Today’s article comes after listening to Christiane Amanpour’s show Sunday, June 5th, 2011. On this show her guest was NY Times columnist and Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, who was there to discuss the economic situation we are presently facing. As some of you may or may not know, I have been writing on the economy, gold and silver on my other site, Buy Gold And Silver Safely in support of my book with the same title. I must say, turning to Paul Krugman for economic advice is like throwing gasoline on an out of control fire as his solution to everything is “more stimulus.”

But Krugman’s economic advice on Amanpour’s show today had a twist to it in addition to his usual government spending solutions. This twist is one that blew my mind away, hearing it in such a tone that he almost wished it upon this nation. The twist was Paul Krugman basically said we need a war “to jump start the economy.”

You can listen to the recording of what he said here: Krugman Loves War

The transcript of what Krugman said was; “If we all of a sudden had a threat of war, and a military build up, you would be amazed at how fast this economy would recover. The problem is, we can’t get ourselves together to do that kind of. ahh…(changes his thought process here and continues)…We can’t do it for the right reasons instead of the wrong reasons.”

Can’t do what for the right reasons Mr. Krugman? Is he saying since we can’t get the economy going for the right reasons (more stimulus according to him), then lets choose the wrong reasons (war)? Aren’t we already spending more on the military the last 4 years than at any other time in our history? Aren’t we already involved in two wars and currently bombing Pakistan via drones? I thought Obama was going to get us out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How has the trillions of Quantitative Easing by the Fed worked for stimulating the economy Mr. Krugman? Why is the unemployment rate still so high? How many new businesses have started lately? Just how exactly will this war be paid for? How have past wars been paid for? What tax increases will there be? Will the war be declared per the Constitution? What will other countries think of this tactic? Their economies are hurting too, so will they join the U.S. war efforts to improve their economies? How many lives will be lost during this war before it’s is “declared” a failure by the general public?

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Let’s look at the numbers a little closer to see if Krugman has the right ideas about more spending and more wars and whether that will help spur the economy moving forward. From the table below we see that income tax revenue has fallen with the millions of people laid off. Military spending is already almost as much as what is gathered through income taxes. Is this who we really are as a nation? The Swiss never get involved in wars had have had the strongest currency in the world because of it. Instead of cutting back and living within our means, all our government does, per the advice of people like Krugman, is keep adding fuel to the fire. These economists and Congressman can’t see past the nose on their faces, and we don’t even have Obamacare in place yet. And now Krugman is advocating war? Seriously?

Table data gathered from CBO Historical Budget Data

Discretionary spending is up. Mandatory spending is up. Defense spending is up. Personal income tax and corporate tax revenue is down. The kids graduating college today will have to pay for all of this with a lower lifestyle and a nation that isn’t even close to that of their parents and grandparents.

An Apology To Future Generations

I sincerely apologize on behalf of all who have let things get this far. I apologize to all those college graduates and younger generations who will feel the repercussions of all this spending by the generations before you. But many of you voted for Obama because you expected “change.” You expected an end to wars. You got the shaft just like we always do. Welcome to the world of politics. We have made the mistake of electing these same fools into office. This can’t continue and it is up to the youth today, and enlightened voters, to stop this pattern of abuse to the People.

Of course the baby boomers were given the gift of Medicare and Social Security to pay for, many of whom are just starting to see the return on their investment after contributing for decades. But will the last baby boomers who start receiving social security benefits in 10 years or so even get any of what they put in? At the rate our government is spending, adding to the deficits and current debt, and with no realistic outlook for  businesses to get back on track, they will have to recalculate just how long Social Security has to survive. And don’t forget about adding Obamacare to the equation. Or will it be called Romneycare?

What a birthday gift to my 12 year old daughter. Would you like a cherry on top of that debt cream birthday sundae?

The Only Gift I Can Give To My Daughter

The only gift I can give to my daughter right now is to expose the ignorance of the economists who say that spending will solve our nations problems and stop the ties that congress has with corporate American in handing out favors through lobbyists. Let businesses that didn’t plan ahead and banks that can’t make money fail. Let the free market replace failed businesses with companies that produce and hire individuals. America will not devolve into a 3rd world country if we stop Congress and the Fed from destroying our future by bailing out their favorite banks and companies and instead make the necessary cuts. If you are in debt and get another credit card, can you spend your way out of debt, or do you cut up the credit cards and work on becoming debt free? Stop this madness from our government and Fed and stop it now!

Krugman’s Solutions Of More Spending and More Wars Won’t Work

Krugman can have his war only if he’s carrying the American flag in front of the soldiers told by their government to wage war on whomever the government doesn’t like. A soldier is told what to do, but the orders come from the top. Al qaeda here, Al qaeda there, Al qaeda everywhere! Kill them before they kill us like a former Presidential candidate told me once through an email correspondence we had. When push comes to shove, these economists and Congressmen who want and continue funding wars do it behind a desk without any repercussions. After 8 years, these Congressmen have retirement and health insurance for life and a cushy job with the company they helped via generous lobbyists gifts to their campaign chest while in office. Meanwhile soldiers with mother’s, father’s, wives and children, die or come home disabled. For what? To defend a nation that can’t be touched by anyone but Canada and Mexico? If you have ever played the game of Risk, you know what I’m talking about. Any nuclear submarine could take out any country it wanted to in minutes. Israel, being the only county with nuclear weapons, could do the same.

But why not “love thy neighbor” instead of threaten them? I can hear the neoconservatives reading this now…cringing because they love war so much. Well guess what? Your mother, father and grandparents were real Republicans. You know…the one’s that got us out of wars (Vietnam and Korea). Democrats were the ones who got us into war, and as true to their historic nature, care not to get us out as Obama has shown. If this truly is a Christian nation, it’s not one made of neoconservatives and neoliberal who love war. Think outside of what the media tells you to think. Become more aware of what they are doing to hurt the economy, not help it. Open up your Bibles and read the New Testament and the words of the Prince of Peace (I am only preaching to Christians here – or the one’s who love war and call themselves Christians – if you are not Christian, I love you – If you are Muslim, I love you – if you are of any race or religion, I love you as God has commanded me to). Yes, we are to watch for “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” but who are the wolves and who are the sheep? And how many innocent lambs are slaughtered while we let our government try and decipher?

You have a choice come 2012. The choice will be to put big spending, lobbyists loving, war loving candidates in office, or someone who will put an end to this madness, knowing they did the right thing. Whom will you choose?

Stay tuned for more articles related to the forthcoming elections.

Related posts:

1. We’re Winning The War On Terror!
2. The Left and Right Love and Need War
3. Limbaugh and Hannity Still Favor The Fed and War While Most In America Don’t

Where does the U.S. get these funds to loan the IMF?  Where do any of these countries get the money to give them?

Congress Uses Your Tax Dollars to Bailout Greece and Other Nations

In 2009 at the Group of 20 (G20) nations summit in London, countries in attendance agreed to a “war chest” to prevent any future global financial meltdown from occurring.

Leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies earlier this month offered the IMF a $1 trillion war chest to help countries in trouble and pledged to make it the premier financial watchdog to help avoid the next global downturn.

$1 Trillion?  Are things really that bad?

The U.S. contribution to the IMF war chest was $100 billion in June of 2009. Did the U.S. just have $100 billion sitting around to give the them when just 8 months earlier the Republicans and Democrats approved a $700 Billion TARP bailout of U.S. banks?  Did Congress sell some of our gold or National Parks to raise the capital to send to the them?  Did you write a check to Congress and direct it towards them?  Well, the answer is, yes…you did, whether you know it or not.

How can a country that is over $12 trillion in debt allow Congress to loan $100 billion to the IMF? Where does this money come from?

To answer these questions, one must first resolve just who the IMF is and why Congress is so eager to give them your tax dollars.

Who Is the IMF

In a nutshell, the IMF is just a bunch of rich countries banding together to help out the smaller countries, typically of the third world variety.  Of course in doing so, the rich countries want something in return.

The International Monetary Fund was founded in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire as a result of the financial turmoil of the 1930s. The aim was to create an institution that would help rebuild – along with the World Bank – the world economy.  The IMF is neither a world central bank nor a development bank. It acts as a monitor of the world’s currencies by helping to maintain an orderly system of payments between all countries. It is also a kind of international credit union. Member countries contribute money to the Fund, which in turn lends money to members who face severe balance of payment problems. Critics of the IMF complain that its short-term loans are accompanied by stringent conditions that often end up doing more harm than good. Original Source: AWorldConnected.Org

The IMF defined mission from their own site is:

An organization of 186 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.

But let’s be real…it’s really the rich countries that tell the others what to do.

What Effect Do the Policies Implemented by the IMF Have?

These “stringent conditions” on the loans given to countries are further defined as:

(1) Monetary austerity: Tighten up the money supply to raise internal interest rates to whatever heights needed to stabilize the value of the local currency. (2) Fiscal austerity: Increase tax collections and reduce government spending dramatically. (3) Privatization: Sell off public enterprises to the private sector. And (4) Financial liberalization: Remove restrictions on the inflow and outflow of international capital as well as restrictions on what foreign businesses and banks are allowed to buy, own, and operate. Only when governments sign this “structural adjustment agreement” does the IMF agree to: (5) Lend enough itself to prevent default on international loans that are about to come due and otherwise would be unpayable. And (6) arrange a restructuring of the country’s debt among private international lenders that includes a pledge of new loans. Original Source: AWorldConnected.Org

In other words, it’s just a way for these nations to acquire the wealth/assets/productivity of the nations who weren’t able to manage their own affairs.

Debt is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other peoples’ raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms. Dozens of countries must compete for shrinking export markets and can export only a limited range of products because of Northern protectionism and their lack of cash to invest in diversification. Market saturation ensues, reducing exporters’ income to a bare minimum while the North enjoys huge savings. Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Debt, (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990)

The result is something like what has happened in Jamaica as described in the documentary Life and Debt.  The citizens of these countries receive a lower quality of life as they become debt slaves to the IMF, whose mission you will remember is to “reduce poverty.”  In reality, they are the mechanism that ensures poverty so the rest of the world can buy low cost goods.

The Economist (18.9.99), not a magazine noted for radicalism, calls the IMF “an overbearing organisation with a well-thumbed book of macro-economic policy nostrums”. It goes on to argue that “the Fund and [World] Bank have been hijacked by their major shareholders for overtly political ends. Whether in Mexico in 1994, Asia in 1997 or Russia throughout the 1990s, the institutions have become a more explicit tool of western, and particularly American, foreign policy.”

They do not reduce poverty and mainly benefit the better off in poor countries; they seem designed more to benefit large corporations by giving them cheaper raw materials and access to new markets.  Kicking the Habit By Joseph Hanlon and Ann Pettifor

So How Is It the IMF Can Do What They Do?

If you think about it, the IMF is somewhat just like the FDIC.  All of the banks in the U.S. pay a fee to the FDIC to insure that if one or more of the banks has financial problems, they can be bailed out by the FDIC.  186 nations contribute to the IMF.  If one or more of these nations have financial problems, they can be bailed out by the IMF.  In reality, they are just an extension of the Federal Reserve as “lender of last resort.”

Government deposit insurance was only one of many policies adopted during the 20th century designed to suppress economic and business failures. On the theory that certain banks were “too big to fail,” the United States government transferred $2.5 billion to save the Bank of New England in the early 1990s. That was as nothing compared to what would come later.  Beginning with the Latin American debt crisis of 1982–86, the government undertook to bail out, either directly or through augmented payments to the International Monetary Fund, American banks and investors who had lent large sums to insolvent Third World governments and firms. As if to confirm the validity of the theory of “moral hazard,” the Mexican bailout of 1994 ($40 billion) was followed closely by the IMF “rescue” of the collapsing currencies of East Asia—South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia ($120 billion). And so it goes. Historian Scott Trask, Mises Institute

Earlier I posed the question as to where the money comes from to pay the IMF.  The answer is the same place it comes from to pay the Federal Reserve; from the printing presses provided by the Treasury.  Does anyone really think a nation with a total debt of over $12 Trillion can afford to pay $100 Billion to the IMF in the middle of a financial meltdown and two wars if it didn’t have a printing press?

So what about the future of Greece. What does the IMF have in store for them?

What Does IMF Involvement Mean for the Future of Greek Citizens?

“This is a defining moment for Greece,” said Poul Thomsen, who heads the IMF negotiating mission to Athens. “The global economic crisis exposed Greece’s weak fiscal position. Revenues have declined significantly, while spending, especially on wages and entitlements has risen sharply.

“What the government has committed to is a tough, front-loaded program that will correct things for the future, although it will take time. Indeed, it will be a multi-year effort,” Thomsen explained. “The authorities have already begun fiscal consolidation equivalent to 5 percent of GDP and further legislative action is expected this week. There is also an emphasis on fairness, with measures to protect the most vulnerable. The authorities are asking the Greek people to share the burden fairly across all levels of society,” he added.

A nice rosy synopsis….written by someone from the IMF of course.

In January, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou came out and said they wouldn’t need IMF help and the poor would be taken care of.  As we now know, the IMF was called in to help.  What are the odds the citizens of Greece who are poor will be unaffected as a result?

Congressman Ron Paul summarizes the effect of the IMF programs of the past on the poor;

{They are] supposed to help the poor people of the world and redistribute wealth.  They have redistributed a lot of wealth, but most of it ended up in the hands of wealthy individuals and wealthy politicians. But the poor people of the world never get helped by these programs.

