The climate change fraud

At the end of the Cold War, collectivist began seeking cover under another cause which could be used to further their goal of world domination. The UN based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its first report in 1990 and Mikhail Gorbachev began his Green Cross project in 1993.

Since then, there has been much controversy as to the conclusion reached by the IPCC, Greenpeace and other organizations which were suddenly considered the foremost authorities on the environment. Climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer comments that “Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’ politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science.”

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, but only reviews and publishes special reports relative to the interest of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which is a UN treaty that considers the possibility of climate change being cause by man. This treaty produced the Kyoto Protocol.

Contributing to the IPCC data is the Hadley Climate Research Unit who’s recently exposed e-mails have become the latest evidence of fraudulent science being used to further a political agenda. Heading Britain’s Hadley Climate Unit is Philip Jones who is now shown-up as the recipient of numerous electronic communications from other scientists speaking of data manipulation to hide the fact the earth is now cooling as a result of a normal climate cycle. Other well known scientists who were party in these unscientific communiqués are Michael Mann from Penn State’s Earth Science Center, Raymond Bradley from University of Massachusetts and Professor Malcolm Hughes from the University of Arizona.

NASA’s James Hansen claims we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere and his claim has become the basis of Al Gore’s fight against more coal-fired power plants. Hansen’s theory of “dangerous anthropogenic interference” can’t explain satellite imaging that shows our atmosphere to have a low sensitivity to CO2 presence and ignores historical temperature fluctuations and current cooling of the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere(troposphere).

The AP reports the “The Union of Concerned Scientists complained in April 2008 that more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.” EPA staffers claimed their reports not supporting manmade climate change were not considered and two EPA lawyers who published a video claiming Cap-and-Trade legislation to be a “Big Lie” were forced to take it down from their web site.

The IPCC and Al Gore jointly received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Now it appears the award was based on fraudulent science – a real inconvenient truth. “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,” by Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer is available for review and free download at http://www.nipccreport.org, which presents another view.
I have long considered environmentalism as being a false religion for secular humanist and collectivism. With this revelation of fraud, it is time for all of us to take a second look at the issue as well as Cap-and-Trade legislation which is a product of this phony, politically driven science prepared for the agenda of taxing US business and industry which will drive-up the cost of energy as well as the cost of goods for the average citizen.

We should also suggest to our congressional representatives, Luján, Teague, Heinrich, Bingaman and Udall that they revisit the issue which they presently support. Climate science has been hijacked by a spread-the-wealth socialist agenda and we need to tell them to put an end to the Carbon credits shell game.

Trampling on America’s soul

There is nothing more close to one’s personal interest as their health and the ability to manage health issues, which for many includes insurance coverage. All the polls I have seen indicate the majority Americans do not want higher costs, increased taxation, fewer options, and government interference between patients and their doctors. But the House health care reform bill does all of these things.

Our House representatives, Ben Ray Lujan (D) and Martin Heinrich (D) have ignored the undeniable opposition of the American people and placed their partisan political agenda over the desires of their constituency. To his credit, Rep. Harry Teague (D) listened to the voices in his district and joined other Democrats in opposing this government take-over of an important part of our soul.

My country has always had at its core belief, the constitutional right to freedom, justice and liberty for all. That’s what I call “America’s soul,” but this House legislation encroaches on those rights and our representatives should be held accountable and at least, informed as to our feelings on their vote.

According to the congressional record, this 2,032 page House bill criminalizes non-compliance of insurance mandates, establishes 118 new bureaucracies to control health care and tramples on our individual freedom and liberty. It tramples on our very soul and here is how:

The bill poses up-to a $250,000 fine and a maximum of 5 years in Jail for any American not purchasing government approved health insurance. It poses $729.5 billion in new taxes on small businesses who cannot afford to provide coverage that meets federal standards. According to the Lewin Group, 114 million Americans could lose their current coverage and be forced into the government option. The bill cuts $450 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund rendering it broke in 2017. It also poses $1.055 trillion in new federal spending of our tax dollars to manage government run health care.

