Sara Palin on the Jay Leno show recently —
Category: Government
Government: who rules us.
Why you & not the government should decide what health care you need
Dear Rep. Sam Farr: Turning over 1/6th of the economy to BIG government is not “change” we want.
Dear House Representative Sam Farr,
I listened to the Town Meetings which you held. You were adamantly for a government option, Single Payer plan. You did not listen to the folks who want to keep their own health plan and do not want more government control. You kept saying “oh, you can keep your plan …”
But that is pie in the sky if the private sector is driven out of business by the federal government.  You know what happened with Flood Insurance; no private company will ensure for floods in Santa Cruz  as the federal government drove out all competition.
Consider the very low government rates paid to psychologists: As a licensed California psychologist I know that the rates paid by the government for Medical/ Medicare patients are ridiculously low — about 1/3 of what most psychologists charge. And there is all that paperwork or computer forms to be filled out. In Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, less than 5 psychologists out of more than 100+ are willing to take Medical.   Frankly, I prefer to provide pro bono services — free services — than deal with the government.
I agree with you Mr. Farr that we do need health care reform. But I disagree with you as to how to do it. The ideas listed below are ones that lots of people have suggested.
It does not make sense to turn control of 1/6 th of the economy —- the health care sector –over to the federal government. This is not healthy change that We the People want.
There are lots of small changes in health care that can be done one by one instead of by BIG government fiat. The overriding goal should be to put power back in the hands of individuals and families to make decisions for themselves. Here’s how:
- Health care savings accounts. Big changes can b e achieved in small steps. First and foremost, put control of health care dollars in the hands of employees — rather than under the control of employers . With health care savings accounts individuals and families can decide what they need. And buy only what they want.
- Portability. Let health care plans follow employees from job to job.
- Encourage competition to reduce price. Just like buying oranges from Florida in Nebraska, let people shop for health insurance across state lines.
- Prior existing conditions. Let each state create their own pool and finance it through a combination of state and federal money.
- Reform Medicare so that providers (doctors, psychologists, speech pathologists) are willing to work for the rates offered and allow them to “package” services to encourage preventative care.Once Medicare is reformed then incrementally expand coverage to various groups that are not covered. Train more doctors and nurses ahead of time before expanding the system. Eliminate fraud.
- Reduce unnecessary procedures. Cap the amount of money that anyone can get in a malpractice suit.  Yes, tort reform!  Funny how neither the House or Seanate bills contained such a simple yet powerful solution. A number of states have already implemented it — including California.
These changes can be done one  at at a time. Get agreement by both parties. Discuss issues in a transparent manner — not behind closed doors.
What you, Nancy Pelosi  and others are doing is trying to do is grab control for the sake of control Health care “reform” is a means to an end — government control.
Some  Democrats recently bowed out months before the 2010 elections. Maybe, after 20+ years on the job it is time for you to rest?   Cameron Jackson  DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
|
Aptos psychologist: your cell phone location SHOULD be private. Not so says Obama govt.
30 states fight ObamaCare with laws & ballot initiatives
Should all Americans be requied by law to purchase health care? Should Americans be forced to use a government run health care system? Thirty states say No! Too bad, our state of California is NOT one of the 30 so far to protect citizens rights Continue reading “30 states fight ObamaCare with laws & ballot initiatives”
Mr. President, why we are not hiring
February 13, 2010
HomeArchivesRSS SyndicationMerchandiseDonationsContactAboutSearch
February 12, 2010
Dear Mr. President: Why We Are Not Hiring
By C. Edmund Wright
Mr. President, did I really hear you say that businesses aren’t hiring because they can’t get bank loans? Are you kidding me?Please indulge me for a moment, and we can get to the actual reasons.
But first, I must add that every time you step up to the microphone — for example, your impromptu presser on Tuesday — the painful decision to shut down my business of eighteen years is validated by your words. And I should thank you for that.
For the record, that decision was formalized on November 5, 2008. Check your calendar.Some fifteen months later, I can say that it was the best business decision I have ever made. With your hands on the levers of the government and the economy, I wanted to have as little at risk as possible.
Don’t get me wrong — it was a torturous and gut-wrenching decision that went against every fiber of my being. I had to betray deeply rooted entrepreneurial instincts and set some more mundane material goals. And while it might seem extreme, I think my mindset speaks to the real reason businesses are not hiring now.
So what is that mindset?
It’s not complicated. I am neither a swooning David Brooks enamored of your pant crease nor a silver-spoon trust-fund baby like Christopher Buckley. I’ve simply had some twenty-five entrepreneurial ventures — with a good number of strikeouts to be honest — and real-world experience told me exactly who you are and exactly what the business climate under your rule would be like.
And I was exactly right.
Consider: Eighteen years ago, I was statistically in poverty, but I had dreams and plans. At the time, Reaganomics still set the economic tone, and a fired-up Newt Gingrich was forcing conservatism on the Clinton White House. There were actually politicians who praised business-owners and profits.