Living proof of this comes from Ross P. Buckley, The Rich Borrow and the Poor Repay: The Fatal Flaw in International Finance, World Policy Journal, Volume XIX, No 4, Winter 2002/03:

According to UNICEF, over 500,000 children under the age of five died each year in Africa and Latin America in the late 1980s as a direct result of the debt crisis and its management under the International Monetary Fund’s structural adjustment programs. These programs required the abolition of price supports on essential food-stuffs, steep reductions in spending on health, education, and other social services, and increases in taxes. The debt crisis has never been resolved for much of sub-Saharan Africa. Extrapolating from the UNICEF data, as many as 5,000,000 children and vulnerable adults may have lost their lives in this blighted continent as a result of the debt crunch.

The IMF’s Real Purpose

Ron Paul goes on to reveal the real purpose of the IMF and please note, this was written in 2004.  Ron Paul has always been on top of things and it’s time people start listening to what he has to say;

The IMF provides a perfect illustration of the both the folly of foreign aid and the real motivations behind it. The IMF touts itself as a bank of sorts, although it makes “loans” that no rational bank would consider – mostly to shaky governments with weak economies and unstable currencies.The IMF has little incentive to operate profitably like a private bank, since its funding comes mostly from a credulous US Congress that demands little accountability. As a result, it is free to make high-risk loans at below-market interest rates.  The real purpose of the IMF is to channel tax dollars to politically-connected companies. The huge multinational banks and corporations in particular love the IMF, as both used IMF funds – taxpayer funds – to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, where corporate welfare is disguised as compassion forthe poor.  In fact, IMF loans often do far more harm than good. At best IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity; at worst the money ends up in the hands of corrupt dictators. Either way, most recipient nations face huge debts they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies. Source: LewRockwell.com

The icing on the cake can be found in what the IMF is doing in helping the poor countries mitigate climate impact; giving them $100 billion.  That’s right, the IMF is giving poor countries $100 billion to help deter the effect of global warming.  Which U.S. corporations do you think will benefit from this move?  You can’t make this stuff up!

How about the IMF use that money instead to teach nations self- sufficiency? Would they ever consider such madness?

Yes, there are consequences to high priced government employees, unions and the like, resulting in living beyond one’s taxable means.   It would be the same for any individual who maxes out their credit cards where there choices are defaulting on the cards, or borrowing from someone to stay afloat a little longer.  But without a change in how one got there to begin with, the same problem will occur down the road.  As for Greece, relying on the Angel of Death represented by the IMF is no plausible solution.

So, how do you feel about bailing out Greece at the expense of our own nations needs, knowing full well it benefits a select few and will result in a worse off situation for the citizens of Greece?

Ron Paul concludes:

The IMF and other complex schemes only serve to obscure the real issue: Why should US taxpayers be forced to send money abroad? Certainly the Constitution provides no authority for foreign aid. In historical and practical terms, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations has done little or nothing to alleviate suffering abroad. Only free markets, property rights, and the rule of law can create the conditions necessary to lift poor nations out of poverty.

It’s time to hold your congressmen and women accountable folks.  It’s time to say “I’m Fed Up!”

Related posts:

1. Which Congressmen Voted to Give IMF $100 Billion? Vote Them Out!
2. Your Senate Hard at Work Spending Your Tax Dollars and Increasing the Federal Debt Again
3. Vote For Those That Voted “NO” To the Bailout Come November

We all will have to have health care by 2014 or face the penalties, but exempt from this requirement are low income people.

No Incentive for Low Income Folks To Work Hard For a Better Life

The incentive for low income people to work hard for a better life and become self sufficient has now been eliminated. Not all of these folks mind you, but the fact that many will now think their health care coverage is “free,” will be in for a rude awakening at some point in the future when the system comes crashing down upon them.

Who pray tell do you think makes up the majority of the 40 million uninsured today? Could it be low income people?

This Bill Is a Complete Sham On American Tax Payers

This bill is a complete sham put on the American tax payers who actually are productive in society to take care of those who are unproductive or less productive.  At the same time the bill benefits, Big Pharma, Big Insurance and of course the IRS.

Almost all insurance and pharma stocks are higher today on the news.  Surprisingly the U.S. Dollar is also up as the market believes the hype presented by Obama and Pelosi.

Obama and Pelosi Don’t Even Agree On the Savings

Do people actually believe their government when they say this Health Care Plan will save us money? Obama, in his celebratory speech last night, said the health care bill will save $1.1 Trillion and Pelosi comes on 10 minutes later and says it will save us $1.3 trillion.

If anything, it will COST us that much, not save us that much.  If you disagree, please comment as to how government programs actually lower costs and provide examples.

Health Care Doesn’t Work In Massachusetts and It Won’t Work for the Nation As a Whole

You need proof, look no further than Republican Mitt Romney’s MassCare for the citizens of Massachusetts.  Howard Dean was on CNBC today telling everyone that the ObamaCare plan is modeled after Romney’s “health care for all” plan in Massachusetts.

Romney’s “MassCare” has put the tax payers of Massachusetts in “dire” straits as cuts in spending over the last two years haven’t worked in resolving their budget crisis and the threat of more taxes is all that is left.

Health Care Won’t Be Free

I remember watching the MTV Music Awards show (I do it for research to keep tabs on the youth of today, not for the enjoyment of the entertainers) and listening to the host Russell Brand say to the American audience, “and we have free health care” referring to the fact that those in England, his home country, don’t have to pay for health coverage like us Yanks have to.  According to Russell Brand’s mentality, health care is “free” in England.

Of course anyone with half a brain knows that this young Brit knows nothing about the real cost of Health Care in England which taxes anything and everything to pay for said “free” health care for its citizens.  No mention by Brand of the waiting lists and long lines either.

England’s Tax Rates For Their “Free” Health Care

11% of the citizens of England’s income goes to what is known as the “national insurance tax” on top of the 40% that goes to the income tax not to mention the 17.5%  VAT tax (rising to 18.5% soon) in addition to excise taxes on motor fuel, alcohol, tobacco, betting and vehicles.  We’re up to 63% so far.  Add to that, a capital gain tax of 18% (ours is 15%), council (property) tax and after you’ve been taxed your whole life in England, if you were lucky enough to accumulate some wealth, you’ll pay an inheritance tax of 40% on any amount over $503,000 upon your demise.

Free health care indeed….

Don’t Be Fooled By the Ignorant

Does anyone think providing free insurance for 40 million people comes without a cost? Is it even conceivable for an educated person not to envision their taxes will be higher in the years to come?

Does anyone think that Cap and Trade isn’t next and won’t pass? Come on now… the government is on a roll!  The promised “change” is here!

Congress Turning Us Into Serfs – That’s the “Change” Obama Promised

These people (Congress) will never stop taking until their hands are cut off. But since it’s against the law to take up sword and cut off their hands, the grass roots efforts to remove them from office must accomplish the same goal.

But they can’t be replaced by just anyone (think Scott Brown here who voted with the Democrats on a recent jobs bill). They have to be replaced by true Liberty candidates. There needs to be a stamp of approval for those we want in office.

