The Baucus bill

Again from Heritage."This Morning Bell is the third in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.
The scariest part about yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee vote passing its version of Obamacare, is not what is in their bill (to the extent that it even exists), but that the Finance Committee bill promises to be the high water mark for “bipartisanship” in health care reform.
Now all of the other bills will be merged together behind the closed doors. All the bills are fundamentally flawed and will only get worse as the leaders in the House and Senate have to commit to actual details.
COST — All the proposals carry a hefty price tag. The Finance bill estimates start at $829 billion. Preliminary estimates of the House Tri-Committee bill put the price tag over $1 Trillion and adding another $245 billion to the deficit. Preliminary estimates of the HELP Committee bill would add $598 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. And the outlook for the following ten years looks far far worse.EMPLOYER MANDATE - More spending means more taxes. All the proposals include new taxes on employers. Taxes on employers will ultimately result in lower wages, fewer jobs, and slower economic growth. According to The Heritage Foundation, the mandates, like those in the House bill, could cost businesses up to $49 billion a year, 10.2 million workers will be at risk of slower wage growth and cuts in other benefits, and as many as 9 million low-wage and part-time workers will lose their employer-based health insurance.PUBLIC PLAN - All the proposals include the creation of a new government health plan. The Finance proposal calls it a co-op while the House Tri-Committee bill and the Senate HELP Committee all call it a new public plan. Despite what activists on the left claim, a government run health insurance “option” will not be on a level playing field with other private options. The playing field will be skewed to push millions of Americans out of their current private health insurance and into the government run plan.INDIVIDUAL MANDATE - All the proposals force every Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, some even threatening jail time if they do not comply. Such a mandate is a massive tax increase on individuals and families whose health insurance does not meet the new federally determined standards. This means that Congress will, for the first time in U.S. history, force Americans to buy federally designed packages of health benefits, even if they do not want or need those benefits.MEDICAID EXPANSION - Hidden in all the proposals is a massive expansion of the Medicaid program. The result is millions more Americans would be dependent on this growing entitlement program. This means more costs to taxpayers, less flexibility for the states, and worsening markets for the privately insured.MEDICARE CUTS - All the proposals depend heavily on billions in Medicare cuts to pay for their versions of Obamacare. Traditionally, such cuts rarely come to fruition. Special interests lobby to stop any real cuts from occurring after the bill is passed. And some so-called fraud, waste and abuse cuts, like those to the Medicare Advantage, will put millions of seniors’ benefits at risk.Do high costs, government expansion, huge tax increases, major unfunded expansions in Medicaid and major cuts to Medicare sound like a recipe for success? It’s all downhill from here."
Senator Snowe is a disgrace.Did you catch that part about sending you to jail if you don't purchase an insurance plan that the government deems worthy? Does anyone believe that she won't cave and vote for whatever bill comes out of the Senate? I just can't figure out why this woman identifies as a Republican. She voted for the stimulus bill and is now on record as supporting nationalized healthcare. While she seems to be a lovely woman, she needs to be challenged by a fiscally conservative republican in a primary. When that happens I won't be the least bit surprised if she follows her friend Turncoat Arlen into the warm embrace of the democratic caucus.

signage as stimulus

Some States Forgo Signs on Stimulus
By MICHAEL COOPER
"The Great Depression had its red, white and blue “U.S.A. Work Program” signs and the ubiquitous “We Do Our Part” blue eagle emblems, which can still be seen in the credits of films of the era. This recession has green highway signs telling drivers when construction work was paid for by the stimulus program — but not in Georgia, which just became the latest of at least half a dozen states to forgo the signs as a waste of money.
The signs, which proclaim “Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” over the red, white, blue and green logo of the stimulus, cost an average of $1,200 apiece in Georgia, said David Spear, the press secretary for the Georgia Department of Transportation. With the state putting up two signs at each project and 119 construction contracts awarded through September, the cost of the signs was adding up. The sign issue became a lightning rod for critics of the stimulus, and many of them complained to the department about their cost.
“The more we reflected on it, the more we realized they were absolutely right: it’s not the best use of the money,” said Mr. Spear, who added that the decision would save tens of thousands of dollars that could be spent on more construction work.
The use of signs for stimulus projects was strongly encouraged by the Federal Highway Administration but not required.
“We think the signs promote transparency and accountability — so taxpayers can know where their money is being spent and on what,” said Jill Zuckman, the Department of Transportation’s director for public affairs. “But the important thing is that the projects be sound, well run and job creating.”
The sign question has taken on partisan overtones. Some Republicans say the signs are essentially publicly financed advertisements for one of the Obama administration’s signature programs.
“These signs are simply for political self-interest, and it’s high time we stop using stimulus dollars to fund them, and instead use these dollars for their intended purpose of creating economic activity,” Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, a Republican who voted against the stimulus package, said in a statement last month. He tried — and failed — to prohibit the use of the signs.
At the local level, though, the issue seems to be more about red ink than red states. Georgia, which made the decision this month to stop buying the signs, is led by Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican. Texas, another largely Republican state, also banned the signs. But Virginia, which decided from the beginning not to use any of its stimulus money on signs, is led by Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Florida, whose Republican governor, Charlie Crist, broke ranks with his party to support the stimulus, decided not to use the signs. And New York, a largely Democratic state, stopped requiring them this summer after it was embarrassed by reports that contractors were asking for more than $4,000 for the largest signs."

