Monday, November 15, 2010

Obama/Pelosi/Reid's Employee Free Choice Act Farce

In January, 2011, there is a new sheriff in town in the House of Representatives, and the Reid/Pelosi juggernaut has to realize that if they want to get their biggest union payoff through, it will have to happen in the Lame Duck session of congress that begins today. Unfortunately, as seems to be the case with much of the legislation out of congress, the "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA) (H.R.1409/S. 560) is neither about free choice nor the employees.

By changing the basic representation approval structure, the EFCA would eliminate and employees right to a secret ballot election. It would put in its place, a process which is in favor of automatic recognition based on signatures collected on cards during a union's organization phase, hence it's nick name, "Card Check". The EFCA would require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) To automatically recognize and notify the employer of the need to begin collective bargaining based solely on a simple majority of card check signatures collected. Now, it's not hard to see that the ONLY beneficiary or this is the Union. It allows unions to avoid an election which, all to often lately, they have been losing. The net benefit to the unions is financial, by avoiding a vote and using signatures only , unions could increase their membership without opposition and consequently, increase the dollars paid in dues. In an environment with ever shrinking Union Membership, the Unions need a way to rig the game in their favor, and the Employee Free Choice Act does just that.

The EFCA on the other hand is extensively negative towards employers and employees. Of the (4) parts of the bill, none of them provide any net benefit to either employees and employers. For the employer, the net effect is that, at least initially, a union could be forced on them without the employer having the opportunity to respond to the unions charges of misconduct. Employees would lose their anonymity and would accordingly open themselves up to intimidation but not only employers but Union Organizers and potentially fellow employees. The remainder of the bill is a way to further deny a company due process as well as stifle their right to free speech. The EFCA gets this done primarily via a massive increase in fines and an addition of penalties for violations of NLRB regulations. Interestingly enough, there is no increase in fines, or additional penalties added to violations of these same regulations by Labor Unions.

Perhaps on of the "Unintended" consequences of this law, if passed, would be to weaken the publics confidence in a free, fare, and anonymous election process. It is, on its face, a potential violation of an American employee's right to privacy. While this right is not specifically enumerated in the constitution, the US Supreme Court has recognized that it exists and as such, the EFCA is a massive attempt to subvert the constitution and the rights of employees and employers.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Veterans Day

Throughout the
rest of this week you may notice something a bit different about our Madison
Campus Rotunda. As you enter through the main doors you will see represented in
all their glory, the flag of The United States of America, The State of
Indiana, and flags of the branches of our military. Many may wish to ask a
question, "what is this for?". Well, I will tell you.


In a Presidential proclamation on October 8. 1954,
President and former General Dwight D. Eisenhower called for the observance of
a Veterans Day on Nov 11, a day formerly known as Armistice Day. With only an
exception for 1968 to 1971, we have honored our military veterans on this day.
As a veteran, father of a serving US Marine, and a member of your student
government, I wanted to express my gratitude and pride in the armed forces and
our veterans this week. It is important for me that this be an honor that is
respectful and dignified. Hence the flags. They stand as a silent but vivid
reminder that we enjoy the freedom and liberty that America offers at the price
of others service. And for those who have served, are serving, or will serve,
it serves as a matter or pride to see the standards of the most exceptional
country in the history of the world and the flags that represent what we
sacrificed as the price of our own freedom.


Let's not forget on this day of remembrance and
honor, those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our liberty. America has
never been short of volunteers to stand at the front and protect what he have
built here. As a way of honoring some of those, There will be a table set up
with some items which have a message to send. First, Mr Andy Gluba has so
graciously lent our school his shadow box containing his grandfathers flag. Mr
Gluba served in Pearl Harbor and was there on Dec 7 when our nation was
attacked. I am also placing a board and encourage all Ivy Tech to stop by and
sign the name of a veteran, whether it is a parent, sibling, extended family,
or friend. Sign their name and honor them in your own way.
 

In honor of those still missing, the POW's who
never came home, I  quote a hero of my own,
"Today we pay homage to not only to
those who gave their lives but to their comrades present today and all across
the country. You didn't forget. You kept the faith. You walked from the litter,
wiped away your tears, and returned to the battle. You fought on, sustained by
one another and deaf to the voices of those who didn't comprehend. You
performed with a steadfastness and valor that veterans of other wars salute,
and you are forever in the ranks of that special number of Americans in every
generation that the Nation records as true patriots."
 -- Ronald
Reagan, Remarks at Dedication Ceremonies for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Statue.