Sean Hannity would have you just vote for who he wants you to vote for on his site. These people will be the same ones that “talk the talk,” but still do the same spending that Hannity was silent about during the Bush administrations drunken sailor spree.  Hannity’s silence was the norm while the Republican Party who had control of the House and the Senate disbanded fiscal conservativism that they so embrace today….when it’s just too late in the game.  We reap what we sow indeed…

What Can You Do?

Campaign for Liberty and Daily Paul are two sites that offer the best opportunity for people to discuss true fiscally conservative Liberty candidates that are in We the People’s best interest.

People are “Fed Up!” and it’s time to put an end to this Homer Simpson mentality where Homer sticks his finger in the electrical outlet, gets shocked and sticks it in again thinking he won’t get shocked by repeating the same behavior.

Aren’t you tired of being shocked again and again?

It’s time to stop being a Homer!

It’s time to say “ENOUGH!” to Congress!

Make your vote count come November…

Related posts:

1. Health Care Reform Didn’t Work for Romney and Won’t Work For Obama – Here’s What Will Work
2. Defend Your Health Care; Stop Obama’s Health Plan
3. Digger’s Friday Triple Play

While reading below, keep in mind that Romney’s Health Care Plan isn’t working in Massachusetts and neither will Obama’s Health Care Plan work for America, but there are solutions.

*************************

3/21/2010 UPDATE NYTimes: “Massachusetts, which has made a series of painful cuts over the past two years, is gearing up for more. Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, told The Boston Globe: “There’s no end to the bad news here. The state fiscal situation is already so dire that any additional bad news is magnified.”

Even with the cuts that Massachusetts has been making the last couple years, “the situation is dire.”  This will be the future for America if the Health Care bill is passed and if it is passed, who knows what the Senate will do with the reconciliation bill if they get the 51 votes to pass…  All Republicans in the House are voting against it, but just enough (by a count of “1″) Democrats are voting for it that it looks like the bill will pass.

Be careful what you wish for Americans, because government has proven they can’t do anything right and who pays for their mistakes?  You and I.  Look how Congress through the advice of the governments great Harvard and Yale economists ruined the economy.  This health care plan is a guaranteed failure and most in America know it. But those you elected aren’t listening to you.  The good news though is that 16,000 jobs will be created with the passing of this bill.  The bad news, those jobs will to expand the IRS.  Next step: State Nullification. To be continued…

*************************

Romney’s Intent; Health Care For All

Romney’s original intent to provide health care for all citizens of Massachusetts was to make sure “the costs of health care will be reduced.” In accomplishing this goal he stated; “And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen.”

Read My Lips “No New Taxes!”

Has anyone heard this line before; “we will need no new taxes?”  Of course Romney had to say this as the alternative, “we will raise your taxes to cover all citizens of Massachusetts” would have been suicide for his goal from the beginning (think Walter Mondale here).  No politician will get something passed by telling people they will raise taxes to pay for it, unless of course the smokers pay for it.

Unfortunately, people believe that what comes out of a politicians mouth is the Gospel truth.

So How Did Romney’s Health Care Mandate Pan Out?

Inquiring minds are interested in learning what effect Romney’s MassCare has had on the citizens of Massachusetts.  According to Irwin Stelzer, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute;

Overall health insurance costs in Massachusetts are almost a third higher than the national average, with a basic plan costing almost $17,000 for a typical family of four. Nearly 30 percent of Massachusetts residents report that their medical costs have increased since MassCare’s implementation.

It’s a similar story for government health care spending. Public health insurance expenditures are expected to be up 42 percent, to roughly $595 million, this year compared to 2006.

Have Taxes Increased for the Citizens of Massachusetts Since Romney’s MassCare Was Implemented?

According to Jennifer Nassour, chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party, “Democrats in the [Massachusetts] House and Senate decided that right now is a great time to increase our sales tax by 25 percent during a recession.” Trudy Lieberman of the Columbia Journalism Review adds, “the state needed the money to pay for health reform.  Massachusetts has no dedicated funding source for the subsidies it pays people to buy insurance, and the cost of those subsidies goes up because medical costs keep going up.”

Remember folks, states can’t just print money to pay for things like the government does via the Federal Reserve.  States have to raise taxes which means you pay more.

Are Citizens of Massachusetts Even Getting Promised Health Care Coverage?

While the citizens of Massachusetts are realizing their taxes are going higher, are they even getting the promised health care coverage?  Trudy Lieberman states;

In 2008, some 352,000 Massachusetts residents did not have coverage, even though the law requires that they do. That’s about 5.5 percent of the state’s population; up from the 2.6 percent who were uninsured in the years after reform took effect.

The state still uses the 2.6% figure to hide the truth.

Christians Won’t Go for This On a National Level; Romney’s Health Plan Subsidizes Abortions

Christians won’t like the fact that Romney’s 2006 universal health-care law subsidizes abortions.  This makes me wonder how many Republicans would vote with Romney on National Health Care if he was elected President in 2008.  Naturally, Romney doesn’t make for a good Presidential candidate choice come 2012.  He did come in second to Ron Paul in the recent CPAC straw poll so there are people out there that actually think Romney would be good for our country.  Seeing how good he was for the state of Massachusetts, clearly he is not.

Are There Solutions for Health Care in America?

Of course there are.

For Individuals

For those that have the means, the first thing to do before any real “change” occurs is to self insure yourself.

How do you do that?

For starters, you establish an emergency fund that is kept separate from all other funds.  How much this amount will be will depend on the next step, but it will be at least $5,000.

Once this fund is established, you instruct your current health care provider or new provider if your existing one doesn’t have this option (like with HMO’s) that you wish to increase the deductible to the highest amount available.  Here in California, that amount is around $5,000.

The first thing that will come to people’s mind here is that “I have to come up with $5,000 before I get any medical coverage?”  The answer is, yes, for most.  But as Paul Harvey used to always say….and now…for the rest of the story.

If you are currently undergoing treatment where you use your health coverage often, then by no means change to a different plan.  But for most, we don’t go and see the doctor between the ages of about 14 to age 55, and possibly age 65 if you take care of yourself.  It’s only later in life that your health deteriorates from natural causes.  Knowing your family history can also play into one’s thinking.

In the meantime, odds are you don’t need health coverage except for routine physical exams and normal preventive measures like mammograms.  You know…the things that for the most part aren’t even covered under the Obama Health Care plan.  Remember, the government is not in the business of keeping you healthy.

Your emergency fund will pay for the routine exams and should also be large enough to pay for the coinsurance amount you will be liable for should there be a catastrophic illness.  The total amount out of pocket that you would have to come up with if you were to become sick or injured and need your coverage to pay for your bills is the total of the deductible you would have to pay plus the coinsurance amount.  Any competent insurance agent can give you these amounts.

If one didn’t have the deductible or coinsurance emergency fund available, they can go in with some family members, friends or neighbors and sign a contract where each side provides a stated amount to the fund until that time where the emergency fund can be established individually.