This legislation is blatant attack on our pocketbook and American freedom and we should be outraged.

There was an alternative plan presented which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office evaluated and reported it could lower health care cost 10 percent and reduce the national deficit by $68 billion over the next ten years.

But House Democrats voted down these common sense alternatives posed by Republican’s which would have lowered health care premiums and increased access to affordable, high-quality care – without adding to the national debt. The Republican alternative contained only 219 pages that included coverage for pre-existing conditions, instituted real medical liability reform, enhanced Health Savings Accounts, enabled large insurance pools and purchasing across state lines.

Democrat’s actions, including those of Reps. Lujan and Heinrich seem to best represent the agenda of Speaker Pelosi which is intent on expanding government control and diminishing individual freedom. Their vote totally ignored patient-centered rights and fiscal responsibility. Their vote was not about providing quality health care for all Americans at a reduced cost. If it were, they would have supported the alternative plan. Their vote was about furthering a radical liberal agenda and an unsustainable trillion dollar deficit called government run health care reform.

American’s want affordable health care, less taxation and less government control of their lives. American’s want freedom and for their soul to prosper and I feel we will hold our Democrat House members responsible for this egregious encroachment on our liberty.

The dollar crisis

I recently received a newsletter from the noted economist and financial advisor, Martin D. Weiss, PhD. who made some very interesting observations, some of which I have included in this post.  Dr. Weiss notes that after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September of 2008, it took the Federal Reserve just 112 days to double our cash reserve by adding a whopping $1.007 trillion.  Looking backwards from September 2008, it had taken 13 years and eight months for the Fed to the same thing – double cash reserves.  Increasing reserves at a time of crisis is smart business.  Before Y2K , between October 6, 1999 to January 12, 2000 the Fed bumped-up reserves by $73 billion which would have covered any bank runs.  After the 9-11 attacks, the Fed put in $40 billion in extra cash.

 

After the Y2K and 9-11 increases crises had passed, the Fed reversed its position and recovered the excess liquidity, but after the Leman Brothers failure and continuing mortgage and investment bank meltdowns, Fed Chairman Bernanke has done no such thing.  Instead, he has left the incomparable cash reserve in the banking system, poised for what I believe will be another bailout or stimulus.  Experts are now projecting a commercial real estate collapse and with unemployment still rising this is not good news, no matter how well the White House says the recovery is going.

If these cash reserves were being lent to businesses, our economy could at least begin another expansion based on production, but so far the banks are holding on tight, citing stringent government regulations restrain them.  Our money supply is exploding. In August, money in circulation expanded at a rate of 18.6 percent greater than the previous year. It is three times faster than the currency growth rate of the 1970s, which gave us the worst inflation in recent times and six times faster than the average rate of expansion over the past fifty years.

This dollar abundance is not without consequences.  It has managed to quell the Wall Street and home mortgage crisis, but in doing so, the Fed has quadrupled our national debt since the first of 2009. If these dollars continue to leak into our economy without producing goods, they will cause inflation by continuing to deflate the dollar which is the principal reason the price of oil is presently on the rise, with less market demand.

Now the White House is announcing a new housing stimulus for first time buyers. Maybe they will be better qualified this time. Since January of this year, the Fed has also bought up $925 billion in mortgage backed securities, some good and some destined to fail, bringing to question the nature of our nation’s solvency.

All this is happening when our Congress and the president are clamoring for more spending on health insurance reform and more taxation with the cap and tax bills.  Undeniably, small business is the principal engine of our economy and predominant employer.  Many small businesses are making profits in the currently contracting economy and they are doing so by downsizing and that means employee lay-offs. When small business owners consider the Obama administration’s legislative goals of health insurance reform which will impose penalties on them and additional taxation from cap and tax legislation and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, they are rightfully reluctant to expand their businesses.  This is why corporate tax revenues are down 27% from last year.