I thank each and every one of you for your honor
and respect of our Veterans and their families.



Wednesday, November 03, 2010

What Does it ALL mean?

Post election, many of you are asking yourself, "What does all this really mean?". You have seen or heard the results, listened to the pundit's,heard the spin...and like many of us, you still don't know what to think. The truth of the matter is that the meanings are not so complicated as some would have us believe. A message was sent by the American Voter that enough is enough, Stand up, Stand on your principles, and fix this damn problem.

What provided me with an epiphany last night was the reactions of the winners, of both parties. By and large, the conservative winners seemed to have an understanding that they were being sent to Washington to stand on conservative, free market, capitalist principles and fix our economic mess. The liberal winners on the other hand, just couldn't believe that all their cronies they had counted on for cover were being replaced by "extremists" who apparently lied and cheated to get elected.

This message was simple and clear. There is no more time for progressive Utopian ideology left. We have tried it, over and over and over since the great depression and every time it has failed to produce the panacea that liberals the world over say it will. It has never worked, wherever it has been tried. Europe is a mess of debt related to social welfare issues and the steps necessary to fix it are going to come at a cost to the citizens of those nations. Likewise, America is going to have to make some hard choices and hard decisions about where to cut, and how much. The election last night seemed to me to be a clear mandate that the time for pie in the sky spending programs has to come to an end.

Another result of the elections was the death (almost) of the moderate in either party. This was the American public letting their elected representatives know that we expect them to stand on the principles they won our votes with, regardless of ideology. We want Liberals who stand on Liberal principles and Conservatives who stand on theirs. No more of this mealy mouth bs about consensus and compromise. In a sense this election cycle was about cleansing the parties, and when all was said and done, the Conservative message was loud and clear.

CUT SPENDING...no sacred cows here...across the board cuts must happen. Reduce or eliminate unfunded mandates that are killing our ability to be competitive on the national level. Pass policies and legislation that free up our economic engine once again to begin the process of creating wealth and prosperity for all Americans that choose to accept the challenge. Many of the members elect understand that we can not continue on this path and the need and desire is there to turn it around.

So the meaning is clear to establishment politicians and new politicians alike, we will exert our will, and we will hold you accountable. So step up to the plate, take your swings, and lets see where this takes us.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

What Have You Done For ME...Lately

I realize that we are reportedly no longer in a recession. The White house and congressional leaders continue to make the claim that their "Stimulus" and "TARP" packages have kept us from sliding into another great depression. I doing so, Washington has expanded the size and scope of the Federal Government exponentially, creating an all new generation who will be feeding from the public trough. Programs and policies from this administration  have increased the scope of current entitlements, and created all new ones with legislation like ObamaCare. Washington has bailed out banks, insurance, and financial service companies, purchased Automobile companies (without submitting to shareholder approval I might add), and even appropriated taxpayer dollars to bail out states who, due to similar policies, are on the verge of insolvency. They then expressed great disbelief when the funds they appropriated, to be used to keep public employees on the job, were spent somewhere else and state workers were laid off anyway. What is the reason for all of this and other shenanigans that have been going on for generations? The answer is summed up in the question, "What have you done for me lately".

We the people, bear a significant responsibility for the problems facing this country today. Whether by complacency, apathy, or discontent, We the People have allowed this massive usurpation of our civil liberties. We live our lives under the assumption that  those we have elected to public office were doing so to represent our interests in the halls of power, and were we ever so wrong. The glaring faults in the politicians "Pie in the Sky" fallacies are being exposed for what they are, and we are all suffering for them.

In January, 2011, every American who pays taxes will see an immediate increase in their taxes and a decrease in their take home pay. This is due to our elected officials inability and unwillingness to address this issue and have De-facto allowed the tax rates cuts passed post 9-11 to expire. The net effect is that every American, regardless of party or ideology, race or gender, will see a net reduction in their paycheck after the first of the year. The majority in congress has wanted to raise taxes since The Anointed one took office, but trailing in most polls across the country, they did not want to have a vote taken on the issue precisely because it would turn more voters away from their beleaguered candidates.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Really? A Civil War...

Has it struck anyone as odd how quickly after Christine O'Donnell's victory the media and the left started using the term "Civil War"?

