Dear Mr. President,

In your administration, you have tried positioning yourself as the pragmatic adult in a capital filled with squabbling children. You have tried taking the high road.

If you don’t mind, I will offer you my opinion: That approach has not and will no longer work.

You are fighting street gangs, who will knife you in the back at every opportunity. To lead the cause against the street gangs, you need to become a street fighter, down and dirty, with one exception that separates you from them. You do not knife in the back.

This is not a fight among adults. These are mob bosses trying to seize power for their own good. Your message to the people whether you speak it or not; Will you let them?

The people will cheer a matador, a single hero against the raging power of Congressional “bull.”

Stay on your bus. Take a whistle stop train trip like Truman. Make your bus / train / plane the American White house in the field with the people. Yet you are ready at a moment’s notice to return to Washington when needed.

Keep working in your shirtsleeves. People like a face that they can recall who is a worker like them. Your struggle is bigger, but the same — they struggle against big business for jobs, you struggle against Congress for their jobs.

Capitalize on the comment “There are some in Congress right now who would rather see their opponents lose than see America win,” as you said in Holland, Mich. Superimpose the image of political opponents defeated with America defeated — emphasize that’s what the GOP wants, a defeated America. And please don’t be shy. We need Thor to lead us.

Push the adoption of the infrastructure bank, have the voters force Congress to create it and create jobs. It is another example of Congress keeping control by holding the candy. Be simple — votes against the infrastructure bank are votes against American workers.

Focus on defeating every one of the freshmen Reps, who blindly follow their alleged mandate, without regard to the nation’s welfare. They have betrayed their trust. They were not elected to destroy the nation and they must be removed before they do that.

You will never reconcile the GOP to work with you.

They want you out because they fear you, and I don’t think you fully see it yet. Don’t be so nice.

Adopt some of the same values and programs as the GOP. Take their thunder by offering the same goals and removing clear choice. Identify fiscal cuts yourself and publicize them. Show how your cuts will hurt less than singling out the elderly and sick for program cuts.

The GOP is focused on eliminating the elderly. The elderly and those approaching retirement tend to have longer memories and place high value on promises kept as well as those broken.

The GOP knows that this is the first year baby boomers will retire, and there are 73 million of them counting on Social Security, Medicare and pensions and the Republicans are afraid.

Show the GOP as the villains they are, with their own interests first and only, stopping the large scale programs that would spur economic growth, unashamedly against labor in favor of the rich. Remember, dictatorships only survive as long as they can keep the workers and populace down.

Trickle down economics has never worked, and it never will as long as businesses and people practice greed — me first, you maybe never.

Sharpen your tone. We are counting on you.

My personal idea to help employment:

Tie unemployment benefits to a job intern program. Encourage businesses needing help of any kind to accept interns who will work and learn on the job. Pay and health care benefits will come from unemployment funding.

Participating businesses can have tax breaks for interns learning a skill (not just sweeping floors). Technical school education with government funding will be offered to promising interns as they learn a trade on the job.

Businesses will hire trained workers they know as needed with job performances they have witnessed.

Thank you for your time.

Congress each year shuts down during August for their vacation. They did it this year too.

It’s a good thing the deficit raise was signed into law before their holiday plans were interrupted. Judging from their flagrant self-interested behavior, if a deal wasn’t reached by vacation time, it is likely we would have gone to default with each side blaming the other, and the voters left holding the bag.

That raises another question. Was the deficit deal agreement a well-rehearsed drama with spit-second timing in an attempt to make Americans feel grateful to Congressional leaders that we averted disaster? It is certainly something many Americans can believe.

The trust Americans placed in Congress is gone, perhaps forever. They are just terrorists practicing extortion.

For those who still doubt Congress’s lack of caring about the American worker, consider the FAA shutdown. There is disagreement over a provision to make it easier for airport workers to unionize, and the amount the government subsidizes airlines to provide air service to smaller airports (costing about $200 million per year).

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and will not allow that union provision to pass from his committee. After all, big business must be protected, and the workers kept in their place.

It is a well-known fact there is a national Republican effort, both in Congress and in state capitals to undermine organized labor.

So the FAA was allowed to partially shut down. This means that 4,000 non-essential employees were furloughed without pay (air controllers are still on duty) until resolution is reached, as well as 70,000 construction workers working on FAA projects.

And Congress? They went on vacation for a month until after Labor Day. Could they have had a quick temporary resolution to continue paying those 4,000 FAA workers and the 70,000 construction workers until the dispute is resolved? Of course, since they have done it 20 times previously since the FAA’s long term funding expired in 2007. But consider the Republican advantage to denying it this time: There are 4,000 plus 70,000 more unemployed workers that Republicans can lie to pin on the Democrats.

Rep. Mica and his party don’t care that a month without pay will drive some of those 74,000 workers into bankruptcy or cause them to lose their homes.

Additionally, when the FAA funding expired on July 22, 2011, the FAA lost the authorization to collect taxes on airfare. This is income to the government amounting to nearly $200 million a week. The regional airport subsidy cost less than $4 million a week or about $200 million per year.

In the month Congress is on vacation, this move will deny badly needed federal income of around $800 million, and $800 million every month it is stalled.

If Republicans are so concerned with government debt, why are they denying an income of $200 million every week?

The answer is a carefully engineered political maneuver, already being blamed on Democrats for not giving in to Republican terrorist demands.

The answer is a Congress that uses its office mainly for political gain, lying to their constituents to believe they have their interests at heart.

But it won’t work. We now all know that politicians are heartless.

Update August 5: At the urgent request of President Obama as well as the interest of the 4,000 furloughed FAA employees and the 70,000 contractors working on FAA infrastructure projects, two Democratic Senators who were still present after all others had scattered to their home states for their August vacations, allowed the issue to pass the Senate.

Senator James Webb (D-VA) called for the bill and asked that it be passed. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), the presiding officer agreed, and the bill was passed under the “unanimous consent” (all voting members present, no objections) rule. President Obama signed the bill less than two hours later, and the FAA workers were free to return to their jobs.

Right-leaning newspaper accounts and Republicans focused in their reporting on the Democratic disagreement of rural airport airline subsidies as the key issue against which the Democrats were holding fast. But that issue was a minor point in the bill, since Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has the authority to continue subsidized service to the 13 rural communities and others as he deems necessary.

Those same newspaper accounts and Republicans avoided mentioning the real sticking point of the bill. The National Mediation Board last year approved a rule that allows airline and railroad employees to form a union by simple majority of those voting.

Republicans wanted to overturn that ruling in the FAA bill and make it harder for unions to be formed by including all workers who don’t vote as “No” votes, allowing for the mass temporary hiring of minimum time workers who would be counted as “No” votes. This is part of the well-known Republican effort to undermine organized labor and worker’s rights.

House Speaker John Boehner, (R-OH), indicated to Democrats that he’d be willing to accept their FAA extension bill without the cuts to rural airport subsidies in exchange for concessions on the labor issue, but Democrats refused the offer.

Since the bill now expires in mid-September and the FAA must be re-funded, kudos goes to the Democrats who understand the concept of supporting the American worker, even if it means a temporary retreat from yet another Republican manufactured crisis.

The two week delay cost the government $400 million in uncollected airline ticket taxes.

Post note: What we need in Congress are bills that address only one issue at a time, e.g. an FAA funding bill should only include that one issue. A different bill should be submitted for subsidizing rural airports, and a separate bill should be submitted for overturning the National Mediation Board ruling.

