Real Honest Thinking

Maximize Your Income: Get a Government Job

2011-01-05T11:35:00.006-05:00

First things first... yes, it's been quite a while since I last posted. However, I've wanted to crank the blog back up for quite a while, so hopefully this will be the start of it.

As for government jobs, it's been widely publicized over the past few years that government workers earn far more in salary and benefits than those in the private sector. In fact, the Heritage Foundation has found that "federal employees get paid 22% more per hour on average than private-sector workers." I've seen other studies on this subject that put the number as high as 50%. For those of you who are screaming "The Heritage Foundation is part of the extreme right wing, and their figures cannot be trusted!" I will go ahead and include the Huffington Post which cites a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing government workers make an average of 44% more in total compensation than private sector workers. Take all of this data and the fact that under President Obama the number of federal workers making more than $150,000 per year has doubled, and the following information should not surprise you.

I came across a post in The Wealth Report on WSJ.com today that shows the top ten earning counties (ranked by median income) in America. It just so happens that four out of the top ten earning counties are suburbs of Washington D.C. Yes, you read that correctly. Our government workers are so incredibly well/over paid that the suburbs of Washington D.C. make up 40% of the top ten richest counties in America. President Obama has often criticized the "fat cat" bankers of New York City for ruining the economy, but the fact that there are more D.C. suburbs on the top ten list than there are from NYC makes you wonder who the real fat cats are.

The solution: Get government salaries and benefits in line with those of the private sector. The first step in this process should be to abolish public sector unions. These unions are largely responsible for the dire fiscal situation that permeates our government, especially at the state and local levels. Public sector workers should not be allowed to unionize, because the government is a monopoly. In the private sector, a union may drive a company out of business or into bankruptcy, but the pieces can be picked up by a competitor. The government has no competitors, and the public sector unions have spent their lifetimes extracting obscene benefits for members and demanding higher and higher taxes to pay for them. It is unsustainable and must stop.

What are your ideas for bringing government salaries and benefits in line with those of the private sector?

Don't Be Fooled by the Unemployment Rate Dropping

2010-02-05T10:33:00.003-05:00

This morning we received news that the unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped to 9.7%. Hooray!...... right? Not exactly. Actually, not at all. The economy lost 20,000 jobs last month, but the unemployment rate fell to 9.7% at the same time. If you're having trouble understanding how the unemployment rate falls when jobs are lost you're probably not alone. All you need to know is how the unemployment rate is calculated. The equation is:

Unemployment Rate = (Unemployed Workers / Total Labor Force) * 100

The "Total Labor Force" is defined as people of working age and under retirement age who are actively participating in the workforce or actively looking for work. If you look at the equation you can quickly understand that two factors can cause the unemployment rate to fluctuate.

1. The economy adds jobs, therefore resulting in fewer unemployed workers. See below:

a. Let's say the unemployment rate is 10%. The equation goes as follows:

10% = 10 unemployed workers / 100 people in labor force * 100

b. Now let's say that the economy adds two jobs, resulting in two people getting a job and the unemployment rate drops to 8%.

8% = 8 unemployed workers / 100 people in labor force * 100

2. People who are unemployed stop looking for work, therefore resulting in a smaller labor force. Yes, the unemployment rate drops, but not because people have found jobs. Again, see below:

a. Again, start with a 10% unemployment rate.

10% = 10 unemployed workers / 100 people in labor force * 100

b. Now let's say two of those people just gave up looking for work, causing a drop in the unemployment rate.

8.2% = 8 unemployed workers / 98 people in labor force * 100

Now you can see why the drop in the unemployment rate is so incredibly misleading. It is not an indication that the economy is recovering. It is an indication that people are simply giving up on the job search, because they aren't finding jobs! That's not exactly the change in unemployment that we're looking for. The bottom line is that there is so much political uncertainty these days that employers are afraid to hire. And by "employers" I'm really talking about small businesses. They are the economic engine that truly drives the economy, and they create most of the jobs in this country. When a business owner wants to hire someone he or she sits down and calculates how much it will cost to employ that person (salary, benefits, payroll taxes etc.). Business owners cannot make that calculation right now, because they don't know what to calculate. Are they going to have to pay a healthcare payroll tax? Are they going to have to pay a higher income tax? They don't know, and until they can predict their costs with a reasonable amount of certainty they are not going to hire anyone.

Our president and Congress need to understand this. They need to begin to understand that government spending does not create jobs, because government does not and cannot create wealth. In order for the government to create a job it must first take a dollar (through taxes) from someone and then give it to someone else. Zero value is added to either party. On the other hand, when money exchanges hands in private business value is added, and both parties gain something from the exchange. That is how our economy will grow. That is how our economy will add jobs, and that is how the unemployment rate will drop in a positive way. Until then, the drops we will see will be those of despair, people throwing up their hands saying "I give up."

A New Jobs Program...... Really?

2009-12-08T08:24:00.003-05:00

I have heard quite a few reports lately about Obama mulling over using repaid TARP money to fund a new jobs program. God forbid we actually use it to pay down our debt, since we had to borrow the money in the first place. This one started with President Bush who said "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system," in reference to his decision to implement the TARP. I'm not going to harp on this poor decision that Bush made, even though I could, because Bush isn't the president any longer. Obama is the president, and he has the power to chart a new course. Unfortunately, he is taking the deficits that the Republicans racked up during the Bush years and injecting levels of steroids far worse than all of the MLB players combined!

We have already had the $787 billion "stimulus" plan, billed as an effort to jumpstart the economy and create jobs, and on that basis it has been an overwhelming failure. So what is Obama going to do? He's going to waste even more money in the name of creating jobs. I have already explained that he is not creating jobs, only work. People need jobs, not work. All of this is old news, however. The main point I want to make is that it is downright illegal for Obama to use the TARP funds for a new jobs program. That money was appropriated by Congress for one purpose, to purchase bad assets from banks. Going back to the Bush Administration, they didn't even use the money for that purpose. Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary at the time, ended up using it to buy equity stakes in the banks. While this may have served the same purpose of aiding the banks and been a better tactical decision, the money was not appropriated for that specific reason, and he should have asked Congress to pass a new law. Now Obama wants to take the money and use it for a different purpose entirely.

Here is the danger in this situation. We have a government that is printing obscene amounts of money (love him or hate him, look at this chart that Glenn Beck walks through here for a good illustration). We have a national deficit that is out of control. Meanwhile, we have tens of billions of TARP dollars (that are part of the deficit) being repaid to the government, and what are we going to do with it? Spend it..... illegally.

Nope, we're not going to pay down the deficit like we should. We are going to do exactly what myself and many others feared we would do once the money was repaid: waste it away on some ineffective program. The bottom line is that this sets a very dangerous precedent (actually, the precedent has already been set, because the government has done this before) of completely ignoring our laws. However, we've already been doing that for years by trampling on the Constitution. Clearly the Speaker of the House doesn't care, as she aptly demonstrated when asked about the constitutionality of the health care legislation. If we are going to pass a law saying one thing and then do an entirely different thing then why pass laws at all? Let's just put all of the money in the Treasury in one big room and let members of Congress and the President grab what they want. Wait, it pretty much works that way already. Obama, while he and Congress have the chance to truly change things, is just making the situation worse.

Undermining Our Soldiers

2009-11-25T10:49:00.004-05:00

Do you remember the 4 Blackwater security guards who were ambushed and killed in Iraq in 2004? Insurgents burned the guards' bodies, dragged them through Fallujah and then hung two of the bodies from a bridge. Well, the alleged mastermind behind the attack, Ahmed Hashim Abed, has recently been captured by Navy SEALs. Fantastic, right? Not so much. Three of the SEALs who helped capture Ahmed Hashim Abed now face assault charges, because Abed claims that he was punched by one of them. He has a bloody lip as evidence.

This is beyond infuriating. Honestly, it is beyond anything that I could have imagined would happen within our military. These guys risk their lives to capture a high profile target in Iraq, a terrorist responsible for killing four Americans, burning their bodies and hanging two of them from a bridge, and now the SEALs are on trial, because the guy has a bloody lip. I don't even know where to start with this one. We, The United States of America, now go so far out of our way to appease organizations like the U.N., countries who might get offended at the slightest slip up, human rights organizations etc. that we have completely undermined and made a complete joke out of ourselves, our military and anything we try to do. We're sending the message, "You can shoot us, burn our bodies, mutilate, humiliate and do any number of inhumane things to us, but don't worry. We won't hurt you!" No word in the English language can even begin to describe the absurdity of this situation.

The main reverberation that I fear we will see from this fiasco is that soldiers will now think twice before doing so much as laying a hand on or even breathing near the enemy. Heaven forbid the terrorist catch a cold from one of our soldiers! Future captures might go like this:

Soldier 1: "We have a visual on the target. He is in the building."

Soldier 2: "Okay, we are go for capture."

Soldier 1: "Move in!"

[Lots of yelling and screaming as the soldiers storm the building]

Soldier 1: "There he is! Objective Amber [the target] is in sight! He's running up the stairs!"

[Soldiers run up stairs..... shots are fired]

Soldier 2: "Get on the ground, ON THE GROUND!!! HANDS ON YOUR HEAD!"

[Objective Amber is now lying on his stomach with his hands on his head]

Soldier 1: "We have the target."

Soldier 2 [to Objective Amber]: "Sir, are you comfortable? Are you offended in any way? We want to make sure you feel okay before we put the handcuffs on you, so you just let us know if anything hurts now, okay?"

Soldier 1: "Why don't we let him sit up? Being on his stomach probably hurts a bit. We can't let him get scratched or something. Don't wanna end up like those SEALs, ya know?"

If you think something like this will not happen, think again. Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit with the "are you comfortable" comment, but soldiers will certainly think twice before taking certain actions against the enemy. This could cost lives. Our military is out there to protect us. Why aren't we protecting them? Instead we are protecting our enemies from fat lips. Unbelievable.

Only in Congress...

2009-11-23T10:52:00.005-05:00

Last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid revealed the Senate's version of a health care reform bill. The bill is estimated to cost $849 billion and reduce the federal budget deficit by $127 billion over ten years. Anyone else see a problem with this? Somehow there are folks in Congress that think they can save $127 billion by spending $849 billion. For those of you who might not be able to relate to the incomprehensible, not-even-close-to-human logic of Congress, picture this...... you decided last January that you are going to save money in 2009. Black Friday is coming up, and you want to take advantage of some sales. You find some great 50% off sales and end up spending $10,000. You then claim that you have saved $10,000 in 2009 (remember, everything was 50% off, so you would have spent $20,000 without the sales)! Congratulations, you have accomplished your goal for 2009! But wait, your bank account does not have $10,000 more in it. It has $10K less! But I thought you were saving? Oh wait, you subscribe to the Congressional Savings Plan, the one where you claim to save money by spending it.

This is Congressional Math. If you really want to save $127 billion, REDUCE SPENDING BY $127 BILLION! It's really quite simple. There are 3rd graders in this country that can figure that out, but somehow Harry Reid and other members of Congress cannot. Actually, the truth is that they know exactly what they are doing. They aren't trying to save money at all. The real purpose is power. They simply want to gain power over our healthcare system under the guise of fiscal responsibility, and they are arrogant enough to think we, the American people, are stupid enough to buy their pitches. Oh, and the $849 billion total cost estimate is completely bogus. The true cost is about $2.5 trillion. You did read that correctly, by the way.... $2.5 TRILLION! Not $849 billion....... $2,500,000,000,000 (yeah, that's a lot of zeroes!)!! This is accomplished through accounting gimmicks hidden inside the bill combined with conveniently excluding certain spending matters from the bill. For example, the bill pushes $25 billion worth of spending on to the states, therefore, it is not counted in the CBO's estimate. That's like borrowing $250 from a friend but telling him/her that you don't owe the money, because your parents are going to pay it.

The things that some people are trying to pull in Congress are beyond ridiculous. None of what they are doing makes any logical or mathematical sense. This explains Obama and the Democrats' falling poll numbers. The fact is that people aren't stupid, and they are speaking out. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that spending $849 billion does not save money. Even if they were saving money, they're talking about reducing the federal budget deficit by $127 billion over ten years. That might sound significant until you understand what the budget deficit is projected to be over that time period. As it stands now, the CBO estimates that the budget deficit from 2010-2019 will be $7.137 trillion. $127 billion is a measly 1.78% of that. Add that $7+ trillion to the current national debt, and you get $19 trillion. Since Harry Reid and the Democrats plan on "saving" us $127 billion by spending $849 billion (actually $2.5 trillion) our national deficit will be .67% lower than if they hadn't spent the money. What would we do without them? Only in Congress does this math work.

Health Insurance Profits: The Comments

2009-10-15T07:00:00.000-04:00

I get comments on almost every post, but one post in particular gets at least a comment or two per week. Health Insurance Profits has sparked some serious outrage from some people, many of whom think that the health insurance companies should not be allowed to make profits and a few who claim that health insurance companies "have no legitimate claim to existence." Often times I want to respond to these people directly, but most people who disagree with me post anonymously. I find this cowardly. If you really want to open up a dialogue and you truly believe in your statements at least put a name with them. What I will do over the next week or so is share with you some of the comments that stand out to me. I will also respond to them as if the people who wrote them had the courage and enough confidence in their arguments to actually put their names on them. Here goes....

Comment #1: "Your being a "real conservative" has biased your article before you even typed the first letter. Explain this, how does politics and profit fit into the health and well being of citizens?? How are going to explain your "conservative" leanings when one of your family or friends is without insurance and becomes sick and can't afford to pay the medical bills? Are you going to tell them, it's okay because the insurance company is not making that much by way of "profit margin"?? You need to do some more growing up son and realize that the health care debate isn't about profit or what political party you follow, it's about people living or dying because of what they can and can't afford when it comes to health care."

My Response: Thank you for your comment and thank you for reading. I find it interesting that your perception of me being a "real conservative" makes you think that I am the one who is biased. Your assertion that my political leanings have anything to do with this issue at all is amusing. The truth is that the roots of my beliefs are based on fact, not political ideology. "Beliefs" is actually the wrong word to use here. Facts are based on objective reality. Facts are observed. Beliefs are not. You believe that money has no place and serves no purpose in the health care industry. In doing so you ignore the objective reality that healthcare costs money and the money must come from somewhere. Merriam-Webster defines bias as "a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment." It is not my personal judgment that healthcare costs money. I have simply observed that healthcare costs money and that the laws of economics apply equally to the healthcare industry as they do to any other. It may not be the patient who pays for the care, but that does not make the costs vanish. It is, in fact, your bias that taints your perception of my observation of reality. It is your willful ignorance of the facts that forms the premise of your bias, causes your outrage and evokes your condescending tone. Reality is what drives me. Reality is the basis of all of my writings, and reality is the space in which I choose to live.

You assert that the healthcare debate is not about politics. If you believe that the government should provide healthcare for everyone, that it should be "free," then you undermine your very statement, because government is politics. Are you telling me that Medicare and Medicaid are not driven by politics? Why, then, can I not qualify for Medicaid? I am ineligible for Medicaid, because a politician has deemed me as such. If we move to a single payer system in the United States or we have a public "option" then politicians will be the ones deciding who gets care and who does not. Politicians will set the payment rates for doctors and politicians will tell us which treatments we can and cannot receive. They will do this because healthcare is not free, and when the government is paying the bills the issue at hand is political in nature. This is a fact. You can choose to ignore it, but you will face the consequences of your choice. Eventually, if you get your wish, you will go to the doctor and he or she will recommend a treatment only to have a politician will tell you that you cannot have it. But it's not political, right?

You also asked how profit fits into the health and well being of citizens. To illustrate the necessity or, more accurately, reality, of profits in healthcare let us assume that a hospital takes in $10,000,000 per year in gross revenue. This hospital has decided that it is in the best interest of the people not to make a profit. 75% of their revenue, $7,500,000, goes to pay for utilities, property taxes, hospital gowns, medicines, surgical gloves and all of the other medical supplies necessary to run the hospital. The other 25%, $2,500,000, goes to pay the salaries and benefits of the doctors, nurses, assistants and other employees of the hospital. 75% + 25% = 100%. This hospital has achieved your goal of zero profit. However, the hospital suddenly needs a new X-Ray machine, or maybe they have found out about a new lifesaving surgical procedure that requires an investment in new equipment. Unfortunately, the hospital cannot afford to purchase the X-Ray machine or the new equipment, because they have no money with which to do so. Since they make no profit, every penny in revenue that they take in is spent on taking care of patients. It's okay though, because they are following your desire of keeping profits out of the healthcare picture. People can no longer get X-Rays at this hospital, but at least the hospital is not making a profit.

The same profit illustration could be made for device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and insurance firms. I agree with you that people living and dying because of what they can and cannot afford is a component of the root of the issue. Reality is the other component. Handing over healthcare to the government does not make it free, nor does it remove you and me from the responsibility of its costs. The healthcare industry is not independent of the laws of economics. The government does not make money on its own. It only seizes money from us to pay for the services that it provides (many of which are perfectly legitimate). The government pays for nothing. You and I, through taxes, provide the government with every penny that it spends. The belief that government spending allows us to keep the dollars in our wallets is nothing more than a belief.

You can go next door and ask your neighbor to feed your family for a while. You will then pocket the money you would have spent on food, but eventually your neighbor will run out of money. You will then have to find another neighbor to feed you. There will come a time, however, when you will have emptied all of your neighbors' pantries. They will not be able to feed themselves, having spent their money on your food, and they will turn to you as the only one who has money to buy food since you have been mooching off of them for so long. Your coffers will quickly be depleted as well. The objective reality is that when the government spends more, the government must seize more. We will pay for healthcare in one way or another. You can choose to ignore reality, but you will soon find that what you desire simply does not exist.

Who Knew It Was So Easy?

2009-10-09T09:30:00.003-04:00

President Obama, today, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, that's right. The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize today for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." It seems as if the criteria for winning the prize have changed. No longer must one actually accomplish anything so long as a person exerts "extraordinary efforts" to do something.

Tomorrow, I start work on my teleportation machine, an instant food multiplying laser to feed the hungry and a cure for cancer! I will work extraordinarily hard over the next year, harder than anyone else, to ensure that I win the Nobel Prize in something next year. It shouldn't matter that I have a degree in marketing, no physics or medical background whatsoever and I work in the advertising industry. President Obama has shown us that all that is needed to win the Noble Prize is "extraordinary efforts," and that's what I will give.

I really try hard to stay away from the satirical and stick to the facts, but I just can't help it right now, because this is so laughable. The man has accomplished nothing! No, I am not just being an "Obama hater" or a "racist" by saying that. It's true, and I can back it up. On to the facts....

January 22, 2009: Obama's signs an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Is it closed? No. Failure #1.

February 17, 2009: Obama signs the "stimulus package" into law. Obama promised that, with the stimulus package, the unemployment rate would not rise above 8%. The unemployment rate now stands at 9.8%. Failure #2.

April 5, 2009: North Korea conducts a ballistic missile test despite the pleadings of world leaders, including President Obama, not to do so. Failure #3.

June 2009: Iran conducts fraudulent elections, attempts to silence protestors and takes other oppresive measures against its own people. President Obama stands by and largely does nothing save the utterance of a few words telling Iran to stop. Did this "strengthen international diplomacy"? No. Failure #4.

June 2009: The Honduran Supreme Court orders the military to arrest Honduran President Manuel Zelaya for attempting to undermine democracy and violate their nation's constitution. President Obama, and his administration has continually backed Zelaya ever since, working to get him reinstated as president of Honduras. Meanwhile, the Honduran Congress is busy setting up democratic elections to elect their next president, per their constitution. Failure #5.

Summer 2009: President Obama attempts to get health care legislation passed before the August Congressional recess. It's October, and the legislation still hasn't passed. Failure #6.

I could go on, but this is getting boring. The man has not accomplished anything, domestically or internationally. Kudos to him for winning the prize and giving some nice speeches, but there are a lot of people out there who can give speeches. There are very few who can actually back them up and accomplish things. President Obama is yet to prove that he is one of these few individuals. The world is full of great intentions. However, if intention equals accomplishment then our world should be free of war, hunger, disease, murder, abuse, etc. There is one key thing missing from this equation: reality.

One cannot ignore reality, and it seems as if the Nobel Committee is trying to do just that. The intentions are great, for sure. Few people, if any, want war, hunger, disease etc. The reality of the situation is that they exist. Evil exists in the world, and it must be dealt with accordingly.

Oh, and one little known fact is that the nominations for the Nobel Prize are due on February 1st of each year. President Obama had been in office for eleven days at that point. What had he accomplished before February 1, 2009? What had he done to "to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," at that point? The answer is absolutely nothing. He was a community organizer in Chicago, an Illinois state legislator and a United States Senator. I cannot think of a single international accomplishment that could have been put on his application for nomination prior to February 1, 2009.

According to Nobelprize.org, the Nobel Prizes have been "honoring men and women from all corners of the globe for outstanding achievements." No longer is the award about achievement. President Obama has clearly demonstrated this. Anyone who receives the award from this point forward must live with the reality that this prestegious award now requires nothing but setting aside reality and thinking good thoughts. Maybe we should just rename it the Nobel Good Intentions Prize.

Your Tax Dollars at Work!

2009-10-08T13:27:00.003-04:00

First of all, sorry for the lack of posts lately. I've been pretty busy, and I haven't had the time to do the research that I would like to put into this blog. I have opted not to post rather than just throw up thoughts and commentary.

Recently, the Heritage Foundation posted a list of "50 Examples of Government Waste." Some of these examples are absolutely absurd. Some of the highlights include:

#7 Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

#15 The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

#23 Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, "Girls Gone Wild" videos, and at least one sex change operation.

#24 Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.

#49 The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.

What you just read is only 1/10th of the examples provided by The Heritage Foundation. There are 45 more in the article, guaranteed to make you take a second look at the deductions section of your paycheck. Taking things a step further, these examples are only a small portion of the total waste and abuse of our money that takes place in Washington. Also note that they are almost exclusively dealing with the federal government here. Tack on state and local waste, and you've got hundreds of billions of dollars that belong to you and me being wasted every year.

Do you really think a government takeover of our healthcare system will reduce costs?

A Quick Visual: The Washington, D.C. Tea Party

2009-09-15T16:07:00.004-04:00

There has been quite a debate going on about the number of people who showed up in Washington D.C. last weekend for the Tea Party. I have heard everything from "scores of people" to "2 million." For those of you that don't know, a "score" is a group of 20. "2 million" is 100,000 scores. There's quite a big difference here. Those who are trying to downplay the size of the Tea Party will use the words "score" or "tens of thousands." Their agenda is pretty transparent in their vocabulary. On the flip side there are some who are undoubtedly trying to exaggerate the size of the Tea Party. They are just as guilty as the downplayers. The truth is that the real number is somewhere between "scores" and "2 million." At the very least, folks should be using the phrase "hundreds of thousands." My personal feeling is that there had to have been at least a million people there, but not 2 million. However, you won't hear me describe the crowd as "fifty thousand scores," because a truthful person doesn't manipulate that word in such a manner. I'm not getting this number from any news report. I'm seeing it for myself. You can too.

First take a look at this picture from Obama's inauguration. This event was described as having "millions" of attendees.

Now take a look at a screenshot of the Tea Party (apologies for the fuzzy picture, but it's the only one from this angle I could find) that I got from C-SPAN. It's the exact same angle from which the inauguration shot above was taken, and the amount of people in view looks to be about the same.

It's amazing how similar these photos look! Is it possible that everyone could take a look at the solid visual evidence and see that were a lot more than "tens of thousands" or "scores" of people in attendance last weekend? Why is there such a debate over this? The answer is pretty clear.

P.S. - For those of you who are about to email me saying "there weren't millions of people at the Tea Party!! You just said that the amount of people was the same as Obama's inauguration!" please stop now and take note of the fact that I said "amount of people in view."

9/11/2001

2009-09-11T11:18:00.005-04:00

September 11, 2001: I was a freshman at the University of Georgia. I had returned to my dorm room after my 8 AM English class with absolutely no knowledge of what had already occurred while I was in class. My roommate's father was leaving a message on our answering machine saying that there had been an attack. I immediately turned on the television to see the horror that was unfolding in New York City and Washington D.C. It wasn't until later that we learned of the brave men and women who fought and took the plane down in Pennsylvania. I stood there in complete shock as various people on my hall were still waking up and hearing the news. We watched in silence.

Then the first tower collapsed.

More shock.

Absolute silence......silence, not out of reverence, but that which stems from a total and complete lack of not words but vocabulary, because the English language does not contain vocabulary capable of describing what we were seeing. Words are created in reaction to tangible things or events coming about. Nothing like this had ever happened. The dictionary still lacks any words or vocabulary that can describe what we saw.

Then the second tower collapsed.

More shock.

More confusion.

More emptiness.

Words cannot describe it.

Only numbers.....

9/11/2001.

We sit here now, eight years past that day, and while no one has forgotten what happened that day, many of us no longer feel that day; myself included, until Wednesday night when I watched a powerful 9/11 documentary on the National Geographic Channel. It all came back.... the shock...... the confusion.... the anger..... the emptiness. What also came back was the patriotism. I realized that to remember that day is to truly feel it. To really do justice to the day you must relive some of it in your mind. A history book can only recount the events of that day to students who are too young to remember and/or weren't even born at the time. But history books contain only words, and like I said, the English language does not contain the words to describe 9/11. They, like us, must see it for themselves. No, it won't be the same, because they have the benefit of knowing up front that four planes are involved. They know the towers come crashing down. They know the passengers on the fourth plane rallied against the terrorists, and they know exactly what time the third plane crashed into the Pentagon. They expect it. We who lived it did not, but our feelings still dwindle.

