Four Corners Media: Congress

Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts

Monday, October 5, 2009

Legislative Process Light is Creating Heat on Healthcare

As the Health Care bill goes through the legislative process in the US Senate, some very interesting discussions, drama and defining moments have occurred. And things have not gone exactly as the Democrats or Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) had planned. [Remember the President’s demand that the Congress have Health Care bill to his desk before the August recess? The subsequent town halls back in the states and Congress districts caused even more reality of citizen concern that the Congress was move way to fast on nationalizing 1/6 of the US economy]. In fact, the debate has become more multifarious by the day, which is the way of the US Senate and the American system of government is designed to work. Despite the desire of the Democrat leadership, you cannot just cram through a massive Health Care bill without due process. This is a republic (at least at this point), not an oligarchy as the Washington elite has hoped for during the attempted Health Care legislative end run around the American people.

Here are excerpts on a recent excellent article, written by Mark Hemmingway in the National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com) from the September 29^th post:

Baucus & Dems are hiding the true cost of Healthcare legislation:

The actual cost of the Baucus bill is $1.7 trillion over ten years, but Democrats prefer to say it will cost $900 billion over the next ten years — this is true, but only because the main spending provisions don’t kick in until 2013. The Democrats also aren’t advertising that the $838 billion in new taxes and fees in the legislation begin being collected next year. Mark Hemingway, NRO, 9.29.09

Even the Congressional Budget Office (the only watchdog at the table, that is somewhat neutral in the process) is doubting how much (more) the bill will cost the US taxpayers:

And then, it will be hard to tell how much the legislation costs; the Senate Finance Committee doesn’t work with the actual legislative language. They work in “conceptual” language or what they call “plain English.” Senator Baucus himself admits, “This probably sounds a little crazy to some people that we are voting on something before we have seen legislative language.” It doesn’t just sound crazy; the CBO says that it is (crazy). Without the actual legislative language, any CBO review of the bill “does not constitute a comprehensive cost estimate” and makes it impossible to get an accurate sense of the cost. When CBO said they would need two weeks to do another formal cost estimate of the amended bill, Baucus balked. Mark Hemingway, NRO, 9.29.09

The Chairman (Baucus) and Congressional Democrats don’t want the public, the press, the healthcare professionals, the medical industry or their colleagues to see the bill over time (just 72 hours in the light of day), because that is too messy, too transparent and will introduce too much accountability. Instead the Democrat led US Senate Finance committee is attempting an efficiency approach. Why take time to get Health Care right, when you can just slide socialized medicine through? Or maybe not.

It's not just the CBO who won't get a chance to look over the bill. Senate Democrats voted down an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R., Kent.) that would have required that, after mark-up, the final language be made available to the public for 72 hours on the Internet. Senator Baucus says he’s against putting the bill online because that, too, would take two weeks. Mark Hemingway, NRO, 9.29.09

Finally, according to a new Rasmussen poll regarding private insurance and the public option http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/october_2009/fear_of_losing_private_health_insurance_trumps_public_option the American people indicates that 63% of the respondents favor keeping their private insurance versus the Democrats “public option” offering. So why are the Congressional Democrats so focused on the public option? Simply put, they are dedicated to a socialized approach to medical care in the United States and the political Democrat elite have decided that our system of private insurance and choice of medical providers is second rate. This in spite of the overwhelming evidence that socialized medicine (when tried in other countries) has resulted in a government run system that rations care, reduces quality and limits choices in medical providers.

With the Congressional majority dedicated overhauling medical care, health insurance and health care in the United States in the socialized image of Europe or Canada, now is the time to contact your Congressman or Senator. Or even run for Congress yourself. Most members of Congress have better health care coverage and options that the rest of the taxpayers. What is wrong with that picture?

Friday, July 17, 2009

Let's Rethink Healthcare Reform

Let’s Rethink Health Care Reform

I wanted to take a minute with you are share what is on my heart about healthcare reform. As most of you know, Congress is creating legislation on Healthcare Reform, which the President wants to bring to a vote before the August congressional recess. I think many would agree that we need to make some changes to the current arrangement that would make healthcare more accessible and more cost efficient. However, the legislation that is being rushed through (you might want to ask yourself, why the hurry!) will do neither. In fact, on page 16 of the house bill, there is a provision, that will make it illegal to carry private insurance. Do you want your current health insurance replaced by government health insurance which is being modeled after Medicaid? It will cost Trillions of dollars and the Congressional Budget Office has reported that they can't really even give an accurate estimate of the cost, because they haven't been given enough time or information to evaluate the legislation.