Remember, the odds are you won’t need to use your health coverage until later years in life and you’ll be able to take control of your preventive costs by negotiating with your health care provider on a cash basis.  These routine checkups are always negotiable.  Just ask!

The money you save from moving to a higher deductible will eventually equate your emergency fund and from that point forward you are ahead of the game.  You win, not the insurance company!

For Employees (and Employers)

Many of us work for employers that provide some sort of health coverage.  They provide this coverage because it is the law to do so if the company is over a certain amount of employees.  Employers thus pay for this coverage for you in lieu of paying you more in income.

Wouldn’t it be nice for you to have a higher income and take control of your health insurance costs by doing the planning yourself as outlined above?  For some the answer will be no because their employer is footing the entire bill for their health coverage.  Believe me, these folks are in fact paying for this one way or another.

For most of us, we have to pay something each month out of our paycheck.  First, the fact that your employer gets to deduct the premiums for your health care and you don’t needs to change.  While some self employed individuals can write off some of their premiums, it isn’t a fair system when employers can write off all of their premiums and individuals can’t.

What one company, that should be a model for all employers in the United States, is doing, is giving their employees more control of their health coverage.  John Mackey from Whole Foods has set up his employees with a high deductible plan like I mentioned above for the individual.  He then pays the employee an amount that can be set aside in a Medical Savings Account (similar to the emergency fund above) that can go to pay for preventive care, massages, dental work, chiropractor work, many of the things that are NOT covered under today’s insurance plans.

The employees in turn take control of their health care expenses by negotiating for services in advance of paying for them.  Why?  Because it is THEIR money that is paying for the services, not the health insurance companies.

Why Health Insurance Companies Keep Raising Their Rates

You want to know why health insurance companies keep raising your rates?  It’s because there is no incentive to the insured to negotiate with the Doctors and hospitals.  The Doctors and Hospitals can keep raising their rates because they know the insurance company is going to pay them.  It’s a racket that is on par with organized crime.

We need to get government out of the health care business, not give them more of us to provide health care for!  Medicare is going broke and Congress is trying to push through some sort of legislation that claims they will provide health care coverage for us in the future, years down the road, but will have us start paying for it today!  Why?  Because they’re broke!  They know the system can’t go on as is, so who better to turn to under the guise of “health care for all” in getting money to pay for Medicare (a government program mind you).

It’s time to wake up people.  It’s time to take control of your own destiny and not leave it in the hands of the greedy politicians.

For Uninsured

But what about the uninsured some of you may ask?  Think of it from the Health Insurance providers point of view for a moment.

How nice is it for Health Insurance Companies to have a built in business mandated by government where employees have to be covered?  How nice is it for Health Insurance Companies that when an unhealthy person loses their job or decides to go work on their own, they can’t continue their same plan but for 18 months under COBRA law?  As long as someone pays premiums on a health insurance plan, they should be able to carry that plan with them for life.  This means across state lines too.  Health insurance should be portable.

A 5 Step Plan Is All That Is Needed To Reform Health Care Reform

You don’t need 2,400 pages to reform Health Care!  Just do these 5 things…

1. Allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines – competition hasn’t hurt the computer, cell phone or Lasik surgery industries has it?
2. Utilize high deductibles and establish an emergency fund (From an insurance company provider perspective, they will rake in premiums from the majority that won’t even use their health coverage any longer.  People don’t use their auto or home owners coverage often either, providing more than enough income to pay for the unhealthy minority and still provide profit for shareholders – From an insured perspective, competition for your preventive care needs will drive Doctor’s and hospital costs down making it more affordable for all ).
3. Make premiums for health insurance tax deductible just as they are for employers (this utilizes the incentive for people to buy health insurance, similar as to the incentive to save for retirement via an IRA – unfortunately many people won’t do it without an incentive.  Also, more income would be available to individuals to pay for health insurance as Employers would no longer be paying for it.  One way or another, the employee is paying for it.  Free health coverage from your employer is in lieu of higher income/salary to the employee.).
4. Make health coverage portable (including across state lines) – solves most of the problems related to the uninsured.
5. Keep the government out of health care.

It may not be a perfect plan, but it’s better than anything the government will force us to do.  It’s either We take control or Government takes control.  The Constitution states; “We the People” not “We the Government.” Do nothing and the Constitution will soon have to be changed to, “We the Serfs.”

What You Can Do Now To Stop Government Health Care

Write your congressman and let them know what you think.  For those that need information on who their congressman is and how to contact them, please go here.  Do it now or you more than likely won’t do it at all.  If you don’t know what to write, then copy and paste this article.  If there’s not enough space to copy and paste the entire article, then copy the 5 step plan.

Any replies from your congressman, please post here for all to read, and thank you for making a difference…

Related posts:

1. Low Income Folks Get Free Health Care and You’ll Pay Higher Taxes
2. Defend Your Health Care; Stop Obama’s Health Plan
3. The Government Is Not in the Business of Keeping You Healthy

What will 2010 bring?

Stay tuned…I’ll expose it all here on the Fed Up! Blog and help people understand what’s really going on with the U.S. Dollar, Gold and their investments, media influence, our government and the politicians who run it and their collusion with the real “root of all Evil” that is at the forefront of the bust economy, the Federal Reserve.

Keep an eye out for my book (finally) “Fed Up!” coming out later this year.  Almost 5 years in the making as the research seems to never end, but the timing couldn’t be better!

Here are the top 5 Articles of 2009 for “The Fed Up! Blog”

1.  What Really Backs the U.S. Dollar?

Don’t be confused by all the games the Treasury and the Federal Reserve are playing. Educate yourself as to what money is and what really backs the U.S. dollar.

2.  Why Don’t Limbaugh and Hannity Support Ron Paul’s Bill to Audit the Fed?

There is currently a bill to Audit the Federal Reserve before the House and Senate that has bipartisan support and makes sense for all the People of this country yet Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (among others) never promote it on their shows.  Why is that?

Follow Up: Limbaugh and Hannity Still Favor The Fed and War While Most In America Don’t

Related: Why Don’t The Elite Want the Fed to be Audited?, The One Thing Bernanke Is Really Afraid Of,  The Banking Crisis is Far From Over, and The Left and Right Love and Need War and can only wage it with the Fed’s help.

3.  DOW 10,000 In 2009 Is NOT the Same as DOW 10,000 In 1999 – It Buys You 23.8% Less Today

CNBC can cheer all they want about the DOW hitting 10,000 again by proclaiming it “DOW 10,000 (version) 2.0,” but is it really a better version, or even the same version as DOW 10,000 of 1999?

4.  Gold and Silver: Jim Rogers Does NOT Win Over Peter Schiff

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis from Commodities Online is mistaken, Jim Rogers does not win over Peter Schiff.

