Immigration – Filling the Void

 

 

July 1, 2014

Bryan Baumgart

Chairman, Douglas County Republican Party

 

The United States is not alone in its struggles to replace an aging workforce and the important tax revenue attached to it.  As America continues to “gray”, it must find a way to care for its aging population.  While other countries such as Japan and China struggle to find a solution (see charts below), the United States has a distinct advantage in that immigrants continue to flock to this country seeking freedom and opportunity.  

 

The facts are undeniable. Our country is quickly sinking in debt, Social Security and Medicare are rapidly approaching insolvency, and the ever increasing number of laborers leaving the work force only compounds the problem our country is facing. A healthy immigration policy is key, not only to fill the labor demands of American businesses, but to effectively care for our aging population. 

According to the latest report from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees:

“Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP.”

Because US birth rates are not sufficient to fill the void left by an aging American workforce, immigration reform with an emphasis on targeted immigration continues to be our best viable solution. Targeted immigration provides a fighting chance for both Social Security and Medicare by filling in the voids of the population pyramid (see below).

 

The follies of failing on immigration reform

An aging workforce is not the only increasing burden American taxpayers must confront.  Our current immigration policy has led to an estimated 14 million plus undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States, often living at the expense of American taxpayers.

A recent story in the Washington Post explored the burden placed on school budgets by the rising percentage of students who qualify for subsidized meals and extra English instruction:

“Immigration reform could help families more easily attain legal status and begin adding to the tax base.”

Some of the most vocal opponents of immigration reform decry propping up benefits for noncitizens at taxpayer expense. Ironically, these same critics then turn around and oppose allowing their participation in the system.

The undeniable facts remain. Our current immigration process has left us with 14 million undocumented immigrants. Most of which are hardworking, law abiding, family and faith oriented individuals who came seeking the same opportunity and pursuing the same happiness that our ancestors sought. Their children, born in America know no other country or way of life. 

Logic tells us that deportation is not an option, nor should it be. Past attempts to solve the problem through amnesty have obviously failed. Construction of a border fence will certainly prove futile as the human spirit cannot be held captive by a fence or means of force. Immigrants will continue to flock to this country seeking freedom and opportunity with the same furor that drove our ancestors to risk all in the pursuit of a better future.

The solution is to address the failing immigration policy that has caused this problem in the first place. The legal process must first be simplified in order to act as an incentive rather than a deterrent. Once effective reform of the legal process is achieved, undocumented immigrants should be allowed to self-report and enter into that legal process…AT THE BACK OF THE LINE. Temporary citizenship should be granted during this time in order to avoid tearing families apart and other unnecessary societal distress. Rather than living at the expense of American taxpayers, immigrants would be welcomed out of the shadows and could pull their own weight becoming contributing taxpayers themselves.  Immigration should then be targeted at filling the labor demands of American businesses. It’s a problem with a rare win/win solution.

 * I’d like to congratulate my friend Yeny Curruchich Martinez who after a long journey, today became a proud American citizen. Your story which began in Guatemala, led through California, and finally brought you to Nebraska where you passionately serve fellow Nebraskans as a nurse does not end here. Today marks an exciting new chapter in your story.  A story that serves as an inspiration to me. You truly embolden everything that makes America “that shining city on the hill”.  

Credible Challenge to Obamacare Back in Court - Violates Constitution's Origination Clause

May 8, 2014

A Federal Appeals Court in Washington will take up a credible challenge to Obamacare today.

 

I blogged about this back in November of 2012. "Obamacare Violates the Constitutions Origination Clause; Legal Challenge Moves Forward"

 

The challenge was made possible when SCOTUS ruled the individual mandate penalty a tax back in June of 2012. 

 

The challenge is based on the “Origination Clause” (Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution) which states that “any legislation to create a tax to be collected by the federal government must originate in the House of Representatives”. 

 

The clause was created by our founders as a safeguard to liberty because they understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy. The requirement is designed to maximize political accountability. The House is closest to the people and less insulated than the Senate. Each member must seek reelection every two years.

 

The argument is that Obamacare originated in the Senate and was then sent to the House of Representatives and is therefore unconstitutional.

 

The White House will argue the Senate has a right to amend House Bills and send them back for approval. With Obamacare, Sen. Reid took a bill passed in the House called the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” that offered tax credits to military members who were first-time homebuyers. He then amended that bill by stripping out the entire text of the six-page law and replaced it with the 2,000-plus page bill that became the Affordable Care Act.

 

Opponents will argue that Reid’s legislative manipulation was unconstitutional because SCOTUS has held that only Senate amendments that are germane to the subject matter of the underlying House bill can avoid scrutiny under the Origination Clause. Otherwise, the Constitution’s Origination Clause is meaningless.