Healthcare is 1/7th of our economy. I would bet that everyone reading this overview, has a friend or relative, or they themselves are employed in some capacity in the healthcare industry. Have any of you stopped to consider what will happen to those people's jobs? If as proposed, most people are moved to a government run health insurance modeled after Medicaid, revenue to healthcare facilities, doctors offices, nursing homes, etc will drop dramatically. No one that currently provides healthcare even breaks even when they provide care to people on Medicaid. It is there as a safety net, and we all absorb the cost of providing care to the poor, as well we should. So if revenue drops dramatically, what becomes of the nurse, the ward clerk, the radiology tech, the orderly, the secretary? How many small facilities will have to close because they cannot even break even? Will healthcare be limited to a few large impersonal facilities, run on a tight budget providing substandard care?

Let's move onto another aspect of the proposed healthcare reform ...rationing, which is inevitable under the proposed plan. How many of you reading this email has friend or relative or you yourself are a cancer survivor? What happens to the cancer patient who has to wait 6 months or more for surgery or chemo? Survival rates in the US are significantly higher than countries with nationalized healthcare, primarily because of the quality and promptness of care we receive. Which one of you or your friends or relatives is alive today because they received the proper care in a timely fashion? Who would you suggest we make wait for chemo or surgery...the one with the best chance of survival? What if your mother, wife, sister coworker is placed in that position? I find that a frightening idea. Right now, time is of the essence. Congress is considering this legislation NOW. It is being marked up in committee as I write this overview.

Please take a minute and call or write your Congressman and Senator. Tell them to defeat this legislation. NOW!!!Here is a link to a website to help you find out how to contact your congressman or senator. http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/We need healthcare reform, but not this 1,100 page piece of legislation, which few have even read, not in such haste, not on the backs of small businessmen and women. Let's take our time and make honest, helpful reforms that the majority of the American people could support.

Carroll Pawlikowski
Williamsport, PA

Editor's Note: Carroll is my sister who is the business manager for a private practice health care provider in north central Pennsylvania. This blog is her recent e-mail without edits. Enjoy!

(c) 2009, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org

Saturday, May 30, 2009

A New Era of Fiscal Irresponsibility

Since regaining control of Congress, the Democrats with the help of the newly elected spend & tax President, have been on a spending spree never seen before in America. The USA triple A bond rating is in jeopardy, as rating agencies are beginning to question the financial viability of the USA government, with looming debt and unfunded entitlement programs. While former Congresses and former Presidents are convenient targets to blame, the Democrats in Congress shoulder the responsibility for this current fiscal irresponsibility. For a graphic view of the problem, here is a web site that gives a visual of just how much trouble the US is in, given the misguided spend & tax approach the Democrats, with the signature support of President Obama have gotten us into: www.gop.gov/accountability

For some specifics on US government waste and lack of accountability, check out Citizens Against Government Waste www.cagw.org See the recent 2009 Congressional Pig Book, where over 10,000 Congressional earmarks are detailed, including the newer stealth earmarks, designed to circumvent taxpayer scrutiny.

In addition to the Federal government budget having problems, many of states are in dire financial straights. But they cannot borrow like the Federal government (probably a good thing) and must balance their budgets. For more detail on metrics for each state in the US, the US Census Bureau has some good statistics: www.census.gov/compendia/statab/rankings.html

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities www.cbpp.org the budget crises for state governments continues to worsen in 2009, but unlike the Federal government, they cannot borrow money to cover deficits.

Here is an insight from the Center: “ The vast majority of states cannot run a deficit or borrow to cover their operating expenditures. As a result, states have three primary actions they can take during a fiscal crisis: they can draw down available reserves, they can cut expenditures, or they can raise taxes. States already have begun drawing down reserves; the remaining reserves are not sufficient to allow states to weather a significant downturn or recession. The other alternatives — spending cuts and tax increases — can further slow a state’s economy during a downturn and contribute to the further slowing of the national economy, as well.”

The overview from the Center continues: “States are currently at the mid-point of fiscal year 2009 — which started July 1 in most states — and are in the process of preparing their budgets for the next year. Over half the states had already cut spending, used reserves, or raised revenues in order to adopt a balanced budget for the current fiscal year — which started July 1 in most states. Now, their budgets have fallen out of balance again. New gaps of $59 billion (some 9 percent of state budgets) have opened up in the budgets of at least 42 states plus the District of Columbia. These budget gaps are in addition to the $48 billion shortfalls that these and other states faced as they adopted their budgets for the current fiscal year, bringing total gaps for the year to 16 percent of budgets.”

