Too Good to be True? Then it's not true...

"Yesterday Mr. Obama again invoked the 'nonpartisan, independent' authority of CBO*, which misses the reality that if you feed the agency phony premises, you are going to get phony results at the other end."

 - WSJ 03.04.10

"Hiding spending doesn't reduce spending."

 - Rep. Paul Ryan (R - Wisconsin)

In case you were wondering, I am still opposed to Obama's bill...although it has yet to be drafted. The abortion language is a major hiccup, especially for a large group in the House, and a MAJOR hiccup is the cost.   

The Wall Street Journal published an Op Ed Thursday discussing the blatant falsehoods with which Obama touts this bill. The commentary is based on Rep. Paul Ryan's comments from the Health Care Summit, which Democrats and the President himself have yet to refute...because they can't.  Ryan has this thing sorted out.  

BACKGROUND:  I used to work at Boeing.  In a nutshell my job required meeting with Engineers and Project Managers charged with developing new products to create a business case estimating total costs of production, how to amortize and allocate costs, and developing a pricing scheme based on a profit margin target.  It was extensive work...loads and loads of Excel spreadsheets...*sigh*...sometimes I miss it. 

It didn't take long to learn the most important aspect of my job and my estimates:

ASSUMPTIONS

The assumptions, which act as the foundation for an estimate, will make or break the outcome, final numbers and subsequent "Go - No Go" decisions.  

Obama claims his bill is "fully paid for" and "cuts the deficit" and brings the "largest tax cuts to middle class families in history".  But his claims are based on half-truths and deceptive assumptions.  Here are a few:

• Obama has accounted for 10 years worth of taxes but only 6 years of spending. 
• Obama claims the bill will only cost $100 billion/year, but forgets to take into account how the cost will increase every year the program is in existence.
• Obama says cost offsets will come from cuts in Medicare, but everyone knows they will postpone these reductions (they always do); thus the touted savings will evaporate.  And even if they allow the cuts to pass, "Using Medicare as a piggy bank...raids a half trillion dollars from retirees health coverage to fund the creation of another open-ended health care entitlement." Our government cannot run Medicare profitably, what makes you think they can run health care for the entire country?
• Some of the savings is claimed from increased Social Security payroll revenue.  This is an obvious double-dip...and a reason Social Security is upside-down...those funds should be saved/invested for OUR Social Security.
• Obama claims additional savings from CLASS Act long-term care insurance. "These so-called savings are not offsets, but rather premiums collected to pay for future benefits."  

Paul Ryan says, "When you strip [this] away...the deficit increases by $460 billion over first ten years and $1.4 trillion over second ten years."  And some aspects of Paul Ryan's estimate is pretty conservative.   

So despite our disagreements about Health Care reform and this plan's provisions, when it comes to the nitty gritty, the plan is expensive...and your grandchildren are already on the hook to pay for it.  Now that doesn't seem right now does it?

*CBO = The Congressional Budget Office, which aids the legislative body in analyzing bills and providing data to assist in making budgetary decisions.  AKA...they run the numbers.  

Sources:

WSJ Op-Ed

Paul Ryan's Statements from Health Care Summit

El Rushbo's Commentary

Obama's History AGAINST Reconciliation

Obama has spoke in previous years about the budget reconciliation process and his opposition of the rule. Thanks to El Rushbo for gathering the history, which I leave for you tonight.  Velly Velly interesting...

OBAMA in 2005 about changing the filibuster rule:  

"A change in the Senate rules that really, uh, I think would change the character of the Senate, uh, forever. [snip] Uhhh, and what I worry about would be th-th-that you essentially still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian, uhhh, absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the Founders intended."

OBAMA in 2004 about legislation passage in the Senate:  

"My understanding of the Senate is is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?"

OBAMA 2006:  

"Those big-ticket items, fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with, uhh, my fellow progressives...is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we -- we identify our core base, we throw 'em red meat, we get a 50-plus-one, uhhh, victory.  See, Karl Rove doesn't need a broad consensus because he doesn't believe in government.  If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a -- a sizeable majority."

OBAMA 2007:  

"The bottom line is is that our health care plans are similar.  The question, once again, is: Who can get it done?  Who can build a movement for change?  This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk.  We're going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50-plus-one majority."