What I find interesting, to say the least, is the inability of the current administration and the left to condemn America's enemies throughout the world, while at the same time using very warlike language while talking about US Citizens, political opponents, and whomever else disagrees with socialist utopianist policies. For example, Our president won't call the Middle Eastern insurgencies by Al Qaeda and Iran as Terrorist Activity. Yet, when the white hose was talking about the Tea Parties, BP, Wall Street Bankers, and the latest towards Christine O'Donnell and the Republican Party. We can't call Iran's actions for the blatant warlike actions they are, but we can use words like Racist, "Kicking Butts", "Stepping on Necks", and "Civil War." Does anyone see a problem with this.

We have reached a pivotal moment in our Unique American history.These moments may appear once a generation, and this one is ours. It is our time to determine the fate of our country. We let the left and the press create and environment of division and distrust, and the result was the election of one of the most ideological presidents in recent history. The numbers are coming in. Obama/Pelosi/Reid have pressed a socialist agenda on the American public, and by large margins, the public does not like it. The Presidents personal poll numbers have reflected the dislike for the change he is delivering. Not even Bill Clinton, who was a polarizing character, engendered the formation of a grass roots nationwide movement to send a message to the halls of power that they work for us, we hired them...and we can fire them.

Is there a problem in the Republican party? Perhaps, the reality is that the Tea Party is saying, "We Don't Care" about party. We are American citizens that understand the type of candidate that we want and can believe in regardless of party politics. That these candidates so far seem to be running on a Republican ticket shows nothing more than the Tea Parties penchant for conservative thinking and the principles espoused by our founders in the Constitution. Americans are tired of politicians whose only real purpose after election is re-election. We hire them to do the work of the public, and pay them handsomely to do so. Yet we continue to have unemployment at 9.6%, flat wages, and creeping inflation. We have a government that has appropriated 2 trillion dollars and the only economic activity they have generated is payoffs to unions and the purchase of a car company and the threat to takeover banks that needed money to cover loans they were pressured by congress to make...all while the real culprits, congress and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, get away free.

If you are a Tea Party member, and you understand the fight we are in against the socialists/Marxists on the left, Then you will support, financially and with your voice, those candidates who now have an opportunity to create a paradigm shift in Washington, DC. Otherwise, we get more of the same...and that has proven disastrous so far.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Remembrance

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" John 15:13 NASB

This morning we can't help but remember the horrible events of 9 years ago. Many have and will continue to focus on the horror of that day. Some will talk about the Heroes of that day. I am one of those some. As an American, a former US Navy service member, father to a US Marine, I understand heroes.

Heroes are people who don't seek to be considered a hero. Ordinary people who perform extraordinarily in the most extreme circumstances. There is no fanfare, no klieg lights, no TV cameras, no press conferences. They are men and women still climbing stairs in a tower that was failing. They are  men and women rushing into a hazardous environment as the World Trade Center towers became massive piles of rubble. Heroes are the individuals aboard flight 93 who made the decision that their lives were needed to prevent the loss of life planned by the terrorists who had taken over the plane. Heroes were those who risked their lives running into an inferno at the Pentagon to save the lives of others. Heroes are the husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers of our service members at home making America's finest youth to make the sacrifice in defense of our countries values and ideas.

On this day, we experienced something that will be forever etched in memory. Those of us who sat and watched were in disbelief. Yet in the midst of this horrific event, the stories of heroism started to filter out. At that point, on that day, America showed it's true mettle. America showed its greatness. We did not apologize because some radical extremists decided that our way of life should be targeted for death and destruction. On this day, as we examine deep within ourselves what this country means to us, to our children, and grandchildren, may we honor the memories of these Heroes. We do that by standing up, and self governing. By taking back the government for the people, by the people, and of the people. We stand up and honor these men and women by taking responsibilities for ourselves and educating ourselves on the Greatness of America as our founders envisioned not. NOT as it's being redefined.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Whos Economy is it Anyway?

The time has come for Democrats and liberals alike to stand up and take credit for a tepid economy. This is not to say that Bush 43 is absolved from his bad decisions and poor economic policies. I don't absolve President Bush from signing the TARP bill nor failing to understand that more needed to be done on the spending side of things. However, in comparison, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda has spent more, and been far more destructive in two short years than Bush in an 8 year stretch.

The facts are what they are, Tepid and anemic growth (average of 3.5% for last three quarters), massive unemployment (currently at 9.5% with an actual rate of approximately 14%), and massive deficit spending (2 trillion dollars in two short years), have put us at risk both now and in the future. Quite simply, this direction is economically unsustainable and has become, in the words of Adm Mike Mullen, a national security risk. The question is how much blame does the Obama adminsitrtion and Democrat majorities in congress bear for these numbers.

