It was doomed to fail.  It’s based on a flawed model, Demand Theory:  Americans aren’t spending and investing enough, so increase demand through government spending.  This doesn’t work, because the government can’t create wealth.  It can tax wealth away to redistribute it, or destroy it by excessive regulation and taxes.  The only place for government to get money is the private sector.  Less money in the private sector makes it harder to create jobs.

High unemployment and debt were also the result of FDR’s New Deal.  Elected in 1932, FDR doubled federal spending by 1940.  From 1934 to 1940, median unemployment was 17%.  During the 1930’s, unemployment was never below 14%.

Exactly how are our stimulus dollars being spent?  We spent $555,000 to replace windows at a closed visitor’s center at Mt. St. Helens and a whopping $62 million on a tunnel in Pittsburgh that Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell called “a tragic mistake.”  This is stimulating, but not in a good way.

But wait, the worst may be yet to come.  Massive tax increases loom for 2011, leaving even less for private-sector job creation.  Everyone’s personal income tax is scheduled to rise about 3%.  The capital gains tax will rise from 15% to 20%.  Dividend taxes will rise from 15% to 39.6%.  The smart money saw this coming.  Corporations and small business trimmed expenses and took profits in 2010 to take advantage of lower taxes.  This likely inflated growth numbers and made the economy look better than it was.

How do we fix this mess?  The answers are found in history and common sense.  History shows us two presidents who quickly turned around bad economies, Harding and Reagan.  Common sense tells us if you want economic growth and jobs, make it cheaper to create them.  To do this, cut taxes; but not all tax cuts are created equal.  Cuts in personal tax rates encourage productivity because we get to keep more of what we earn.  Cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes increase investment and business start-ups.  The road map to prosperity exists.  Now we need a Congress and a President who will take the right road.

Michael A. Morrongiello, Ph. D.

The Declaration of Independence states: “…to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the just consent of the governed.”  These rights are the natural rights we’re born with.  We all start with the same rights, so none of us is superior, not senator, congressman or president.  We the people temporarily surrender power to our leaders to run the government, but the people are sovereign and the ultimate rulers of our country.  Therefore, our elected leaders must have our just consent, or permission, to pass laws affecting all of us.  They must follow the rules of governance, just as we must follow rules in our everyday lives.  It’s critical to the survival of our republic.  The Democrats are plotting to break the rules in the Senate, and they will use reconciliation to do it.

The Senate, unlike the House, requires 60 votes, known as a super majority, to pass legislation.  Reconciliation was designed for budgetary items.  A reconciliation bill needs only 51 votes to pass, a simple majority.  Using reconciliation to pass major legislation is a reckless power-grab.  Reconciliation wasn’t intended for legislation affecting 300 million Americans and fully one-sixth of our economy.  The Founders designed the Senate as a check to the more passion-prone House, saying “We pour legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”  This was designed to create deliberation and thoughtfulness.  In the words of Benjamin Franklin,”Passion governs, and she never governs wisely.” 

If the Democrat health-care bills were popular, they would have passed easily.  The plain fact is they are unpopular.  If the Democrats ram this through, they disregard the will of the people.

Lincoln said it best:  “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”  If the Democrats use reconciliation, their character will be on display for all to see and they will have earned the just contempt of the governed.

1. Medicare is 38 trillion dollars in debt, and fraud is rampant. Amtrak is in constant need of subsidies. Health care on Indian reservations is abysmal. Given this woeful history, how can you justify government involvement in the health care of every American?

2. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of this bill ranges from 1
to 1.6 trillion dollars. Won’t the tax increases needed to fund this program damage the already ailing economy? If taxes aren’t raised and money must be printed, won’t this add to already existing inflation pressures?

3. I understand that the President, Congress, and all other Federal employees are exempted from health care reform. If this is such a great plan, why don’t you and your family sign up?

4. President Obama promises that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it.” Yet on page 16 and 17 in the House bill, if anything changes in your copayment or deductible (which happens every year,) you must move into an “approved” plan or the government option. In other words, you CAN’T keep it. How will this help private insurance to compete?

5. The House health care reform bill (HR3200) cuts Medicare by 500 billion dollars to pay for health care reform. The cost of insuring the uninsured is far less than that. Plus, the uninsured are less than 16% of the population. Why change the whole system for 16%? Why not give the uninsured vouchers to buy health insurance? Will cuts in Medicare result in denied care for our seniors?

6. David Blumenthal, Obama’s National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, said doctors will have to take advantage of “embedded clinical decison support.” This is fancy language for telling your doctor how to treat you. Do you support having the government in the examining room with patients, “guiding” treatment?

7. Blumenthal also said (referring to Hillary Clinton’s failed effort at reform) that speed is essential to passing health care reform. Do you agree with that?

8. Blumenthal said it was “debatable” that the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. Do you agree with Dr. Blumenthal? Do you think it is advisable for Americans to wait for care? Is this enough for you to call on President Obama to fire Dr. Blumenthal?

9. The Hippocratic Oath is the pledge doctors take to do all in their power to help patients. Obama appointee Ezekiel Emanuel want to change that ancient and sacred creed to “move toward more socially sustainable, cost-effective care.” Wouldn’t this be a gross interference in the doctor-patient relationship? Will you call for President Obama to fire Ezekiel Emanuel?

10. As a followup, Dr. Emanual complained that “hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy, comfort and auxiliary services than do hospital rooms in most other countries.” Do you agree that this is a problem? Do you want sick Americans to have less comfortable hospital rooms?

Democrats have long dreamed of government-run health care. They have all the votes they need. The only thing standing between them and achieving total control over our lives is public opinion. Get involved. Read, talk to your friends and neighbors, write and e-mail your legislators to stop passage of the government option.

“Ten more questions” to follow soon.

I believe it is a core principle of capitalism that a business has the right to evaluate and modify their business model how they see fit. Time Warner has identified a need to change based on their understanding of the their industry. I’m sure some people will end up paying more and others less. I think moving to a tiered consumption based system makes sense.

As for Massa there are few if any examples that I recall of a time government involvement has been a positive influence when regulating an industries pricing. This quote is a great example of how government is disconnected from industry “They have yet to explain how increased Internet usage increases their costs.” Mr. Massa also said “Time Warner has announced an ill-conceived plan” what gives him the expertise to evaluate their plan? Why do they need to explain how increased usage increases costs? Isn’t that the concern of the share holders and customers more than the government. Besides, it is typically the case that the more you consume the more it will cost with almost anything. I guess we should add high speed Internet to the bill of rights just under health care…

It is not acceptable for government to interfere with industry at this level. I believe these are the types of things that the majority of people will read and agree that Massa is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, government meddling like this is what leads to economic and industry issues long term. If capitalism is left alone, the natural order of free markets will decide what is acceptable.

http://www.the-leader.com/news/x1098997265/Massa-to-fight-Net-data-caps