Right Wing Granny

This article is not sourced.  It is based on reports I am hearing from various news sources.  There are some issues being raised about how the current bill could be passed without sixty votes in the Senate and what that would mean to the average American's medical care.

The reconciliation process requires that the House pass the Senate bill as is to begin the process.  Thie would include the 'Louisiana Purchase', the 'Cornhusker Kickback', and the Florida Medicare A exception.  One of the issues in this process for some House members is abortion funding.  The House bill has strong language preventing the use of federal funds to pay for abortions (there may be exceptions to that when the life of the mother is at risk).  The Senate bill does not directly use federal funds to pay for abortion--everyone who gets their health insurance through the government pays a surcharge that goes into a fund to pay for abortions.  Technically the government isn't paying for abortions, the people buying medical insurance from the government are.  There are also some real questions as to whether conscience clauses that protect doctors and nurses whose religious convictions oppose abortion are included in the Senate (or House) bill. 

Another thing to be aware of as the debate continues about healthcare reform is the ability to keep your present health insurance.  Medicare A, one of the most popular Medicare programs, will be eliminated (except in Florida).  That means that many of our senior citizens would be forced to find new health insurance.  Also, the way the bill is written, it would be advantageous for businesses to stop providing health insurance coverage for their employees.  The fine for not covering employees would be considerably lower than the cost of insuring employees.  This would force most Americans to find new health insurance.  Because the private health insurance companies would not be able to compete with the 'seemingly endless' funds of the federal government, private insurance companies would be forced out of business.  We would then have only government healthcare.

Healthcare insurance reform is a good idea.  There are ways to make the healthcare system more efficient and less costly.  Some good ideas are tort reform, portability across state lines, tax incentives for people to buy insurance, and insurance pools for pre-existing conditions.  On February 22, I posted an article (RightWingGranny.com) about The Small Bill, a one-page proposal to reform healthcare insurance.  Frankly, I think we should reject any bill that has more than twenty-five pages!  That way we can be relatively sure that some of the people voting on the bill will read the bill!

No, I'm sorry, I'm not talking about Washington, D. C.; I'm talking about Texas.  I have heard it said that the biggest mistake America ever made was air conditioning the government buildings in Washington, D. C.  If we hadn't done that, Congress (and maybe the President) would go home for the summer and would do less damage.  Well, I didn't realize that there was a state that understands how to run a government--Texas.

Michael Barone posted a commentary at Townhall.com yesterday comparing the growth and government of California and Texas in recent years. 

In writing about California, Michael Barone points out:

"Those Democratic majorities (in the legislature) have obediently done the bidding of public employee unions to the point that state government faces huge budget deficits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to reduce the power of the Democratic-union combine with referenda was defeated in 2005 when public employee unions poured $100 million -- all originally extracted from taxpayers -- into effective TV ads."

Texas has low taxes, no state income tax, and a much smaller government.  The legislature of Texas meets for ninety days every two years.  Public employee unions are weak or non-existent.  Texas pays its teachers less than Calilfornia, but its student test scores are higher.  The Texas economy is booming.  Unemployment rates have been below the national average for more than ten years. 

Michael Barone also points out:

"And Americans have been voting for Texas with their feet. From 2000 to 2009, some 848,000 people moved from other parts of the United States to Texas, about the same number as moved in from abroad. That inflow has continued in 2008-09, in which 143,000 Americans moved into Texas, more than double the number in any other state, at the same time as 98,000 were moving out of California. Texas is on the way to gain four additional House seats and electoral votes in the 2010 reapportionment."

Texas has also instituted tort reform in its medical system.  As a result of this, hospitals and doctors are relocating to the state, and the medical profession is booming there.

The bottom line here is that people do better when the government is smaller and government pay scales are not dictated by union demands.  California is going broke, and Texas is booming.  Which example should we be following nationally?

Today at Michael Yon's blog, Michael posted a disturbing article about the behavior of Spanish troops in Afganistan.  The source of his article was an email written by a Lieutenant Colonel in the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan.  Michael points out that he does not personally know the Lieutenant Colonel nor did he receive the email directly from the Lieutenant Colonel.

The email is about the abysmal, unsafe conditions which some of our most dedicated troops are living in, at a remote base run by the Spanish military in Afghanistan.  Our military who use this base as a refueling stop have asked for certain improvements at the base to protect our troops as they refuel our planes.  The Spanish have not complied.

Michael quotes directly from the email:

"USFOR-A needs to energize someone to develop a viable, enduring plan for this FARP that isn't reliant on the Spanish. This is a key hub for fuel (since we can't get trucks to [xxx] or [xxx]) so let's improve this location to better support those guys living out there on the edge by themselves. They refused to allow a Marine detachment that was dropped there to come into the wire or feed them overnight. Our refuelers had to fight the Spanish to bring them in and squeeze them into the two small tents that they have and give them MREs as they [sic] Spanish wouldn't feed them. Is this how we allow our Coalition partners to treat Americans?"

