12/04/10 by David.

Someone please explain how when the Government reduces tax rates (irrespective of revenue), this action somehow “costs” taxpayers more money and therefore needs to be “payed for”? Now, if the argument is that the Government spends X dollars and cannot possibly reduce spending, we have a BIG problem. But, tax rate cuts (or failing to allow increases) do not need to be payed for with tax rate increases. They could cut (and we mean CUT) tax rates and in order to not go further into debt, stop spending so much money.

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

08/25/10 by David.

The House Oversight Committee proudly states its concise mission: “The House Oversight Committee is determined to root out waste, fraud and abuse throughout the federal government.”

Fantastic.

But they need to narrow it down just a little. We don’t think it’s quite in the purview of the Federal Government to root out waste, fraud and abuse in all areas of American life. Roger Clemens has been indicted for lying to this committee. The Oversight Committee should indict itself for conducting hearings on baseball players. Even if MLB was conducting an international drug and child trafficking ring, the Oversight Committee would be responsible only for investigating how law enforcement agencies were spending/allocating resources.When a congressional committee can flatly ignore its purpose and conduct under-oath hearings of individuals for activities conducted in the context of their non-government job, every citizen can be placed under the same scrutiny. Sure, he could have invoked his right to not incriminate himself, but he isn’t being charged with controlled substance crimes. The prosecution believes Clemens lied to a congressional committee that had no right to question him.

So the moral of this story is; if ever you do something to enhance you performance at work, even if you are unlikely to be prosecuted for the act, don’t lie to people who shouldn’t be questioning you.

David

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

08/25/10 by David.

Nancy Pelosi has kind-of clarified her comment on investigating the funding of people opposing the building of a mosque two blocks from where terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center complex in the name of Islam.

We have been trying for some time to get funding for just thinking to no avail. With any luck, she’ll let us know how it works. We have not seen anything that would require funding to be investigated. If you go out and ask someone if they thinks it’s a good idea to build a 15 story building to celebrate the religion invoked on 9/11 so close to ground zero that the original structure was hit by an aircraft landing gear, they say “no” and no funding is needed for the decision.

The Imam has indicated that the mosque is for building bridges. If 68% of Americans believe it is at least in poor taste and shouldn’t be built, we don’t understand how pissing off two thirds of a nation helps. It doesn’t help when the Imam has been taped blaming the United States for 9/11.

Jonah Goldberg wrote an interesting piece about anti-Islamic hate crimes. We looked into his numbers and a little more. In 2001, anti-Islamic hate crimes peaked at well under half the number of incidents aimed at Jews, then settling at about 10%. Of more interest though, the number of incidents reported as anti-Jewish has changed very little every year over the last 15 years. Perhaps we should be investigating how Jew haters have maintained funding for so long.

David

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

08/24/10 by David.

When we hear people argue that some European country has socialized medical care or wage controls or command/control employment and makes it work, we immediately think; and they also have really good beer. And, that’s brilliant; we should try that here in a similar way. And because every country over there has a state of equivalent population or economic scale, that’s where it should be tried.

One of the main reasons our country was conceived in the way it was is precisely so individual states could try new things without destroying the nation if it failed. The Constitution has precious few limitations on state governments for that very reason.

Massachusetts has a variation of government health care. Fine. If they want it, let them have it. They may need to rethink how much it’s costing them though. California is facing similar budget issues as Greece and they should probably do something about it. But the point is; some ideas are better than others and on paper or in your heart are not realistic ways to test which is best. History is often a good guide, but people and attitudes do change and sometimes things should be tried in the real world of today. In America we have a huge advantage over the rest of the world, if we take advantage of it. We can test variables in states that actually want to implement ideas to see if they work. If so, other can adopt the legislation. If the concept fails when implemented in real life, only one state has to reconfigure back to the previous status quo.

The feds maintain interstate highways but if a state wants to pay for ultrahigh speed highways and have minimum speed limits of 75 mph and maximum of 150 mph, why should the feds say anything? Let them try it and see if the residents believe it’s worth the price of the road and the potential loss of life. If a state wants to ban the driving of gasoline powered vehicles on public roadways, let them.When the residents get hungry they will probably change the laws, but they should have the ability to try their dumb ideas out. If we keep letting the Federal government imposing dumb ideas on all of us, we won’t have any breathing room for the good ideas. The feds aren’t as good at getting rid of laws as they are at implementing them.

