Just in time for health care debate – leaked investigations of congressional wrongdoing

Just when the Democrats thought it was safe to legislate under cover of media darkness, a leaked ethics report tells of potential internal investigations of house members gone bad.

Internal investigations into the conduct of over two dozen House members have been exposed in an extraordinary, Internet-era breach of security involving the secretive process by which Congress polices lawmaker ethics.

Revelations of the mostly preliminary inquiries by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct — also known as the Ethics committee — and a panel that refers cases to it shook the chamber as lawmakers were immersed in a series of scheduled votes Thursday.

The panel announced that it was investigating two California Democrats — Reps. Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson — even as its embarrassed leaders took pains to explain that several other lawmakers also were identified in the leaked confidential committee memo but may have done nothing wrong.

Did Maxine Waters (Democrat) use her influence to help a bank that her husband is significantly involved in?

Did Rep. Richardson (Democrat) get special treatment by a lending institution?

These and mostly other democrats are the targets of potential wrongdoing.  Most will be cleared of charges once the investigations are completed (if they happen at all).

In the midst of a busy legislative day, ethics chairwoman Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., went to the House floor to announce that a confidential weekly report of the committee from July had leaked out in a case of “cyber-hacking.”

A committee statement said that its security was breached through “peer to peer file sharing software” by a junior employee who was working from home. The staff member was fired.

Yikes!  Fired?  With all the unemployment problems?  That must have been a non-union member.

The Washington Post also reported that:

… more than 30 lawmakers and a few staff members were under scrutiny, including nearly half the members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

You know, the usual suspects here – Murtha’s name has probably been on this confidential list every month for the past three decades or more.

What would you do with $230,000? Stimulus Job Numbers Are Tragic

The Obama Administration is attempting to stop the bleeding and needs the media to come to the rescue.  How?

First - release a “comprehensive” report on “saved” or “created” jobs as a result of the first $150 billion of “stimulus” money.  Forget for a moment, that all previous estimates and reports were quickly debunked as inflated and bogus.

Do some quick math and you see some troubling signs.  The administration is trumpeting 650,000 saved or created jobs over the first $150 billion.  That equates to roughly $230,000 per head ($230,769.23 to be exact – but who is that accurate, right?).

Why didn’t we just make a subsidy for those who’s jobs were or were on the cusp of termination?  You can bet that the average salary of the 650,000 jobs is nowhere near six-figures.  That would have saved the taxpayers a lot of scratch.

Here is another disturbing figure.  The weekly job losses were pretty high last fall and in Q1.

From November of 2008 through April – the average monthly job losses was 645,000.  From May through September, losses averaged 307,000 per month.

In just the May through September period alone over 1.842 million Americans filed for initial claims of unemployment.  That is lower than the losses the earlier period mentioned -  3.87 million filed then.

So since the big spend (or the first $150 billion of it) saved or created 650,000 jobs (if these numbers are believable).  That compares to roughly 1/6 of last falls total initial unemployment claims, 1/3 of the last six months claims.

If their numbers are revised down as every other report has been so far, the results will look even worse.

Had Obama pushed for the conservative (only a handful of GOP are conservatives anymore) proposal I and a few “loud mouthed talk-radio types) suggested late in the summer of 2008, the results for employment would most certainly been better.  They could not have been worse.

To review, that proposal was to begin an immediate and retroactive tax holiday for businesses and corporations based in the USA.   The cost would have been less than half of the total “stimulus” package and the cash savings for businesses would have resulted in real jobs “saved” or created.  No bailouts or handouts are required of the tax holiday.  Just plain old “keeping more of what you earn.”  That little deal would have resulted in a better Christmas shopping season and may have helped the economy as much as the poorly run “cash for clunkers” program to boost new auto sales.

The big difference is in the role of government.  The Obama/Democrat way is to use force to get results.  The conservative approach nudges people towards desired results through incentives and the opportunity to succeed.

The Government “Big Brother” approach of 1984 fame is generating backlash across Obama’s spectrum of projects.  From Health Care Reform to the environment, to the economy – all have met with town halls filled with suspicious and sometimes angry crowds.  They all fear that these allegedly well-meaning laws and programs will trade away our freedoms and capacity for self-determination that is the foundation of this nation.

I ask the following question for every “saved” or “created” job recipient, “What could YOU have done with $230,000?”

What could businesses have done if they could have kept another 10-20% of their revenues as profits?  Would any of that money have made it possible to keep a few employees off the unemployment lines?  Would those who kept their jobs have spent a few more shekels, made their mortgage payments, and paid their taxes?

For the larger numbers of unemployed who voted for Obama, how is that hope and change working for you?

Just some idle thoughts for a Friday.

**UPDATE**  The late Bea Arthur wills $300,000 to New York’s Ali Forney Center, an organization supporting homeless LGBT youth – saving jobs and helping kids tossed out because they are gay.  I thought Obama was going to save us?