Doubts compound when White House communications director, Anita Dunn openly admits she reveres Mao Tse-tung as a great philosopher and Obama’s manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom says the free market is “nonsense.”  With these outlandish statements, can someone tell me just how this administration will ever be able to instill confidence in government’s ability to protect markets and encourage a lagging economy to expand?

Considering the Obama stimulus has only created 30,000 jobs through government contracts, the mighty minds in Washington should rethink the message they are sending. The debt crisis of 2008  is giving us the dollar crisis of 2010.

Too big to fail

Too big to fail is used to describe financial institutions that must be bailed out when they reach insolvency. One way to reduce the risk is to break up the large institutions into smaller ones, but the government seems to be merging them instead of dividing them which – in the case of banks –  negates the ability of the FDIC to cover a bank run, much less insolvency, without calling on Treasury or the Fed for cash. FDIC funds are made up of contributions from member banks amounting to only about 2% of their deposits.

Risk is a real consideration in today’s volatile market and reducing risk would seem like a reasonable consideration.  Instead of downsizing to reduce risk, the Obama administration has taken the first step to pool the U.S. economy with those of the G-20 nations. In the G-20 Pittsburg meeting of September 25, he agreed to turn over scrutiny of our financial sector to the consensus of the G-20 regulators.  While the final details have not been adopted, the conditions of the agreement include debt reduction, which is a good thing, but quarterly reporting on such things as capital requirements, executive salaries and bonuses is an absolute abdication of our national sovereignty and an invasion of private enterprise by a quasi-established world authority on economic regulation.  The enforcement aspect is by peer pressure only and therefore moot.

It is however, a clear signal from President Obama as to his intentions to combine the U.S. economy into a socialist dominated world authority where we all share in the ups and downs of other nations.  It also demonstrates the power gained by the U.S.  Government when it took an equity position and voting share in the affairs of financial institutions.  Work on the final framework will begin in November.  Commentator Dick Morris has called this move “the repeal of our Declaration of Independence.”

To boot, the Obama administration persuaded European partners of the G-20 nations to increase the poorer nation’s ownership in International Monetary Fund from a 42% to a 48% share, without any increase in their contributions to the IMF funding.  Obama’s stated objective was – by giving a more equal ownership of the IMF to developing nations it will give the Fund a better standing among the non-industrialized nations so it will not appear so much as a tool of U.S. foreign policy.  This sounds like another apology to me for being the single largest aid giver to the Third World.

The current recession and falling dollar has given the government special economic powers for a while, just as did the Great Depression.  Notwithstanding, I am amazed at the audacity of this president who never seems to consider if his acts are constitutional, only if he can get away with it.  It is a question of possible, not permissible, as says J. T. Young who served in Treasury and OMB.

During the great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt moved in the same extra-constitutional fashion during his administration only to have the Supreme Court overturn his National Reconciliation Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  Roosevelt retaliated by trying to increase the number of chief justices and stack the court.  His failed attempts to circumvent the Constitution are largely overshadowed by WWII, but many progressive programs of the New Deal remained.

 While Obama continues to trade our sovereignty for safety within a combined world economy and debase our dollar through spendthrift government programs, many test lie ahead which the High Court will no doubt resolve as they did for F.D.R.  The lingering question is will it be too late?

The Apollo stimulus

Ever wonder who wrote the stimulus bill?   Evidence is now surfacing it was the Apollo Alliance, a green jobs caldron of ideas dedicated to saving the Earth and punishing those who are unfriendly to the environment.  If you look at their board they are mostly leftist and some really radical leftist like former member Van Jones, the now defrocked green jobs czar who was a self-avowed communist and community organizer in Oakland, CA.  Other former members include ACORN’s founder, Wade Rathke and current member Gerald Hudson, vice president of the Service Employees International Union.