 

The case is Sissel v. US Department of Health and Human Services (13-5202).

http://news.yahoo.com/bid-topple-obamacare-court-did-harry-reid-bend-120003810.html

Weather Channel Co-Founder Slams Federal Climate Report

May 7, 2014

’600 page litany of doom’: Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman slams Federal climate report: A ‘total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk’    

Coleman: 'When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the “radiative forcing” theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.'

'The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.'

 

 

 

 

(For more on global temperature standstill see here: Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months)

 

John Coleman’s Blog for Wednesday, May 7th

The sky is falling. “Climate Change” is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to “green energy” to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report. It was reviewed by federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

This 600 page litany of doom and gloom has received extensive coverage by the panting anchors of the national media who feel important when tell their audience that “the sky is falling.” Horrible pictures of storms, floods, drought and heat waves leaped out of the TV sets as the New York and Washington DC headquartered media was particularly excited to tell us how the huge increases in floods and storms was the worst in that part of the nation.

If you accept the picture painted by this report, the weather was just right, steady and nice in the historic past but because our industrialized society has powered its heating and air conditioning, its transportation by train, plane, cars and trucks, generated it’s electric power to run our lights, computers, television and smart phones with fossil fuels it has triggered this nightmare of awful storms, droughts and heat waves.

I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk. The only good news is that I least where I am and on the channels and websites I saw I was not further insulted by fawning TV Weathercasters visiting the White House and interviewing the President. I best I can tell, on a national level, that turned out to be a non-event (thank goodness).

Please allow me to hold your attention for a few minutes to explain why I don’t buy into this Climate Change alarmism. The climate of Earth has never been “normal” or stable. It has continuously changed through this planet’s 4.5 billion year history. Powerful storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and ice and snow storms have come and gone as long as Earth has existed.

The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.

When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the “radiative forcing” theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.

They call people such as me who debunk their non-scientific silliness as “deniers” and claim we are flat-earthers and shills for “big oil”. It is insulting and maddening. But I will not be silenced. And neither will the thousand others, many of them with Ph.D.’s and on the faculties of major universities who are working to stop this bad science that labels CO2 as a pollutant and blames it for every shift in the weather.

We will be gathering, we global warming skeptics, at Heartland Institutes 9th International Conference on Climate Change, July 7 – 9, 2014 in Las Vegas. You can learn about that conference at http://climateconference.heartland.org/. I will be one of the speakers at the breakfast session on Tuesday July 8th. Look at the list of speakers on the website and you will see an impressive group. A group of the powerful Ph.D.’s in the group have recently published a complete scientific document that totaling destroys the climate change alarmism of the US Democrat Party and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You can find that publication on line at http://climatechangereconsidered.org/.

In the meantime, through blogs, and radio and television interviews whenever any of us can get on the air we will continue to try to debunk this way of climate alarmism. For instance, I will be on the air on WLS Radio in Chicago with Bruce Wolf & Dan Proft on Wednesday morning (today) at 8:45 AM Chicago time (6:45 AM San Diego time) and do my best to tell the real story of climate and weather. You can listen to that broadcast on line at

http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/citadel/?sid=1044&nid=2920

All of this not withstanding, my life is sooo good. Every day is fun and relaxed since I have ended the tread mill life of grinding out all those TV weathercasts a day. I now do my dancing for fun only. LOL

#

Blog for Tuesday, May 6th

The President of the United States has decided to make Climate Change a major issue of the last two years of his Administration. This deeply saddens me but I won’t give up my effort to debunk the horrid distortion of science that has led to this Climate Change Alarmism campaign. First of all, please, believe me, there is no significant man-made global warming. There is a minor warming trend continuing as Earth continues to go through its normal, natural climate change from Ice Age to Interglacial period which in ten thousand year or so will fade into another ice age. The activities of mankind in powering our civilization with fossil fuels has had no significant impact on this natural process. And this chart shows that the warming has stalled now for 17 plus years:

So today to launch his new campaign the President has invited a group of television Meteorologist to the White House to interview him on the topic. The barrage of publicity will be deafening. I deeply regret that the global warming/climate change thing has become a partisan political issue. Al Gore made global warming a Platform issue for the Democrat Party and it is now accepted without serious study or scientific consideration by a vast majority of liberals in this country. And, as politics goes, the Republican Party denies global warming because it is a key issue of the other party without even studying the science.

