Here's Rep. Barney Frank letting the cat out of the bag while schooling a single payer supporter. How many Democrats have to admit that the "public option" is a trojan horse for single payer before the MSM calls them on it? We need to educate ourselves and each other about this effort for socialized medicine before it's too late.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Health care chart
This is the chart that House Democrats don't want you to see. They have prevented House Republicans from sending a mailer to their constituents that contains an image of the chart or even uses the words "government health care". The only approved terminology is "public option". This abuse of power is shameful but instructive, the Democrats are terrified of the public learning what health care in America will look like if they get their way.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Middle class tax hike
From the President's presser last night.
"I don't want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle-class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy. And so if I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle-class families, I'm going to be opposed to that ..."
Wait a minute, I thought the middle class wasn't going to be taxed at all, the rich were going to pay for everything. We have another "spread the wealth" moment, I hope the American people are paying more attention now than they did last fall.
"I don't want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle-class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy. And so if I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle-class families, I'm going to be opposed to that ..."
Wait a minute, I thought the middle class wasn't going to be taxed at all, the rich were going to pay for everything. We have another "spread the wealth" moment, I hope the American people are paying more attention now than they did last fall.
Taxpayer funded abortion
From House Minority leader John Boehner:
In his campaign for the presidency, President Obama said health-care legislation should include expanded access to abortion. He hasn't said much on the matter since taking office last January. But now, over the objections of some in his own party, President Obama is demanding that Congress pass health-care legislation before August, and the House is slated to vote next week on a bill that will fulfill the president’s vow if signed into law.The Obama administration contends the urgent deadline is necessitated by the suffering of American families who have waited too long for Congress to act to address the high cost of health care. But according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill the president supports won't lower health-care costs; it will increase them. And as the veteran political operatives in the Obama White House well know, the frantic timetable conveniently leaves precious little time for the American people to know what's actually in the bill.The legislation's abortion-related language stands as Exhibit A. How many Americans currently realize the House bill contains provisions that will result in federally mandated coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all of America's health plans?Fact: The bill as currently written will allow the federal government to classify abortion as an "essential benefit" — a health-care right that would be guaranteed to all Americans. This will make it illegal for health-care providers nationwide — even Catholic and religious-based hospitals with missions that reflect a fundamental moral objection to the killing of the unborn — to provide anything less than abortion on demand for anyone who seeks it. As a result, the bill will repeal laws in many states that currently require commonsense limitations on abortion-on-demand, such as mandatory parental notification and waiting periods.Fact: The bill would also establish a taxpayer-funded "public" health-care plan to "compete" with private-sector plans. This public plan, like all plans, will be required to classify abortion as an "essential benefit," forcing American citizens to directly subsidize abortion-on-demand with their tax dollars. And in addition to the public plan, individuals with incomes of up to 400% of the poverty level will receive subsidies to buy insurance to pay for abortion-on-demand.Reps. Eric Cantor (R. Va.), Sam Johnson (R., Texas), and Mark Souder (R., Ind.) offered amendments this month in three different House committees to strike the provisions from the Democratic bill that force American taxpayers to subsidize abortion. All three amendments, sadly, were defeated by the Democratic majority in committee. And it remains to be seen whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who champions the House bill and its abortion-related provisions, will allow such an amendment to be considered and debated on the House floor.Indeed, Congress may vote on this issue and send a bill to the president before most Americans even have a chance to weigh in on it. And once the bill reaches his desk, there's little doubt that the president will sign it.Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, was asked July 19 whether the president would pledge that "no taxpayer money will go to pay for abortions" under the health-care bill he signs.“I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now," Mr. Orszag said. "It’s obviously a controversial issue, and it’s one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”Controversial, indeed. And given its controversial nature, it deserves a full and open public debate — the sort of debate that is impossible when major bills are rammed through Congress based on politically driven timetables.If a health-care bill doesn't lower costs for middle-class families, but does require them to subsidize abortion-on-demand with their hard-earned tax dollars, one has to ask a fundamental question: For whom was this bill actually written? Was it written for the millions of Americans who were promised a health-care bill that lowers costs? Or is it really for the radical special-interest and lobbying groups that invested millions to elect a cooperative president and Congress?Health care is too important to get wrong. Too much is at stake. For the sake of American families struggling with health-care costs — most of whom don’t want their hard-earned money being used by the federal government to subsidize abortion — President Obama should scrap the current health-care bill, and work in a bipartisan way for true reforms.