Quite simply, most of it. The policy initiatives coming out of the Obama white house have had a net negative effect on economic growth and job creation. Now, as the liberals in congress and the media like to espouse, something like two million jobs have been "created or saved" by their economic policies. The fact of the matter is that regardles of their use of a non proveable term "Jobs Saved", the private sector has been nleeding jobs at a rate unprecedented since the 1930's. Specifically, the "new claims" numbers weekly range from 425,000 to a recent high of 500,00. A conservative valuation of these numbers means that in the 18 months of the Obama administration, the private job creators have shed 7.65 million jobs. Any realist can see that this is not a positive economic direction. These job losses represent real Americans no longer paying taxes, which has the net effect of reducing incoming revenue at a time when spending has increased exponentially.

In their reticence to actually entertain ideas for private sector growth, this Adminstration has not "created or saved" anything. Anti private sector growth has stifled and will contiue to stifle any recovery we might actually have. Coupled with policies which have created massive unease whith those who create private sector jobs has created an environment in which these employers are sitting on 3 trillion dollars of capital, rather than expanding and hiring, and this my friends is where the rubber hits the road with the Obama administrattion.

The failure of the President to actually LEAD this country out of an economic morass is monumental. Leadership requires making togh decisions, real decisions, and backing them up. And when those decisions are innefective or actually have a negative effect, a real leader steps up, takes the blame, and tries something else. Yet President Obama seems unable to do this very thing. Blaming the minortiy party and a President long retired to his ranch in Texas is not leadership. It is childish and destructive to the country and the economy. It is time for Obame, Reid, Pelosi and others to step up and say, "this isn't working, it's time to entertain some different ideas." Unfortunately, teh lack of leadership from our Chief Executive will continue to cause economic doubt and tepid growth at a critical juncture of our history. President Obama, the economy is now yours...Cowboy up sir and take responsibility for your failed policies and decisions...President Bush can no longer help you.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Immigration Reform, a Different View

Illegal Immigration is one of the most contentiously debated topics in the country today. As with most things it seems that unauthorized immigrants have become political fodder for members of both political parties. It is time to get rid of political grandstanding and partisan rhetoric to solve this problem once and for all. The politicians on the left want to provide unlawful immigrants with an immediate and unrestricted citizenship. The political right contends that all we need to do is build thousands of miles of walls and hammer any employer who, knowingly or not, hires an unlawful immigrant. Without question, unauthorized immigration puts an excessive strain on social services, doctors, hospitals, and law enforcement. A multi pronged approach is needed encompassing border security, employer enforcement, legal immigration reform and well defined naturalization policies. Unauthorized immigration and our current policies are contributing to an already bad economic and security situation and it is time to put aside partisan politics and pass common sense policy solutions to this growing problem.

America takes pride in its status as a nation of immigrants. A poem, penned by Emma Lazarus and engraved in bronze at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ends with "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore … " (lines 10-14). The first immigrants to this amazing country were fleeing oppression and religious persecution. Later immigrants came to this country to escape a lack of opportunity and freedom in the countries of their birth. America offered those immigrants that freedom from persecution and seemingly unlimited opportunity and she continues to provide that same promise to millions of people around the world. In fact, According to a report released from the US Department of Homeland Security, there are approximately 10.8 million unauthorized persons in the country as of January 2009 (1). This amounts to approximately 4% of the US Population. With the poor economic production of some bordering nations, America is the place immigrants want to come in an effort to improve their lives and that of their families.

The policies that America follows regarding immigration have far reaching effects. As Michele Wucker writes in her article Fixing the Borders (Without a Wall), “The immigration policies that America pursues resonate around the world. As a superpower whose identity is rooted in the notion of itself as an immigrant nation, the United States stands as an example … to countries that only recently have begun to wrestle with the question of how to integrate large foreign born populations” (55). As the leaders of any nation will tell you, security, in this age of increased terrorist actions and threats is of paramount importance.

While disagreement on other aspects of immigration reform exists, border security is one aspect that everyone agrees needs improvement. Building a fence, a “Great Wall” of America so to speak, is cost prohibitive and geographically impractical. Additionally, a fence presents a negative psychological barrier, because, unlike the Great Wall of China, this fence, in this country, directly contradicts the immigrant foundation of which we as Americans are so proud. To provide for better border security, we need to begin by beefing up our enforcement efforts with more Border Patrol agents who are better equipped, and have better mobility.

