Thursday, June 25, 2009

Why This Particular Health Care Reform Package?

by j. wright
A clever quote from a former U.S Senator, Illinois Republican Everett McKinley Dirksen said, "A million here, a million there, soon adds up to real money."

Not any more, at least if you are an elected legislator working in Washington, D. C.

Remember as recently as last fall when President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson asked for a then astronomical $700 billion dollars ($700,000,000,000.00) which was approved after much wailing and gnashing of Congressional teeth. Called TARP for Troubled Asset Relief Program, it expanded beyond the $700 billion before leaving the Senate. Congress entrusted Paulson, unconstitutionally, to "fix" the financial mess; it's still with us. Where did the $700 billion in taxpayer dollars go?

Now we are getting used to larger numbers: trillions with 12 zeroes. Dirksen's millions here and there pale in comparison. President Obama started pushing a new health care reform package that was to top out at $1.trillion (1,000,000,000,000.00) over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) took a closer look and came up with $1.6 trillion. Today, their revised figure is $3 trillion. This astronomical amount of future taxpayer debt (Quoting Obama: we don’t have the money) will supposedly provide Americans with a questionable health care program similar to that of the UK and Canada. That's something to look forward to.

Why are we considering this? To provide access or coverage for some unverified number of Americans who for a multitude of reasons, some personal, do not have health insurance coverage? Even the various plans being considered do not cover everyone, that’s been reported for weeks. So how much will this boondoggle really cost if it passes? Many of the legislators are in the dark though they seem willing to pass the bill anyway. Can "We the People" stop them? Maybe when pigs fly. We need health care reform but is this it?


Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Do We Have An Over-reaching Executive Administration?

by j. wright

Two things in the national political works at this writing concern me greatly. One that may become enacted is the proposed appointment by President Obama of an “Executive-Pay Czar,” or as sometimes referred to in the media, a “Master of Compensation.” This appointed “Master,” not one selected or approved by Congress, will be filled by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, formerly on vice-president Joe Biden’s economic advisory staff. Feinberg’s job will be to ensure that private companies that received tazpayer bailout dollars from the questionable Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP) are abiding by the new executive pay levels put in place by Obama.

To begin with, TARP’s constitutionality was highly questionable when the Democrat controlled Congress relinquished its sovereign responsibility for the disbursement of the national treasury to the Executive branch, namely the Secretary of the Treasury under former president Bush and now under Obama. Add to that, the naming of a "Pay Czar" is another affront to the American free enterprise system exercised by the Executive branch whose apparent intention is to control private business expenditures. It has been reported that the new federal “Pay Czar’s” authority could possibly even reach into private companies that were NOT recipients of TARP. This the America where I grew up? Hardly.

The other issue is how Chrysler Corporation’s remaining debt holders had their day before the U.S. Supreme Court and lost, leaving the Indiana pensioners whose retirement savings were wrapped up in Chrysler bonds, standing alone in challenging Obama and his administration who earlier had called for “shared sacrifice” in this issue.

As National Review printed recently: “It should be noted that Chrysler’s unions, unsecured creditors who jumped to the head of the line thanks to White House power play, did not give an inch on their base pay or pension terms. Who would call that shared sacrifice?”


National Review quote source: