Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Governor Mark Sanford’s John Edwards moment provides an opportunity to dwell on what is wrong with politicians and politics in the US as well as other countries. That some are calling for his resignation after an extramarital affair allegedly with a woman named Maria Belen Chapur (or Shapur as some reports suggest) raises a question.  Why is the resignation of a public official only demanded for a limited number of ‘offenses’?  The sheer quantity of types of bad behavior displayed by POLS on a regular basis should have demands for resignation submitted on a daily basis.  Simply for the amount of time they are not on the job and their arrogance to give themselves regular pay raises should be cause for their termination.  But that is not likely to happen.

In Sanford’s case, along with governors Granholm, Pawlenty and Rendell, a Sunday morning talk show was the venue where the two Dems, Granholm and Rendell, had no shame in their acceptance of taxpayer dollars to do with just about as they please from the so-called stimulus plan while the two GOP governors suggested it was a bad idea and were against it.

As demonstrated by the information below, they all knew that legislatures, or in Sanford’s case, state Supreme Courts, had the power to force them to take the money.  And now that Sanford has provided proof he is capable of being less than truthful, how is the public supposed to read POLS whenever their lips are moving. In a post on this blog the week the foursome discussed the stimulus plan and how they planned to respond skepticism was expressed and it would seem at least in the SC governor’s story that was warranted.

Below are the releases from Gov Sanford’s website in which he expresses the obligatory remorse for his personal sins and his application for stimulus funds as indicated in response to lawsuits in which the SC Supreme Court required his cooperation.  How convenient.  He was considered a 2012 potential Presidential candidate and expressed opposition to the out of control government spending and still does in his application and cover letter.  If you know you can be forced to do something and want to look like a good guy it is no risk to voice your opposition.

This has been an obviously simple example demonstrating the difficulty in deciding whether or not an elected representative is being truthful.  Along with many other POLS, in trouble or not, Sanford’s and their words have little meaning for constituents or the public at large.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Gov. Sanford Issues Follow-up Statement on Today’s Media Availability

Columbia, S.C. - June 24, 2009 - Governor Mark Sanford today issued the following statement:

“First and foremost, I apologize to my wife and my four boys. I have made decisions that have hurt and will continue to hurt them, and for that I’m sincerely sorry. Jenny has stood by me through campaign after campaign, through hard time after hard time, and neither she nor the boys deserve this. Please offer them your prayers.

“I apologize to my staff. I misled them about my whereabouts, and as a result the people of South Carolina believed something that wasn’t true. I want to make absolutely clear that over the past two days at no time did anyone on my staff intentionally relay false information to other state officials or the public at large. What they’ve said over the past two days they believed to be true, and I’m sorry to them for putting them in this position.

“I apologize to the people of South Carolina. There are many people out there right now who are hurt, angry and disappointed with me, and rightfully so. Over the time that I have left in office, I’m going to devote my energy to building back the trust the people of this state have placed in me.

“I ask for your forgiveness, and your prayers for everyone who I’ve hurt,” Sanford said.

-###-

Stimulus Application and Cover Letter

Attached is the application for the stimulus funds, beginning with a cover letter.

Stimulus Funds and Cover Letter[pdf]

Governor Sanford Won’t Appeal S.C. Supreme Court Decision

Columbia, S.C. - June 1, 2009 - After a federal judge today sent two stimulus lawsuits back to the state Supreme Court, Governor Mark Sanford said he would not make any state or federal appeals of whatever is decided by the state’s top court, and will abide by whatever their decision is regarding a disputed $700 million in federal stimulus funds.

Governor Sanford had sought to use state dollars equal to about 10 percent of stimulus funds South Carolina was slated for in order to pay down state debt, so that future generations who ultimately pay for the so-called “stimulus” spending receive some benefit from the government services of today being bought with tax dollars of tomorrow. Instead, the General Assembly has tried to force the governor to apply for the funds.

Two state suits had been filed seeking to force the governor to apply for the federal funds. The governor had sought to have those claims consolidated with his own and have all three heard in federal court. With the federal judge sending two suits back to state court today, the state Supreme Court will almost certainly make the final ruling in the case.

Gov. Sanford noted that if the case is decided against him, he hopes it will serve as a wake-up call for fixing South Carolina’s antiquated government structure.

“We continue to believe that this issue is fundamentally about the balance of power and separation of powers in our state, and our hope is that however it turns out it will serve as a reason for more people to make their voices heard about the outdated and bizarre government structure in South Carolina,” Gov. Sanford said. “Legislative dominance in our state costs all of us in very real terms for the way it breeds duplication and waste. If we ever want to be competitive as a state in the 21st Century, it starts with having a 21st Century government structure.”