Our best and first lines of defense against unauthorized immigration are the US Border Patrol agents who monitor our thousands of miles of border and hundreds of access points. Their goal is not to harm those trying to enter the country illegally, but to be a presence in an attempt to prevent them from crossing. Additionally, they watch and attempt to rescue those who endanger their own lives by trying to cross into the deserts, which surround much of our southern borders. The 2010 federal budget allows funding for 20,000 border patrol agents, a significant increase in manpower, and this is a step in the right direction. An additional 10,000 agents would allow better coverage of the borders would provide a significant decrease in the flow of unauthorized immigrants. However, we cannot stop the flow with just additional agents but there is more that can be done to enhance the ability of these brave men and women to perform an often maligned and thankless job.

Border Patrol agents are in need of better and more effective equipment. There exists proven technology used by our troops in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, which could greatly benefit and increase their efficiency. UAV’s (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) could provide real time surveillance of a larger portion of our borders than agents alone are able to. Ground scanning radar and infrared motion detection systems could provide agents with near instantaneous and location specific data for border incursions. Military style vehicles such as the HUMVEE would provide better mobility over the more rugged portions of our borders. A larger and more robust Border Patrol with state of the art technology is but one cog in the wheel of Immigration reform. It is imperative that we enhance US security by enforcing current laws affecting employers.

A major part of the immigration debate is the enforcement of employer violations of immigration laws. Most unlawful immigrant workers in the U.S. perform jobs that are low skilled and low wage. Employers hire these individuals for a multitude of reasons. According to Peter Cappelli, “Many employers seek illegal workers for the simple reason that it keeps costs down and means the companies do not have to invest in equipment and other capital improvements” (Para 11). Undocumented workers can be paid “under the table”, eliminating the tax burden employers bear for legal citizens. In many cases, a robust counterfeit document market provides undocumented workers with identification good enough to fool the average human resources manager. This creates a situation wherein employers may not ever know that an employee is working illegally.

It is abundantly clear that any immigration reform policy has to provide for better enforcement and larger penalties for employers who chose to violate the law. Enhanced and upgraded employee verification, perhaps with biometric technologies or counterfeit resistant identification requirements would greatly improve enforcement success. These steps combined with an increase in enforcement penalties against employers who violate the law would ensure that both employer and unauthorized worker understand that their illegal actions carry consequences. However, these two aspects only begin to address the problem that both lawful and unlawful immigrants face. We should also look closely at a major reform of our legal immigration policies.

Suppose we implement these first two ideas effectively. A complete overhaul of our legal immigration policies and agencies must occur. Horror stories of immigrants waiting months and sometimes years for an immigrant Visa are frustrating at best. As Michele Wucker writes, “If … you were an adult sibling from the Philippines and wanted a green card, as of December 2006, the government would not process your application unless you had filed it before June 1, 1984, a wait of nearly 22 years” (58). With all of the modern technology available to us today, this is inexcusable. We should be able to reduce the amount of time an individual waits for a US Visa. Just as problematic is the number restrictions placed on the work visas the State Department issues annually. Once new Visa holders are in the country, agents should follow up regularly with these individuals in an attempt to ensure compliance and to provide assistance with the naturalization process.

What do we do about unauthorized persons already living and working in the US? A massive deportation of them is not a workable option. How would we address the sudden hole in the workforce caused by the deportation of unauthorized immigrants? There has to be a common sense policy that addresses unauthorized immigrants as well. Blanket Amnesty, a policy that allows almost instantaneous citizenship to unauthorized immigrants, and has been enacted twice since 1980, has done nothing to slow down the flood of unauthorized persons entering the country. In fact, one could argue that these policies are responsible for an increase in the tide of immigrants entering the country illegally. However, you cannot just rip 12 million people from their homes, jobs and families without causing a great deal of harm both economically and familial. In addition, as many immigrant workers send a portion of their earnings to relatives, massive deportation could simply worsen the economic reasons in their home countries, a primary reason why they want to come to the US in the first place. Rhetoric aside, these individuals are already in this country, and the resources to arrest and deport them all just do not exist.