Related: Gold and the Carry Trade: Rogers vs. Roubini, Who’s Right? and Gold Is Not Falling

5. The Government Is Not in the Business of Keeping You Healthy

Is the Government in the Business of Keeping You Healthy?  No.  What makes anyone think that the government can develop a health plan that can do what Medicare doesn’t even do? As usual, government has it all backwards. Look no further than the government run Medicare program to see how much government understands the health care business.

Follow Up: The Government Is Not in the Business of Keeping You Healthy Revisited: No Mammograms Recommended for Women Aged 40-49

Related: Defend Your Health Care; Stop Obama’s Health Plan

Related posts:

1. America’s Infrastructure In 2009: Grade “F”
2. All Gold, Investment and Economic Articles Moved To New Website

Today comes the news that new guidelines stating women should get mammograms starting at age 50 instead of age 40.  This new recommendation came from the United States Preventive Services Task Force, chaired by Arizona State University Professor, Diana Pettiti, former field epidemiologist for the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and presently the Vice-Chair, United States Preventive Services Task Force.

What a perfect person to do the shilling for the U.S. government in saving the proposed new Obama proposed Health Plan money at the expense of young women’s lives.

According to the above New York Times article,

Congress (presently) requires Medicare to pay for annual mammograms. Medicare can change its rules to pay for less frequent tests if federal officials direct it to.

It doesn’t take much speculation to claim that this reduction in the number of women who should get mammograms comes at a time when Obama’s Health Plan was to cover it but now won’t have to.  That’s 10′s of millions of dollars  saved just because of the study done by someone who used to work for the CDC, the government organization that wants to vaccinate you because they know what’s best.  They’re the ones along with the WHO that told you to get the Swine Flu Vaccine despite only 145 deaths worldwide.

But what do the statistics for women age 40 to 49 say about how many actually are at risk of getting breast cancer?

From the governments own, National Cancer Institute:

• from age 30 through age 39 . . . . . . 0.43 percent (often expressed as “1 in 233″)
• from age 40 through age 49 . . . . . . 1.44 percent (often expressed as “1 in 69″)
• from age 50 through age 59 . . . . . . 2.63 percent (often expressed as “1 in 38″)
• from age 60 through age 69 . . . . . . 3.65 percent (often expressed as “1 in 27″)

So to save a little money, our government will now decide that “1 in 69″ (age 40-49) women will get breast cancer is less important than “1 in 38″ (age 50-59).  This is an example of what lengths government will go to in cutting costs.  Yet to keep people from dying they’ll gladly have you pay for a Swine Flu vaccine. It hasn’t hurt the profits of the vaccine makers either.

Government is NOT in the business of keeping you healthy.

They would rather women age 40-49 get the disease and cost the system more dollars to take care of them and their cancer.

You see how backwards government can be?  And people expect Obama’s Health Plan to make the system better?

Government is in charge of the railroads and has been since 1917.  Has it improved since then?  Ever see an Amtrak train zip by you at 300 mph?

Government is in charge of our schools yet millions drop out every year.

Government is the reason our higher education costs are so high.

Government run Post Office is facing a $7 billion loss this year.

Government runs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that has already cost taxpayers $111 billion and Fannie Mae lost $19 billion last quarter and is asking Congress for $15 billion more.

The public says that health care is not governments responsibility.

What makes one think it is and what degree of confidence do they have in its success when the government has the above kind of track record?

Learn how we got to where we are by watching this short video:

If you want the government to control your health care, do nothing. If you don’t want government to control your health care because you realize that it will cost you more in the long run, then Tell Congress To Support the Health Freedom Plan:  http://www.operationhealthfreedom.com/  Please do it now.

Related posts:

1. The Government Is Not in the Business of Keeping You Healthy
2. Health Care Reform Didn’t Work for Romney and Won’t Work For Obama – Here’s What Will Work
3. Low Income Folks Get Free Health Care and You’ll Pay Higher Taxes

So where do the Social Security trustees get their information to make their current projections? Looking at their 2004 projections shows the worst case scenario is already close to reality here in 2009.  From the 2004 OASI Fund Trustees Report (OASI stands for Old Age Survivor Insurance):

Uncertainty of the Projections

Significant uncertainty surrounds the intermediate assumptions. The Trustees have traditionally used low cost (alternative I) and high cost (alternative III) assumptions to indicate this uncertainty. Figure II.D7 shows the projected trust fund ratios for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds under the intermediate, low cost, and high cost assumptions. The low cost alternative is characterized by assumptions that improve the financial condition of the trust funds, including a higher fertility rate, slower improvement in mortality, a higher real-wage differential, and lower unemployment. The high cost alternative, in contrast, features a lower fertility rate, more rapid declines in mortality, a lower real-wage differential, and higher unemployment.

This “high cost alternative in the 2004 report is represented by the numeral III in the graph below, showing Social Security funds to run out by 2031.

Question to Ponder: If the governments own projections from five years ago have resulted in the worst case scenario coming to fruition in just a few short years, what does this hold for today’s projections on how long the Social Security Fund will last?

Today’s projections show a projection of funds running out shortly after the beginning of 2028 as shown in the graph below.  Please note that the Trustees graphics have gone downhill in the last five years.  It looks like government is cutting back in some areas.

The Truth of the Matter

One can choose between I. low-cost projections, II. intermediate-cost projections and III. high-cost projections in the graph above.  If you believe the Social Security Trustees high-cost projections, the fund for Social Security benefits and Disability benefits combined will run out in the year 2025.  The Disability portion is scheduled to run out by the year 2016.  That’s just seven short years from today, assuming things remain the same.

Why Use the “High-Cost” Projections?

Take a look at what our past and current administrations are doing to the economy.  The current budget deficit is slated to run 1.6 Trillion for 2010 and $9 Trillion for the next decade to include $1 Trillion for an overhaul of the nations health care system.

This is new debt added to the current debt of $11.8 Trillion.  Where will this money come from?  Answer? Inflation and higher taxes.

To make matters worse, the interest on the assets in the fund are projected to be lower through 2012 than in last year’s report because of the lower interest rate environment.

Social Security Won’t Run Out of Funds…..However….

How is adding debt to more debt going to solve any of America’s problems in following through with the promises to seniors who have trusted their government to at a minimum give them their money back they put into the system?

Answer?  The Government is very capable of paying all the money back that they have collected from citizens over the years.  The problem is that the dollars they collected will have a much, much lower purchasing power than the dollars they are paying out.

This is the effect of the U.S. government creating and carrying so much debt. The government can always, through the Fed, create as much money as it needs to pay seniors their social security check just by the press of a button.  But what most in America don’t understand is what effect the current spending will have upon their future income’s purchasing power.  If you’re asking for health care overhaul today, how will it be paid for tomorrow?

The System Is Broke, Sure, But Should I Be Worried?