-###-

More appalling stupidity demonstrated in the news.  This post was produced based on a casual observation that it appears coverage on the status of the American economy as well as that of the entire world is flip-flopping like the difference between Obama’s campaign promises and his actions in office for the first five months. On the economy, first it’s going down.  Then it’s going up.  Then things are bleak.  Then things are improving.  What the hell’s going on really?

Here’s today’s example of misleading news reports.  Nothing personal against Michael Bowman from VOA but this story and the report title stink.

US Economy Declines at Slower Pace

“Even though the economy has come through this very, very weak patch, there is a lot of evidence gathering that the economy is now bottoming and beginning to turn upward,” Wesbury said.

The Commerce Department says the U.S. economy shrank at a 5.5 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year. That was a slightly-improved number from an initial estimate of a 5.7 percent contraction.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has expressed cautious optimism that the U.S. economy can return to positive growth by the end of the year.

The government estimate was a 5.7% decline.  The reported ‘actual’ decline was 5.5%.  AND THIS WARRANTS A TITLE CLAIMING ECONOMIC DECLINE IS SLOWER!!!  Items above and within the report assume there is evidence things are improving or will by the end of the year?  Based on what, the difference between an estimate and the actual outcome?

If this indicates how the gurus are drawing their conclusions it is no wonder how this economy was torpedoed and it would have less to do with greed than simply the appalling stupidity of what passes for standard practice in various disciplines.  We’re in for a long painful ride if this is the best we can do addressing things financial.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A momentary renewal of faith in the American system of justice was handed down by SCOTUS on the last day of this year’s term.  A bruising commentary on the flaws of nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was the bonus of this opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a civil rights case that could have a far-reaching impact on race-based affirmative action programs around the country.  By a vote of five to four, the high court sided with white firefighters in Connecticut who had said they were the victims of reverse discrimination.

The majority opinion in the five-to-four Supreme Court decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the key swing vote on a court sharply divided between conservative and liberal-leaning factions.  It came on the final day of the court’s annual term.

Kennedy wrote that New Haven’s decision to throw out the results of the promotion exam violated federal civil-rights law because the white firefighters were penalized because of the lack of successful black applicants.

Sotomayor is sure to be asked about the case when her Senate confirmation hearings begin July 13.

Just enter the name ‘Sotomayor’ in this blog’s search box to retrieve posts on Obama’s nominee for SCOTUS to replace retiring Justice David Souter.  To be sure, this blog does not support Sotomayor for Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States.  Advocates need not apply.  A legal professional with the intestinal fortitude to uphold the law of the land and interpret said laws and follow the founding documents is what is required.  Although filling vacanices on the bench is a political enterprise public dissent is needed to encourage the US Senate to reject those who would be King, or Queen on the bench.

Not to ignore the plight of the firefighters.  A heartfelt congratulations is extended to those who won this battle.  It is expected here that the damage was already done and lives may have been unnecessarily diminished as a result.  If that is in fact the condition for those who were earlier denied, continue to pursue your dreams and understand that as an American whether or not your own benefit was protected you have contributed to a larger cause to liberty that is even more impressive than the original pursuit although it is impressive and commendable as well.

On to the next battle…..

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The current President of the United States has expressed shall we say, disappointment, that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and resists everything and that news sources like Fox rarely have anything positive to say about him.  It is not uncommon for liberals who call in to conservative talk radio to admonish the host for not giving Barack Obama a chance.  The following news report excerpt is representative of the kind of stories about Mr Obama’s agenda which understandably generate negative comments.  How can anyone promote such agenda items which demonstrate appalling stupidity?

Obama Announces New Energy Conservation Steps

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy,” Mr. Obama said. “But this simple action holds enormous promise because seven percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses.”

The president says the savings will be striking.

“Between 2012 and 2042, these new standards will save consumers up to $4 billion a year,” he said.

In his own words, seven percent of our expenditures for electricity are attributed to lighting.  Therefore the most we could save, assuming we abandoned lighting all together, which we  would not, is seven percent of what we spend.  Not sexy Mr President?  It is not even remotely sexy nor practical.  And if you divide the President’s estimate on savings to consumers for the compact ripoff by the number of households in the US it means less than 10 cents per day per household.  The additional cost of the ‘new’ lamps and questionable life expectancy could easily turn that minuscule saving into a net loss.  If you consider his words on savings and that his usage estimate includes businesses as well as residential use the savings are invisible.

additional data source: US QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

This sort of government action is absolutely brain dead.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

After nine recent posts on the healthcare scam it is time to introduce someone else’s perspective on this topic. The excerpt and link below are of course one of the required readings if you have any concern about healthcare and those who are intent on making decisions for you. More of such excerpts and links are to follow later.

Regarding reform, conservatives are accused of being a party of “no.” Fine. That is an indispensable word in politics because most new ideas are false and mischievous. Furthermore, the First Amendment’s lovely first five words (”Congress shall make no law”) set the negative tone of the Bill of Rights, which is a list of government behaviors, from establishing religion to conducting unreasonable searches, to which the Constitution says: No.

The president may have been too clever when he decided, during an economic crisis that was sending federal expenditures soaring and revenues plummeting, to push the entire liberal agenda on the premise that every item on it is essential to combating the crisis.

The item above is: A Health Reform to Forget, By George Will

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Just a little reminder that there is much to yet worry about illegal immigration even with healthcare and all the other issues on the average American’s plate.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In several recent healthcare scam posts on this blog the fact that government programs always cost more over time than initially estimated was lightly mentioned. To be fair to those making the estimates it may have been a case like the current one. There is no rigid or complete model or proposal available with which to produce reasonable forecasts.

An opinion piece at Investor’s Business Daily offers the following historical footnotes on this scenario..

It was created in 1965 to provide health care for Americans 65 and over. Federal actuaries estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost a mere $9 billion by 1990. The real cost, however, was $66 billion.

When making projections for the entire program, at that time Parts A through C, the Ways and Means Committee number crunchers made a similar mistake. They figured it would cost $12 billion by 1990, but Medicare chewed through $107 billion in its first 25 years.

When a GOP president and GOP Congress added Medicare Part D — the prescription drug benefit — in 2003, the cost was estimated at $534 billion over 10 years.

Less than two years later, the government was forced to admit the entitlement would actually cost $1.2 trillion over its first decade.

An easy analysis of the current proposal would be to determine the percentage overruns above and apply them to the 1 or 1.6 trillion estimates quoted on the current ‘reform’ proposal. A rough guess would place it somewhere between 2 and 8 times the initial estimate. At the very least that places the current proposal at 2 trillion dollars. And nine or ten trillion is an even scarier prospect. But it certainly does not fall outside the realm of reality for POLS in DC.

This is a lighter weekend post on the series of healthcare scam reports on this blog. One could invest more than that required for a full time job following this topic. But let’s not forget there are other issues to deal with also. For instance let’s not ignore the very real likelihood that at some point shamnesty will be back on the table. Then there are the 2010 elections, foreign affairs and armed conflict in more than one location. The threat of pandemic disease and widespread terrorism adds to the list. And it goes on and on. So make noise for a time on this issue with your elected reps and then proceed to the other issues.

Or you could be real cool and move between the issues to make your rep’s crazy. As if their performance in public service wasn’t a clue they are already there. Help out by getting involved. That’s this weekend’s subtle hint to readers of this blog.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Politicians are scrambling to be the first to kneel at the Messiah’s altar with the sacrificial lamb that will save the liberal agenda for so-called health care reform. One candidate for the master’s ritual offering is presented in the excerpt below.

Lawmakers led by Senator Max Baucus are talking about slapping a $495 tax on some of those covered by the medical plan to help pay for extending coverage to some of the 46 million Americans who lack it.

For employers currently offering health care plans such a tax burden may reach the tipping point requiring at best a lower tier benefit package that reduces benefits for employees who are covered now. This benefit tax proposal flies in the face of the Obama campaign promise not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 per year. Gee Wally, another broken campaign promise. Say it isn’t so.

Yesterday, Baucus and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota, a Democrat, said a bill being drafted by the panel would contain the tax.

And if you didn’t believe the healthcare reform proposal did not exist as stated in many posts on this blog here is some more evidence to support that notion.

Five congressional committees are drafting versions of the legislation that has to be adopted by both the House and Senate.

Liberals in Congress also contend that higher income earners unfairly benefit from tax subsidies of healthcare benefits which provide them elective or unnecessary procedures. That is an extremely broad generalization that does not deal with details in much the same way the non-existent reform proposal does. Even if it were ‘mostly’ true, it points to the notion that liberals want to decide what healthcare you can and cannot receive. That is why private healthcare coverage offered in the free market is valuable. Sure, everyone may not be able to afford what they want but that is the case with every product or service in the universe. Not all of us can afford everything. That should not preclude those who can from getting it. Unless you support the redistribution of wealth. It is interesting that liberals deny that part of their agenda but are clearly chasing it with healthcare reform.

And BTW, using the word ‘reform’ with any public issue should be another red flag for you. It is a common tool to give the appearance of doing the right thing. What has happened thus far in this episode of New Deal government intervention at public expense should be adequate evidence this effort is flawed and in no citizen’s best interest. It serves those who are developing it. And that is not you or me.

Read the rest of the story linked in this post. It’s worth your time.

One last note which follows up on a previous post here alleging labor unions support the reform proposals for their special interest benefit. The article linked here supports that allegation.