A policy that outlines a clear and concrete path to US Citizenship could go a long way towards reducing the number of unauthorized immigrants. Requiring immigrants to pay a fine (a flat fee) and learn both English and basic US History, would ease their transition into the legitimate workforce and into American society as a whole. This simple policy would go a long way towards ensuring that these individuals would be paying their share of taxes. Additionally, they would have a voice in the workplace that many of them do not have because of their illegal status.

It is clear that politicians on both sides use these immigrants as political currency. Many elected democrats figure that by preaching a policy of instant naturalization or amnesty, many of these immigrants will vote for their candidates in future elections. This has prohibited them from even considering many of the solutions mentioned above. Republicans on the other hand, seem hard wired to a policy that only provides for building fences and massive deportation. While these policies may appeal to extreme elements of the Republican base, it is a nonsensical approach to an increasingly difficult problem. Neither side seems to be willing to meet in the middle on the kinds of policies that would create an environment commensurate with our belief that we are a Nation of Immigrants.

It is time that we put away the partisanship that has crippled true reform on the issue of immigration. We need to explore and pass a policy that encompasses the ideas of enhanced border security, increased employer enforcement, reform to our legal immigration policies, a well defined naturalization process, and a process that provides a path to citizenship for those already in the country. It seems to me that we as a nation of immigrants need to make our voices heard to our elected representatives in the hope that we can fix a policy that is broken and unworkable.



Works Cited



Batalova, Jeanne. "Immigration Reform in the United States: Raising Key Questions." Generations 32.4 Print (2008): 73-79.

Lazarus, Emma. The New Colossus. Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York.

The Wharton School at The University of Pennsylvania. "The Immigration Debate: Its Impact on Workers, Wages, and Employers." 17 May 2006. Web Knowledge@ Wharton. 2010 .

US Department of Homeland Security. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009. Web. Statistical Analasis. Washington: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2009.

Wucker, Michele. "Fixing the Borders (Without a Wall)." World Policy Journal 23.4 Print 2006: 55-59.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Headed Down the Highway to Healthcare Serfdom

The following is a research paper written for an English Composition class.

On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law historic change to our health care industry. It arrives as law with a reported price tag in excess of 900 billion dollars, and a bevy of new taxes reportedly necessary to pay for the legislation. The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” makes many bold promises about its cost, its coverage 30 million uninsured Americans, and claims to lower the deficit. Although this law is reportedly the savior of America’s Health Care industry and our faltering economy, in reality it is a recipe for the destruction of the industry and economic collapse simply because the debt levels and end entitlement mentality are completely unsustainable.

In simple terms, a serf is a slave. To be more precise, a serf is a slave who is bound to the debt or land, to which they are enslaved. How does one become a serf in the land of the free? We become serfs by allowing something to go unchallenged and unchanged which will put this country, and by extension us, into financial servitude for generations. Alongside a host of other damaging legislation, the new health care law will push us all into becoming serfs to the debt left behind by federal government largesse.

There are many societal impacts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. According to a summary of the bill, approximately 30 million new people will be able to obtain health insurance coverage. The bill achieves this level of coverage through a number of mechanisms, some of which include: Health Insurance Exchanges, removal of any pre-existing injury or illness clauses, and individual mandates requiring coverage. This massive intrusion -into private lives and private industry is unprecedented. Never before has our government forced free citizens to purchase a private service.

America prides itself on its dedication to individual privacy, liberty, and personal responsibility. Perhaps that is why this particular legislation is so damaging to American society. Perhaps the most destructive part of this legislation is the “Individual Mandate.” This provision requires every American to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine, defined by the Obama Administration as a “tax penalty.” The agency responsible for collecting this “penalty” would of course be the Internal Revenue Service. It is this “mandate” that sticks in the craw of every American opposed to the new legislation. At what point in this country did we authorize politicians to decide for us that we must obtain a private service at the point of the government’s gun?

Some will think that statement is outrageous. They will say, “There is no gun, the government, in its benevolence, is simply trying to ensure everyone can get medical care.” The “gun” referred to is that of a penalty, levied by the federal government, for not doing something they the government decide individuals must do. Not paying your taxes will get you put in prison; not registering for the draft can get you put in jail. Not buying, at your own expense, a health insurance plan approved by the mandating authority, well get you a penalty, paid as part of your taxes. Additionally, patients without health insurance coverage arrive every day in hospitals across the country for any number of illnesses and injuries and they are able to obtain treatment.