By allowing the insertion of extra provisions in a bill, Congress makes it difficult to discuss and pass the real issues through both houses (which is their goal). Bills can be held in committee until the political party of the chairman allows its release, and then becomes an all-or-nothing “Yea” or “No” vote choice.

The House alone can submit budgetary bills. The FAA funding and the rural airport were budgetary. The provision overturning the National Mediation Board ruling was not. That provision had no place in the budgetary bill but was deliberately put there to be swept along with the budget authorizations and become a sacrifice for the greater good, the funding of jobs for 74,000 Americans.

Obama said his plan was a balance between deficit reduction pain and investment for growth. The plan shows the deficit rising to $1.645 trillion in fiscal 2011, then falling sharply to $1.101 trillion in 2012, just in time for the presidential election.

It only provided a general guide on how to tackle entitlement outlays that include the Social Security and Medicare programs responsible for huge government spending.

“A decade of deficits, compounded by the effects of the recession and the steps we had to take to break it … has put us on an unsustainable course.”

This trend would trim the deficit as a share of the U.S. economy from 10.9 percent this year to 3.2 percent by 2015, keeping the pledge Obama made to his Group of 20 developing nation partners to cut the deficit in half by 2013.

The budget shows the deficit slowing the rate at which the U.S. adds to its debt, stabilizing at about 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) from 2015 onward.

The goal is to grow GDP and shrink the debt as a percentage of it. The nation’s debt is currently 72 percent of GDP and costs an additional 20 percent in interest charges. It is estimated that the debt will peak at 77 percent of GDP in 2015 before starting to recede.

An example would be a family with net income of $50,000 per year having debts of $36,000 and interest payments of $600 per month just to stay in place. No one will issue them more credit. There are two ways out of the hole–cut expenses and increase income.

And just like the family, the government will have to cut non-essential programs and excess assets to economize, while still providing services to Americans so that they can have jobs, get to jobs and work at jobs to build the nation’s income or GDP.

The fiscal year begins on October 1 each year, and the budget must be finalized by then (sometimes it runs a little late). The president’s budget for this year is still bogged down in bipartisan politics, and the only thing keeping the government running is a stop-gap measure to continue funding, which expires March 4.

It is halfway through the year, and the current budget is not yet approved. Who are these guys?

Seven months of disagreements, disputes, debates, discord and discussion will now ensue between Congressional parties, mostly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, whose members were largely elected on deep cut management of federal spending.

Members of both political parties, the president and American voters all want the same thing–spending within our means. That will require cooperation, even from those dedicated to run Obama out of office at any cost.

Americans do not want a spending freeze at unsustainable levels. Most of all Americans want to see dramatic progress in spending levels and understand what they are giving up.

It is not an easy path.

For fiscal year 2010, the budget proposal was $3.6 trillion. Of that amount, 60 percent went to Defense (20 percent; $715 billion), Social Security (20 percent; $708 billion), and Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP [Children's Health Program]; $753 billion).

What would you cut?

See The Budget.

First were the Axis powers of World War II; then it was Korea; then Vietnam; then Russia; then China; then the Islamic fundamentalists who attacked our homeland and killed thousands; then Iraq, and finally Afghanistan. 

The end of the Cold War saw a change in Americans.  They had proven multiple times that America was the greatest power in the world, bound together against a common enemy, but they were beginning to tire of sending our soldiers across the world to defend other countries.  Their place in history was made. 

Americans who became adults after the Cold War ended focused on building a better life for their children, as the generations before them have.   They wanted a job they could keep for their career. 

As the economy prospered, credit became easier and easier along with the American dream of owning a home.  They found local bankers and real estate agents were approving them for mortgages at the upper edge of the buyers’ financial capacity, but all was fine because their futures were promising.  In no time, they would be able to refinance their terms to something more affordable. 

Americans believed their lives were guided by the invisible hand of the government, who would always watch out for them and provide an orderly and prosperous society. 

But they were not counting on unregulated business interests focused on greed, bundling good mortgages with bad to sell to investors, then repackaging to sell them again for higher profits. 

Then the sub-prime mortgage holders began to default on their mortgages, and as the wave increased, interest rates rose and refinancing became unavailable.  At the same time, the glut of new housing helped make all house values fall.  Americans now saw their dreams evaporate and they defaulted in droves. 

Many mortgage lenders did not have the financial cushion to absorb the loss of income and value from the deluge of defaults, and many stopped lending at all.  This impacted the many industries and businesses relying on revolving credit and slowed the economy to a standstill.  With business at a virtual standstill, employers went into survival mode and slashed their largest expense—employees.

It is no wonder Americans felt betrayed.  The government Americans had relied on did not realize the growing impact of hedge funds and investment banks as lenders that were not subject to the same regulations as banks.  Financial transactions became so complicated that almost no one understood the implications and risks of the transactions.  Even rating agencies had to rely on risk information given to them by the originators.  It was an unforgivable abandonment of responsibility. 

As the collapse intensified, the younger Americans became aware of the government that ran our country, and they did not like what they saw.  They had a different view of democracy; lawmakers and leaders should be competent, and actually do something for their pay and their votes. 

Instead they saw a gigantic bureaucracy that lives off the tax revenue, and provides little in return, except granting projects bartered for their individual states and districts hidden in bills with thousands of pages, passed by an elite, privileged member Congress. 

This anger ignited the passion of the multitude that swept Barack Obama into the presidency.  They voted for him based on one promise—he promised to change Washington and the way they do business.  He promised to end divisiveness between the parties and sign landmark legislation into law. 

And even though the new president immediately waded into the fray, promoting landmark legislation and inviting all sides to work together, he found the Republicans putting up a solid wall, publicly announcing their first priority was to destroy the president.  They would rather see the economy fail and take the American people down with them than contribute to a Democratic success.

Americans are angry that Barack Obama was elected president on his message of change, and although he waded into the problem with all his power and stopped America from its economic nosedive, the problem proved too big for him to accomplish on his promised schedule. 

They came to realize, in their new awareness of government that attack from common enemies can come from within their own borders, and betrayal from their own fellow Americans. 

They are angry that companies still export jobs and the government hasn’t done anything. 

They are angry that the promised changes haven’t come more quickly.  We have become a world of people expecting immediate gratification.  We are a people who still believe in working for a company until we retire, and feel betrayed that our employers don’t feel the same. 

Voters are also angry they don’t have more input into the legislative process.  They feel the promises made by politicians running for office can’t be kept. 

The voter of today is focused on the bottom line.  They want their Congressional “board of directors” and CEO to be competent.  They want “America, Inc.” to make good decisions that will advance the value of the citizen shareholders.  And they’re not getting their money’s worth. 

In 1994, Republicans swept into office promising fiscal reform and accountability.  By 2000, the 95 programs they had promised to cut, all remained and increased in total cost by 13%. 

In 2006, Democrats swept into office promising fiscal reform, accountability and an end to deficit spending; and most know where we are today on that issue.

The continual bickering and the slowness of steps taken to recovery are unacceptable.  Americans are angry with ALL politicians, spending billions on projects the people don’t completely understand, while the individual is trying to scrimp pennies. 

A recent poll showed that about half of all voters are angry about the federal government. 

