is the “qualifying” part. It only applies to vehicles that are manufactured after 1986. This seems strange if the goal was really about getting dirty, inefficient, gas guzzling vehicles off the road. It would make sense to want ALL vehicles who are in existence, all vehicles who get poor mileage, which may or may not have pollution control systems like catalytic converters to be eligible for the program. The program supposedly forces dealers who take these trade-ins to destroy the vehicles so they can't end up back on the road. Why are older vehicles excluded?
The other requirements, such as having to have owned, insured and registered an operational vehicle for at least a year prior to trading in that vehicle, prevents people from just buying a junk yard vehicle and swapping out for a new vehicle. This makes some sense.
The problems with the program are great. It is reported that dealers have given these rebates, but the government has been slow to pay the dealers back. Nearly half of the monies given out by dealers have yet to be paid back to the dealers. The mountains of paperwork to wade through to qualify a buyer and his trade in are daunting. Some buyers are finding out that manufacturers rebates can't be used with the government subsidy and that any discounts on vehicles some would expect to get, are not being offered as dealers feel no pressure to negotiate.
Many trades in vehicles find there way to the secondary market to be resold. Some end up in dismantling facilities to become spare parts for other vehicles if their condition is such that they could not be resold as a running, salable vehicle. The vehicles brought in under this program must be rendered inoperative (crushed). The regulations stipulate this therefore their value as potential spare parts for like vehicles still on the road is negated. This is having the unintended consequence of creating a potential shortage of core spares for reconditioning for the vehicles still on the road. Perhaps this is intentional. Who suffers for this except the less affluent that need to keep their vehicles on the road with those spare parts that will now become even scarier than they were, therefore more expensive and hard to find. Have a 1989 Ford Taurus wagon with a bad transaxle? Maybe you can't afford the rebuild but you might get one from the junk yard.....ooops! They are out of them and the local supply is all crushed by the government edict. Now what? Maybe you can find one on the web and get it shipped to you at a greatly inflated price.
This is just one scenario of course......
Maybe this whole program is a bailout for Detroit in disguise. The Unions and their workers are getting canned right and left, and the government is THE major stockholder on G.M. What better way to get some cash flow to “Government Motors”? What better way to get cash funneled to their union buddies while looking “enlightened” and “green”. The problem is that “Clunker Coupons” don't do much except add to the deficit and do little to increase the national wealth as most of the cars sold are old inventory that is being burned off, ding little to return auto workers to their jobs. Also most of the vehicles sold are small cars that have little profit margin for the automakers. The staple of the most profitable vehicles sold in the past were SUV's and full size pick-ups which are not the sorts of vehicles most folks are buying these days.
There might be a spike in the GDP in the third and fourth quarter which should make Obama and his minions crow with delight, making claims that all is working to plan and that recovery is just around the corner.
Certain quarters in Washington seem surprised that this program has dispensed so much cash so fast. Why should they be surprised? When you subsidize an activity, you get more of it. The U.S. Government has now become the go-to guy for cash, giving money to car buyers at our expense just so they will buy a car which they probably would have bought anyway. The automakers are off the hook, not having to make the best deal they can, or give the customary incentives to lure buyers. They also get to sell off old inventory without having to work hard or bargain hard for the deal. It is a win/win for the government and automakers, but a loose/loose for the average Joe who get to pay more taxes to service the debt, see more deficit spending, and they get to subsidies their neighbors’ car purchase via their taxes. For the car dealers, they get to sell cars, fill out massive quantities of government paperwork via a slow and sometimes intermittent website, and then wait around for the government to pay them back for the “Clunker Coupons” they redeemed. Some dealers report that the website has crashed repeatedly making it difficult if not impossible to process the rebates.
So much for government efficiency.... And these folks want to control our healthcare.....