Against that backdrop, I’ve beaten some long odds and had a pretty good run. It’s been extremely hard, and the move up was not a straight line. There were times I wanted to quit. Without a doubt, though, I am better off than I was eighteen years ago, before I started under Bush 41 — and ten years ago, when Bush 43 was elected — and six years ago, when he was reelected. And so are all of the folks who have been on this ride with me.
Having said that, my business is not better off than it was just three years ago.
That’s when decades of liberal energy policy came home to roost, and four-dollar gas took several hundred thousand from my bottom line faster than I could possibly react. That same gas price slammed my customers — and my customers’ customers — forcing our company into a vice of rapidly rising costs and rapidly dropping revenues. Oh, and for fun, there were also slower payments from our customers. Thank you, environmental wackos!
We were not alone.
The fuel price domino nudged the subprime mortgage domino — itself an outgrowth of liberal lending policies — and we have all seen the unraveling of a financial system underpinned by real estate values. Those valuations were the basis for any number of derivatives and credit default swaps and so on. Putting the Wall Street talk aside, the net result to business of this massive wealth-destruction is that employees are more desperate for money, and customers are less willing to buy and slower to pay when they do.
This is the Main Street carnage of “unfettered government” on small business and families. It is the destructive fruit of environmental leftists, the Fannie-Freddie cronies in government, and other corrupt liberals and crony capitalists in positions of unmerited influence.
It crushes the bank account and the spirit of the entrepreneur — and it is all caused by government incompetence from beltway bureaucrats with zero business experience…you know, like you and practically your entire administration.And sadly, this is also the result of many Republicans giving in to the Democrat liberals all too often. One of the worst, ironically, is John McCain, who was always “reaching across the aisle” to vote against tax cuts and vote for energy restrictions and so on.
I’ll admit that the prospect of running a small business under a McCain administration with Reid and Pelosi running Congress was not all that enticing, either. But it was your election that inspired me to pull the plug. After all, I saw how your Illinois buddies refused to let Republic Window even close down on their own terms, so I figured I better get out before your government and some union figured out a way to prevent me from quitting a business that I dreamed up, financed, created, and built from scratch.
You weren’t lying when you told that Chicago public radio station in 2001 that the Constitution constrained your vision for government, were you?
Things were getting bad enough with Bush and other Republicans unable or unwilling to fight the encroaching liberal governmental infestation of our lives, but the thought of having a president who believes in that infection — who would champion it and push it — just scared the hell out of me. It beat the entrepreneurial spirit out of me, too.
So I decided to sit the risk-reward world of business ownership out for a while. Like many, we are no longer willing to take all of the financial and legal risks and aggravation of owning and running a business…not with even higher taxes, more regulation, more litigation, and more emboldened bureaucrats on the horizon. People who have a dream to build a better life by taking risks and starting a business instinctively know when those principles are under attack.
And with you, Sir, in the White House, these principles are indeed under attack. Why this surprises anyone is a mystery to me. Jeremiah Wright hates these principles. So did Saul Alinsky. So do Van Jones and Bill Ayers and Andy Stern. I don’t know any “structural feminists,” but I bet they hate them too. And so do you. This is part of the America that you promised to “fundamentally transform.”
I knew what that meant. I could sense the bulls-eye on my back. This is who you are.
And since you clearly do not understand business at all, let me give you a short primer:
Any business idea, from the first day it is hatched, is nothing more than a series of cost-benefit analyses that the idea-holder either acts on or passes on. Sometimes the first decision is to forget the idea. Sometimes the first decision is to move ahead and invest some cash.
Perhaps a few million cost-benefit analyses later, you might have Microsoft or Home Depot or ESPN. Or you might have Bill’s Plumbing or Johnson’s Quality Homes or a café or an electrical wholesaler, and so on. And those businesses still operate on a constant stream of risk-reward decisions. In the business world, there is no neutral gear.
(There: Now you have more useful information than Jamie Gorelick or Franklin Raines got from Harvard.)
And when we have a president and ruling class who are clueless about and hostile towards business, the risk-reward equation shifts dramatically against further investment of time, talent, and capital. And that’s where we are today.
I never really doubted my decision. Yet when I see you hold job summits featuring environmentalists and unions, lawyers, and poverty pimps, I am even more thrilled to be out of the game. When I hear you fantasize that the only reason businesses won’t hire is that they can’t get a loan, my decision is further validated. And when you say that small business is clamoring for you to pass health care, I know that you have taken total leave of your senses.
So again, thank you, Mr. President. Even without your teleprompter, you are convincing. You have convinced me I made the right decision and convinced others not to hire. I only hope and pray that the midterms of 2010 might reverse my decision. That is what every fiber of my being is hoping for.
Until then, don’t blame George Bush and the banks. Feel free to blame me — and all the other “Atlas Shrugged” entrepreneurs — who are now on the sidelines, hoping Storm Obama will pass.
98 Comments on “Dear Mr. President: Why We Are Not Hiring” Recent Articles
•Whatever Happened to Toni Morrison?