There are thousands and thousands of scientists who know without a doubt that the entire matter is based on bad science. We fight with everything we have to inform the public of the truth, but the dominate liberal media shuns us and the global warming team calls us names and insults us. We know we right and we try to explain that this global warming campaign is costing us billions in tax dollars every year and driving up the our cost of living by well over a thousand dollars a year for the average family (and the cost is increasing dramatically in the coming years as the government enacts cap and trade regulations.) One dramatic increase is in the cost of corn. This is leading to hunger and perhaps thousands of deaths per year in the poorest nations of the world. It is not a small, “who cares” matter. You can get my explanation of how this all got started and what the bad science is all about by watching my videos on this website or following my links to active climate change debunking websites of scientists I greatly respect. I get you to set politics aside and study the science of the issue. It is important. Meanwhile, somehow I will get through the next 48 hours or so of massive publicity on the issue.

Best regards,

John Coleman


http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/07/600-page-litany-of-doom-weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman-slams-obama-climate-report-a-total-distortion-of-the-data-and-agenda-driven-destructive-episode-of-bad-science-gone-berserk/

FAIL. Behind the 7.1 Million Obamacare Enrollees...

Bryan Baumgart - 4/3/2014

7.1 million.

That's the number of obamacare enrollees that President Obama touted during his victory dance yesterday.  But a look behind these numbers shows just how misleading they are. 

Of the 7.1 million people that signed up for obamacare, the Obama administration admits that 4.4 million actually signed up for Medicaid via the ACA rather than actual obamacare.  

Of the remaining 2.7 million that signed up for obamacare (by force of mandates and fines), only 27% had been previously uninsured.  

It is estimated that 5 million Americans lost their insurance due to Obamacare so far and a recent survey by McKinsey & Company estimates that 73% of the obamacare signups already had insurance before obamacare.  

NY Times reports that 20% haven’t actually paid for the obamacare insurance they signed up for yet (so they aren't technically insured), and it is expected that many more will let their plans lapse during the course of the year.  

The McKinsey study reveals the 27% of new enrollees that weren’t previously insured have an unusually high rate of failing to pay for their premiums. Only 53% had paid for their first premium, compared to 86% of the previously insured paying for theirs.   

It is estimated that less than 25% of the current obamacare signups are young and healthy, far short of the 40% the administration was hoping for. (The ACA hinges on large numbers of young and healthy individuals paying in without using their insurance in order to support everyone else and keep the program solvent).  

Facts:  

Based on census data, there were 44.8 million Americans uninsured in 2008 before Obamacare. Today…after spending over $2 TRILLION taxpayer dollars… 48.6 million Americans remain uninsured.   

An expected 78 - 100 million more are likely to lose their employer insurance when the delay expires after the November elections.   

Estimates show premiums doubling and out of pocket expenses have skyrocketed so high that even those that have insurance can’t afford to get sick and use it.

They have health insurance but no health CARE.  

Where is the victory again?! 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/31/Obamacare-Real-Enrollment-Just-1-7-of-Uninsured-Covered

Common Sense Pt.2: The "Not-So-United" States of America

Bryan Baumgart – 3/3/2014

Earlier this year, Walter Williams posed a question in an editorial titled “Parting Company” on Townhall Daily that I believe will be asked more and more by Americans in the future.

“If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people's lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group?”

Williams went on to answer his question:

"I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative."

Williams isn’t alone. Calls for secession are becoming more and more frequent with each passing day.

On April 9, 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry joined other states such as Oklahoma, Indiana, and South Dakota in publicly endorsing a resolution affirming the sovereignty of their state under the 10^th Amendment. One could argue these resolutions are merely public objections to federal overreach, but they also lay the groundwork as legal platforms for future secession.

Perhaps former KGB member and Russian academic Igor Panarin should be credited with US secession predictions as early as 1998. Panarin based his predictions on classified data supplied to him while he worked for the Russian “National Security Agency” (FAPSI). Panarin claimed that by 2010, economic, financial, and demographic trends would provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. and that the wealthier states would withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. He predicted that social unrest up to and including a civil war would follow and the US would split along ethnic lines.

Of course three years have since passed since the end of 2010 and Panarin’s predictions have not come true. That doesn’t mean they won’t, and if they do play out…Panarin’s scenario makes the most sense.

Panarin’s “wealthier states” (the states most likely to become fed up and make the first move) are the states with more to lose than gain from being part of the union. Economically self-sufficient states such as oil and gas giants like Texas, Alaska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the Dakotas are a few that fit the bill.

Critics will point to the fact that Texas actually receives more in federal revenue than it sends to DC in taxes or that blue states such as New York or California pay more in federal taxes than they receive. While this is true and serves to appease states like Texas, those red states still have a tipping point in regard to federal interference in their state’s Constitutional rights. Thus states like Texas reaffirming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.

There is an important difference between self-sufficient states accepting more federal funds than they contribute out of choice, and states that do so out of necessity. Of course, any state that isn’t inhabited by a majority of voters supporting a giant welfare state could be self-sufficient (most red states). Independence directly correlates to personal responsibility.  