Is it any wonder that President Obama insists that Congress pass this bill before they go home for a month?
In his campaign for the presidency, President Obama said health-care legislation should include expanded access to abortion. He hasn't said much on the matter since taking office last January. But now, over the objections of some in his own party, President Obama is demanding that Congress pass health-care legislation before August, and the House is slated to vote next week on a bill that will fulfill the president’s vow if signed into law.The Obama administration contends the urgent deadline is necessitated by the suffering of American families who have waited too long for Congress to act to address the high cost of health care. But according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill the president supports won't lower health-care costs; it will increase them. And as the veteran political operatives in the Obama White House well know, the frantic timetable conveniently leaves precious little time for the American people to know what's actually in the bill.The legislation's abortion-related language stands as Exhibit A. How many Americans currently realize the House bill contains provisions that will result in federally mandated coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all of America's health plans?Fact: The bill as currently written will allow the federal government to classify abortion as an "essential benefit" — a health-care right that would be guaranteed to all Americans. This will make it illegal for health-care providers nationwide — even Catholic and religious-based hospitals with missions that reflect a fundamental moral objection to the killing of the unborn — to provide anything less than abortion on demand for anyone who seeks it. As a result, the bill will repeal laws in many states that currently require commonsense limitations on abortion-on-demand, such as mandatory parental notification and waiting periods.Fact: The bill would also establish a taxpayer-funded "public" health-care plan to "compete" with private-sector plans. This public plan, like all plans, will be required to classify abortion as an "essential benefit," forcing American citizens to directly subsidize abortion-on-demand with their tax dollars. And in addition to the public plan, individuals with incomes of up to 400% of the poverty level will receive subsidies to buy insurance to pay for abortion-on-demand.Reps. Eric Cantor (R. Va.), Sam Johnson (R., Texas), and Mark Souder (R., Ind.) offered amendments this month in three different House committees to strike the provisions from the Democratic bill that force American taxpayers to subsidize abortion. All three amendments, sadly, were defeated by the Democratic majority in committee. And it remains to be seen whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who champions the House bill and its abortion-related provisions, will allow such an amendment to be considered and debated on the House floor.Indeed, Congress may vote on this issue and send a bill to the president before most Americans even have a chance to weigh in on it. And once the bill reaches his desk, there's little doubt that the president will sign it.Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, was asked July 19 whether the president would pledge that "no taxpayer money will go to pay for abortions" under the health-care bill he signs.“I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now," Mr. Orszag said. "It’s obviously a controversial issue, and it’s one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”Controversial, indeed. And given its controversial nature, it deserves a full and open public debate — the sort of debate that is impossible when major bills are rammed through Congress based on politically driven timetables.If a health-care bill doesn't lower costs for middle-class families, but does require them to subsidize abortion-on-demand with their hard-earned tax dollars, one has to ask a fundamental question: For whom was this bill actually written? Was it written for the millions of Americans who were promised a health-care bill that lowers costs? Or is it really for the radical special-interest and lobbying groups that invested millions to elect a cooperative president and Congress?Health care is too important to get wrong. Too much is at stake. For the sake of American families struggling with health-care costs — most of whom don’t want their hard-earned money being used by the federal government to subsidize abortion — President Obama should scrap the current health-care bill, and work in a bipartisan way for true reforms.