President Obama and Congress have created a National Day of Service and Remembrance to honor the events of 9/11. Call me irreverent, but I am going to be the guy that calls him out on politicizing September 11, 2001. The president released a letter a few weeks ago that included the following excerpt:

We can rebuild out schools, but we need mentors and tutors to guide our students. We can modernize our health system, but we need volunteers to care for the sick and assist others in leading healthier lives. We can invest in clean energy, but we need people to maintain energy efficiency in their homes and help create a green economy.

Eight years after this tragedy, President Obama is sticking to Rahm Emanuel's tactic of never letting "a serious crisis (sic) go to waste." This day should be called the National Day of Remembrance and Service. We remember first and then we serve only because we remember; it's not the other way around. The president continues to push his agenda in the letter quoted above by urging people to "help create a green economy" and "modernize our health system." I am absolutely not saying that the concept of the National Day of Remembrance and Service is a bad idea. It's a great thing, and it should continue. My problem lies with the way that it's being carried out and the politicization of it by the president. Leave politics out of it. This day is about one thing and one thing only: 9/11/2001.

The day should start off with people watching the following videos (or similar ones). Yes, they are tragic. You will see people jumping from the burning towers and hear them crashing on top of the lobbies of the buildings. You will see the planes hitting the towers and the buildings crashing down. It's not irreverent. It's real. It's irreverent not to truly remember, to truly feel. It's irreverent to go through the motions of this day and remember it as a history book remembers it. It happened, and people need to see it. They need to see it so they do not forget. Those who did not live through it need to see it so that they may feel some of the emotion that we did on that day. Those like myself who may have lost some of the emotional remembrance must see it again. If we do not then 9/11 will simply become another day where we'll have a moment of silence, but no one will truly remember why they must be silent. We must feel the silence as those who watched the towers come crumbling down felt the silence of shock. Yes, the videos are graphic and traumatic, but unless one experiences that trauma one cannot fully understand. More importantly, one cannot truly honor the day.

Listen to the commentary. Listen to the news anchors' complete lack of words and understanding of the events transpiring before them. They cannot speak, because they cannot imagine what is happening, even though they watch it live. It's still a nightmare that will end when they wake up. The firemen in the lobbies of the towers cannot fathom what they are hearing. They want to believe that the sounds are coming from debris falling, but the sounds are created by the impact of those escaping the fires hundreds of feet above. They want to ignore it, but they know it is real. Please watch.

First Plane Hitting the Towers:

Second Plane Hitting the Towers:

Plane Hits Pentagon:

People Jumping:

First Tower Collapse:

Second Tower Collapse:

Let us not let 9/11/2001 become just another day of flags at half mast dotted with moments of silence. Let us weep as we did on that day. Let us be angry as we were on that day. Let us gather together, talk, vent, scream, volunteer, be silent and any number of other things that we did/were on that day. And let us pass it along so that no one will ever forget.

The President's Health Care Speech

2009-09-10T10:59:00.006-04:00

Many of you may have watched President Obama's address last night to a joint session of Congress. Maybe it's just me, but I did not see very many new ideas. What we did see is some change in rhetoric, but largely it's the same old stuff the president has been touting all summer. In the end, it's all rhetoric. The real test will be the language in the final bill. To President Obama's credit, many of the things he spoke of sounded great. However, given his track record I'm not going to hang my hat on his words. Randy Pausch gave some dating advice to his daughter in his book, The Last Lecture, saying "when it comes to men that are romantically interested in you, it’s really simple. Just ignore everything they say and only pay attention to what they do. It’s that simple. It’s that easy." The same can be said for politicians, and yes, it's that easy. Here are some random thoughts on the speech.

President Obama said last night "Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. These are the facts. Nobody disputes them." Um, what about $800 billion "stimulus" packages and $700 billion bank bailouts? And what about Congress raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and replacing dollars with IOUs in the form of Treasury Bills? I could fill pages upon pages with accounts of wasteful government spending programs that sit at the core of our deficit problem. These are the facts, and we most certainly dispute those which the president is attempting to present. Apparently the president didn't hear anything about the town hall meetings held throughout the month of August that were comprised largely of people disputing the "facts" that the president would like us to believe. Much to the president's dismay, something does not become a fact just because a politician says it.

I took particular note of the president's mentions of "one man from Illinois" and "another woman from Texas" each having trouble because they were denied coverage by their insurance companies. Notice how he doesn't use names. It's an easy CYA (Google it if you don't know what it means.... it's the first result) to use so that it's more difficult to investigate his claims. Apparently he learned from the S-CHIP debate to tread carefully when citing individual cases.

President Obama said that his health care reforms "will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance." Actually, that's not true. Like most Americans, I get my health insurance through my employer. If these reforms are passed then I will actually feel less stable and secure, because I'll be worried that my employer may drop my health coverage. The bills include huge economic incentives for employers to do so, because many of the changes implemented will make private insurance much more expensive. Going back to the August town hall meetings, it's clear that I'm not the only one concerned about this matter.

Of course, we can't have any sort of bill passed in Congress that doesn't include some sort of welfare program. The president stated last night that "for those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, [the government] will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need." The new term for welfare in Washington is "tax credits." If you didn't know that then please take note. It's wealth redistribution, plain and simple.

President Obama also announced the creation of "a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange." I can't help but be a little cynical when I say Wow, a government program that doesn't make a profit! Who ever heard of such a thing? You mean Medicare and Medicaid don't make profits? Oh, that's right, they're going to be bankrupt by 2017. Of course the government option will be not-for-profit. That's the whole idea. The government program can run at a loss year after year. This is exactly how the government option proponents plan to eventually eliminate private insurance entirely and create a single payer (read: government controlled) system.

One of my favorite lines from the President was when he told the American people "if you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out." Actually, he is the one misrepresenting what is in the plan, and we are the ones calling him out. For what other reason than that would he have had to give an address to Congress last night? His statement would more truthfully be written as follows: "If you say anything that we disagree with, we will call you out, regardless of whether or not what you say is true." Going back to the "only pay[ing] attention to what they do" theme, we have already seen instance after instance of this happening over the past couple of months.

I also found it very interesting that the president asserts that "instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics." He then goes on to say:

"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true."

Mr. President, aren't these the very scare tactics that you denounced earlier?

Finally, the president gave the appearance of bipartisanship by announcing plans to reform the tort system. He called the "demonstration projects in individual states" a "good idea" and said that he is "directing [his] Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative." This is simple lip service. If he were really serious about tort reform then he would have gone ahead and cited successful initiatives that have already been implemented in states such as Texas. He knows full well that there is no need to "test these issues." It's already been done. He and other members of Congress are simply too scared to take on the trial lawyers.

These are my thoughts. I'd love to hear yours.

*** Update 9/10/2009 ***

I was just re-reading this post and it occurred to me that I'm probably going to hear some comments like "You don't offer any solutions yourself! You only criticize and react to people!" To appease these folks I simply want you to know that I have already proposed solutions here, so go ahead and read them.

Obama's School Address

2009-09-04T11:06:00.004-04:00

By now we have all heard about President Obama's upcoming address to the nation's students. Many conservatives are in an uproar about this, calling it "indoctrination" and various other insinuations of Marxism and all-things-left. Let's pause for a moment and think about this. First of all, those who are keeping their children home from school on Tuesday and creating such an uproar over this address are making some assumptions. They assume that President Obama is going to deliver a "government-is-great/don't-think-for-yourselves/worship me" message. These assumptions aren't entirely baseless given President Obama's track record, but they are assumptions, nontheless.

The fact is that we do not know what, exactly, will be the content of his speech. We can garner some of it based on the classroom activities listed on the Dept. of Education website. There is one set for grades pre-K through 6 and one for grades 7-12. One of the discussion questions for the 7-12 group mentions that "we heard President Obama mention the importance of personal responsibility." What is wrong with Obama talking about personal responsibility? If we had a conservative in the White House giving an address to students would people be as outraged? Would they hold a conservative president to the same set of standards? What if his speech went something like this:

"Students of America, I am calling on you to work hard in school and learn everything you can. Think for yourselves and do not rely on the government for your well being. You alone are responsible for yourself and your own well being. You are responsible for taking charge of your own life, making responsible decisions and providing for yourself and your family. The government will not do any of these things for you. Stay in school. Do not engage in risky behavior such as partaking in drugs and alcohol. Study hard. Earn your way into college and become the most productive, most responsible, most self-sufficient American citizen that you can be."

No, it's probably not what he's going to say, but we do know that he is going to mention personal responsibility. However, what if he did say it? Would people be as outraged as they are now? Would they give him credit for making a speech that is in line with what they believe? Or would they denounce it simply because it came from the mouth of Barack Obama?

The truth is that there really isn't anything wrong with the president addressing the nation's students. In the end there may be plenty of fault with the content of his message, but there is no reason to boycott the speech and/or be outraged over the concept of the address. Many of these students respect the president for no other reason than the position he holds. They're young, and they don't know politics. They only know that you're supposed to respect the president. Many of them are minorities who will be watching the nation's first black president address them directly. If the president tells these kids to stay in school and practice personal responsibility, what's so bad about that?

We don't need to boycott Obama's address next week. What we need to do is be vigilant. Watch the address. We'll be able to watch it live here. Watch what the president says to the kids, and ask yourself if you would agree with the message if it were someone else giving the speech. We are right to be skeptical of the address. President Obama could very well come out next Tuesday and ask students to kneel at the altar of the government. If he does, let the outrage begin! However, until then let's calm down a bit, listen to what he has to say and continue our vigilance.

Isn't the President Supposed to Serve Us?

2009-09-03T22:08:00.003-04:00

Many of you may have seen this video already as it's been making the rounds over the past day or so. It was directed and edited by Demi Moore, and it features more than a dozen celebrities pledging to do various things such as "help[ing to] end hunger in America," and "volunteer[ing] more."

Many of the things mentioned are very worthwhile and honorable goals. However, the video ends with a "pledge to be a servant to our President and all mankind."

Excuse me? Did I hear that correctly? Since when do we serve the President? Our elected officials are supposed to serve America and its citizens. We do not serve the President. He serves us. We do not serve Congress. The members of Congress serve us. Article II Section I of the Constitution describes the President's duties as "services." If you look up "service" in the dictionary you will find the following:

Main Entry: ser·vice
1 a : the occupation or function of serving b : employment as a servant
2 a : the work performed by one that serves

Where does anyone get the idea that we are supposed to serve the President? We elected him. We pay his salary. We are the people whom he serves. We do not take orders from him, and we sure as heck don't serve him. Am I the only one incensed by just the thought of this?

Media Bias or Media Stupidity?

2009-08-20T12:51:00.005-04:00

You might have heard or seen footage of a man carrying an AR-15 at a health care protest during President Obama's visit to Arizona on Monday. Arizona has an open carry policy, so the man wasn't breaking the law by carrying the rifle throughout the protest. Nevertheless, many people chose to complain. Now, let me first say that it is completely unnecessary for this guy to be carrying an assault rifle at this event. I believe that by doing it he loses quite a bit of credibility with any audience who might oppose him on any issue whether it be health care or the Second Amendment. Regardless, it is his right, and he can do what he wants.

Here's the kicker though. MSNBC picked up the story and added a little something to it.... the race card. In the video below you will see the news anchor raise "questions about whether this has a racial overtones" (no I did not make a mistake in my quote, she made a mistake in her grammar).

She speaks of "a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists." That is a very interesting statement, because the guy that MSNBC shows in the news clip is black! See the video below:

You wouldn't know it from the MSNBC clip, because they only show a cropped view of the man carrying the rifle, and you cannot see his face or his hands. The second video, however, shows that he is most definitely black. There's really no debating it. This begs the question, is the mainstream media really that biased or are they so stupid that they cannot even get a simple fact, such as a person's race, correct? If I were a betting man (and I had better be 'cause I'm headed to Vegas next week!) then I would put my money on the production team at MSNBC purposely cropping the video so that we cannot see the man, only his gun. It's a fine attempt at fooling everyone, but they got caught in the lie.

******

For those of you who might comment on this with the fact that the man with the gun had a staged interview with a libertarian reporter at the rally, just save it. I am aware of it, and it's completely irrelevant to the point I am making.

Health Insurance Profits

2009-08-07T07:00:00.003-04:00

One point that the government health care supporters have attempted to make over and over again is that the insurance companies are making obscenely large profits when they should be focused on giving that money to customers for health care needs. President Obama has recently spoken of health insurance firms "reap[ing] windfall profits" in this speech and many others. If these claims were true then I would most definitely agree. The facts, however, get in the way of their assertions about the profits of health insurance firms.

First it is important to understand the difference between profit and profit margin. Profit is what's left over after all of your costs and taxes are covered. Profit margin is the percentage of revenue that is left over after all costs and taxes are covered. For example, if the amount of money you take in from sales is $1,000 and you have $150 left over after all of your costs and taxes are covered then your profit margin is 15%. Ask yourself real quick, what do you think is an acceptable profit margin for a business to sustain? 10%? 20%? 30%? My guess is that most people would say that it is acceptable for a business to make $1 or $2 for every $10 they receive, putting their profit margin somewhere between 10% and 20%.

Keep in mind the profit margin you think is acceptable for a business to sustain. Do you know what the profit margins are for some of the biggest health insurers in the U.S.? Inspired by a Wall Street Journal article yesterday, I did some research and found that the average profit margin in 2008 for four of the big guys, UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, Humana and WellPoint, was 3.6%. Yes, you read that correctly. For every $100 that one of these companies takes in they keep $3.60. Some people might say "well, the economy was a bad in 2008. They probably made 10+% the year before." Nope. We would all agree that 2006 and 2007 were phenomenal years for the economy, and the average for the four companies was just over 5%.

In contrast, Coca-Cola's average three year profit margin for the same years was over 20%, and Apple, the company that makes your iPod, had a profit margin of 13.3%. Yes, these are companies that make discretionary items, but food isn't. General Mills, the company that makes a lot of the cereals and other foods that you eat every day, had a profit margin almost twice as high as that of the insurance companies, 9.3%, over the same period. We need both health care and food to live, so why are we letting the company that makes Cheerios make profits twice as high as the "windfall[s]" of the health care companies?

The truth is that the health insurance companies are not making outsized profits. Compared with many other companies their profit margins are very small. We have heard members of Congress, Obama and others say that we need a public "option" to compete with the private insurers. The private firms already compete with each other. If Aetna wants to expand into another state they must lease office space, hire employees and spend money complying with the individual state insurance mandates. If they take in $100 for a premium and pay out $100 for benefits, as Obama and many Democrats wish, then where do they get the money to do this? In order to fund expansion and compete the companies need profits. Profits are an essential element of competition. If the insurance companies did not make profits then you might be stuck with one insurance company in your state, but due to open markets (somewhat) and profits we have a range of companies to choose from. Regardless of this fact we still have people telling us that the insurance companies do not need to make profits and do not have enough competition. It just doesn't make sense. Facts are pesky little things for the people attempting to lie to us, aren't they?

The White House Wants Health Care "Disinformation"

2009-08-05T12:01:00.017-04:00

So let's give them what they are asking for! Below I have crafted a letter that you can simply cut and paste into an email and send it off. In the interest of brevity I only included 5 points, but we all know I could have gone much further. Feel free to personalize it a bit. Send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

*** Update 8/13/2009 ***

It seems as if some of the videos I originally posted below have mysteriously been taken down. I have been censored!!! I'm not really surprised, and it's certainly not going to keep me from putting the facts in your hands. I'm leaving the original links up, but I have updated the post and linked to the transcripts just below them.

2:11 PM: Okay, I can't quite figure out what is going on. My links were previously working, and today many of them went bust. I don't know if it was my error or something "fishy", but I've got them all fixed. Since I like to be 100% sure of things before I run with something I'm going to just let this pass, because I cannot prove anything. Admittedly, I may have been a bit quick to jump the gun on the whole censorship thing, but it all still seems a bit odd since everything was working previously.

*** End Update ***

To Whom it May Concern:

I recently came across your request on The White House Blog to send in anything “about health insurance reform that seems fishy.” There is certainly quite a bit of disinformation being circulated about the government’s plan to reform the health care industry. As a concerned citizen I felt responsible for complying with your request. Below I have listed a large sample of the disinformation that I have come across. Please note that there exists much more than what I have listed, and I would be happy to share as much as possible with you.

Disinformation #1
In the video cited below, President Obama states that we will “have a system the same way that Federal employees do.”

The Facts: The public system will not be the same as the one that Federal employees have. The Federal employees’ system lets them choose from over 200 private plans. The government system will be 100% government operated. If it is the same then why did the House Ways and Means Committee vote down an amendment that would require all members of Congress to enroll in the public plan? The reality is that the public plan is not the same; otherwise Congress would have no reason to refuse enrollment.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0XCl6OHgiM&feature=player_embedded
Transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Press-Conference-by-the-President-6-23-09/
Amendment: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/heller-2.pdf
Voted Down: http://heller.house.gov/apps/list/press/nv02_heller/Publicplan.shtml

Disinformation #2
In the video cited below, President Obama states “if you have insurance that you like then you will be able to keep that insurance. Nobody is trying to change what works.”

The Facts: The public plan that the Administration is pushing will fundamentally change all insurance plans across the nation. HR 3200, on page 16, ends enrollment in individual insurance plans. If anyone switches jobs, as most people will at some point, they must enroll in a government regulated insurance pool rather than searching for a plan similar to their previous one. Page 15 of the bill states that all insurance plans offered by private companies must meet certain requirements or else they will be illegal. The President’s claim from the previous video that no one will “mess with” you insurance plan is false. Page 15 of the bill proves it by laying the groundwork for a plethora of mandates that must be included in insurance plans.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wttp6VCqU&feature=player_embedded
Transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/28/AR2009072801444.html
HR 3200: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200

Disinformation #3
In President Obama’s press conference on health care on July 22nd he stated that his plan “will keep government out of health care decisions.” He also states “that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade.”

The Facts: Page 423 of the House bill establishes a ”Center For Comparative Effectiveness Research, ” a government arm that will exist solely for the purpose of interfering in the health care decisions of the American people by regulating which types of care and medicine we can receive and which ones we cannot.
On the issue of the deficit, Congressional Budget Director, Douglas Elmendorf, has stated in a letter to Representative Dave Camp that “the proposal as a whole would increase federal deficits by $239 billion over the 2010–2019 period.”
Press Conference transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/23/politics/main5182101.shtml
CBO Letter: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10400/07-26-InfoOnTriCommProposal.pdf
House Bill: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/hrdraft.pdf

Disinformation #4
President Obama stated in a press conference on June 23rd that the government “will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care.”

The Facts: The CBO Director stated in his testimony before Congress that “the coverage proposals in this legislation would expand federal spending on health care to a significant degree.”
Press Conference Transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/main5107407.shtml
CBO Director: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE56F6GT20090716

Disinformation #5
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that we need a public option “to encourage competition [and] to provide better care at a lower cost.”

The Facts: We already have government run health care systems with Medicare and Medicaid, and they are failing on multiple levels, namely quality and economic sustainability. MedPac, the very agency responsible for oversight of Medicare and Medicaid, has recently reported on "serious shortcomings in quality as well as the absence of real progress toward restructuring health care systems to address both quality and cost concerns."

Addressing her claim on “competition,” the public option will only lead to a complete exit of private insurance companies from the market and be left with a single payer system. If you are unfamiliar with a single payer system it is nothing more than a 100% government controlled health care system. This happened in Florida with property insurance, and it will surely happen with health care.
Video of Pelosi’s statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rypSHsn9Ah4
Transcript: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007424&docId=l:1015642727&start=6
MedPac Statement: http://www.medpac.gov/documents/20080916_Sen%20Fin_testimony%20final.pdf
WSJ article on FL property insurance: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623134986666161.html

As I said before, there is plenty more disinformation being circulated, but I do not have time to gather all of it. I would appreciate you following up with the President and various members of Congress so that they may have the facts and stop the spread of this disinformation. Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

(Your Name Here)

1984?

2009-08-04T18:00:00.000-04:00

This story started circulating earlier today via a variety of sources, but the first place I saw it was here. The White House has put up a request on its website asking for help in keeping track of "disinformation about health insurance reform."

It reads as follows:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Does this scream censorship or 1984 to anyone else? I try to stay away from the alarmist rhetoric, emails and such that so often get circulated by die-hard Republicans or conservatives, but I believe this to be different. I like to think that I have proven myself to be a level headed mind when it comes to researching and presenting the facts. I never post or send something out without first verifying it. The fact here, however, is that to my knowledge we have never had an official public push by the government to keep tabs on opposition to policies. If you think that this is an effort to simply educate people then I must say that you are mistaken. This administration has demonstrated time and again that they are more than willing to intimidate and strong arm anyone who opposes its policies.

I'm really curious to know what they are going to do with the information that they receive. Are they really attempting to monitor "casual conversation?" Are they going to call all of these folks individually to give them their version of the facts? I can see some legitimate uses for the information such as the White House using it to get a feel for what is being said about its health reform initiatives and then crafting rhetoric around it to make it sound better. There are much better ways to do that though, ways that don't appear to be nearly as invasive or creepy. I imagine, however, that the Administration is really trying to keep tabs on people and see what opposition is out there.

How about this? Why don't we all save a copy of one of the health care bills and email it to the address that the White House lists (flag@whitehouse.gov). The bill definitely qualifies as "fishy." Also send them links to a transcript or two of President Obama's press conferences on health care. Most of what he says also qualifies as "fishy." Finally, send them the Fact Pack to prove that the Administration is feeding us the very "disinformation" that they are asking us to send to them. While you are busy doing that I am going to review my taxes, because I fully expect to get audited by the IRS next year.

Stimulus Bill Waste

2009-08-03T12:00:00.003-04:00

I know some people might consider the title of this post to be a bit redundant, but check this out anyway. I was driving home from a mountain weekend in Tennessee yesterday and I saw a sign that looked like this:

It's basically saying that the highway project that you're entering is funded by the stimulus bill. According to the Chicago Tribune there were "4,840 highway projects funded through the Recovery Act nationwide as of June 22." They also called around to find out the cost of one of the signs pictured above. They received estimates ranging from $400-1,200. Split the difference of the estimates and you have $800 per sign. $800 x 4840 = $3,872,000. Almost $3.9 million just for useless road signs that the government is using to try to fool us into thinking that the stimulus bill is actually working! The stimulus bill is what it is. It's now a moot point (or as Joey from Friends would say... "it's moo."), but rather than wasting $3.9 million on useless road signs why don't we at least fix another road?

Maternity Care for Men

2009-08-03T09:00:00.011-04:00

There has been a lot of outcry from a few of my female readers over my stance that single males should not have to pay for maternity coverage in their insurance premiums. Some of the comments that I have received include the following:

Some claim that expectant mothers will not be taken care of if the mandates are eliminated, because the insurance concept of "pooled risk" goes away.
Accusations that I am actively attempting to keep mothers from receiving care.
One reader asked me if I "really think that it's not in the best interest of the whole country to take care of expecting mothers."
The same reader from the previous point also stated that "sex discrimination should not have a place in health care."
Almost all have noted that women pay for things like prostate treatment even though they don't have prostates, so why is it a big deal if men pay for maternity care?

Let me first explain my reasoning behind my stance. I will start with saying that my goal, as I have said before, is quality health insurance for every United States citizen. I am not attempting to prevent anyone from getting health insurance. I am simply trying to do it in a way that actually works. In the spirit of helping everyone obtain health insurance, if states did not mandate that single men must be covered for maternity care then an insurance company could lower its prices for certain plans. I honestly don't know if women's plans cover prostate exams, but the same goes for them. Lower prices equals more affordability. More affordability means more people can get health insurance. Once that single man gets married then he can add in maternity care for his wife if she goes on his insurance plan, because he then needs it. I think I can clarify many things by taking the above objections and comments one by one:

1. Expectant mothers will not be taken care of if the maternity mandate goes away.

Absolutely not. If you are a woman trying to have a child or a married man whose wife is included in your insurance plan then you simply add that coverage to your insurance plan and start paying for it. This will not undermine the insurance concept of "pooled risk," as some readers have claimed, because insurance companies factor all of the risks in when calculating individual premiums. If single men are needed to pay higher prices into the "pool" for maternity coverage then why aren't younger people required to pay higher premiums for the care of the elderly, even though younger people don't use most of the same services? Why don't we all just pay the exact same premiums? The reason is that we do not all share the same risks. There is zero chance that an insurance company will have to pay money to cover a man having a child and zero chance that a woman needs a prostate exam. Neither should have to pay for them.

2. Accusations that I am actively attempting to keep mothers from receiving care.

This is simply false. I already stated that my goal is for everyone to have health insurance. I also believe that individuals should be responsible for their own health care. If you think that health care is a right then I must ask you the following question. Is eating a right? I have heard people who believe health care is a right say that every person has the right to be alive and healthy and therefore has a right to health care. Then why isn't eating a right? We need food to live and be healthy, so why does the government not provide food for all of us? What about water as well? We need that too. The bottom line is that I want everyone to have care, but a woman or couple trying to have a child should pay for their maternity coverage in their premiums. If you cannot afford that then what makes you think you can afford to feed, clothe and care for a child?

