Regular readers know that I am a numbers, financial, and economic guy, as betrayed by my CPA certification. As important as these issues are, we are now presented with an issue even more vital. The socialized healthcare bill being considered by the House will likely result in tens of millions of Americans dying sooner than they otherwise would have to.  

When the free-market, doctors, and patients are taken out of health care decisions, and the care is paid for by somebody else, the establishment of an organization to ration care is inevitable.  In fact, the legislation creates the National Institute of Comparative Effectiveness. As benign as it may sound, this is the bureaucracy that will be used to ration care. A similar institution exists in Britain, and has the rather ominous acronym of NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Experience).  Rulings on whether people live or die are made frequently in Britain and Canada, and if you have a pre-existing condition, are elderly, or for some reason deemed ‘unfit’ for a life saving procedure, then your chances of being granted that life saving procedure become even murkier. Your life will hang in the balance, subject to the whims of government and its bureaucrats. This is why the survival rates from cancer, heart disease, and many other life-threatening diseases are 30-50% lower in countries with socialized medicine than they are in countries with private medicine.

And why are we doing this? It is generally accepted that about 85% of Americans have some form of health insurance. But, 15% do not. Of the 15% that do not, about one third have plenty of income and wealth, but choose not to buy insurance because they think they are healthy and want to save the money, and if they have a problem they will just go to the emergency room. Another third are eligible for Medicaid or Medicare or other subsidized care, but have not signed up. Only that last third, or 5% of the population, are truly uninsured, want insurance, and have no realistic option to get it.

Without question, there is a problem with which we must deal. But we should not sacrifice the quality of care and the life expectancy of 95% of the population for 5% as the Obama/Pelosi plan does. Furthermore, their plan fails to cover that 5%.

The Democrats in the House are practically at war amongst themselves over this because their more moderate members see the folly in socialized medicine. As I left the Capitol earlier today, the final committee with jurisdiction on this bill, Energy and Commerce, still had not met to vote on the bill. Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) suggested that maybe his committee should just be bypassed if the votes to pass the bill weren’t there. That, is truly desperation.

They know how powerful a message it is. Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi are so nervous that the public might find out what is really in this health care proposal that they have taken the unprecedented step of trying to use the rules of the House to censor the minority, and restrict what we are allowed to say or send out to you. In other words, they want to limit the only real power the loyal minority has, which is the power to communicate criticisms of the majority's proposals and present alternatives. Among the items to which they have objected to is the chart shown below. They have not been able to say that this chart, which reflects the organization of the Obama/Pelosi Health Care bill, is inaccurate. They say that some of the descriptions of the agencies are "misleading." Right. If you want to see misleading, read my blog on the 10 "inaccuracies" in President Obama’s news conference last week.

The Greeneyeshade Blog - Obama Misleads us on Healthcare

Your government run health care system will look like this if this bill passes. The Speaker and her minions just don't want you to know it.

Click Here to Enlarge

John Locke must be rolling in his grave. This socialized medicine package is a leap in a direction to which the government will now view its citizens as liabilities. This is in a republic that was founded on the premise that the government derives its power from the ‘consent of the governed.’ If this bill passes, perhaps we should change that to ‘consent of the governed, unless they represent too high of a liability.’

I admit, I am little worked up about this. But darn it, it's really important.

Last night in President Obama’s news conference he made an attempt to sell his socialized healthcare package to the American people. The truth is that what he is proposing is so unpopular that he must say things that are just plain misleading and in some cases not true.

Here are a few notes that I took last night based on what President Obama said:

The Government won’t be involved in medical decisions – This is wrong. The bill actually contains an organization to do exactly this, called the "Health Choices Administration not to mention Medicare and Medicaid already do this on their own. The reason for this is that everyone cannot have everything in this type of program and therefore the government must ration care. Section 141 & 142 of H.R. 3200

The financial system was on verge of collapse when he took office – This is patently and verifiably wrong. The financial system was in fact on the verge of collapse in October 2008; however by the time he took office on January 20, 2009 the system had already stabilized. This is not to say the economy was fine, it wasn’t, there is and continues to be much work to be done, but President Obama knows better than to take credit for something he didn’t do.