David

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

08/24/10 by David.

Education is wonderful. Everyone should get some. Much like most good things, it isn’t free. So, who should pay for yours? If your answer involves another state, you don’t know the Constitution as well as you should.

There has been some traffic given to an  article about how the stimulus has cost more than the Iraq war. Well that’s like shooting fish in a barrel with dynamite. They don’t even account for the fact that the stupid Keynesian theory is costing much more in terms of the economy’s overall suffering. It did however touch on a couple of important points of comparison. Medicare and education each received more funding than the Iraq war.

People can have very defensible positions as whether going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other related expenses to the war on terror (as it’s called in Government documents).  The Department of Education should not exist according t0 the Constitution. Federal health care programs should not exist either.

If you are someone that believes that we should not be spending so much money the fighting in Iraq, please explain why the Federal government is spending more money per year on education than  the ENTIRE war on terror.

Like it or not, defense is part of the Federal Government’s job. If you don’t like our military being sent to fight in places you think we should be fighting, vote for people that agree with you. If you think the Government should be paying for health services for those in need and education, your probably right, you just need to remember that it’s the state you live in that has the Constitutional authority to do it.

David

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

12/03/09 by David.

We find the idea of labeling every government issue that is even the least bit scandalous with a “gate” suffix, stupid. The climate scientist e-mails that were recently hacked wasn’t even an American instance. But we digress.

No, this has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment. What we can and must conclude from the correspondence of these global warming alarmists is that not only is their data highly suspect, but more importantly, they have rigged the peer-review process. That means that ALL of the anthropogenic global warming rhetoric must be essentially thrown out. If you believe that people are some, partially, or completely responsible for climate change (including the lack of rise in temperature over the past 11 years) you must use new data. If you are like most Amendment X readers you may be saying “Dark beer tastes better than light beer.” Also, “What about the raw data?” Well, that was thrown out once these “scientists” had manipulated the information into what they wanted. So, start over. If you have substituted global warming for religion and therefore every form of descent is heresy, your dogma likely incompatible with this blog. If on the other hand you have an open mind, you can still believe in anthropogenic global warming and embrace better, more cost effective solutions such as those proposed in the fabulous new book, Super Freakenomics. (review forthcoming)

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

10/26/09 by David.

There are a lot of rumors going around about Obama giving poor people a cell phone and talk time at taxpayer expense. This rumor is not true and it would be unconstitutional (like several other welfare programs that exist unconstitutionally). It is true that if you meet certain income requirements you can get a free cell phone and time to conduct your drug deals whatever. The program is funded by all telecommunication companies that provide interstate service. The legislation does not specify how those companies fund their contributions, although most of them pass it on openly in your bill as Universal Coverage Fee. Because the fee is not a personal tax and only interstate companies are required to pay, Congress has the authority to collect it. Speaking of Congress, it was the Republican controlled legislature in 1996 that effectively caused the current system to be giving phones to drug dealers people. In 2004, under the Republicans, the program was expanded to give service to another 1.25 million drug dealers people.If Democrats want to call Republicans cold-hearted for opposing the program now, they should look first at who started it. If Republicans want to call Democrats wasteful for giving phones to drug dealers poor people, they too should look at who started it. Nothing about the program is new this year except that some forms for telecommunication companies have been made available online. The recent uproar seems to stem from Trac-phone’s participation in the program and advertising campaign. Remember, just because an ad says new doesn’t mean it is new.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

10/22/09 by David.

The Weekly Standard has an excellent piece on what is publicly referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Of particular note is that there is no such legislation. The term stems from an executive order by President Clinton. We will not get into the actual debate here except to suggest that openly homosexuals could be segregated in much the same way as women. (Women are not allowed in combat for example) Of importance to this blog is found in the actual legislation that Clinton was attempting to circumvent. The law disallows open, non-coerced homosexuality. More importantly, at the beginning  after Constitutional authority for the law, subsection “(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.” The U.S.armed forces are regulated by Congress under authority of Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States. While some rights are retained by those serving, those rights are far from complete. Free speech via words and clothing immediately come to mind. There are political and rational reasons reasons to allow women to serve and also to limit their roles. Race is on different footing. Other than purely visual characteristics, there is no difference between men (in general) of different races any more than hair color or eye color. Distinguishing on those basis would be a violation of due process. On personal traits however, distinctions should be made. A pacifist should not be allowed in combat roles regardless of any other characteristics and their background is irrelevant. If everyone should be allowed to serve, wouldn’t pacifists be part of everyone? So now that we have established that individuals can be classified into what roles they may be allowed to serve in, all that’s  left is deciding the lines we are willing to draw.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

10/22/09 by David.