3. Do I "really think that it's not in the best interest of the whole country to take care of expecting mothers."

Everyone knows that you should not smoke or drink while you are pregnant, right? If it is in the best interest of the whole country to take care of expectant mothers then all women should be required to take a pregnancy test when they try to buy alcohol or cigarettes or other things that are potentially harmful to pregnant women. Consuming any of them could harm both mother and child and therefore not be in the best interest of the whole country, correct? Many women don't find out that they are pregnant until a month or two after conception, so we must protect them. After all, it is in the best interest of the whole country to take care of expectant mothers, right?

I think many women would be outraged at the prospect of having to take a pregnancy test before buying cigarettes, alcohol or other products. They would feel that their liberty is being infringed upon. Liberty is a principle with broad reach, and it is not a fluid concept. One cannot change the definition of liberty based on the situation. Liberty means that Americans should be free to do most things that do not infringe upon the lives of others. This includes the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. It is in the best interest of expectant mothers to care for their own children. The government has no responsibility to care for your child and neither do I. You have a responsibility to care for it. If you cannot care for it then do not have one.

3. "Sex discrimination should not have a place in health care."

Okay, then I want to see a gynecologist right now, because my health insurance covers it! I also want a mammogram, and I want a pregnancy consultation. If sex discrimination does not have a place in health care then no one can tell me that I cannot have these things. Ladies, let's say you find a lump in your breast. You go to the doctor for a mammogram and you find a bunch of men in the waiting room. Each one of them, one by one, is called by the nurse and heads into the screening room. You are worried sick that you may have breast cancer, and here are a bunch of men getting mammograms before you, because "sex discrimination should not have a place in health care." The fact is that sex discrimination does not take place in health care in the sense that the commenter asserts. Health care is based on need. I don't need maternity coverage any more than a woman needs a prostate exam. Neither party should have to pay for these respective procedures.

I think I've already covered women paying for prostate exams, so there's no need to elaborate much. With this whole issue of maternity care people don't seem to realize that I was using that one example to illustrate a larger point. The simple fact is that women should not pay for prostate exams either. Men should pay for them. If we eliminated many of the burdensome insurance mandates that states impose then we could make health insurance and health care more affordable.

The House Health Care Bill: The First 100 Pages

2009-07-30T07:00:00.002-04:00

Everyone (including myself) is going to think that I'm a huge loser for sitting around on a Wednesday night and reading 100 pages of Congressional legislation, but it gives me bragging rights over the folks in Washington who actually vote on it but cannot make the same claim of reading it. It also serves to inform you of what is really being discussed in Washington. Unlike our Congressional representatives, I deem the task of reading transformational legislation to be of the utmost importance. What I found is startling.

Page 15: "(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS.—On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved"

This section essentially says that insurance companies cannot issue plans unless they meet certain requirements set by the government. You will not decide what you get and pay for in your plan. The government will. This is an essential step in the crowding out of private insurance. The government tells the private companies what they have to offer, but then the government is able to offer it at a lower cost; this will lead to individuals dropping private coverage.

Page 16: "(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

This section makes it illegal for private insurance companies to issue new private plans after the bill takes effect (read: no choice!). You can keep your current plan, but if you ever want to switch (which everyone will at some point due to changing jobs or otherwise) then you have to go on the public plan. This furthers the crowding out of private plans and will eventually eliminate private insurance entirely, leaving us with only the government "option."

Page 21: "(1) LIMITED AGE VARIATION PERMITTED.—By age (within such age categories as the Commissioner shall specify) so long as the ratio of the highest such premium to the lowest such premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1."

This essentially means that younger, healthier people are going to have to pay a much higher premium in order to pay for the care of older people who need more medical care but will be paying a much lower premium than they normally would. The Wall Street Journal, in a recent article, notes that the normal age-related premium ratio is 5 to 1. To put it simply, the 20 year old with zero health problems might be paying $50 per month when he should only be paying $20 per month. At the same time a 55 year old who requires more medical care solely because of age only pays $100/month when she should be paying $250 per month. This will only serve to force younger individuals onto the public plan, because they cannot afford private coverage, further exacerbating the crowding out factor.

Page 28: (starting on page 27) "(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED....
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age."

Any readers see anything wrong with #7? For my male readers, how about #9? Back in fourth grade I learned that a uterus and a vagina were required to birth a child. I'm pretty sure that has not changed. I have neither a uterus or a vagina, so why am I going to pay and be covered for maternity care? For those of you who don't drink (much), smoke or otherwise put harmful substances into your body, #7 requires you to pay for substance abuse coverage even though you don't abuse anything. This only increases the cost of insurance for some people.

Page 42: "(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.— The administration of individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits."

Translation: another welfare program. "Affordability credit" is government-speak for "welfare." If you happen to be one of the politically favored, government-dependent individuals who work 51% less than the people who fend for themselves, you will receive even more government money than you were prior to the passage of this bill.

Page 71: "(ii) BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS.— Amounts appropriated under clause (i), and outlays flowing from such appropriations, shall not be taken into account for purposes of any budget enforcement procedures including allocations under section 302(a) and (b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act and budget resolutions for fiscal years during which appropriations are made from the Trust Fund."

This might be the most deceitful thing that I read last night. It basically says that some of the costs incurred in the legislation will simply not be counted in the budget. If the legislation actually costs $1 trillion then it gives the politicians a chance to say "we just won't count $300 billion of it, and we can tell the American people that it only costs $700 billion, because we passed a law saying that we can do it." Now we have Congress actually passing laws that make it legal for them to lie to our faces and pull an Enron scheme on all of America.

I left out about 5 or 6 other gems that were included in the first 100 pages, like the one on Page 39 that is surely meant to protect illegal aliens by mandating that all health care plans, documentation and explanations of benefits must be able to be understood by people with "limited English proficiency." This was just the first 100 pages of a 1000+ page bill. I can't imagine what else is buried in it. Leave your comments below.

****** Revision 7/30/2009 ******

It has come to my attention, thanks to a great reader, that I read one of the provisions in the bill incorrectly. It is posted below, but I removed it from the main post, because I was incorrect in my assertion that the provision will let the government suspend someone's health plan. The provision simply states that an insurance company cannot keep issuing the same plan upon being notified by the government.

Page 44: "(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case that the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may, in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretary of Labor, provide, in addition to any other remedies authorized by law, for any of the remedies described in paragraph (2).....
(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals under such plan after the date the Commissioner notifies the entity of a determination under paragraph (1) and until the Commissioner is satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely to recur;"

If you purchase a private insurance plan and the government deems it inadequate then the government can simply suspend your plan without you knowing it. This would leave you without health insurance even though you have paid for it.

Clarification to Pg. 16 commentary: while this clause does not entirely outlaw private insurance, it does force people into the national health insurance exchange, the body through which all private plans will be offered and regulated. This will, however, eventually lead to crowding out of private insurance, because they will be told by the government what they must offer and how much it will cost.

I Made the Newspaper at Lewis' Town Hall!

2009-07-29T20:31:00.005-04:00

Check it out folks! Yours truly made the Atlanta Journal Constitution at Congressman John Lewis' town hall on Monday! Now I'm not exactly prominently featured in the photo, but it's still nice to have my picture in the paper. Click on the picture to go to the web version on AJC.com and go to pic #3. I'm at the top of the photo (blue oxford shirt) just to the right of the center. I'm studying my notes in preparation to speak!

My Town Hall Experience: Part 2

2009-07-28T14:24:00.008-04:00

As I mentioned in part one of this series I had some success at Congressman John Lewis' town hall meeting, but I also made some mistakes. I would grade myself a "C" overall. Yesterday was my first town hall meeting. It won't be my last, and I can definitely do better next time! I also want everyone to learn from my mistakes and inexperience.

Mistake #1: I could have done more prep work with my research. I came prepared, but not quite well enough. Rather than simply writing down some facts and/or memorizing them I should have printed out (multiple copies) the sources from which I gathered them (make a Fact Pack!). Then, when someone like Michaeleen Crowell attempts to tell me my facts are incorrect I can simply walk up to her and hand her the sheet on which the facts are printed. It would be pretty hard for anyone to argue with you once they have the facts in hand.

Mistake #2: Cite the correct sources! I mistakenly cited the Financial Times rather than the Investor's Business Daily as one of my sources yesterday. This is an easy fix though.

Mistake #3: I had not finalized my statement before I spoke. I definitely went over it prior to taking the mic, but I could have done better. Next time I will prepare and rehearse my statement well in advance. It definitely needs to be a bit fluid so that I can change it according to the speaker's points, but I will at least have a base formed prior to the meeting. Great orators practice, practice and practice more. No, I'm not giving a big speech, but I need to sound confident, convincing and convicted, nonetheless.

Here is a step by step walk through of what I will do next time and a good outline for what you can do at your next town hall meeting:

1. Do some extensive preparation the night before. Print out multiple copies of the Health Care Fact Pack (or make one for whatever issue is at hand), and review all of the facts.

2. Select the most important facts, and form a series of open ended questions (no "yes or no" questions) based on the facts. Write them down or type them and put them in the Fact Pack.

3. Bring a pen and paper to the meeting to take notes.

4. Arrive at the meeting 30 minutes early, find out where the microphone is that will be used for questions from the floor, and sit as close to it as possible (I did this, and it worked like a charm!).

5. While listening to the speakers at the meeting select the most relevant and effective question(s) to ask based on what they are saying, and do a quick final mental rehearsal of any statements/questions to make sure they are brief and to the point.

6. Be ready to jump up and head to the mic when the floor is opened (people rushed to it yesterday). Stand up at the mic with facts in hand, make your comments and ask any question(s).

7. If any facts are disputed simply take the appropriate sheet from your binder, walk to the speaker and hand him/her the facts. If anyone else wants the facts then have copies for them as well. Also have quite a few business cards handy. I was complimented by quite a few people on my comments, and they asked for cards. It is a great networking opportunity, and a great way to form new relationships.

That's about it. Again, I strongly encourage everyone to get out to meetings like this in your area. It was a great experience, and a fantastic way to get your voice heard.

Health Care Fact Pack

2009-07-28T09:39:00.013-04:00

As promised, here is your Health Care Fact Pack, a concise summary of a conglomeration of studies and articles that I have gathered concerning health care reform. Our goal is positive and sustainable health care reform, and these points talk about what works and what doesn't. They also expose some of the misleading statements and outright lies being thrown at us from Washington. I encourage everyone to print out each of the sources (or the relevant portions) cited below each fact and compile them in a binder or a folder. Take them to your town hall meetings, share them with your friends and tweet/email/Facebook this post around the country. If someone questions your data simply pull out the corresponding source and hand it to them. It is hard to argue with the facts!

Fact #1: Politicians claim that 46 million people are uninsured. The very same Census data that Congress uses to arrive at that number also includes the following:

21% or 9.7 million are non-citizens
18% or 7.9M are between the ages of 18 and 24
39% or 17.6M make over $50,000 per year
20% or 9.1M make over $75,000 per year

Why are we counting non-citizens and people making over $50/75K per year (who most likely have chosen not to have health insurance)?

Census source (print out page 30): http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

Fact #2: The House health care bill includes a provision that effectively ends private health insurance after the government plan is implemented. Investor's Business Daily actually called the House Ways and Means committee to confirm the language in the bill. The assertion has since been refuted a bit by various groups. The fact is that it prevents private insurers from issuing their own plans. All plans must be entered into an insurance pool and managed by the government. It will eventually lead to private companies leaving the market completely.

"(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

House Bill (print out Page 16 and look at language starting at line 6): http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/hrdraft.pdf
Investor's Business Daily article: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329

Fact #3: Congressional Budget Director, Douglas Elmendorf, testified in the House that the health care bill "would expand federal spending on health care to a significant degree." This is in direct contradiction to the claims of our President and members of Congress who claim that the health care legislation will reduce health care costs and spending.

Print full quote and source here: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE56F6GT20090716

Fact #4: The CBO Director recently sent a letter to House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, stating that the latest House health care proposal creating the Independent Medicare Advisory Council would save just $2 billion over the period 2010-2019 (yes, that's just $2B over a ten year period!).

See and print letter here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10480/07-25-IMAC.pdf

Fact #5: The CBO states that only 11 million uninsured individuals would be covered by the government plan. Opening health insurance markets across state lines would decrease the number of uninsured individuals by as many as 16 million, many more than the 11 million that the CBO states would be added if the government implemented its "option."

See and print study here (page 9): http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080730_National_Marketpla.pdf

Fact #6: Medicare is projected to completely run out of money in 2017. Will our government manage an across-the-board government health care system any better?

Source and diagram here: http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/images/wm2458_table1.gif

Fact #7: For those that claim that a government health care system will increase quality, see this: MedPac, the very agency responsible for oversight of Medicare and Medicaid, has reported on "serious shortcomings in quality as well as the absence of real progress toward restructuring health care systems to address both quality and cost concerns" within Medicare and Medicaid.

See and print study here (quality issues start on page 2, quote on p. 3): http://www.medpac.gov/documents/20080916_Sen%20Fin_testimony%20final.pdf

Fact #8: Hear someone say that the government "option" will not crowd out and eventually eliminate private insurance? It has already happened with property insurance in Florida. The same would happen if government health insurance legislation is passed.

See and print source here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623134986666161.html

Fact #9: Study showing that the "public option" will only lead to lower quality health care:

See study here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa642.pdf

Fact #10: Print out this chart for an illustration of how the House health care bill would work.

See and print chart here: http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf

Fact #11: The CBO has done a study showing that almost 45% of uninsured individuals gain insurance within four months.

See and print study here (page 21): http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4210/05-12-Uninsured.pdf

Fact #12: Buried in the House bill is a provision that prevents some of the costs of the bill from being counted in the annual budget (info courtesy of Jamie Dupree's hard work).

"(3) BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS.—Amounts appropriated under this section, and outlays flowing from such appropriations, shall not be taken into account for purposes of any budget enforcement procedures including allocations under section 302(a) and (b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act and budget resolutions for fiscal years during which appropriations are made from the Fund."

That's like saying "honey, I'm going out to buy a Ferrari," getting the response of "what?!? We can't afford that!" and responding "Oh, it's okay, we just won't count it in this month's budget."

See and print page 731 of the bill here: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/hrdraft.pdf

My Town Hall Experience: Part 1

2009-07-28T06:00:00.001-04:00

Many of you know that my congressman, John Lewis (GA 5th District), held an open forum on health care yesterday in Atlanta. Fortunately, I was able to attend, even though the meeting was held at 9 AM on a Monday when most people, including myself, are usually working. This is simply an account of my experience yesterday, the mistakes I made and the successes I had. I invite you to learn from my experiences and attend your own town hall meetings in the future. I used the forum not so much to speak to Rep. Lewis as much as I did to speak to the other people in the room. They needed to hear the facts, and that is exactly what I gave them when I spoke.

I estimate that there were upwards of 150 individuals in attendance, and many voices were heard. Rep. Lewis has a panel of people with him that included his Legislative Director, Michaeleen Crowell, a regional representative from the AFL-CIO, a couple of doctors and a representative from the AARP. From Congressman Lewis and Mrs. Crowell we heard the same talking points that we've been hearing for months. Some specifics include:

There are 46 million uninsured people in the United States.
This health care bill will reduce costs
The CBO estimates that 11 million of the uninsured would enroll in the government plan
No one will be forced to enroll in the government plan

I could go on, but none of these points are new. After hearing Lewis and Crowell go through their talking points the floor was opened up to individual questions. Dozens of people rushed to the microphone. I was number 4 in line. The first person who spoke was very much in favor of a public plan. She has two diabetic children and she says her health care premiums have gone up to a staggering $3,000 per month! Is this outrageous? Absolutely! Does it need to change? Yes. I can see why she wants a public plan. She is only thinking about her children. She doesn't care how they are covered. She's just being a mom. I cannot fault her for that. Unfortunately, though, she thinks that the public plan will be better for her children. In actuality, a simple reinsurance plan would cover her needs, and her children would receive much better care. A new study from the Cato Institute outlines how "government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance." I wish I knew her name so I could send it to her.

Two more comments, and I had the microphone. I started by stating that my goal was for everyone to have access to health insurance. I said this so no one could accuse me of trying to prevent people from accessing health care, something that happens all too often when anyone criticizes the government plan. I then made the following points that came straight from the extensive research that I have done (some of which you can find in my previous post):

Using the very same Census data that Rep. Lewis used for his 46 million uninsured number I stated that 17.6 million of those people make more than $50,000 per year. As a 23 year old making $25,000 per year not too long ago, I was able to provide for my own health insurance. Many of the 17.6 million likely choose to go without insurance even though they can afford it.
I cited the recent Congressional testimony of Congressional Budget Office Director, Douglas Elmendorf, who stated that the legislation would increase "federal spending on health care to a significant degree." This statement is 100% contradictory to Rep. Lewis' claim that the current health care legislation would reduce spending.
In response to Rep. Lewis and Michaeleen Crowell's blatant lie that we will not be forced on a public health plan I cited a recent article from Investor's Business Daily, which found that on page 16 of the current bill private insurance is effectively outlawed. You can keep your current plan for now, but if you want to change plans (read: change jobs) you must enroll in the public plan. No new private insurance plans are allowed to be created after the public plan takes effect.
I followed up on Mrs. Crowell's statement that 11 million of the uninsured would enroll in the public plan by citing research (see full explanation here) that shows that the same amount of people would become insured if we could simply buy insurance across state lines. To strengthen my point I stated that millions more would be added if we de-coupled insurance from employment by ending exclusive favorable tax treatment of employer sponsored plans.
Finally, I asked why they are favoring a plan that, according to Mrs. Crowell herself, would only add 11 million uninsured people to the public plan while research clearly shows that opening insurance markets across state lines and changing tax treatment of insurance plans would insure more individuals.

Congressman Lewis and Michaeleen Crowell did not have much to say in response to my question. Mrs. Crowell stated that the ideas that I mentioned had, in fact, been discussed in Washington, but she didn't give me a reason why they weren't included in the bill, something that did not impress me. She then attempted to tell me that my facts were wrong, and that the bill does not include language that states that we will be required to enroll in the government plan if we change plans. I spoke up and said that she could read it in the Financial Times (yeah, I cited the wrong source to her. It's Investor's Business Daily, but the information still exists, which is the important thing). She told me she was not aware of it. I found her last statement very interesting, because Congressman Lewis, at the beginning of the meeting, said he had read the full bill. If he is not aware of the language cited by the Investor's Business Daily then he is clearly lying. Look at page 16 of the bill (starting at line 6), and read it for yourself. It is there.

It's one thing to be lied to by the media and/or your congressperson on television. It's an entirely different experience when your congressman lies to your face. That is what happened to me today. I stated the facts, and my facts were returned with falsehoods.

Really Nice Move by My Congressman

2009-07-22T16:47:00.007-04:00

Have you ever had to attend a PTA or neighborhood meeting at 10 AM on a Monday or Tuesday? Probably not. Are you on any church committees? Do they meet during the day on weekdays? No. Do your kids have baseball or soccer practice at 1 PM on Thursdays? No. Why? Because you have to work.

I recently received an invitation from my Congressman, John Lewis, to attend an open forum on health care (he supports government takeover of it). The date: July 27th (a Monday) at 9 AM. This begs the question: How is anyone with a job going to be able to attend this meeting? Monday morning at 9 AM, for most responsible individuals, means the first meeting of the day or arrival at your desk. For the top income earners it likely means that they've already been at work for an hour or two, as I recently demonstrated. Before I dive into the details of this politically convenient move, a little background on Georgia's 5th Congressional District is needed.

To the right is a map of Georgia's 5th Congressional District. For those of you who do not live in Georgia or the Atlanta area, the 5th district encompasses all of downtown Atlanta, almost all of the southwest portion of it and a section of the northern part of the city. The people who live downtown are more likely to vote Democrat. The people who live in the southwest portion are also highly likely to vote Democrat. The people who live in the area of the district that juts north are more likely to vote Republican. The northern area is also one of the wealthiest areas in Atlanta. I can tell you that this district is just about as perfect of an example of gerrymandering as one can find. All of this pretty much boils down to the large Democrat population canceling out the votes of the wealthier conservative population that pays most of the taxes. That's a very simplified explanation, but it's largely true.

Now, why does it matter that Rep. Lewis is holding his meeting from 9-11 AM on Monday, July 27th? Simple. John Lewis represents a very large portion of Georgians who are on welfare, Medicaid and other government programs. In other words, many of these people don't work much. If you don't work much then a 9 AM town hall meeting on a Monday doesn't really interfere with anything other than sleep. However, for those of us that do work, provide for ourselves and earn our own health care, 9 AM on a Monday means we are out doing these very same activities. I cannot imagine that John Lewis is trying to do anything other than weed out the productive members of his constituency (the ones more likely to be against government health care) and pack the room with people begging for the government to take over our health care system. This meeting should be held at 6 or 7 PM or on a weekend. Period.

10th Amendment vs. 2nd Amendment: They Both Matter

2009-07-22T15:13:00.007-04:00

Yesterday the Senate voted down an amendment that would allow citizens with concealed carry permits to use their state-specific permit to carry firearms in all 50 states. Currently, laws regarding concealed carry permits are left up to individual states, and not all states recognize concealed carry permits from other states. For example, I have a concealed carry permit for the state of Georgia. The state of Alabama recognizes this license and will allow me to carry a weapon in that state, but the state of South Carolina does not. See here for the full reciprocity map.

The issue here is that some states have different laws than others on obtaining a firearms permit, some more and some less stringent. For example, in Georgia you have to go to your county probate court, apply for the license and a background check, get fingerprinted at the police department, and you get your license a few weeks afterward. In South Carolina you must do the same things, but you must also take a firearms course (something I agree with - if you have to take a test to get a drivers license you should sure as heck have to take one to carry a gun!). Therein lies the issue.... Georgia laws are a bit more relaxed than those of South Carolina, and in some states they are even more lenient. South Carolina doesn't want people who don't know how to use a firearm with legal concealed carry permits from other states carrying one within it's borders. This makes perfect sense.

It was recently ruled unconstitutional for a state (or the District of Columbia) to deny a person their right to possess a handgun. A year ago, in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that Washington D.C.'s handgun ban was unconstitutional. Left up to the individual states, however, are the specific laws pertaining to how one may obtain a firearm. Yesterday's Senate vote addressed those laws. The Senate voting down the amendment is not a violation of the Second Amendment, because citizens are still allowed to carry guns in all 50 states. The real issue concerning this piece of potential legislation was the Tenth Amendment. It states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That a state should be required by the Federal Government to honor another state's more lenient gun permits is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, because the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the right to regulate firearms.

That's part of the beauty of living in America and the genius behind the Founding Fathers' framing of our government. The Federal Government's power is limited (or at least it should be.... in reality we could find hundreds of violations of the 10th Amendment). An individual state might be able to restrict you from doing a certain activity, but another state may not. If you don't like a particular law, and there is another state that doesn't have it then you can move. If the Federal Government had more power, however, we would all be stuck with the same laws. This is how our government was designed to work. This is true Freedom as the Founders intended.

The Incredibly Unequal Distribution of Wealth in America

2009-07-22T07:00:00.008-04:00

Government officials love to talk about the "unequal distribution of wealth" in our country. I agree with them 100%. This may come as a surprise to many, but the data you will see later may surprise you as well (actually, it won't surprise you at all but it will explain why I agree with the politicians). First of all, only the government can define wealth as being "distributed," because only the government has the power to actually distribute it, or more correctly, redistribute. Wealth is earned, not distributed. The lawyer with two degrees working eighty hours per week making $400,000 annually certainly earns more than the high school graduate gas station attendant who works 30-40 hours per week and makes <$30K per year. The key word here is "earns." No one says "My employer distributes $45,000 per year to me." They say "I earn $45,000 per year." To get a better perspective let's look at the definitions of "distribute" and "earn":

Distribute
1: to divide among several or many

Earn
1: to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered

Which definition do you think best applies to your money? "Earn" probably looks pretty accurate. The definition of "distribute" seems to fit better with a socialist or communist society (or, as you will see later, the bottom 40% of America). Let's dive into some facts and figures to illustrate the situation. The Heritage Foundation has an excellent study on income inequality (it's a bit old, but we would see the same trends today). Notice how I did not use the phrase "distribution of wealth." That's because A. Wealth is not distributed; it is earned and B. When politicians talk about "unequal distribution of wealth" they are really talking about income. They are talking about how much people earn. You won't hear politicians use that word though, because to earn something requires "effort and.... work" (remember the definition above?). You will soon see that the government clearly does not value people who work to earn.

The graph below shows the distribution of income within the U.S. You see three columns, because The Heritage Foundation had to correct the data from the original census report so that it accurately reflects the situation. The census had some serious errors. To summarize the errors, the census data does not account for the effects of taxation, and the census data also did not divide the population equally into five quintiles. According to the census, the top "qunitile" contains 24.3% of the population (your tax dollars paid the person who came up with that, by the way). 24.3% is more like a quartile. The Heritage Foundation fixed it though.

Notice the trend of income dropping in the top quintile once it is corrected for taxation and benefits. On the flip side, notice income rising dramatically, by 55%, in the bottom quintile after taxes (in this case "taxes" means "distribution"). This can only mean that people in the bottom quintile are getting quite a bit of money distributed to them from the government while people in the top quintile are getting money taken from them by the very same government. Things get much more interesting when you look at the differences between each group in terms of hours worked.