And incumbents better watch out.  Voters can fire them.  The apparition of impending downfall has led 11 Democrats and 9 Republicans in the House and 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans in the Senate to announce their retirement.  Defeated in primaries were 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans in the House and 1 Democrat and 2 Republicans in the Senate.    

In national polls, one after another, Americans are expressing nearly equal levels of disgust for both parties in Congress.  The role of the independent is rising; to choose the best person for the job. 

Voter anger has all but killed the open town meeting with overheated emotions, confrontations and finger pointing from purposeful political disrupters that wind up on You Tube.  Politicians instead are holding invitation-only voter meetings, telephone town meetings, or touring workplaces in a controlled environment. 

Republicans are all in on voter anger. They have one and only one strategy for the 2010 election.  They are counting on the voters being so angry that they forget who made them angry in the first place.  Anger transforms feelings of powerlessness and creates an illusion of power and control.  Republicans want voters who are not interested in objective information, but only talk to reinforce what they believe.  And this is the year of the “mad as hell” voter.

It is most likely that the Democratic majority will diminish and both parties will have relatively equal forces.  Voters will send a message that both parties have failed.  That will give Republicans a negative mandate, rejecting the current state of affairs but not endorsing the Republican slate.  And the next two years will most likely be stalemated. 

Election Day is November 2.  Be a citizen.  Show up and vote.

The latest Associated Press-GfK poll found nearly three-quarters of survey respondents disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, with 68 percent disapproving of Republicans compared with 60 percent disapproving of Democrats. 

On September 23, 2010, Republicans issued their new manifesto, although they are careful to avoid referring to it as such (negative connotation).   Republicans are calling it their “Pledge to America,” a 21-page document (plus photos) composed to show the American voters that they are listening to an angry public fed up with Congress and both parties.    

Since May, Republican leaders have been asking for input from American voters who logged in to a taxpayer funded Republican web site called America Speaking Out. 

According to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings, the AmericaSpeakingOut.com audience and visitors to the site view an average of 2.5 unique pages per day. Its audience tends to be aged under 25 and over 45; they are also disproportionately childless, moderately educated men earning over $30,000. Almost all its audience is located in the U.S.  

As I looked at the Pledge and the history leading up to it, I realized that covering the subject would be too long for a single blog entry, so it will be divided up into several consecutive parts. 

The America Speaking Out Survey

The number of responders was quite small in relation to the number of voters, but they should be commended for taking the time to respond. 

For the 2008 election, there were 146 million registered voters.  That was 71 percent of voting-age citizens.  131 million people voted (64 percent).  Normally, about 50 percent vote.   

There is no guarantee that the responders to the survey were all voters, or that they were U.S. citizens, or lived in the U.S. or that they were not part of the Republican team loading the survey.  For that we must rely on their honor. 

There was one suggestion under Fiscal Responsibility / Waste that stated the Republican platform almost word for word. 

The counts of people submitting ideas and voting in the subcategories far exceeded the total counts given in the overall categories. 

One responder was identified as the most active, with nearly 100,000 activity points given for submitting ideas, responding to ideas, and voting on ideas.  There were no other profiles mentioned, but a handful of super active participants could have loaded the response balance.  I could elect whomever I wanted if I was allowed to vote an unlimited number of times.

There were a fair amount of opinions from people with incorrect information, such as thinking that public officials get full salary and benefits for life after serving one term, or thinking that candidates don’t want to offend illegal aliens, because they will vote them out of office. 

As a note, most states require a picture ID to register to vote, and in a few years, federal law is expected to require citizenship for licenses.   This may handicap the elderly, the challenged and other citizens who may want to vote, but most have a Social Security card that requires proof of citizenship, and Medicaid recipients must now prove citizenship.  If there are illegal aliens voting, it’s a small percentage that would risk being discovered and deported. 

There were complaints that some ideas that were submitted several times were rejected with an “inappropriate message.”

Survey Summary

Ed.Note: I reviewed the website, and extracted those ideas that had the most votes, as well as the essence of the comments I felt were the responders’ hot buttons.  Some items were relocated from their website category and condensed for reading clarifty.

Job creation and Fiscal responsibility were the top two hands-down winners. 

Job Creation

Responders suggested stopping both the outsourcing and insourcing of jobs.  Tax breaks should be eliminated and taxes increased for companies who outsource to compensate for lost American worker revenue.  Heavily fine companies employing illegal immigrants (estimate 12 million living in the U.S.) and deport the immigrants. 

Responders suggested making unemployment eligibility mean “I can’t find a job I am qualified for” and not “I can’t find the job I want”. If a person is deemed physically fit to work, they should not simply be able to reject a job and get unemployment because it’s not what they want to do.  Too many people have reached a comfort level on unemployment. 

Fiscal Responsibility

Responders targeted members of congress, suggesting they reduce staff, eliminate postal privileges, close office gyms, eliminate travel budgets, sell their limos, and revoke their military aircraft privileges.  Require all Congressional travel expenses to be public within 30 days of travel. 

In other words, these angry citizens want the members of congress to have citizen job benefits like “normal” people. 

Prohibit legislators and their employees and families from receiving money and other gifts from businesses and lobbyists. Our representatives should be accountable to one and only one interest, their constituents.

An example of the anger people have with Congress  is “I think we should quit giving the resigned politicians a pension, Most times they have done nothing to deserve it. Think of the money the government would save. They are not entitled to it.”

Responders suggested reducing the size of our military spending drastically.  It’s currently over 50% of our national budget and doesn’t need to be so gargantuan. Our carrier fleet alone is several times larger than the entire world’s fleets put together. If you cut that by itself you’d save the American taxpayer quite a bit of money and even have some left over for infrastructure improvements, better schools and social programs that will make this nation stronger over all.

Welfare in the United States has been transformed to the point where it’s no longer designed to help people get by during bad times. Instead, welfare is used as a permanent crutch for the recipient and as a political advantage to one political party or another.

Government Reform:

Responders suggested a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, or better left for states or local authorities.  Streamline Government; there are 100 Agencies doing substantially similar things. Government should be managed more like a company.

No unrelated spending amendments should be allowed.  Americans HATE the ‘earmarks’ that Washington pushes through.  Too often spending amendments are attached to unrelated bills. If the spending can’t pass on its own, don’t pass it.  Make a rule that each bill put forth in the house and senate only deal with the bill, no add-ons for pork or other pet projects that don’t deal with the crux of the bill. 

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.  All legislation must be read in full on the floor of Congress. Everyone voting on a bill must certify having heard the entire reading or that they have read it personally in it’s entirity.

Transparency / Open Government:

Transparency – American taxpayers deserve to see where their tax dollars are going, on the way into the legislative process and on the way out. This means ending the practice of rushing bills through Congress at the speed of light by requiring legislation be posted online for five days before it can be scheduled for a floor vote. This gives taxpayers the opportunity to read bills and offer feedback and potentially devastating legislation.

We also must demand that ALL government expenditures, down to the line-item expense, be put online in a searchable, easily accessible format so taxpayers can track, dollar-for-dollar, where their hard-earned money is going. The only way to stop the spending is to keep representatives accountable – American taxpayers deserve the tools that will empower them to become good fiscal watchdogs of the state.

Require an on-line, instant update website listing what lobbyist’s are courting what politicians and for what reason.  

Tax Reform:

Replace all taxes with a simple flat income tax on all individuals and corporations.  This way every one is taxed at the same rate, no more of the “progressive” tax scale.