In fact, one of the problems facing an overburdened healthcare system is legislation passed that prohibits a hospital to deny care based on a potential patients ability to pay. Hospitals write off billions of dollars annually in emergent care costs and basic economics says that someone else has to pick up that costs. That someone is the American healthcare consumer and taxpayer. In order to operate for paying customers, a hospital has to offset the costs of “Free” care by increasing its charges to those same paying customers.

Ultimately, The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate. The administration and congress argue that the purchase of insurance is engaging in interstate commerce, providing the necessary constitutional coverage for their mandate. However, never has the federal government dictated to individual citizens that they actually engage in interstate commerce by forcing them to purchase a private service. Some of those arguing for the legislation in court point to the requirement to carry automobile insurance. However, as Stuart Taylor tells us, “The Analogy Drawn by some of the new laws supporters to state laws requiring car owners to buy car insurance does not survive scrutiny. You can avoid that requirement simply by not buying a car, and states have broad powers to regulate purely intrastate activities. . . “(3). American’s just do not like being told they have to do something “or else,” especially when a nanny state government is doing the demanding.

Perhaps the most damaging social aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the entitlement mindset it creates. America is fast becoming the land of entitlements. Nanny state protections are in place to cover us in old age (Social Security, Medicare) an in our young age (Medicaid, TANF, SCHIP). Now, the federal government has created a mew entitlement for every American in between. Once an entitlement becomes popular with the public at large, that same public is less likely to do anything to take that entitlement away. Sadly, this has become true of the sacred cows of welfare and social security. This mentality is perhaps the most damaging to the social fabric of the United States. To date it has fostered programs, which have cost magnitudes of orders more than originally projected. However, the extent of economic damage that it will do is staggering.

Economically, the Patient Protection and Affordability act is detrimental to creating jobs and encouraging economic growth. The administration claims that this legislation will be economically beneficial, by lowering health care costs and ensuring greater coverage of uninsured individuals. However, the fact remains that it has actually done nothing to ensure either of these goals. Perhaps these laws authors are relying on the law of unintended returns. As the public is now beginning to figure out, the bill of goods sold with Health Care Reform was disingenuous at best and downright lying at worst.

Any discussion about lowering costs cannot begin without a determination of why those costs are elevated in the first place. It is really quite simple, to quote economist Thomas Sowell, “One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs” (1). Logically this is understandable. If individuals obtain a service for which their payment is minimal or not required, they will use that service more. Increasing the use of a service without a significant increase in the availability of that service will increase its cost and reduce its availability. To clarify further, Dr. Sowell in his book Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, states, “… Governments do not simply pay whatever medical costs happen to be, as determined by supply and demand. Governments impose price controls, in order to try to keep the costs of medical care from absorbing so much of their budgets as to seriously restrict other government functions” (70).

Here we come to the crux of the “cost” issue when applied to health care spending (which includes both spending on actual care and insurance premiums) as a whole. It is safe to say that government involvement to this point, whether through agencies such as Medicaid and Medicare, or through increased regulation on the insurance industry, has caused the dramatic rise in the cost of care and the cost of insuring medical risk. The President is telling us relentlessly that we are going to have access to a healthcare “free lunch” paid for by other taxpayers.

It stands to reason that if you add demand for a product or service, without adequate increases in the supply of that good or service, than the resultant shortages will cause an increase in the cost of that product or service. It also stands to reason that if you mandate an additional cost to an already expensive service provided by employers, than employers are going to have to cut costs to compensate for the higher imposed costs of government. Typically, that is done by either reducing the workforce or at the very least, not increasing it. Add in the loss of jobs at insurance companies forced to face the realities of lower net incomes and higher net costs, and you have a recipe for unemployment above 12% nationally.

There is no shortage of results from government interference in health care and health insurance. Close to home, our Canadian friends have fully socialized medicine, and often, Canadian Citizens, in their twilight years, travel to America to obtain lifesaving medical treatment denied them in Canada. This denial of treatment is due to a lack of supply offset by overactive demand. Let us be clear, Canadian citizens are not coming here for cosmetic procedures. They are making the trip to the United States for medically necessary treatment. The single payer system in Canada, as well as in other countries with similar government controlled health care systems is financially bankrupt. In an attempt to rein in costs, these aforementioned governments have had to ration care.

If this legislation is causing social and economic instability, actually raising prices and costs, how is it going to reduce the deficit? The short answer is that Health Care reform will not help reduce anything except the quality and availability of health care. Congress has asked the American people to accept, at face value, their promise to cut 500 billion dollars in Medicare through cutting fraud, waste, and abuse. We are supposed to believe that they will be able to do something no group of politicians in this country has been able to do since Medicare’s inception, cut fraud and waste. The truth of the matter is that we have yet to see the full impact of the baby boomer generation on Medicare. There are only two real ways to reign in Medicare costs, neither of which is palatable to most.