Taking a quick look over the most prominent health care bill in Congress, the Baucus bill sheds some light on what Democrats want to do. The President has come out on many occasions to state that he would not support a bill that would; reduce benefits, cause waiting, or raise the price of health care. Well, if he told the truth, he won’t be supporting this one. The 1502 page proposed bill covers a great many things, but we will take an example to show how much you can trust what you hear.

The Baucus bill creates entities without definition. For pre-existing conditions, section 2215;”(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGH RISK POOLS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall establish 1 or more high risk pools that— ‘‘(A) provide to all eligible individuals health insurance coverage (or comparable coverage) that does not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such coverage for all eligible individuals; and ‘‘(B) provide for health benefits coverage and premium rates described under subsection (b).”

OK, so this phantom pool is just a group of individuals with pre-existing conditions that get a subsidy for insurance. Well, not really. That’s only true if the subsidy stays under $5billion. If that amount is exceeded, subsection (2) applies ‘‘INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.—If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.”

The bottom line is; everyone will get what they want, unless they don’t. If you are part of the latter, which is estimated to be around 85% of the population, voting is REALLY important.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

10/07/09 by David.

We have been trying to come up with a method to compel private health insurance without screwing up the free market. If the Government follows a plan of setting a fine (in some form or another) of a fixed amount for failure to have health insurance, that amount will become the new minimum for premiums. For example, if the amount is fixed at $3600 per annum, people who currently do not feel a need to have insurance would not pay more than $300/month for insurance because that is the fixed minimum to pay. The insurance companies could charge less to gain market share, but there is little incentive to go much below because they know everyone will have to spend $300/month if they don’t get insurance at all. In this situation, even HSA’s could see a dramatic increase in premiums. Tying the penalty to income makes much more sense. Setting the penalty to something like 7.5% of AGI means that insurance companies would not have a fixed minimum premium. For example, if a person earns $50,000/year (AGI), they would pay $3750 for failure to have insurance. For that individual, the $312.50/month is competitive with insurance that would provide benefits (unlike a fine). On the lower end of the scale, people with less income would not be forced to purchase expensive policies that they cannot afford. The $126.25/month for a $25,000/year earner would buy a catastrophic coverage plan and still put money into the risk pool. On the upper end, affluent people could save money (although they typically carry insurance now). The dollars from the penalties would be used to purchase insurance for the person from an insurance provider of the Government’s choice. Although there is the potential for favoritism, only idiots would pay to have the government choose their provider. While we are not fans of government over-regulation of private industry, at this point it is political reality that something is going to change. While they are disallowing exemptions for pre-existing conditions, disallow income based premiums. Insurance companies do not use income as a factor now, so that limitation would not be burdensome. Additionally, subsequent violations would  increase the penalties for failure to obtain insurance. An annual increase of 2% would soon make it unreasonable not to get insurance on their own and the additional dollars would pay for the poor. The government purchased minimal insurance savings as well as the additional money from increasing fines would help pay for insurance food stamps for the poor.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

10/07/09 by David.

In a rare occurrence, President Obama was actually doing his job as called out in the Constitution. General McChrystal flew to Denmark to meet with the Commander in Chief while the President was there to campaign. apologize for America. make treaties. secure locations for missile defense. bid for the Olympics. Obama didn’t like the news reporting that he hadn’t spoken with the commander of the troops in what Obama called a “war of necessity.”  So, he had the General meet him for a whole 25 minuets inside Air Force One before Obama left Copenhagen. We found a tape that reveals the details of that meeting.

Obama: What’s your problem, boy?

McChrystal: Sir?

Obama: You can’t go to London and speak your mind like you did yesterday.

McChrystal: Sir, we need more troops in Afghanistan to prevent terrorist organizations from taking over.

Obama: No, we don’t. Just like I said about Iraq, we don’t need more troops to secure the country.

McChrystal: But it worked in Iraq and now we are drawing down troop levels just as predicted by supporters of that surge.

Obama: Let me be clear; I don’t like you. I don’t like the Army. I don’t like what you people do.