Is it any wonder that President Obama insists that Congress pass this bill before they go home for a month?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The President's neverending show
If you have the stomach to watch the presidents' umpteenth press conference tonight keep this fact in mind. The Lewin Group has done a study on the effects the "public option" that the president wants enacted and they determine that 118 million Americans will lose their private health insurance and will be shunted onto the government plan. When the president promises, which I'm sure he will tonight that if you like your plan nothing changes, he's lying. It's not that private plans can't contain costs. The Pacific Research Group clocks Medicare's costs increasing 34% and Medicaid's 35% more than private insurance since 1970 on a per patient basis. The public plan will drive private plans from the market because it can run huge deficits and the politicians' will never let it fail. The president is on record as an advocate of a single payer health plan like Canada's or Britain's. The "public option" is his way of getting us there. Yes, the heath care system needs reform, but let's actually give a free market approach a shot before we go down the path of rationing and dependence.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
House Health Bill
From the folks at the Wall Street Journal
Small Business Faces Big Bite
House Health Bill Penalizes All but Tiniest Employers for Not Providing Insurance
By JANET ADAMY and LAURA MECKLER
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled sweeping health-care legislation that would hit all but the smallest businesses with a penalty equal to 8% of payroll if they fail to provide health insurance to workers.
The House bill, which also would impose new taxes on the wealthy estimated to bring in more than $544 billion over a decade, came as lawmakers in the Senate raced against a self-imposed deadline of this week to introduce a bill in time for action this summer.
Senators face a tougher battle because they are striving for a bipartisan bill. Key senators are weighing a combination of several more-modest fund-raising provisions, including some new fees on health-care industries.
Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage.
The relatively low thresholds for penalties triggered the sharpest criticism yet from employer groups, who said the burden on small business is too high and doesn't do enough to help them expand insurance coverage.
"This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement," said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. "Small business doesn't want any of those things."
According to 2006 data from the federation, businesses with between five and nine workers, representing about one million employers, had an average payroll of around $375,000 a year. A report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only about half of firms with three to nine workers offered health benefits in 2008.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled the measure on Tuesday, praising it as a historic step toward insuring all Americans that has eluded lawmakers for decades. "This bill is a starting point and a path to success to lower costs to consumers and businesses," the California Democrat said.
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday calculated the cost of the House's plan to expand insurance coverage at $1.04 trillion over 10 years, and predicted the measure would eventually lead 97% of legal American residents to have insurance. That's in line with President Barack Obama's desired budget for a health overhaul and lawmakers' pledges for expanding coverage.
The estimate doesn't factor in the plan to pay for the bill, including the new tax on wealthy Americans, or certain changes to Medicare and Medicaid, all of which could affect the final price tag.
The House bill would place new taxes on the wealthiest people to help expand insurance coverage to the nation's 46 million uninsured people. The legislation calls for a 5.4% surtax on those with annual gross incomes exceeding $1 million.
Households with annual income between $500,000 a year and $1 million would be hit with a 1.5% surtax, and those earning between $350,000 and $500,000 would face a 1% surtax. Those rates could eventually increase to 3% and 2%, respectively, if the government doesn't achieve certain health-cost savings.
The 1,018-page initiative contains several components pushed by liberal Democrats that were long expected to be part of House legislation, but which face considerable opposition in the Senate. Most notably, the House bill creates a new public health-insurance plan aimed at individuals and small businesses that otherwise can't get affordable coverage.
The House measure would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals who are sick, while also requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty equal to about 2.5% of their gross income. It would provide families earning up to $88,000 a year with subsidies to help them buy coverage. And it would expand health-insurance coverage through the Medicaid federal-state insurance program for the poor.
The Senate legislation is also expected to include mandates on insurers to provide coverage and individuals to carry it, although the details may differ. The bigger differences will come on the financing side, where many senators are cautious about introducing major new taxes on the wealthy to pay for health care.
The White House is pushing for action before the August recess in both houses of Congress to give lawmakers time to reconcile their two versions, pass that compromise through the House and the Senate and send Mr. Obama a final bill by autumn. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee could approve its health overhaul bill as soon as Wednesday.