The top quintile contains 22.2% of working age adults, but they account for 25.6% of total hours worked. When you look at the bottom quintile, however, these people make up 18.5% of the working population, but only account for 13.1% of the work in the country. Translation.... the top quintile works way more than the bottom quintile. Assuming that each group should account for a number of hours worked equal to their population (ex. top quintile makes up 22.2% of working population so they should also account for 22.2% of total hours worked), when you cross reference the data (gotta use this graph for hours worked) you can extrapolate the following facts: The people who work 17% more see their (earned) incomes drop after the government takes a share of their income and wealth. Ironically, the people who work 51% less see their incomes rise by fifty six percent, courtesy of our government's policy of seizure and distribution.

After looking at this data I have to say I agree 100% that the distribution of income is unequal in the United States. It's incredibly unequal when you consider that the people who work more get more of their income seized from them by the government while the people who work over 50% less get over 50% more distributed to them from the government. This might be one of the few cases of government officials telling the truth. Income and wealth distribution (redistribution) really is outrageously unequal in America.

Congress Wants to Grow Their Business

2009-07-21T12:00:00.000-04:00

We love growth. America loves bigger, better and faster. CEOs strive to grow their businesses. because Wall Street worships growth. College football coaches love it when players get bigger in the weight room. We like our savings accounts and IRAs to grow. Growth, growth, growth. If you consider the modern mindset of America, it really makes sense that our elected officials love growth, too. They are essentially the CEOs of America. They run the business we call Government. What do CEOs do? They get more customers and grow their businesses. This is how companies survive and thrive. Modern day government works in the same way. However, bigger is not always better when it comes to government. Actually, for the real CEOs of America, a bigger government is often a worst case scenario. Just ask anyone currently in the health care industry. Most people do not realize it, but bigger government often times makes the average citizen worse off.

Over the past few decades there has hardly been a government official who can claim that he or she did not grow government in some way. The citizens of the United States are the customers in this scenario (called Life), and every customer is a potential vote. In the private business world people vote with dollars by buying products. Apple grows its business by making the iPod better and better every year to get more people buy it. Government largely works in the same way. The different is that the "products" that the Government comes up with (think Social Security, health care, regulations etc.) are not always needed. These "products" also cost money, but to get this money the government must first take the money away from you and me by force. We don't have the choice of whether or not to "buy" government services like we do with an iPod. Most of the time when government offers someone a "product" it takes away liberty and responsibility in some way. It's a "you won't have to worry about it anymore because we'll take care of it for you" offering, and this is how politicians keep their jobs. If they don't have enough customers/votes then they lose their jobs. How do politicians get votes? They give you tangible stuff. Usually this involves something like a tax credit, a new government agency, welfare, health care, a neighborhood park, newly paved roads etc. These are all tangible things ("products") that people notice. Politicians then turn around and say "look what I put in your hands." Unfortunately, most people don't realize that our country was founded on and grew to greatness via government giving people the intangibles, the things we cannot see or touch, mainly liberty.

Most people do not notice liberty. We have this notion in America these days that the government must fix all of our problems. This takes away an important aspect of liberty: the freedom to fail. Liberty has become equated with success. Liberty has become equated with money. Liberty has become equated with health care and security. As I said previously, America was founded on the principle of liberty. The Founding Fathers wanted everyone to have it, and this is how some people get away with touting "liberty," although their definitions of liberty are far different from that of the Founding Fathers .

These days, having liberty means everyone must succeed. Success isn't a choice anymore. It has almost become a requirement. Liberty has become synonymous with everything except failure. People write their congressional representatives and say "I cannot play because I do not have a park near my house." 200 years ago you would be told to walk to one or move. If you don't then you have failed, because you have been given the liberty to take these actions. They say "I cannot pay my mortgage. Help me!" If you took out a loan that you could not afford to pay back then you have failed, because you have been given the liberty to buy a smaller house that you could afford. These days, however, your congressperson needs your vote, so she responds by giving you more welfare or a tax credit or a mortgage bailout or a neighborhood park.

This is how government grows. When you have 535 members of Congress sending money to their constituents in one way or another the growth simply compounds. America rewards growth. Like I said, it's only natural that government wants to grow their "business." The more things they have to manage, the more things for which they can take credit. The more things in your life they can take credit for, the more they get noticed and the more votes they get. We no longer reward the liberty of 200+ years ago, because the definition of liberty has changed. Popular liberty now equals having to take care of less and less within your own life. Liberty currently means "I don't have to take care of it, because the government will do it for me. I can do whatever I want to do." The Declaration of Independence says we all have the right to Liberty, so Congress gives the people what they want: "liberty," albeit the newly defined popular liberty.

If we are going to redefine liberty in this way then we need to throw out the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and replace them. We currently reward our government for doing the exact opposite of what our country was founded upon while simultaneously allowing our elected officials to trample on the intent of the Founders using their own words. It's the ultimate historical kick in the face. As long as we keep voting for candidates who will grow their business we will continue to lose true liberty. I would gladly vote for a congressional candidate who puts nothing tangible in my hands other than liberty as defined by the Founders.

A Little Vacation...

2009-07-20T13:15:00.002-04:00

I've been on vacation for the past week, so that's why things have been quiet. I had some posts that were supposed to auto-post, but it looks like none of them actually went up. Sorry for the lull, but I'll be back in full swing shortly.

Minimum Wage

2009-07-14T06:00:00.001-04:00

In a little over a week the Federal minimum wage requirement will rise to $7.25 per hour. This is the result of the Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 2007, that put the minimum wage requirement on an upward path from it's then level of $5.15 an hour. This wage hike will have serious consequences, including delaying economic recovery. It also brings to mind a number of questions. Will it have a greater impact on small businesses than larger ones? Too great of an impact (i.e. - forcing many to close)? What demographic group will it impact the most? And is a minimum wage even constitutional?

A wage or salary is a measure of how much an employee is worth to a business. There is a reason that the guy cooking burgers at McDonald's is not making $100,000 per year like the pharmacist does. Anyone can cook a burger. Not everyone can tell you that it's potentially dangerous to take both simvastatin and amiodarone at the same time. To really get a grasp of the issue it is important to understand that $1 per year (for a full time employee) equates to about $2,000 in wages. That number is calculated as follows: 40 hours per week x 52 weeks per year x $1 = $2,080 (keep it at 2K to keep the numbers easy). The previous minimum wage, $5.15 per hour translated to about $11,000 per year. $7.25 per hour is around $15,000 per year, an increase of $4,000.

Let's say a small business has ten employees, four of which are at minimum wage. The employer will now have to pay an extra $16,000 per year in wages. The employees didn't earn it. The government is requiring it. If they did earn it the mandate completely undermines their merit based achievement. The business owner might have been getting ready to say "great job, I'm giving you a raise, because you are a fantastic employee." Instead the employee simply watches CNN, sees that he's getting a government-mandated raise and gets none of the verbal and psychological reward that he worked so hard for. He then thinks that the only way he will get a raise is if the government requires it. He sees his hard work as inconsequential, and may start to slack off a bit. The Wall Street Journal notes that "two of every three full-time minimum-wage workers get a pay raise anyway within a year on the job." That's 66% of the full time minimum-wage workforce that will not get the positive feedback and subsequent merit-based raise that is so vitally important to an employee's development.

What if the employer wanted to hire someone else? At $5.15 per hour he or she could have added an employee and given the other four employees a raise. With millions of people currently out of work that extra job could really mean something for someone trying to feed her family. Multiply that by the tens of thousands of small businesses throughout the U.S., and it really starts to make an impact.

What I really want to know is how someone cannot manage to make more than minimum wage after high school. Government officials talk about the "right" to a "living wage" all the time. If you cannot make yourself worth more than $5.15 an hour to an employer without a government mandate then it's time for some serious self-examination. I was making more than minimum wage while I was still in high school. My job didn't require much education, so crediting my parents with sending me to private schools is a non-factor. It was simple work ethic and attitude. Anyone could have started where I did and worked their way up to store manager without ever having set foot in a college classroom. I have seen many people do it. Most people with a high school education could start flipping burgers at McDonald's at age 16 and eventually learn how to manage the entire restaurant.

After college I worked in a restaurant for a while. One of the guys that worked in the kitchen started as a dish washer. He has since received three or four promotions. He didn't go to college. You can get education at work. In fact, many people would argue that you learn more outside of a college classroom than you do in one. Yes, college is beneficial, but it's not the only way to success. Telling an employee that he is automatically worth $7.25 per hour simply by applying for a job does nothing to advance America. It is actually a step backwards. The true American dream is one of starting at the bottom, with nothing, and working your way up to the top. A minimum wage of $0.00 per hour would allow more people to truly live it.

Health Care Reform Part 3: The Government "Option" is Not an Option at All

2009-07-13T11:30:00.004-04:00

We have heard it over and over again...... "If you want to keep your current health insurance you will be able to do that," and the public "option" will "make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest." You hear these statements in the media, you hear them from Congress and you hear them from our President. No matter how many times they get repeated, however, none of them are or will ever become true.

It really does not take much to demonstrate that these statements are very misleading. Let's start with the first statement about keeping your current plan. In the first installment in this series I outlined a few of the major problems with our current health care structure and solutions to fix them. One of the problems is health insurance being tied to employment for the vast majority of Americans. One consequence of this relationship is that you don't actually choose your health insurance provider. Your employer chooses for you. The insurer may be great or it may be terrible. Regardless of quality, you are stuck. So let's revise things a bit: "If you want to keep your current health insurance you will be able to do that if and only if your employer chooses to keep your current provider." The choice is not yours.

Employers, faced with the decision to stay competitive and keep their businesses alive vs. provide private health insurance for their employees, will eventually start dropping their private health insurance coverage in favor of the cheaper public plan. Once this happens you don't really have the "option" of keeping your current plan, because your employer made the choice, not you. You only option becomes the public plan. If you don't believe companies will drop health insurance then check out this study that illustrates the effects of a public "option" on private health insurance markets. In the scenario where the government models their plan after Medicare the study shows that 119 million people would drop or lose their private plans and be enrolled in the public plan.

It's simple economics. Company A sees that Company B is dropping their private health insurance plan in order to save costs. If they cut costs then they can also cut prices. Cutting prices causes more people to buy Company B's products. Company A sees their sales drop as a result. To fix this Company A drops their private health insurance plan and cuts prices to stay competitive. It's not that Company A necessarily wanted to drop their private health insurance, because they know it's better than the public plan. However, the choice eventually becomes "do I want to stay in business by cutting costs or close as a result of sales dropping too far?" To put it another way "I can either keep all of these people employed and receiving paychecks and offer them a public plan, or I can give them private health insurance until I have to close the business and everyone loses their jobs." This is the beginning of the "crowding out" process.

Once people start moving off of private insurance it will cause private insurance premiums to rise. As they start rising, more and more people will be unable to afford private health insurance (even though they could previously afford it). These individuals and families will start moving to the public plan as well, because it will be the only "option" that they can afford. It happened in Florida with property insurance when the state started offering a public insurance "option." The Wall Street Journal notes (article linked above) that private insurers "have either curtailed operations or withdrawn from the Sunshine State." Now the state of Florida is one hurricane away from financial disaster, because they do not have the funds behind their public property insurance "option" to cover a disaster. Looks pretty similar to the current failing state of Medicare and Medicaid doesn't it? Oh, and speaking of Medicare, if the "crowding out" factor does not exist as our government is currently trying to tell us then why are the elderly all covered by Medicare? Answer: because private plans have been crowded out by the government plan.

Regarding the "competition" aspect of the debate, there are already hundreds and hundreds of insurance companies in the marketplace today. How much more competition do they need? Furthermore, if the insurance market needs government competition to keep it "honest" then why not other industries as well? We all use computers so how about a government computer "option"? Or a government grocery store chain? Government airline? I would also include "government automobile option," but we already have that. The truth is that there is no solid economic basis for the government "option" providing competition for the private sector. Many people in Washington would like you to think so, but it's simply not true.

We have every reason to be skeptical of Congress and the President. Our government, to my knowledge, has never given a correct estimate of the costs of any government program. The costs are always higher than projected. So with a government that runs two failing medical insurance programs that have crowded out private insurance, what reason do any of us have to believe that the same thing won't happen this time? It's important to decide now, because if we wait then we won't have an option.

The True Story of Race

2009-07-09T23:02:00.004-04:00

I get it. I really do. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, separate water fountains etc. I can see why people get really upset at the slightest hint of racial discrimination against blacks these days. It certainly still exists, and it's wrong. Permeating our country, however, are a major double standard and a complete misunderstanding of racial issues. If something race-related or discriminatory happens to a black person it becomes national front page news. If something similar happens to a white person it goes largely unnoticed and gets buried by the media. Don't believe me? Read this story and this story. Both articles ran yesterday. The former, a case of whites discriminating against blacks reported by CNN, was the front page lead headline on CNN.com for part of the day yesterday. The latter, a case of as many as fifty black teens attacking a white family reported by Ohio.com (only reason I found it was through Drudge), is completely ignored by the national media. Both stories deal with the exact same topic, so why don't they put them side by side? There's no doubt CNN knew about it. If it's on Drudge then surely someone in the newsroom noticed it but chose to ignore it.

I often struggle with the issue of race. It was a horrible thing that blacks were systematically discriminated against by the government and the general population for so long. I can see how people might think the mentality of "okay, we discriminated against one group for so long that now we have to switch and help them at all costs" might help, but the truth is that it does not. The reason is that the issue does not have anything to do with race. It's culture that we need to be focused on.

Regardless of your skin color, if you're lazy, messy, not well spoken, poorly dressed and you have an "I don't care" attitude then you're going to be making minimum wage for the rest of your life. The only reason skin color enters the arena is because you cannot hide it. The defining characteristics of most cultures that get negatively stereotyped can be covered up with clothing or masked by other means. If you're a white tattooed drug dealer you can still walk into the office on a Monday with a suit on, and no one knows the difference, because you work your butt off during the week, and you're well respected among your peers who have no idea you peddle crack. On the other hand, if you're a hard working, motivated, well spoken, impeccably dressed black person you can't hide the fact that you're black. If people see a tattooed black guy getting arrested on the morning news, and they see you in the office later then you might get grouped with the criminal since you share one visible consistent trait in common. The white tattooed drug dealer can hide his tattoos, but a black man cannot hide his skin color.

When a certain group only makes up around 13% of the population but accounts for 50% of the homicides in the United States, that group gets labeled. The one common visual factor that everyone sees is skin color. Stereotypes exist for a reason. To a certain extent all of them are true. Nonetheless, that does not mean they apply to everyone. The reality is that the common factor linking the homicides isn't skin color at all. It's behavior. Those folks on the news are all behaving in a certain way. Culture is defined as "the integrated pattern of...... behavior." Behavior is not always visible. The tattooed white drug dealer might behave one way outside of the office and an entirely different way at the office. His co-workers cannot see a link at all. When black violence and crime dominate the news as they so often do, the behavior certainly doesn't carry itself into the office of other blacks, but their skin color does. Most people look through the lens of skin color, however, and not through one of behavior. On the same token, if a hard working, well spoken black person with good grades applies to a college then they might receive favorable treatment in the admissions process for the purpose of maintaining "diversity" on campus. In effect they are told "Your behavior does not matter. You are going to gain admission simply because you're black." Many blacks are justifiably upset about this. Just ask Clarence Thomas. He keeps his Yale law degree in his basement with a $.15 sticker attached to it, because the school's affirmative action program completely undermined his achievements.

If we really want to fix this whole race issue then people need to realize that more often than not the issue doesn't even concern race. It's a culture thing. By focusing on race the achievements (behavior) of successful people are completely undermined while simultaneously giving negative incentives to those who achieve less. Telling a black kid "If you want to get into X college you only have to have a B average, because you're black. If you were white then you would have to have A's" makes the black kid strive for less. His goal is to get into college, not to make A's, and to achieve this goal he knows he only has to make B's. Upon arrival at the university, however, he's surrounded by white students that have made A's. It breeds inferiority not on the basis of race or ability but by assigning lower standards to one group.

If people want equal treatment then we need to treat everyone equally based on actions and culture rather than skin color. If skin color becomes an asset for getting into college (which it has for that and many other things as well) then you're telling minorities that their skin color is a tangible advantage while simultaneously they are being told that everyone is equal regardless of race. You can't have it both ways. If your actions and your actions alone produce a college degree and a well paying job then you should be respected, not as a black person who achieved it but simply as a person. Stereotypes are earned, and they can ruin opportunities and undermine respect for those who are mistakenly included in the stereotyped group. A group of black teenagers assaulting a white family while yelling "this is a black world" deservedly earns a negative stereotype based on their actions. For the hard working successful people in college whose skin happens to be black, those same teenagers destroy everything that the college students have earned through their behavior.

We need to start running the CNN and Ohio.com stories side by side. The white people are not to be condemned for being white. Their behavior is the focus. The same goes for the black teens in Ohio. It is not until we throw aside our lens of race and start using one of behavior and culture will we ever begin to progress towards true equality.

Fannie and Freddie Go to Cancun

2009-07-08T14:38:00.010-04:00

Consider this: A parent has a teenage kid asking to go to Cancun for spring break. The parent says no, and the teenager doesn't go on the trip, so the kid doesn't concern himself with certain decisions and the freedom he would have if he were able to go to Mexico.

On the contrary, if the kid is allowed to go to Mexico then he has a whole new set of possibilities to consider such as whether or not to get blackout drunk in the midst of a bunch of complete strangers and/or engage in risky sexual behavior with girls he doesn't know. Let's say the kid goes to Cancun, gets blackout drunk and along the way he meets other people and they all get drunk together and start having sex with each other. Meanwhile, mommy and daddy are home telling everyone that their kid is an angel and is sitting on the beach drinking Coca Cola. However, all of the parents' friends have seen the kid's scandalous pictures from Cancun on Facebook.

Now let's look at a real life example that actually happened. Over the last decade or two Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the teenagers) were forced by Congress (the parents) to lower their lending standards (go to Cancun). A key point to take note of is that in this case Fannie and Freddie did not ask to go to Cancun..... they were forced to go by mommy and daddy. So they went. The rum and tequila (money and mortgages) were flowing freely, and Fannie and Freddie had a great time meeting other crazy drunkards along the way (Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Bear Stearns etc.). The other drunkards that they met actually had coolers that were full, so Fannie and Freddie offered to take some and store it for them. This allowed the other drunkards to drink way more than they could handle, but they didn't care, because they were having fun. Fannie and Freddie were also storing way more liquor than they actually had room for, but they didn't care either, because they were having fun too. Oh, and everyone is having drunken sex with each other. Meanwhile at home, Congress (remember: the parents) is telling everyone "Fannie and Freddie are perfectly good kids," while everyone else sees the scandalous pictures that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are posting on Facebook. All of the sudden one of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's friends, Bear Stearns, in Cancun notices a bad rash, um, south of the border. He panics, and everyone else does too. They all go home and realize that they all have STDs. Lehman Brothers actually dies from the STD. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America and other friends have to be put on life support by their parents, and they barely survive. The life support provided by the parents, however, is extremely expensive and the parents max out all of their credit cards.

This story is not meant to talk about Fannie and Freddie specifically. It's infinitely more important than that. There is one glaring difference between the parents and the teenager. If the parents act responsibly then the teenager's potential for harm is limited. However, irresponsible parents allow the teenager to influence and harm many many others from all parts of the country. When a private corporation makes a decision it affects a few thousand people, maybe a few million people at most. When the government makes a decision it affects everyone, hundreds of millions of people, because we are all governed by the same people in Washington.

Why is this important? In one word: isolation. Unlike private sector decisions, the effects of government decisions are not isolated. In the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if they had never been forced/allowed to make risky loans then this whole financial crisis and meltdown would not have happened. Maybe a bank here or there would have made some bad loans and gone under, but it would have been isolated, and we would not have had the widespread financial meltdown that occurred. However, these decisions originated in Congress or at the desk of the President, and the entire private banking sector was systematically empowered to make the risky decisions that they otherwise wouldn't have had to make.

The government absolutely should not be our parent. However, they do have certain authorities that are rightfully granted to them. If the people in charge, parents, government or whomever, act responsibly then everyone benefits.

You Would Never Do These Things

2009-07-08T13:05:00.004-04:00

Read the following and ask yourself if you would ever do any of the following:

1. Accept a job without reading the job description and without knowing the salary or the benefits package.
2. Hire a babysitter without ever interviewing or meeting him/her.
3. Let your accountant file your tax return knowing he had not read or even seen any of your financial statements.

I am going to assume that you would not do any of these things. Most rational and sane people would think these ideas are outrageous. Accept a job without knowing the salary and whether or not it is enough to feed your family? No way! Then why are we letting Congress do it? Our government, specifically Congress, is passing legislation every week that they have never read. It's not just any legislation. Unlike the harmless naming of a post office, it is legislation that will change our lives.

In reference to the health care reform bill currently being drafted in Congress, our current House Majority Leader recently said "if every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” He then goes on to laugh at a question about requiring legislators to read all legislation before voting on it: "I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill." That pretty much lays out a solid strategy for anyone in Congress wanting to get anything passed. Just make it really long so no one will read it, and it'll get whisked right through no matter what it is or how important.

If they're not actually reading all of their own legislation then what did we elect these people to do? We hired them (voted). We pay them (from our taxes). How is this situation any different than the accountant or the babysitter or the job that you knew nothing about? If your boss walked up to you right now and asked you for an analysis of a report and you said "Okay, I'll give you an analysis, but I'm not going to read the report because it's really long," you would get fired. Why do we allow Congress to operate on a completely different set of standards?

Regardless of your political preferences or affiliations, don't you think it's imperative that the people who make all of the laws for our country, the people who have the power to affect the lives of 300 million people, read everything that they vote on? When a business owner makes a decision for his company, it affects only those people who work for that company, usually a few dozen to a few hundred people. When the government makes a decision it affects the lives of everyone. Our elected officials are currently making decisions for hundreds of millions of people and they are not even reading the things that they are deciding upon.

The solution is simple. We hold all of our elected officials accountable by calling them (it takes a minute at most) and telling them to read everything. I bet if they got a couple hundred million calls in the next week telling them that they're out of a job unless they start reading then they might get the message.

Government Health Care Limiting Job Growth and Economic Recovery

2009-07-07T12:09:00.000-04:00

Some obvious things that everyone knows..... we are in a recession, and the economy has shed millions upon millions of jobs over the past year and a half. Stemming from these problems is one glaringly obvious solution: give employers and entrepreneurs incentives to create more jobs. More jobs equals more paychecks for people. More paychecks for people equals spending and economic growth. In the end it means an end to this recession.

The concept of job growth is painfully simple, but our government does not seem to get it. In fact, Congress is considering legislation right now that will decrease job growth. How, you ask? One idea (among many job killing bills) that is currently being floated in Congress is to require employers to provide health insurance to their employees. Not only will they mandate health insurance, they will mandate a specific type of health insurance, one that covers waaaaaaay more medical issues than most people need or want. If they choose not to provide this specific type of health insurance then they will be forced to pay a penalty to support the public health "option." One extremely large group of people in this country is very upset about this potential mandate, because it would crush their businesses. This group of people is comprised entirely of small business owners. Small business owners are the largest group of employers in the country. Congress knows their concerns, and they are talking about exempting small businesses from the mandate. Problem solved, right?

Absolutely not and here's why. How will the government define "small business"? Simple. They will use employee head count. Let's just say it's 20 employees. So, if a business has 20 or more employees it will be required to provide health insurance to all employees. Those with 19 or less will be exempt. According to the latest U.S. Census data available, 89% of the businesses in the United States have less than 20 employees and employ almost one fifth of the workforce. Now let's say this health care thing passes and you're a business owner with 18 or 19 employees. You already provide health insurance to your employees, and they're happy with it. You want to grow your business, but growth means hiring more people. If you hire more people then you'll incur the added expense of providing the government mandated health insurance to your employees. This added expense would actually make your business less profitable, maybe even unprofitable, even though you are trying to "grow" it by adding more employees. So instead of adding more employees, which would help our economic recovery, you decide to keep your business the same size.

If job growth is so essential to our economic recovery (which it is) then why is the government working against it? In addition to stymieing recovery, exempting small businesses won't do much to reduce the number of uninsured. A recent Wall Street Journal article points out that most large employers already provide health insurance to their employees. Regardless of this fact, though, this is our government's solution to the health care problem. Their "solution" makes zero sense, and it simply won't work. Stay tuned over the next week or two for some Real Honest Solutions on health care issues.

New Design!

2009-07-06T10:10:00.001-04:00

No worries folks! It's still the same Real Honest Thinking you've been reading for the past few months. It's just got a new look. Hope you like it!

This is How They Count "Jobs Saved or Created"

2009-07-02T19:36:00.005-04:00

I was listening to the radio on my way home from work one day last week, and I heard a firsthand account of how the current Administration is counting "jobs saved or created" by the so-called "stimulus package." If you need a refresher on "saved or created" see here. The guy who called in to the station owns a manufacturing company, and one of his clients is a firm that received money from the stimulus package. This client recently placed an order with the man's company, and shortly thereafter the owner received a questionnaire from the federal agency in charge of tracking the impact of the stimulus package. The questionnaire asked how many jobs the owner was able to save or create as a result of his customer receiving stimulus money. The owner thought about it and put zero as his answer, because the customer's order had no impact on his company's head count.