It is not new for legislation to be written by political action committees or special interest groups, but what does an activist, leftist green group know about getting our economy started again?  The last time I checked, these serious greenies and for sure many of Apollo’s former board members are anti capitalism and free-enterprise, but according to Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity the Apollo Alliance drafted a stimulus bill in 2008 that included most ingredients of the final $787 billion bill.

The Apollo Alliance is mostly a shell corporation, and as its name indicates, is an alliance of environmentally centered organizations, union flunkies for the left like the Union Service Employees International who turn out carrying signs for Obama’s health care rallies.  Others like John Podesta, CEO of the Center for American Progress and former Clinton Chief of Staff, lend their political savvy of progressive policy to the group who has caught an angle on how to snare a large portion of the stimulus money for creating and funding green industries. If they are successful, it will amount to government funded businesses which are becoming a new paradigm, replacing entrepreneurship where individuals invested their own capital and worked hard to make sure they didn’t lose it.

Van Jones left the board when he was appointed as an advisor to President Obama, but was an active board member when the stimulus bill was written.  Jones has been quoted as describing Apollo as “a grand unified field theory for progressive left causes.” Also close to Apollo is Jeffrey Carl Jones who serves as a consultant to the national Apollo organization and runs an Apollo affiliate in up-state New York.  Jeffrey Jones was a national officer in the Students for a Democratic Society and along with Bill Ayers, later founded the Weather Underground who bombed buildings and ran from the law for ten years. In a Weathermen documentary film, Jones talks about building a revolutionary movement saying, “The power belongs to the young people and the black people in this country. Come on! We gotta build a strong base and someday we gotta knock those [m.fers.] who control this thing right on their ass.”

 
Like Ayers, Jones remains unrepentant saying, “it was the right thing to do.”  Following the 1968 Democrat Convention, Jones was a participant in the “Days of Rage” in Chicago where he got arrested for committing violence and destruction.
Today, he leads his consulting firm – Jeff Jones Strategies – specializing in media strategies for progressive and environmental groups.  He is a member of the Apollo Alliance, and reported to be a contributing writer of Obama’s stimulus package.  To make sure those stimulus dollars end up in the hands of the activist friends of Apollo, Jones also helps write grants for the funds provided in the stimulus package.

Considering what we now know about the influence of the Apollo Alliance and some of its members, one wonders what this country is coming to and why the Obama administration became so influenced and infiltrated with radicals.

The American dream

I had a dream the other night that we had just one political party – the American Party. It was a party ignored special interest influence peddling, balanced a budget, believed in reduced taxes, less government, free enterprise and was free of corruption, but I was only dreaming.

Instead, we have two principle parties who have allowed high taxes, uncontrolled spending, massive deficits, mounting foreign debt, a deflated dollar and are intent on controlling sectors of our economy rather than allowing market forces to have their way, based on sound financial policy. Both Democrats and Republicans have given us the housing bubble which was created by unsound policy stemming from the Community Reinvestment Act and further promoted by ACORN. The bubble and injudicious policy brought down the mortgage industry, financial institutions, the housing industry and created the credit crunch preventing business from funding expansion and absorbing the resulting unemployed. Environmental regulations have left our industrial sector operating at two thirds capacity and limited new energy exploration off our shores and on public lands. This will eventually lead to a nationwide energy shortage as it has in England, who followed the same misguided environmental policies.

Government’s hunger to fund more entitlements like national health care and unwillingness to start paying down our national debt has left us with few foreign lenders who no longer consider the dollar as a sound investment. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy of printing more money to satisfy congressional hunger for spending will soon send us into hyperinflation and further impede our recovery. Our politicians are responsible for this fix.

The problem is pervasive throughout government, from our chief executives – the president and state governors – to our congressional representatives. Few in office seem willing to consider, “Is it good for America?” Increasing our debt to provide health insurance – not health care – to a small fraction of Americans is not good for America. Further stifling industry with oppressive carbon tax regulations is costly to the consumer and will further gut our industrial capacity, send jobs overseas and increase our trade deficit. This is not good for America. Not investigating congressional representatives for income-tax evasion and other violations is a self-serving, protectionist policy that destroys our confidence in those we send to govern us. Allowing organizations like ACORN to continue to operate within our communities and receive funds either directly or indirectly is not good for America.