In addition, Baucus has proposed to exempt health benefits secured in collective-bargaining agreements, such as those with labor unions.

A previous post here presented a video from MoveOn and reference to a labor union boss who attacked Sen Feinstein for having reservations about the cost of reform. You don’t suppose the labor boss was thinking of the benefit tax exemption for unions do you? Right.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is the first time this blog has witnessed anything useful from Chuck Todd, ordained some kind of chief political guru for PMS NBC. His willingness to spew the MSM point of view on politics only serves to confirm the public suspicion of ‘the news’. Since the content of what this blog finds useful from Chuckie merely requires rookie reporter skills this may indicate what this network’s chief Washington correspondent (according to Wiki) should be doing (very little).

Chuck points to a press release, a video and the text of the video. No need to deal with the press release since it is from a group in (dis)organized labor and they expect all Dems to be in their pockets. But any time MoveOn can be again exposed for the special interest group they are which has nothing to do with the public interest, it should be done.

Below of course is the video and text for the video.

Script follows:

“California voters sent Senator Dianne Feinstein to Washington to fight for us. That includes fighting to pass President Obama’s health care plan. A recent poll shows that 71% of California voters want a significant overhaul of the health care system now.

But Feinstein has been dragging her heels, saying health care may just be too “difficult.”

News flash Senator: We don’t expect you to lead just on the easy issues.

Senator Feinstein, please: Fight for California. Fight for President Obama’s health care reform now MoveOn.org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertising.”

MoveOn cannot be that bright or they believe no one else is. To express Feinstein is to fight for ‘us’ and connect that to passing an incomplete proposal on healthcare is absolutely absurd. It is as ridiculous as Mr Obama suggesting if we all get behind this we can get it done. Again, there is nothing to get behind because even if it was medical nirvana it DOES NOT EXIST. The draft proposal is being tortured in Congress and is not ready for prime time. The CBO trashed it in its current state and much of it has not been scored because it DOES NOT EXIST.

Everyone who supports whatever they think is healthcare reform will not yet find it in Washington DC. Nothing is complete and therefore cannot be debated or passed and signed into law. There would need to be a complete bill with all the trimmings before a feast begins.

On Chuck Todd’s little announcement there were comments and some are reviewed below. It underscores the confusion or lack of information on which people are drawing conclusions. If this is any indication of public sentiment we should all pray this thing doesn’t get out of committee in order to cement the fact it won’t pass this year. To agree to it now would be equivalent to giving approval for a contract before it is written and letting the other side fill in the blanks. If you would agree to that you qualify as an idiot.

Just the first few comments for First Read by Chuck Todd at what Limbaugh calls PMS NBC points to public opinion that may explain some of the illogical results from recent polls on healthcare minus any influence from pollster error, etc.

While the first comment expresses support for special interest going after Sen Feinstein it is for the wrong reasons. A better one would have been her conflict of interest while on MILCON and possible fraud or other corruption involved in directing contracts to her husband. But that’s another story.

If Feinstein has objections over healthcare reform it is likely again to be for the wrong reasons. But her opposition is useful contrary to the commenter’s position since there is no specific plan and no inconvenient details like how it will be paid for in terms of public funding. So while the commenter believes Feinstein does not look out for average people, connecting support for the current vague proposal for healthcare reform with caring about people is naive at best.

The next two comments demonstrate some intelligence by objecting to MoveOn for various reasons. Number two suggests they are targeting Feinstein because she does not agree with them. Number two gets extra credit for being right twice. Number three indicates disdain with politicians will get them forced out of office at the ballot box. Ya, how many times has that worked for you and how long has Feinstein been in the Senate? Number three loses the initial credit for objecting to MoveOn for talking nonsense about elections. If all bad POLS were voted out of office we would only have good ones in office by now.

The unfortunate case here is that two out of three comments apparently support healthcare reform and are prepared to take whatever Congress and the White House propose. If they approach all life’s problems this way no wonder this nation as a group makes so many mistakes.

Finally, two more good reasons to oppose Obamacare or whatever it is. Labor unions and MoveOn are in favor of it. That should raise plenty of red flags on anyone’s scam-o-meter. Feel free to review other ‘Heathcare Scam’ posts on this blog for more information.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

For those who maintain unqualified support for President Obama to those who are steadfast in their opposition based on evidence the President refuses to answer direct questions which would expose his flawed agenda the following excerpt from an ABC transcript is presented. It is of course from the July 24th airing on ABC of a ’special’ called Prescription for America. Try to find the President’s direct answer to the following specific question.

SAWYER: We have a question from Dr. Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare in the Bush administration. Your question?