OBAMA 2007:  

"You gotta break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics.  Maybe you eke out a victory with 50-plus-one but you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as president but you can't -- you can't deliver on health -- we're not going to pass universal health care with a -- with a 50-plus-one strategy."

But of course, he will now use the 50-plus-one rule (aka reconciliation) for his own self-serving takeover of the health care system.  He must have had quite a revelation since becoming President if now he believes the process is ethical and appropriate. 

Source:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030310/content/01125112.guest.html

A Union Snippet

"I don't think Boeing's in a position to make us pay more for our health care and stuff."

 - Casey Ferguson (Member of the Machinists Union)

Mr. Ferguson is right.  Boeing has had very little bargaining power when it comes to union negotiations.  And whilst health benefits are contracted for salaried employees and layoffs abound, the company is at the mercy of meeting the union demands to keep the company afloat...until now.  Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing's Commercial Airplanes Division was discussing the leverage the company has by adding a second production line in South Carolina.  If the Machinists Union in the Puget Sound chooses to strike, guess where the work goes?

South.  Both literally and figuratively.

Puget Sound union members will be out of a job, and the nuts and bolts of the work will proceed in South Carolina.

I don't believe Mr. Ferguson will be as confident if his union chooses to strike and Boeing says, "Fine. See ya!"

In January, Daniel Henninger had a great Op Ed in the WSJ. He gives a brief history on Unions and how their collective bargaining power has crippled the government's ability to choose how to spend OUR money. I think the application is equally important in terms of the challenges Boeing faces with the somewhat unpredictable Machinists Union.

Here are a few of Henninger's quotes:

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party.  That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force...Kennedy's order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.    

They broke the public's bank.  More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members' dues and spending it on  political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency.

Feeding the public unions' wage demands starved other government responsibilities.  It ruined our ability to have a useful debate about any other public functions.  

In the words of my friend, "Public Service Unions will bleed this country dry."  And the sad part?  Union members have little choice when deciding to join. It is their only hope for not being black-balled in the market. But once workers join, they lose control. Members work at the will of the Union and their dues are spent on campaigns with which they may not personally agree...creating the problem Henninger illustrates above.

With a large population of Union workers, these members most always: vote for increased taxes (federal and state union workers), fight school vouchers (Teachers Unions), and promote Health Care Reform (Cadillac Tax exemption for Unions).  When they do, members often avoid a real debate of the issues, but rather choose to preserve their own jobs and salaries.  It becomes self-serving at the expense of the non-union public.

Our government is at the mercy of the unions.  It's no wonder our President has a cabinet full of public-sector gurus.  Not one of them is from the private sector. Who's best interest do they have in mind? [Sidenote: that says a lot about why they don't know how to run this country]

Such a large portion of federal funds are spent in a "public-sector vortex". Campaign contributions come at a price and with the Unions it's a heavy one. One that requires the use of my money to repay.

I'm glad Boeing is making some headway in exerting pressure on the unions and thereby taking greater control over the long-term health of their company.

Our government, unfortunately, is not.  

Sources:
King 5 News - Jim Albaugh
WSJ - Henninger
On Life and Lybberty

Permanent State of Dependence?

"Every time we pass one of these bills, we are adding to the deficit, and we are not creating jobs...and it's a legitimate point for Republicans to make."

 - Sen. Jon Kyl (R - AZ)

I think I'm getting bogged down with the political grind this week.  Can it be?   

Maybe I'm coming off the emotional high of the Olympics when I actually felt patriotic...(Mr. Costas, I miss you already!)

Or maybe it's the Democrats' plans to pass Health Care via reconciliation, which is really disheartening.

[Sidenote: reconciliation has its purposes...so don't freak out on me...but it was NEVER intended to be used for such a controversial bill that will transform this nation and our government's rule over us.  Check this for an easy explanation on the original intent of reconciliation]

Not sure what it is, but today I'm sullen. Not defeated. Just a tad morose. 

But, pressing onward, this irked me today:

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is blocking a $10 billion proposal for an extension of unemployment benefits for 100,000 people and a few transportation projects...a few more things are down the pike like COBRA and Medicaid/Care subsidization. If you were to read about Bunning in the press today you'd think this guy was pretty horrible.

But do you know his objection? It's really quite simple:

He's wondering where the money's coming from.

He's wondering why Congress doesn't use $10 billion from the FIRST yet unspent stimulus bill.  

Did you know only 1/3 of the stimulus has actually been spent? There's still $237 BILLION left to be assigned and spent.