That will get merged with a bill in the Senate Finance Committee, where lawmakers are trying to craft a bipartisan measure. Chairman Max Baucus on Tuesday was pitching his colleagues on a plan to finance the bill through a combination of more-modest tax increases. He is trying to fill a hole of about $320 billion over 10 years, after Democrats objected to a provision to tax upper-end employee health benefits.
The fresh package included a new fee on pharmaceuticals and other health-care industries, and stiffer corporate-reporting measures aimed at collecting a greater share of corporate taxes owed each year, two Senate aides said.
Under the first proposal, health industries including drug makers and insurers would be charged an assessment, with individual companies' fees based on their market share. It's not clear how large the total assessment would be.
The proposal also seeks to raise $75 billion to $100 billion over 10 years by giving states an incentive to issue bonds that would help offset the expanded federal share of Medicaid.
"The goal here is a bunch of smaller, less controversial items that can add up," one official said.
The package may still include a modified version of the plan to tax high-end employer-provided health insurance, though on a smaller scale, aides said.
Mr. Baucus spent much of the day meeting one-on-one with members of his committee, and he put on an optimistic face. "We're going to pass very significant health reform this year," the Montana Democrat said.
But the pre-recess deadline appeared in danger as Republicans expressed concern that the process is moving too quickly.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, a key Republican whom Mr. Baucus is trying to win over, said Tuesday that the legislation is far too complex to rush and that she saw little chance of moving a bill through the Senate before the August break.
"I frankly couldn't imagine at this point bringing it to the floor and completing our deliberations...before the August recess," the Maine senator said. She said "arbitrary, artificial time frames really are not realistic given the magnitude of the task we are assigned to do."
In addition to health care, the White House also hopes for action on energy and financial-sector regulation, both of which would consume time this fall.
At a White House meeting with top Democratic leaders on Monday, Mr. Obama pushed Mr. Baucus to produce legislation by Thursday.
Senators are now talking openly of keeping the chamber in session an extra week, though some say that is simply a tactic to discourage delay by senators who have plans for vacations, congressional trips and hometown activities.
A further complication is that if it looks as if the Senate can't or won't act this summer, many House Democrats are likely to hesitate about voting on a contentious issue -- including raising taxes -- for something that might never become law.
Small Business Faces Big Bite
House Health Bill Penalizes All but Tiniest Employers for Not Providing Insurance
By JANET ADAMY and LAURA MECKLER
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled sweeping health-care legislation that would hit all but the smallest businesses with a penalty equal to 8% of payroll if they fail to provide health insurance to workers.
The House bill, which also would impose new taxes on the wealthy estimated to bring in more than $544 billion over a decade, came as lawmakers in the Senate raced against a self-imposed deadline of this week to introduce a bill in time for action this summer.
Senators face a tougher battle because they are striving for a bipartisan bill. Key senators are weighing a combination of several more-modest fund-raising provisions, including some new fees on health-care industries.
Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage.
The relatively low thresholds for penalties triggered the sharpest criticism yet from employer groups, who said the burden on small business is too high and doesn't do enough to help them expand insurance coverage.
"This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement," said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. "Small business doesn't want any of those things."
According to 2006 data from the federation, businesses with between five and nine workers, representing about one million employers, had an average payroll of around $375,000 a year. A report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only about half of firms with three to nine workers offered health benefits in 2008.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled the measure on Tuesday, praising it as a historic step toward insuring all Americans that has eluded lawmakers for decades. "This bill is a starting point and a path to success to lower costs to consumers and businesses," the California Democrat said.
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday calculated the cost of the House's plan to expand insurance coverage at $1.04 trillion over 10 years, and predicted the measure would eventually lead 97% of legal American residents to have insurance. That's in line with President Barack Obama's desired budget for a health overhaul and lawmakers' pledges for expanding coverage.
The estimate doesn't factor in the plan to pay for the bill, including the new tax on wealthy Americans, or certain changes to Medicare and Medicaid, all of which could affect the final price tag.
The House bill would place new taxes on the wealthiest people to help expand insurance coverage to the nation's 46 million uninsured people. The legislation calls for a 5.4% surtax on those with annual gross incomes exceeding $1 million.