ENACT THE FAIR TAX. collect taxes from EVERYONE here (including tourists and illegal aliens), at the point of consumption where it is clear, straight forward and visible, they are obvious every time you purchase something at the retail level.  

American Values / Life:

Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion is a complex, difficult moral issue. It is not the proper role of the government to make our moral decisions for us. Let people make up their own minds and take responsibility for their decisions. If we are to be the party of small government, less government intrusion, and personal liberty, we must stop trying to legislate abortion away. It’s not the government’s place to be a nanny that chooses our morality for us.  The sanctity of life should support whatever a woman wishes to do with her body. Without this right freedom is meaningless

Illegals are giving birth in the USA just to have an American child and stay here illegally (known as ‘anchor babies).  If an illegal gives birth in the USA, the mother and child should be deported back home and the child not recognized as an American citizen. They need to go back to their home country and follow the legal process of becoming an US citizen. Modify the 14th Amendment allowing anyone born in the United States citizenship.

Health Care:

Repeal Obamacare and allow companies and individuals to purchase insurance across State lines.  We need to return to one deductible, maximum deductible per family, and then 80/20 coverage with the exception of 80/20 from the start for prescription drugs.  Make health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. 

The federal government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and taxing you if you don’t.  Make health a right, not a privilege. Treat protection from injury or disease just like protection from crime or fire. Imagine if the police and fire departments were a for profit industries. Wealthy neighborhoods that could afford top quality protection would prosper, middle class neighborhoods would become slums, and poorer neighborhoods would simply deteriorate from crime and burn to the ground. Take the profit out of healthcare. 

InfraStructure:

Building a modern, safe and efficient infrastructure is critical to creating U.S. jobs.

We need to vastly improve our power grid as a part of any new energy initiative. A large percentage of our energy is lost due to an outdated power grid.

Government needs to invest more in mass transit in the cities and develop realistic mass-transit between urban hubs. Stop spending our tax money to create new streets and infrastructure in outlying areas.

There was a small but consistent thread of suggestings regarding term limits for all members of Congress. 

Republicans have said that the America Speaking Out program was about the short term, not about an election, but there is no denying the project bears a strong resemblance to the Contract with America, the 1994 document that laid out what the party would do if it took control of the House. 

Next, we’ll look at the last Contract with America Republicans published in 1994.  Although they swept into control of Congress, was it the contract or were there other reasons? 

GOP Pledge—1994 Contract with America

More than half of all Republicans in the House and nearly half in the Senate happily took credit in their home districts for the stimulus money they voted against.

As of the end of August 2010, $289.4 billon has been paid out to the states.  Many Americans think that at least half the money has been wasted.  Economists have a higher opinion, but no one thinks it is a home run. 

The big concern of Americans is the high unemployment numbers.  We seem stuck in the 9.5% range, but what people don’t realize is that every year, 1.8 million new workers enter the Civilian work force, and just filling these jobs leaves the unemployment rate stuck.  

Many agree the stimulus bill has created jobs.  Economists say it has generated salaries for as many as 2 million workers who would have been out of work without the stimulus, and the government on Recovery.gov points to nearly 750,000 jobs funded by the bill. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that the stimulus package saved or created between 900,000 and 2.3 million jobs.

Although the Republicans point to tremendous job losses, it would have been 2 million jobs worse without the stimulus that they voted against as a bloc.

These paychecks, in addition to unemployment benefit extensions and tax cuts have all done their part to advance the economy.  But with only about 35% of the stimulus money spent, it is difficult to say whether it will work or not.

Before the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment insurance was cut off at 26 weeks.  After that time, unemployed workers were dropped from the Civilian labor force unless they had looked for work in the previous 4 weeks.  If they said they had looked for work in the last 12 months, they were considered marginally attached to the labor force.  As of the end of August 2010, there were 2.37 million workers in that category.  Within the marginally attached workers, were 1.1 million discouraged workers, who are no longer looking for work.   

The stimulus bill extends unemployment benefits to 33 weeks, and raised the government payment by $25 per worker per week.  Under the stimulus bill, the government also provides 65% of health insurance cost for the workers for up to 9 months after separation.  This provides much of the employer cost portion that ceased when their jobs were terminated. 

Economists have long expressed that unemployment benefits are a core motivation for economic stimulus by giving people some small discretionary income.  One of the possible side effects is that the financial “cushion” encourages workers to spend their efforts to find an “ideal” job rather than the first one that comes their way. 

In another job-saving effort, stimulus money has been sent directly to states and local governments to help them balance their budgets and avoid mass layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters, since states are restricted from deficit budgets. 

Instead of deficits, states and local governments raise cash through the sale of municipal bonds.  During the recent financial crisis, the bond market froze, forcing the municipal issuers to face big budget cuts and cancel programs.  Under the Build America Bonds program, the federal government subsidizes bond payments made to investors, raising the yield to very attractive rates, stimulating the economy and lowering the municipality’s borrowing costs. 

Close to half of the stimulus funded jobs are those that keep states and local governments running.  Those salaries provide money that families can spend into the economy.  

To encourage home sales in an economic sector that was at the heart of the financial meltdown, first-time homebuyers were offered an $8,000 tax credit until the end of November 2009. 

Although home sales rose during much of 2009, as soon as the tax credit expired, home sales plummeted.  The analysis was that people who would have purchased a home anyway moved up their purchase date to take advantage of the tax credit.

There are huge numbers of programs being funded simultaneously in the stimulus bill.  Many of the programs are slow to mature and show benefits.  These are investments in the country’s future rather than a stimulus. 

The stimulus bill provided $100 million for improving and repairing infrastructure items like roads and bridges sorely needing those repairs.  It would also put people to work.  This was the image of the stimulus presented to Americans, and it stuck.  It was, however, a proverbial “drop in the bucket.” 

Although money was allocated for “shovel ready” building projects, there weren’t that many projects ready to go, and a lot of the money has not yet been spent.  The reason?  States are planning and proceeding carefully, trying to get the best value for the money they receive. 

On Labor Day 2010, the president proposed allocating $50 billion to repair 150,000 miles of roads, 4,000 miles of rail lines, and 150 miles of airport runways.  These are expected to create jobs immediately as well as invest in easier transportation of goods and people for the future.  Congressional approval is needed.

The president also intends to urge Congress to permanently extend a research and development tax credit that expired in 2009, and allow companies to write off all of their investments in plants and equipment through the end of 2011. 

Other investments already in the stimulus bill are $40 billion for upgrading the nation’s energy grid.  That should come in handy as solar activity peaks in the next five years and can potentially burn out electrical grids and satellites.  This program will provide many jobs but is still in the early planning stages. 

Another investment drive is green technology, meant to minimize our dependence on foreign oil and minimize potential threats from the Middle East.  The problem is that green technology is still in its infancy; it will provide jobs, but maybe for our children.  It is an investment, not a stimulus. 

With the midterm elections coming up on November 2, and historical evidence that impatient voters will try something new and vote out the “ins”, the president and his council are scrambling for something that will get the notice of American voters.  It is not enough that this president has passed massive reform legislation that will alter the future of this country and its citizens for the better.  When American voters get in that booth, they ask, “What have you done for me lately?”  If nothing comes to mind, they’ll vote for promises. 

The $850 billion will do a lot of good rebuilding America’s future, but the voters need jobs today, and jobs in sufficient quantities are not in view.  The problem is that many stimulus benefits are far into the future. 