He's got a valid point: When do you begin holding the line? At what point does the spending come into check?

Recipients of government aid will always be upset when benefits contract or expire.  That's why the decisions are hard to make. I'm sick and tired of the sob stories. Everybody's got 'em.  (Hello? the dentures story from the Health Care summit...geez.) 

I don't want to belittle people who are out of work.  I personally know people who are unemployed and working hard to find a job.  BUT I also know people who are working the system.  The system creates a vicious cycle of government dependence.  When the assistance ends they are left with no prospects, no direction and no motivation...except praying for an extension.  Some benefit recipients don't know how to step up and take care of themselves since the very hand that feeds them continues to enable their current situation.

Check out this graph from The Wall Street Journal.  With every passing day more people are receiving benefits on an extended basis.  

People are NOT getting back to work. They are waiting for more government support. And while Congress and our President are wound up with Health Care the real issue still remains job creation.  

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358004575095970707513064.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

http://projects.propublica.org/tables/stimulus-spending-progress

Professor Obama...He's in charge...and don't you forget.

The Summit's over...phew!  Now we can go back to where we were before this thing started.  It's fair to assume both sides want reform (I agree), but while the GOP wants smaller steps ensuring success along the way the Dems are prepared to dive in head first. The two sides are so polarized at the gate it's impossible to seek middle ground on specific provisions when you can't even compromise on strategy.  

Here are some quotes and thoughts... 

Harry Reid speaking of Obama said this today: "He sat through that and listened to everything and was so patient and responsive.  It was an issue-oriented meeting.  The president let everybody talk and talk and talk."  

And by "everybody" I'm assuming Reid is talking about his fellow democrats and the president himself considering the time breakdown looked like this:

 - President Obama = 117 minutes

 - Democrat lawmakers = 114 minutes

 - Republican lawmakers = 110 minutes

And what I love is this little bit of arrogance from our President (referring to the Republicans lack of speaking opportunity:

"You're right, there was an imbalance on the opening statements because I'm the president. I didn't count my time in terms of dividing it evenly."

So, yes, he's king...he's exempt from the rules. Or should I say, Professor/King.  The summit basically turned into an Obama lecture, but the embarrassing fact was Obama wasn't even too familiar with the material.  

See for yourself:

Exhibit A: When Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) referred to the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office stating individual policy premiums would be 10-16% higher than premiums under current policy, Obama claimed this was "not factually accurate," when it's actually right in the bill. 

Obama later clarified the rise in premiums would be for "better coverage" than the "bad insurance" people currently have.  Yeah, all that insurance we currently have is "bad" alright.  If it doesn't have Obama's name on it, it must be "bad".  

And is that justification for lying to the American people?  Promising costs will go down, when actually they'll go up?  The Dems defense is yes, costs will go up but there will be subsidies to help defray these costs. But no matter how you slice it, the subsidies must come from somewhere...taxes...and it's still an increase.  

Exhibit B:  I don't know much about Sen Tom Coburn (R-OK), but from his talking points at the summit I think he and I might get along.  Here are a few great quotes:

Talking about fraud in Medicare/Aid, which is $1 out of every $3...can you say wow!?  Coburn said:

"I don't know many people that will disagree that one in three dollars doesn't help somebody get well...we ought to be going for that one in three dollars.  And we ought to do it NOT by creating a whole bunch of new government programs but by creating an incentive to reward people."  

Did you know Coburn is a physician?  I would suggest he has relevant and noteworthy background experience.  I am a big supporter of public incentives to encourage responsible management of one's health care.  As I mentioned in my last post, we pay a lot for our coverage but we are also much more cognizant of our health costs (we have a high-ish deductible).  It works people.  I am a living testament.  

Also, Coburn talked about doctors and how their fears of malpractice suits was "akin to extortion" that drives doctors to order tests for their own protection rather than for patients.  

It's no secret the people of this country are sue-happy...medical malpractice regulations could go a long way in cutting medical expenses and the cost of care.  