Prior to his taking office the economy wasn’t producing any good paying jobs - According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States was experiencing positive monthly job gains for a total of 50 out of 52 months between September 2003 and December 2007. Bureau of Labor Statistics

If you have insurance you will be able to keep it – The House version of the legislation has an explicit clause that says that if you lose your insurance in some way shape or form, those who currently have private coverage will not be able to change it, those who lose their job, leave a company, or work for themselves will not be able to buy individual healthcare plans from private providers. IBD Editorial July 15, 2009

The current system subsidizes insurance companies – It’s actually the other way around. Private insurance subsidizes those on Medicaid and Medicare, any Doctor, hospital, or medical group could not survive if they took only Medicare and Medicaid payments from the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office has testified that Medicare already pays doctors 20 percent less than private health plans; hospital reimbursement rates are “as much as 30 percent lower.”

It will not be paid for by middle class taxpayers – If you don’t buy ‘acceptable’ health insurance individuals will receive a tax increase of 2.5%(Page 167), in addition to taxes on small business that will hit everyone, this doesn’t even account for the fact that there aren’t enough rich to pay for it. According to the Tax Foundation, the top tax rate will raise to more than 50% in 39 states.

Slows the growth of medical costs – The Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf recently said that there is no evidence that it will reduce costs and may increase them. MSNBC – CQ – July 16, 2009

In terms of the deficit, we reduced spending by 2.2 trillion - We’ve actually increased spending by trillions of dollars since President Obama took office. The United States has set course under the leadership of President Obama to double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10. CBS News – February 26, 2009

Public option will provide some competition – Currently there are over 1,300 medical insurance plans available in the United States, the problem is that you can’t buy them across state lines. In California for instance, it would be wonderful if we could buy medical plans in any of the 50 states. All Republican plans include it, and the plan I am supporting the Patient’s Choice Act.

Healthcare is the biggest contributor to the deficit – Lately the biggest contributor to the deficit is actually President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. It is true that government healthcare plans are a major cost to the government. Yet, if the President believes that current healthcare programs are the biggest factor in the deficit, then how can he think that expanding and creating more of these plans and program will help the deficit?

I ran across this editorial from Investor's Business Daily this morning, and I wanted to share it with you.  Comments welcome.

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"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 the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

Yesterday, The Hill ran a story titled ‘Dem says tax cuts blunted the stimulus.’ In it, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar said that the tax cuts in the stimulus package took money away from legitimate infrastructure spending.

Frankly, I think the Chairman may have his facts confused. It was his Speaker, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid who took money away from infrastructure and gave it to other pork barrel-esqe spending proposals. Congressional Democrats larded up the bill with ridiculous spending measures all the while reducing the percentage of infrastructure spending. In terms of comparison, the President’s stimulus proposal and the final stimulus bill that was signed into law contained roughly the same proportion of tax cuts.

Many Republicans, this one included, would have been more inclined to support the stimulus package had it included more stimulative and shovel ready infrastructure projects that carried with them substantial multiplier effects. I, for one, was discussing the idea of national wireless internet infrastructure, but this idea along with many others was tossed aside for pork barrel spending projects like Speaker Pelosi’s salt marsh harvest mouse.

In the end it is the American people who foot the bill, and will be the ones feeling the pain.

Recent reports have indicated that the Obama Administration is in “advanced talks” about providing a bailout to financial firm CIT Group, Inc., a leading lender to small and midsize companies. CIT is looking for access to FDIC’s government guaranteed debt program, which would allow them to borrow at lower than market rates with taxpayers taking on the risk of default. They are arguing that if they go down, they could take other firms with them.