As the largest and most independent, Texas is likely the state to lead the charge after extending an invitation to the other “red” states to join the effort. States could refuse to contribute to federal coffers, choosing instead to hold on to their revenue and take care of their own or to join in union with other like-minded states.

Next comes the push from “red” counties in blue states to split from their respective states.  These efforts are already picking up steam. After President Obama’s reelection, symbolic petitions to secede were filed in more than 30 states. These petitions held no teeth, but have already turned into real movements such as the ongoing effort in California to split into six states or the five Colorado counties that voted to secede and form their own state. These counties could very well be accepted into neighboring “red” states.

The country could find itself split down the middle; a strategic advantage for the secession movement. The economic advantage then lies with those “red” self-sufficient states. Their tax climates will attract businesses (and job seekers) from the “blue” states which equates to increased revenue. In a classic repeat of the Cold War and collapse of the USSR under the weight of its own misguided ideals, the “blue” states find themselves starved of jobs, opportunity, and necessary revenue.

Which begs the question…what kind of opposition/response would spring up from the federal government? Up to this point, the secession has been a peaceful revolution. Would the president turn the military on a large number of states? If so, what orders would be issued? Should elected leaders be arrested it could spark rebellion from the armed citizenry of those states, sparking a civil war as Igor Panarin predicted.

The president’s latest move should come as no surprise then, as pointed out by Texas Governor Rick Perry. The president is once again attempting to gut the Army and National Guard; the branch of military under authority of the Governors. This move lends credence to the belief that the president is proactively working to gut the military forces that could be used in opposition and attempting to make the states more dependent on the federal government in cases of emergencies and defense.

Patriots best be vigilant.

Nebraska Public Service Commission…Necessary or Nuisance?

Bryan Baumgart - 2/28/2014

 

A seat at Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has become a highly coveted position.  

“It is not a high-profile job, but it's described by some as one of the best elected positions in state government. It comes with a $75,000-a-year salary. And if history is any indication, the job could turn into a lifetime gig.” –Robynn Tysver, Omaha World Herald, 1/19/2014

The PSC is a constitutionally created executive body established under Article IV, Section 20 of the Nebraska Constitution.

The PSC was initially created by the Legislature in 1885 to regulate railroads. In 1906 a constitutional amendment made the Commission a three member elected Railway Commission. Membership was increased to five Commissioners in 1964 and the state was divided into five districts, each to elect a commissioner.

The Commission could be described in three words:

Regulation: 

Today the Commission regulates telecommunications carriers, natural gas jurisdictional utilities, major oil pipelines, railroad safety, household goods movers and passenger carriers, grain warehouses and dealers, construction of manufactured and modular homes and recreational vehicles, high voltage electric transmission lines, and private water company rates. The Commission also oversees and administers several statutorily created funds with specific legislative purposes and goals including the Nebraska Universal Service Fund, the Enhanced Wireless 911 Fund, and the Nebraska Telecommunications Relay System Fund.

High Salaries:

The $75,000-a-year-salary makes the position one of the highest paid government positions in the state, just below those of the state auditor and state treasurer and considerably higher than the $12,000 paid to state senators making laws for the entire state. While the gig is considered fulltime and members are prohibited from engaging in other occupations, admittedly the duties are less than time consuming.

“While the position is intended to be full time, there have been times in the past when there were commissioners who were not as active or dedicated to the job.” --Current PSC Chairman Frank Landis.

Cronyism:

Commissioners have become a prime target for lobbyists, pulling in 76 percent of campaign contributions from the industries they regulate. That doesn’t look to change anytime soon. Under legislation passed in 2011 the PSC is granted the authority to approve major oil pipelines. With possible decision making authority over the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline, expect the PSC to be targeted heavily by lobbyists on both sides.

The question that remains…

Is the Public Service Commission a necessity any longer or is it an unnecessary expense to Nebraska taxpayers? Could the duties better be handled by other entities? With over $27 million dollars spent by special interests lobbying Nebraska lawmakers in 2013 alone, is the Commission prone to corruption?

Could Nebraska’s taxpayers be better served by ending the PSC through a Constitutional Amendment?

I think it’s time for a serious discussion.

Is the Time for Secession Now?!

"I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative." - Walter Williams
 

Parting Company

Walter E. Williams | Jan 01, 2014

 

Here's a question that I've asked in the past that needs to be revisited. Unless one wishes to obfuscate, it has a simple yes or no answer. If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people's lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group? Yes or no. My answer is no; they should be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways.