After World War II, America pledged to come to Europe's aid against future attacks.  Europe in return has not developed its military because it depends on the US.  Even though Afghanistan is supposedly a NATO effort, the majority of the heavy lifting in that war has been by America, Canada, Britain, and Australia.  Although they have been asked to provide more troops, generally speaking Europe has not answered the call.  It seems as if NATO has become a one way street in fighting the war on terror.  It is time for the nations of Europe to step up to the plate.

Yesterday at the Washington Examiner, Byron York pointed out that there has been a missing step in the legislative process that is being followed to pass the healthcare reform bill.  He asks, "Where is the House-Senate Conference Committee?"   The article points out that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid decided to skip the conference committee because it would be public and might reveal (and strengthen) the major differences between the Senate and House bills.  Meanwhile, the problem they are currently having in passing healthcare reform is dealing with the major differences between the Senate and House bills.

The problem for the Democrats in passing healthcare reform involves some basic philosophical differences within the Democrat party about what the bill should do and how it should do it.

One of the major differences between the House and Senate bills is the way the healthcare reform package is funded.  In the House bill, there is a 5.4 percent surtax on individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.  There is also a 2.5 percent excise tax on medical devices, an end to some tax breaks for multinational companies and a closing of a biofuels tax loophole for paper companies.  In the Senate bill, there is a 40 percent tax on 'cadillac health care plans', payroll taxes on Medicare are increased, and special fees are levied on insurers, drug companies and medical device makers.

There are also differences in the language banning federal funding of abortions, the public option, and mandates on employers and consumers.

Some of the information may have changed (my source was from 2009), but the basic fact remains the same--the Democrat party controls the House and the Senate.  If the Democrats had the votes, this bill would have already passed. 

The President's current approach to rallying public opinion to support this bill is to make it appear that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of the public and making enormous profits.  This is not the case.  The health insurance companies have a profit margin of about 2 to 5 percent--other areas of the healthcare business have a profit margin of between 15 and 25 percent.  Remember that as you listen to the speeches given by people who want you to support the present bill.

USA Today posted an article recently on the fact that government employees now make more and receive more benefits than private sector employees.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air commented on the article.  The salaries are currently about 10% higher in the government sector and the benefits are about four times the benefits offered in the private sector. 

For example, a government broadcast technician makes about $90,310 a year, while a private-sector broadcast technician makes about $49,265 a year.  The salary in the private sector is controlled by the need of a company to make a profit.  In the public sector there are no such controls--if a town, state, or federal government needs more money, they find a way to raise taxes or fees. 

Mr. Morrissey points out:

"The SEIU and AFSCME have a grip on the federal workplace, which is -- not coincidentally -- why taxpayers pay double for a recreation worker, or 45% more for pest control salaries rather than just call Orkin."

It is not a coincidence that when the White House released its visitors logs in late 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal on October 30, 2009, the person visiting the White House most frequently was Andrew Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union.  I would also like to note that if you google 'SEIU and ACORN connection', you will find a number of articles showing how the two organizations are related.  Both organizations seem to attract a rather unsavory bunch of people to their leadership positions.  

Yesterday, The Hill posted an article citing the response of Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans to a report released by the Obama Administration listing the salaries of the top executives of health insurance companies.  Ms. Ignagni points out that:

 "This issue of executive compensation is a very important question for boards of directors in every stakeholder community and every part of our economy. And in fact, we are having those discussions. Boards of directors are increasingly through proxy kinds of initiatives in their own discussions are increasingly demonstrating that the compensation is aligned with productivity and performance. ... I think this is a question that ought to be raised across the economy."

I really do think that in a stockholder-held corporation it is not the government's business what anyone is paid--that is the stockholders' decision--not the governments.  Ms. Ignangni also pointed out that the profit margin in the health insurance industry is in the two to three percent range, while other areas of healthcare have profit margins of 15 to 25 percent.

The charge of overpaying executives in the health insurance industry is not really related to anything except the President's desire to pass a very unpopular healthcare reform bill.  The more he can shine his spotlight on the 'evil insurance companies', the easier it will be to convince the American people that we have to pass health insurance reform now.  Fortunately, I think most Americans are paying attention to what is going on in Washington right now and will not fall for the sleight of hand that is being attempted.

