If King George Will Not Listen

by Erick Erickson
03/26/2010

The threats, potential acts of violence, and violence against those who voted for the health care legislation must be condemned. They are neither helpful to those seeking repeal nor the acts of a civilized society. I comfortably say I speak for most if not all on the right condemning the violence and threats. The people who think this country has descended into the darkness do in fact send us down a dark path themselves with these actions.

Clear? Good.

Here comes the controversial part that still must be said: I have heard the audio of some of the threats. I get worse stuff routinely. Rush Limbaugh gets worse stuff on a daily basis. Republican members of Congress have gotten similar and worse stuff. Thank God this wasn't a free trade vote or a variety of left wing groups would have half the country in flames right now. I do believe the 24 hours of threats, many of which were pretty weak, has gotten more national coverage than the leftist anarchists in Texas who Molotov cocktailed the Texas Governor's Mansion — for which arrests have never been made.

I am forced to largely conclude that the Democrats are running to the nearest microphone in an effort to play the victim and generate sympathy as they try to steer poll numbers back in their direction. (See also Ann Althouse)
Some of it is very bad stuff. I don't want to underplay the bad. Some of it, however, is not. And some of it is overplayed. Like the press reports about protestors yelling racial epithets at Congressman Lewis, which video shows and reporters I've talked to confirm, did not happen, a lot of this is going to be overblown, but the media loves a good story. As one example of the over the top "violence on Democrats" stories went, people put a coffin near Russ Carnahan's (D-MO) home as a threat. Turns out it was for a prayer vigil.

But there is something else here.

There are a great many Americans who truly believe the Democrats shredded the constitution on Sunday night. Made more galling, the Democrats were pretty upfront that they were pushing it through before congressmen could go home and face their angry constituents every poll showed were opposed to this legislation. And only after the vote did the media really start talking about the taxes, the flexible spending account cuts, the pre-existing conditions loophole for kids, etc. — i.e. the bad stuff in the bill.

I've said for weeks I was a bit fearful of what would happen as a result. I sincerely pray we are not on the cusp of some group of angry and now unhinged mob lashing out at congressmen for a vote in the Congress. But something seems to be brewing and I frankly don't think the Democrats should at all be surprised. They were and they knew they were playing with fire to advance legislation many Americans see as the undoing of the American Experiment. Some of those Americans will now conclude that, like with the founders, if King George will not listen, King George must be fought.

Acts of violence against congressmen for behaving as congressmen are wholly inexcusable. We should be vigilant to police our own side because as we're already seeing through a series of breathless and inaccurate reports, the press and Democrats are going to be quick to run most any story and the retraction will never be as significant as the initial report.

But let's not act surprised. The only people surprised by the rage are the ones who refused to venture outside Washington to understand first hand what the voters were actually thinking before congressmen voted.

Frankly, after all the leadership threats and bullying against swing Democrats to vote for leadership, I think it is a bit ironic Democratic leaders are now decrying threats and bullying of swing state Democrats by their constituents who very clearly did not want them to vote as they did.

(© Human Events, http://www.humanevents.com. Reprinted by permission)

Will Obama Sacrifice SEAL Heroes?

Last September, three United States Navy SEALs, Matthew McCabe, from Perrysburg, Ohio, and Jonathan Keefe of Yorktown, Virginia, and Julio Huertas of Blue Island, Illinois, were sent into danger to capture Ahmed Hashim Abed, a Muslim terrorist who planned and carried out the kidnapping of four US contractors and their subsequent murders, mutilation, and burning back in March of 2004. They succeeded.

Keefe, and Huertas are due to go on trial in April, in Iraq of all places, for “Failing to safeguard a detainee”, McCabe to be court-martialed in May at Norfolk, Virginia, for allegedly punching Abed in the stomach. Their accuser is Ahmed Hashim Abed, the murdering Muslim.

Rep. Dan Burton, R-Indiana, sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, General Cleveland, and Admiral Roughead, which was also signed by who by forty other Representatives, requesting the charges against the three SEALs be dropped. It is distressing that Zack Space’s name was not among the forty US Representatives who signed Burton’s letter.

In response, Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, commander of Special Operations Command Central, in a letter to Burton stated, "The abuse of a detainee, no matter how minor, creates strategic repercussions that harm our nation's security and ultimately costs the lives of U.S. citizens." Repercussions? What does he think the Muslims are going to do? Behead their prisoners? Drag our dead soldiers naked through the streets? They have already done that. Or, is Cleveland following orders from higher up?