The problem our nation faces is very much like a marriage in which one partner has an established pattern of ignoring and breaking the marital vows. Moreover, the offending partner has no intention to mend his ways. Of course, the marriage can remain intact while one party tries to impose his will on the other and engages in the deviousness of one-upsmanship and retaliation. Rather than domination or submission by one party, or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage where vows are broken, our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. These constitutional violations have increased independent of whether there's been a Democrat-controlled Washington or a Republican-controlled Washington.

There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways. You say, "Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?" Let's look at the magnitude of the violations.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is there authority for Congress to tax and spend for: Medicare, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and thousands of other activities that account for roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to citizens about what type of health insurance they must purchase, how states and people may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps, and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do just about anything for which they can muster a majority vote.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." Our founder's constitutional vision of limited federal government has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Americans have several options. We can like sheep submit to those who have contempt for liberty and our Constitution. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and Constitution. A superior alternative is to find a way to peaceably separate into states whose citizens respect liberty and the Constitution. My personal preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation. 

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/01/01/parting-company-n1769958

Poverty is Winning the War on Poverty

We have spent $15 trillion “fighting” poverty since 1965 and we are currently spending $ 1 trillion a year ― an amount equal to about $22,000 per poor person or $88,000 for a family of four. Yet our poverty rate today (16%) is higher than when we started (14%)! If there has been a War on Poverty, poverty won.

Is it not obvious that we are subsidizing and enabling a way of life? To put it bluntly, we are paying young women to have children out of wedlock. We are paying them to be unemployed. And we are paying them to remain poor.

Is Poverty Really The Result Of Bad Luck?

Move upMove down

President Obama's Health Reform Will Shred The Safety Net John GoodmanContributor

Obama's Shameful Calculated Deception Deceives America Over Obamacare Peter FerraraContributor

As Obamacare Unravels Before Our Eyes, It's Time To Craft An Alternative Capital FlowsContributor

Obamacare's Insurance Exchanges Will Foster A Race To The Healthcare Bottom John GoodmanContributor

 

On Thanksgiving eve, a Nicholas Kristof editorial instructed us on how to think about poverty in The New York Times. The main reason there is poverty, he tells us, is bad luck.

We don’t choose our parents, after all. Or the household or neighborhood we are born into. Here are a few of his observations, with my emphasis added:

 

“As Warren Buffett puts it, our life outcomes often depend on the ‘ovarian lottery.‘

 

[T]he difference between being surrounded by a loving family or being homeless on the street is determined not just by our own level of virtue or self-discipline, but also by an inextricable mix of luck, biography, brain chemistry and genetics.

 

[S]uccess in life is a reflection not only of enterprise and willpower, but also of random chance and early upbringing.”

So what’s the solution to this problem? It is apparently very simple: All we need is love. (Kristof’s column is actually titled “Where Is the Love?”) And just in case you are not motivated in that way, Kristof draws on the work of Harvard professor John Rawls to give a rational philosophical reason to spend more on welfare programs.

But before getting into that let’s pause for a moment. Is being born really a matter of luck? Doesn’t that take willful activity on the part of two parents? And is the inability of parents to support their children really a matter of luck? Or is it the result of bad habits and undisciplined behavior?

Let’s grant that some people do have bad luck. But bad luck usually strikes randomly. Absent hurricanes and tornados, we don’t expect misfortune to befall entire neighborhoods ― to say nothing of entire cities.

Kristof’s particular focus is on Food Stamps, given the debate in Congress over whether to cut spending on the program. So let’s concede that misfortune can cause some people to be hungry. But does that include the entire city of Dallas?

Every single child attending public school in Dallas, Texas is getting a free lunch and a free breakfast. The reason: There are so few children who don’t qualify for free or subsidized food that it made administrative sense just to give free meals to everybody. And as I wrote previously, the trend around the country these days is to add a free supper as well. So the only time kids will need Food Stamps is on weekends.

By the way, Dallas is not like Detroit. The economy is booming. As Texas Governor Rick Perry is fond of pointing out, Texas has created almost half the new jobs in the entire country over the past decade. So why, in the midst of all this growth and prosperity, is every school child in the city living in a home where the parents cannot afford to put food on the table?

At some point you would think that even New York Times editorial writers would come to suspect that the welfare state is not relieving poverty. It is creating it.

We have spent $15 trillion “fighting” poverty since 1965 and we are currently spending $ 1 trillion a year ― an amount equal to about $22,000 per poor person or $88,000 for a family of four. Yet our poverty rate today (16%) is higher than when we started (14%)! If there has been a War on Poverty, poverty won.

Is it not obvious that we are subsidizing and enabling a way of life? To put it bluntly, we are paying young women to have children out of wedlock. We are paying them to be unemployed. And we are paying them to remain poor.