Exhibit C: Bob Moffit's analysis, as quoted by The Heritage Foundation, notes a scary provision in the government plan, which Obama continues to deny as a government takeover of the health care system:

"Since the inception of the debate, it should be noted that the President insisted that his health policy agenda did NOT constitute a federal takeover of the health care system.  In fact, it is very much a federal takeover...In the outline of his proposal...the President would add to the federal powers embodied in the Senate bill.  The most important would be a new Federal Health Insurance Rate Authority, which would provide federal "assistance and oversight" to the states conducting reviews of "unreasonable rate increases" and "unfair practices" of health insurance plans.  This, of course, establishes for the first time a legislative basis for the imposition of price controls on health insurance.  If government can control both health benefits and health care pricing, that's the proverbial ball game.  Private health care would be "private" in name only.  

Now, if that doesn't scare you, you must be so dang progressive you can't see the forest for the trees.  It's alarming.  Now THAT would keep me awake at night.  

And do you want to know what made me smile?  Seeing Obama distracted and lose focus so easily.  I felt he often pulled off topic and simply said, "That's just a talking point, we're not going there"....or to McCain, "We're not campaigning anymore" or my favorite?...

When Obama lays into Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va) about Cantor bringing copies of the health care bills calling it "stagecraft" and a "political stunt".  

Wait a minute...you mean, Cantor brought the background material that was the basis for the summit and Obama thinks this is a political stunt?   That's laughable!!  This WAS a discussion about the health care bills right? 

It's been suggested the entire summit was a political stunt for Obama and the Dems to put a face to the gridlock.  Well, it's done and I actually think the GOP had a decent showing.  Of course there was no compromise...of course the House and Senate will now work towards reconciliation...and, of course, our President and his congressional minions will forge ahead and rule against the will of the people.    

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/26/obama-shows-testy-health-care-summit/

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0210/obama_time_split_fair_10521388-b47d-4a4d-aeec-44e1ede585eb.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/26/obama-shows-testy-health-care-summit/

http://newsok.com/coburn-takes-center-stage-at-summit-on-health-care/article/3442300

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022510/content/01125106.guest.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/25/health-care-summit-wrap-up/

On a more personal note...

"If you think [the people] want a government takeover of health care, I would simply submit you're not listening to them." 

 - Rep Paul Ryan (R-Wis)

I'm working on a post in reaction to the summit today, but the Olympics got the best of me tonight (I was three days behind on my TIVO-ed coverage) and I just want to leave you with a personal rant about health care:  

In case you didn't know, our family pays out the nose for our health insurance.  The hubster receives a portion of his health insurance premium as part of his employee benefits (about 55%), but for me and the kiddos we are basically self-insured.  We pay the entire premium and it's NOT CHEAP.  Not by a mile. You'd think I'd be the first in line for government health care...but let me be perfectly clear...I will fight the Dems and this bill tooth and nail.

Government-run health care will destroy the system as we know it by: contracting the field of medicine and eliminating the best doctors and medical professionals, lowering standards of care, increasing costs, and destroying  the private insurance industry and millions of jobs.  (Please note: this list is not exhaustive)

Please raise your hand if you have been served by a government program that was efficient, cost-conscious, provided a high level of customer care and was easy to work with?

What?  No hands?

Can this be so?  

Have you heard of "red tape"?  Well, under a government takeover, your health care will be wrapped cocoon-like in red tape.  

My point is this: our family is insured because we make it a priority. Anyone can purchase some level of insurance, if they so choose.  

But you have to want it...and you have to be willing to pay for it.  

And, another thing...all this talk about people dying because they don't have health care...is just plain RIDICULOUS. Any person can walk into an ER and receive care.  I will not allow the Dems to portray me as a greedy, unsympathetic, uncharitable, hateful person simply because I don't want the government to infringe upon rights to my health.   

I AM a nice person...and I stand by that...

...because I'm nice.  

Oh, Come on Harry...

Men, when they're outta work, tend to become abusive.  Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed.  It's the way it is all over the country.

 - Sen Harry Reid 

Oh, Harry. *sigh*  You are going to get yourself in trouble over this one.  Now every American woman is afraid of her jobless husband/boyfriend/acquaintance.  I have known plenty of men who have been unemployed at one time or another...and each of them may convey a sense of defeat to a point...or maybe it's humility...but whatever it is, I would suggest in most cases it's certainly not violence.

You really are getting desperate on accomplishing SOMETHING in the Senate.  

Is your family going to need a crisis shelter when you're out of a job this fall?  

It's a difficult atmosphere in our country right now, but you [my readers] probably weren't aware of the mass hysteria due to violent unemployed men, now were you?  

Well, now considered yourself warned.  Thanks, Harry.