Obama’s and Democrats’ Debt and Deficit Trade-Off

The ol’ U.S. National Debt clock keeps ticking. It’s now up to $12,139,146,898,976.64 or an estimated $39,479.46 per person as of 12/16/2009, 5:57 PM CST. [1]

The Treasury Department says the debt was $12.079 trillion as of Tuesday 12/15/2009 and should reach its current limit of $12.1 trillion by month-end. The House voted 218 to 214 to raise the debt limit to $12.394 trillion, which should finance the government for about two months. [2]

Reuters quoted Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) as saying, “When will it stop? When will Washington get the message that we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing America.” [3]

House Democrats discarded the proposed debt increase of more than $1.8 trillion. Of course, this is good news. The House is still expected to consider a “jobs” bill of tens of billions, which would add to the deficit. The Senate apparently won’t consider that item until they finish with health care. [4]

“Fiscal conservatives in the Senate, meanwhile, led by Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), had been seeking the creation of a bipartisan commission with authority to force spending cuts or tax increases through Congress.” [5]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rejected this idea as giving up too much congressional authority. I almost agree with her. I would say it gives up too much congressional responsibility. If you (or your staff) can’t do your job, hire consultants or contract it out. That seems to be a frequent response by government officials in general, both parties and all levels. The idea is to avoid accountability and tough decisions.

There seems to be concern among Democrats over the deficit and federal spending, yet they press for the health care “reform” bill which will significantly increase spending and the deficit, as well as taxes. There will be serious tax increases, but these won’t really cover the added expense.

The chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Richard S. Foster, reports that national health care spending will increase by $234 billion over ten years under the Senate bill. The report does not allow for increasing Medicare to cover people aged 55 to 64 years. [6]

Also, public support is decreasing, as Senate Republican Mitch McConnell says:



[Politico video at Examiner.com]

President Obama and Democratic Party leaders are determined to get some kind of health care bill passed soon, regardless of what changes might be needed. If they discard the public option, abortion funding, etc., you can be sure these will be added back later.

The high level of public opposition remains the best reason to think this bill might not pass. But Obama and some others are adamant about nationalizing the health care industry as part of their restructuring of American society. Cap and trade and health care socialization are the cornerstone pieces of Obama’s grand plan to spread and consolidate federal government power. Compared to these items, concerns about jobs, the deficit, and the economy in general are strictly secondary.

If that were not the case, steps to greatly help the economy (including discarding health care “reform” and cap and trade) would already be in progress and we would be seeing good results already. But the economy has a hard time flourishing in an environment of increasing massive deficits with no end in sight, high taxes with more on the way, and a regulatory burden that’s quickly becoming unbearable. Current policies have serious risks. Higher levels of debt are harder and more expensive to finance. Will China cooperate indefinitely? Is high inflation on the way? Can interest rates stay low?

Fat cat bankers aren’t the problem. Government is.

[1] U.S. National Debt Clock, 12/15/2009, 5:57 PM CST, at http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[2]Andy Sullivan, “House backs $290 billion debt limit increase,” 12/16/2009, Reuters.com, at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BF58220091216?type=politicsNews

[3] Ibid.

[4] Paul Kane, “House Democrats discard larger debt limit,” 12/15/2009, Washington Post.com, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121403933.html

[5] Ibid.

[6] Terry Hurlbut, “CMS actuary warns Senate bill will cost more,” 12/11/2009, Examiner.com, at http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d11-CMS-actuary-warns-Senate-bill-will-cost-more

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Obama Cares So Deeply About … What?

Must we learn the hard way what Barack Obama’s intentions are? It should be painfully obvious by now that he is not particularly concerned with helping the economy. I think, rather, he’s trying to destroy it. And has “success” in his sights. Obama’s goals involve seizing as much power and control as possible, and redistributing as much wealth as possible. Once a good majority reaches non-taxpayer status, the remaining citizens can have their wealth taxed away to support the great fascist program. And there will be a majority willing to re-elect Barack, Biden, and their Congressional helpers. At least that’s what they seem to think.

1. The $800 billion dollar stimulus has thus far helped nothing. It is noted that only a small fraction of it has been spent so far, but it would be just as well, better even, if no more were spent at all. Now they’re talking Son of Stimulus which won’t help either, except for whatever benefit can be gained from pork projects and bridges to nowhere.

2. Cap and trade, if approved will be the biggest drain ever on our economy, not to mention our freedom. It will effectively “cap” any chance for economic recovery, probably for as long as it is in effect. As Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) observed, it could be called a stimulus bill for India and China. They are not going to allow these mindless restrictions and economy-destroying taxes, because they are trying to build their economies rather than tear them down.

The current employment situation is bad and getting worse. With cap and trade, we will see depression-era unemployment numbers and a steady exit of businesses to other countries, simply because they can no longer afford to stay in business here. Many of the ones that can’t move will simply shut down. Or maybe the government will take them over.

And all this activity, with its massive bureaucracy won’t help the climate one bit. The world of cap and trade is truly a fool’s paradise.

3. Health care and health insurance should not be the domain of the federal government when it comes to replacing private services. What is being proposed must lead to a single-payer government-controlled program with government eventually becoming the provider. If the government controls the insurance, they in effect control health care. The proposed plans seem to be comprehensive, placing all activity under some kind of government scrutiny if not direct control. As Mark Steyn pointed out on today’s Rush Limbaugh Show, an inefficient and unfair private system is far better than an inefficient and unfair government system, because under a private system, you can go somewhere else, but under a public system, you have to go where and when they tell you.