House to Unveil Yet Another Healthcare Proposal

Nancy Pelosi is starting to come out of her coma and see reality.  She does not have the votes to pass her beloved “robust” public option version of the so-called health care reform legislation.

Meet the new “Public Option” – same as the old public option, but with sugar on top.

A watered down version of a public option is now the talk of the House.  It only differs by allowing doctors to negotiate reimbursement rates with the federal government.  I am not sure how this makes a big difference.  A bunch of doctors versus the Federal Government (all 10 trillion pounds of it)?  No contest – feds win.  But I digress.

None of these so-called reforms will help.  They might get 95% of the population “covered” by either private or public health plans – but care will be worse, doctors will become more scarce and care will be worse.  Bank on it.

None of the reforms control costs as well as a freer market (note that I said freer – not free).  With Democrats and other government control types in charge – extra regulation is a given.  No one will have pre-existing conditions so all companies will have to accept all comers.  Even people who sit around without care and then sign up after they find out they have a very costly condition.

Good luck keeping the rates down at that point.

Tax rates will rise to “pay” for the carnage

Better find a way to pay to bail out the big insurance companies when they start to fail.  Better find the tax revenues and spending cuts to pay for all the new enrollees to the new “Public Option”.

A better way – a conservative approach

Here is a suggestion – go with the conservative definition of a public option: allow personal health savings accounts and 401K style business health savings plans.  Let every American buy his or her own policy to cover themselves and their families.  Also – let them pay for services for routine maintenance and “well visits”.  Cut down the cost of paperwork and payment processing by having people pay directly for their services and care from the savings accounts.  There are too many middle-men involved today.  Individuals can then pay for lower cost “insurance” to cover the unexpected expenses associated with unexpected health ailments.  The savings remains in the accounts of individuals to save for a rainy day.

“But Russ, what if they don’t have enough money to pay for the care,” you ask with a sniff and a whimper?

No problem – just have the IRS add a tax-deductible amount of income for care.  Perhaps a “robust” $5,000 per person or $15,000 per family.  Make it ready to access for family income levels below whatever political threshold the politicians care to decide.

Once the cash is in the accounts, people will get to decide what to do with the cash.  So long as it is for “qualified” stuff (health care related) then it remains tax-free.  If not – tax the hell out of the funds.  Penalize people too – democrats should love that one.

Look, it stands to reason that fraud and waste makes up 37% of the $800 billion is annual “waste” in our medical system (according to a report by Thompson-Reuters).  Since very large companies (and the government) run these programs, small amounts of “leakage” is acceptable.  A $20 overcharge is the same as zero when you spend hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars annually. But to the average American, that $20 on a visit will most certainly be noticed.  In fact, bills will be scrutinized before the patient leaves the office.  Most important, overcharges will probably be disputed and corrected before it is ever paid.

That is the magic of the market.  People will buy what they think is the best value for their dollar based on their own priorities.  The alternative leads to draconian measures and a general sense of enslavement to a faceless, nameless “system”.

I choose freedom.  It comes with responsibility and it has its risks. Whether it is a war on terror, tyranny, addiction to drugs, or for our freedoms and liberty – the responsibility does not change.

Remember, we have a rendezvous with destiny.  It is always a time for choosing.  Choose wisely.

Reagan on socialized medicine

Top Senate Dems were against caps before they were for them

Senators Boxer and Kerry can pat themselves on the back for getting on board the climate change bandwagon, but back in 1997, they were part of the 95 US Senators who voted against ratifying the so-called Kyoto protocol agreement.

To paraphrase the failed Democrat presidential candidate – “I actually was against cap and taxing emissions before I was for it.”

Yes – I know they had weasel reasoning for this – the old “newly developed countries were exempt excuse”, but that is one of the same reasons most Republicans gave.  Try again.

What about the fact that no warming has occurred since 1998 in spite of massive CO2 emissions from the USA, India, China, the rest of the world as well as many flatulent livestock and zoo animals?  If there is a strong correlation between Carbon dioxide emissions and a warming climate (as Mr. Gore suggested in his power-point film lecture) then with all the extra CO2 there would be some increase – right?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

I guess I am a healthy skeptic.  Curbing emissions of soot is probably a good idea to help save the lungs of those of us who live in coal country (or at least downwind of a coal-fired power plant).  Curbing CO2 just because George W Bush was against it is just plain pig-headed and stupid.  Destroying the economy just to prove you are “green” is asinine.

Then again, they are just living up to their mission as Democrats.  After all, the jackass is their mascot.

And you thought texting while driving was bad – Pilots overshot airport while on laptop

The pilots who overshot an airport because they were distracted by working on a new airline program on their laptops will probably lose their licenses – and their jobs as pilots.

They violated company policy and good sense by doing that while commanding an airplane with hundreds of lives in their hands.