McChrystal: Sir, I just think we should have a plan.

Obama: We have a plan. By we, I mean Joe Biden. And by plan, I mean law enforcement.

McChrystal: With all due respect, Joe Biden is an idiot. Besides, didn’t you just stop all prosecutions of suspected terrorists?

Obama: So. I mean, no. Not stopped, just not happening now. Anyway, I inherited this problem from the previous administration.

McChrystal: What problem, sir?

Obama: All of them.

McChrystal: And you signed an Executive Order closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Obama: Yeah, like that’s gonna happen. Let me be clear, this isn’t about me; it’s about you. If I thought you were important, I would spend hours with you drinking beer. The truth is; I would disband the entire military if I thought I could get away with it. We don’t need it. We could just have a massive civilian national security force. I can just talk to the other leaders in the world and convince them that they love me. Look how well that strategy is working in Iran.

McChrystal: Sir, Iran just started testing missiles that could send nuclear weapons into Israel.

Obama: I inherited that.

McChrystal: And you shut down strategic missile defense projects.

Obama: I can fire you just like I fired your predecessor Afghanistan.

McChrystal: With all due respect, I am very good at commanding troops.

Obama: Well, I’m pretty good at throwing people around me under the bus. You’re lucky Congress keeps funding the war, because I wouldn’t.

McChrystal: What do you want me to do, sir?

Obama: Let me put my finger to in the air and see which way the political winds are blowing.

McChrystal: Does that really work?

Obama: Not so much. But that’s not important now. What is important is that I get back to campaigning. working for ACORN. giving people that need pacemakers pain killers. running an auto company. spending time in the White House. getting competition in the insurance marketplace. talking to the Dalia Lama. fulfilling my promise to cut the deficit in half. celebrating my 15th wedding anniversary. replacing the White House lawyer. stuff, you know Presidential things. Now, get out of my airplane.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

10/05/09 by David.

The American Journal of Public Health published a paper written by several people associated with the Harvard Medical School. This paper opens with “The United States stands alone among industrialized nations in not providing health coverage to all of its citizens. Currently, 46 million Americans lack health coverage.” Moving past the obvious point that ALL people in the US have access to health care (although not health insurance), there are a few problems with this paper and its findings. One must keep in mind that the authors of this study are activists for single payer government health insurance. Because this paper has been bandied about the news with people crying that 122 people die every day from lack of insurance, we thought we would take a quick look at the paper. First, and easiest to find, is right in the limitations section. The rate of those insured is based on a snapshot of interviewees on whether or not they have health insurance at the time of the interview. If all participants were experiencing a short lapse in coverage, the entire study would be worth absolutely nothing. The authors make the bold presumption that if a person is ever without insurance, they will perpetually be either uninsured or only intermittently insured. They go on to declare that intermittent insurance is just as bad (as far as risk factor) as being uninsured. Beyond that, the study found that of those interviewed, those rated poor to fair health by physicians were 33% more likely to be uninsured (although still only 4.8%) than all other groups combined; thereby increasing the overall death rate of the uninsured.

Although the authors took great care to make the study appear to control for many factors (such as if a person has smoked more or fewer than 200 cigarettes in their lifetime), one glaring omission is present; cause of death. With those aged between 17 and 34 comprising of 44.2% of the study group, and assuming the 49.8% male ratio holds true, cause of deaths is rather important. Males died at a 33% higher rate overall and were less likely to be insured. Black Americans were also 25% more likely to die than any other group. Mexican Americans, while only 5.5% of the group, were twice as likely and four times as likely to be uninsured as blacks and whites respectively. When a young male dies in a car crash, drug/alcohol related death, gang related death, or some other non-health related death is not removed from this type of study, the results should not be relied upon. If the authors had their way and these young, uninsured males were covered by National Health-care, they would be deaths of those WITH health care. But just as dead.

The study omits those covered by current Government care so we will limit our stupid extrapolations on from those provided by the study.  61 people die every day in this country with adequate health insurance. 99.4% of those uninsured survive every year. Former smokers are over 71% more likely to die than current smokers. Exercise has no effect on your mortality rate. Skinny people are almost twice as likely to die as the obese. Numbers can be manipulated fairly easily and starting with a defective set makes them all suspect. When counting the elderly (people covered by Medicare) just imagine how many people die while covered by government insurance.