Dinner for the family is needed tonight. 

Employer tax breaks follow the “trickle-down” economic theory that says tax breaks given to employers will allow them to save enough money to hire more people who in turn will spend their income on retail goods that will improve the economy and lead to more jobs.  It does not work in a wealth-driven society like ours, but instead causes an ever-larger wealth gap between the “haves” and the “have-n0ts”.  

Tax breaks fall on deaf ears, when an employer is worried whether his goods will sell today and provide a tomorrow for his company and his family.  He will conserve his cash and restrict production in case of a downturn, and therefore unintentionally causing a downturn.  The cash stays with the employer and improves his profit.

The opposite of trickle-down economics is the “trickle-up effect.”  This approach give the tax breaks to the people.  They have more money left over from supplying their basic needs and with their disposable income they stimulate retail trade by buying goods that will improve the economy and lead to more jobs.  

The key to recovery is stimulating retail.  The only way to do it is to put more cash in the wallets of consumers.  An economy runs on cash circulation; as with people, stop the circulation and the patient dies.  

The modification of the Bush tax breaks proposed by the president is a step in the right direction.  By continuing the tax breaks for those earning less than $250,000, it will not cut off their disposable income. 

What the country also needs is an employment incentive; the opportunity for the unemployed to perform work and feel accomplished. 

There is still a lot of money to be spent and a lot of people unemployed.

What if unemployed workers were offered the education they needed to work at a trade, or get their high school diploma?  It is a fact that unemployment is twice as high for those without a high school education.  It is a fact that graduates in fast growing fields like health care and technology are hired much faster than those unskilled. 

What if unemployed workers were encouraged to volunteer as part of their workweek?  People generally don’t like to be charity recipients.  We live in a fair trade society – when we receive something, we have been taught to feel we should give something in return. 

What if?

President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 had the right idea, employing thousands in public service under the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP), Federal One and others. 

Writers, artists, musicians and other unemployed workers wrote, painted and performed for the depressed public and were paid.  They brought the country’s records up to date by recording and cataloging historical information; they worked on building projects; they repaired bridges and roads; they painted murals in public buildings.  If they had a skill, they used it and taught it to others; if they had no skill, they used their muscles.   The PWAP program failed because of mandated “guidance” from Washington D.C. and the unemployment problem was solved with the outbreak of WWII, but the idea is still compelling. 

There are many opportunities to volunteer in our own backyards.  Every town has Habitat for humanity, food pantries, libraries and other organizations always looking for help.  The requirements are generally simple; just show up and work “friendly.”  It also looks good on a resume. 

What if we suggest a scenario and make an assumption that many business owners need the help, but don’t have the money to hire new employees.  What if they put out a call to the local unemployment office describing their needs? 

What if the issue of salary and benefits never came up – they would be provided by the state unemployment agency.  Perhaps during their “unemployment” employment, the worker would learn a new skill, something of value to put on their resume.  Perhaps their “unemployment” employer would see the value of hiring that person, or provide a glowing reference to their next interview. 

What if?

We consumers now have a few more credit protections than we did before, but to get the Act passed, Congress had to water down the wording somewhat.  It would not do to pass a law that would put many of Congress’s biggest campaign contributors out of business. So, there are still a few areas left for issuers to extract profits. 

Students

Before this law went into effect, students were sent credit cards that they ran up like free money while the parents got stuck with the bills, since they were under age.  Now, students under 21 years of age cannot qualify for a card without a co-signer.  How will the issuer know the applicant is a student?  They will likely only have income from summer employment.  The real qualifiers are the applicant’s age, and their income. 

Interest Rate Hikes

The new law does not protect consumers against interest rate increases.  It does protect them against increases on existing balances, but as long as the card issuer notifies the consumer at least 45 days in advance, interest on new purchases can jump considerably. 

This is supposed to give the consumer the option of jumping to another card for new purchases.  The consumer has three billing cycles to decline the new terms, close the account to future purchases, and pay off their balance at the old rate and payment schedule. 

Payment Allocation

If you have separate interest rates in force for old balances and new purchases, be aware that the CARD Act requires the card issuer to apply the minimum payment amount to the greater balance, which most likely has the lower interest rate. 

The CARD Act requires payments to be applied to the highest-rate debt on the account, so watch carefully that any payments exceeding the minimum payment are “accidentally” applied to the lower rate balance.    

Universal Default

Under the old shell game, issuers could raise a consumer’s interest rate if they were late on a totally unrelated account, like a utility bill.  This is now prohibited under the new law. 

But card issuer’s legal wizards have left some language in some offers that will activate a penalty APR.  Some of the reasons are exceeding credit lines, credit report information, and bounced or late payments.  Some catch-all language might be “market conditions”, or “at any time for any reason.” 

Read the small print. 

Penalty Rate

If a consumer is more than 60 days late on a payment, the card issuer can initiate a penalty rate, which averages nationwide slightly less than 30 percent.   That means for every thousand dollars that remains on your credit card by the end of the year, you will owe another $300 in interest, or nearly an additional one-third of your balance.  This is the way card issuers generate cash flow and keep consumers imprisoned in their cycle of debt. 

The new law provides a way back down the interest ladder.  It is meant to require the credit issuer to return the customer to their previous interest rate after six consecutive months of timely payments.  In reality, the law states that the card issuer is “supposed to” review and reduce a cardholder’s rate after six months of consecutive on-time payments. 

The law also states that this review must include market conditions (what others are charging) and the creditworthiness of the card holder.  This gives the card issuer an out if you caught up on the penalty account but your other accounts are still behind. 

Another method card issuers have been known to use is a technique known as “pigeonholing” where your payment arrives on time, and due to the card issuer’s workload, it is not posted until after the due date.  Remember one late payment will result in a lot more income for at least six months for the card issuer while you straighten things out. 

It is more important than ever to keep records of the exact dates payments are made.  Sending a check in the mail has no basis for verifying the date it was received, since the card issuer will discard the envelope with the postmark proof as quickly as possible, and the date on a check can be any date. 

Paying a bill by electronic banking will issue recordable dates of payment receipt.  Remember that many banks still issue a bank check that is mailed, and the process can take up to four days until the check is in the mail.  Be sure to add the four days plus a comfortable mail delivery time for your payment to be received.

The language of the new law is loosely worded.  Expect some creative moves when it comes to the card issuer backing off penalty rates.

Mail Notification

The highest court has judged that putting a notice in the U.S. Mail is proof of delivery, whether or not the addressee receives it. 

The new CARD Act requires payments to be accepted as timely when paid before 5pm EST on the due date or mailed at least 7 days before the due date. 

That concept seems to work fine for businesses that say they notified you, but doesn’t work that well for consumers mailing payments. 

Discontinued Cards

The 45-day rule will “probably” apply if the card issuer decides to discontinue your card.  The law is not clear about this circumstance, but issuers will most likely notify the consumer 45 days ahead to avoid running afoul of the law.  That’s good news for a consumer standing at a register with a big purchase.   

Added Fees

Credit card issuers have lost a bundle of expected revenue with this new law.  Estimates put the loss at around $12 billion per year.  It comes at a time when banks are already in bad shape because of the housing market, double the number of defaults from unemployed workers and others, and consumers cleaning up their balances. 

It is predictable that inventive fees not mentioned in the new law will surface.  There are countless fees that can be added to your bill, and interest rates can soar, if everyone in the credit market does the same and they notify you 45 days ahead. 