Not long after mailing the questionnaire into the agency he received a call from the federal agency who received it. They asked why he put "zero" for jobs saved or created as a result of his client receiving stimulus funds and subsequently placing an order with his company. The idea here is that the man's client may have been able to place an order that it wouldn't have been able to place had it not received stimulus money. Subsequently, the revenue from the order for the manufacturing company may have been able to "save or create" a job. However, the manufacturing company's owner was not able to save or create any jobs as a result, because he was not reliant on that customer's order to avoid layoffs, so he correctly put zero. The federal employee then responded "Didn't someone have to take the initial order? Didn't someone pack it up and ship it?" The agent that called him informed the owner that the actual methods that the agency has set out for measuring "saved or created" were actually different than the method that the owner used. The owner then responded "What? You mean that you are counting everyone who touched the process in some way?" The federal employee said yes. The owner then said "So you mean I'm supposed to count the person who answered the phone, the person that took the order, the person who boxed up the order, the person who shipped the order etc. etc., even though they would have been employed without the order coming in? All of this regardless of whether or not their jobs were contingent upon receipt of that order?" The federal employee said yes.

This is the method that our government is using to measure the effectiveness of the stimulus package. We have a firsthand account from a business owner here, and he clearly demonstrates that the government's measurement system is a complete fraud. This is how we are being deceived by the government into believing that the stimulus package is actually doing something when in actuality it is nothing but a government vote-buying package. This is a blatant example of the government's attempts at deception. There is no doubt that both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike, engage in this type of activity. Politicians make up numbers all of the time, because they know that most people won't check them for accuracy.

I don't care who is in Congress or the White House. This stuff happens all the time. It has been said that "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We are slowly seeing our liberties taken away by politicians in Washington, because we have been asleep or apathetic. When it comes to politicians do not pay attention to anything they say. Only pay attention to what they do. I'm just as disgusted with the Republicans as I am with the Democrats. The last Administration started the whole bailout mess with TARP. The last Administration is gone, however, so it's no use complaining about them. The current one has the power and the opportunity to undo all of it. Our government isn't doing it though. Not only that, they are making it worse. We are being lied to, and this country is headed down a path that will be burdensome to individuals, businesses, the economy and freedom for years to come. Vigilance was needed years ago. A lack thereof brought the current mess upon us. Action is needed now.

A Well Deserved Grilling

2009-07-02T11:53:00.006-04:00

Many of you may have heard about or seen President Obama's town hall meeting on health care yesterday. It seems a few people in the media have become a little upset about the fact that the "open" town hall meeting wasn't really open at all. Every question was carefully pre-screened and every attendee was as well. Check out this video of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs getting a well-deserved grilling by the press on this:

There is no doubt that this has happened with every recent president, Bush, Obama, everyone. However, we haven't ever seen it to this extent. At the end of the video you saw Helen Thomas, who has been around the White House for years, comment that she has never seen anything like this before. What lends even more credibility to it is that this is the Obama press corps, the very same people who have followed him around and repeated his every word without question. The hypocrisy of it all is that Obama has consistently touted transparency and openness throughout his campaign and Presidency. It's fine if Obama wants to monopolize some time to talk about his health care initiatives, but don't do it under the guise of a "town hall meeting". A true town hall meeting would inevitable make him answer the tough stuff. We got absolutely zero new information out of yesterday's meeting. If it's a true town hall then we should at least get something valuable. Yesterday was the same old rhetoric that we've been hearing for weeks. Just call it what it is: a commercial.

Health Care Reform Part 2: Government is Not the Answer

2009-07-01T06:00:00.000-04:00

It doesn't take long to figure out why government-sponsored health care is not the answer to our health care problems in the United States. Government health care simply doesn't work. It's not financially sustainable, and it does not improve the health care system. It has been tried before in both the U.K. and Canada, and it is failing in both countries. It's even been tried in the United States with Medicare and Medicaid and they are failing as well. The U.K. and Canada are currently expanding their private health care sectors in response to widespread problems with their public systems. If the government systems are failing everywhere then why are we moving in the opposite direction in the United States?

The fundamental problem with "free" government health care is that it isn't free. As I outlined in part 1 of this series, someone pays for it. When the patient is not held accountable for his or her own health care costs then the overall costs for the entire system go up. When something is free the supply of products or services dries up very quickly. It's very basic economics. In the case of "free" health care it leads to people requesting and receiving services and/or procedures that they do not need. If they had to pay for it (or at least a portion of it) themselves then they surely wouldn't buy something they don't need. "Free" health care inevitably leads to rationing. Rationing means lines and long waits for health care. Rationing means less access to health care for everyone. But don't people say that government-sponsored health care increases access? They're wrong. It does the exact opposite. Keep reading for plenty of examples of the failures of the U.K. and Canadian health care systems and how government health care actually restricts access to health care rather than increasing it.

Canada
You will see here that years ago Canada had already begun its march towards privatization of the health care industry. The turn towards privatization is a direct response to the failures of their single-payer government health care system, the exact road that we're headed down. Look here and you'll find data from 2005 that outlines wait times for various specialties (due to rationing). Any of this look alarming to you? How about 11 weeks just to see a neurosurgery specialist? Oh, and don't forget to add in the waiting period just to see a primary care specialist. Many regions in Canada have lotteries to decide who gets to go to the primary care doctor. If you subsequently need to see a neurosurgeon and get referred then it's another 8 weeks after seeing the specialist until you actually receive treatment. That's over five months from referral to treatment for brain related medical issues! I'm pretty sure many neurological issues are a lot more urgent than a five month wait. But hey, it's free right?

U.K.
The U.K. is also increasingly reliant upon the private sector for their health care. Additionally, in the United Kingdom they have developed a standard that they use to measure success regarding wait times from referral to treatment. If the wait time is less than the standard then it's considered a "success." Care to take a guess at how many weeks they consider successful? Their standard for "success" is eighteen weeks from referral to treatment! Can you imagine a wait time of eighteen weeks being considered "successful" here in the United States?!? What if you went to the doctor tomorrow with a broken leg or some sort of trauma and they said "okay, we'll try to get you treated within 18 weeks." You would go nuts! Check out this data from August of 2008 (the "adjusted admitted pathways" link). Just browse through the different regions and specialties and see the percentages of people who were actually treated within 18 weeks. Look at line 35 and you'll find that three out of ten "trauma and orthopaedic" patients at this particular hospital had to wait over five months to get treated for trauma and orthopaedic related medical problems. That means people with broken legs and ACLs had to wait five months to get them fully treated. Are you kidding me? You'll also see some percentages for cardiothoracic surgery around 50%. That means half of the people who needed HEART SURGERY didn't get it within eighteen weeks! Imagine your doctor saying "You have a serious heart condition and need emergency surgery. Our goal is to get you this emergency surgery within the next five months." But it's free, so that's better, right?

You have already seen the failures of the current government run health care systems in the United States. Medicare is projected to go bankrupt by 2017. Even if it doesn't go bankrupt, Medicare has quality and accountability problems. If we can't figure out how to make our current government systems work then why are we going to try to expand government health care?

ALL of these government run health care systems are failing, even our own. What makes people think that the government will suddenly be able to make it work this time around? Do you need more proof? The fact is that it doesn't work. It cannot work. You cannot ignore the fundamental, natural laws of economics. They exist regardless of whether or not people want them to exist. The good news is that we can improve the system while taking advantage of the basic laws of economics and increase access to health care. That is everyone's goal. Let's get it done.

The Honduras Situation and Why it is Important

2009-06-30T10:44:00.006-04:00

By now you have surely heard at least something about the current situation in Honduras. Do you know the details of what is actually taking place? More importantly, do you know why you should pay attention? First, here's what went down:

Honduras currently has presidential term limits written into their constitution, just like we do in the United States. The Honduran President, Mel Zelaya, is approaching the end of what their constitution currently mandates as his final term in office. President Zelaya decided that he wants to change the constitution. Honduran law allows for the constitution to be altered but only through a constituent assembly. The only way to call a constituent assembly is to get approval for a national referendum via the Honduran Congress. The president does not have the legal authority to change the constitution himself or call for a national referendum or call for a constituent assembly. President Zelaya did it anyway.

Then the Honduran Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that Zelaya's referendum was illegal. The military is the group charged with organizing and executing the referendum vote. After the head of the Honduran military, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told Zelaya that he would have to comply with the supreme court ruling and not carry out the vote, Zelaya fired him. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled this firing unconstitutional as well, but Zelaya still refused to reinstate Gen. Velásquez. President Zelaya then needed ballots for his illegal referendum. He had Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's Communist dictator, ship some ballots to him, and they were subsequently stored on a Honduran military base. President Zelaya then had a group invade the military base to seize the ballots for his use, and the military arrested him for his illegal actions.

Now, please take a second and decide for yourself who is at fault here, whose actions are illegal and whose actions are justified under the law. Have you decided? Okay, here's my take on it. It's clear that Mel Zelaya was breaking the law. The military was simply enforcing the law by arresting him. The Honduran constitution does not provide for a means of impeachment or removal of a president from office like ours does, even if the president is breaking the law. Does that mean that any president of Honduras can just do whatever he wants? Absolutely not. NO ONE is above the law. The problem here is that most people cannot begin to imagine a president being arrested for anything. We immediately think of our own President of the United States, and we cannot imagine him being arrested (current and/or past Presidents). However, the Honduran President knowingly and intentionally broke the law, and he rightfully needed to be stopped.

The important thing that we need to pay attention to here is President Obama's reaction to the situation in Honduras. President Obama is calling the events in Honduras an illegal coup. Obama is siding with Communist dictator Hugo Chavez, who is determined to overthrow the new Honduran government. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has said that the Honduran military's actions against President Zelaya "should be condemned by all."

What about denouncing President Zelaya's illegal actions? What about speaking out against his blatant violations of the Honduran Constitution, complete defiance of Supreme Court orders and his illegal invasion of a military base? Nope. You'll hear none of it from the current administration. They have decided to side with Hugo Chavez and the criminal, Mel Zelaya. When the protests started in Iran, Obama came out and said the situation was "of concern," and then he largely does nothing. When the Honduran President illegally attempts to change the constitution and gets arrested, Obama immediately condemns the arrest and sides with a communist dictator.

What does this say about our President? Does he really believe in democracy and respect for the law? Does he really believe in a system of checks and balances like we have in the U.S.? When the checks and balances system in Honduras came into play, Obama overlooked it. Similarly in the U.S., when the General Motors bondholders demanded what was legally due to them in a bankruptcy process, Obama overlooked the law and paid the United Auto Workers, who under the law stand behind the bondholders in the payment line. Does anyone see a correlation here? Are you okay with this? Are you okay with our President supporting a man who attempted to circumvent his country's constitution when it was inconvenient? Are you okay with the fact that President Obama consistently ignores the law when it is inconvenient for him to follow it?

I'm not.

Health Care Reform: Part 1

2009-06-29T11:45:00.000-04:00

Here we go folks, the first installment in a series of posts that will definitely shed some light on the health care debate. Part one, as promised, will focus on why the current system is not working. First, if you didn't catch my last post that cleared up some of the dynamics and psychology behind the health care debate, read it before you dive into this series. I believe that understanding these dynamics is essential to fostering productive debate and ultimately solutions on the issue.

The current system is failing largely because of a few main factors: lost job = loss of health insurance, excessive government regulation, Medicare and Medicaid, and the public's lack of knowledge of true heath care costs. It is critical to understand that reforming just one of these factors will not fix the system as a whole and that fixing just one or two may very well make the current system worse. Methodical changes need to be made in tandem across the board in order for the system to work more efficiently.

#1 If You Lose Your Job You Also Lose Your Health Insurance
Do most people even know why we get health insurance through our employers? Does it make any sense? Why not auto or mortgage insurance as well? Quick history lesson.... during World War II the government instituted wage controls on businesses. As a result employers could not give people raises nor could they offer attractive salaries to potential employees. In order to be more competitive companies began offering health benefits with the wartime profits they were making in lieu of salary increases, because the government exempted these benefits from the wage controls. The benefits were also tax-exempt. Fast forward 60 years, and you've got the current system where most people get their health insurance through their employers. Why is this a problem? Just ask the millions of people who have lost their jobs over the course of the last year. My gut feeling is that people would not fear unemployment nearly as much if they could keep their health insurance even if they lost their jobs. Additionally, you may be perfectly healthy when you start a new job, but then you get cancer, diabetes or some other chronic illness..... then you lose your job. Under the current system you're in a pretty poor predicament, because you lost your job and your health insurance. Even if you get a new job and insurance you'll have to pay a huge amount for insurance because of your preexisting condition. If you separate employment and health insurance then you're in much better shape, because you can keep your insurance regardless of your employment status.

Another issue with health insurance being tied to employment is that it eliminates the individual patient (you and me) as the true customer. The only reason you have your plan is because your employer chose it. Most people have one choice of an insurance plan through their employers, because that's all that is offered. So what incentive does the insurance company have to serve you? Not much, because they know you can't switch plans or providers. Most employers offer only one and you are trapped. If we start being the real customer rather than our employers then insurance companies will compete for OUR business, not that of our employers. Competition = better service and often times lower prices as well.

This lack of choice poses other problems as well. You take a job, and you take the insurance plan with it..... and all of the coverages that you don't need along with it. My plan covers me for maternity care! I'm the sperm guy, not the child bearer!!! Why am I paying for maternity coverage?!? Because I don't have a choice. My employer crafted my plan for me. Don't get me wrong, it's a great plan, but it could be cheaper. Also, If my insurance company pisses me off I don't have a choice of whether or not to keep it, because I'm only offered a choice of one company through my employer. It is in the best interest of the insurance company to keep my employer happy. It really doesn't matter to them if I'm satisfied as long as my employer essentially forces me (through no fault of their own) to stay with them. However, if I have the choice between all of the insurance companies then I bet many of the insurance company horror stories would go away. Costs would come down as well, because you could pick and choose which coverages you want (personally, I would definitely not be choosing maternity coverage!).

Solution #1: Level the Playing Field of Health Plan Taxes
Currently, if you get your health insurance through your employer you and the company are allowed to exempt the entire cost of the plan from taxes. However, if you try to buy your own plan in the open market then you do have to pay taxes on it. Does that make any sense? Don't you think that there are probably a few uninsured people out there who could probably afford pre-tax health insurance, but instead have to go without it simply because their employer doesn't sponsor it? The easy solution to this would be to end the government's favorable tax benefits on employer-sponsored insurance and allow everyone to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxes. This would also take care of the employment-sponsoring problem, because the tax benefits are the only reason companies offer health insurance in the first place. It would level the playing field for everyone. If you're worried about having to pay the full cost of your health care (your portion and the portion that your employer was paying) then rest easy. When your employer hired you they had to budget for much more than just your salary. They also had to budget for your health care plan. Now, they can just add that money to your salary. It's net-zero for them, because they can write it off on their taxes either way. All of these measures will bring costs down, so the company will be able to save money while paying you more to cover your insurance. Everyone wins!

#2 Excessive Government Regulation
Our current health care system is mired in layers upon layers of regulation. Some of it is necessary, but much of it is not. Every state is allowed to set its own regulations for insurance companies. That's why you have a "Blue Cross Blue Shield of [insert any state here]". Currently we are not allowed to buy health insurance across state lines. What if insurance companies were allowed to sell insurance across state lines and they also didn't have to figure out how to comply with FIFTY different sets of regulations? If insurance companies had only one set of regulations to deal with then they would save hundreds of millions of dollars! Think about it.... (hypothetical numbers here) each company might only have to hire just 50 people to take care of the regulations for all 50 states instead of 50 people PER state (2,500 people!) to deal with individual state regulations. Let's say those 2,500 employees makes an average of $50K per year. That's a total of $125,000,000 that the company pays them in salary alone! Tack on benefits (health insurance!) etc. and it's far higher. Having just 50 employees working on regulations would only cost $2.5 million per year. That's a savings of $122.5 million per year! If the insurance companies save money then guess what..... you do too! Your health insurance premiums would go down. If health insurance costs go down then more people can afford it. See where I'm going here? ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR MORE PEOPLE!

I have seen examples of policies in Iowa costing around $99 with the exact same policy going for almost $400 in New York. It just so happens that New York State has one of the most regulated health insurance industries in the nation. Coincidence? Absolutely not. Yes, cost of living is higher in New York (not 400% higher though), but insurance companies also have to employ more people in order to keep up with the regulations. An insurance company in Iowa might not be able to sell a NYC resident the policy for $99, but they might be able to do it for $199. Don't you think there are probably a few people in New York City that could afford a policy that costs half of what they currently have to pay? Definitely.

Solution #2
Allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, and perform a methodical review of all current regulations with the intention of throwing out the ones that are needlessly weighing down the system. This could add millions of people to the ranks of the privately insured.

#3 Medicare and Medicaid
Health care costs money. Period. As much as we would like it to be free, it's not. Someone always pays for it. Just because a doctor's visit costs a Medicaid patient $10 doesn't mean that the visit actually cost $10. The visit may have actually cost $1,000, and now the doctor must pay the $990 that the patient didn't cover. So, the doctor bills Medicaid to recoup these costs. Medicaid currently reimburses providers at a fraction of the real cost in many cases. The doctor might send a bill to Medicaid for $990, but if Medicaid only reimburses that care at a 70% rate, then the doctor only receives about $700. Where does the other $300 come from? The doctor has to have that $300 to pay his nurses, rent and keep the lights on. He or she cannot operate at a loss. The answer is that it comes from you and me.

Doctors are currently forced to recoup these costs from privately insured individuals and charge more to paying customers. This drives up the cost of private insurance and it drives up the overall cost of health care. For some people, private insurance is too expensive, so they go on Medicaid. More people on Medicaid drives up the cost of private insurance even more. You get the picture? If we implement reforms across the board (remember, reform does not equal "government option" as the current powers that be would like you to believe), then insurance costs will go down. Insurance costs go down, and more people are able to afford it.

Medicare is projected to run out of money in 2017. MedPac, the agency responsible for advising Congress on Medicare and Medicaid, in their 2008 report speaks of "poor quality," financial concerns, "inaccurate payment rates" to doctors and hospitals and many other concerns. The main issue, however, is that the system is simply not financially sustainable. When something is "free" people use too much of it. When people use too much of something, rationing begins. Why do you think people in Canada have months long waiting lists for emergency surgeries?

Solution #3
I'm not 100% sure what the best solution to the Medicare and Medicaid problem is. I know one solution that would work better is to give Medicare and Medicaid patients money to buy private health insurance rather than have the government reimburse providers. The bottom line is that there is a solution out there. I just haven't found it yet. When I do I promise you'll hear about it.

All of this contributes to the issue of patients and consumers having zero clue how much their health care actually costs. If people really knew then they would appreciate their current insurance much more. The only time people start caring is when they actually start having to pay for of it, such as when they lose their job or their insurance doesn't cover a certain procedure. When people leave the doctor or the pharmacy they should get a line item print-out of all of the services they received. Included in it should be the cost for each of those individual services. If people had that then they would realize how much they're actually getting, and they would also know that health care costs money, regardless of whether or not they actually paid for it themselves. Ultimately, they would realize that the government cannot magically make health care free. Just because the government provides it does not mean it's free.

That's it for round one folks. There is definitely much more to come. The thing to remember here is that there are many solutions to the health care problem. Government is not it.

FairTax Friday: The FairTax Explained

2009-06-26T09:24:00.006-04:00

Alright folks, here's the big moment you've been waiting for. I've already explained how the FairTax will allow you to keep 100% of your paycheck (did you look at your pay stub and see how much the government has taken from you already this year?). I've also explained how the FairTax will eliminate all Federal taxes and allow businesses to lower their prices by an average of about 23%. Finally, in my last FairTax Friday post I gave you an overview of how the FairTax would eliminate the burdensome compliance costs that exist under our current tax code (currently around $400 billion per year). Now you're going to get the meat of the FairTax, the reasons why it's "fair" and the reasons why it's infinitely better than our current system.

It is important to remember that the FairTax does not add additional taxes to our system. It first repeals the 16th Amendment (the one that allows for an income tax) and then eliminates all Federal taxes. This includes income taxes, Social Security withholding, the death tax, capital gains tax etc. etc. etc. We have layers upon layers of taxes and the FairTax eliminates all of them at the Federal level. The FairTax replaces these taxes with a national retail sales tax. "What is a national retail sales tax?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

A national retail sales tax is easy.... every time you buy a new product at the retail level and ONLY when you buy a new product at the retail level, you will pay the tax. It's very similar to the 6, 7, 8% or whatever state sales tax you currently pay at the register. The beauty of it is that you pay taxes ONLY WHEN YOU SPEND MONEY! You choose to pay taxes rather than have your money seized from your paycheck. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't buy anything. That's why it's fair. If a rich guy wants to buy a $23,000,000 yacht, he pays taxes on it. If a middle class individual chooses to save money and not buy a new car, she also saves on taxes.

If this doesn't sound reasonable enough to you already, hear this. The FairTax also includes something called the Prebate. The prebate reimburses every family in the United States for the basic necessities of life. The Federal government sets the poverty level ever year. For purposes of easy math, let's say the level for a family of four is $24,000 per year. Every month, under the FairTax, the family would get a check from the government for $2,000. This $2,000 is given to the family for basic necessities like food, water and shelter. Everyone gets it. Therefore, everyone is put on the same level playing field. If you don't want to pay any taxes at all then don't spend more than your prebate. Just save everything and become a millionare. Oh, and don't forget that under the FairTax you are now receiving 100% of your paycheck! Not only do you only pay taxes when you choose to, you've got more money to spend!

How much is the national retail sales tax called the FairTax? It's 23%. "23%!!! That's SO MUCH MORE than we currently pay!" Actually, it's not. Current income tax rates range from 10-35%. On top of that you also pay the embedded taxes for corporations, capital gains taxes, death taxes, taxes, taxes and more taxes. You think that probably adds up to more than 23% for most people? Probably.

The FairTax is also an embedded tax. This means that it's not added on at the register. It's already factored into the price. So, if you see a camera at Best Buy that you want, and it costs $100, you will pay $100 at the register. $23 of that will go to the Federal Government and the rest goes to the company. Another thing to consider is that prices under the FairTax will fall, on average, 23%. So, in real dollar amounts you will not end up forking over more cash under the FairTax than you would under the current system. Again, you get to keep 100% of your paycheck, so you'll actually have more money. Think about it, if prices fall 23% because the embedded corporate taxes are eliminated and the FairTax replaces it, a $100 item still costs $100.

Millions of dollars have gone into researching this system, folks. It will work, and it will do more for the American economy than you could ever imagine. Business will thrive, individuals with thrive and the government will be able to fund its operations just like it does today. The difference here is that the people would have the power to choose whether or not to be taxed. It wouldn't be some Washington bureaucrat politician deciding for you. It's a great expression of freedom, and it stands firm on the foundation upon which this country was built.

*** Corrections/Clarifications ***

6/26: In an effort to be concise I merged the repeal of the 16th Amendment with the FairTax bill. Please note that the FairTax bill does not repeal the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment must be repealed separately, prior to the passage of the FairTax Bill. The two definitely go hand in hand, but their individual passage is accomplished separately. This is a tough task, but it can be done.

Additionally, I explained the Prebate incorrectly. It's been a while since I reviewed the Prebate, and I got the facts wrong. This will not happen again. Here are the facts: The Prebate reimburses families for the taxes that they would have paid on the basic necessities of life. In 2008, the poverty level for a family of four was set at $28,000. The monthly prebate would be $537, and the annual prebate would amount to $6,440. It still sets everyone on a level playing field, because you are only taxed if you choose to be.

I apologize for the mistakes. They will not happen again with the FairTax, because I have all of the information at my fingertips and will double-check it in the future.

Clarifications on Health Care

2009-06-23T14:27:00.002-04:00

I’ve been getting quite a bit of response on the health care issue, and I want to clarify a few things. First, many people seem to think that the choice is either the current system as it is or the government option. Even President Obama was touting this popular perception in his press conference today saying, “I think in this debate there’s been some notion that if we just stand pat we’ll be ok, and that’s just not true.” NO ONE is saying “Let’s just leave it the way it is.” Pretty much everyone agrees that the system needs to be reformed. The problem is that most people don't understand that we are not faced with a choice between the “current free-market system” and a government-run system. One very important thing to note is that our current system is not a free market system. Yes, it is more free than a 100% government controlled system, but it’s not a true free market. People make the assumption that it is, but the truth is that it is HIGHLY regulated. Many of these regulations contribute significantly to the rising costs of health care. Some of the regulations need to stay, but many of them need to go. A prime example is the restriction that prevents us from buying health insurance across state lines. You can buy a policy in Iowa for $99, but if you turn around and buy that same policy in New York City it will cost almost $400. Does that make sense? Heck no! Do you think there are a few thousand people in NYC that could afford a $99 policy but cannot afford a $400 one? The bottom line is that we all want the same thing: access to health care.

I am not saying that the government should not play any role in health care and the regulation of the industry. Government does have a place in certain areas. The problem is that the government has imposed so much bureaucracy on the health care system that it’s driving up the cost of health care. The government doesn’t need to get out of health care entirely. Their focus just needs to be adjusted to the right areas, and we need to see a thoughtful deregulation process take place. If, together, we can really dive into the issues, peel back the multiple layers of this complicated issues and put aside the “oh she’s a liberal and thinks ‘X’ way” or “here we go, typical conservative….” thoughts, then I’m willing to bet we could hammer out a system that would please us all. We all agree that the current system needs to be reformed, but “reform” doesn’t mean “let the government run it.” There are PLENTY of viable options out there that are better than the government “option” so let’s explore them a bit.