Is there any wonder the Tea Party movement has become so successful? American’s are fed-up with political shenanigans. Mainline media and politicians may ignore the masses of Americans who are presently in the street, demonstrating against government, but if they continue to do so, it will mean an expanding voter revolution and their unseating.

Americans want a representative government, a new Congress who will attend to the people’s business and not embrace a pervasively progressive ideology which is intent on establishing power with the government and not the people. I am finished with politicians who do not understand they are public servants, sent to work for our will and not become party pawns. I want to elect politicians who believe in reducing debt, shrinking government, enacting ethics reform and destroying the fiefdoms that have been created in our state and federal governments. I am no longer voting for representatives who do not read legislation or allow it to be written in an unclear form or for those who conduct the public’s business in private. I even want a balanced budget. Am I dreaming again?

Texas, California and New Mexico

 

In July, the Economist magazine published a comparison of two states.  In “California v. Texas:  America’s Future,” they detailed the differences between the two state’s governance.  Texas has bet its future on low taxes, no state income-tax, fiscal restraint and regulatory reform.  The California legislature has gone the way of spending on entitlements, public services and increased regulation in the environmental sector.

 True to form, Texans believed a free market would produce economic prosperity. The California special interest groups pushed for an activist government which they believed would spur growth and a healthy, green society.  But in 2008, the dance was over and it was time to pay the fiddler.  State spending had grown to 102.9 billion, the treasury was broke, Californians were saddled with excessive taxation and businesses were burdened with expensive regulations.

 One of America’s most dynamic economies, California has moved from prosperity under Governor Reagan and budget director Vern Orr to a fiscal basket case. Over 100,000 residence leave each year, which includes high state revenue producing corporations choosing to relocate to a more business  friendly  environment.  California’s unemployment rate in June was 11.6%.

 On the other hand, Texas balanced its budget and has maintained a surplus. The Wall Street Journal, says Texas is largely unaffected by the recession and grew by 150,000 population last year. More Fortune 500 firms are based in Texas than any other state and seventy percent of all new jobs in America were created in Texas last year.  In June, Texas had only 7.6% unemployed.

 Texas and California have much in common.  They are both agriculture states, homes for technology based industries, energy producers, occupy large land masses with abundant natural resources and until recently have had expanding populations with many illegal immigrants. Both also achieved autonomy from Mexico and became republics before joining the Union.

 New Mexico, while a Territory and never a republic, shares many similarities with Texas and California; technology, natural resources, energy production, vast land mass and similar demographics. Yet New Mexico’s population has never grown at the rate of her sister states. New Mexico seems never to have found the formula for economic prosperity and never adopted an economic model and quest for prosperity and growth.

 New Mexico’s entrenched politicians  have focused on obtaining entitlements instead of creating economic opportunity.  Our number one natural resource and industry – energy – has been the primary source for revenue to fund government and government has been the primary employer. The green thing has wrongly usurped the technological agenda and is leading us like California, into more debt and unemployment, while stifling the primus cash cow. This is not a model for success, but many of our politicians seem bound to the same old patron system used in days of old, sprinkled with some new age green hocus-pocus. Corruption abounds as a way of political life and citizens sit back, acquiesced into believing things will never change.

 Our serious economic times call for policy makers to do some serious soul searching as to our direction.  The Rio Grande corridor is an excellent economic opportunity waiting to happen.  State and local officials need to rethink their positions on excessive regulations and create a business friendly atmosphere to enhance private sector employment.

 Though the states are similar in many respects, the policies of Texas and California could not be more different in ideology.  The Texas model has prospered her people and the California model has created a deficit and taxed her residents and businesses beyond their ability to stay.  The Texas model has worked and should be viewed by both New Mexicans and our politicians in Washington as something worthy of emulating.