Households with annual income between $500,000 a year and $1 million would be hit with a 1.5% surtax, and those earning between $350,000 and $500,000 would face a 1% surtax. Those rates could eventually increase to 3% and 2%, respectively, if the government doesn't achieve certain health-cost savings.
The 1,018-page initiative contains several components pushed by liberal Democrats that were long expected to be part of House legislation, but which face considerable opposition in the Senate. Most notably, the House bill creates a new public health-insurance plan aimed at individuals and small businesses that otherwise can't get affordable coverage.
The House measure would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals who are sick, while also requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty equal to about 2.5% of their gross income. It would provide families earning up to $88,000 a year with subsidies to help them buy coverage. And it would expand health-insurance coverage through the Medicaid federal-state insurance program for the poor.
The Senate legislation is also expected to include mandates on insurers to provide coverage and individuals to carry it, although the details may differ. The bigger differences will come on the financing side, where many senators are cautious about introducing major new taxes on the wealthy to pay for health care.
The White House is pushing for action before the August recess in both houses of Congress to give lawmakers time to reconcile their two versions, pass that compromise through the House and the Senate and send Mr. Obama a final bill by autumn. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee could approve its health overhaul bill as soon as Wednesday.
That will get merged with a bill in the Senate Finance Committee, where lawmakers are trying to craft a bipartisan measure. Chairman Max Baucus on Tuesday was pitching his colleagues on a plan to finance the bill through a combination of more-modest tax increases. He is trying to fill a hole of about $320 billion over 10 years, after Democrats objected to a provision to tax upper-end employee health benefits.
The fresh package included a new fee on pharmaceuticals and other health-care industries, and stiffer corporate-reporting measures aimed at collecting a greater share of corporate taxes owed each year, two Senate aides said.
Under the first proposal, health industries including drug makers and insurers would be charged an assessment, with individual companies' fees based on their market share. It's not clear how large the total assessment would be.
The proposal also seeks to raise $75 billion to $100 billion over 10 years by giving states an incentive to issue bonds that would help offset the expanded federal share of Medicaid.
"The goal here is a bunch of smaller, less controversial items that can add up," one official said.
The package may still include a modified version of the plan to tax high-end employer-provided health insurance, though on a smaller scale, aides said.
Mr. Baucus spent much of the day meeting one-on-one with members of his committee, and he put on an optimistic face. "We're going to pass very significant health reform this year," the Montana Democrat said.
But the pre-recess deadline appeared in danger as Republicans expressed concern that the process is moving too quickly.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, a key Republican whom Mr. Baucus is trying to win over, said Tuesday that the legislation is far too complex to rush and that she saw little chance of moving a bill through the Senate before the August break.
"I frankly couldn't imagine at this point bringing it to the floor and completing our deliberations...before the August recess," the Maine senator said. She said "arbitrary, artificial time frames really are not realistic given the magnitude of the task we are assigned to do."
In addition to health care, the White House also hopes for action on energy and financial-sector regulation, both of which would consume time this fall.
At a White House meeting with top Democratic leaders on Monday, Mr. Obama pushed Mr. Baucus to produce legislation by Thursday.
Senators are now talking openly of keeping the chamber in session an extra week, though some say that is simply a tactic to discourage delay by senators who have plans for vacations, congressional trips and hometown activities.
A further complication is that if it looks as if the Senate can't or won't act this summer, many House Democrats are likely to hesitate about voting on a contentious issue -- including raising taxes -- for something that might never become law.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Fun Fact
The more you hear about the details of the cap and trade bill that passed the House the more there is to complain about. The latest nugget has to do with the mandated retro-fits of private homes. According to Jimmie Bise of the American Issues Project
"Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live. What that's saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill."
Talk about intrusive government. You could wind up with a bill for thousands of dollars just to change who pays the gas bill. Not to worry though, because after you pay for the changes up front, you can apply to have the government reimburse you for no more than half the cost. I'm sure the government will get a check to you right away. Although with the massive debts this administration is running up don't be surprised to get an IOU. That's how California is paying its bills.
"Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live. What that's saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill."
Talk about intrusive government. You could wind up with a bill for thousands of dollars just to change who pays the gas bill. Not to worry though, because after you pay for the changes up front, you can apply to have the government reimburse you for no more than half the cost. I'm sure the government will get a check to you right away. Although with the massive debts this administration is running up don't be surprised to get an IOU. That's how California is paying its bills.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Health care
The Washington Post has provided a chart of the proposals floating around D.C. and what they mean for you. (click to enlarge). Because this is the same Washington Post that was looking to sell lobbyists' access to members of the Obama administration for $25,000 and up, it's no surprise that they find more benefits than costs to nationalizing health care. For example, while President Obama has been amazingly forthright that his "public option" will require that health care will be rationed, I can't seem to find that as a cost in the chart. They do beat the administration in honesty points for pointing out that to pay for his plan President Obama is going to need to tax employer provided health benefits. During the late presidential campaign, candidate Obama ran 44 million in negative ads against John McCain on that very issue. If the President gets his way the vast majority of Americans will be paying more in taxes and waiting longer for medical care. America can't afford socialized medicine, it's just another boondoggle in the progressives' effort to make the public dependent on the government.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Extreme arrogance
As if the residents of MA needed another example of what one party rule means, Rep. Barney Frank is happy to provide one. Being a statist of the first rank, the good congressman has found TARP to be a useful tool to transform America to fit his ideology. His latest scheme to spend the taxpayers' hard earned money is his "TARP for Main Street Act of 2009".
Looking back, TARP has been the biggest mistake of the Bush presidency. It has enabled the Democrats to take over Chrysler and GM to benefit their allies, the United Auto Workers union and now it is being used as a piggy bank for pet causes. As designed, the U.S. government bought preferred stock in troubled banks to keep them afloat. In return, those banks would pay the U.S. Treasury dividends and eventually repay principle. These dividend payments, according to the act " shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for the reduction of the public debt". At this point, the U.S. treasury has received $6.2 billion in dividend payments. Enter Barney Frank. Instead of using the money, as designed, he wants to spend it on pet projects:
1 billion for a low income rental housing trust fund
1.5 billion for a neighborhood stabilization fund
Both of these projects will most likely benefit ACORN, the Democratic allied pressure group being investigated for vote fraud by several states. The U.S. Congress was going to look into these allegations, but John Conyers (D, MI) said the "powers that be" pressured him to drop his investigation.
2 billion to subsidize those with delinquent mortgages.
2 billion for muti-family properties in default or foreclosure.
The first priority of anyone in government should be to get the country's fiscal crisis in order. The government is swamped with debt, and any money it receives from the troubled institutions it bailed out should be used as promised, to help pay down the debt.
Looking back, TARP has been the biggest mistake of the Bush presidency. It has enabled the Democrats to take over Chrysler and GM to benefit their allies, the United Auto Workers union and now it is being used as a piggy bank for pet causes. As designed, the U.S. government bought preferred stock in troubled banks to keep them afloat. In return, those banks would pay the U.S. Treasury dividends and eventually repay principle. These dividend payments, according to the act " shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for the reduction of the public debt". At this point, the U.S. treasury has received $6.2 billion in dividend payments. Enter Barney Frank. Instead of using the money, as designed, he wants to spend it on pet projects:
1 billion for a low income rental housing trust fund
1.5 billion for a neighborhood stabilization fund
Both of these projects will most likely benefit ACORN, the Democratic allied pressure group being investigated for vote fraud by several states. The U.S. Congress was going to look into these allegations, but John Conyers (D, MI) said the "powers that be" pressured him to drop his investigation.
2 billion to subsidize those with delinquent mortgages.
2 billion for muti-family properties in default or foreclosure.
The first priority of anyone in government should be to get the country's fiscal crisis in order. The government is swamped with debt, and any money it receives from the troubled institutions it bailed out should be used as promised, to help pay down the debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
