"Thomas Paine" Open Letter to the President

Health Care Isn't Free

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office just posted a brief analysis of the draft legislation for health care reform. No surprise that it is going to cost you--a lot.

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

So, if we quickly do the math: $1,000,000,000,000 / 17,000,000 = $58,823 per net individual insured by the plan--over a ten year period. This does not include the cost of debt in the form of interest payments and inflation needed to fund the plan--and does not include the possibility of significant expansion of Medicaid in the future.

This will be funded by increased taxes at some point. The "Affordable Health Choices Act" goes into committee for debate today. Call your congressional representatives and let them know how much you are willing pay for this program.

A Candidate I Wish I Could Vote For

Ted Cruz, running for Attorney General of Texas. I heard about this guy from this National Review article and went to check out his website. He's been in public service long enough to build up a solid track record--so much so that rather than list a 'platform' he has career highlights instead.

Unfortunately, I don't live in Texas...

The Budget Scalpel Is A Little Too Delicate

The good news is that the President has announced budget cuts. The bad news is that he’s trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The AP reports that Obama asked Congress to cut $17 billion in the next budget year. It sounds like a lot of money until you put this in perspective—this is a $17 billion cut from a $3.6 trillion budget. That’s a savings of 0.47%. Assume your family’s spending budget is $36,000 a year and you want to cut back to save a little extra. On the same scale as this cut you would save $170.

Since Congress controls the purse strings and not the President, there is no guarantee that his proposal will even be accepted. After all, there are a lot of favored programs that will be eliminated or trimmed and a lot of congressional delegates that don’t want to see these get touched. In fact, the administration already knows that some of the proposals will be rejected. No matter what the outcome of this proposal, Obama will get and take the credit for tightening belts in difficult times.

This message hides the fact that the original 2010 budget proposal is a 25% increase over the previous year.

Did the administration hear the message from the Tea Parties? Is this an attempt to placate? I find it all show and no substance. It’s too little and very disingenuous.

The British Want Their Guns Back

We The People Stimulus Package

Please, watch this video and tell me what you think. I don't agree with all his solutions and the "R" word is a little strong--but it's hard to disagree with the fundamental problem.

The Danger with AIG

The first mistake was using public—taxpayer—money to prop up a failing business. This by itself is a reward for incompetence. The system already has a solution--Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Under protection of the courts, contracts large and small get reexamined and rewritten.

What is silly is this flap over $165 million in bonuses when the government has written checks to AIG for $165 billion. It seems the world has caught fire over 0.1% of the bailout money. The federal government has known about this payment structure and schedule since last year.

Now the fight is on to take the bonuses back. Politicians have threatened to do it by breaking the compensation contracts or narrowly taxing AIG employees. Their outrage holds no credibility. It is a political stunt to prop up falling poll numbers with populist indignation. Survey numbers released this week by Quinnipiac University shows Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) falling into a virtual dead heat with a challenger that 53% of respondents haven’t really heard of. Congress gave implicit approval for these bonuses in the language of the stimulus bill. No one seems to remember how that line got in there, but then again, not one of them read the bill before they voted on it.

What I fear we are seeing is smoke and mirrors in an attempt to distract us from more important issues and to redirect public outrage. We have unprincipled people in positions of leadership. No, they have one principle, and that is to maintain and consolidate power. The electorate is being disenfranchised by those that claim to represent them.

Any “solution” sets a dangerous precedent for contract law, taxation, or both. I do not like the idea of the employees of AIG’s financial products division getting any reward for failure, but it is far better than a government that can break promises on a whim or demand punitive tax payments. You should be rightly cynical of anyone now calling for action that undermines the rule of law—be they from the left, right, or center. If it can happen to an AIG employee—it can happen to you.