Monarchy or democracy?

The United States is a republic, run by representatives who are democratically elected and to whom we assign authority to represent us. That doesn’t mean they do what we want in all cases of legislation and there is no better example than what is happening right now with health care reform and cap and trade legislation.

The public debate has been robust as it should be and people have reacted angrily as well we should when legislation threatens us financially and proposes altering our way of life. Sound thinking says we should not be quick to change issues of law and doctrine, but life is a progressive event and some change is inevitable. The question before us today is will we allow our elected representatives to serve us as acolytes of a monarchal president or will we demand the influence we are due, during their term in office?

The cap and trade portion of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R.2454) – Waxman-Markley Bill – serves to profit special interest groups and discourages increasing output of domestic industries by imposing taxes on their carbon emissions. Domestic industry is currently operating at 68% of current capacity and will continue to decrease if this tax burden becomes law. Jobs will simply go overseas and we will pay the price for increased energy cost and unemployment. We all want clean air, but to package a tax on carbon emissions under the name of “Clean Energy and Security” is deceptive. Such legislation provides no security what-so-ever, especially if it discourages domestic gas and oil production and nuclear options.
It is our abundant supply of energy and resourcefulness in energy use that has fueled the industrial revolution and made us a great and productive country. Energy has provided jobs and increased income to all Americans. If you don’t believe it, just visit a Third World nation where a woman’s principal job is to gather enough fire wood or fuel to cook the one evening meal which is all too common to poor households; watch them walk hours to work instead of catching a bus or driving a car. Access to energy is our security and prosperity and we should pay special attention to the final Senate Version of the ACES bill and our Senator’s vote, which could further burden us with taxes.

Health care reform culminating in a single payer system was the center piece of Obama’s campaign. He has found public outcry to his plan to be deafening and has repackaged it as health insurance reform, because more of us have enmity towards insurance companies than health care providers. Government’s role in running our health care is not popular, by a wide margin of 2-1. This is largely to the intrusiveness of the House bill, which seems to be written by lobby groups like Health Care for America Now, a George Soros funded lobby which seems to want to control all aspects of what should be personal and private health decisions. We should take warning at anything associated with Soros and so should our House Members who voted for H.R.3200.

The health care/insurance reform is a complicated issue with many parts worthy of a complete and open debate. I hope the town hall forums have placed all our representatives on notice that we are tired of intrusive government which poses more taxpayer expense; we are tired of inaccurate explanations of bill content and rushed legislative process. We should tell them under no uncertain terms they represent our best interest as a nation which includes foremost – spending cuts and less government. We did not elect a monarch and his serfs and we will not accept forced rule over our lives. These two issues before Congress are so critical to our future the vote of our representatives should determine their future to serve us as well as anyone who would be king if left unchecked.

But can we afford it?

Among the things Thomas Jefferson said about our future was – “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. “

The simplest, no cost, no nonsense answers to healthcare reform lies in capping malpractice settlements which would lower malpractice insurance costs, giving tax incentives for health savings accounts and employee owned policies and creating competition among health insurance vendors.  The real issue is can we afford any other solution?

For every trillion in national debt, we pay approximately 50 billion in interest.  Presently, the accumulated national debt amounts to 11 trillion; it has ballooned 1.8 trillion so far this year.  Stuart Varney, financial contributor to Fox Business News reports we borrow 75 billion every week and we will add 2 trillion to the national debt, before yearend.  To fund this debt, the federal government must borrow $1 trillion or go to the Federal Reserve and have them print it. The Fed has already added $970 billion to the nation’s money supply this past year and Treasury Secretary Geithner is asking to again raise the federal debt limit. Reason being, China and other foreign debt buyers have retreated from buying our debt until we start paying it down.  A couple of weeks back, Secretary Geithner hinted a tax increase was preferable over cutting federal spending. He knows Congress is not going to balance the budget nor curtail their appetite.