Gail Wilensky, Senior Fellow, Project HOPE: I want to go back to how we pay for the expansions. Estimates, as you indicated, probably $1.5 trillion to cover everyone. You mentioned savings in Medicare and Medicaid, $500 billion to $600 billion, from the numbers you’ve provided. Another $300 billion from additional revenue. That leaves about $300 billion to $600 billion more. What do we do in ways that CBO will count so that we can actually get everybody covered?

GIBSON: And run that down in about 30 seconds.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: Look, that’s the challenge. And, obviously, there’s a vigorous debate taking place. There are a whole host of ideas, some that cut across parties. There are people who think that we should tax benefits — health care benefits at a certain level, cap the deduction. There are others who proposed a surcharge on high-income individuals. There are other cuts that may be obtained that ultimately we could find scorable.

Here’s my general point, because I know that we’re starting to wrap up. This is not an easy problem, and it’s especially not an easy problem when the economy is going through a difficult phase. You know, we’ve taken a body blow to the economy, and families were oftentimes hurting even before then.

But the one thing I’m absolutely confident about is that, whenever this country has met a significant challenge to our long-term well-being, that we ultimately rise up and meet it. And this is one of those moments where the stars are aligned.

We’ve got insurers who are interested, doctors who are interested, nurses, patients. AARP is here, and they’ve seen some of the potential benefits. We’re actually going to be filling the donut hole. Drug companies have said that they’d be willing to reduce the cost for seniors for prescription drugs as part of health care reform.

But we have to have the courage and the willingness to cooperate and compromise in order to make this happen. And if we do, it’s not going to be a completely smooth ride. There are going to be times over the next several months where we think health care is dead, it’s not going to happen.

But if we keep our eye on the prize, and if we recognize that America’s always stood up to these big challenges, and we can’t afford not to act, then I’m absolutely convinced that we can get it done this time.

GIBSON: Mr. President, thanks. We’re going to take a break. Be right back.

GIBSON: So that concludes our primetime special of “Prescription for America,” but your local news is coming up next, and we hope you’ll stay with us. The president is going to stay with us. Our audience stays with us. And we will have more questions for him about health care reform during the “Nightline” half-hour.

That’s right! President Barack Obama took his by now well-known leap into campaign mode and avoided the question entirely. So what does that do for your comfort level on a massive government plan to ‘reform healthcare’? Although there were moments where Mr Obama appeared to be genuine and forthcoming on his plans for healthcare reform any honest discussion on the issue was quickly dispatched in favor of a tightly scripted, liberal media and White House tag team public relations promo. In the President’s own words we can get this done if everyone gets behind it. The trouble is no one knows what it is we’re supposed to get behind as a specific proposal with all the required information does not exist. But that’s okay as the POLS in DC who support this simply want you to sign on and let them fill in the blanks. How reassuring. NOT!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

transcript source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7920012&page=1

An exclusive interview and/or ‘townhall’ on ABC with a title featuring the cute phrase ‘prescription for America’ are just two items which indicate this contrived media event. With that introduction out of the way President Barack Hussein Obama wasted what began as one of the more compelling attempts in his brief tenure as Commander-in-Chief of the United States even with the scripted, tightly managed public relations and political promotion that was broadcast.

If memory serves the last question from the hand-picked audience came from someone who once ran Medicare or HHS or something related to the program’s topic. The question described a set of revenues and expenses that left a bit of a hole and asked the President how that would be resolved. Obama quickly moved his response from what should have been a direct answer to campaign rhetoric. The woman asking the question should have used the reply from the character ‘Danny’ in a West Wing episode, ‘ I’m sure that was the answer to someone’s question Mr President but it wasn’t the answer to mine.’

The content of the program was not all bad. Obama’s reply on what he termed ‘end of life’ care was not really on point to the part of the discussion in which he used it but it had some items relevant to the general topic. There were a few other instances where the President made some lucid points. However, the bulk of the program crafted a display of information that may be characterized as common knowledge or obvious truths used to put the public’s mind at ease. But an equally and poorly crafted attempt to use rhetoric and generalizations as a detailed explanation of the issue of healthcare reform was a major insult and waste of time. The advertisers should ask for a refund and the public should hold both ABC and the White House accountable for this sham performance.

Another example of misleading information is Mr Obama’s repetitive mention of people being allowed to keep the coverage they have assuming they like it. Sure, great selling point Mr Obama, the problem is that any current or future ‘plan’ may not be offered. Terms of any government healthcare reform may adversely affect the private sector to a point where private health insurance as we know it will no longer exist. There is a feature in worse case scenarios whereby the private sector would cease doing business in health related insurance. Then the scary public option that is being avoided in all these discussions would be the only plan.