Now let’s turn to the rational (non-emotional) argument for the welfare state. Kristof writes:

 

“John Rawls, the brilliant 20th-century philosopher, argued for a societythat seems fair if we consider it from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ — meaning we don’t know whether we’ll be born to an investment banker or a teenage mom, in a leafy suburb or a gang-ridden inner city, healthy or disabled, smart or struggling, privileged or disadvantaged. That’s a shrewd analytical tool — and who among us would argue for food stamp cuts if we thought we might be among the hungry children?”

 

Warren Buffett, by the way, makes a similar argument.

And in both cases, it’s a surprise that these two very intelligent men cannot think of any other policy options. Remember, behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance you don’t have to worry about what is politically practical. You can choose any public policy you like.

So wouldn’t a rational person ask how public policy could be changed so that fewer children are born to alcoholic mothers who don’t read to them or encourage their mental development?

It appears that government doing nothing would have vastly decreased the odds of being born as a child of such mothers. During the Reagan years the Council of Economic Advisors tracked the reduction in Post-World War II poverty as a function of economic growth. The conclusion: if there had never been a War on Poverty, the poverty rate by the mid-80s would have been significantly below where it actually was.

Bringing those estimates forward, if there had never been a welfare state, economic growth alone should have virtually eliminated poverty by now.

Today, Buffet and Kristof standing behind a veil of ignorance ― about to be born into the United States ― would have a one in two chance of experiencing a birth paid for by Medicaid. Absent the welfare state, their odds of needing charity to be born would have been on the order of two or three out of 100.

Of course now that we have created the welfare state, and the culture that depends on it, it’s virtually impossible to end it and ask everyone on the dole to go cold turkey. But we can do something else. We can privatize it.

More on that in a future editorial.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2013/12/03/is-poverty-really-the-result-of-bad-luck/ 

Designed to Fail - Obamacare Paves Way to Single-Payer

Harry Reid and Tom Coburn Agree: Obamacare Was Designed to Fail, Pave Way for Single-Payer

John McCormack

August 10, 2013 11:54 AM

The Las Vegas Sun reports:

In just about seven weeks, people will be able to start buying Obamacare-approved insurance plans through the new health care exchanges. 

But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot. 

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.” 

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said. 

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.” 

The idea of introducing a single-payer national health care system to the United States, or even just a public option, sent lawmakers into a tizzy back in 2009, when Reid was negotiating the health care bill.

And so we have a rare moment of bipartisan agreement in the United States Senate. Reid now appears to concur with Republican senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who has has been warning for quite some time that Obamacare was "rigged to fail" in order to pave the way for a total government takeover of the health insurance industry.

"More than two years after the passage of Obamacare, the data overwhelming show the law will fail to achieve its core objectives of lowering costs and improving access," Coburn wrote in 2012. "That, ironically, may have been the design. By making private insurance unaffordable for everyone, it will become available to no one. All that will be left is government-centered, government-run, single-payer health care."

As liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein said in 2008, organizations on the left pushing for health care reform were pursuing a "sneaky strategy" to "put in place something that over time the natural incentives ... move it to single payer."

So the big question on the left and right isn't really whether or not Obamacare will eventually fail, but what comes after it fails.

When Obamacare starts to unravel, will the American people really trust the Democrats who designed it to fix it by giving the government more power and more control? Or will Obamacare's failure provide an opportunity to repeal it and replace it with a more conservative, free-market reform?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/harry-reid-and-tom-coburn-agree-obamacare-was-designed-fail-pave-way-single-payer_745908.html
 

GOP’s Winning Strategy: Fund the Government, Not Obamacare

Bryan Baumgart - Chairman, Douglas County Republican Party

October, 8, 2013

It was said it couldn’t be done. It was said it shouldn’t be done. Yet on September 20th, House Republicans set their plan in motion by passing H.R.2682 (The Defund Obamacare Act). A plan that would fully fund the federal government; sparing Americans from both a government shutdown and the impending Obamacare train wreck. In the end, Senate Democrats chose to refuse the funding and allow the government to be shut down.

Today the Republican strategy picks up steam as vulnerable Senate Democrats are placed squarely on the hot seat. After Democrats refused funding for the entire federal government, Republicans responded by passing partial funding bills on popular issues (with bi-partisan support). Senate Democrats have vowed not to negotiate and continue to kill funding for these popular issues such as veterans benefits, cancer research, pay for our National Guard and Reserves, funding for nutritional food programs for low-income women and children, disaster relief, etc.

These are certainly not winning positions for vulnerable Senate Democrats in 2014. You can bet Republicans will continue to push Democrats hard for their refusal to negotiate. Cracks have already begun to surface as an exception was made to unanimously pass the “Pay Our Military Act” to fund our active-duty military as well as civilian Defense Department employees and contractors. It was immediately signed into law by the president.

