Today's Question to the President

I made the "mistake" of checking out the WhiteHouse.gov "Health Insurance Reform Reality Check" web site today. While there, I noticed a misleading title: "Congress did not vote to exempt themselves from reform". Watching the video, it was clear, Linda Douglass is clearly trying to deceive the poor woman asking the question with very much a non-answer.

This lead me to post the following at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/contact today:

in "Congress did not vote to exempt themselves from reform" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/491) you counter with saying "... and there has not been any such vote". While that may be technically true, as the Health Care Bill has not yet been voted on, your response is very misleading.

In the Senate version of the Health Care Bill (http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf), you will find on page 115 lines 22 - 24 that "Members of Congress" are specifically excluded because they are covered by "Federal employees health benefits program" (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/05C89.txt).

Given this, it is quite clear that Congress intends to exempt themselves from "reform". Can you not admit this? I challenge you to "come clean" on this issue.

Any time that Congress exempts themselves from a Bill, it is a clear admission that the Bill is flawed and should not be passed. Given that members of Congress are the employees of the people, Congress must not be exempt! If the Bill is good enough for the general public, it's good enough for the members of Congress!

-Bob

-Bob

Protect American Healthcare

From http://www.leagueofamericanvoters.com/:

-Bob

Questions for the president

Posted today to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

A few questions:

1. What guarantees will the president provide to provide that we aren't be lied to about "health insurance reform"? What recourse will we have if we are lied to? There exists much contridictory evidence to suggest that what this administration is saying may not be true. "Single Payer" being the one the most obvious.

2. If the "public option" is such a great plan, why is the Administration and Congress exempt from using it? This would imply that you are afraid to "eat your own dog food". This also indicates that the Administration has a distinct lack of confidence in the plan. Why should the people accept a plan you won't accept yourselves?

3. David Alexrod wrote in an e-mail from the White House today: "8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage". Each of these items impose restrictions on insurance companies that clearly, without question, increase their costs of providing coverage. Obviously, someone has to pay these costs. This means higher prices for everyone! How do your explain your way out of that?

4. You constantly claim that there is no rationing in this plan. Without rationing you imply a limitless supply of services. Obviously, the supply of services is not unlimited, therefor there must be rationing. Your health-policy adviser, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, clearly supports rationing. This is well documented in many places, including (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?&page=1) and (http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf). How do you respond to this?

I challenge you to impress me and answer my questions honestly.

-Bob

Let's see if he chooses to answer. I'm not holding my breath.

-Bob

Hardball With Chris Matthews - 8/11/2009: Protester brings gun to town hall

Chris Matthews is completely without a clue. Why would anyone carry an unloaded gun? What would be the point?


-Bob

Conyers (D - MI) Sees No Point in Reading 1,000-Page Bill

Check out this video:


Clearly, John Conyers (D - MI) doesn't "get it". No congressman should ever vote for a bill that they didn't read and fully understand! He obviously isn't watching out for the best interests of constituents. Hopefully the people of Michigan's 14th congressional district will "get it" and replace him come election time.

Is there a way we can replace him even sooner? The people of Michigan should be outraged!

Read The Bill!

-Bob

Why Don’t Lawmakers Want the Public Option?

From Congressman Sam Graves' Straight Talk with Sam newsletter:

Congress has become very good at telling you what is good for you and your family. Earlier this year, Congress spent your money, because some lawmakers believed that you would not spend it on the “right” things.

When it comes to health care, once again Congress thinks they know what is best for you. That is why it was so telling last week when my colleague Roy Blunt offered an amendment to the health care bill in Committee. It would have required all federal elected officials, including the President, Vice-President, and the Congress, to join the government health care plan.

Not surprisingly, that amendment was defeated in Committee. If the government run health care plan is such a great deal, why not enroll all elected officials? If it is good enough for all Americans, it should be good enough for Members of Congress.

The answer is that these lawmakers know that a government run health care system will decrease the quality of your health care and theirs. It will lead to rationed care and bureaucrats would make decisions about your health care instead of you and your doctor. A government run health care system will also reduce your choice. In fact, it will become your only option.

I do not want a government bureaucrat making decisions for my family or for your family. That is why I oppose this bill. I believe that there are better solutions that are market-driven, increase the access for all Americans and can help bring down costs.

Sincerely,
Sam Graves

Good job Sam. I'm right there with you with you, if the government run heath care plan isn't good enough for our government officials, how can it possibly be good enough for the rest of us?