The real point is this is not unlike any other political debate. There are many players in this game. From politicians to corporations to the medical community and the public at large. Everyone has a stake in it and everyone will be playing from their own personal opinion. That is the problem. A critical part of the debate that is not available is a detailed and specific proposal with all the necessary information. Until that is produced it is fair to believe the government entities involved in this healthcare scam are trying to sell you something that doesn’t exist yet.

You should also remember that even if the day comes when the information is available and the unlikely outcome that we all sign on to a ‘program’ or proposal offered it will be subject to constant change in future years and what you agree to may never see the light of day for more than its initial appearance. That is why like it or not the free market idea of healthcare is superior to government programs. What we need to do is repair the system we have not invent an entirely new one ultimately controlled by government beauracrats.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It only took four months. But the answer did not materialize in the way one might expect. Governor Mark Sanford along with Gov’s Granholm, Pawlenty and Rendell were on Fox News Sunday in February having a discussion on whether or not they would accept Porkulus money. The following is an excerpt from a post here that month reviewing their positions.

Last weekend four governors gave their political statements in answer to questions provided by Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. Gov Granholm of Michigan does not dispute she is a money grabbing liberal and doesn’t care where it comes from or what it will cost in the long run. Gov Pawlenty of Minnesota offers his excuse for taking the money citing his state pays more to the federal government than they get back. Rendell is only slightly more subtle than Granholm but the money grabbing philosophy is nearly identical. From this transcript it is unclear whether Gov Sanford of South Carolina will follow suit with the others.

The entire matter is one of doing the right thing. While this week’s announcement that Sanford will be going away in politics by virtue of, or more correctly NO virtue, in marital matters it underscores the underlying reason why POLS have no business handling YOUR money.

IF the liberals (and they will) leverage this report to their advantage, GOOD! There has to be a severe penalty across the political sphere when POLS ‘lose their way.’ If we cannot encourage persons of good character to aspire to public service then these are the stories that will be, and are, common in politics. Politics unfortunately is inseparable from public affairs and public service. Is there a way we can separate the two? No realistic or reasonable suggestion along those lines has been put forth. At least not one that is visible on this blog’s radar.

For those of you who require the details on Gov Mark Sanford’s personal troubles simply search on Google or your favorite search engine for the news. Simply put the Governor had an affair and is more or less coming clean on the story. Not that admitting it makes it any more palatable. Ordinary citizens as well as those in the public eye need to have higher standards in this regard as well as others.

A brief note to the media source known as Fox News. No wonder you get criticized from the left for openly supporting the right. Not that a Google search is any sort of scientific study, but to find little from Fox News on this story aside from curiosity reports prior to Sanford’s announcement does not strengthen your slogan of ‘fair and balanced.’

And one more link from this blog on the four governors on PORK…..

Two Democratic governors and two GOP governors were on Fox News Sunday and the view here is they all will gorge at the pork table. Granholm, Democratic governor of Michigan, said not only would she enjoy the pork but would eat the other’s shares if they turned it down. Rendell, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, mentioned he will only be governor for a while longer and will plunder the pork yet be concerned about the problems facing those after he leaves. That’s reassuring. Mark Sanford and Tim Pawlenty, GOP governors of South Carolina and Minnesota respectively, were slightly more vague about their pork menus. Sanford will likely continue to criticize the stimulus and only indulge in those items for which he can acquire political cover. Pawlenty will undoubtedly do the same.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The five quoted items below adequately summarize the healthcare reform fiasco currently being played out in Washington DC. Proponents including President Barack Obama claim all manner of benefit from their proposal while the GOP and some Democrats take a more realistic approach understanding any gains will be smothered in excessive costs, massive deficits and unmanageable beauracracy.

Obama is trying a hands off approach probably in an attempt to avoid political damage to himself and saving the out he can blame Congress when it doesn’t work out. Dems are stumbling around to recover from the CBO report on current details which are limited and the fear of experiencing the fate of Clintons’ failure of the nineties just before the 2010 elections.

The proposal would create a new government plan to help cover the uninsured — a move backed by President Barack Obama but resisted by Republicans and some centrist Democrats who fear it will overwhelm private insurers and require vast amounts of public funding.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is seeing the downside of his light touch on revamping the nation’s health care system.

Congressional Democrats are off to a halting start, blindsided by a high cost estimate and divided over how to proceed. The confusion has emboldened Republican critics of the administration’s approach to its top domestic priority.

Obama has given Congress leeway, trying to avoid the heavy-handed approach that helped doom a similar effort by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Obama recently told a Wisconsin crowd that he would not run roughshod over lawmakers with a “my way or the highway” approach.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat lawmakers on Friday proposed guaranteeing health coverage for nearly every American, despite mounting concerns the cost of doing so could torpedo the Obama administration’s healthcare reform effort.

