Regulation Without Representation

The left is for bigger government. They want more regulations. We all say these things and use these two arguments when talking conservative vs liberal politics. However, "big government" and "more regulation" are vague ideas. Congress and the President cite statistics from bipartisan committees for every issue imaginable. President Obama even uses statistics that aren't kept, such as jobs saved or created by the stimulus. One statistic you won't here them put positive spin on is the cost of complying with their regulations. There are several reasons for this, most obvious is that there is no way you can positively spin the massive cost of compliance and still get re-elected. Second, to make sure no one has to be held accountable for this, they don't keep records of cost of compliance. So in honor of the Cap and Trade bill that's about to be voted on Friday, here are a few numbers to put a "price" behind "more regulation. Note to ABC, considering there is a vote on the Cap and Trade issue in 2 days, don't you think it would be best to hold your lets-get-the-whole-story-so-important-robust debate-all sides of argument-from inside the white house-no opposition present-all day marathon coverage on Cap and Trade, not Health Care. Or maybe, just maybe, is the health care thing being used to distract the public from the biggest tax increase in history?? (through regulation of big business of course, but it's for "the common good.") Transparency? What happened to doing away with slipping things through in the middle of the night.

From the Competitive Enterprise Institute annual report

Last year Congress passed and the President signed into law a total of 285 bills. Yet federal regulatory agencies issued 3,830 "final" rules. The total regulatory compliance costs of all these regulations hit $1.172 trillion in 2008. That's almost as much as Uncle Sam raised in individual income taxcollections and three times the $345 billion in corporate income
taxes

"61 federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 4,004 regulations in play at various stages of implementation … 180 are 'economically significant' rules, packing at least $100 million in economic impact." (rules not in play yet, but coming)

"it largely amounts to agency self-policing; agencies that perform 'audits' of their own rules would rarely admit that a rule's benefits do not justify the costs involved." (when you do here numbers from the government about complying with their regulations, it's from the government agency employing the regulations)

So, transparency anyone? Why does the government not issue a report on this? We elect them, they force regulation after regulation on the public sector, and they don't compile a report on how their regulations affect the people who elected them. They report on stimulus statistics that aren't even kept, that are just made up, and the public media eat it up. These people need to be held accountable. If they want to pass a regulation, they need to be forced to tell the public what it is going to cost. And when a cost analysis comes out that doesn't fit their mold, I don't want that agency attacked and belittled..Chris Dodd. This is just the beginning, with health care and cap and trade in the works, it's not looking good. I don't believe you, President Obama, when you tell me passing the most regulative 2 programs in the history of the United States won't increase my taxes or cost me money, because the facts show a different story.

source:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html

The Health Care Lie - Keeping Your Coverage

As Senator, and now President, Barack Obama has proclaimed adamantly that

"you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress
give themselves," and "if you like your current policy, you can keep it."

Just remember that as I go over a few facts about Congress, their health care and how those statements are not only misleading, but a flat out lie. I can appreciate his eloquent ability to parse words, but when you lie to the face of the American people, it's unacceptable.

From the Affordable Health Choices Act, drafted by Sen. Dodd & Kennedy

- Specifically exempt are members of Congress and federal employees (section 3116)

Exempt. Say it again. Members of Congress are exempt. They do not have to follow the same rules we do. If this type of health care is the best system for the country, then why would members of Congress and the federal government not be required to participate? They will be allowed to keep their wide selection and best coverage, while everyone else will be required to enroll in a "qualified" plan. If Congress' plans fell into the "qualified" category, then they would not need a specific exemption to the health care bill.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management says members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country," and "can choose from among consumer-driven and high deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health saving/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or fee-for-service (FFS) plans, and their preferred provider organizations (PPO), or health maintenance organizations (HMO)."

- If you don't enroll in a "qualified" health plan and submit proof to the federal government, you will be fined. (sections 3101 & 6055)

"Qualified" means that it meets all of the criteria placed into the legislation, and whatever additional criteria are added by the Secretary of Health and Human services once the bill becomes law.

- If you are already enrolled in a plan that is payed entirely by you or your employer, you will still be fined if it is not a "qualified" plan. (section 161)

So "technically" they are not lying to you when they say you can keep your coverage. I love semantics. So does the government, especially when it comes to cheating on your taxes. We cheat, we go to jail, government officials cheat, it was an "honest mistake." Just ask Wesley Snipes.

- The cost of the fine will be enough to "accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage. (section 161)

How big will the fine be? One aide working on the bill says it will have "penalties eventually reaching 75% of the cost of the least expensive plan." So who decides who pays a fine and who gets free coverage, paid for by those paying the fine? What if your 25, just out of school and don't want/need a plan and would rather use the money to pay off school loans? Oh that's right, paying off debt is bad old-world policy of the past, just ask SC Gov. Mark Sanford.

- The bill suggests that only plans with managed-care controls such as "medical-home" will meet the definition of a "qualified" plan. (sections 3101 & 2707)

In December 2008, a Congressional Budget Office report on drafts of major federal health care bills noted "medical-homes" were very likely to be like the HMOs of 20 years ago, especially if cost control is a priority.

- In the Kennedy bill, "medical-home" providers will have a "payment structure" based on "incentives" rather than payments for each doctor visit or procedure. (section 3101)

This report focused on a specific type or requirement called a "withhold." HMOs would hold back 10% or more of the fees it paid a physician, and only pay back the money at the end of the year to physicians who met specific goals for limiting how many referrals to specialists or diagnostic tests their patients used.