•On the Greatness of Kipling’s Kim
•Why Tenure Harms Education
•Obama and ‘First Americans’
•A Different Kind of Avatar
•’Tis the Tax Season
•Obama and the Government Employees
•Dear Mr. President: Why We Are Not Hiring
•Why Obama Can’t Drop Health Care Reform
•The Dangerous Linkage of Naïveté and Good Intentions
Blog Posts
•Would Obama declare Colts winners of the Super Bowl?
•Obama was for the filibuster in 2005
•First Time Ever — Snow on Ground in All 50 States
•One hand washes the other
•A lesson in bi-partisanship courtesy of Harry Reid
•Europe ahead of America in ditching the bio-fuels boondoggle
•Los Angeles school chief moonlights as school supply exec
•Graph of the Day for February 12, 2010
•Sessions skewers clueless Brennan’s USA Today op-ed
•’Uppity is’ as ‘uppity does’
Monthly Archives
•February 2010
•January 2010
•December 2009
•November 2009
•More…
About Us | Contact | Privacy Policy © American Thinker 2010
Jobs bill axed by Democrats
The article below is from the Drudge report:
WASHINGTON (AP) – “Senate Democrats scrapped a bipartisan jobs bill in favor of one they say is leaner and focused solely on putting Americans back to work, and they’re all but daring Republicans to vote against it.
The new, stripped-down proposal followed criticism that the bipartisan version wouldn’t create many jobs.
The switch brought sharp accusations of reneging from Republicans who thought they had a deal, jeopardizing a brief attempt at bipartisan lawmaking.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s latest bill focuses on several popular provisions aimed at boosting job creation, including a new tax break negotiated with Republicans for companies that hire unemployed workers and for small businesses that purchase new equipment. It also would renew highway programs and help states and local governments finance large infrastructure projects.
Reid, D-Nev., put forward the pared-back plan after Senate Democrats balked at a broader bill stuffed with unrelated provisions sought by lobbyists for business groups and doctors. The surprise blew apart an agreement with key Republicans like Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who worked with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., for weeks to produce a bill containing the extra provisions.
The original bill had won support from across the political spectrum, from President Barack Obama as well as conservative Republicans in the Senate, offering the promise of a rare bipartisan package in a Congress that has been gripped by partisan fights. To get that support, however, the package had morphed into a 361-page grab bag of provisions that included extending benefits to the unemployed and tax breaks for businesses.
Now, the bipartisan agreement is off.
“Our side isn’t sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together,” said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. “Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let’s test them.”
Said Reid: “Republicans are going to have to make a choice. I don’t know in logic what they could say to oppose this.”
Reid officially put the measure before the Senate on Thursday evening, setting up a key test vote when the chamber returns the week of Feb. 22. He’ll need at least one GOP vote to prevail in a filibuster challenge.
Republicans said they were blind-sided by Reid’s about-face.
Grassley spokeswoman Jill Kozeny said in an e-mail that Reid “pulled the rug out from work to build broad-based support for tax relief and other efforts to help the private sector recover from the economic crisis.”
The bigger bill got a decidedly mixed reception at a luncheon meeting of Democrats, many of whom were uncomfortable with supporting a bill containing so many provisions unrelated to creating jobs, including loans for chicken producers and aid to catfish farmers.
The provisions also included a $31 billion package of tax breaks for individuals and businesses, an extension of several parts of the USA Patriot Act and higher payments for doctors facing Medicare payment cuts.
The surprise move appears to insulate Democrats from criticism that greeted the earlier, lobbyist-backed legislation first leaked on Tuesday and officially unveiled by Baucus and Grassley – to praise from the White House – only hours before Reid’s announcement.
The centerpiece of Reid’s new bill is a $13 billion payroll tax credit for companies that hire unemployed workers. The idea, by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would exempt businesses hiring unemployed workers in 2010 from the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax for those hires.It also would provide an additional $1,000 tax credit for workers retained for a full year and deposit an additional $20 billion into the federal highway trust fund – money that would have to be borrowed. There’s also $2 billion to subsidize bond issues by state and local governments for large infrastructure projects
But Republicans are irate at the tactics and said Reid had gone back on a deal reached with some of the Senate’s heaviest hitters, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Aptos psychologist: Parents should “represent” students at the bargaining table with public teacher unions
“Residents of California are now confronted with the long-term costs of running a large state for the benefits of its public employee unions… President Obama seems intent on fostering the growth in the number of government employees …” This is from the Wall Street Journal 2/12/201- page A 22, letter by John Henderson
So, let’s focus on what to do:
One way to save money re the school teacher unions and change how decisions are made: 1) every child has a “representative” (typically their parent) and these “representatives” sit down at the bargaining table able to decide education costs.
Does Aptos High “need” 6-8 custodians to pick up the garbage that the kids strew around? Parents like me would vote require students to clean the campus. And keep “clean up” cots to a minimum.
Let the “education dollars” follow the child to private, charter or public schools. And let competition improve the quality of the schools. Let schools hire who they want — with or without credentials so long as the teachers can pass general tests that show competency.
written by Dr. Cameron Jackson www.DrCameronJackson@gmail.com