 |
July 17th, 2009Dear Liberty Activist, As you may already be aware, especially if you are a regular listener of the Mark Levin program (which is where I heard about it), the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, delivered devastating testimony that the ObamaCare legislation now being proposed will not include "the fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount," as reported by the Washington Post. "On the contrary," he said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care." Mr. Elmendorf says the cost curve is being raised instead of cut, breaking a promise made by Barack Obama and Democrat leaders to cut the growth in spending of health care programs with a "deficit-neutral" government-run health care proposal. So much for that. Mr. Elmendorf's testimony means that the so-called public "option" will only add to the unsustainable, unfunded liabilities burdening taxpayers over the next century. This revelation now puts the burden on the 40 Blue Dog Democrats who promised to oppose any legislation that was not deficit-neutral to make good on their promise in a recent letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Here is a list of the 40 members who need to be targeted to stick to their pledge to "not support health care reform that is not deficit neutral". Please call your own representatives in the House and in the Senate as well, and tell them that the end of delivering lower-quality health care to everybody is not worth the cost of bankrupting the nation. The switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. In today's Liberty Action Report, the cost of ObamaCare will be more than we can possibly bear, it may have some side effects, and the Philsopher's Stone returns to analyze the ethics state-sanctioned abortion. Plus, Iowa Politics picks up one of our targeted Congressional releases. Please send your letters to the editor at Robert@getliberty.org. We
publish all points of view! Today, a
wise man in the field wrote in, referring to a recent Gateway Pundit
article questioning the sincerity of the Blue Dog "rebellion", "In
my experience, this guy is exactly right... In fact, unless we keep the
heat on them to actually vote against it, the Blue Dog play
makes it more likely that socialized medicine will pass. Pelosi
will throw them a few pre-arranged bones for appearances' sake,
they'll claim that with the concessions, the government takeover of
healthcare is now acceptable, and much of the public will fall
for it, believing that if those 'conservative' Blue Dog Democrats say
it's OK now...it must be OK... Which is why -- even when we commend
what's made to appear to be a steely stand for principle -- local
activists must always, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, 'carry a big
stick.' And be clear that we're ready to use it." To quote Nicolo Machiavelli, "It is much safer to be feared than loved." For Liberty, Robert Romano Open Source & Copyright Free The
Hidden Cost of ObamaCare Prescribed
by Congress Justice
Ginsburg and the Undesirables ALG
in the News: Iowa Politics The Hidden Cost of ObamaCareBy Robert Romano It's an absurd figure to look at, let alone to begin planning to somehow pay for. Yet, such is the hidden cost of entitlements—at least the cost that the Board of Trustees for Medicare and Social Security is now willing to admit to. And make no mistake about it: It is a cost that will bury the public treasury—along with the taxpayers expected to foot the astronomical, insurmountable bill. The basic lesson here is that when something—whether it be health care or retirement funds—is guaranteed to everybody, it goes ever deeper into the red. Far, far into the red. That is why entitlements are not—and never can or will be—deficit "neutral." The total cost is not how much money is allocated by Congress, but how much money Congress promises to continue paying out through the entitlement for decades and decades to come. The irony is that the $104 trillion price tag, horrendous as it is, may actually be small in comparison to what Americans will really be forced to pay once the new government-run health care plan is implemented. Consider this: Under the House version of the so-called public "option," individuals up to 400 percent of the poverty level, or making approximately $43,320 or less annually, will be eligible for some level of health coverage under the plan whether through the public "option," Medicaid, or otherwise. There's a small problem. As of 2006, there were approximately 91.5 million people aged 25-65 who fell into that income bracket, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Factor in the nearly 35 million who were 65 and older at that time, and the total figure comes to over 125.8 million who will be eligible for government-administered health care. And once the new so-called public "option" crowds out and eliminates all other private health options (as the program's sponsors fully expect it to do according to page 16 of the bill), sooner or later the total entitlement will extend to all 125.8 million. The cost to taxpayers? Far, far more than we can possibly bear. Presently, the average premium for single coverage is $4,700, according to the National Coalition on Health Care. If all 125.8 million of those eligible received fully-funded "average" health plans, the total burden to taxpayers would rise to a staggering $591.26 billion annually. But let's just deal with the 91.5 million aged 25-65. They alone would cost the taxpayers $430.05 billion annually. This means that if nothing else changed—the population, inflation, the average cost of premiums, etc.