Unfortunately for those who live on Social Security, the answer is yes, you should be worried.  The prices of items just ten short years ago are much higher than they are today.  Ten years from now, prices will be much, much higher than they are today.  If you rely on just social security CPI adjustments, they will come, but won’t keep pace with real inflation.  Some of you will be forced to make alternative decisions on where to live.  Younger families will be forced to take in their older relatives.

For those that have time on their side, they can do something about it by buying gold to insure they are prepared for the dollar devaluation that is sure to come.  Gold since 2000 has kept up with inflation and will continue to do so.

Your financial advisor won’t tell you about gold because most of them are ignorant of how gold fits into a diversified portfolio.  Financial guru Dennis Gartman was on CNBC just today talking about how he would recommend 2% to 3% invested in gold, but laughingly said at the most 5% because, “you can’t eat gold.”

Well Dennis, you can’t eat paper dollars either, can you?  Ask yourself this question: “Will 5% of your portfolio in gold protect the 95% that is subject to the fall of the U.S. dollar?”  Answer:  No.  This is what Gartman and other financial advisors don’t understand.

I met Gartman once.  He said he is wrong over 80% of the time.  You can count his current comments about gold in that 80%.  Sure, gold could fall in price from here with a temporary dollar move higher.  But in the end, all of this government spending will come back to bite seniors pocket books every time they head to the grocery store.  Our Government reaps what it sows.

Related posts:

1. America’s Infrastructure In 2009: Grade “F”
2. Vote For Those That Voted “NO” To the Bailout Come November
3. We’re Winning The War On Terror!

When seniors first turn 65 and are eligible for Medicare, they are offered a one-time “Welcome to Medicare” physical exam. This “welcome” benefit isn’t free as seniors will have to pay20% of the Medicare-approved amount and has to be completed within six months of enrollment.

Think back to the advice of your doctors over the years.  How often do they recommend you get a physical?  Typically the answer is once a year.  This is how physicians have felt over the years and a recent study showed that 88% of physicians still give annual physicals.

Just like with Medicare, under the Obama Health Care Plan there would still be only one physical exam covered for those over age 65.  There is no mention of any covered physical exams for those under 65 except for some preventive measures.  They do mention the following on page 428 and repeated again on page 484:

An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying
the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

There is no other mention of the words “physical examination” in the rest of the 1018 page plan.

While it is true that studies have been performed to show that an “annual” physical exam may not be necessary, their conclusion was not that they weren’t necessary, but rather 80% of the preventive care occurs through other office visits throughout the year.  Even further, according to Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and a policy analyst at RAND Corp., “no major North American health-related organizations recommend the routine annual exams.”  I’m sure this is news to most reading this.

But Douglas K. Owens, MD, senior investigator, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System and professor of medicine at Stanford University, says that “If they are getting them (preventive services) as part of their routine care, that is great.  If not, a periodic health exam may be a good avenue to get them.”

So the conclusion from these studies and that of the MD’s is that yes, routine physical exams are necessary but there is a need to reduce repetitive preventive services and the interval between exams may be dependent upon family and personal history.

How Do Periodic Physical Exams Relate to Current Medicare and Proposed Obama Health Care Plans?

There’s an interesting caveat to this “one” physical exam currently offered through Medicare and continued with the Obama Health Care Plan.  It doesn’t include most laboratory tests. This means that the physician doesn’t have the necessary information needed to spot or diagnose preventable conditions.  What are the results of this lack of screening?  The undiagnosed contition gets worse and costs the system more.

In other words, its a self defeating prophecy.  It’s a system that is set up to treat the disease after the fact rather than preventing it to begin with.  This is the fallacy known as government health care.

Granted there are things covered by Medicare at present that would be continued under the Obama Health Plan.  This includes:

1. Colorectal cancer screening

2. A pelvic exam and pap smear for older women

3.  A yearly mammogram for women

4. A bone density test for women

5. Yearly prostate cancer tests for men

6. Diabetes screening as needed

7. Yearly glaucoma tests

8. Cardiovascular screening (but you need to talk with your doctor to see if you qualify)

9. Ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm for certain individuals

10. Pneumococcal and influenza vaccines and their administration and hepatitis B vaccine and its administration for certain individuals

But what about all these other preventive service recommendations  outlined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in their “Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2008?”  How is it that none of these recommendations by the Medical Doctors (MD) who make up the task force are “covered” under Medicare or the Obama Health Plan?  Isn’t being proactive with preventive services the key to staying healthy and thus not needing the expensive services later in life?

Perhaps individual responsibility and taking control of one’s own health care is the answer.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods implemented a plan to do just that.  Since the odds are against you needing any type of catastrophic coverage, he has implemented a high deductible plan ($1,000) for his employees and provided them with Health Savings Accounts to handle the little things (even those things that aren’t covered under most insurance plans like Acupuncturists and Chiropractor’s) including preventive care (see attached Appendix).

If the employee doesn’t use the money in the account, it keeps growing.  It’s their money.  The company decreased its costs at the same time as they no longer had to pay the higher costs for the lower deductible plans.  All companies should be doing this.

So why aren’t physical exams and many preventive measures part of any current (Medicare) or proposed (Obama Health Plan)?

Costs.

According to the aforementioned Dr. Ateev Mehrotra, “If every U.S. adult got an annual physical, the U.S. health care system would need to provide up to 145 million additional visits annually, the researchers estimate.”

But What Would It Really Cost to Cover Preventive Care?

There are 921,900 physicians in this country according to the AMA’s Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the U.S., 2008.  If only half of these physicians, to use a conservative estimation, were to conduct physical examinations on these 145 million people, it would amount to one extra person seen a day (given time for vacations and golf outings on Wednesdays).

So doing the financial calculations, if it cost $7.8 billion to pay for 44 million folks who received Preventive Health Examinations (PHE) and Gynecological Health Examinations (GHE) according to the Preventive Health Examinations and Preventive Gynecological Examination Study,  then it would cost approximately $25 billion more for the additional 145 million to receive these preventive measures.  Since these numbers can only be assumed to be correct, and don’t account for all preventive care screening that the USPSTF recommends, lets add an additional $60 billion to the $25 billion making it a total of $85 billion available for preventive care, the same amount that was given to AIG.  And if that’s not enough, we’ll hold an additional $65 billion in reserve, the same amount which incorporates the additional amount given to AIG.

So to recap, on the one hand we have the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommending preventive care services and on the other hand, no government current or proposed Health Care Plan offering many of these preventive services, including periodic physical examinations.

The result: treating the disease rather than preventing it which costs the system and consequently taxpayers more.  Just look what’s going on with Medicaid as an example of what is to come should Obama’s Health Care Plan come into fruition.

Perhaps if more people got physical examinations on a regular basis, the cost of health insurance wouldn’t be so expensive.  As usual, the U.S. government has it all backwards.  Can we really expect them to keep us healthy when its clear they don’t want to prevent us from disease with little more than a few preventive care measures and no periodic exams?

