Women Win Under Spupak Amendment to HR 3962

Late Saturday night, Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Joe Pitts, (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur, (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) successfully led an effort to protect women and children from abortion in health care reform.

During debate preceding the vote on the Stupak Amendment, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) declared, “Women deserve better than abortion.”

The Stupak Amendment will maintain the current policy of preventing federal funding of abortion in health care reform, and any benefits packages that would otherwise include abortion.

FFL President Serrin M. Foster said, “Thanks to Members of Congress who led effort and the activism of thousands of FFL members, women will not have to face additional pressure to have abortion. We can refocus our efforts on meaningful, holistic solutions that everyone can support.”

Congressman Steve Austria on Recently Passed Health Care Reform Bill

By Congressman Steve Austria

Last Saturday evening, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi’s health care reform bill by a vote of 220 to 215. I voted “no” on this legislation because it includes a “government option” insurance plan, which sets the stage for a government takeover of healthcare, effectively limiting health care choices for millions of Americans. The bill is estimated to cost around $1 trillion and will raise taxes on small businesses and families at a time when current economic conditions are already straining budgets. In addition, the bill includes cuts to the Medicare Advantage program and the likelihood that many people who are satisfied with their current health insurance will face significantly higher premiums as a result of the federal mandates.

I have consistently advocated for sensible reforms, including medical malpractice reform, allowing businesses and communities to pool together to purchase health care coverage across state lines, and expanding the use of health savings accounts (HSA). Unfortunately, this 2,032 page bill falls significantly short.

The legislation now awaits consideration in the United States Senate. As the health care overhaul debate continues, I encourage the American public to continue to contact their elected officials to express their views regarding this important issue.

Election Won’t Solve Budget Problems

By Marc Kilmer

Last Tuesday’s election saw a few local tax hikes approved, others fail, and a majority of voters approve statewide gambling. While these ballot questions were an attempt by local and state policymakers to help fund government, they offer no solutions to the long-term problems faced by Ohio’s governments. Only through fundamental reform can local and state politicians tame government growth that is outpacing the ability of taxpayers to fund it.

This year politicians have faced dramatic drops in tax revenue. Ohio’s economy is one of the worst in the nation and this means fewer people and businesses paying taxes. The state government has tried to trim spending and has used budget gimmicks to cover its deficit. Governor Ted Strickland also proposed new ways to raise revenue, such as raising taxes and introducing gambling.

Local governments, too, don’t have enough revenue to spend on their desired projects and services. So they have also proposed new taxes or bond issues, many of which were up for voter approval on Tuesday.

These attempts to raise revenue are misguided. The problem isn’t that Ohioans are undertaxed. In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation rates Ohio’s tax burden as one of the heaviest in the nation. And to a level seen in almost no other state, Ohioans face taxes from a number of different government entities, from the state government down to local school and library districts. No, Ohioans don’t need taxed more.

Instead, Ohio’s governmental entities need to find different ways to use the revenue they receive. For instance, instead of accepting that Medicaid will continue to consume tax dollars at an unpredictable level, policymakers should look to reform the program to bring spending down. Education spending has consistently expanded over the past few decades and yet students don’t seem to be any better educated. Instead of throwing more money at failing schools, policymakers should look at different ways of educating students.

Innovative policymaking is one piece of the puzzle. The other is to rein in the growing bureaucracy at both the state and local levels. The number of government employees continues to increase and so do their pay and benefits. Reducing government employment and bringing bureaucrats’ salaries and benefits more into line with the private sector is a necessity if government spending is ever to be controlled.

If these steps aren’t taken, we will continue to see destructive tax-and-spend patterns repeat themselves. During recessions tax revenue declines so politicians raise taxes. Good economic times follow the recessions and increased tax revenue leads to an explosion in spending. Then another recession hits and this new spending can’t be sustained, leading to even more tax increases. This is a poor way to run a government.

This current recession has hit Ohioans harder than most other Americans. The state faces higher-than-average unemployment and foreclosures. High taxes burden citizens and, as a result of Tuesday’s elections, some in the state are facing even higher tax bills. Instead of following the failed policies of the past, politicians should try to salvage something good from this recession and use it as an opportunity to restructure state and local finances so during the next economic downturn Ohio will be in a better position than that in which it finds itself now.