According to recent Gallup poll, states such as Wyoming and Louisiana are in the best shape (energy related economies) whereas the higher tax states, those with housing bubbles and those related to financial markets (New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona) are in the worst shape. www.gallup.com

But some states are doing much better, during this economic downtown, according to Gallup polling and research. “In addition to South Dakota and the four oil-producing states mentioned above, other "best job market" states include oil states like North Dakota, those benefiting from coal like West Virginia, and farm states with comparatively good economies from ethanol and a strong commodities market like Nebraska. Financial-crisis states in the Northeast, including Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maine are some of the "worst job market" states, as is the housing crash state of California.

The second quartile of "better job market" states includes those with comparatively better economies because they are also energy-related, like Alaska, and farm-related, like Kansas. Similarly, the second-worst quintile of "poor job market" states have economies damaged by the financial debacle, like New York; the manufacturing depression, like Ohio; and the housing disaster, like Arizona.”

For the higher income tax individuals, states like New York, Minnesota, New Jersey and California are raising taxes from 5% and 6% to rates at the 8% to 10% level. Combined with the new Obama ‘tax the rich plan’ to raise individual income taxes to 39%, high-income earner is looking at a 50% tax rate! The assumption from the “tax the rich” camp is that higher income earners will just stay put and be a bigger tax target. But there are nine states that may have the welcome mat that these higher income producers may want to step across to and end up with lower taxes.

So what states don’t have a state income tax: Alaska, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida, South Dakota, Washington, Nevada, Texas and Wyoming. www.irs.gov You may want to look at moving and/or retiring in one of these nine “no income tax” states as the California and New York type of high tax states look at raising the state income tax rates to the 10% level (or approaching the 50% combined Federal + state rate for the high tax states).

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

The Loyal Opposition

As a conservative, what is the approach that we should take following the US election in which liberal Democrats picked up more seats in the US House and US Senate? And what is the conservative response to our newly elected US President, Barack Obama? We are the loyal opposition: Loyal to our country, our republic and the US Constitution. We are supporting the peaceful (and gold standard) process of the transition of power in American, following our national elections. America is unique in the world in how we elect our leaders and how the change in power occurs peacefully. The pundits, politicians and press are now debating the demise of conservative principles and the weakened Republican Party. While that is a debate worth having, as a member of the loyal opposition, I both support the newly elected President Obama, but I also oppose many of his ideas and policies that have been proposed in the campaign. Unlike my liberal friends who bashed President Bush (and the office of the President), I will not engage in that disloyal behavior. Sure, I had some tough words and pointed criticism of Senator Obama as a presidential candidate. But he is the President Elect now, and that electoral victory and historic accomplishment is to be admired and respected. This is American. A country in which a presidential candidate from a diverse background can be elected to the Office of the President with the support of the minority and majority citizens of the United States. That is the dream of every American.

But I will respectfully disagree with our newly minted President, when he proposes more Federal government spending, not less; when the security of the United States is compromised in the interest of getting along with our enemies or if the hand of the US government becomes heavy through taxes, regulations or limits to personal freedom. In this case, as a member of the loyal opposition, I’ll express my contrary views. Fortunately, the days of Bush bashing are fading away, into the dusty Texas sunset. (Although Bush bashing is still lingering the MSM and in left leaning blogs) Let our former President George W. quietly retire to his Crawford Ranch. As for President Elect Obama, he has my loyal support and respect. He was elected by a majority of the States, with a plurality of the vote of our fellow citizens. However, his vision for American is still yet to be unfolded in the policy details of 2009. The Obama campaign platitudes sounded pretty good, but as a member of the loyal opposition, I was suspect as to what will really happen in Washington DC under President Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Meanwhile, I’m looking at the conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats in Congress http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/ as a member of the loyal opposition. These are self selected Democrats that have a moderate to conservative view on budget and fiscal issues that come before the US House of Representatives. In the 2006 House elections, there were 47 “Blue Dog Democrats”. Since 1996, 27 Blue Dog Democrats have been elected to the US House, replacing incumbent or retiring Republicans. In the 2008 election, 20 new Democrats were elected to the Congress, with a likely number of these new Democrats willing to join the Blue Dog coalition as fiscal conservatives. The question will be: Are the Blue Dog Democrats willing to stand up to President Obama and the liberal Democratic House leadership on overspending and increased government programs that run up the US deficit? We’ll see in January 2009. As a member of the loyal opposition, I’m counting on Blue Dog Democrats in the House and the GOP members of the US Senate to provide some fiscal restraint and balance to Presidential initiatives from the Obama administration.

Blog Search on 4C Media