One modest development is being overstated by Obama and Baucus. A small concession by Big Pharma to contribute $80 billion over ten years to shore up the gap coverage on Medicare Rx drugs only amounts to a few percentage points of their annual sales. It is intended to cover half of the doughnut hole. Guess who will cover the other half? That’s right, you will in the form of higher taxes. And over the ten years the Big Pharma contribution will be repaid to them in higher prices, more sales from government mandates and a growing number of retirees or those otherwise eligible for Medicare.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The pharmaceutical industry agreed Saturday to spend $80 billion over the next decade improving drug benefits for seniors on Medicare and defraying the cost of President Barack Obama’s health care legislation, capping secretive negotiations involving key lawmakers and the White House.

“This new coverage means affordable prices on prescription drugs when Medicare benefits don’t cover the cost of prescriptions,” Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement announcing the accord.

As suggested above, no, it does not. It’s a PR move to sell the idea of government healthcare not a real cost control.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama praised the agreement has been reached between Senator Max Baucus and the nation’s pharmaceutical companies intended to reduce costs of prescription drugs for millions of America’s seniors.

“The agreement by pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the health reform effort comes on the heels of the landmark pledge many health industry leaders made to me last month, when they offered to do their part to reduce health spending $2 trillion over the next decade,” Obama said. “We are at a turning point in America’s journey toward health care reform.”

Healthcare accounts for two trillion dollars of what Americans spend every year. To reduce costs by that amount over ten years is a 10% reduction. Hardly large enough to be noticed by itself. If four or five such reductions could be realized you might be talking about substantial improvements. As it stands now this is just another PR move to sell the legislation and more government control over your money and health choices.

“The existence of this gap in coverage has been a continuing injustice that has placed a great burden on many seniors,” Obama said in a statement. Medicare coverage does not apply to payments between $2,700 and $6,154.

Using the numbers in the quote above provides a difference of $3454 and demonstrates the cost to Medicare recipients when they are in the gap. If the drug company contribution discussed above covers half or $1727 then that is how much tax revenue will have to increase for each recipient on Medicare.or eight billion dollars per year to match the drug company contribution as described by Baucus and Obama.

The eight billion per year offered by the drug companies and the other half coming from tax dollars equals $16 billion dollars. If you divide that number by the gap coverage cost borne by recipients to date of $3454 it equals about 4.6 million. How does that square with the number of Medicare recipients and their shortfall on paying for Rx drugs? In other words, does the 4.6 million represent how many recipients will face the maximum gap they have to pay on their own? Probably not but it seems fair to conclude that $16 billion is what they have determined is what in total would be paid by Medicare recipients to cover gap expenses. Who knows how they arrived at that number? But one might expect they have records on all recipients and how much their share of gap coverage was paid in past years.

Then again it is government and mysteries abound.

Below is some information on Big Pharma annual sales used to determine how much their $80 billion, ten year contribution represents as a burden to their bottom line. After that is a little trivia on the revolving door in Washington as relates to politicians and the drug lobby.

Using the information displayed below you can round it up to the nearest hundred billion and call US Big Pharma sales $300 billion per year. A recent and quiet negotiation between Big Pharma reps and Senator Max Baucus is reported as an agreement with the pharmaceutical industry to provide $8 billion per year to pay for half of the prescription drug gap coverage for seniors on Medicare.over the next ten years.

NORWALK, CT, March 19, 2009 – IMS Health (NYSE: RX), the world’s leading provider of market intelligence to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries, today reported annual U.S. prescription sales growth of 1.3 percent in 2008, to $291 billion. Dispensed prescription volume in the U.S. grew at a 0.9 percent pace.

Factors influencing the market’s slower growth in 2008 included higher demand for less-expensive generic drugs, lower new product sales, and reduced consumer demand due to the economic turndown.

The Democrat controlled Congress and the White House claim they want healthcare reform to be bipartisan. As this blog has stated many times before the only value of the word ‘bipartisan’ in US politics is when both major parties expect nothing but downside from their activities. When they are both likely to take a hit from the stupidity they propose the word ‘bipartisan’ features prominently in their statements. Big Pharma’s lobbying history is a good example of bipartisanship.

An excerpt on the situation almost ten years ago emphasizes the long history of pharmaceutical politics in Washington and both major parties. About the current lobbyists at the time…..

In addition, six worked for the Bush I administration; five worked for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.); four worked for former Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah); five worked for current Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.); four worked for former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.); and three worked for current Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

If you watch a video at Cspan on Kennedy’s healthcare legislation markup and reference the excerpt above from early in the last decade this all begins to make more sense. While Gingrich and Lott are no longer players in the congressional sense, Kennedy, Baucus and Hatch figure prominently in the current discussion. And lobbyists in the ‘revolving door’ have been associated with them at least as long as eight to ten years ago. Do you understand now that the bipartisan healthcare push in Washington will do you no good?