Marc Kilmer is a policy analyst with the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a research and educational institute located in Columbus, Ohio.

An Open Letter to the Ohio Senate

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are all aware that the Ohio Supreme Court has effectively prevented the state from moving forward with Governor Strickland’s plan to allow the installation of slot machines at race tracks around the state.

In order to close the budget gap which the court’s action had created, the Governor has announced his intention to ask the General Assembly to rescind the 4.2% income tax reduction which went into effect last January 1st.

While the Governor went through considerable verbal gymnastics to avoid calling this a tax increase, the facts are clear. The new lower rate went into effect on January 1, 2009. Ohioans have been paying the lower rate in their payroll withholding for more than nine months. Ohio businesses have been paying the lower rate in their quarterly tax payments as well.

By asking that the lower rate be rescinded, the governor will not just raise the tax rate Ohioans will have to pay going forward; he will require them to pay it retroactively back to the first of the year.

This is not just a tax increase; it is a RETROACTIVE TAX INCREASE.
Since the Governor has broken his promise not to increase taxes in this budget, it now falls to the General Assembly to decide whether the working men and women of Ohio will be forced to bear this additional burden.

We are all aware that our state is in the midst of the most severe economic downturn it has experienced in a generation. We know that Ohio’s combined state and local tax burden is among the highest in the nation, so that earlier in the decade when the national economy enjoyed healthy growth, Ohio’s growth was sluggish at best.

Further, because of various plans being considered now in Washington, Ohio families face the very real prospect of considerably higher energy costs and considerably higher health insurance costs. To raise their Ohio income taxes at this time is unwise and unfair.

The alternative to raising taxes is, of course, cutting spending. There were many interesting proposals to reduce state spending that were offered early in the budget process last spring. Among them, reorganizing Ohio government and reducing the number of cabinet offices; and, offering home care options in Medicaid instead of more expensive nursing home care. I’ve asked Ohio’s Americans for Prosperity members to make their own suggestions about possible spending cuts and send them to you and to me.

The economic crisis in Ohio is severe and growing. It is up to you to protect Ohio’s working men and women from Governor Strickland’s broken promise. A tax increase in the midst of this recession would be devastating.

On behalf of Americans for Prosperity’s 17,000 Ohio members, and on behalf of Ohio’s working men and women, I urge you to say no Ted Strickland’s retroactive tax increase. I urge you to say no to higher taxes, and instead, to cut spending.

Respectfully,
Jack Boyle
State Director
Americans for Prosperity – Ohio

Source: www.americansforprosperity.org, Oct. 19, 2009

Paying for Health Care Reform

By Daniel Downs

President Obama often said people like himself could pay for health care reform. That is, high-income taxpayers can afford high tax rates to help fund universal health care.

Thomas Jefferson held a similar view. He was critical of industrious citizens getting rich while others citizens were going without. He believed the wealthy should assist the less fortunate to achieve a livable income.

The difference between the views of Obama and Jefferson may not be apparent. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference in their views. Obama adheres to a form of contemporary liberalism that has embraced the values of humanism, egalitarianism, and welfare socialism. Although Jefferson was more liberal than many of his day, he was nevertheless a rock solid natural law proponent. His values were characterized by traditional moral values, entrepreneurial capitalism, and natural rights equality. Stated more simply, Obama tends towards being a big government socialism while Jefferson was oriented toward being a limited government capitalism.

To Jefferson, the term capitalist meant entrepreneurs of small businesses including farms, repair shops, small manufacturers or craftsmen, merchants, and the like.

Today, the term capitalism certainly includes owners of small businesses; but, in practice, many modern politicians favor a big business view. Internationalists, like Obama and most federal politicians, give their allegiance to supporting national, international, and especially Wall Street business.

However, Jefferson, as did Adam Smith, opposed big business as a threat to independent “capitalists”. One reason was that they regarded big business as quasi-governmental entities, and so do many financial experts today. Like incorporated federal banks and Fannie Mae, for-profit corporations are government created entities.

The point is this: Obama, as representative of the Democratic Party, says he wants the more wealthy to pay for their welfare based benefits program for middle and lower income citizens. The obvious problem is high income citizens live off the productivity of lower income employees, taxpayers, and consumers. Early Americans like Thomas Jefferson were very critical of it. Why? As expressed by John Locke, property and productivity belonged to the worker. In other words, the means of production belonged to all Americans equal to their need and capacity.

Taxing for the limited functions of government was and is the necessary cost to secure property and life as well as to maintain the freedom to pursue as much happiness as possible. Taxing for redistribution from the haves to the have-nots was regarded as robbery just as the low wage living was regarded as slavery.

Returning health care and how to pay for it, we can restate the issue like this: the wealthy own businesses, investment and legal firms, as well as medical practices. The so-called poor do not. Therefore, the rich should pay more to provide adequate health care for the poor and middle-class.

Yet, one could argue that most businesses already pay their employees’ health care. They also pay into Medicare as well as into group health care. Employees pay a small portion of the health insurance costs. It is part of the overall wage.

So then, why should we make businesses pay their employees higher wages?

The only reason to pay employees higher wages would be for them to pay 100 percent of the cost of health care insurance. Who says it has to be a responsibility of employers and government. Are not individuals capable of purchasing their own group insurance?

The same is true of all other government-initiated social safety net programs including social security, welfare, and ESEA (now called No Child Left Behind), and S-CHIP. With the proper education, individuals and their local communities would be more capable of and efficient at providing their own social safety nets.

Without poor wage earners, all of those programs would not be needed and would be more difficult to justify.

Those social safety net programs were all good ideas, but all became means to enlarging federal powers over American lives. Except for Social Security, most of those programs never produced the results that were sold to American citizens. Corporations whose revenues are in the multi-millions and billions often get welfare subsidies. Are not the bank and manufacturer bailouts a form of welfare? After billions of taxpayer funding, the ESEA program still has not closed the educational gap between children of poor families and others; it still has resolved the huge school drop out problem; add it still has not made American children’s globally competitive in math and science. One would think that over 40 years or 3 generations Americans would have achieved this goal. Then there is S-CHIP (State Children Health Insurance Program) that never has been used strictly to help the children of poor families. Why? Because the agenda of liberal bureaucrats always has been to complete the goal of making the middle class welfare dependents or good socialists.

Democrats justify their health care reform based on the millions of Americans without adequate health care. Yet, Congressional Budget Office analysis of so-called Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962) shows over 18 million will still be uninsured by 2019 under the bogus reform bill.

The fake reform will not even end the injustice perpetrated by the the government’s so-called safety net. After paying 20-40 years into the Medicare retirement age health care fund, the state often takes every possession of those who cash in on the supposed safety net. That seems more like a big brother scam and not a safety net.

Maybe, Bernie Madoff’s real crime was learning and practicing the art of his liberal big brother.

The answer to the health care problem is not the enlargement of government or government run health care. It is reforming the political economy. If as President Obama, Jim Wallis, and others claim, the rich can afford to pay more taxes for health care reform, they could afford to pay better wage rates so that all American could purchase health care they and their families want. The cure for making health care affordable (reducing costs and increasing earned income) would solve many other societal problems tied to America’s political economy.

H1N1 : Bailing Out Drug Companies

By Daniel Downs

Writing in the Epoch Times, Ronald Whitmont (M.D) quotes Center of Disease Control statistics showing the current level of deaths related to H1N1 and flu viruses are lower that the previous year.

Here’s what he wrote:

“In the 2007–2008 flu season, the CDC reported that the peak death rate (for pneumonia and influenza) was 9.1 percent. The highest death rate since the novel H1N1 pandemic began in early 2009 has only been 6.0 percent.”

If I’m not mistaken, flu shots for H1N1 were not available at the time of the CDC report, which was September 12, 2009.

Just last week, the mainstream media reported an epidemic number of H1N1 related deaths: 19 in just one week. Fox News reported 1,000 deaths.

Fox News sensational reporting failed to mention the time span during which those 1,000 deaths occurred. Was it 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, or more? It may have been for the past century. Even if the figure represents the number of deaths since the H1N1 outbreak (April 2009), the number of all influenza related deaths is still less than last season.