-Bob

What was he thinking? - Manzullo: Congress Should Expand "Cash for Clunkers" Program to Allow Vouchers for All Vehicle Purchases

Here's an excerpt from Don Manzullo's e-mail announcement:

[ROCKFORD] U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) today said the federal government should dramatically expand the popular “cash for clunkers” program by removing all conditions and giving vouchers to all Americans who buy a new vehicle. Such a program would energize our economy, re-start the auto manufacturing supply chain, and put Americans back to work, he said.

Manzullo voted Friday to shift an additional $2 billion in previously-approved federal funds to the original cash for clunkers program, which was frozen late Thursday after officials realized the original $1 billion appropriated for the program was exhausted after just a week in operation (it was scheduled to run until Nov. 1).

He goes on to claim:

The original program gives prospective car buyers up to a $4,500 voucher for trading in a gas guzzler (18 mpg or less) in exchange for a more fuel-efficient vehicle. According to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the initial $1 billion cost of the cash for clunkers program generated $5.5 billion in economic activity, including substantial tax revenue for state and local governments.

Working these numbers, the $1 billion is divided up into $4,500 vouchers, equaling a sales of 222,222 cars. These sales "generated $5.5 billion in economic activity" or, $24,750 per car. Let's continue with his e-mail:

Manzullo introduced legislation earlier this year to give Americans a $5,000 voucher to purchase a new vehicle, no strings attached. The New Automobile Voucher Act of 2009 (HR 1606) would have provided a one-time, $5,000 electronic voucher from the U.S. Treasury at the point of sale of a new vehicle through the end of 2009. It would have provided vouchers for 15 million new vehicles (original cash for clunkers bill covered 250,000 new vehicles).

Now, the bad math starts to show. $1 billion / $4,500 = 222,222 not 250,000. Now, he wants to provide $5,000 vouchers for 15,000,000 million new vehicles. Let see, $5,000 x 15,000,000 = $75,000,000,000 (yes, that's $75 billion)!

Of course, it keeps getting better:

Every one million in new vehicle sales has the following impact on the economy:

* Creates 60,000 jobs (10,000 at vehicle assembly plants; 50,000 at suppliers, auto dealers, and other businesses).
* Provides $750 million in tax revenue to the federal government.
* Provides $1.4 billion in sales tax revenue to states.
* Saves federal government $1.4 billion in unemployment payments, food stamps, job retraining and COBRA health subsidies.

So now we see what the results may be. For every 1 million cars there is:

• $750,000,000 in federal tax revenue.
• $1,400,000,000 in state sales taxes.
• $1,400,000,000 "saved" in unemployment payments, food stamps, job retraining and COBRA health subsidies.

The total of these is $3,550,000,000 ($3.55 billion). This where my seemingly simple mind gets lost. How is it a benefit to the tax payer to take $5,000,000,000 ($5 billion) in taxes ($5,000 x 1,000,000 cars) and have $1,450,000,000 ($1.45 billion) (or more) of that money just disappear?

How about this much simpler "Stimulus" plan: Declare that cars will be completely tax free for a certain period of time! Let's say, until 1/1/2010. Here's why:

• It will still greatly encourage car sales
• It will still "save" unemployment payments, food stamps, job retraining and COBRA health subsidies.
• No new taxes to "pay for it".
  
• All for less than half the cost - $2,150,000,000 ($2.15 billion) in "lost" tax revenue.

I don't know about you, but, I would certainly be much more likely to buy a car if it were tax free. Is that not stimulus enough? Even if you only sell half the number of cars, it looks to me like you (the people) are still ahead.

What am I missing here?

-Bob

Props to Sam Graves - H.R. 3435- Cash for Clunkers.

From Sam Graves' weekly "This Week in Washington" e-mail update:

4. H.R. 3435- Cash for Clunkers.

In less than one week, the Cash for Clunkers program exhausted the $1 billion dollars that had originally been budgeted for it. Did Congress review the problem to see if it was working as it was intended? Nope. Instead Washington quickly doubled down and approved another $2 billion dollars in less than 24 hours. It passed overwhelmingly 316-109. I voted against it, but I’m reminded of why many Americans do not want the government in charge of their health care.

Here is one of the very few Congressmen that should be given a pat of the back for "getting it". Clearly he understands that throwing our tax money at a problem rarely, if ever, helps. The 316 id10ts in Washington that voted for this clearly don't get. They must think that You’re just too dumb to spend your own money!

If our government representatives can't get "Cash for Clunkers" right, why would anyone assume that they can "fix" health care?

Thank you Sam for doing the right thing!

-Bob

Obama proposes ‘Indefinite Preventive Detention’ without trial

Isn't this worse than what he accuses the Bush administration of doing? Watch the video, it's from pMSNBC of all places:

For more of the story see: http://newcitizenship.net/?p=5510

-Bob