—by 2080, the unfunded liabilities would rise to $30.1 trillion above the Board of Trustees' current $104 trillion estimate. But, of course, that's a low-ball figure, since the population will rise, inflation will increase, and undoubtedly so, too, will the cost of the average premium. Of course, Barack Obama is ever-optimistic. Or, perhaps, simply duplicitous. Just a week ago, he said, "I've said that it's got to be budget neutral, it's got to be deficit neutral, and so whatever bill is produced has to be paid for, and that creates some difficulties because people would like to get the good stuff without paying for it." Well, that's one way of putting it. The fact is, once the hidden costs of these entitlements—Social Security, Medicare, and the public "option"—are fully realized over the next century, the American people will not be getting anything good at all—including the most basic health care we now take for granted. A country that has been plunged into decade after decade of half-trillion dollar annual deficits won't have a plug nickel left for adequate health care—and barely enough left for funeral expenses. Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News Editor. Prescribed by Congress
ALG Editor's Note: William Warren's award-winning cartoons published at GetLiberty.org are a free service of ALG News Bureau. They may be reused and redistributed free of charge. Justice Ginsburg and the UndesirablesBy Victor Morawski In a recent interview with the New York Times, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg unburdened herself of the revelation that she thought Medicaid funding of abortions was going to be included in the original Roe vs. Wade decision, since "there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." The emphasis is mine. The words, unfortunately, are hers. And whether one is pro-life or pro-abortion, they have a decidedly chilling effect. Now, besides striking an unapologetic blow in favor of Eugenics – the horrifying view that selective breeding and elimination of certain segments of the population deemed undesirable will actually be good for the human race -- Justice Ginsburg's view on Medicaid funding of abortions is bizarre, even inconsistent, in a variety of ways. In spite of her awareness that in providing Medicaid funding for abortion, government might, in her own words, "risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them," Justice Ginsburg over the years has been a strong advocate of such funding. Her rather bizarre reasoning, as she said in a 1984 North Carolina Law Review Article, is that only by being able to afford to abort their children will poor women be able to stand with men in society as "independent" and "self-sustaining equal citizen[s]." In her New York Times interview she stated, "There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore…So we have a policy that affects only poor women …" Ordinarily, those who favor less government intervention in their lives value words like "independent" and "self-sustaining" because they denote the ability of individuals to make their own, individuated decisions free of external coercion. We believe that in most matters, government should keep "hands-off" and respect our independence, our ability to make competent, responsible decisions for ourselves in matters concerning our own lives and property. But Justice Ginsburg uses "independent" in an entirely different way, with entirely different implications for government involvement. For her, giving poor women independence in their reproductive choices means making them dependent upon government funding to exercise their prerogatives – in short, forcing others (i.e., taxpayers) to foot the bill for the indigent's "independent" decision. In other words, according to Ginsberg, government should force taxpayers to economically empower poor women to choose to have an abortion – just as it now forces taxpayers to pay for poor women's (increasingly illegitimate) live births. She even takes it a step further. According to the venerable jurist, "government has no business making that choice [the choice for childbirth] for a woman." And by funding only one side, it is effectively doing just that. So in her rather circumscribed reasoning on this issue, the only way government can stay out of the poor woman's decision is by funding either choice she makes -- childbirth or abortion. Apparently, the very idea that, perhaps, government could stay out of the poor woman's decision by funding neither never crosses the myopic mind of the liberal jurist. Unfortunately, the idea that abortion can be used to control population growth "in populations that we don't want to have too many of" does. And for that reason, we can all be thankful that Ms. Ginsberg's days on the bench may soon be coming to a close. Victor Morawski is an ALG News contributing writer and a professor of philosophy at Coppin State University.
Americans for Limited Government: Calls upon Congressman Boswell to "stand firm" against government-run health care"Congressman Boswell has to prove that he's not just drawing straws with his colleagues to see who gets to vote against controversial proposals to provide cover for them on bills they already know are going to pass."—ALG President Bill Wilson. July 14th, 2009, Fairfax, VA -- Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today praised Congressman Leonard Boswell, a member of the House Blue Dog Democrats caucus, for signing a letter against proposed legislation that according to Wilson would "institute the single largest expansion of government into health care ever." According to the group's website, the Blue Dog Democrats claim to be a "fiscal conservative" coalition in the House of Representatives, dedicated to "balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden the national debt places on them." "There may be hope for Congressman Boswell yet, but he has to prove that he's not just drawing straws with his colleagues to see who gets to vote against controversial proposals to provide cover for them on bills they already know are going to pass," said Wilson… |