What Fox News number of death actually represents is anyone’s guess. One question that can be answered is whether the latest CDC statistics shows as drastic an increase in H1N1 deaths as hyped by the media.

The latest CDC report on influenza is for the week ending on October 24. The peak death rate for influenza and pneumonia related deaths was 7 percent. That is a 1 percent increase since the week ending on September 12 and 2 percent less than last season.

According to Whitmont, H1N1 is not only a milder and less lethal form of the flu but also is not transmitted from person to person as easily as other types of influenza. Therefore, most people who contract H1N1 will recover without needing medical attention. Those at risk are people with preconditions like asthma or diabetes.

“Ninety percent of those who suffered complications from H1N1 since early 2009 also had either asthma or a seizure disorder. Those with preexisting or underlying medical conditions (asthma, seizure disorder, diabetes, heart disease, and pregnancy) are at increased risk of suffering complications, which is typical for influenza.”

If H1N1 is a health-risk to those with other medical illnesses, why then are the government and media pushing the H1N1 vaccine as some sort of life-saving miracle drug?

I can think of only one reason: To bailout drug companies.

Since the government’s bailout-drug-companies sales campaign, the fake epidemic has been less deadly than the typical flu season of 2007-2008. It is interesting that the government and their corporate media partners are using a capitalistic approach to bailing out the drug companies.

We are all government-for profit guinea pigs now!

How About Reducing Some Bureaucracy?

By Marc Kilmer

Ohio is only a few months into the new fiscal year and the state is already facing a budget deficit. On one side are the governor and some of his legislative allies, proposing to close the deficit by raising taxes. On the other side are some legislators who want to close the deficit by consolidating government services. The idea of raising taxes in order to keep afloat a bloated state bureaucracy should be a nonstarter, but many in Columbus are choosing bureaucrats over taxpayers in this fight.

First, we need to be clear about something — Governor Strickland’s tax proposal is a tax increase, pure and simple. He wants to raise tax rates that have been in place since January. It’s not a “postponement” of a scheduled tax cut; it’s an increase in tax rates that are already in place. The governor wants to call it something other than a tax hike since he has loudly opposed raising taxes in the past, but there’s no avoiding the simple fact that his plan increases the state’s current income tax rates.

The governor says the only alternative to this tax hike is to cut education spending. Legislators should welcome the opportunity to examine just how well the state is spending taxpayers’ money on educating students. Student spending has steadily risen over the years but there is no evidence students are getting a better education. If they were so inclined, the governor and legislators could work together to seek more effective ways to fund education. But this probably won’t happen.

A good alternative to the false choice of cutting taxes or reducing education spending is the proposal to consolidate state government agencies. This would merely eliminate some redundant state agencies and departments and move their functions to another area of the government. It would not cut any government services. The projected $1 billion in savings would come from the staff reductions and savings on rent, equipment, and supplies.

Public employee unions claim the state government is already going through an “unprecedented downsizing.” It’s hard to see how this is true. In 1998, the state had 174,000 full-time and part-time employees. In 2008 that number had swelled to over 187,000. State taxpayers fund the salaries and benefits for all these workers. If the business of state government can be accomplished just as well with fewer workers, then legislators of both parties should embrace that goal.

Some object to this consolidation measure on grounds that it would not produce the savings projected or that these savings would not happen quickly enough to affect the current deficit. There is probably merit in both these claims. However, the fundamental reason to consolidate state government is not the monetary savings it will produce, but the reduction in unnecessary government bureaucracy. This would be a good idea even if it produced no savings to taxpayers. The fact that it will certainly save some money (and do so quickly depending on when the restructuring begins) makes it a great idea.

Saving taxpayer money is more than a function of just trimming government spending. State policymakers need to rethink how the state and local governments spend taxpayers’ money, which may mean restructuring state government, ending public sector unionization, reducing taxing districts, and other similar steps. Only through fundamental reform of how state and local governments operate can Ohio restore its economic strength. This state government reorganization proposal is a good first step.

Marc Kilmer is a policy analyst with the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a research and educational institute located in Columbus, Ohio.