However unfortunate this may be to several individual firms, it will not bring down the system. In September and October 2008 we were staring down a global financial meltdown, but now that people have had time to reassess their strategies and re-adjust their business models to the new reality, we’ll see which firms are strong enough to stand on their own and those which cannot. But, this doesn’t mean they must cease to exist. Bankruptcy is a long-standing, legitimate process that gives companies the time and ability to restructure their finances to hopefully reemerge as viable entities.

Government should not intervene in this situation. CIT has many options and putting taxpayers at risk should not be one of them

It has been reported today that for the first time in history, the U.S. budget deficit has moved above the $1 trillion mark.

3 months still remain in the fiscal year, and by the current administration’s own admission, the deficit is expected to reach as high as 1.84 trillion in October.

The reckless spending that this administration has embodied is almost incomprehensible. Yet, they clearly have not gotten the message, and have failed to see the results of their actions. Especially among talks of a ‘Second Stimulus’ after their first package has failed miserably and left America’s unemployment rate at nearly 10%.

Beltway Democrats’ lack of spending restraint will contribute to higher interest rates, soaring inflation and a weakened dollar. The first step to getting our house in order is the reduction of spending, eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs, and instill a sense of fiscal sanity across the entire federal government.

I have stated many times in the past, that Republicans in the White House and Congress have spent too much.  I have said it since I came to Congress in 2005, and I am saying it again today.  However, the budget, spending, and deficits we are now seeing are almost incomprehensible.  The numbers are so large in fact that we fail to conceptualize them.  In order to help with that, here is a chart from the Heritage Foundation detailing the average federal deficit as a percentage of GDP, for Presidents Carter through Obama.  This graph speaks for itself.

 

 

 

There is no doubt that headway has been made in the battle to reform earmarks, at least among House Republicans that is.

Last week, during debate on the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill, 10 amendments were debated on the floor by myself, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). These amendments would strike various earmarks present in the bill.

This alone is altogether not particularly newsworthy, but on average, just under 65% of the Republican conference voted in favor of striking the earmarks in all 10 amendments. I remember in 2006, when it was almost taboo to vote ‘yes’ on measures like these, and there were only a handful of us fighting to reform the process, limit the wasteful spending, and staunch the tide of earmark corruption. Clearly, the message has gotten through to my colleagues.

Of course, there is still much work to be done on this front, but with the majority of the Republican caucus backing reform, perhaps now is the time to address sweeping and substantive earmark reform.

Entrepreneurs Will Reinvent GM's Castoffs

By Rep. John Campbell | Investor’s Business Daily

Before I lost my mind and entered politics, I was in the car dealership business for 25 years. In fact, I was the first Saturn retailer chosen back in 1988, and served on the Franchise Operations Team. I opened one of the first 25 stores in 1990 and eventually owned and operated five Saturn Facilities in Orange County, Calif.

Saturn was truly an American innovation with a great concept, rethinking how cars had been built and sold over the previous 50 years. But Saturn was an entrepreneurial idea, smothered inside one of the world's biggest nongovernmental bureaucracies.

Saturn needed to move, change and react quickly, but it was prevented from doing so. Even Saturn's breakthrough, one-page union contract was eventually replaced with a standard UAW agreement.

The one area where Saturn remained true to its mission, however, was at its retail-dealer level. These committed independent businessmen and women continued to provide customers with industry-leading levels of care and innovation.

Some became disenchanted with GM and the UAW's lack of commitment to the brand and its ideals and left. But many stayed, and that's what Roger Penske is now buying. He wants an excellent, dedicated and creative dealer body through which to sell and service cars.

Penske is already the distributor in the United States for the Smart car (built by Mercedes), which has demonstrated significant success. He will have the option of having other manufacturers build Saturn branded cars and/or sell other brands with the promise of Saturn treatment and service.

Suppose an upstart electric car company wanted national distribution for its cars — perhaps Saturn would be a good place to get that? Or suppose Peugeot, Renault or other foreign automakers wanted back in the U.S. market, Saturn stores could prove to be a ready and willing conduit.