If only Governor Patrick would follow the example set by these governors. At 2 signs per construction project, that's at least $2,400 wasted on every road project. While that amount of money isn't even a rounding number for Congress, for the average American it's still a lot of money. Since it's our money we should expect that Congress, the president and Governor Patrick spend it wisely.

Our collapsing currency

Dollar loses reserve status to yen & euro
By PAUL THARP
Last Updated: 3:16 AM, October 13, 2009
Posted: 1:44 AM, October 13, 2009
Ben Bernanke's dollar crisis went into a wider mode yesterday as the greenback was shockingly upstaged by the euro and yen, both of which can lay claim to the world title as the currency favored by central banks as their reserve currency.
Over the last three months, banks put 63 percent of their new cash into euros and yen -- not the greenbacks -- a nearly complete reversal of the dollar's onetime dominance for reserves, according to Barclays Capital. The dollar's share of new cash in the central banks was down to 37 percent -- compared with two-thirds a decade ago.
Currently, dollars account for about 62 percent of the currency reserve at central banks -- the lowest on record, said the International Monetary Fund.
Bernanke could go down in economic history as the man who killed the greenback on the operating table.
After printing up trillions of new dollars and new bonds to stimulate the US economy, the Federal Reserve chief is now boxed into a corner battling two separate monsters that could devour the economy -- ravenous inflation on one hand, and a perilous recession on the other.
"He's in a crisis worse than the meltdown ever was," said Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. "I fear that he could be the Fed chairman who brought down the whole thing."
Investors and central banks are snubbing dollars because the greenback is kept too weak by zero interest rates and a flood of greenbacks in the global economy.
They grumble that they've loaned the US record amounts to cover its mounting debt, but are getting paid back by a currency that's worth 10 percent less in the past three months alone. In a decade, it's down nearly one-third.
Yesterday, the dollar had a mixed performance, falling slightly against the British pound to $1.5801 from $1.5846 Friday, but rising against the euro to $1.4779 from $1.4709 and against the yen to 89.85 yen from 89.78.
Economists believe the market rebellion against the dollar will spread until Bernanke starts raising interest rates from around zero to the high single digits, and pulls back the flood of currency spewed from US printing presses.
"That's a cure, but it's also going to stifle any US economic growth," said Schiff. "The economy is addicted to the cheap interest and liquidity."
Economists warn that a jump in rates will clobber stocks and cripple the already stalled housing market.
"Bernanke's other choice is to keep rates at zero, print even more money and sell more debt, but we'll see triple-digit inflation that could collapse the economy as we know it.
"The stimulus is what's toxic -- we're poisoning ourselves and the global economy with it."

If only the MSM were actually interested in reporting the news and not covering President Obama's behind. Oil closed above 75 dollars a barrel yesterday, and it's not because the world economy is booming again. This administration is bankrupting our great country and the world has taken notice. As the dollar continues to decline and the price of oil continues to increase it is going to be a long, cold, expensive winter for New Englanders'.