It’s going to take me a few articles, but in the end you will get the full picture of the following:

1. Why the current system is not working
2. Why government control of health care is not the best solution
3. Why the government’s “option” is not an option at all
4. Why the government’s objective isn’t really health care for everyone
5. Why the government’s system simply won’t work
6. Solutions to the current problems that will help achieve our collective goal of increasing access to health care and health insurance

Folks, we can do this, and we can do it with more than just the health care issue. What it takes is first putting aside our preconceived notions of “the other side” and truly learning about the issues. Were you even aware that we aren’t allowed to buy insurance across state lines? Did you know that your state requires you to purchase certain coverage that you probably don’t need and they make you pay for it? That’s the current system folks. If we change it a bit we can keep all of its benefits and add many more.

Pay Attention to Iran

2009-06-19T10:26:00.005-04:00

Folks, we're witnessing something pretty amazing in Iran right now. It's obvious this election was rigged. Even if (somehow) it wasn't, there's a lot going on there that is quite disturbing. Just read this article from today's Wall Street Journal for some firsthand accounts from Iranian citizens. We need to help them. America needs to help them, and President Obama needs to speak up. Right now he is staying largely silent, and it's not a good thing. Obama said the following in his recent speech in Cairo:

"I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere."

Read the WSJ article and it's very clear that the government is not being "transparent" and Iranians are not being given the freedom to "speak [their] mind[s]". If our President truly believes in these "human rights" this then he needs to be speaking out about it, because he has been given the perfect opportunity.

Some Healthy Health Care Dialogue

2009-06-17T14:12:00.004-04:00

Yesterday I spoke out about this looming public health "option," and I got some great feedback from readers! First, I want to thank all of you for reading and challenging me on the content. This blog is just as much about educating myself on issues as it is my readers. I had a reader yesterday leave me some lengthy comments, as health care is an issue that she is very passionate about, and it is also the field in which she works. This was my vision for this blog, to get people talking, thinking and educating themselves. I have learned things from her and hopefully vice-versa as well. Keep the comments coming! In the meantime, check out the dialogue. First read her comments here (it's the first two comments) and see my response below.

My response:

I knew you were going to respond to this one. This is your arena, and I was very much looking forward to what you would have to say. I actually considered emailing you the text before posting it to see if there was anything factual I needed to change. However, after reading your objections I don't think there's much I would have changed; maybe a few clarifications. Here is your requested explanation of my statement: I know I made a generalization, but I'm looking at the system as a whole. Answer me this (and this is completely anecdotal).... would you rather visit an average doctor in the U.S. or an average doctor in India or the UK? Give me your gut feeling (and don't try to define "average"). I'm willing to bet that if you pooled them all together, the doctors in the U.S. are going to be superior to those in the other countries. That's all I'm saying.

Public health is obviously your area of expertise, so you're going to have plenty of niche stories to tell about failing hospitals and/or demand data to measure "brightest and best." I could too, just look at Grady. Of course, in Grady's case you had poor management and a power-hungry board as one of the main contributing factors to their demise. There are a LOT more factors that go into a failing hospital than the effects of the overall health care system. Charity Hospital in New Orleans was a PUBLIC hospital, just like Grady. Do you see a pattern here with the government-run institutions? Why are you advocating moving the entire system to that? I respect you as a highly intelligent and educated person, and I have always valued your opinions. I especially wanted to hear your opinions on this topic (and I'd like to discuss it further in person). I just can't wrap my head around why someone like yourself could possibly advocate more government intervention in the health sector when it has clearly proven to fail everywhere it has been tried. Government intervention is one of the problems with the current system, not the solution.

Sure, there are some great hospitals in India and the UK. I never said that the U.S. has the best health care and technology in EVERY case. Can you honestly tell me, though, that their health care systems as a whole are better than our own? We could find one-off examples all day to refute both sides of our arguments. I've never said that there aren't failing hospitals and areas that need to be reformed. I'm just looking at the system as a whole, entirely appropriate for the purposes of my article.

Please re-read the last part of the statement you quoted. I said "insurance infrastructure." I didn't say "industry." The infrastructure is there to support most people. We need to make some changes to the systems that the infrastructure supports. And what is your definition of "most"? Let's say the true number of uninsured is about 30 million. There are 300M people in the U.S. right now. That's 10%. Last time I checked, 90% was "most," so how is that wrong, as you claim? I don't know what you're basing your claim on that we're one of the least healthy industrialized nations (I'm also not refuting it), but we're unhealthy because we choose to be. We're unhealthy because people choose to eat at McDonald's 5x per week. I have lived in and visited foreign countries and the eating habits and life habits of some are much more healthy than ours. I would argue that most of it isn't due to lack of care. A doctor can't make someone thin. That's personal choice.

I know the reason to care about non-US citizens, but first let me say this. I have never said that I was "better than them" because I am a citizen and have health insurance. I'm a citizen, which makes me legal and being a citizen gives me certain rights and privileges, because I pay taxes. Countries have immigration laws for a reason. Sooner or later you run out of other people's money, and the simple fact is that the U.S. cannot financially sustain having to support 20 million illegal immigrants. No, their lives are not any less important, but they are willingly breaking the law. What if an illegal immigrant came to your house every night and stole half of your food? Every night. You worked for it. You paid for it. But they need it because they are illegal and can't get a salaried job. Is that okay with you? Or are you going to let them do it, because you are not "better than them" and they should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of the law? Health care is no different, nor are government services. It's stealing, plain and simple.

I actually had the ER example in the first draft of my post, but I took it out: "The illegals DO have access to health care via emergency rooms, courtesy of the taxpaying citizens of the United States and/or hospital owners. The access that they have to health care is probably better than what they get in their own countries. The fact is that we do have incredible access to health care compared to many parts of the world." That's the part I cut out. However, that's not, like you said, a health care issue. That's an immigration issue. I agree that preventive care would solve a lot. Keeping them out of our country would save even more. They shouldn't be allowed to freeload off of our system. We don't need to give them drivers licenses though!!! We need to get them out of this country. Do you think that the illegal use of our health system is going to get any better under a public option? Where is the accountability or economic incentive? It's going to get worse! You're exactly right when you say that " when emergency room costs go up because patient volume goes up, the hospital has to charge more per visit/procedure." Fixing that is one of my solutions. Fix the problem with illegals and others freeloading off of our system and the cost of health care goes down. When the cost goes down, health premiums go down and more people will be able to afford it. It would be cheaper for me AND the citizen who previously couldn't afford insurance.

It's clear that Obama and Congress want to socialize medicine, and the fears aren't irrational at all. Yes, I will still have to pay for health insurance, but it won't be anywhere close to what I'm paying now. Under Obama's plan I will not only be paying for my own health insurance but that of other people as well. If I'm paying for my own as well as others then that means I am going to receive less in return for my money. That's a cost increase. Less care for the same amount of money will eventually equal inadequate care. Four and a half months to wait for an MRI? That's exactly what will happen, because we'll have to ration health care. I think it's irrational NOT to think that the government wants to socialize health care. I think it's completely irrational to think that it will actually work. Can you really tell me that the UK's and Canadian systems are working? They're not.

I really want to know how you can say that Medicare and Medicaid are working. Medicaid is projected to be bankrupt within the next nine years. How is that possibly "working"? I would also greatly appreciate it if you could lose the condescending tone when you put words in my mouth like "lowly medicaid patients." I never said that, nor did I remotely refer to their clientele anywhere in my post. The answer to your question, however, is yes, the fact that my doctors see Medicare and Medicaid patients DOES affect my care. It affects the cost of my care, and in some cases I could make an argument for it affecting the quality of it as well. The government reimburses doctors at a far lower rate (as in, below the actual cost of the care) for Medicare and Medicaid patients than private insurance or out-of-pocket payers. Same as in the ER, they make up for it by charging other patients more. The money has to come from somewhere. In my case, my health insurance premiums go up. Many of those people who are uninsured likely would be able to afford health insurance if the premiums dropped. If doctors were reimbursed at a true market rate rather than the percentage that they get from Medicaid/Medicare then they could potentially use that money to make more investments in equipment, thus impacting the quality of my care. They could also lower costs in general, possibly making care more affordable to out of pocket payers. Again, this doesn't involve government, but everyone benefits.

Regarding your HMO/PPO limited choice example, you are making the assumption that I'm not proposing any changes to the current system. I am ABSOLUTELY NOT saying that we don't need reform, and I made that very clear in my post (look at the 5th sentence of the first paragraph). I also never said that the current system was a free market. If it was truly free then we'd be able to buy insurance across state lines. I've seen concrete examples of plans in Iowa costing $99 and the same plan costing almost $400 in New York City. It just so happens that New York is one of the three most regulated insurance industries in the country. Do you think there's a correlation there? I'm willing to bet there is.

We both agree that the current system is not working. The solution, though, is not government.

The Public Health "Option"

2009-06-16T10:16:00.004-04:00

As I write, Congress and President Obama are working to craft legislation that will change the face of health care in the United States forever. The changes that they are proposing are not good ones, and they will not benefit us. When I say they are going to change it, I mean they are going to take it and turn it completely upside down. They are right about one thing; our health care system needs reforming, but you don’t burn down the house just to fix a leak in the roof. Right now all we have is a leak in the roof.

We currently enjoy the greatest and most advanced health care system in the world. We have the world’s brightest and best trained doctors, state-of-the-art medical facilities and an existing insurance infrastructure capable of providing for most everyone. You’ll hear figures thrown around that about 47 million (the number is actually 45.6M) people in the U.S. are uninsured. Do you know what actually goes into that figure? Let’s break it down:

21% or 9.7M are non-citizens
18% or 7.9M are between the ages of 18 and 24
39% or 17.6M make OVER $50,000 per year
20% or 9.1M make OVER $75,000 per year

One in five are non-citizens?!? That means they’re either illegal or they’re just here temporarily (in most cases). Why do we even count them? Regarding the crowd that’s between 18 and 24, they largely choose to go without health insurance. It’s not that they can’t get it. They’re simply healthy young people without families and they choose to pay for it out of pocket. Finally, a full thirty nine percent make more than $50,000 per year! If you make more than $50K per year you can surely afford health insurance. As for the 20% of people making over $75K, don’t even get me started.

Does this “47 million” number that the politicians love to throw around sound nearly as bad now? There are, no doubt, people who don’t have insurance and need it. However, are we going to ruin it for 245 million other people with this terrible fix? There are many other ways in which we can reform the system in order to assist those that need help.

Let’s talk about this public “option” that congress and Obama are currently pushing. At first, and only at first, will this be an “option.” Soon after launching, it will essentially become required, and the government knows this. The “option” that they are touting is simply a slow but sure path to an inevitable system of government run health care. Here’s why…… the private sector cannot compete with a government sponsored system. You see, the government has this little tool called “taxation” that it uses to manipulate us to do what the politicians want. The government also has no concern for profits or efficiency. This means that it can charge less than it actually needs to operate and tax the heck out of any private plans that people choose to keep. This will force people into the government sponsored system and force the private health insurance companies to charge more. As they charge more, an increasing number of people will be forced into the government system. This is the "crowding out" effect that you may have heard about.

Consider this scenario: Let’s say you currently get your health insurance through your employer, which most people do. The government puts out a public “option.” They say that you still have the “choice” of private health insurance and that they are introducing the public option to make the market more “competitive and efficient.” Then the government requires every employer to offer health insurance to its employees, or it starts to tax them on their private health plans (currently employers and employees enjoy a tax exemption on employer-sponsored health care). Under the first, business owners (probably against their will) will start to opt for the public "option" to give employees, because they'll be forced to do so to cut costs. Thus, the employees are left with ONLY the public “option.” Does this sound like much of an “option” to you?

Folks, both Canada and the U.K. have tried this system, and they systems have FAILED! Heck, WE have tried it (Medicare and Medicaid) and they ARE FAILING! If you know something doesn’t work, would you try it again? NO! Then why are we letting our government do it? The man who used to run Canada’s nationalized health care system has gone on record saying that the system has failed, and they now need to rely on the private sector. They have four and a half month waits for MRIs! Lindsay McCreith, the man who was on the wait list for the MRI, decided to go to the U.S. for the scan. They found a malignant brain tumor. He returned to Canada and was told that he would have to wait months for the emergency surgery. WAITING MONTHS FOR EMERGENCY SURGERY!!!! Are you kidding me?!? Read here about a woman who came to the United States to get a tumor removed. She was on a waiting list in Canada, and when the American doctor saw her he said that she was only weeks from dying. How would you like to be on a waiting list while you are dying? Do you want the government to be deciding who lives and who dies? That’s what happens under government run health care.

I like to make my own health care decisions. I also don't mind working for it. Keep reading over the next few weeks for some fixes to the leaks in the roof that we currently have. There are many, but they can be amended, and it will only make our health care system better. The fixes will also allow more people to afford medical insurance. Let’s not burn the house down.

FairTax Friday: Compliance Costs

2009-06-12T06:00:00.004-04:00

Our tax code is 67,204 pages long. Don't believe me? Google "67,204 page tax code". Still doubting.......? Now, do you know what the "compliance burden" is? The compliance burden is the cost of dealing with our asinine 67,204 page tax code! It's the time and money people spend on filling out tax forms, hiring accountants and tax lawyers, keeping records for tax purposes, researching tax laws etc. etc. etc. It's the $60 you spent on TurboTax last year PLUS the $30 or so that you paid for the "filing fee." It's the hours that you spent going through your W-2, banking records, investment statements etc. in order to fill out the tax forms when you could have spent that time making money, playing with your kids, reading a book, watching TV or doing any number of other things. It's the thousands of dollars you spent paying an accountant to do this for you. Oh, and those groceries you bought yesterday, a percentage of the money you gave Kroger goes towards their costs of paying tax lawyers and accountants to do the same thing. Am I making myself clear?

The act of figuring out how much we are supposed to pay in taxes literally costs us billions of dollars per year! And THEN we pay taxes on top of that. You see, folks, it's essentially a double tax. The word "tax" doesn't necessarily mean "a charge... imposed by authority." It is also defined as "a heavy demand." Complying with 67,204 pages of tax code sure a heck qualifies as a heavy demand! In 2005 this cost was estimated at $265,100,000,000....... yes, that's $265 billion! It's well over $300 billion now. What if that $300+ billion was invested in other parts of the economy? The IRS also ate up $10,200,000,000..... $10.2 billion of our taxpayer dollars in 2005. What if that was eliminated?

Oh, and speaking of paying people to prepare taxes, everyone knows that whether or not you actually pay income taxes, you still have to file an income tax return, right? There is a group of people out there that qualify for the "Earned Income Tax Credit" (I could go off on this program right now, but I'll restrain myself). In short, the EITC is a government program set up to literally give money to people who don't pay income taxes. Again, this program gives people money from the Treasury when they have put in zero themselves. These people must file a tax return in order to get (steal?) this money. The government pays for many of them to get these returns prepared. In 2001, the government paid these non-taxpayers $1.9 billion JUST TO FILE THEIR RETURNS!!! Talk about a waste of our money!!!

All of this is eliminated with the FairTax! It's soooooo easy! All taxes are paid at the retail level. When you go buy a Coke, mattress, new house, car, pencil, apple, stapler etc. you pay your taxes. The beauty of it is that if you don't spend anything, you don't pay taxes. If you want to invest an extra $10,000 in a home or the stock market, you don't pay taxes on it. That's why it's FAIR!

Recap:
1. The FairTax eliminates all Federal taxes and allows workers to keep 100% of their paychecks.
2. The FairTax, by eliminating Federal taxes, also eliminates corporate taxes, thus allowing businesses to lower their prices.
3. The FairTax eliminates the cost of complying with taxes. That means NO MORE buying TurboTax or paying accountants and tax services to do your taxes. NO MORE digging through files, papers etc. to file your taxes. NO MORE spending hours and hours working on your tax returns.

Does anyone have any questions so far? Any thoughts? Or are you just excited, like me, at the possibility of this becoming reality?

Difference Between a "Job" and "Work"

2009-06-09T11:39:00.007-04:00

There is a difference between a "job" and "work". One lasts and the other does not. There has been quite a bit of chatter lately about President Obama "saving or creating" 150,000 jobs through the "stimulus" bill that he signed in February. The simple fact is that the stimulus bill is not creating jobs. It is creating work, or more specifically, funding for work. Much of the money coming out of this bill will go towards transportation projects. Projects, by nature, are temporary. Once the project is done, the work is finished and people pack up and go home. A job, on the other hand, is something created by an organization in order to manage many projects. The organization sees a need to hire someone, because they foresee a sustainable amount of projects or work over a long period of time. Businesses create jobs because they grow and therefore, need more people to manage and/or do the work.

Is Obama (more specifically, his fiscal and economic policies) creating jobs? No. He is creating work. Building a bridge or laying broadband cable is temporary project work. Temporary. Once the work is finished, everyone who has been hired to do the work will find themselves without it, and therefore, without a paycheck. On the contrary, an entrepreneur may currently see an opportunity in the marketplace to serve the public with something they need. He sees this need lasting years, decades even. He wants to expand his business (aka. hire more people) to start creating this product or service. He could do this if his taxes were lowered, because then he could use that money to pay the new employee(s). He can't, though, because the government is actually going to raise his taxes in order to pay for the "stimulus" bill.

These are essentially the two scenarios that President Obama was, and still is, faced with.

Scenario 1: Laid-off worker (laid-off meaning no income, no health insurance for him or his family etc.) sees an opportunity to work on a road project funded by the "stimulus" bill. It's temporary, pays $15/hr. and has no benefits (i.e. - health insurance), but he needs the money to feed his family and pay the bills, so he takes it. The job lasts 6 months. Then he's out of work again - no paycheck or health insurance. Because he is out of work, he is also not paying taxes. Not only that, he's actually receiving money from the government in the form of unemployment benefits.

Scenario 2: Obama cuts taxes on individuals and corporations. Laid-off worker (again, no income and no health insurance) sees an opportunity to work at NewCo. (the business owned by the aforementioned entrepreneur). It's a full-time, salaried position with health insurance that pays $40,000 per year (about what he was making in his previous job). He takes it. Now he has a steady stream of income and health insurance for his family. He is paying taxes, because he is working and he can afford to take his family to the doctor, because he has insurance.

Here it is broken down in a different way:

#1 - Guy gets a paycheck for six months, but still has to cut back on spending, because it's less than he was making before. No vacations, no eating out at restaurants, no new toys for the kids. He also can't take his family to the doctor, because he has no health insurance and cannot pay for it out of pocket. The government gets only 6 months worth of tax revenue from him, because his project ends. Afterwards, the government starts paying him again via unemployment insurance.

#2 - Guy gets a full time job that he ends up keeping for 3-5 years. It's steady pay, so he can take vacations, take his family to restaurants and buy toys for the kids. The vacation destination benefits from his visit, the restaurant benefits from his business and the toy store benefits from his business. He has health insurance so he can take his family to the doctor. The doctors/hospitals benefit, because they get more business. The government also gets a steady stream of tax revenue from him, and the government benefits and can therefore fund more projects. The government also doesn't have to pay him unemployment insurance.

Which scenario do you think has more benefit?

You Can't Measure "Saved or Created"

2009-06-09T09:57:00.004-04:00

Can anyone tell me how the heck you measure the number of jobs "saved or created" in the economy? The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures the number of jobs gained or lost each month. They do not track jobs "saved or created," (emphasis mine) nor do they have any way of quantifying this made up statistic. In the past few days, President Obama has been proclaiming that the "stimulus" package has "saved or created nearly 150,000 jobs." Obama knows that this is largely an arbitrary number, but he's going to use it anyway, because it's political genius. Today's Wall Street Journal agrees and notes that by using this spin on rhetoric the Obama Administration cannot be wrong. The article states the following:

"During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

'You created a situation where you cannot be wrong,' said the Montana Democrat. 'If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct.'"

How can you prove someone wrong if there is no numerical method of actually measuring the person's claim? Therein lies the political genius of Obama's statement. He knows this, and he also knows that the press isn't going to challenge him on it. I mean, after all, they believe he is God, as I noted yesterday, and no one is going to challenge God, right?

In a rare moment of honesty the AP notes that "the White House job claims are difficult to verify because they are based on estimates of how bad the economy might have been without the stimulus rather than actual employment data. The country has lost 1.3 million jobs since February, a figure the Obama administration says would have been far higher if not for the recovery effort." Ummmmmmmmm, WRONG! If we're going by Obama's estimates then the economy wouldn't have lost ANY of those 1.3 million jobs. Keywords here are that the claims are "based on estimates" that the Obama administration made on the economy. See this report from Obama's economic advisers that was released in January. It is entitled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (aka. the $800 billion "stimulus" package). Look at Page 5. It clearly states that Obama's economic advisers estimated that with the passing of the stimulus bill, unemployment would NEVER rise above 8% during the current recession. However, you can clearly see here that in May of this year the unemployment rate was 9.4%! So, if Obama's "saved or created" claims are based off of estimates that were incorrect to begin with then how does that lend validity to the numbers that he is currently pitching? According to his original claim, based on the unemployment rates his team predicted, the economy would have to have "saved" 3,265,000 jobs by now for the unemployment rate to be at 8%. Now he's claiming that he's "saved" just 150,000 jobs.

Obama's numbers are made up. Even if they were true, that would mean that each job would have cost the taxpayer $314,800. How, you might ask? Well, as of May, only about 6 percent of the "stimulus" money had been paid out. That's about $47,220,000,000. Divide that by Obama's 150,000 jobs and you have $314,800! Does that mean that each person whose job was "created or saved" is making $300,000+?!? Where do we get those jobs, 'cause I want one! And if Obama's team predicted that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% with his "stimulus" package and the unemployment rate is now at 9.4%, doesn't that show that the stimulus package isn't working as Obama said it would?

Looks like "God" is wrong. Not only is he wrong, but he's lying to you. Are you going to continue to believe him?

Taxes Lowered to 10%!!!

2009-06-08T12:50:00.005-04:00

Media bias was taken to a whole new level last Friday by Newsweek editor, Evan Thomas. If there was any question previously about bias, it's sure cleared up now. In an interview on MSNBC, Thomas says President Obama is "sort of God," and that he is going "to bring all different sides together." There you go, folks. It's official. Obama is now "God" (as if it wasn't apparent enough before that some think he is).

There is no question that some people worship this man. I mean, when was the last time you had people fainting over and over again at Presidential campaign rallies? When was the last time a President was this much of a celebrity? It's easy to see why. Barack Obama is a charismatic, well-spoken (with a teleprompter), likeable and good-looking guy. These are surely characteristics that we want to see in a President. The scary thing is that presently, that's all it takes to become President of the United States. Forget ideals, forget policy and forget fiscal and individual responsibility. Who cares as long as the President is likeable, right?

This is America today, folks. Rather than distrusting government (which is what our country was founded upon), Americans today are putting ALL of their trust in government. The government must save us from everything, regardless of whether or not we as individuals made a bad choice. People who bought homes that couldn't afford them..... government must save them. Unionized auto workers who enjoy 3x as much pay as others in their field and subsequently ran their companies into bankruptcy.... government must save them. Banks who knowingly made increasingly risky investments that went bad.... government must save them. The list goes on and on and on.

Freedom encompasses two essential characteristics: The freedom to succeed AND the freedom to fail. Providing a safety net for the latter discourages and penalizes the former. Disparities exist in a free society. The should and they always will. Anyone not willing to live with this should pack up and move to Cuba or North Korea. They are Communist nations and, by definition, fit the bill for what you are seeking if you want everyone to have an equal amount of stuff.

One last thing..... Since Obama is now God, can we now only pay him 10% of our income as we have traditionally done with the church? I guess having a diety as our President does come with some advantages.

FairTax Friday: Corporate Income Taxes..... YOU Pay Them!

2009-06-05T09:02:00.003-04:00

So, did you take a look at your pay stub last Friday and see how much you've paid so far this year in Federal taxes? Did it upset you a bit? At the very least, under the current system don't you think we should be able to keep that money and earn interest on it before we have to hand it over at the end of the year? The FairTax fixes all of this. All that money that's being taken out of your paycheck, you get to keep it! $4,000....... $5,000..........$8,000...... $10,000......... whatever it is, you would have it IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT RIGHT NOW!!! Ask yourself again, "What would I do with an extra $5,000 right now?"

Did you also know that businesses and corporations do not pay income taxes? "What?!? Yes they do! Corporations pay income taxes every year!" I can hear it now 'cause that's what some of you are probably saying. The reality of corporate income taxes is that YOU pay them. When you hand over $4 for a latte at Starbucks or $20,000 for a new car, a percentage of that money you give them goes towards paying their corporate income taxes. So yes, you do pay them.

Consider this scenario: What if corporations did not have to pay income taxes? Translation - what if a percentage of your $4 for your latte didn't have to go towards paying corporate income taxes? Prices would fall! In fact, research shows that prices across the board for all goods would fall about 22-23%. So now your $4 latte costs $3.08 and your $20,000 car costs $15,400! That's almost $5,000 you're saving on your new car!!! You're probably asking yourself how this happens. It's simple. If corporations (you) don't have to pay income taxes then they are undoubtedly going to do one of two things: 1. Lower their prices or 2. Invest it in making better products. Either way, prices fall.