The federal government has no business being in the insurance industry. Don’t let people from what you may think are prestigious institutions fool you with bad papers. The presentation may be first rate and you may hear politicians relay them, but it’s BS.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

09/29/09 by David.

A lot of conservatives have been railing against the idea of requiring health insurance. The basis for the argument is that they hate Obama. Also, they complain about transfer of money from young healthy males to old women. While we here at AmendmentX believe that transfer of wealth is facially a bad idea, where does the money come from that currently pays for the coverage of high cost insurees? Where the pundits miss the boat is that everyone in the United States currently receives health CARE and that cost is paid by people. So, the transfer of wealth now comes from people who have insurance or actually pay with money for treatment. By keeping those unwilling to buy insurance from having to, the conservatives are effectively mandating a transfer of wealth from responsible and wealthy people whom are no better able to afford it than the young males they purport to protect.

Universal coverage is a political reality. We have it now. It is however less economical to treat large numbers of people in emergency rooms. Beyond that, the majority of the body politic wants some sort of change. That change does not mean government health insurance. It means lower premiums. Something is going to change about the current system and we can either argue for something that actually helps, or we can let the socialists give us a government plan. As to the Constitutionality of required coverage, look no farther than Medicaid and Medicare. We already pay the government through forced taxation money to pay for other people’s health care. Requiring people to pay for their own is easier to swallow.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

09/18/09 by David.

A short six moths after the Obama administration took over GM and fired the CEO, the president still doesn’t want to run a car company. Making a generic investment in the private sector is not on its face wrong. Think government contracts. Taking a majority stake in a company is not the same.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

09/17/09 by David.

Slippery slope arguments usually aren’t persuasive for several reasons. Most importantly; in the winter, slippery slopes are fun. Also, we need to know how slippery the slope is as well as how steep. At the bottom of the slope, what’s there? We like grassy fields. Sometimes there’s a barbwire fence and a highway. The Department of Education is not enumerated in Article I section 8 of the Constitution where it should be to be legitimate. It was part of the vast general welfare clause of Art.I §8 in a department called Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Under Jimmy Carter, the cabinet level position was created as well as a new bureaucracy. It has only gotten worse from there. Federal dollars (aka yours and mine) are given to states and school districts as bribes, no different than highway money. Which brings us to our fun fact; in fiscal year 2009, the federal government will spend $159,400,000,000 on education. And no, that does not include all the money you pay at the local level where it is supposed to be. That $160 billion came from your community, went to Washington D.C., and theoretically, comes back to be added to the money collected from home-owner’s taxes, sales taxes, and a host of other local taxes that go more or less directly to the school districts. Starting with an ambiguous clause in the Constitution, and “for the children,” creating a massive program for bribing local governments is hardly consistent with letting people make their own decisions.  That slippery slope is one scary ride.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

09/16/09 by David.

The President and members of Congress are not wrong about some of the problems with the best health care system on Earth according to the World Health Organization. That’s right, when the socialism part of their ranking is removed so financial and “fairness” are separated because they are not the same as”health care,” WHO actually assesses responsiveness to patient needs. As mentioned in the last post, the risk pool must be maintained in order to provide money to pay for inclusion of pre-existing conditions and severe health care issues. While libertarians may not like the idea of the government getting involved at all, there are times when legislation is needed to prevent massive takeovers by the same government. Requiring insurance companies to cover high risk individuals is a good idea. For that mandate to work, the risk pool must be sufficient. The solution is making health insurance mandatory. The instant reaction for most people is; “what about people that cannot afford it?” The answer lies in something more important than insurance: food. Food stamps are an income qualified program that is available to those below a certain level in order to provide a necessity to those that can’t afford it. When citizens file their tax filings, they will show proof of insurance and receive a credit for it. If they fail to provide proof, there will be a penalty. For those below a particular level, they will receive “food stamps” with which to purchase health insurance on the open market. That will allow them to also provide the required proof. Eliminate Medicaid and Medicare and get the government out of the insurance business. By using those funds to purchase private insurance and eliminating the subsidized plan, the private companies will have a sufficient risk pool to cover the costs of high cost members. This will in turn boost the competitiveness by increasing the market and the companies will try to further increase market share. More legislation undoing prior legislation to open interstate commerce among insurance companies will allow consumers to shop across state lines for the best service and price. Illegal immigrants are not accounted for in this or any other plan. And they shouldn’t be. That however, is a different discussion.

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »