unmutualgrizzly.com

To: All Americans - From: The U.S. Senate

For many Americans Christmas morning is a time of great anticipation, where the giddy excitement of our youth is remembered and sometimes still experienced. I came sprinting down the stairs on this Christmas morning with thoughts of family, gift-giving, and good times on my mind, only to discover a proverbial lump of coal in my political stocking. We all must have been naughty this year because our Senate rewarded us with a Christmas Eve vote (the first since 1895) to pass their version of a health care reform bill. This means that both the House and Senate have now passed versions of a health care bill that now must only be reconciled together, and eventually signed by President Obama. You may think that health care reform sounds like a pretty good gift to the American people, and under the right circumstances I would agree with you, but let’s look at what we’ve really unwrapped this Christmas morning.

I first urge all of you to read this article from U.S. News and World Report about the factual things that this new Senate bill would change, I feel it is unbiased and informative. I’m going to apply as much common sense to the key items as possible, so that we can get a really clear picture of the present we’ve been given.

Item #1: Required Coverage. Americans would be required to purchase health insurance from private companies or pay a fine. The fine would be $750 or 2% of household income (whichever is greater) per person, or $2250/2% (whichever is greater) for families. Required coverage = Your government forcing you to buy a specific product from a private company, which is an utter abomination of the free market system, a disturbing mingling of public and private interests, as well as a violation of your individual liberty.

Item #2: Employer Obligation. All companies with more than 50 employees would be required to provide health insurance or pay a $750 per year fine per employee. Employers of more than 200 would be required to enroll their employees in health insurance without the consent of the employee. Employer obligation = Additional burden to businesses that are already struggling in the current economy. This provision also discourages job-creation, as it adds more cost per employee, and discourages small businesses from growing beyond 50 employees, as they would then incur significant cost increases. Reducing costs to businesses of all sizes is the only thing that will help them grow, thus allowing for more tax revenue, more jobs, and an overall positive effect on the economy. The rules of “employer obligation” as put forth in this bill do the opposite of that.

Item#3: Government Subsidies (the next 4 items are all related, and lead to item#7). The government will help anyone who earns 400% of the poverty level or lower (approx. $43,320 for individuals or $88,200 for families) to pay for their health insurance. Government subsidies = Higher costs for the American taxpayer in one way or another (where is the money going to come from?).

Item #4: Medicaid Expansion. Individuals or families would now be eligible for Medicaid if they earned 133% of the poverty level or lower. Medicaid Expansion = Higher costs for the American taxpayer in one way or another (where is the money going to come from?).

Item #5: Insurance for high-risk patients. Insurance companies would now be unable to refuse individuals with pre-existing medical conditions or charge them substantially higher rates. In fact, under a new “national high-risk pool” their rates would be comparable to those of the average healthy citizen. Insurance for high-risk patients can only be paid for in one of two ways. Either the government subsidizes the “high-risk pool” with taxpayer dollars, or the insurance companies will have to charge higher premiums to the rest of us to compensate for the added cost. In both cases it adds higher costs to the American taxpayer yet again, and could even hurt small businesses further with higher premiums on healthy employees.

Item #6: Lifetime Limits. Insurance companies would not be allowed to cap the amount of lifetime benefits of any one person or cancel coverage on anyone, unless fraud is committed. Lifetime limits = Higher insurance premiums for the average person yet again, as well as businesses who cover their employees, as the insurance companies have to find a way to spread the cost of this new law around.

Item #7: New Taxes (Items 3-6 have to be funded by something, so get ready for this). Many long-standing tax credits and deductions would decline. Taxes on some benefits will increase. The House bill (which we haven’t discussed here) would add an additional 5.4% tax to individuals earning $500,000 per year or families earning $1,000,000 per year or more. The senate bill even adds a new 10% tax on the cost of indoor tanning services. New Taxes = More economic stagnation or decline.

So in review, the Senate would like the average American citizen to lose current tax credits and deductions, have an increased tax on their benefits, buy health insurance or incur a fine, and even tax their tanning habits in order to cover subsidies, expanded Medicaid, and possibly high-risk patients. It would also like every American business (with over 50 employees) to pay for employees health benefits (or pay fines). If you haven’t had time to swallow that gulp yet, you’ll still get an increase in your insurance premiums to help the insurance companies cover the cost of new patients with pre-existing conditions that they’re being forced to take on, and the new ban lifetime coverage limits (businesses would incur similar premium increases). All of these new costs will be generously added to you and businesses around the country during this current recession, which I’m sure will help stifle any economic growth we’ve been able to achieve. I haven’t even brought up the increased financial burden being thrust on the state governments by this bill, which will probably lead to increased state taxes of some kind (income taxes, sales taxes, tolls, etc.), as it is the holidays and I don’t wish to depress anyone. So if that’s the gift of health care reform you’ve been waiting for, I say “Merry Christmas, you got it!”. For the rest of us, don’t blame Santa, I have a feeling he doesn’t want any of the credit for this Yuletide treasure.

U.S. Senate

I was looking over some recent poll data this week, and was struck by a very odd pattern that I though was worthy of discussion. In the last 7 days alone I saw 5 polls that showed a disconnect between the views of American voters and the policies being pushed by our elected representatives. I thought I would outline these items here, and see if anyone can tell me who our “representatives” are actually representing.

Item #1: Religious displays being allowed on public lands and the celebration of religious holidays in public schools. ‘Tis the season,…unless your a government bureaucrat. Every news outlet lately seems to be reporting some story about a Fire Department being forced to take down their Christmas tree, or state employees being told that using the greeting “Merry Christmas” is a punishable offense, or a school being banned from singing Christmas carols in their holiday pageant. There was even one school that would not allow students to exchange gifts that had any connection to Santa Claus, Rudolph, christmas trees, candy canes, mistletoe, etc. and banned the use of wrapping paper that had a red and green color scheme (I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried). Most of these anti-holiday policies and bans are dished out by the elected officials of local municipalities (although State and Federal entities aren’t innocent of it), usually after they receive a complaint from a singular party, and also under the threat of a lawsuit. It’s good to know that our local officials will stand up for us when one misanthrope claims their offended (God forbid). Where do the American voters stand on this? Well, I am happy to report that a Rasmussen poll conducted this week shows that “76% of adults believe religious symbols like Christmas Nativity scenes, Hanukkah menorahs and Muslim crescents should be allowed on public land.” Only 13% disagreed. Even better, “Eighty-three percent (83%) believe public schools should celebrate religious holidays.” Only 14% Disagreed. (read the full Rasmussen report here). I won’t go into all the reasons that I feel the same way, but if you’d like my full opinion on this topic you can read my post “Melting Pot or Empty Pot?“. Why is it that the average American adult can read the statement “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”, as written in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and clearly see that no law prohibiting people from freely expressing their religion should be made, and that having religiously associated symbols (like Christmas Trees) displayed anywhere on public land, or displayed by a public employee does not constitute a law establishing a religion? Whereas our elected officials and legislators read this and somehow twist it into something that bans any mention of religious holidays in any place owned, operated, or even slightly funded by the government. Those poll numbers are pretty overwhelming, so I hope that our representatives get the message or get replaced.

Item #2: Health Care Reform. I won’t bore you with the details on this one either, as my views are clearly expressed in my articles, “Helath Care of Today vs. Health Care of Tomorrow” and “BS Detector: Urgency of Health Care Reform“. However I think it is worth noting that as of 12/14, “Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.” Only 40% support it, and that is the highest level of opposition found in the last six months of polling. Rasmussen also notes, “Perhaps more significantly, 46% now Strongly Oppose the plan, compared to 19% who Strongly Favor it.” (see the full Rasmussen report here). Doesn’t it seem odd that the more our Federal legislators push this reform, and the closer it gets to passing, the more we as a nation object to it? Shouldn’t the opposite dynamic be in place?

Item #3: A second stimulus package and bailout money for states. Just this week another 446.8 Billion dollar omnibus spending bill passed the senate, and all this spending has Americans heads spinning (read the full story from Politico here). As if that wasn’t bad enough, there has also been a lot of talk on capitol hill about a financial bailout of state and local governments, which seems like the equivalent of some financially irresponsible parents giving a credit card to their even more irresponsible children. Unfortunately, the children in this example probably got their spending habits from watching their parents, if you catch my drift. A Rasmussen poll conducted on 12/08 shows that “Fifty-eight percent (58%) oppose giving bailout money to financially troubled states.” Only 22% favor this initiative (read the full Rasmussen report here). “On top of that, 56% of Americans oppose the passage of another economic stimulus package this year.” Only 33% favor it, yet the parade of spending seemingly has no end.

Item #4: Free market economy. This one shouldn’t even be up for debate, as a free market economy is what this nation was founded on, but increased government regulation on businesses, the banning or over-taxation of particular products or services that the public desires, the creation of more and more public sector jobs at the expense of private sector jobs, government-run health care, and tax-funded government bailouts of private industry are just a few examples of items that have begun to undermine our free market system. However, “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 76% of voters now say a free market economy is better than one managed by the government. Only 10% prefer an economy managed by the government” (read the full Rasmussen report here). This really doesn’t come as a huge surprise to me, but the folks on Capitol Hill seem to be marching to a different drummer, and that drummer is playing a song called “Oh what a glorious day, when the free market becomes a little less free” (or something along those lines).

Item #5: The culmination of these factors. When you add together all four of the items above, what do you get? According to Rasmussen Reports, “For the second straight week, just 30% of U.S. voters say the country is heading in the right direction”. 65% believe it is headed in the wrong direction, and that’s the highest level that number has reached during all of 2009 (read the full Rasmussen report here). So why do our politicians continue down this track? Who are they truly representing? The only logical conclusion is that they’re not representing us, but representing themselves (or the special interest groups/high-powered organizations that fund their elections). Either that, or they think they are that much smarter than the people that elected them, and no what is best for us when we don’t. Would you rather be treated like an idiot, or have someone sell out your interests for personal gain?

So what can we do about it? Well let me assure you that our democracy is not dead yet, and we, as a people, still have the power to remove individuals from office if they don’t do the job we elected them to, and our weapon is a simple vote. Vote them right on out the door. I know it seems as though these corrupt politicians are in there for life, but hope is springing up around the nation, and we need to maintain and strengthen the momentum that has begun. If you don’t believe me, let me leave you with one last Rasmussen poll that I thought was telling this week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is the primary architect of the Senate health care reform bill and has been at the forefront of the health care reform debate since day one is up for re-election in 2010. Reid is seeking a fifth term, holds the prestigious “Majority Leader” status and has already served for 24 years as a Nevada Senator, so he’s a shoe-in, right? Not at all. Rasmussen has been polling him against 3 different possible Republican opponents, and no matter who they pit him against, he is losing (read the full Rasmussen report here). In each race he trails by 4-7 percentage points, with only 2-3% undecided. This shows a great deal of fortitude on the part of the people of Nevada, and an even greater sign of what’s to come nationwide in the 2010 midterm elections, because if his seat is at stake, every incumbent’s seat is at stake. It would sure be a poor time to let your voter registration lapse…

There is a historic United Nations Convention on Climate Change taking place right now in Copenhagen, Denmark. Many proposals on how to fix global warming are being discussed, but one very popular idea is for wealthier industrialized nations to transfer massive amounts of wealth to poorer nations (somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 Trillion) to help them deal with the “ravages” of climate change (read the full NY Times article here). The theory is that since industrialized nations contribute the most to pollution, and thus climate change, we should pay for our sins by giving trillions of dollars to poorer, less-developed countries in Africa, Latin America, etc. that will feel a stronger effect from the climate change we’ve caused. Sounds pretty fair to me, after all, if you cause the damage you should pay the price right? Actually, in this case, no.

The first thing we need come to grips with is the truth of this proposal. So often all the money our government spends seems distant, and we lose our personal connection to it. We see numbers like 100 Million, 1 Billion, 10 Trillion, and it almost seems like and endless well of funds that is unrelated to our daily lives. We must remember that every dollar they spend comes out of your paycheck and mine. You should always ask yourself if something that the government is spending your money on is justified. Should they have taken that hard earned money from you to pay for that item, or should they have let you keep it. So let’s apply that to this situation. Should the U.S. government take your money and give it to third-world countries, so that they can spend it on environmental initiatives? If your answer was no, your going to be upset, because in that same NY Times article I referenced earlier, President Obama said that the U.S. would pay “it’s fair share” and a White House statement referred to this monetary assistance as a “humanitarian imperative” and “an investment in our common security”. I urge you to remember this the next time your feel financially strapped. Look at you paycheck, see how much the Federal government is taking, and picture dump trucks full of money pulling up at the borders of countries like Bolivia, Nigeria, and Singapore, and dumping their loads (your dollars are in there somewhere). Maybe the driver of the truck will lean out and yell, “Enjoy going green” as he pulls away.

Let’s look past the fact that hard working Americans will be subsidising the “environmental makeovers” of some impoverished nations for a moment, and look at some of the other issues with this proposal. First, there is the “global warming and ravages of climate change” component, which is the necessary fact to justify our donation. This proposal places a “guilt trip” on all the wealthy and industrialized nations, saying that they have obviously caused the climate change which will ruin the conditions in many countries that did nothing to deserve it, and when you put it like that, you almost feel the need to whip out your check book and start writing. However their “you did the crime, now you must do the time” approach is a sham, because they neglected to mention that the crime has yet to occur. They want use to start shoveling billions of dollars per year to help them handle the “ravages” of climate change that will occur. There has been no evidence of any sea level rise worth noting, no property lost, no people hurt, and even worse, the average temperature around the globe has decreased since 1998, as CO2 levels have continued to climb (read the full story from The Australian here). These countries are selling use a case of snake oil to cure environmental woes that they have yet to experience. If these countries do eventually suffer any loses, and if these loses can be directly attributed to climate change, and if that climate change can be directly attributed to things done by the U.S., then we’ll talk.

Another big problem with this proposal is the economy. There is a lot of legislation floating around Washington that would put massive taxes on energy, strict laws on carbon emissions, and much higher standards on businesses to reduce their carbon footprint. All of these things cost money, and will lead to much higher energy costs, product costs, and taxes on the American people. It will also add one more expense to American businesses that can’t afford it, which will lead to job stagnancy, job loss, higher product costs, or certain businesses having to shut down altogether. Implementing these things at a time when our economy is so fragile can’t be a recipe for success. I’d have no problem with these moves if we were facing the worldwide catastrophe that many environmental groups would have you believe, after all being alive and paying more taxes or higher product costs sure beats being dead with all my money, but the science doesn’t support those dire conclusions. The Wall Street Journal wrote a piece back in 2008 that points out lots of great facts about the earth’s surface temperature only increasing 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit since the 70’s, Greenland having the same temperature today as it did as it did in the mid-50’s (don’t worry about its ice sheets melting), and lots of other great stuff (read the article here). There’s no denying that climate change exists. Records indicate that the earth was cooling from the 1930s-1960’s (when industrialized nations began pumping the most CO2 into the atmosphere), and definitely warmed from the 1970’s-1990’s, and since 1998 has cooled slightly again. The climate does change, but the only question that I don’t hear enough people asking is, “How do we know that climate change hasn’t always been occurring, with some periods warmer and some colder, and we’re just the first generation that’s had the technology to measure it?” Are we naive enough to think that because we can now measure and quantify a climate change, that it must be the first time in global history that it has happened, and to further that point, because it is the first time we must be the cause? There have been periods of time throughout history where the planet has been abnormally warm (such as the Medieval Warm Period, 800-1300 A.D.) and abnormally cold (such as the Little Ice Age, 16th-19th Century). These periods are historic fact and can be researched by anyone with a computer or local library, and they are facts that are not in dispute. We also know that the planetary civilization at that time could not have been a contributing factor to these climatic swings, as the population was not sufficient enough and the industrial technology was not advanced enough to add pollution of a significant scale.

So let’s say that you don’t agree with my first point about our tax dollars going to other nations, and let’s also say that my argument against the certainties of global warming didn’t change your mind, I’m going to surely get you with this last point. If you believe that our government should be spending billions of dollars to help fix the environment, why wouldn’t we spend that money right here at home? It’s would be a win-win situation. We know that smog clouds over Los Angeles are real, we know that overflowing landfills and dumps are a real threat in towns around the country, and just today a story came out that millions of Americans are drinking dirty tap water that doesn’t meet the standards of Safe Water Drinking Act (read the full story from CBS News here). This report showed that 20% of the water treatment systems in the U.S. have had violations in the last 5 years, and that these violations included “dangerous bacteria or illegal concentrations of toxic or radioactive substances” that may have gone out to as many as 49 million people. Now there’s an environmental problem we can all get behind. The other side of this is economical, for if we spend the money here on cleaning up our own environmental issues, instead of sending it to foreign countries, it will create tons of jobs and bolster the economy, which is something our government should be trying to do anyway. I told you, win-win. Our money improving our country, what a novel concept.

We are currently on the brink of a sort-of “health care revolution”, with the House and Senate inevitably passing some version of health care reform in the near future. If they can reconcile the two bills into one, President Obama won’t be able to grab a pen quick enough to sign it into law, and our health care system will change in significant ways. The question we all should be asking (and I’m sure many of us are) is, “Is this health care reform good for me and my family?”. I personally believe that health care reform is necessary, and creative solutions need to be implemented to drive down insurance costs and get affordable coverage available to more people. However, I am firmly against the current legislation that is being proposed for three main reasons.

Reason #1 (and clearly the most important reason): On principle. One of the main tenets of all the legislation that has been proposed is that it requires almost all Americans to purchase health insurance coverage of some kind, or be subject to a penalty (in most proposals the penalty is a tax penalty, but some fringe proposals even offered a provision for prison time). This means that the Government would be forcing us to purchase a product by law, which is a direct violation of my individual liberty (and is questionably a Constitutional violation). Their argument that if everyone purchases health insurance it will drive down costs and make it more available to everyone is a “sacrifice individual rights for the greater good” argument, and goes directly against the spirit of the founding fathers and the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is evidence enough that the founding fathers were deeply concerned with preserving individual rights at the cost of governmental power. I heard a ridiculous but apt analogy of this situation, and I find it more appropriate with each passing day. If the federal government passed a law tomorrow that required every U.S. citizen to purchase a gym membership, how would you react to that? What if you said “No, I don’t want a gym membership”, and they told you that it would be better for everybody because it would drive down the costs of gym memberships, provide more people with the ability to get gym memberships, and help make Americans healthier? Seems silly doesn’t it, but how far off is that? I’m being forced to purchase a product, so that other people can have that product, and if I choose to violate that law I will have more money taken from me, and that money will be used to help other people get that product. If they want to raise my taxes to start a new social program that pays for other people’s health  care, I won’t like it, but I can’t stop them. However, making a law that I have to buy a specific product goes against the principles that our country was founded on.