Starbucks competes against quite a few companies, Caribou Coffee, Seattle's Best etc. If they no longer have to pay income taxes then they're going to say "Hey, we don't need to charge as much for our coffee. And if we have good quality coffee at a cheaper price than Caribou then more people will buy our coffee." Voila! Your daily coffee is cheaper. I know many of you buy Starbucks 5 days a week. If you save a dollar every day then you'll be saving $260 per year. And that's just on coffee! Imagine what you would save on everything else in addition to that!

I know I'm giving this information to you in pieces, but if I didn't then you'd have a post that's way longer than you want to read. In the end, it'll all be painfully simple. We've just got to lay some groundwork first. Here's what we've got so far:

1. The FairTax eliminates all Federal taxes and allows workers to keep 100% of their paychecks.
2. The FairTax, by eliminating Federal taxes, also eliminates corporate taxes, thus allowing businesses to lower their prices.

Is this sounding good to you? Check back next Friday for more info.

Striking Similarities

2009-06-04T15:55:00.003-04:00

What does it say about America when you've got a communist dictator worried that he will end up on our President's political right? Yes, you read that correctly - Hugo Chavez stated this past Tuesday that he and Fidel Castro need to be "careful or we are going to end up to [Obama's] right." Chavez made these comments during a television broadcast after noting Obama's recent nationalization of General Motors and referring to him as "comerade." A communist dictator is saying that he is worried that he will be more conservative than The President of the United States of America!

Does this happen to scare the heck out of anyone else?!?

America is supposed to be the land of the free...... the country that has worked to liberate the world from communism and advance human rights. Now we have a communist dictator cheering on our President! Regardless of whether or not Chavez was joking, the fact that Obama's actions have given him enough of a solid basis on which to make that comment is unthinkable. Actually, as recently as 5-10 years ago it may have been unthinkable. Now it's reality.

If you're reading this thinking "Yeah, we've nationalized a few things, but it'll get reversed eventually," then think again. I have a friend whose parents and in-laws lived in Cuba before Castro (Chavez's friend, remember!) took over. They lived through the revolution and ultimately fled to America, where they now reside. I am currently working on a series of posts that detail their experiences. More importantly, I will share with you the alarming sense of similarity they currently see between Obama's early days in power and those of Castro...... seemingly small and temporary measures that led to modern day Cuba, yes, the Communist one in which not a single one of us would like to live. Folks, it's time to wake up and see that what's happening in our country is not easily dismissable as "temporary," or "necessary in the short term" like so many people think. I'm not saying that America is going to turn Communist. However, even if we turn 25% of the way there in my lifetime, that's WAY further than I'm willing to go. I love freedom. So do my friend's parents and in-laws. I'm willing to bet that you do too. Stay tuned....

Radical Environmentalism: Part 2

2009-06-04T13:11:00.003-04:00

Yesterday you were introduced to some of the tactics that a particular environmental group, the Sea Shepherds, employs in order to prevent Japanese whaling ships from harpooning whales in the Antarctic Ocean. Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherds, also co-founded Greenpeace but was subsequently voted out of the organization, because he wanted to employ more aggressive tactics in the fight against destroying the environment. To this day the two organizations maintain no slight amount of contempt for each other (at least that's the impression I got from watching Whale Wars). Watson spends a good amount of time speaking ill of Greenpeace and refers to them as "the other whaling industry." Greenpeace takes a non-violent approach to combating the whaling industry. Watson thinks this is too passive, and puts his money where his mouth is with the Sea Shepherds.

What we have here is two organizations with similar goals who refuse to work together, share information and unite under the umbrella of their common goal. Every minute they spend trashing each other on camera is a minute that could have been spent coming up with innovative ideas to reach their goal, whether it be collectively or individually. This sounds a lot like our government. If the Democrats come out and say something then the Republicans must respond, regardless of whether or not they have anything meaningful to say and vice versa. If they are silent then the public will think that they're not doing anything. In the end, it's all lip service and nothing gets done. How about we, the American public, put up with a little silence on some things while giving people a chance to come up with some actual solutions. Then let's base our subsequent votes and opinions on what person took meaningful and effective action rather than giving credit to the person who immediately came out and said something useless.

First, two comments based solely on the general perception of each party's approach to the environment: It's hard for me to believe that the Republicans want to destroy the environment. It's equally hard for me to believe that the Democrats' goal is truly to preserve the environment. For both parties, it's more about power and their incessant PR quest of "Hey, I'M the one that saved it! Even if that guy had an idea that would have worked better, we can't let the public think that the [insert party name here]s did it."

I'm repeating myself when I say that members of our government are more set on appearing powerful and making the opposing party look bad vs. actually solving our nation's problems. Much like Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherds, the goal is to save the environment. What if the two sides actually got together, shared some information and started moving forward on some things? Wouldn't this be much more productive? Of course, it's going to require them to put aside their thirst for power and the spotlight. It's also going to require the public to let politicians off the hook when they reverse previous stances. I'm not saying that we should always do this, but in some cases it's warranted. We currently live in a society where our elected representatives aren't allowed to deviate even the slightest bit from a stance once they take one. Sometimes, however, these representatives take these stances for the sake of opposing the other party, not because it's the best solution. If someone decides to abandon their worthless initial position on an issue in favor of an effective solution then we trash them, saying "You're not towing the party line!"

Folks, it's not about political parties. It's about goals and forming effective solutions to meet those goals. I'm convinced we can accomplish most of what each party seeks if we put aside the party affiliations and actually look at the issues. Who cares who gets the credit?!? The idea is to serve your country, not yourself. Let's get over it and start coming up with some solutions.

Radical Environmentalism: Part 1

2009-06-03T10:26:00.004-04:00

I recently saw a commercial for a show called Whale Wars that caught my eye because it showed a group called the Sea Shepherds in an intense battle with Japanese whaling boats in an attempt to prevent them from harpooning and killing whales in the Antarctic Ocean. These people are literally willing to die for whales. A noble cause, sure, but some of their tactics are absurd, illegal, deceptive and very typical of radical environmentalists willing to bend and break laws in the name of conservation. The bigger story here is that I can't imagine anyone, liberal, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, wanting to destroy the environment. It's the means of conserving it that people disagree on and this disagreement more often than not leads to further environmental damage.

First, a short background on the show: The Sea Shepherds, a group founded by Paul Watson (who also co-founded Greenpeace), set out in the Antarctic Ocean every year, track down Japanese whaling ships and try to harass them as much as possible so as to prevent them from killing whales. They claim the actions of the Japanese are illegal, citing an international moratorium on commercial whaling, but the Japanese claim they are doing "research" on the whales. I'm no scientist, but I can't imagine that hundreds of whales need to be killed each year to do "research," so on that point I side with the Sea Shepherds. I've never seen a Discovery Channel show full of animal killings from which we subsequently learn a lot from the deceased.

However, I completely disagree with the Sea Shepherds' tactics to stop this whaling operation. These tactics include running alongside the Japanese ships and hurling small packages of butyric acid (a really smelly concoction) onto their decks as well as driving small boats in front of the whaling ships and dropping thick rope into the water in an attempt to get it tangled in the ship's propeller, disabling it. The first tactic I would equate with someone egging or rolling a house, very annoying, also illegal, but it's not really going to seriously hurt anything or anyone. The second tactic, however, is akin to booting someone's tires while the car is moving! This could cause thousands of dollars worth of damage to the Japanese ship and severely endanger its crew by preventing it from avoiding dangerous storms and icebergs in the area. It's just plain vandalism, but it takes it further by putting lives in danger. But those are just the first two tactics that I've seen.......

The third one is shown here (fast forward about halfway through to save time):

THEY BOARD THE JAPANESE SHIP!!! They do it peacefully, but their intentions are what makes it completely wrong. Ben Potts and Giles Lane board the ship with the hope that the Japanese will detain them (as they should! they're trespassing on private property!). Once the Japanese do this the Shepherds inform the Australian government and media that the men have been taken "hostage" by the Japanese! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!! The Sea Shepherds voluntarily boarded a ship that was not theirs, and then claim to be hostages? That's like me breaking into your home and then calling the police claiming you have taken me hostage. Then about thirty seconds into this video you can see the Japanese trying to throw one of the men overboard:

If an uninvited stranger walks into your home wouldn't you try to force them out? That's all the Japanese are doing here, only their "front yard" is the Antarctic Ocean. Potts and Lane are lucky that the Japanese elected to keep them on the ship rather than throwing them into waters that carry a deadly average temperature of 28-50 degrees Fahrenheit. The Japanese then tie the men up and eventually take them inside the ship.

If an intruder breaks into your home but doesn't immediately threaten you, would you say "Hi! I'm glad you're here! Sit down and stay a while."? Hell no! You're probably doing everything you can to either get that person out of your house or disable that person so that you can call the cops and have them pick him up. If it's me then I'm grabbing my shotgun! The police are definitely picking someone up; whether or not he has a heartbeat is up to me deciding what level of threat the guy poses. That person, like the Sea Shepherds, is trespassing on my property, and I have a right to defend it. The Japanese were doing the same thing, and they never threatened to harm Potts and Lane. They simply wanted to ensure the men didn't harm them, and they had every right to do it. The claim that they were being held hostage is ridiculous, and the Sea Shepherds should be required to pay back every penny of British (Lane), Australian (Potts), and Japanese tax dollars that were used once the governments got involved.

Check back tomorrow where I tie this all together with Republicans and Democrats bickering over the environment, even though no one has the goal of destroying it.

What would you have done if you were the Japanese?

Obama Does Want to Run GM

2009-06-02T10:32:00.003-04:00

Obama's claim from yesterday that "we are reluctant shareholders," is a lie. If the government was not interested in being a shareholder of GM and Chrysler then its members would have let GM and Chrysler go into bankruptcy back in December. Former President Bush started it, because he didn't want one of his last acts in office to be that of letting a major American institution fall into bankruptcy. He knew he could give the companies a few billion and pass the problem on to President Obama. Now Obama has inherited the problem and made it worse by pandering to the United Auto Workers, whose deep pockets he needs, while forcing GM to make the green cars that the Democrats are so fond of, even though no one wants to buy them.

I understand that we all find ourselves at some point or another in situations that are less than desirable. However, if I don't want to own stock in a company then I simply don't buy any. No one forced the government to bail out GM. A majority of Americans actually opposed it. The government and its internal factions forced itself to bail them out. So if Americans opposed it (which the politicians surely knew) then the only explanation could be political (and not political for the American people - political for the purpose of serving only the interests of the politicians - read: power).

Obama also mentioned that "what we are not doing -- what I have no interest in doing -- is running GM." Again, false! Today's Wall Street Journal points out that Obama has been in contact with the mayor of Detroit, assuring him that GM's headquarters is going to stay in Detroit rather than move to Warren, MI. So, if Obama has "no interest" in running GM then why is he the one telling Detroit's mayor that the company will stay in Detroit? It's usually the decision maker that people want to speak with, right? Usually CEOs are the ones that make the final decision on whether or not to relocate a company. So why isn't the mayor on the phone with Fritz Henderson, GM's current CEO? Or, as WSJ puts it: "The location of a company's headquarters is one of those decisions typically not made by people who are busy not running the company." Obama is the decision maker, folks. He is the one running the company, and he most certainly has an interest in running GM.

In this case as in many others, Obama is misleading the American people. Quit listening to the rhetoric folks, and start paying attention (if you're reading this then you're probably already paying attention so get your friends to pay attention!)! Obama and the Democrats are most certainly interested in running GM, because GM is essentially run by the UAW. And Obama loves the UAW! Don't blame it all on the Democrats either. The worthless Republicans are standing on the sidelines and watching, so if you're a Republican you should be just as pissed. Billions of dollars will be wasted in the name of "saving the company," so that the taxpayers will get repaid. In order for the taxpayers to be repaid, the company would have to come out of bankruptcy and eventually be worth around $80 billion. GM's recent peak was around $50 billion back in 2000. Do you really think we're going to be repaid?

Let the President and First Lady Enjoy Themselves!

2009-06-01T09:19:00.007-04:00

The President of the United States of America is the least free person in the United States of America. That's right. The person who holds the office charged with defending freedom throughout the nation enjoys less freedom than the people he or she (someday) represents. Do you even think twice about going to Five Guys to grab a hamburger? How about getting a Blackberry or an iPhone? Do you appreciate simple freedoms like that? Barack and Michelle Obama do too, but these are freedoms they don't necessarily have; at least not in the same way you and I enjoy them. President Obama can't walk outside the White House without first checking with the Secret Service to make sure the surrounding area is secure. He had to get special permission to carry a Blackberry, but it's still restricted in some ways. Do you ever go on a walk or a jog and just head wherever you feel like going? Obama can't do this. He would first have to submit the exact route that he wants to take so that the Secret Service can secure the entire route before he is allowed to start. When was the last time you weren't "allowed" to start a walk?

Many of you may have heard that President Obama recently took First Lady Michelle on a date to New York City. Some of you might be a little upset that their date cost the taxpayers upwards of $24,000, according to some estimates. People take their wives, boyfriends etc. on special trips all the time, and the Obama's trip last weekend was no exception. The President wanted to do something special for his lady, and he has every right to do it. The difference here is that any time President Obama wants to do anything the taxpayers incur a cost, because it involves specialized transportation, dozens of people, the Secret Service, security checks etc. etc. etc. A trip to Five Guys costs you and me anywhere from $6-10, depending on how far you have to drive. Obama's trip to Five Guys last week probably cost thousands of dollars because of all of the security measures that must be adhered to. So if it costs the taxpayer money then should Obama be restricted from going to Five Guys? Absolutely not.

Barack and Michelle Obama are people just like you and me (political views aside). They like going out to eat, seeing plays, going to concerts and doing hundreds of other things that you and I enjoy doing every day, only we do it freely. They do not. Regardless of your opinion of Obama, he is still the President of the United States, and he and his family should be able to enjoy the same leisure activities that you and I take for granted every day. President Obama paid for the dinner and play tickets for he and his wife on his own. He is required to fly on a military jet for security reasons, which was the biggest cost of their trip, and the taxpayers footed the $25K bill. If I want to take my girlfriend on a special date to NYC for dinner and a play, all I have to do is go to Delta's website and purchase the tickets. Obama isn't allowed to do this! It's not his choice! Because of this requirement, should we not permit our President and his wife to go on a big date and enjoy themselves like you and I can do any time we want? They are millionaires and can surely afford to do these types of things, and they should not be barred from doing them just because the President requires more protection than anyone else in the world.

The only exception I have with the trip is this: While Obama rightly paid for the meal and entertainment, he should also have to reimburse the taxpayer for the equivalent of two commercial airline tickets to and from NYC as well as cab fare to and from the airports. This is what he would have paid if he were not the President. I'm fine footing the bill for the rest. He should not be penalized for holding the most important office in the world. It's not his fault that he and his family are required to fly military jets and have dozens of people tag along. Let the President and the First Lady enjoy themselves. They deserve it.

***

Here's your Thinkers Daily Reading List.

FairTax Friday!

2009-05-29T12:48:00.005-04:00

Are you one of those people who thinks that the only time you pay income taxes is when you have to write a check to the government on April 15th? Do you also think that "getting some back" means you not only paid zero income taxes, but the government just thought they would like to give you some more money? If so then please read on. If not, read on anyway and spread the word. From now on, we're going to have FairTax Friday on Real Honest Thinking to get and keep people excited about the FairTax!

You know that pay stub that you get when you get your paycheck? Take a look at it (even if you know where I'm going with this). There are two sections: Earnings and Deductions

Wait...... deductions? It's your money, why should anyone be able to deduct it? This is exactly how the government misleads people into thinking that they don't pay taxes. They just take it out as you go. Look at the pay stub above. To date, the government has taken $9,845.71 out of this person's paycheck and the year isn't even halfway finished! It's not even June yet! The Federal Government has taken $8,098.30 from this person's salary. This person may not have to write a check to the government next April, but they sure as heck have paid taxes! Over $20,000 worth once the year is finished! For those of you who are aware of this scheme that the government uses to trick people, take a look at your pay stub anyway just so you'll get good and pissed off at how much the government is taking from you. To everyone, what if I told you there was a system of taxation that keeps the government running, but allows you to keep 100% of your paycheck?!? Imagine having an extra $8,000 right now, because that's what the person above would have. What would you do with $8 grand?!?

Imagine what that would do for people struggling in this economy. What if someone's spouse has lost a job, and they can't quite pay all of the bills on just one income? Wouldn't an extra $8,000 help? You bet it would! What if products became cheaper because corporations no longer had to pay income taxes? Better yet, what if you got a check from the government every month that gave you the money to buy basic necessities like food? That would surely help struggling people right now, and for those not struggling it would free up money to give to charities and other good causes. That sounds amazing to me!

That's the FairTax folks. It eliminates ALL FEDERAL WITHHOLDING TAXES SO THAT YOU KEEP 100% OF YOUR PAYCHECK! If you're interested then tune in next Friday (or email me) for more information. You want a stimulus package? The FairTax is it!!!

How to Pick a Judge

2009-05-28T11:00:00.006-04:00

Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court has sparked a firestorm of chatter about what makes a good judge. Many people, including Obama himself, are vying for someone who shows "empathy." Others want an "impartial" candidate and some advocate judicial activism. If you are trying to figure this out for yourself then consider the oath, shown below, that each federal judge must take prior to assuming office:

"I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Let's break this down......

1. "I will administer justice without respect to persons"
If judges are supposed to rule on cases without respect to persons then how does "empathy" fit into the equation? The dictionary defines "empathy" as follows:

1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner ; also : the capacity for this

Wouldn't "being sensitive to..... the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another" person qualify as the complete opposite of "without respect to persons"? Strike one for empathy and judicial activism......

2. "... and do equal right to the poor and to the rich"
'Equal" is the operative word here. If judges are supposed to look at everyone equally then why should it matter if a candidate came from an impoverished family or a wealthy one? Why is a candidate's personal background and upbringing so vitally important in the selection process? According to the first two phrases of the judicial oath you're supposed to leave your background and personal beliefs behind. Strike two for empathy and judicial activism....

3. "I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Wow, there's that word "impartial"! Amazing how it's actually in the oath that judges are required to take! Reading further you see the phrase "under the Constitution and laws of the United States." If you search for a definition of "judicial activism" you'll find that it's defined as a "philosophy advocating that judges should reach beyond the United States Constitution." Interesting.... the oath says "under the Constitution," but judicial activists "reach beyond" it. Anyone else see a contradiction here? And with the "duties incumbent upon me" being outlined in the first few lines of the oath doesn't it look like judges have a responsibility to approach each and every case through the eyes of the law and ONLY the law. Not through their past experiences, not through their hearts and certainly not through political pressures or consideration of what ruling might be less controversial. Strike three for empathy and judicial activism.

So this leaves us with "impartial." Again, I find it interesting the the word is in the oath itself when the others are not and/or actually stand for the opposite of what the oath says. A recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans say it doesn't matter whether or not the next Supreme Court Justice is a woman or a minority (Hispanic or black). Why does the media make such a big deal out of it when most people don't see it as an important issue? Could it be that they don't support a nominee whose record coincides with the very oath that judges take?

The bottom line is that judges are supposed to be impartial. If that's the criteria - and the oath says it is - then the race or gender of the candidate shouldn't matter. While Sonia Sotomayor's record may show that she's somewhat "moderate," I believe there is no room for moderates on the bench. Laws are meant to be changed in Congress, not the Supreme Court. When it comes to the courts, judges should call it according to the law, regardless of whether or not they agree with the outcome. If we get 9 black females on the bench that can do it, fine. 4 Hispanics and 5 white guys, fine. If we're really selecting judges based on the criteria that have been set out then background, rich, poor, man, woman, black, Asian, white etc. shouldn't make any difference.

***

Here is today's Thinkers Reading List

She doesn't look very impartial....

2009-05-26T20:53:00.007-04:00

"I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." This quote by Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, is not exactly something you want to hear out of a potential Supreme Court Justice. Aren't judges supposed to take an objective look at the facts rather than let their "sympathies and prejudices" dictate their rulings? Aren't they supposed to judge based on the Constitution? Like most of America, I know very little about this woman, but my initial findings don't give me much indication that Sotomayor will interpret the Constitution as it is written. Read this speech and see for yourself.

In her speech, Sotomayor goes on to say that we need "to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making." I thought justice was supposed to be blind. If that's the case then why does it make a difference if it's a man, woman, black, white, asian etc. on the bench? She makes an argument for different genders and ethnic groups having representation in the courts equal to their percentage of the overall population. I'm not saying that it would be a good thing for the Supreme Court to be made up entirely of black men or white women, but doesn't her advocacy for diversity on the bench undermine the very principle of impartiality upon which the law is meant to be interpreted? I don't understand it.

What does she mean when she refers to "differences we will and are making"? Is there currently a set of laws on the books that significantly undermine a particular group's ability to succeed or compete in this country? Can a Hispanic man not take out a loan, buy a house or go to college in the United States? Do black women have trouble doing these things because the law prohibits them from doing so? I don't believe it does, so why must the courts "measure the differences"? Don't get me wrong, there are definitely groups of people who face socioeconomic disparities and sit on the margins of society. However, these disparities are more often than not a result of cultural and personal factors, not legal. It seems to me that Ms. Sotomayor seeks to give certain groups a legal advantage so as to undermine the cultural and personal factors that exist. The law should provide a framework of equal opportunity, not tilt it in favor of the politically favored.

The Supreme Court does not suggest, as Ms. Sotomayor says, that judges let their "opinions, sympathies and prejudices" influence their rulings when "appropriate." In fact, judges are never supposed to let such factors influence their decisions. Their job is to interpret the law impartially. How does letting ones opinions, sympathies and prejudices keep one impartial? I haven't formed a solid opinion yet, but right now she's not gaining favor in my book.

** Update ** 5/27/2009

Great article from WSJ about Sotomayor. The author says about some judges he mentions within the article that "these men saw themselves as judges first and ethnic representatives second." I think that says a lot. Sotomayor doesn't seem to see herself that way though.

Check out the Thinkers Daily Reading List for your everyday source of all things you need to know.

The Real Reason Chrysler and GM Went Bust

2009-05-22T09:37:00.007-04:00

It comes down to two factors: 1. Unions and 2. Being forced by the government to make cars that people don't want to buy. These are the reasons, plain and simple, and here's a great example. The Wall Street Journal had a great article yesterday about the United Auto Workers that included some perfect examples of the irrational agreements that the auto manufacturers are forced into accepting. They quote Louis McSwain a 15 year veteran of Chrysler who currently works as a pipe fitter. Due to "overtime" he made $129,000 last year. This guy made SIX FIGURES for being a PIPE FITTER!!! I did a quick Google search on "Pipe Fitter Salary," and the average salary for a senior pipe-fitter is somwhere around $50,000. This guy is making over two and a half times the normal wage for a pipe fitter. I've said it before, but that's like paying your babysitter or the lawn guy $30 per hour when the neighbor is paying theirs $12. And the UAW's idea of "overtime" doesn't exactly mean working over 40 hours per week like you and I are used to thinking. They negotiate the definition of "overtime," and in one instance that I cited in an earlier post "overtime" means working more than 25 hours per week. Yep, that's right, the union negotiated 40 hours worth of pay for just 25 hours worth of work. So, any time a worker puts in more than 25 hours per week it's considered "overtime." I thought working 25 hours per week was considered "part-time." Not when you're a UAW worker, apparently.

Louis McSwain is upset, because this time last year he had taken home about $70,000, and this year he's only made about $32K. That puts him on track to make $77,000 this year. "We had a whole bunch of guarantees.... look what the guarantees got us," he says. Ohhhh poor Louis! This year he is only going to make 1.5x the salary that the pipe fitters in the rest of the country make! For those of you making $50,000 per year (for work that you actually do) right now would you whine and cry about making a "measly" $77,000? Man I hate getting paid too much!!!

This guy was getting paid 258% more than he should be making, and he's still making 150% more than he should. And that's just salary. It doesn't include the excessive pensions, healthcare and other unearned benefits that factor into compensation. If you factor those in then this guy probably makes somwhere in the range of $200,000 per year. It's ridiculous folks. These people think they're entitled to this stuff, regardless of how hard they work or how intelligent they are.

Today, The Heritage Foundation published an analysis of unions and their effect on companies and the economy. Here's a taste of what they found:

Unions Compress Workers Wages: Unions rarely allow employers to base pay on individual performance or promote workers on the basis of individual ability. Consequently, union contracts suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent.
Unions Kill Jobs: Unions destroy 10 to 15 percent of a firms profit by making undertaking new investments less worthwhile and reducing the money that firms have available for new investments. Over time this makes unionized firms less competitive.
Unions Slow Economic Recovery: They do this by raising their member's overall compensation, reducing business investment and the overall number of jobs in an industry.

"Investments" include investing in more employees, also known as creating jobs. Did you see that last point? Unions reduce the overall number of jobs in an industry. We are approaching a 10% unemployment rate in the United States. If we didn't have unions demanding ridiculous pay and benefits then more people would have jobs. Instead, though, they're busy raking in 3x the amount that they're actually worth. Without the UAW you and I would not have had to waste billions of our dollars bailing them out. All in the name of what they think is "fair".