Working against the Democrat’s strategy to shut down the government is the fact that it hasn’t been particularly painful for American voters. Forbes estimates that only 13% of the government has actually shut down. In an effort to sway public sentiment, President Obama has ordered national parks and monuments barricaded, select government websites shutdown, as well as Amber Alerts and access to the open ocean. A Park Service Ranger was recently quoted as saying, “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.” This order came from the White House. When President Obama forbade priests and chaplains from celebrating religious services on military bases, the House overrode his order by a vote of 400-1 and dared Senate Democrats to side with the president.

The plan has all but backfired on Democrats as stories surface of World War II and Vietnam War vets facing arrest for viewing their own memorials. Once again, not behavior that vulnerable Senate Democrats want to be associated with, particularly from independents who are undecided about who to blame for the shutdown. The Republicans aren’t shy to shine the spotlight on the issue either. A new website has been set up by Senator Ted Cruz’s PAC called (FundOurVets.com). The site calls for legislation to fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs. If vulnerable Senate Democrats don’t cave and support the funding it benefits their Republican opponents in 2014. If they do cave, the Republican argument becomes: You have voted for funding for our active military and then again for the Department of Veterans Affairs, why are you holding out on funding other important issues such as opening our national parks or feeding the needy?

The Republican strategy remains focused on motivating Democrats to compromise and accept either delays or significant limits on Obamacare. In the interim, Republicans can take solace in knowing that not only has Obamacare not received the necessary additional funding for implementation, but until Democrats are willing to negotiate, some of their key issues remain unfunded such as the Environmental Protection Agency and furloughs at the National Labor Relations Board. In the end, the Republican strategy is likely to end with both beneficial compromise on Obamacare and a significant advantage heading into the 2014 election cycle.

#RepublicanAndProud

http://www.politicalinsidersreport.com/2013/10/08/gops-winning-strategy-fund-the-government-not-obamacare/

The American Healthcare Reform Act

The centuries-old oath taken by health care professionals reads, “Do no harm.”  It is time for Washington lawmakers to take a similar approach when working to fix the problems that exist in our broken health care system.  Simply repealing the President's health care law is not enough—it must be replaced.

Conservatives recognize that patient-centered reforms rooted in free markets are the best way to lower costs and solve problems in our health care system.  That is why the Republican Study Committee (RSC) is proud to bring forward a pragmatic, practical, and portable free-market alternative to the current health care system.  Simply put, our bill is a better way forward. Specifically, H.R. 3121, the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act:

• Fully repeals President Obama's health care law, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs. 


• Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.


• Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.


• Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard deduction for health insurance.


• Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.


• Safeguards individuals with pre-existing conditions from being discriminated against purchasing health insurance by bolstering state-based high risk pools and extending HIPAA guaranteed availability protections.


• Protects the unborn by ensuring no federal funding of abortions.

Repeal and Replace Obamacare: It's Time for Reform 

Obamacare is a train-wreck full of broken promises that is increasing health care costs and interfering with the doctor patient relationship. Obamacare must be stopped. We recently sat down with Americans from across the country to ask their opinions of Obamacare and how it is affecting them in the workplace. 

There is a better way to the one-size-fits-all approach of Obamacare. That is why the Republican Study Committee (RSC) isproud to bring forward a pragmatic, practical, and portable free-market alternative to the current health care system without the unworkable taxes and mandates forced on American families through the President’s health care law.

Video

http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/solutions/rsc-betterway.htm  

Health Stats: Comparing US to Universal Healthcare

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: 

            U.S.                    65%
 
            England               46%
 
            Canada                42%
 

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
 
            U.S.                      93%
 
            England                15%
 
            Canada                43%
 

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
 
            U.S.                      90%
 
            England                15%
 
            Canada                43%
 
 
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
 
            U.S.                      77%
 
            England                40%
 
            Canada                43%
 
 
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
 
            U.S.                      71
 
            England                14
 
            Canada                18
 
 
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
 
            U.S.                    12%
 
            England                2%
 
            Canada                6%
 
 
            And now for the last statistic:
 
 
            National Health Insurance?
 
            U.S.                   NO
 
            England              YES
 
            Canada              YES

*statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization; published by Investors Business Daily.

School Vouchers Equal Better Outcomes for All

from The Platte Institute for Economic Freedom: 7/2/2013

Indiana Leading the Way on Vouchers

In 1875, the Speaker of the House of Representatives James G. Blaine introduced an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the use of state funds at private religious schools. While the amendment failed on the national level, 37 states-including Nebraska-adopted these amendments for their state constitutions.[1] While these amendments have long been an impediment to those who support school vouchers-state-sponsored certificates of specified dollar amounts that parents can use for private school tuition[2]-a recent ruling on Indiana's expansive voucher program indicates that vouchers may not fall under Blaine amendment constraints, which would open the door to vouchers in Nebraska.