This sort of "Best Buy" of car retailing, or "contract manufacturing" instead of a company owning the plants that build its cars, is a new and untried concept in the car business. It's risky, but it just might work. That's what entrepreneurs do. They take risks to create something new. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they fail.

Saturn can work in the Penske organization. There is no question that it won't be the American-built small car company it set out to be, but it may fulfill the second part of its mission, redesigning how cars are built, sold and serviced. It clearly wasn't working within the GM-UAW structure, and the Obama-UAW bureaucracy now running GM will undoubtedly be many times worse.

Hummer, Opel, Saab, and Chrysler's Viper are all in the process of being sold to smaller, more nimble companies in North America and elsewhere. These troubled brands now have hope when freed from the costs, obligations, arrogance and structure of GM, nationalization and the union's intransigence.

General Motors has been nationalized and is a pawn of the state and the UAW; this will only postpone its inevitable demise. GM as we knew it is gone. The melancholy about the collapse of this great symbol of American manufacturing has permeated through to America's core.

But GM lasted over 100 years. That's actually not bad in a world where technologies and competition change as fast as they do today. How many other companies from 1908 can you think of that are still around today? This is not a failure of American business, but rather a piece of history that is a shining example of American industry for over 100 years.

The fact that GM didn't make it to the 200-year mark is a testimony to free markets and free choice that punish companies that do not change and reward better and fresher ideas. It was a great company once. But time has now passed.

Today, parts of that once great industrial behemoth have a new lease on life with their new smaller owners, and someday, someone will probably take over Chevrolet and Cadillac, revitalizing two of the world's great brands. This is what happens after companies are freed from suffocating government, politicization and bureaucracy.

The story of the American automobile and the American entrepreneur is far from over. The automobile has been a symbol of American independence and freedom since Henry Ford first wheeled the Model T off the production line in 1908, and personal transportation is part of the American ethos. It allows us to go wherever we want, whenever we want without restriction.

The Obama-Pelosi cabal would like us to get out of cars as part of their quest to make us conform to the behaviors that they believe we should have. That won't work. Americans love freedom too much.

The companies will be different, the names will be different, and how cars are powered will be different. But America's love affair with the automobile and its role reinventing it is not over yet.

Put your foot to the floor and enjoy the drive.

Campbell is a second-term congressman representing California's 48th district.

A few days ago I brought your attention to a report that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) submitted entitled ‘100 stimulus Projects: A Second Opinion.’ I also said that I would highlight a few of the most ridiculous, and so here is the first installment:

FutureGen

Although President Obama, and Congressional leaders said that the stimulus package would not contain any earmarks, in reality earmarks take on a variety of forms. Take for instance the FutureGen plant in Mattoon, Illinois. This program was an earmark in the past and was lobbied for by then Senator Obama. On June 12, 2009 the Department of Energy announced that FutureGen would receive $1 billion in stimulus funds.

Samuel Bodman, former Secretary of Energy during the Bush Administration concluded that this technology was obsolete, and stated “The likelihood that it would fail, leaving the American people with hundreds of millions of dollars in sunk cost and none of the benefits, is not acceptable.” Accordingly, the Department of Energy terminated funding for the project.

If that doesn’t convince you that this is a poor expenditure of taxpayer dollars, then perhaps this will:

In 2007, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) published a report that showed FutureGen’s approach was not the most effective way to go about such experimental new technology. In fact the report specifically states there were “concerns about this particular project” including a “lack of clarity about the project objectives.” MIT concluded “It is important that the U.S. government begin thinking about such a portfolio of demonstration projects and not be singularly focused on any one project, such as FutureGen.”

On top of all of this, FutureGen’s website states that it is a public-private partnership. Obviously it has a public component because it is receiving tax dollars from the federal government, but can you imagine your private company receiving $1 billion of taxpayer’s money without any impetus or necessity to produce a substantive product?

I’ll let you be the judge.

When spending season rolls around on Capitol Hill, Americans cringe, and for good reason. But this season something is different. Yesterday evening when Congress began debate on its spending bills, it was brought to a screeching halt at the first sign of a Republican amendment, 30 minutes in.