Your Next Car Will Be Much More Expensive

2009-05-20T09:22:00.008-04:00

Cars are about to cost $1,300 more than they currently do. No, you didn't read that incorrectly. A $20,000 automobile will now cost $21,300. Why, you might ask? Because Obama and our government have mandated that automobiles must have a fuel-average of 39 miles per gallon by 2016. This means that the auto manufacturers (yeah the one in bankruptcy, the one about to be in bankruptcy and the other barely still independent) are going to have to make cars that people don't want. Did you know that they are already forced to sell some cars at a loss to meet today's fuel standard of 27.5 mpg? Imagine that?!? A business being FORCED to lose money! That's exactly what's going on, folks! The reason...... no one wants to buy these cars. The market simply doesn't have a demand for them with gas prices under $4 per gallon. So, we have two failed auto companies who are in their current positions, because the government is forcing them to lose money, and the government's "solution" to make them "viable" again is to require them to keep selling cars that lose EVEN MORE MONEY! Seriously?!? Are you kidding me?!?

Now the auto makers must figure out how to increase the average MPG by almost 50% AND put features on cars that make consumers want to buy them. All of this equals cost increases for you and me when we go to buy a car. However, in order to compete with the foreign (read: better, more efficient and non-unionized) auto-makers they are going to have to cut costs elsewhere. There are a few possible scenarios that could play out. The first is that the cars will get smaller and safety will be compromised due to manufacturers looking for cheaper materials with which to build their cars. Americans are still going to prefer the larger vehicles, though, and continue to buy them. The net result is a bunch of large vehicles against a bunch of tin cans all driving around on the same roads. The Discovery Channel's show, Destroyed in Seconds, is gearing up for increased footage of the carnage that could result. Maybe the episodes will now be an hour long instead of 30 minutes?

The second possibility lies, of course, with government. They're going to try to coerce you into buying these cars by giving you a tax credit of a few thousand dollars if you buy a hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicle. You know when people joke around when they have some "No one is going to buy that from me! I'd have to pay someone to take that car/couch/table etc. away from me!" IT'S THE SAME THING!!! Wake up people! "I know you didn't really want this car, but how about I give you $5,000 if you buy it?" This is how our government gets you and I to comply with its political wishes. They make things artificially cheap (or expensive - another option is to increase the federal gas tax to jack up the price of fuel above $4) so that the best-priced option is that which they want you to buy, not the one that you actually want. In reality, we will probably see some combination of both at work. Hopefully people will have the smarts to save their $5K tax credit to pay for their medical bills after their highway-punching-bag-on-wheels gets nailed by a foreign made truck.

Last time I checked, when a business was failing they were supposed to make some changes and start making money again. Now the auto manufacturers are going to be forced to lose more money than they already were. All of this in the name of a completely unproven phenomenon called global warming. WTF?!? Our government at work folks.

** Update 5/22/2009 **

Looks like The Wall Street Journal agrees with me:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294901851445311.html
Of course, they say it better than I do, and I recommend reading the article, but you heard it here first folks!

Maybe We're Supposed to Give Up

2009-05-18T18:34:00.005-04:00

"The indecipherable language of government has actually become dangerous to the well-being of the nation," says Peggy Noonan in her latest article from The Wall Street Journal. She makes an excellent point. When was the last time we heard any straightforward talk out of Washington? Last fall, how many of you actually got any valuable information out of the presidential debates? I know I didn't. We rarely, if ever, get actual details of policy initiatives. "Health care reform," "environmental protection," "improving the education system" and (the most genius one of them all) "change" sound great, but they can come in MANY different forms. I agree with Noonan on this one when I say Washington absolutely does this on purpose, because if "people fully understood they would say, 'Oh that's not a good idea,' or, 'The cost of that will kill us.'" It's all rhetoric. It's the details that actually matter, and the suits in Washington hope we just won't ask.

The problem is that most people are either too lazy or simply don't take the time to dig up the details. I can understand why, though. Government usually simplifies it so much that their top-level rhetoric sounds good to everyone, or they make it sound so complicated that people don't even bother. I agree 100% with the idea that our health care system needs to be reformed. I think most people would agree. However, when I hear a politician speak of "overhauling the system," I'm one of the few that immediately ask "Okay, how?" If you're sitting there saying "I ask that too and so do a lot of people I know!" then you must realize that you all are also one of the few, the very few. You are where you are today, because you have chosen to surround yourself with successful and intelligent people. The unsuccessful and unintelligent do the same thing. Success loves company just as misery does. Alas, our elected representatives know that most people won't ask "how?" In fact, they'll probably say "Yes! The health care system definitely needs an overhaul. I like this guy, and I'm going to vote for him." And that's the end of it for them.

If you're a politician, that's exactly what you want. The peril (or beauty, if you're the politician) lies in the ambiguity of the statements, because people can interpret them however they wish. "Health care reform," to me, means something very different than it does to the welfare recipient. Too often, when people hear "reform," they immediately assume that the system will be reformed in the way that they want it to be reformed. People tell themselves what they want to hear all the time. Washington knows this and exploits it!

Peggy Noonan says it perfectly when she says "maybe we're supposed to give up," trying to decipher what the heck they're talking about during the speeches and press conferences. It's intentionally vague! Folks, we have to start asking questions. Meaningful questions!

I also highly recommend that you read Peggy Noonan's article in full.

Gay Marriage...

2009-05-18T13:10:00.005-04:00

...is fine with me (at least from a government standpoint). Republicans and the "let's use the government to advance our religious agenda" crowd need to let this issue go! It is not the government's role or responsibility to dictate who can and cannot get married. I know this is going to piss off some readers, and I'll probably get emails saying "You're not a true conservative!" but last time I checked a "true conservative" was supposed to stand for individual liberty and less government intervention. I invite you to explain to me how the government telling someone who they can and cannot marry increases individual liberty. Church and state are supposed to stay separated, period. No exceptions, and here's why.

If two guys want to get married their actions neither infringe on my personal liberties nor do they negatively affect me in any way. I can hear it now: "But it damages the institution of the family!" One might make that argument, but if that's the case then they should also make it illegal for heterosexual couples to have sex before marriage. Premarital sex could lead to having a child out of wedlock. The amount of children being born out of wedlock these days is staggering, and it is doing far more damage to the institution of the family than two committed lesbians who want to make it official.

The more dangerous aspect of government intervention in marriage is the precedent that it sets. On a personal level, I am a devout Catholic and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. For this some may call me a hypocrite, but before you do please keep reading. Devout Christians who want the government to keep marriage closed to homosexual couples take for granted that Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. What happens if over the next 30-40 years people start converting to Islam, they become the majority and Sharia law gets implemented? Christian ladies, say goodbye to showing your faces in public and any gains you might have made towards gender equality. Also, in some instances, in order to accuse someone of rape you have to have four Muslim-male witnesses or else YOU get accused of adultery. But Sharia law also states that only heterosexuals can get married, so I guess you'll be fine with all of it. It doesn't matter if that's a seemingly inconceivable scenario (I used to think that trillion dollar deficits were, but I was wrong). The fact is that it could happen, and contemporary government legislation against gay marriage sets the precedent that at any given time the existing religious majority in the United States can use the government to enforce their religious beliefs. This is a perilous road, and there are issues far more consequential with which we should concern ourselves that truly affect the lives of all Americans.

Collective Whining

2009-05-14T14:16:00.005-04:00

People who whine and cry tend to travel in packs. On the flip side people who solve their own problems tend to fly solo. Individuals in the first group rarely seem to want to fix problems on their own. Enter unions. "I don't want to put the work into fixing the problem, so if I find enough people to complain with me then I won't have to." In some cases this is valid, such as in the situations under which many unions were originally formed: dangerous working conditions in factories. Today this is rarely the case, however. "Collective bargaining" has been replaced by "collective whining." Today it is more about masking the realities of life and economics than it is about safety or other legitimate reasons. In many cases (read: Chrysler and GM), they are digging their own graves.

America is now divided into two groups: 1. Those who don't get what they want, but make some changes to get it on their own and 2. Those who don't get what they want but refuse to make any changes, whine about it and sometimes get it. Conservatives, by nature, are usually independent people who are much less inclined to gather in groups to protest something. They're too busy solving their problems on their own. That's why they don't make headlines as often. Controversy sells, and conservatives unintentionally avoid it by relying on themselves. Liberals don't seem to want to take care of anything on their own, so they gather in groups and whine about it until they get their way. They know controversy sells so they stir it up to get noticed. It's pretty rare to see a group of independent individuals gathered together screaming "Work hard and make some changes to your situation and you'll get what you want!" Again, they're too busy already doing it.

Did you know that some of the United Auto Worker's labor agreements include giving workers a full 8 hours of pay for only doing 5 hours of work?!? Payroll and benefits are usually a company's biggest expenses. Imagine if Chrysler and GM had their labor costs CUT IN HALF?!? A lot of these folks love to use the word "fair". How is that "fair"? Imagine having to pay your babysitter for 6 hours of watching your kids when you were really only gone for three. Or better yet, imagine paying for 3 entrees at dinner when you and a friend only ate two. It's the same thing.

The public sector (government jobs) is much more heavily unionized than the private sector. Did you know that the average public sector worker makes about 46% more in compensation than comparable private sector workers? This means you and I are paying these people almost 1.5x as much as a regular company would pay them! This is largely due to unionization and government inefficiency. As I write this, unions are sucking our (YOUR!) money down the drain. California is trying to close their budget deficit (that's what happens when you spend more than you make.... see this for an explanation), and the unions are successfully working to stop them. The problem with government is that they want everything to stay the same regardless of what is going on in the world around them. In their minds Same = Votes. Did you know that Congress has never decreased spending year over year? Right now we're in a recession, and millions of people have lost their jobs. That means millions of people are no longer paying income taxes which means the government isn't receiving as much money. Government solution: keep spending just as much money even though we're not making as much. HOW IS THAT SUPPOSED TO WORK? You've got to cut programs, cut employees and ultimately cut costs. I have never been laid off (that sound you just heard was me knocking on wood), and I wish that layoffs never had to happen, but they are a reality. Things cannot always stay the same. Things change, people change and businesses change. In New York, one of the areas hardest hit by decreased tax revenues, unionized government employees are refusing to give up wage increases. That's like you losing your job and then going out and buying some new clothes, a new computer and a TV. You just lost your job and have no money! How can you afford to spend more?

This has to stop. At some point people have to wake up and start making smarter decisions. There are some people out there that just don't get it. The ones that do have a responsibility to educate the ones that don't. Some people simply are not exposed to more than one way of thinking, and I don't blame them. Spread the message folks! All of these little changes add up. They're easy to ignore, because nothing really seems to change immediately. It's going to be a very different story ten or twenty years from now.

Balance Fail

2009-05-12T22:25:00.010-04:00

George W. Bush and Congress started it. Now President Obama is making it worse. Everyone is to blame here. Our nation's proposed budget deficit is now over $1.8 TRILLION!!! Take another look..... that's $1,800,000,000,000 that we don't have! But we are going to spend it anyway. Most people can't even fathom what a trillion dollars looks like. It's so far fetched that people ignore it. It is documented that our brains have trouble comprehending the scope of something that large. A recent poll asked Americans how many millions are in a trillion , and only 21% of respondents got it correct!!! That means almost eighty percent of the people don't even know how much a trillion is! If you don't know then take it upon yourself to look it up. You need to understand this reality! Additionally, most people really don't understand how our government and its cash flow system works. The government takes OUR money, labels it as theirs, and then proceeds to spend (or waste) it. In this case they are spending 100% more than they are taking in.

Obama is proposing to spend about $3,500,000,000,000 next year (go back and take a good look at that number). The government is only projected to receive about half of that amount in tax revenue. Where do they get the rest? Well, they're going to borrow 50% of it. For older Americans this really doesn't matter that much, because my generation is the one that gets stuck with the bill.

Let's simplify this a bit..... a person makes $30,000 a year in take-home pay, they have total necessary expenses of $30,000 but during that year they spend $60,000. Where do they get the extra $30,000? Probably credit cards. So what happens the year after that? Not only do they have to spend $30,000 for food, rent/mortgage, gas, insurance etc. but they have added $3,600 in interest payments, because they borrowed $30K the previous year.

Wait?!? So now they have to spend $33,600 this year? But they only make $30,000! So to make it real for yourself just think of whatever your current salary is and think of spending 2x that amount this year. And then try to figure out how you're going to do the same the next year....

This, my friends, is exactly the scenario that George Bush, Barack Obama and Congress have put us in, except we're not dealing in thousands. We're not dealing in millions or billions either. We're dealing in trillions! And we have to pay it back with interest. Using some rough math at a 5% interest rate we'll owe $246,000,000 in interest PER DAY..... and that's just on this year's deficit. Where the heck are we going to get that money?

The answer is you and me...... yes, the government is simply going to take it from you and me in the form of taxes. Any promises of only raising taxes on the rich are going to be broken, because not even the rich can give the government $246,000,000 per day. This is what Americans voted for folks. If this explanation hasn't made this issue very clear for you then feel free to then email me at RealHonestThinking@gmail.com. You need to understand this. It's important that everyone understands the trouble we're in. It's time to do something about this. Write your congressman, write to the President and GET INVOLVED SOMEHOW! Oh, and if you weren't pissed already and still need a good visual of what a trillion dollars looks like go here.

Swine Flu Explained

2009-05-06T21:01:00.004-04:00

Yesterday I decided to try and figure out if this whole swine flu thing is as big of a threat as everyone is making it out to be. My suspicion centered around the use of the word "epidemic" and the thought that the media and government might be exploiting the connotations of the word amongst the American people. I have a friend who works for the CDC, so I shot her an email asking if the epidemic is being blown out of proportion by the the government, the CDC, the media or all three. She is not an expert on H1N1, nor does she speak on behalf of the CDC. She does, however, have much more knowledge on the issue than the average person.

First let's go back to the connotations of the word "epidemic" (you can include pandemic too). When most people, including myself, hear this word they think "something that can kill me within 24 hours." That's the mainstream interpretation, and the government and the media know it. Therefore, they use it to scare the hell out of the American people and manipulate them.

Okay, let's define "epidemic." It's a technical term that has to meet certain criteria before an outbreak can be classified as such. It is basically defined as an occurrence of a virus or disease in greater numbers than would be expected under normal circumstances. My friend did an excellent job of explaining it this way (with numbers that are made up for the sake of explanation)..... let's say a city normally expects to see on average, 12 cases of swine flu per year. If the city suddenly sees 20 cases then you're above the normal 12, and it's classified as an epidemic. You could have an epidemic of the common cold if the number of cases was above that which is normally expected. It's not really life threatening like smallpox, but it's still an epidemic.

This leads into the next point that my friend made: disease severity. You can have an epidemic of anything, but it's not necessarily life threatening. However, put a relatively unknown (at least to the public) disease together with an unconventional name like "swine flu" and the media and government have the perfect combination with which to send thousands of panicky mothers and their snotty-nosed children to the doctor. The CDC has a responsibility to inform the public about epidemics, and I think they have done an excellent job in this case. The media also has a responsibility to properly relay this information, and they're the ones not following through. This relates to Monday's post, Truth and Consistency. The media needs your eyes, and they don't get them with headlines like "More Cases Than Expected of H1N1 Virus." They get them with this: "Swine Flu Epidemic Hits the U.S." Then they don't go on to explain the true definition of an epidemic. People panic, moms go nuts and keep their kids home from school and then the government steps in. I have a hard time believing that Janet Napolitano, our inept Secretary of Homeland Security, isn't using this to save some face after she's proven herself to be completely incompetent. She'll build up the threat, watch it pass knowing that it was never as bad as she made it out to be and then sweep back in at the end saying "Look how well we (read: government) handled the situation!" Again, government taking credit for something that they didn't really do.

The bottom line is that the media, once again, has created false perceptions amongst the American public. We need the media. However, it is our responsibility to hold them accountable. You vote for the media by giving them your eyes. Stop giving them your eyes, start giving them some words and maybe they'll start doing some honest reporting.

Truth and Consistency

2009-05-04T22:33:00.009-04:00

Do you remember the letter that a South Carolina eighth-grader sent to Congress about the dilapidated state of her school (government school, of course) a couple of months ago? President Obama read it to Congress when he first addressed them back in February. It seems that someone heard the student's plea, but it wasn't Congress or anyone else in our government. Darryl Rosser, CEO of a firm that supplies schools with classroom furniture, caught word of the school's condition and decided to have the firm he leads, Sagus International, donate $250,000 worth of new classroom furniture to the school. It's an incredible act of generosity that I read about here.

Quite a few thoughts run through my mind while reading it, the first of which relates to the title. While the title is accurate in a sense, it will undoubtedly cause most people to give sole credit to Obama and the government, even though they did very little to help in this situation. The headline should read something like this: CEO Leads Firm to Repair Dilapidated South Carolina School. The difference between the two headlines is vastly different as one credits the CEO and his private firm and the other gives credit to the government, which did next to nothing to assist the school. In fact, the government is most likely to be blamed for the demise of the school. This situation is all too typical, government screws it up, private corporations fix it and government comes back and takes the credit.

Another issue that I have with the situation is the quotes that now adorn the walls of the school, namely the kids' "favorite" quote by the President: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." These students are falsely being led to believe that Obama fixed their school. The truth is that Darryl Rousser, his company and local volunteers, not the government or any government employees (except teachers), fixed the school. Sure, Obama may have read this student's letter in front of Congress, which made Mr. Rousser aware of the situation, but President Obama was doing it for political show. Don't even try to tell me that it wasn't, because that argument is painfully easy to squash! Obama has the power to transform government education across the country, so if he really cared about the students then he wouldn't be eliminating initiatives such as the voucher program in Washington D.C. (which has been quite successful and the statistics show it!). Instead, he would be working to implement it nationwide. However, if he does then the kids will be less dependent on the government. The message that they are currently being sent is that the government will come to their aid and fix everything. It's scary.

Lastly, in an age where private corporations and CEOs are being vilified by the government and the media, it would be incredibly counter-productive to give credit to Darryl Rousser. This would make CEOs and private enterprise look good in the eyes of the public, and the powers that be just can't have that right now. Consistency is the one thing that the government actually sticks to...... they are consistent with screwing things up, consistent in their incessant search for more power and consistent in wasting our tax dollars. It's only natural that the demagogue that is our government would maintain consistency in it's agenda to vilify private enterprise.

Face Value: I Want My $1 Million Bonus!

2009-05-04T15:21:00.004-04:00

"We will miss [some of our wealth] in the sense that as a consequence of 25-year-olds getting million-dollar bonuses, they were willing to pay $100 for a steak dinner and that waiter was getting the kinds of tips that would make a college professor envious." These are the words of President Barack Obama from an interview he gave last week. Unfortunately, he will get away with this statement for reasons, among others, that include mainstream America running on the pure emotional reaction that a statement like this might elicit. Seriously, what can a 25-year-old possibly be doing to earn a $1 million bonus? The answer is, not much. No, I don't mean they are sitting around doing nothing while pulling in these bonuses. The fact is that this statement is simply false, because there aren't many (if any) quarter-century-olds getting bonuses anywhere near that size. On another note, Obama inadvertently admits here that trickle-down economics actually does work, something I'm sure he didn't mean to do. I digress...

I have a good friend (now 26 years old) who worked at one of the major New York investment banks (the employees of which seem to be the target of Obama's comments) during some of the years where employees were receiving these bonuses. He and his colleagues all received bonuses, but they were small fractions of the amount that our President alleges. In fact, you would have to put more than a dozen of them together to begin getting close to that number. The simple fact is that anyone that age would be, at most, a third or fourth year Level II Analyst, putting them on a nice pay scale, but nowhere near the $1,000,000 mark. Obama might want to check his facts next time......

Which leads me to my next point: Mainstream America, unfortunately, is all-too-quick to accept everything they hear at face value. Most people have no problem spending an hour debating and researching Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's relationship, but when it comes to thinking about things that actually matter (credit card debt, education, taxes, health care, savings etc.), they put about 1/3600th of an hour's thought into it (that would be one second). I don't care where you get your news from as long as you realize that they are all biased or slanted in some way and rarely does anyone report 100% of the facts. Does anyone ever think about the fact that all of the mainstream news organizations are for-profit entities? CNN appeals to liberals just as Fox News appeals to convervatives, and they want to keep these viewers. They're not necessarily trying to be balanced..... they're trying to keep their viewers glued to the television long enough to play commercials in between segments and get paid! For this reason they are more than willing to sacrifice "balance." If Obama jumps out of a plane without a parachute and lands injury-free on his feet and FoxNews runs the story with the headline "Obama: The Miracle Man" and CNN runs the same story with the headline "Obama Can't Fly," then everyone gets pissed off, because it's simply not what their usual audience wants to hear.

The point is that most people rarely take a step back from the headlines long enough to objectively look at what actually went on. Headlines are there to spark our interest and get us to read or listen to a story. They also have the effect of setting a tone/slant for the same piece. We need to start taking our emotions out of the news and take as hard of a look at the facts as we do TMZ.com. Gather the facts then get emotional..... not the other way around.

Withering Identities

2009-05-01T15:15:00.004-04:00

Today I watched a demo video on Amazon's Kindle 2. First let me say that the Kindle is a pretty sweet piece of technology! Incredibly thin, holds over 1500 books, you can read newspapers, magazines etc. on it, and the battery lasts for four days. After watching the video I flashed back to this morning when I was packing to go out of town for the weekend. I usually take 3 books with me while traveling, a Bible, my journal and whatever book I happen to be reading at the time. It's a little cumbersome but worth it. After watching the video on the Kindle I was thinking that it would be very nice to have. Not only could I lighten my travel load but I could take more books AND magazines/newspapers. So convenient!!

Now, as much as I love cool techy gadgets I also still enjoy the experience of reading a print newspaper or magazine and/or picking up a book and flipping it's pages. Even more than that, I like seeing my library grow! I get comments such as "wow, you have a lot of books!"quite often when people come over and visit, and people seem to like looking through them. I enjoy recommending and lending books out to friends. There is so much knowledge to be shared in this world, and I love passing it on! However, the Kindle would take all of this away. Seriously, who is going to sit down and flip through my Kindle to see what books I have? It's the same with iPods (another amazing invention!). It used to be common practice to check out someone's CD collection upon seeing it in a person's house. You can learn a lot about a person by doing so. Now the only time a person might flip through a friend's music collection is in the car on a road trip (via the iPod).

Technology for the sake of convenience is taking away more personalization and human interaction than we seem to realize. Beyond e-mail, Facebook, cell phones etc, gadgets like the Kindle and the iPod are quickly chipping away at our non-verbal identities. No longer do people ask "Why do you have the K-Ci and JoJo CD?" (or another embarassing disc) like they used to when flipping through one of my 4 enormous CD cases in my car (got the album for free, by the way). Questions like these often sparked some good conversation, and it was always entertaining to flip through someone's collection. The same goes for books. I have always wanted a big library, and I love to read. However, the convenience of the Kindle may trump the desire for printed books (not to mention they're cheaper to buy on the Kindle).

I'm not saying that I want to show off by having people see a large music collection or library. I have always tried to be somewhat humble, and I don't think people should necessarily seek to be identified by these things. At the same time, on a more passive scale, people are able to learn quite a bit about you by looking at these things. Walking into someone's house and seeing video games everywhere vs. a large library definitely makes you view someone differently. What I'm trying to say is that if everyone adopts these gadgets, and they most certainly will in one form or another, then society as a whole will lose some very important indicators once used to draw conclusions about one's personality. The business world already suffers from this phenomenon due to e-mail now being the primary form of communication. Are we going to let our personal lives wither away in the same manner?

The Only Difference Between Republicans and Democrats is the Spelling

2009-04-29T11:32:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, Senator Arlen Specter announced that he is leaving the Republican Party and joining the Democrat Party. One might ask "how does someone all of the sudden decide 'Okay, yesterday I believed in this set of principles and today I believe the complete opposite?'" (note that I use the word "principles" VERY loosely). It's kind of like converting from Catholicism to Judaism. However, in this case the conversion has nothing to do with beliefs. It's all about power, and Specter admitted it himself. He cited a poll that shows his chances of winning the 2010 primary were "bleak." This isn't an ideological change, it's not a change of heart and it's certainly not about making the United States a better nation. It's power retention. Plain and simple.

Unfortunately, I think that this reigns true for most of our elected representatives - Republican and Democrat. Political expediency and power trump doing what is right for the country most of the time when it comes to the folks in Washington D.C. They don't care about "moving the country forward" or what's "best for this nation." It's all about popularity, pandering to the masses and giving the media some good sound bytes to get your name in front of people. Do you really trust ANYTHING that comes out of Washington? How is it that we so quickly forget that [insert any politician's name here] is saying "X" today but said the complete opposite the week prior. Because no one in this nation is allowed to suffer or fail any longer, everyone wants immediate action on every issue, and as a result, we focus on whatever our elected representatives are saying in that moment. If we like what they say then we keep 'em in office. However, how often do we actually track follow-through? How often do we take note of their words and say to ourselves "okay, let's see if this actually happens"?

Have you ever been betrayed by a friend before? Anyone ever broken a promise that they made to you? I would be willing to bet that there's no way that most people can say no to either of these questions. So do this.... think about the last time that a friend or colleague pissed you off by not following through on a promise or task. Apply whatever you are feeling right now to everyone in Washington. Let's get pissed, kick them all out of office and find some replacements who have spines and principles.