Although the prime rate for banks is low now, as it cycles upward, consumers can expect 45-day notices from their fixed-rate card issuer that they will be switched to a variable rate, tied to the prime rate.  Variable rates rise and fall with the economy and will not require the 45-day notice as the prime rate climbs. 

Be careful of ordering merchandise online.  If the merchandise comes from a foreign retailer or American territories, you can incur foreign transaction fees, even if the merchant allows you to pay in U.S. currency. 

Fee Avoidance

Be your own consumer advocate.  Consolidate your credit to one or two widely accepted cards with the lowest interest rate (beware of the balance transfer fee).  Join a credit union (lower interest rates).  Drop annual fee cards.  If you want to keep some cards, reduce your credit used to below 10 percent of your available credit to preserve your credit score.  For cards with inactivity fees, swipe them at a convenience store once a year (check the inactivity period).  If one of your issuers offers a rewards program, take the cash-back option. 

Pay your bills on time.  Read the fine print.  Read each piece of mail from your card issuers.  Stand up for your rights.  Play hardball.  Speak to supervisors.  Threaten to take your business elsewhere if they don’t retract an unjust fee, and do it if they don’t (I also like emails to the president or CEO,  factually detailing why you left).

The CARD Act was a big step in the right direction, but there will always be loopholes discovered by highly-paid legal eagles working against you.

By admission and by action, Republicans are delaying any Congressional movement they can, because it means to some extent, destroying or eroding any accomplishments by Democrats.  Republicans are heavily lobbied and their campaigns heavily supplied by big business interests, and that is whom they obey.   

Republicans vote as they are told.

Congress’s approval rating is at a staggering low of 19% (July 16, 2010).

~~~~~

July 19, 2010: Lawmakers battled for weeks over extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been unemployed for more than six months. The previous extension expired on June 2, leaving about 2.5 million people without benefits.

The House had passed a bill extending their benefits through November 2010.  However, with the recent death of Sen. Robert Byrd, Senate Democrats didn’t have the 60 votes they needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.

President Obama said lawmakers’ obligation to extend benefits is both moral and practical, citing some economists who believe extending unemployment insurance is one of the most cost-effective ways to jump-start the economy because it puts money in the pockets of people who are likely to spend it quickly.

The $34 billion needed to extend benefits would be borrowed, adding to the nation’s mounting debt. Republicans said they would only support extending benefits if the bill were paid for. 

Republicans have tuned into the issue of voter’s concern over debt and deficit and are looking to gain favor with them in the upcoming election. 

Republican leaders say they’re happy to vote, as long as they get a chance to change the bill to their liking.

This is an example of how Republicans are simply against anything proposed by Democrats.  In issues past, Republicans have often said they would rather increase debt than taxes.  With this issue, they are changing again, just to slow any Democratic progress.

~~~~~

July 22, 2010:  Update. 

President Obama signed into law today a restoration of benefits for people who have been out of work for 26 weeks or more after Congress approved the measure earlier in the day. 

The lump-sum retroactive payments will be delivered in the next week or two to state-issued debit cards or beneficiary bank accounts.

The Senate approved the bill on July 21 after Democrats agreed to break off the unemployment benefits from a larger jobs bill targeting $24 billion to help state governments slow layoffs and cut taxes, and provide a health insurance subsidy for the unemployed. 

After it became a standalone bill, the unemployment benefits enlisted support from Republican Maine moderates Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.  The 60^th vote was cast by Senator Robert Byrd’s replacement, Carte Goodwin (R-WV). 

All Republican Senators except the two Maine moderates voted against the unemployment benefits again as a unified bloc. 

Less than a day later, the unemployment benefits bill was sent to the House where it was passed 272-152 with the help of 31 Republicans crossing party lines and sent to the president for his signature. 

Earlier this year, Republicans twice allowed temporary unemployment measures to pass without asking for a roll call vote, but debt and deficits are becoming issues with voters, and Republicans looking for reelection are looking to win favor with them. 

After signing the bill into law, the president said in a statement, “Americans who are fighting to find a good job and support their families will finally get the support they need to get back on their feet during these tough economic times.”   

It is a well-known fact that the Republicans have been receiving their instructions from the health insurance companies, who heavily fund their re-election campaigns and who do not want a health bill at all.  Revision means forcing them to insure millions of marginally healthy people as well as those with bad health records (pre-existing conditions). 

This time, the House passed the Senate bill without any changes.  Healthcare became law when the president signed it on Tuesday, March 23. 

To fulfill promises made to House lawmakers, reconciliation to the main healthcare bill was passed first by the Senate, then the House.  Republicans offered 40 amendments to the bill, in a final desperate attempt to change the bill enough to force the House to vote again, but Democrats steadily rejected each amendment. 

In the end, Republicans voted unanimously against the reconciliation, threatening to take the issue to their election campaigns to win enough seats to repeal healthcare.   

Every November, the entire House and one-third of the Senate are re-elected.  Many of the Republican amendments were specifically aimed for votes that could be made to sound embarrassing for Democratic lawmakers running for re-election. 

The main points of the healthcare legislation include:

• New consumer protections for denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions (effective for adults in 2014, but children in 2010).  Adults currently with pre-existing conditions uninsured for a minimum six months can enroll in a temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums (effective June 2010).
• Lifetime coverage limits—eliminated (effective 2010).
• Coverage dropped after a sickness—prohibited. 
• Waiting period for coverage limited to 90 days.
• Child coverage under parents plan—extended to age 26 (effective September 2010).
• Individuals under age 30 without insurance can purchase catastrophic coverage on the new health insurance exchanges. 
• Coverage will be portable for employees that leave a job.
• Health insurance exchanges (effective 2014) will be created with minimum standards and competing plans available to pool risks for small businesses and uninsured individuals.
• New policies issued after September 2010 will fully cover preventive care visits and screenings.  Doctors will get paid for seeing uninsured patients they are now treating for free.
• Businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be eligible for tax credits for up to 35 percent of health insurance premiums paid.  Pooling risks with other small businesses will stabilize costs. 
• Employers will disclose the cost of workers health insurance on their W-2 (starting 2011)
• Medicare beneficiaries with the Part D drug benefit who fall into the coverage gap (“donut hole”) will receive a $250 rebate in 2010. Starting 2011, they will receive a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, with the gap closing by 2020. 
• Medicare members will not pay more than three times the average premium paid by a healthy younger person, even though middle-aged Americans use more than five times the amount of health services.   
• Medicare Advantage plan reimbursements will be cut back from benefits currently offered, which give members more choices than standard Medicare plans and cost about 15 percent more than the average Medicare plan. Some of these cuts would be offset by a new deal with drug companies to sell medications not covered by Medicare at half price.
• Medicaid will be expanded, making it available to an estimated 16 million more people with incomes up to one-third above the poverty income line, including adults without dependent children.  Community health centers will receive enhanced funding.
• Subsidies provided over the next 10 years for low to moderate-income people without employer health benefits will enable about 32 million uninsured to buy plans on health-insurance exchanges.
• Medical expense tax deduction threshold will be raised to 10% of adjusted gross income (effective 2013). Seniors (age 65 and older) would be able to claim an itemized deduction at the current standard of 7.5% (through 2016).
• Flexible spending health account rules remain the same for three years. A $2,500 cap on contributions (with cost-of-living adjustments) appears likely to go into effect in 2013.
• Health savings account penalty for withdrawing funds for nonqualified medical expenses increases to 20% (effective 2011).
• All citizens and legal residents will be required to have health insurance.  Subsidies will be on an income sliding scale up to 4 times the poverty line.  
• Fines will be imposed on those who decline health insurance (starting 2014); the higher of $95 or 1% of income, growing to $695 or 2.5% of income (2016).
• For individuals with earnings greater than $200,000 and married couples earning more than $250,000 the Medicare payroll tax will rise in the next two years to 2.35%. A new 3.8% Medicare tax will be applied to investment income (including interest, dividends and capital gains) that exceed those thresholds.
• For job-based “Cadillac” plans (annual premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families), plan administrators will be taxed 40 percent (effective in the next few years). Limits are higher for certain high-risk jobs and retirees. 
• Fees will be imposed on insurance and pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers (starting 2014). 
• Health plans will be required to report the proportion of premium dollars spent on clinical services, quality, and other costs and provide rebates to consumers.
• A new federal body will be created that would have power to block insurers from raising rates.
• Higher taxes will reduce the federal deficit by nearly $140 billion over 10 years. 