What health care reform means for the deficit

The second installment from Heritage:
"This Morning Bell is the second in a five-part week-long series (read Monday’s on out-of-pocket costs) on how Obamacare will affect you.
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.” President Barack Obama promised this to the American people in his health care address before a Joint Session of Congress on September 9th. Problem is, no one believes him.The Congressional Budget Office has issued reports on the Senate Health Committee bill (HELP), the House Tri-Committee Bill (HR 3200), and the Senate Finance Committee bill (Baucus bill). According to the CBO, the HELP bill would add $600 billion to the deficit in just the first ten years, HR 3200 would add $239 billion to the deficit in just the first ten years, and the Baucus bill claims to reduce the deficit by $81 billion.But nobody believes that the Baucus bill will accomplish what it claims to do. As the Washington Post reported:
The cost difference stems from the fact that the House measure is honest enough to include the full 10-year cost of the so-called “doc fix” — $245 billion to reverse scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to physicians — although not fiscally responsible enough to pay for it. The Senate just patches the problem for one year and pretends that doctors take a 25 percent cut in reimbursements the following year and then stay at that low level forever. No one believes that will happen, so the money is going to have to be scrounged up later or else add more to the deficit.
The Washington Post is right: claims that the Baucus bill reduces the deficit are a complete fraud since there is simply no way Congress is going to cut doctor pay by 25% in one year. But all of these bills are deeply dishonest about their true costs in a more fundamental way.Look at these charts on spending levels in the HR 3200 and the Baucus bill over time. Notice how in both bills the increased revenues (a.k.a. tax hikes) take place immediately but the increased spending doesn’t really ramp up until 2013. In other words, in order to game the CBO scoring system (explained by former CBO Director Donald Marron here), Democrats have packed ten years of taxing, but only six years of spending, into the CBO’s ten-year budgeting window.So what happens to the deficit in those years after the CBO budget window? Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), a member of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition explains: “Every year, you lose ground. It’s likely after 10 years, we fall off a cliff.”Falling off a cliff. That is the verdict from members of his own party on what Obamacare will actually do to the federal deficit."

The Democrats in Congress don't seem to understand that a plan that relies on raising taxes for ten years and spending for only the last six and a half is not sustainable. We need to focus on what this plan means for year ten and out because once we nationalize health care it isn't going away.

Baucus Bill

From the folks at the Heritage Foundation:
"This Morning Bell is the first in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.Throughout his campaign, and even in to the first few months in office, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people that his health care plan would reduce their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It has been a while since President Obama made that promise, and any honest look at the health legislation being considered in Congress explains why.The Senate Finance Committee bill written by Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) (the Baucus bill) first drives up the cost of health insurance for all Americans and then forces everyone to buy it or face tax penalties or jail time. While the Baucus bill does cap out-of-pocket costs based on a person’s income, the effect on American families is still staggering. According to the Center for Data Analysis, the Baucus bill would:For individuals making $34,140 (three times the Federal Poverty Level) the Baucus health care proposal could mandate up to $4,097 in annual premiums, a sum which could have been spent on over nine months of food, almost four months of housing or well over a year of utilities.For a family of four making $69,480 (300% above poverty) the Baucus bill mandates annual health insurance premiums of $8,338, which would be worth the equivalent of over ten months of food, four months of housing or almost two years of utilities.For individuals earning $45,520(400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $5,462 for health insurance, or over a year of food, four months of rent or a year and a half of utilities.For families earning $92,640 (400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $11,117 in health premiums, the equivalent of over a year of food, five months of housing or two years of utilities.And those numbers include the subsidies for health insurance in the Baucus bill. To pay for all this new health care spending, plus the massive expansion of Medicaid, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Baucus bill will collect $4 billion in fines from those who do not purchase insurance, $200 billion taxing health insurance companies with generous health plans, and $25 billion in taxes on employers. Not to mention the billions in cuts to Medicare payments to hospitals which will result in significant cost shifting to consumers.PricewaterhouseCoopers has done a study on what all these new taxes and regulations will do to Americans health insurance premiums and the results are not pretty. Instead of reducing the average family’s health insurance premiums by $2,500 per year, as President Obama promised, the Baucus bill would actually raise them by $4,000 more than they would have been without reform.The Baucus bill spends at least $1 trillion, fails to cover all Americans, taxes employers for creating jobs, and inflicts higher out-of-pocket health care costs on all Americans. We can do better."

Our brave new future

"AN 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened.
Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients.
Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying."

There is no shortage of such tales. When government is the only provider of health care and is dealing with limited resources an 80 year old is going to be denied care. This is our future if the Obama administration gets its way.

A glimpse of what's to come

"Wendy Williams and her husband liked their health insurance plan. The premium and annual deductibles made sense for them, and a more “gold-plated” plan was not worth the money. Yet Massachusetts’ health care regulators disagreed, and forced the Williams to pay a $1,000 fine if they wished to keep their insurance plan — a plan they prefer to a comparable state-approved alternative.
It wasn’t always this way. When the Massachusetts mandate was first adopted, their plan was just fine. But then the rules changed. The state no longer accepts their insurance plan, even though they are fully insured and are not imposing their health care costs on other taxpayers.
If the federal government adopts an individual mandate, Ms. Williams fears her experience could soon replay itself nationwide. She’s right to fear. Once there is an individual mandate, interest groups will flock to Washington seeking to have their preferred treatment or service incorporated into the requirements for acceptable health care plans. Over time, the requirements will grow, and the cost of health care plans for many Americans will increase as a result. Consequently, many individuals who have health care plans that fully meet their needs will suddenly find themselves “underinsured” — and taxed fined as a result."

The very idea that government will fine individuals that have health insurance and are not a burden on the taxpayers is abhorrent.