The Indiana Supreme Court case examined whether Indiana's voucher program, which is available to low and middle-income families, was constitutional. The court held that it was, as the state funds "do not directly benefit religious schools but rather directly benefit lower-income families with school children."[3] Such a precedent could make it possible for other states with Blaine amendments to introduce voucher programs without violating state constitutions, giving parents more choice and control in how their child is educated.

Twelve states currently have voucher programs, but Indiana's is the most expansive. It is a statewide program with a maximum voucher amount of $4,500 for students in grades 1-8.[4] A family of four earning less than $42,000 annually can receive up to 90 percent of the maximum state voucher; families making up to $62,000 annually receive 50 percent.[5] Since its establishment in 2012, participation in the program has grown 140 percent, jumping from 3,919 students to 9,424. In the Indianapolis area in particular, the number of students receiving vouchers increased 94 percent, from 644 to 1,262.[6] Such results demonstrate a critical need for more educational options for students and parents, and Indiana's response is one to be emulated.

Voucher programs introduce choice and competition into education. With vouchers, private schools are no longer open only to those who can afford it, and the playing field is leveled so parents with limited means that want to send their children to private school have opportunities to do so. In addition, a marketplace of educational choice compels both public and private schools to focus on advancing student achievement and meeting parent expectations.[7] Research also suggests that public schools improved when subject to the competition introduced by vouchers. A study of public schools in Florida found "that public schools subject to more competitive pressure from private schools raised their test scores the most following the introduction of Florida's voucher program."[8] Therefore, the positive benefits of vouchers extend even to those who choose to remain in the public school system in some cases.

Voucher programs have shown success in raising student outcomes in their own right. Students in Washington DC's Opportunity Scholarship Program-which provides vouchers to low-income students through a lottery-had a graduation rate of 91 percent, 21 percent higher than those without vouchers. DC voucher students also had higher student achievement and parental satisfaction, even while spending only $7,500 per pupil, while DC public schools spent $29,409 per pupil in 2010.[9] More than 20,000 students in Milwaukee's voucher program also saw positive results, achieving a graduation rate 18 percent higher than their public school counterparts between 2003-2009.[10]

The Indiana court ruling provides Nebraska a unique constitutional opportunity to implement vouchers and give Nebraska parents more opportunities for their children. Every child deserves to have a choice in where they go to school, and it is time to give all of Nebraska's children that choice.

______________________________________________________

[1] Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., School Choice: The Blaine Amendments & Anti-Catholicism, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/BlaineReport.pdf; Blaine Amendments, "States." Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.blaineamendments.org/states/states.html.

[2] Jordan Cash, "Vouchers and Tax Credits," Platte Institute for Economic Research, August 28, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.platteinstitute.org/docLib/20120823_Vouchers_and_Tax_Credits.pdf.
 
[3] Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson qtd. in Mark Guarino, "Indiana's expansive school voucher program upheld: A model for others?" Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0326/Indiana-s-expansive-school-voucher-program-upheld-A-model-for-others.
 
[4] National Conference of State Legislatures, "School Voucher Laws: State-by-State Comparison." Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/voucher-law-comparison.aspx
 
[5] Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson qtd. in Mark Guarino, "Indiana's expansive school voucher program upheld: A model for others?" Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0326/Indiana-s-expansive-school-voucher-program-upheld-A-model-for-others.
 
[6] Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson qtd. in Mark Guarino, "Indiana's expansive school voucher program upheld: A model for others?" Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0326/Indiana-s-expansive-school-voucher-program-upheld-A-model-for-others.
 
[7] David N. Figlio and Cassandra M.D. Hart, "Competitive Effects of Means-Tested School Vouchers," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16056, June 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.nber.org/papers/w16056.pdf.
 
[8] David N. Figlio and Cassandra M.D. Hart, "Competitive Effects of Means-Tested School Vouchers," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16056, June 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.nber.org/papers/w16056.pdf.
 
[9] Jason Richwine, "D.C. Voucher Students: Higher Graduation Rates and Other Positice Outcomes," Heritage Foundation, July 28, 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/dc-voucher-students-higher-graduation-rates-and-other-positive-outcomes; Patrick Wolf et al., "Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report," United States Department of Education, June 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104018/pdf/20104018.pdf; Andrew Coulson, "Census Bureau Confirms: DC Spends $29,409/pupil," Cato Institute, June 26, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://www.cato.org/blog/census-bureau-confirms-dc-spends-29409-pupil.
 
[10] John Robert Warrem, "Graduation Rates for Choice and Public School Students in Milwaukee, 2003-2009," University of Minnesota, School Choice Wisconsin, January 2011. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/29370.pdf.