Reason #2: There’s no evidence that the assumptions made in the current health care reform legislation are accurate. The financial footing of these proposals is shaky at best, and relies on people making certain decisions. There is one piece of circular reasoning that I find particularly troubling. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Government would bring in 33 billion dollars over 10 years from people who pay the penalty for not purchasing health insurance, and this money will be used to support the reform (read the CBO estimates here). Why is this a problem? If this estimate is correct than it means that people are electing to pay a tax penalty and get nothing in return rather than paying for health insurance under the new plan. The only reason that people would do this is because health insurance was still too expensive, and it is more affordable for these people to just pay the tax penalty, which defeats the whole purpose of the reform, does it not? If health insurance does become more affordable, and everyone signs up for it, than no one pays the penalty, and the budget is now short 33 Billion dollars, either way the plan is flawed. I believe that an even worse issue will eventually arise as a result of this inequity. Another provision in the plan is that health insurers can no longer reject new patients based on pre-existing medical conditions. Once people realize this, it won’t take them long to put 2 and 2 together. They can go without health insurance and only pay the tax penalty, which would be significantly less expensive, and then if they do get sick, they can start purchasing health insurance at that time. They’ll save tons of money and still have access to coverage as soon as they need it. When this happens it will cause health care reform to completely backfire, because if people aren’t paying insurance premiums when they’re healthy, and sign up only when they’re sick it will bankrupt private insurance companies and drive premiums through the roof, and insurance companies won’t be able to stop it because the law won’t let them refuse anyone. The extra money generated from more people paying the tax penalty won’t be nearly enough to compensate for this dynamic. People will always put their personal interests before that of the population as a whole (regardless of what they say in public), and to assume otherwise is legislative suicide.

Reason #3: The Future. There are really only two kinds of people in this world. The kind of people that believe that this health care reform is a one-time thing, or an isolated piece of much needed legislation, and after it is passed that will be the end of it. Then there are the people who think that this first piece of health care reform is just the beginning, and that within 20-40 years time the government will be the only ones providing health insurance for all of us, better known as socialized medicine. I am the latter, and if I’m right I’m going to have a lot of allies in fighting such developments. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that only 27% of voters nationwide support a single payer health care system where the federal government provides health care for everyone (see the Rasmussen poll here). So why would I support a bill that has the precursors for such a system, like a publicly run government health care option, or forced purchase of health insurance by the government, or an increase in some people’s taxes to help pay for other people’s insurance (which would happen to all of us under socialized health care). If we don’t let them take the first steps, they’ll never reach the end of the road.

The U.S. House expenditures for last quarter were released today, and while they were accompanied by the usual sound of a toilet flushing away our tax dollars, there were two surprises. Minnesota Representative Tim Walz and Alabama Representative Spencer Bachus both returned $2,500 that had gone unspent in their budgets to the government, in an effort to help reduce the deficit (read the story from politico.com here). Considering that the national deficit is hovering around 12 trillion, giving back $5,000 won’t do much, but at a time when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spends $2,740 on bottled water, and House Minority Leader John Boehner averages $273.52 per day on catering services, it’s an excellent symbolic gesture. Considering how much money the various House offices blow through, these two Reps. could have spent that excess on anything and it never would’ve been missed, but both of them are outspoken Fiscal Conservatives (one a Democrat and one a Republican), and they’re willing to put their money where their mouth is. That’s something that is often lacking amongst today’s politicians and that is definitely worthy of a “Roar of Approval”.

Wait,…there’s more. Back in 2008 Rep. Walz took a stand against Congressional pay raises, saying that if one was voted through he would refuse it and give the money back to help balance the budget (read the story from The Minnesota Independent). Rep. Bachus has always refused to take cost-of-living increases in the middle of a Congressional term. Could we have two politicians on our hands that actually practice what they preach, and have the best interests of their constituents at heart, rather than their own pocket books (or at the very least, their stylish man-purses)? If that is the case, I’ve got to say it caught me off-guard. I’ve spent too many days reading story after story about political corruption and fraudulent tax spending practices, and I think I’ve grown cynical. It crept over me slowly, like rust growing on some forgotten Studebaker parked in a cornfield somewhere. It wasn’t intentional, but it can effect my opinion, and it’s nice to have these two Representatives snap me out of it with their actions. Thanks guys.

If you’d like to tell Rep. Walz or Rep. Bachus what you think about their decisions, you can contact them by clicking their name.