It does not include a public option to compete with private insurers.  

Read the bill at The Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010

In his address, there were many other accusations.  Personally, I prefer government lawmakers who accurately quote facts rather than half-truths, as opposed to working to sway their audience by half-truths and mud slinging that attempt to create fear. 

I respect that both sides have their own agenda and arguments, but I prefer to make up my own mind based on facts and findings.  Politicians rely on people adopting what they tell them without checking anything out, like that TV commercial where the car salesman says, “I have a note from the previous owner that this car runs great!”  

I am independent when it comes to politics, but I took exception to the content of this video.

It should be kept in mind that Senator Coburn manipulates his audience in this speech written for him by his party speechwriters.

It should be noted that Senator Coburn is also a medical doctor. 

A transcript of the address and a link to the video are included at the end of this post.  Make up your own mind. 

Coburn said, “By an overwhelming margin American people are telling us to scrap the current bills …”

“Public opinion on health care reform in the United States is mixed. A majority of Americans express a desire for health care reform because they see it as too expensive and because they perceive that insurance companies avoid meeting health costs through coverage exclusions, caps, and co-pays. They also express concern that the system as a whole does not cover everyone and that many people are under-insured or uninsured. A majority support the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, known as a public option, and a significant majority support a single-payer health care system.”

2010 polling results: “Rasmussen Reports found Americans opposing the Congressional bills by a 15-point margin, 56% vs. 41%.  According to Rasmussen Reports in January 2010, 10% of the American public have withdrawn their support from leading Congressional proposals since June 2009, with a majority opposing them since November 2009. In June 2009, 50% were in favor vs. 45% opposed, but in January 2010, support had dropped to 40% and opposition had increased to 55%.

Hardly an overwhelming margin, and an unfounded inference that the plans should be scrapped.

Coburn said, “… will lead to a government takeover of Health Care …

This is a scare slogan, a tactic raising specters of communism and socialism and is simply untrue.  However, history has shown us, a lie repeated often enough will eventually be perceived as the truth. 

The legislation under discussion would extend coverage care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans while cracking down on insurance company practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.  This is what Republican critics attack as a government takeover of health care.  Insuring these “not-so-profitable” peopel will financially hurt their big business sponsors.    

Coburn said, ” … even before the summit took place the majority in Congress signaled its intent to reject our offers to work together.” 

I would be happy to hear what those signals were to make up my own mind.  What I continually hear is the majority asking the Republicans for input and ideas. 

Coburn said, “they want to use procedural tricks and backroom deals to ram through a new bill that combines the worst aspects of the bills the Senate and House passed last year.” 

Here is an introduction to the infamous “they,” meant to suggest the dark forces, linked to the previous specter of communism and socialism. 

Here also is the well-established three-punch rhetoric trick, meant to reinforce the evil things the dark forces will pull; (1) “procedural tricks and backroom deals”, (2) “ram through a bill”, (3) “combines the worst aspects of the bills … passed last year.” 

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote almost the exact phrase. 

There are no procedural tricks in passing a bill according to Senate rules; just wailing from those who don’t get their way.  A procedural trick is a lone Republican, objecting to and stopping the extension of unemployment benefits to thousands, because he doesn’t like what it adds to the deficit.  A wave of procedural tricks are being prepared by Republicans to stop further progress on healthcare.  

As far as passing a bill that “combines the worst aspects of the bills … passed last year,” would it be too much to tell Coburn’s audience what they are?  No, because they are the worst to the Democrats, and perhaps only them.  

Coburn said, “The American people have rejected the majority’s plan for good reason.”

There’s that reinforcing rhetoric reference to the falsehood of the overwhelming rejection again.

 Coburn said, “Their plan includes 1/2 trillion dollars in new tax increases, a 1/2 trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, job-killing penalties for employers, taxpayer-funded abortion and new boards that will ration care to American citizens.”

A half trillion sounds like much more than 500 billion, and it is meant to.  New taxes?  It depends on which vrsion of the healthcare plan that will be written into law.

The estimated cost over ten years per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would be $1,050 billion less $138 billion recovered ($912 billion) for the House plan, and $871 billion less $132 billion recovered ($739 billion) for the Senate plan or a middle figure of $825.5 billion.  Coburn plays on $1 trillion ($1,000 billion), but what’s $175 billion when you are trying to sway people’s opinion.

The several versions of healthcare plans moving around various committees in the House and Senate all have different approaches to pay for healthcare.

In the House version, the tax increases are targeted at the wealthy asessing a surtax on earners making from $280,000 to $800,000 (1 percent) or couples making $350,000 to $1 million (1.5 percent).  Earners making more  than those amounts would have a 5.4 pecent surtax.  Less than 2 percent of the U.S. population falls into those cateories.

This top earner tax is estimated to bring in about $540 billion over 10 years.

There is also expected to be a penalty tax on companies and individuals who refuse to buy government-approved healthcare.  This is to get everyone in the game, since the healthcare numbers work only with large pools of enrollees. 

We can assume that this is the “job-killing” penalties for employers.  The thought is that healthcare costs take away money for jobs.  The alternative might be more jobs without benefits, but it has been repeatedly proven that many people will turn down jobs without benefits. 

Ed.Note:  I am personally against forcing people to have health insurance, but one reeason healthcare costs are so high is that many people don’t take care of their health until they are wheeled into the Emergency Room on a gurney, which is enormously expensive, and costs us all.

The “½ trillion ($500 billion) in cuts to Medicare” are subtly presented as if they were to be cuts in benefits.  This purposely scares seniors by rearranging the words.  In truth, there will be reductions in the future growth of overall Medicare spending, which does not mean cuts in benefit levels or services. 

As far as “taxpayer-funded abortion”, in November 2009, the House passed an amendment to the pending health care bill that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance “exchange” the bill would create.  The Senate bill will allow insurance companies to include abortion coverage, but each state will have the option of preventing federal money from funding abortions.  Senator Coburn is incorrect!

Regarding “new boards that will ration care to American citizens”, we can only guess Senator Coburn is talking about the independent advisory panels which will work to make recommendations on Medicare reforms, including reimbursement to contain the future growth of Medicare.  The Senate bill includes a Medicare Commission which could modify Medicare payments in order to keep down cost growth.