This should be a slam-dunk for the Democrats, but apparently it isn't. The additional $2 billion sought was to allow the program to continue so that Americans can get a subsidy to swap out less efficient, polluting gas guzzlers for more efficient, cleaner vehicles. These subsidies are from $3500-$4500 per qualifying vehicle. One of the problems with this program is the “qualifying” part. It only applies to vehicles that are manufactured after 1986. This seems strange if the goal was really about getting dirty, inefficient, gas guzzling vehicles off the road. It would make sense to want ALL vehicles who are in existence, all vehicles who get poor mileage, which may or may not have pollution control systems like catalytic converters to be eligible for the program. The program supposedly forces dealers who take these trade-ins to destroy the vehicles so they can't end up back on the road. Why are older vehicles excluded?
The other requirements, such as having to have owned, insured and registered an operational vehicle for at least a year prior to trading in that vehicle, prevents people from just buying a junk yard vehicle and swapping out for a new vehicle. This makes some sense.
The problems with the program are great. It is reported that dealers have given these rebates, but the government has been slow to pay the dealers back. Nearly half of the monies given out by dealers have yet to be paid back to the dealers. The mountains of paperwork to wade through to qualify a buyer and his trade in are daunting. Some buyers are finding out that manufacturers rebates can't be used with the government subsidy and that any discounts on vehicles some would expect to get, are not being offered as dealers feel no pressure to negotiate.
Many trades in vehicles find there way to the secondary market to be resold. Some end up in dismantling facilities to become spare parts for other vehicles if their condition is such that they could not be resold as a running, salable vehicle. The vehicles brought in under this program must be rendered inoperative (crushed). The regulations stipulate this therefore their value as potential spare parts for like vehicles still on the road is negated. This is having the unintended consequence of creating a potential shortage of core spares for reconditioning for the vehicles still on the road. Perhaps this is intentional. Who suffers for this except the less affluent that need to keep their vehicles on the road with those spare parts that will now become even scarier than they were, therefore more expensive and hard to find. Have a 1989 Ford Taurus wagon with a bad transaxle? Maybe you can't afford the rebuild but you might get one from the junk yard.....ooops! They are out of them and the local supply is all crushed by the government edict. Now what? Maybe you can find one on the web and get it shipped to you at a greatly inflated price.
This is just one scenario of course......
Maybe this whole program is a bailout for Detroit in disguise. The Unions and their workers are getting canned right and left, and the government is THE major stockholder on G.M. What better way to get some cash flow to “Government Motors”? What better way to get cash funneled to their union buddies while looking “enlightened” and “green”. The problem is that “Clunker Coupons” don't do much except add to the deficit and do little to increase the national wealth as most of the cars sold are old inventory that is being burned off, ding little to return auto workers to their jobs. Also most of the vehicles sold are small cars that have little profit margin for the automakers. The staple of the most profitable vehicles sold in the past were SUV's and full size pick-ups which are not the sorts of vehicles most folks are buying these days.
There might be a spike in the GDP in the third and fourth quarter which should make Obama and his minions crow with delight, making claims that all is working to plan and that recovery is just around the corner.
Certain quarters in Washington seem surprised that this program has dispensed so much cash so fast. Why should they be surprised? When you subsidize an activity, you get more of it. The U.S. Government has now become the go-to guy for cash, giving money to car buyers at our expense just so they will buy a car which they probably would have bought anyway. The automakers are off the hook, not having to make the best deal they can, or give the customary incentives to lure buyers. They also get to sell off old inventory without having to work hard or bargain hard for the deal. It is a win/win for the government and automakers, but a loose/loose for the average Joe who get to pay more taxes to service the debt, see more deficit spending, and they get to subsidies their neighbors’ car purchase via their taxes. For the car dealers, they get to sell cars, fill out massive quantities of government paperwork via a slow and sometimes intermittent website, and then wait around for the government to pay them back for the “Clunker Coupons” they redeemed. Some dealers report that the website has crashed repeatedly making it difficult if not impossible to process the rebates.
So much for government efficiency.... And these folks want to control our healthcare.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)