The goals were so strict, that if a physician exceeded them, the cost of what he prescribed to you would come from his own pocket at the end of the year. This creates a conflict of intrest between you and your doctor. I don't want my doctor worried about paying penalties or facing fines when it comes to making decisions about my health! People complain about Police Officers "having to make their quota". This is the same thing, except that it deals with your health and well being.

President Obama recently said "if doctors have incentives to provide the best care, instead of more care, we can help Americans avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs."

That sounds great, but what's the incentives he's talking about? Not having to pay fines and penalties for providing "more care" than the government allows? I want my doctor worried about me, not his wallet. Often times, the "best care" is "more care," and I don't want my doctor being told by the government how much of either to provide.

source

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Only President Obama can fire someone for doing their job

Politicians are supposed to be working for us. We elect them, they do what is in our best interest. Not that it works that way or anything. So however long ago, the position of Inspector General was created. These people make sure that government money is being spent the way it was ment to be by the companies that received it. Great right, people making sure those politicians are doing what they are suppose to. Not exactly, considering they are appointed by the same people who can fire them. Huh? Ok, well there must be some rules or something right, because if they have that much control over these people then why even have them to begin with? It's not like the government has ever created the illusion of watching its spending or being transparent..rigggght. Well crawl out from under that rock for a minute, and go take a peak at that bill Obama co-sponsored last year that requires "the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus the cause for the firing of an inspector general." Now that's some change! See, he is making it difficult to fire these people, so they can really get in their and cut out that waste and expose these corrupt politicians! That's some "political courage." He's got a pair of stones that would make Terminator proud.

Oh sorry for that last paragraph and wasting 3 minutes of your day, I just returned from hope and change fantasy fun-house. A lawyer responding to the firing of AmeriCorps IG called the move an act of "political courage" by the white house. The only thing courageous about that move wasthe hay-maker to the jaw of the Constitution from Obama. Yea, the guy was called out of the blue and given 1 hour to resign or be fired. He had a real pair and told them where they could put it. He was fired. Congress was notified after the fact, without any explination. This same lawyer mentioned that "he was not working well with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, and the administration believed that IGs should work well with the leadership of their agencies." What? He is investigating the company for illegal activities and fraud, on the behalf of the american people and their tax dollars. Is the IRS nice to you when you put $80,000 under your matress, or forget to report that $10,000 bonus? I don't care how "well" he worked with the board, that's not his job. His job is to investigate them, not befriend them. Oh yea, he was looking into illegal activities that had ties to the President.

"In this case, the board and top management were unhappy with Walpin's aggressive investigation of the misuse of federal AmeriCorps funds by Sacramento, California mayor -- and prominent Obama supporter -- Kevin Johnson. The board was also unhappy with Walpin's probe into the waste of AmeriCorps money at the City University of New York."

Remember, the board, the people the IG is investigating as that is the purpose of the IG position, are the one's who got him fired. Yea, that makes a whole lot of sense..

Here is a list of questions asked to the President's special counsel
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/NEW-White-House-refuses-to-answer-Senates-questions-on-AmeriCorps-IG-firing-48285832.html

Video - Transparency

Jake Tapper invites Robert Gibbs to discuss transparency. What are your opinions on this Q&A?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-4qEz1vea0

President Obama's Czar's

Did you know that he has increased the number of czars for an administration by 400%, just 100 days into office. Do you know what these officials, appointed directly by the President, do? These are just a few of the questions that came to mind when I learned of the most recent Czar appointed by President Obama. The Transparency Czar. His job description reads "to clarify the actions and policies of President Obama and members of his administration." The President is already coming through on his promise of transparency! He appointed someone, who answers to no one but him, to tell us what is really going on! Doesn't that sound great? I didn't think so. Don't worry, there really is no such thing as a "Transparency Czar," at least not yet. There isn't really a need for one anyway. No one questions anything coming from President Obama's or his administration anyway. If they do, other sources attempt to marginalize them with accusations of racism, fear-mongering, partisanship, inciting hate, being bitter, or being a right-wing nut.

So I will take it upon myself to do the extra digging, fact checking, and simple research required to provide the real "transparency" promised by President Obama. I now appoint my self the unofficial Transparency Czar of this administration.

First order of business, find out about the actual Czars of the Obama administration. I hope to answer questions like who are they, what do they do, what did they do before their appointment as czar, what is their purpose, who do they answer to, and how do they influence policy. Below is the list of Czars as of a week ago. I have seen list with a few more, but haven't been able to confirm an exact number. Because I can't provide a little "transparency" about all of them at once, because I have a life and do this as a hobby, I will try and do a "Czar of the day" post. This will include a "Top 10 Facts" theme that will hopefully answer the questions I mentioned above.

Drug Czar - Gil Kerlikowske
Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner
Homeland Security Czar - John Brennan
Health Czar - Nancy-Ann DeParle
Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
Economic Czar - Paul A. Volcker
Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein
Technology Czar - Vivek Kundra
Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients
Border Czar - Alan Bersin
WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore
Intelligence Czar - Dennis Blair
Car Czar - Steven Rattner
Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg
Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis
Cyber Czar - TBA

In fairness to POTUS, I'm sure past Presidents had more than their fair share of Czars too. Nixon started the trend with 1 Energy Czar. Ok, fair enough, trends have to start somewhere. On to Reagan, 1 Drug Czar. H.W. Bush 1 Drug Czar. Clinton a Health, Drug, and Aids Czar. G.W. Bush an Intelligence, Cybersecurity, Aids, and Drug Czar. He's already increased the number for an administration 400% and it is only going up.