Perhaps he is talking also about “new boards” concerned with halting Medicare fraud.  $60 billion per year are paid out for fraudulent claims by phony companies billing for services never performed on valid Medicare members.  This is another scare tactic, presenting oversight boards as threatening to deny YOUR claim. 

As a side note, containing Medicare fraud for ten years would fund $600 billion of the cost.

According to PolitiFact regarding the rationing of care, “private health insurance companies already ration health care by income, by denying health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions and by caps on health insurance payments. Rationing exists now, and will continue to exist with or without health care reform.” 

David Leonhardt also wrote in the New York Times in June 2009 that rationing is a part of economic reality: “The choice isn’t between rationing and not rationing. It’s between rationing well and rationing badly.

This is another scare tactic, similar to Sarah Palin’s claim that end-of-life choices would be dictated by “death panels” rather than the discussions and planning with your personal physician, as it was written.

Coburn said, “The majority (meaning Democrats) now has a choice. We can continue to make progress like we did at the summit or they can try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.” 

Now here are “We,” the white knights again trying to do the right thing, while the evil “they” “try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.”

What Senator Coburn does not discuss is that without reform, America is well on its way to bankruptcy now.  But the lack of reform will keep his campaign funders in huge profits, draining the resources of the American people.  Coburn is telling an untruth.

Current spending (2007) on health care in the U.S. is about 16% of its GDP which converts to an estimated $2.26 trillion or $7,439 per person.  With its current upward trend it is expected to reach 19.5% of GDP by 2017 which converts to an estimated $2.75 trillion or $9,066 per person. 

Medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 62% of personal bankruptcies in the United States. 

“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has argued that the Medicare program as currently structured is unsustainable without significant reform, as tax revenues dedicated to the program are not sufficient to cover its rapidly increasing expenditures. Further, the CBO also projects that “total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050.” “According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, spending on Medicare will grow from approximately $500 billion during 2009 to $930 billion by 2018.” “And in 2009 the Congressional Budget Office found that the inclusion of a strong public option would lower the cost of health care reform in the U.S. by tens of billions of dollars.” 

Coburn said, “Last year dozens of Democrat-only summits were held in secret behind closed doors and produced many unsavory deals.” 

This is an allegation that requires dates and agendas to avoid people thinking it is simply mud slinging (which it is).  I’m sure Republicans don’t hold their meetings on street corners either, but like to portray Democrats as some sinister secret society.

The question arises, what were the unsavory deals?  Without particulars, this again is unsubstantiated mud slinging.  Coburn is working his audience.

Coburn said, “Had those meetings been open and bipartisan, I believe Congress could have passed a bipartisan health bill months ago. If the president and leaders in Congress are serious about finding common ground they should continue this debate, not cut it off by rushing through a partisan bill the American people have already rejected.” 

There’s that reinforcing rhetoric reference to the falsehood of the overwhelming rejection by the American people again, but he lends it credibility with his “I believe.”

A bipartisan health bill is an impossible goal.  Republicans want to defeat any healthcare bill and discredit the majority party.  The Republicans are in favor of and are funded by big businesses, which want the existing system to continue.  Continuing the debate will delay the action nearer the mid-term elections, when lawmakers who want to be re-elected will move away from a controversial bill.

Coburn said, “If the majority agrees to work together they will find many Republicans ready to help them pursue our common goal of helping all Americans access quality and affordable Health Care for themselves and their families.” 

It is odd that I hear from Washington, nothing except offers from the majority wanting to work together with the Republicans to pursue the common goal.  The difference is that one side wants reform and the other side wants things to stay the same.

The problem big business has with the healthcare plan is that the legislation under discussion would extend coverage care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans while cracking down on insurance company practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. 

The 46 million without health insurance might be less healthy than the people who work and can afford health insurance, and the people with pre-existing conditions certainly are.  This means that they will probably eat away at the bottom lines of the big business insurance carriers, and they will spend any amount of money buying lawmakers through campaign contributions to defeat it.

While there are two major proposals under consideration in Congress, Democrats have authored and passed both.  Republican Party members in Congress have not come together around a single policy of their own for health care reform other than that of opposing both Democratic bills currently in progress. 

Lawmakers were almost finished merging House and Senate versions of sweeping overhaul legislation when a special election in late 2009 in Massachusetts to fill the late Senator Kennedy’s seat cost Democrats their filibuster-proof Senate supermajority of 60 seats.

Republicans immediately united in opposition to both proposals, casting doubts on the outcome.

Lobbying: America’s health care industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in 2009 alone to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other reforms proposed by President Obama and by others. There are six registered Health Care  lobbyists for every member of Congress. The campaign against health care system reform has been waged in part through substantial donations to key politicians. The single largest recipient of health industry political donations and chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance that drafted Senate health care legislation is Senator Max Baucus (D-MT).

The clock is ticking toward the mid-term elections in November.  Make no mistake that that election day is the focus of our lawmakers – to continue in their prestigious jobs and build their party’s power base, and they respond without question to the big business campaign fund contributions that can get or keep them there – not the 46 million people without healthcare, and not the 100,000 people who die every year for lack of health insurance. 

It is shameful that our elected officials, and I include all, have forgotten whom they represent. 

Senator Coburn was contacted Friday (Feb 26) by the White House and asked to submit details of suggestions he made to tackle waste and fraud in the medical system, Coburn’s spokesman John Hart said Coburn views Obama’s legislation as a government takeover and would not be able to support it even if it includes some of his proposals.

~~~~~

Listen to the broadcast and make up your own mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/18361866

The transcript follows for your convenience. 

“This week I had the opportunity to join President Obama and my Democrat and Republican colleagues for a summit on Health Care.  We had a respectful and constructive discussion.  While we listened to one another, I’m concerned that the majority in Congress is still not listening to the American people on the subject of Health Care reform.  By an overwhelming margin American people are telling us to scrap the current bills, which will lead to a government takeover of Health Care and we should start over.

Unfortunately, even before the summit took place the majority in Congress signaled its intent to reject our offers to work together.  Instead they want to use procedural tricks and backroom deals to ram through a new bill that combines the worst aspects of the bills the senate and house passed last year.

The American people have rejected the majority’s plan for good reason.  Their plan includes 1/2 trillion dollars in new tax increases, a 1/2 trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, job-killing penalties for employers, taxpayer-funded abortion and new boards that will ration care to American citizens.

The majority now has a choice. We can continue to make progress like we did at the summit or they can try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.

I wholeheartedly share President Obama’s desire for more civility and bipartisanship in Washington and I’m proud of the work we did together when he was a member of the Senate.

True civility however is measured by actions not words. I was disappointed the president rejected my suggestion that he host another summit; the president himself proposed that such meetings be televised more than a year ago.

Last year dozens of Democrat-only summits were held in secret behind closed doors and produced many unsavory deals. 

Had those meetings been open and bipartisan, I believe Congress could have passed a bipartisan health bill months ago. If the president and leaders in Congress are serious about finding common ground they should continue this debate, not cut it off by rushing through a partisan bill the American people have already rejected. 

If the majority agrees to work together they will find many Republicans ready to help them pursue our common goal of helping all Americans access quality and affordable Health Care for themselves and their families.”

References:

Health care in the United States
Health care reform in the United States
Health care reform debate in the United States
Public opinion on health care reform in the United States
History of health care reform in the United States