In health care, we are dealing with the most personal and intimate information. It has traditionally received a degree of privacy, protection, and choice. We may be about to give that up for a government system that has physical and decision-making control over our bodies. That is a serious and probably permanent surrender of freedom.

And people are worried about the government taxing our employer-provided health care benefits? That’s only a minor worry in the whole picture, but it is a problem. They’ll eventually be taxed out of existence and everyone will be on government health insurance, forcibly if necessary. “Competition” will be a forgotten concept in the health insurance field. Insurance companies will have to take up some other line of business. All of which is fine with Obama.

The hated pharmaceutical industry will be pressured to provide cheap medicine, which means they’ll have less money and less incentive to develop new medicines.

Oh, and cost? If you have some kind of coverage now, you will be paying more, since you’ll also be paying for a lot of other people’s insurance.

If you want to get treated for, say, a broken arm, you’ll be told when and where, probably put on a waiting list, restricted on any high-tech examining procedures (whatever your doctor might want to do), and all your records will be online for all and sundry to examine if they have the slightest connection with your medical care. Come to think of it, the North Koreans would probably be able to access it as well, along with your Social Security Number, etc., expert hackers that they are. If you’re old or chronically ill, look out for long delays and frequent denials of treatment.

Conclusion
The same folks that brought you Fannie and Freddie and FEMA are ready to offer you climate-saving cap and trade, plus cost-cutting health care insurance. And if you believe that, they might be willing to sell you a bridge somewhere in Brooklyn. Snake oil doesn’t sound all that bad by comparison.

Illustration: “Business Is Business”
From Squibs of California, Or, Every-day Life Illustrated by Palmer Cox, fig. 3, p. 171. This image is in the public domain. Found at http://books.google.com/books?id=Ri8PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4

Red Flags and a Line in the Sand on Socialized Healthcare

“Free” healthcare coverage! Doesn’t that sound great? But, as Milton Friedman said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Even people who wouldn’t have to pay directly for government healthcare coverage would pay in many ways.

There are many things to dislike about the Obama Administration’s healthcare proposal. First and foremost, government would eventually take control of virtually every aspect of healthcare and this would greatly diminish individual freedom and the doctor-patient relationship. And the cost would be in trillions of dollars we don’t have. So Republicans ought to oppose this to the maximum extent possible and filibuster it to the end.

But in addition to the unacceptable concepts this proposal represents, there are some obvious signs that this is an attempt to put something very serious over on the American people. Consider:

1. Obama is determined to take a very strong role in this himself, not trusting the Congress or anyone else to do it “right.” Many of his campaign statements, such as the people who have health insurance won’t see a change except that they’ll pay less, and the government won’t tax employer-provided health insurance benefits as that villain John McCain was going to do, will be out the window and forgotten.

2. This item will be on a fast track to minimize scrutiny and thoughtful consideration, being presented as a “crisis” which must be dealt with immediately. Probably, it will be voted upon without having been read, like the “stimulus” bill.

3. Democrats will largely leave Republicans out of the discussions about it, since Republicans will oppose all aspects of it. At least, they should.

4. If approved, this program would put us squarely in the middle of socialism and it would be very difficult to extricate ourselves from it.

The final form is not yet clear. What is wanted by Obama is universal single-payer healthcare coverage. This would greatly damage the hated (by Obama) pharmaceutical and insurance industries. He could then say, “Look, we’re getting even with these guys who are ripping you off!” But of course the people would be no better off. Proper healthcare would quickly begin to disappear. Waiting lists would proliferate. If someone needs an MRI, for instance, it is not too difficult to get one scheduled for just about anyone, anywhere in the U.S. Under socialized coverage, there will soon be long delays in getting any procedures involving sophisticated technology, and in many cases it won’t be available – too costly.

We must distinguish between health insurance and actual health care, but once government takes over the insurance market, they will dictate what kind of care is to be provided, and most likely eventually become the provider as well.

Today, health care is rationed by the market. It is readily available to the point that over 80% of Americans do not want any change to their present coverage. Yet it’s a “crisis” which “only the government” can fix. When the government takes over, many new agencies will be needed, new drugs on the market will be fewer and further between, and healthcare will be rationed by bureaucrats, meaning that arbitrary rules and decisions will prevail over sound medical judgment. Bureaucratic rationing will mean that medical decisions will be made by people who (1) don’t know the actual cases involved and (2) have little or no expertise in things medical. Their main equipment will be a spreadsheet and a calculator to see what fits into some little formula.

Older people will likely be excluded from any treatments deemed too costly (which they can readily get today under Medicare, if needed). AARP ought to be up in arms over this whole business. Eugenics will eventually raise its ugly head under the guise of cost-effectiveness.

Republican leaders have been expressing opposition to the idea of government insurance. They are saying many of the right things: that it will lead to government insurance for everyone, unfairly compete in the insurance market, etc. They seem to be focusing on the “public plan,” i.e. socialist issue the most, which is good. They need to reject this entire proposal in total, not try to negotiate details around the edges. Then there’s the little matter of how (or whether) it can be paid for. Democrats want to tax everything from soft drinks to employer benefits and it still wouldn’t be enough. They’ve proposed penalties on people who don’t participate by buying insurance. Maybe they’ll do what the unions want to do with reluctant workers under the card check program: persuade them through “home visits.”

If the Republicans ever are going to take a firm, united stand against anything Obama is doing, this healthcare proposal is where they should do it. Like it or not, this is going to be their moment of truth. Either they stand and fight this truly freedom-destroying, bankrupting orgy of socialism or we can question their credibility as being anywhere near conservative, and we would have to question their courage. I hope they are up to the challenge. Happy filibustering!