While optimism precedes recovery, so does reality. The recent financial recovery news should be considered cautiously because the leading indicators do not project recovery. Unemployment rose 166,000 jobs in July and did not account for the 100,000 who’s time expired on the unemployment rolls. Foreclosures rose 7% from June and 32% from one year ago and home prices fell 15.6% during April through June 30.

 Overall government tax take is on track to drop 18% this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression.  Individual income tax revenues are down 22% from last year and corporate income taxes are down 57%. Social Security tax payments could drop for only the second time since 1940 and if the present trend continues, Medicare collections will decline for only the third time ever. According to the Fed, US industrial output fell to its lowest output ever in May utilizing only 68.3% of industrial capacity.

 In short, the government is cooking the books again. In April the Financial Accounting Standards Board was forced by bank executives and ranking congressional members to impose “emergency measures” and relax the mark-to-market rule leaving “fantasy” balances by which to measure our recovery.  The total number of banks failing this year is now at 69, costing the FDIC $912 million.  FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair just told the Senate Banking Committee it is possible bank failures could increase 10 fold before the crisis is over.  That’s at least another 500 banks.  Reserves at the FDIC are nearly tapped out, leaving it up to the Fed again to print money for the second (or is it the third?) round of bailouts.

According to Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program this could leave the American taxpayer on the hook for as much as 23.7 trillion.

 I would like for the news to be better, but it is not.  America cannot afford health care reform as Congress presents it.  There are good solutions to correct inequities in the present system and our representatives need to be encouraged to move in this direction.

Healthcare hell

President Obama continues to try and sell his national(ized) healthcare program to the public and now to the 250,000 member AMA who want nothing to do with a European-style healthcare system that restricts patient’s choice.

Social democrats want nothing more than to get their hands on 17% of the nation’s domestic product.  To control this much of our economy would be the largest coup in our nation’s history.  It is a socialist’s dream currently being scripted by Democrats who always promise lower cost for everything to all.  These planners are quick to point out the high income of physicians and high cost of healthcare to those who can’t afford health insurance. Class-envy and class-warfare work well.  There are few doctors in government so the tort lawyers who also contribute to the cost are hardly mentioned.

Democrat planners claim the government offered healthcare insurance, subsidized by the taxpayers, would bring down the cost of medical care through competition with the private insurance industry. The government thinks they can negotiate (demand) lower prices for medical services since they will represent a large block of clients.  They also maintain not everyone will be required to opt in to the system, rather they will have a choice of private coverage or the public option – government coverage made less expensive through government controlled costs of services.

The end game for the socialist planners is to eventually defeat the competition, either through acquisition or industry attrition and convert to a single-payer system.  They plan on assuming the commanding market share by offering better prices on premiums because of lower costs.  No doubt, medical students will be coaxed into government sponsored educations after which they will serve the government programs at a reduced salary and not having to pay back the very high cost of medical school.

Planners don’t say, but know, if the government run program is enacted, it will only be a matter of time until physicians in private practice will have to reduce their fees to compete and their reimbursements for services to those in the “public option” will be reduced. 

With the profit motive removed, doctors will close shop and enter other fields.  When government autocrats take over the system, insurance companies will no longer offer healthcare coverage and patient’s health decisions will be made by a clerk in Washington.  And like in England, after which the US system is being modeled, patients will be waiting months for services which can be today obtained in days.  Certain drugs will be withheld due to cost and doctor’s offices will be overflowing due to a lack of physicians.

What makes us think a government that ran Medicare into the ground can run a national healthcare system?  If enacted, this national system will also soon be broke and demanding more of taxpayers money to stay afloat.  If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it goes national.

 Like with Medicare, the government cost estimate to maintain a national program will be far understated, but once initiated there will be no turning back.  National healthcare is alluring to those without, but it is the most fraudulent taking away of individual liberties that we could suffer.  It will remove free-will decisions from patient and place them at the mercy of an out of control, unsympathetic government.