First, we should entertain an increase in the Medicare tax imposed on both employees and employers. The new health care law does not address this idea. Second, reduce the amounts paid out to physicians for services rendered. The reality is that we will likely need to do both to have any chance at reducing the federal deficit over the next 50 years. As Lawrence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns state: “First, we could raise federal income taxes, immediately and permanently, by 57 percent. Second, we could raise payroll taxes, immediately and permanently, by 79 percent. Third, we could cut the current level of real Medicare benefits by 83 percent and let benefits grow at their projected rate thereafter” (6).

However, as the country is already seeing, if legislation drastically cuts reimbursement rates, doctors will simply decide to stop treating Medicare patients as those reimbursements already fall well short of their actual costs of treatment. According to Dr. Sowell, “In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk will cost” (1).

Included in the Patient Care and Affordability act is a whole range of tax increases on medical services, medical devices, and in some cases, medical insurance premiums. The implied reasoning for all these increases is to pay for this massive federal entitlement. However, as has been historically the case with taxation, revenues from those streams tend to drop off over time. The regressive and punitive nature of taxation causes this drop in revenue. Additionally, new taxes or increases in existing taxes tend to cause a rise in the cost of those taxed goods and services. This is at the heart of the discussion related to the claim that the health care reform law will reduce costs. If, in fact, the intent were to actually lower health care costs, there would be no need for financial disincentives, which actually cause an increase in the costs of doing business and treating patients.

Perhaps the most damage from this over reaching bill is that done to our doctors, nurses and hospitals. Part of the problem with health care costs comes from the fixed or negotiated rates paid to service providers via the insurance companies. This combined with the exorbitant cost of medical malpractice insurance puts health care providers in the position of trying to decide how best to treat patients, pay their bills, and not be financially destroyed should an unfortunate incident or death occur while a patient is under their care. Dr. Sowell, in response to the demand on the part of some politicians to cut the incomes of doctors and insurance executives said this. “What it would do is reduce the number of very able people willing to take on the high costs of a medical education . . .” (1).

This returns us to the problem of supply and demand. There is no relation to affordable costs and the costs required to produce something (Sowell). If the government takes which result in an increase in health care services, such as it has done with the new law, while at the same time taking steps that will result in a reduction of the suppliers of those services, the resultant costs will skyrocket. Government’s next logical step then, after creating new crises, is to take draconian measures to ensure adequate care. Those measures could include determining who can and cannot access life saving treatments, requiring a certain number of high school graduates attend medical school, or importing physicians from third world countries whose medical school standards are perhaps not as rigorous as our own.

In light of everything outlined in this paper, one has to decide whether the consequences from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act were deliberate and calculated or just an over reach by politicians who actually believed the misstatements told to the public. Looking at the penumbra of the debate provides insight into that very issue. There were a number of politicians whose ultimate goal was a single payer system, run by the federal government. The President himself stated numerous times that he envisioned an America with a single payer system. It is hard then for a person to be sure that the actions taken in signing this bill into law were not a calculated attempt at pushing us over the edge into socialized medicine.

At the end of the day, only time will tell the real damage that this legislation will do to America’s healthcare system. It will not be long, provided the public at large do nothing, before we begin to see doctors leaving practice, refusing or dropping Medicare or Medicaid patients, and health insurance companies going out of business. A scenario, which poses dire consequences to the social, psychological, and economic fabric of this great country.

Works Cited

Kotlikoff, Laurence J., and Scott Burns. “The Perfect Demographic Storm: Entitlements Imperil Americas Future.” Chronicle of Higher Education 50.28 (2004): B6-B10. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr. 2010

Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Print.

---, “Alice in Health Care.” JewishWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 02 Mar. 2010 Web 13 Apr. 2010.

---, “The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care.” JewishWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 03 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 April 2010.

---. “The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care II” JewisWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 04 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 Apr. 2010

---. “The ‘Costs of Medical Care III” JewishWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 05 Nov 2009. Web. 26 April 2010

Taylor Jr., Stuart. “Health Law Not A Sure Bet in Court.” National Journal (2010): 1. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr 2010

Campaign for Liberty

Creative Commons License