It has been a long standing tradition that the spending bills that Congress considers are done using what is called an ‘open rule’ which allows for an unlimited amount of amendments to the bill, but the cabal led by Speaker Pelosi, President Obama, and Senator Reid has squelched the voice of opposition once again. Instead, they have decided to limit the number of Republican amendments, breaking with the open-rule precedent for the first time in as long as anyone can recall.

We’ve seen it in the automotive industry in the abrogation of dealer contracts and moving Americans out of cars, and now we are seeing it in how Congress spends the money of the American people. This is just further indication that if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can’t coerce you into doing what they want, then they will force it upon you. They are trying to control much of our lives and now they want to silence opposing views.

With this move, Democrats will now be able to spend even more taxpayer money without interference. House Republicans are meeting today on how to fight this, to be sure though, there is a resistance brewing.

Back when the stimulus package was being debated, I was a vocal critic. I penned an op-ed for the Orange County Register, I blogged on it, and I took to the airwaves to discuss potential areas for improvement and why the package wouldn’t provide the impetus for growth as it was being advertized.

Well, while President Obama, and his Capitol Hill cohorts tout the many successes of this so-called stimulus, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a doctor by trade, has issued a second opinion on the matter.

His report provides a look at 100 examples of questionable stimulus projects worth $5.5 billion. Senator Coburn is quick to say that his second opinion is designed to educate taxpayers, policymakers, and the media, on how to prevent these missteps moving forward. The real question is, will the lesson be learned?

Over the next few days I will highlight some of my favorite examples in Sen. Coburn’s report, so stay tuned.

As promised, here are two more proposals House Republicans have offered to President Obama in order to reduce the deficit and save taxpayer’s money.

Terminating Duplicative Education Programs

The Department of Education currently administers hundreds of separate education programs. Many of these programs are duplicative of other programs. In many cases, schools have the flexibility to use other federal funds for the purposes of some of these targeted programs. Eliminating duplicative education programs will streamline Federal education initiatives and provide savings. The President recognized this when he proposed terminating several duplicative programs in his budget. Building on the President’s recommendations, additional savings can be achieved by eliminating the following programs:

 

Last week House Minority Leader John Boehner & House Minority Whip Eric Cantor submitted a letter to President Obama outlining proposals to reduce the Deficit and provide savings for American Taxpayers. Here are a few highlights of these proposals.  The bottom line is, we’ve got to stop spending money we don’t have, and probably can’t get even if we wanted to. 

Terminate Funding For The National Drug Intelligence Center
 
The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) has been the subject of significant public debate recently because it unnecessarily duplicates the work of other agencies and its justification seems to have more to do with its powerful patron than its benefits to the taxpayer. Terminating NDIC would save taxpayers $44 million next year and $220 million over five years.

Eliminate Unnecessary Federal Offices Such As The Treasurer Of the United States

The office of the Treasurer of the United States was established on September 6, 1777. The Treasurer was originally charged with the receipt and custody of government funds. Over 200 years, the duties of the Treasurer changed significantly.  At different times, the Treasurer managed the government’s balance sheets and the printing of our currency. Many of these duties over time were given over to more specialized offices and officers, including the Financial Management Service and the Bureau of Printing and Engraving – but the office of the Treasurer remained in place. The most recent organizational chart for the Department of Treasury makes clear that none of these or any other offices report to the Treasurer. The job description contained on the Treasury’s website describes the Treasurer as a consultant, advisor, spokesman, and surrogate within the Department.

There are many examples of places the government can save…we’ll do more of these tomorrow.

Yesterday, I offered an amendment on the House floor to the bill that funds all Federal Aviation Administration activities for the next 4 years. The amendment, in the obtuse world of Congressional parlance, is called a “motion to recommit.” Rather than tell you about it, I will let the roughly 8 minutes of debate speak for itself, and I have included the clip below.

The amendment failed by a vote of 263-154. Waste and corruption are alive and well in Washington.

But you already knew that.