I’m not for government involvement in Health Care.  But if they were to eventually be involved, you’d think they’d understand Benjamin Franklin’s advice; “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Related posts:

1. The Government Is Not in the Business of Keeping You Healthy Revisited: No Mammograms Recommended for Women Aged 40-49
2. Health Care Reform Didn’t Work for Romney and Won’t Work For Obama – Here’s What Will Work
3. Digger’s Friday Triple Play

Below is the response from my local house rep. Typical politician double speak…”I’m against it but I voted for it…”

Senator Feinstein voted for it and replied to my letter of protest. Senator Boxer voted for it and never replied.

Racetrack improvements, $100 million, movie industry $500 million and $2 million for wooden arrows are part of the bill? Are you kidding me?

All the pork thrown into this bill has got to wake America up to what is really happening with our elected officials. I swear….if it doesn’t, then Americans deserve what they get.

You can only blame ignorance for so long…pretty soon you crossover into the realm of stupidity.

If anyone votes in November for any of those that voted “yes” for this bill, they have crossed over. If this bill was really for helping the economy, then why did the stock market go down 150 points?

The ship is sinking folks… Make your vote count in November. Shove these losers that voted yes out the door.

FYI, Obama and McCain voted “yes” for the bailout bill. A vote for either of them means you approve of this bailout.

Doug Eberhardt

www.youcanmakeadifference.org

From my House rep Mike Thompson:

Dear Doug:

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act passed by the House today is not much better than the one we rejected on Monday. While the increase in FDIC protection is an important improvement, more market reforms are still needed. The reality is that the credit market is locked up and that is hurting Americans. It was very evident that if the House failed to act the consequences would shake the foundations of our economy.

From the time that the Bush Administration first asked for this rescue package, I argued that if taxpayers were being asked to pay up, then we needed regulatory reform at the same time. But this week, the precarious state of our economy showed that we needed to act quickly, and that getting comprehensive regulatory reform would take time, a luxury we did not have. In my many conversations with constituents and economists, it became clear to me that this crisis is not going to just affect those on Wall Street, but folks on every street across our district and around the country.

You don’t have to look any further than today’s unemployment numbers to see why we have voted to act now. The country lost more jobs in September than any month in the last five years. Unemployment in California stands at 7.7 percent, the highest it has been in 12 years. A major reason is that our financial system has stopped functioning and banks are not extending credit to employers. I have talked with individuals and business owners across the district who say that the tightening of the credit market has already affected their ability to maintain operations or to expand their businesses.

Within the last two weeks, the Arcata Community Recycling Center has seen their interest payments balloon to four times their normal rate. Standard Structures in Windsor was about to finalize a $10 million order from a Texas company until they got word this week that the project was stalled because of the credit crisis. There are fifty jobs tied to that one contract. Many more of our small businesses will be forced to lay off workers or wait on hiring new workers if they don’t have access to credit.

Governor Schwarzenegger and Treasurer Bill Lockyer announced this week that California has four weeks of cash flow, and if the markets are not restored, the state will be unable to pay its bills. It’s only a matter of time before cities and counties will be forced to pass along these budget shortfalls by reducing public services. From public health and safety workers, to road crews and garbage pickup, the government services that we rely on will be disrupted and these jobs will go on the chopping block.

I can assure you I still disagree with this bill and I remain committed to enactment of concrete market reforms that address the underlying problems that lead to this crisis. To that end, I’ve received a direct commitment from Speaker Pelosi that she too will work to identify and address the problems that led us to this point. The House will immediately begin holding hearings on the regulatory shortcomings in our financial system, so that come January we will be ready to craft legislation that addresses the issues I’ve raised and others that will be uncovered. Congressman Barney Frank, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, has promised me that his committee will make the reforms I advocated for a top priority. And I’ve received a personal commitment from Senator Obama that if he’s elected President he too will work for these important market reforms. In January, we will be well positioned to pass important legislation that will close the loopholes and tighten up regulations in the financial services sector.

Today I voted for this legislation because it was clear to me that we must take immediate action to restore a measure of confidence in the economy. This isn’t the end of our problems nor is it the last of the legislation. Like everyone else, I’m outraged that taxpayers have been tapped to cover the greed and excesses of the financial marketplace, and I’m outraged that as taxpayers we have been asked to cover for the failure of Wall Street regulators. But when forced to choose between doing nothing and passing this bill, I voted for what I believe is best for our country and our district, and voted to pass this legislation. We face a tough road ahead, but hopefully by unfreezing the credit markets, Americans can get back to growing their businesses and growing our economy.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this important issue. I appreciate your conviction on this matter and have valued your continued dialogue.

Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
[link edited for length]

Related posts:

1. Which Congressmen Voted to Give IMF $100 Billion? Vote Them Out!
2. America’s Infrastructure In 2009: Grade “F”
3. Congress Gives IMF Your Tax Dollars to Bailout Greece

Here is the 2005 Report Card on the 12 categories:

Aviation — D+

Bridges — C

Dams — D

Drinking water — D-

Energy — D

Hazardous waste — D

Navigable waterways — D-

Public parks — C-

Rail — C-

Roads — D

Schools — D

Solid waste — C+

Transit — D+

Wastewater — D-

SOURCE: American Society of Civil Engineers

There’s a game that I played years ago called Sim City. The basis for Sim City is managing local government. The objective of the game is to use your decision making skills to build a city and manage the city as potential disasters and other problems arise. Some schools, such as Auburn University use Sim City to teach students systems thinking, problem-solving skills and “craft” in the planning profession.

I remember in playing this game that if I concentrated on one aspect of planning and neglected others, there were consequences, sometimes severe consequences. This leads to our current situation here in America. For now, our nation’s leaders (Congress and the President) are spending their time waging undeclared wars where the cost to pay for said wars aren’t even included in the budget deficit figures.

So when will our leaders decide that our own nation needs some TLC and leave other nations to depend upon their own people to survive? The answer will probably be found when the next bridge collapses or the water situation hits crisis level. A “D-” for drinking water? Are you kidding me?

Our leaders are reactive, not proactive. The only thing that they are leaders of is the march towards the destruction of America as we know it! They would lose every game of Sim City they ever played. If only there were no consequences.

The next ASCE report card is due out in 2009. I can only imagine what further deterioration will have occurred. Can the grade of “F” be too far off? If your child receives these types of grades, are you proud of them? No! You do what you can to fix the problem by paying more attention to what is causing it!

What’s causing our problems in America? We need $1.6 trillion over the next 5 years to fix our infrastructure. Where will that money come from? Is it in the current budget? Will war with Iran make things better or worse? Does Congress even ask these types of questions?

So to pay for the repairing of infrastructure, congress can only do one of two things; raise taxes or print more money (the hidden tax called inflation).

Either way, you will pay more for everything.

You’ll find out what’s going on with your state’s infrastructure here.

Doug Eberhardt

Related posts:

1. Vote For Those That Voted “NO” To the Bailout Come November
2. Social Security Will Be There For You, However…
3. Top 5 Articles of 2009