Bush left Obama such a bad deal...?

I haven't been blogging much lately because I am busy trying to build up the funds so we can survive if we ever can retire.  But I heard Karl Rove on Fox News today, and he brought up some very interesting facts.  Hoping he will forgive me for any possible mis-statements, I have I reproduced his chart here to illustrate my point.

One of the chants we frequently hear from the Obama administration is that they were left such a bad deal by President Bush.  They would have us believe that all our woes are due to Bush, and they are fighting to recover.  But let's take a look at the facts.

First, let's go back even further to the hand dealt President Bush by the Clinton administration.  The budget left in President Clinton's final year increased discretionary non-security spending by 16% per year.  Without complaint, the Bush administration set about to cut that to 6% in the very first budget first budget, and by the end of his term President Bush had actually cut it to match the growth of inflation - essentially, he flat lined it! 

When President Obama took office, one of his first acts was to increase discretionary non-security spending by 10% - in the middle of the fiscal year!  Furthermore, the following expenditures (in $1,000,000,000's) are now either already in place or on the way:

$787 - Economic Stimulus Package
$350 - Bank Rescue Package (Approved under bush, Obama agreed, spent this year)
$33 - Expansion of children health insurance
$410 - Omnibus spending bill
$80 - Auto company bailout
$821 - Cap and Trade bill
$1,000 (One trillion) - healthcare bill proposal

So what is the result?  Let's start by taking out the Economic Stimulus and Bank Rescue packages, because their approvals span both administrations.  Not even including the proposed healthcare legislation, that's $1,344bn in spending approved by this administration.  In case you didn't notice, that is a $922,000,000,000 more than President Bush.  Doesn't look like he is trying to save much, does it? 

Furthermore, we have all seen the failure of the Economic Stimulus package, but Mr. Obama refuses to heed calls to return any of that money that is still around.  If you add  back some of that $787bn that could be reclaimed back in, let's say a little less than half, and assume that the healthcare bill will pass early next year, even paired down to a mere $800bn cost, we are looking at a total "unprescedented" one-year increase of almost $2 trilliion over the amount spent by President Bush!

I think it is time to place the blame squarely on the shoulders where it belongs, and that is Barack Obama.

Killing the Goose?

There is an old story about killing the "Goose that laid the Golden Egg". The particular goose that concerns us is small business. Back in the UK we learned that RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), now a partly government-owned bank, has been criticized for reducing its lending to small businesses, despite promises given to the government when it was partly taken over.

This apparent lack of interest in small business has forced many companies to explore other options. John Wright, national chairman of the (UK) Federation of Small Businesses, said: "Figures from the British Bankers Association indicate that more firms are dipping into their savings, which shows that many small businesses might be put off from going through a torturous application procedure for a loan or overdraft extension, which ultimately might not be successful."

This situation cannot last forever. Capital is the lifeblood of small business, and just as in the US, small business is the lifeblood of the economy. In fact, doesn't this story sound familiar? Americans have heard similar stories, and the result will be the same. With all the banks that have been given subsidies or even taken over, some safeguards must be put in place (in both countries!) to assure a fair share of capital is made available to small business on an equitable basis.

Healthcare Reform Meetings

While the Administration continues to carp about how bad a situation they were handed and how they want to save money, they are pushing for $2T in new spending between healthcare and reform and energy policies. But perhaps the most worrisome trend in all this is their insistence that all dissent is by special interest and radical groups.

Mr. Obama would have us believe that no one who opposes him is an ordinary citizen. Instead they are classified as disruptive. There are some indications that names are being taken and even reports of threats from as early as the campaign trail. I am not here to say that this has or has not taken place, but there are reports, and I urge everyone to do their own research on this to see for themselves.

But it is clear that the Administration is at the very least attempting to downplay the dissenting comments being received at some of their town hall meetings. Will they continue to bury their heads in the sand and try to ignore those of us who are saying "no"? Or will they see that these people, who now some might even call brave people, who are willing to show up at these meetings to voice their own views are just like you and me?

I don't know about you, but no one tells us what to support or even to do this blog. We write about what we feel is important and state what we believe. If you agree, maybe you will let folks know. If not, that's fine, too. But no one - no one - should be made to feel afraid to speak out, because the last time I checked, we still are supposed to have the right to free speech.

Open Letter to the AARP

I have just seen a report on Fox News about last night's "town hall" meeting held by an AARP representative to discuss the current healthcare proposals. I found the entire incident so appaling that I just sent them the letter below, which I share here in hopes that anyone else who is a member and feels strongly about this might also comment:

Your website states, "...AARP's policies are determined not by the staff in Washington, D.C., but by AARP members. We gather members' ideas from town meetings, phone calls, letters, emails, surveys and polls...." Yet, the nasty display that I saw aired this morning of an AARP update session conducted by a rude lady hardly underlines this point. Adding more fuel to the fire, your PR representative who was just on Fox News failed to acknowledge any of these principles and dismissed the whole incident without apology.

I am ashamed to be represented by AARP if this is the way you will do so. Could it be that you are allowing your insurance business to dictate your policy rather than the wishes of your members? Let's be clear: my wife and I are just two ordinary members of your organization, and we DO NOT SUPPORT the new healthcare proposal.

We have no general axes to grind, and no one tells us what to say or do. This is us saying that the healthcare proposal is flawed. We'd rather have the current system than anything approaching this bill.

So do not think that you are representing us when you support this bill. And I hope that instead of maintaining this arrogant stance, you will re-evaluate your position and support the wishes of your membership, as you say you do.

I doubt I will get a reply, but if you agree, please pass this around.

A Better Healthcare Proposal

Newt Gingrich has just posted what I consider to be a much better alternative to the current plan to repair our current healthcare system. Although I am sure he is much better followed than I am, I also want to post it here:

Six Straightforward Steps to Better Healthcare

To create a system that delivers more choices of higher quality health care at lower cost we need to take the following six straightforward steps:

1. Stop Paying the Crooks. First, we must dramatically reduce healthcare fraud within our current healthcare system. Outright fraud -- criminal activity -- accounts for as much as 10 percent of all healthcare spending. That is more than $200 billion every year. Medicare alone could account for as much as $40 billion a year. (Read about our latest CHT Press book, Stop Paying the Crooks, edited by Jim Frogue.)
2. Move from a Paper-based to an Electronic Health System. As it stands now, it is simply impossible to keep up with fraud in a paper-based system. An electronic system would free tens of billions of dollars to be spent on investing on the kind of modern system that will transform healthcare. In addition, it would dramatically increase our ability to eliminate costly medical errors and to accelerate the adoption of new solutions and breakthroughs.
3. Tax Reform. The savings realized through very deliberately and very systematically eliminating fraud could be used to provide tax incentives and vouchers that would help cover those Americans who currently can’t afford coverage. In addition, we need to expand tax incentives for insurance provided by small employers and the self-employed. Finally, elimination of capital gains taxes for investments in health-solution companies can greatly impact the creation advancement of new solutions that create better health at lower cost.
4. Create a Health-Based Health System. In essence, we must create a system that focuses on improving individual health. The best way to accomplish this is to find out what solutions are actually working today that save lives and save money and then design public policy to encourage their widespread adoption. For example, according to the Dartmouth Health Atlas, if the 6,000 hospitals in the country provided the same standard of care of the Intermountain or Mayo health clinics, Medicare alone would save 30 percent of total spending every year. We need to make best practices the minimum practice. We need the federal government and other healthcare stakeholders to consistently migrate to best practices that ensure quality, safety and better outcomes.
5. Reform Our Health Justice System. Currently, the U.S. civil justice system is the most expensive in the world -- about double the average cost in virtually every other industrialized nation. But for all of the money spent, our civil justice system neither effectively compensates persons injured from medical negligence nor encourages the elimination of medical errors. Because physicians fear malpractice suits, defensive medicine (redundant, wasteful treatment designed to avoid lawsuits, not treat the patient) has become pervasive. CHT is developing a number of bold health-justice reforms including a “safe harbor” for physicians who followed clinical best practices in the treatment of a patient. Visit CHT's Health Justice project page to learn more.
6. Invest in Scientific Research and Breakthroughs. We must accelerate and focus national efforts, re-engineer care delivery, and ultimately prevent diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease and diabetes which are financially crippling our healthcare system.

Learn more about this realistic and innovative approach at the Center for Health Transformation website.

Health Plan Details Explained

In case you had any question about how the proposed Obama health plan will work, the chart recently posted on the capitol hill newspaper website, www.rollcall.com, explains it in clear terms. Clear, that is, if you are a bureaucrat.

(A full size version can be found here.)

Mr. Obama still contends that those against this plan are out to get him or just want to bring him down. But this particular proposal transcends party lines. One look at the chart, said to have been prepared to explain how the processes will flow, leaves the viewer dumbfounded and with an obvious sense of the bureaucratic layers of cost that would be required to manage such a plan.

Yes - health care needs to be reformed. But not this way. And if this is the only way, I'll happy continue the current system. This plan must be stopped, and it can only be stopped by spreading the word so that everyone knows the truth.

Could the youngest MP bring down Brown's government?

After a whopping defeat in the Norwich North by-election by 27 year-old Conservative candidate, Ms. Chloe Smith, Labour was forced to concede a seat previously held by Ian Gibson. Her 7,000+ vote majority cannot be ignored, because it could very well be a preview of what is yet to come in the next general election. Her win now makes Ms. Smith, a University of York graduate, the youngest MP in Parliament (possibly very good news), and is causing a lot of turmoil in the ranks of Labour.

In a move that angered many supporters, Mr. Gibson, who had previously held the seat with a majority of over 5,000 votes, was forced to bow out of the election due to his implication with the expenses scandal. It now appears that the voters may maintain a long memory after learning of the excessive expense abuses widely reported earlier this Summer. And this is what has a number of senior Labour figures and back-benchers concerned. Some are again calling for consideration of a leadership change, so things are getting quite interesting.

Yes, it almost reminds one of Ms. Thatcher's plight when Conservative party leaders decided that a change was necessary to hold control. Have Labour finally realised that if such a change is not done now, it could be too late to save their leadership in the next elections?

One thing is certain - any defeats such as that brought about by Ms. Smith deal a powerful blow to the Brown Government. Conservatives now have the best opportunity ever to capitalise on the current situation. We will enjoy watching to see if they are able to make it happen.