Another aspect of the White House releasing executive pay scales in an industry is the attack on success that is being fostered by the Obama Administration.  Senior corporate executives make a lot of money.  They also shoulder a lot of responsibility, and most of them probably don't remember ever working an eight-hour day.  If you take away the incentive to be successful, fewer people will be willing to put out the effort to succeed.  That is how to ruin a country and remove it from its position as a world economic leader.  We also need to remember that we are in danger of reaching a point where less than 50 percent of Americans pay income taxes.  As fewer people pay income taxes, there are fewer people who care when those taxes are raised, and generally speaking, many of the people who are not paying income taxes are receiving money from the government.  That is situation will eventually lead to a financially bankrupt country.

There is an Associated Press story in Business Week today about Danny Glover asking the people who attending the Oscar Awards Ceremony on Sunday not to wear clothes by Hugo Boss.  There are 375 Hugo Boss employees in Cleveland, Ohio, who will lose their jobs next month because the German company is closing the plant. 

The article points out:

"The company says the plant is not globally competitive and under capacity. The union says the plant is profitable and the company is shuttering it because it can make clothing more cheaply in Europe."

As much as I hate to see anyone lose their job, the company is entitled to manufacture goods in whatever location is most profitable for the company.  Has it occurred to Mr. Glover that if the company paid less money in taxes and dealt with fewer government regulations, they might be more profitable?  Is Mr. Glover aware that  the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent?  If you want to see more Americans retain their manufacturing jobs, lower the corporate tax rate and reduce the amount of federal regulations on businesses.  Until those things are done, America will continue to lose manufacturing jobs (and other jobs) overseas.

Yesterday's Investor's Business Daily posted an article about the jobs report just released.  The White House is claiming that the high unemployment numbers are partially due to the snow storms we had during the month of February.  During February, businesses shed 36,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate remained at 9.7%. 

The article points out that the numbers are misleading.  The real number of jobs lost is 51,000--the government counts 15,000 workers temporarily hired by the Census Bureau as new jobs.  The jobless rate actually becomes 16.8% when you count the people who have given up on finding a job or who are working part-time because they can't find a full time job.

One of problems named in the article is the utter cluelessness of Washington as to how our economy works and what the government needs to do to help the economy grow and the jobless rate to go down instead of up.

The article points out:

"Meanwhile, on Thursday, the U.S. Treasury released its latest long-term financial outlook, and found that in the last nine months the U.S. long-term fiscal deficit has soared 21% to $76 trillion.

"By the Obama Treasury's own admission, that's unsustainable. Yet the fiscal path the administration has us on would make it even worse. Given all this, it's amazing the economy's growing at all."

The article concludes:

"Unless we act, and soon, to cut taxes and reduce the size of government, the U.S. will enter a protracted period of slow economic growth, stagnant wages, and permanently high unemployment."

The only way to cut taxes and reduce the size of government is to replace this Congress in November.

 

Yesterday, National Review Online, at its Planet Gore blog, posted a story about a solar energy farm in Indiantown, Florida.   The solar energy farm sits next to a natural gas plant.  The natural gas plant covers 15 acres of land and generates 3,800 megawatts of reliable electricity.  The solar energy farm covers 500 acres and generates 75 megawatts of electricity at its peak. 

The article points out:

"At $476 million (the cost of the solar project), it also means that building a 1000-MW solar array -- the size of an average coal or nuclear plant -- would cost $5 billion, putting it right up there with the most expensive reactors and coal plants with carbon capture. But the solar panels only generate electricity one-third of the time. "We'd love to tell you that solar power is as economical as fossil fuels, but the reality is that it is not," says Lewis Hay II, CEO of Florida Power and Light, which has built the complex.  "It's not a level playing field for renewable versus fossils right now."  Indeed."

I believe that at some time in the future we will have the technology for green energy.  I also believe that energy independence and green energy will evolve as the result of innovation driven by market forces.  To involve the government in the development of green energy simply alters the market and makes it harder for true innovation to prevail.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article on Wednesday about the appointment of Scott Matheson, Jr., to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  At the same time, his brother, Representative Jim Matheson, is making a decision as to whether or not he should support the healthcare reform bill before the House of Representatives.  Mr. Hinderaker points out that Judge Matheson would be an excellent choice for the position even if he didn't have a brother in Congress.  Since Mr. Hinderaker is a practicing lawyer (and I love his blog), I will take his word on this matter.  The appointment may actually be one of President Obama's better appointments, but the timing of it is just stupid.  Even if there is no connection between the two events, it was politically unwise to announce the appointment at this time.  In politics (as in a few other places) perception is reality, and no amount of denial will convince the skeptics that this is simply coincidence.  While it is certainly within the President's authority to make this appointment at this time, it was a politically stupid move, which is something that President Obama does not often do.  That fact alone may indicate that there was no political motivation behind it!