The excerpt offered above is from Public Citizen. It is as noted earlier from a report that goes back to 1999-2000. Even then of the 625 Big Pharma lobbyists over half were former Congressman, Senators or others who worked in the federal government before becoming reps for the pharmaceutical industry. If you have any belief that healthcare reform in Washington is somehow a departure from typical arrangements made in the smoke filled rooms of the past you are gravely mistaken.

Any way you slice it government-sponsored healthcare has mostly downside if not all downside. It forces the public to pay more with less choice and little if any control over outcomes related to their own healthcare. Just like other major programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it is unsustainable without a crippling effect on all measures of economic health. From national debt to government deficits to percent of GDP to percent of personal income the cost of government programs are inherently inefficient, ineffective and unaffordable. This laughable announcement that an eighty billion dollar contribution from Big Pharma and vague cost reduction pledges from the medical community are somehow monumental in nature or some sort of long term solution demonstrates the folly of government healthcare reform.

All it does it enable politicians to have more control over your life with your money.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

What IS the story so far with so-called healthcare reform being concocted by politicians in Washington DC? This post is intended to shed a little light on that. Recent polls reported in the news this week suggest most Americans support healthcare reform in Washington. But it also says that a majority of Americans are wary of the government meddling in these matters and that most are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their current healthcare arrangements. Those opinions seem to be at odds with each other. On the Sunday morning talk shows for example, George Will and others on ABC’s This Week were saying the public is largely in the dark about what is being proposed and may withdraw their support once Congress actually discloses the details on their proposal.

Last week Congress was involved with markup of the legislation and boasted they had dispensed with many amendments proposed and either passed or rejected them. Later it was reported they might spend the rest of the coming week finishing the markup. In the meantime the CBO scoring was released on the draft proposal of the bill with some startling conclusions as reported here and elsewhere earlier. Many thought the 1 to 1.6 trillion dollar price tag was excessive. Even more disturbing was the projection that about 50 million ‘non elderly’ individuals would be uninsured at the start of 2010 and 54 million would be at the end while a gain of insured would only increase by 10 million. So much for covering 95% of the population with this bill. But there are other significant obstacles with this government program as there are with many of them.

A transcript of the unveiling of this so-called healthcare reform provided the following statement from the Democrats involved. ‘President Obama’s asked us to draft the reform bill that will control cost, guarantee choice, and ensure quality and affordable health care coverage for all Americans.’ Since individuals would be required to obtain coverage or face a penalty the ‘guarantee choice’ element already seems in doubt. As for controlling costs, the CBO scoring, even with an incomplete proposal and certain caveats on the estimates, currently forecasts ‘On a preliminary basis, CBO and the JCT staff estimate that the major provisions in title I of the Affordable Health Choices Act affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net increase in federal deficits of about $1.0 trillion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019′ That doesn’t bode well for government meddling in healthcare. And the Americans polled by WSJ/NBC and NYT/CBS stated they were more concerned about deficits and government spending than boosting the economy or bailouts. That is why this blog suggests the polling result suggesting most Americans support government healthcare will not maintain that attitude once they understand what is being proposed.

Another note on guaranteeing choice is provided by the CBO report. This healthcare act would ‘Delegate authority to a Medical Advisory Council to establish minimum requirements for covered health benefits and to determine the level of coverage that individuals would need to obtain in order to qualify as having insurance.’ There’s another choice in selecting coverage that won’t be guaranteed. You have to have coverage to avoid a penalty and the government will tell you what the definition of coverage is.

And on the other side of the equation is at least one obstacle the insurers face. You may not feel that is your concern but essentially we’re all in this together if it is run by the government so yes, it is something that should concern you. ‘Require insurers to maintain a minimum level of medical claims paid relative to premium revenues (otherwise known as a “medical loss ratio”), or to repay certain amounts to policyholders; the HHS Secretary would have the authority to set the minimum medical loss ratio.’ Is it not enough that the government has spent your and your descendants money on bailouts, pork barrel spending and buying into private sector companies but now they will put you in debt for another trillion per year and tell the insurance companies how much they have to lose in a free market as well as what defines insurance coverage and quality care for you and your family?

If you are among the reported ‘most Americans’ who support government healthcare do you still feel that way after reading this post? This has just been a taste of what you can expect from Washington on healthcare reform and more will be posted here in the days ahead. You might want to express your concern to your elected representatives on this issue. Or you can just pay your share of a trillion per year and pass the rest on to your future generations as a little present. BTW, as legislation usually works the estimates are often a conservative forecast and changes will drive up costs even more.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here is a link to the written report