The military is subservient to the administration. They are responsible to the President, in this case, Obama. If Obama disagreed with Cleveland’s, and Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, who does not apparently oppose these court-martial proceedings, a word from him would cause them to disappear never to be heard again. That obviously hasn't happened.

I do not profess to have all the facts, but I do know this. These military men did the job they were assigned, did it voluntarily and efficiently. But to be put on trial by an accusation from the murderer of hundreds of Americans, as well as those of other countries, for an accusation of “he hit me”, is beyond belief.

Last Friday, at a pre-court-martial hearing, the military judge on the case, Commander Tierney Carlos, ordered the military prosecutor who is directing the case against McCabe, to grant immunity to SEALs, and others, who were present at the alleged incident and are expected to dispute the charge brought by a sailor who stated that he saw McCabe punch Ahmed Hashim Abed. This granting of immunity is important as one of those witnesses, Julio Huertas, who is being charged with dereliction of duty, impeding an investigation, and lying about McCabe’s actions.

I am distressed by this whole fiasco, but not surprised. Obama has shown his animosity toward the military in the past and will likely do so in the future.

Clerks Accept One-Percent Increase

New Philadelphia City Council met last night, March 22, 2010, and was given good news by Mayor Taylor, who met, at the request of Council, with the Clerical Union and, after some discussion, reached a tentative agreement on the Union's pending contract. The Clerical Union, Mayor Taylor reported, was willing to accept the City's offer of a one percent wage increase for the coming year. As readers may recall, the original contract called for a one-and-a-half percent increase, a figure which Council considered excessive. We appreciate and commend the effort and cooperation displayed by the Union and the Administration in helping to keep the city budget under control in these troubled times. Another negotiating meeting is scheduled to firm up the tentative agreement.

The Clerical Union has shown an understanding of the City's, and nation's dire financial positions. Of the four union units with which the Mayor has negotiated, only the Clerical Union did not put self-interest above that of New Philadelphia's citizenry. The other three demanded, and received, wage and benefit increases out of proportion with the City's budget requirements. That the economic crisis facing cities is severe was best illustrated last night when Safety Director Popham reported that there were 56 applicants who applied for the position of fire fighter being offered in New Philadelphia, all of whom passed the written exam. What he didn't say was that these applicants came from as far distant as the Cleveland area. The experience, and number, of the applicants is the result of other communities laying off personnel because of their cities inability to meet payrolls, a situation which may occur in New Philadelphia if the economy continues to worsen. Thanks again to both the Mayor and Clerical Union for their insight and concern.

Street paving and reconstruction filled much of the evening. A presentation was made by representatives of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding the widening of West High Street between Seventh Street, NW, and the railroad tracks. The plan presented last night, at the request of the City, is the addition of a third lane to be used as a turn lane. This would, according to ODOT, decrease the number of accidents which occur on that stretch of roadway, which average about 50 a year. The right-of-way would need to be widened approximately ten feet to accommodate the turn lane. This would require moving of sidewalks and the obtaining, by the city, of private property, some of which, possibly, by eminent domain. The project cost is estimated at $2,380,900, of which the City would be responsible for 20%. If approved, the proposed starting date would be sometime in 2013. It was proposed by ODOT spokesmen that the City could finance its costs through the State Infrastructure Bank, a State Of Ohio owned bank designed to loan money to municipalities for such projects. The loan would be for ten years at approximately three percent.

Other projects discussed were the widening of University Drive, installation of traffic lights at Fourth and Front, SW., and Wabash and Bowers, NW., and repainting of the downtown lamp posts.

Mr. Jim Zucal, Service Director, told Council that he was putting together a list of streets and alleys which needed resurfacing and requested suggestions from council members. If you know of streets or alleys which need repaving, contact your council representatives or call Mr. Zucal direct at 330-364-4491, extension 240. As the paving list is being compiled now, your promptness in calling is suggested. Mr. Zucal also reported that a new chain link fence was being installed around Springbrook Pond on the South Side, completing the cleaning and dredging project begun there last fall.

The public meeting with Quicksal concerning the revision of water rates, which was scheduled for March 31 has been rescheduled for April 6, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., in Council Chambers. This meeting will not only discuss changes in water rates. The quality of water the city provides will also be discussed. This meeting will be open to the public. If you have concerns about the water department, prices, quality of water, or questions of any sort, attend this session. It is your opportunity to find out what is going on and present your concerns.

Mr. John Zucal's Special/Contact Committee discussed, again, the Job Description for the Clerk of Council. By a vote of two yeas and one nay, Ms. Walker dissenting because of disagreement over wording as to who may direct the activities of the Clerk, Council or other city personnel, the issue was given to the Law Director to draw up a resolution approving the description for presentation to Council at the next meeting. Also discussed was a request for a liquor license for the Fuel Depot on East High Street. A request for a liquor license was assigned to the Special/Contact Committee for Dee's Restaurant, on Bowers NW., and will be considered prior to the next council meeting.

The next meeting of City Council is scheduled for April 12, 2010.

House Passed Medical Bill Fails

In case you missed it, the United States House of Representatives passed Obama's health care bill last night. After months of debate, it came down to seven votes in the House. Ohio's Representatives split down the middle, nine for and nine against, the surprising vote being that of Zack Space who broke from the Democratic Party and voted No. It was an interesting turnaround as Space generally votes the party line.

So what did we get? A lot of it is still a mystery, not only to me but to the Representatives who voted on the bill. One thing is sure however. It is going to cost a bundle, and you and I are going to pay for it

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost 875 billion dollars over the next ten years. The scary part is that if you don't want to buy health insurance, in four years you'll be fined seven hundred fifty dollars a year. We still don't know what it is going to cost to buy health insurance. If you work for a company with less than 50 employees, the company evidently won't have to provide insurance to you, so want it or not, as an employee, it is going to cost you a minimum of $750. Well, maybe, because if you can't afford it, there are going to be tax credits to help you but health insurance through a State agency. And folks making less than 133% of the federal poverty level will become eligible for Medicaid.

The House also decided to change Medicare. This plan will use the power of Federal money, obtained from the Medicare tax, to force doctors, hospitals and other private-sector medical providers to become "more efficient and provide better care". Wait a minute. The Federal Government is going to show private industry how to become more efficient and provide better services? Medicare Advantage, the country's largest health insurance plan, will probably lose in excess of 120-billion dollars in the next ten years and will cut back on benefits as a result.

Good news however for stay-at-homes, the "children", ages 25 and less, who will be allowed to stay on their parents policies. This change is to take place in six months.

If you run a small business with fewer than 25 employees, whose yearly wages average fifty thousand dollars, you will get tax credits to help pay off the mandatory insurance for your employees.

In six months all insurance coverage will be required to pay for preventative health care, all of it, which means annual physicals. Preexisting conditions will no longer exist. All children will be covered for all conditions. This will be accomplished thanks to states being given five billion dollars each to set up high risk pools. Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop people because of their claim history and benefits will last for a lifetime.

Effective July 1, the Medicare drug plan will mandate a 50% discount on name brand drugs for low-income old folks.

But wait. There's more. Not being satisfied with passing one bill, the House passed another, which is on it's way to the senate. This one would give tax credits to families who make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. For a family of two, this earning level $58,286 a year. For a family of four the eligible income level for tax credits is $88,100 or lower. By 2014, a cost cap of 9.4% of total income for insurance for those below 400% of the poverty level becomes effective.

The House would also add a 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income. Instead of the proposed 40%tax on employer provided medical insurance policies, the House would revise the penalty for employee failure to purchase medical insurance to $695 a year or 2 1/2 percent of the employee's income, which ever is higher. The fine for companies which do not provide "affordable" insurance to employees, will be increased to $2,000 an employee.

Well, Obama's Washington doesn't want you to worry. First of all, while the cost of the plan is nine hundred forty billion dollars over the next ten years, it will lower budget deficits by a hundred forty billion. That only increases the debt by $800,000,000,000. Yep, that's eight hundred billion. But wait! What happens to the $143 billion? I know. It is going to paid back to the taxpayer. Nah. It is going to be spent on some other government program, who knows what? Probably global warming research.

We should be filled with confidence that passage of the bill last night, and the one being sent to the Senate, will solve the problems currently abounding in a country with the best medical care available in the world. It will show those greedy companies which provided insurance for a profit of slightly over 3% the error of their ways. It will get those doctors who, to provide medical care to the sick who can't afford it, write off their costs, to understand their place in the medical profession.

Congress has the experience to make medical care in the United States better. They have the experience to control budgets. They have the knowledge to understand the desires of those who elected them. After all, it was Congress which passed the first Medicare and Medicaid bills, which had a 50% over-run the first year of their existence and have been in debt ever sense. It is Congress which pays thousands of dollars for hammers, millions for Pelosi's, and others, use of Air Force aircraft to go home on weekends. These are people of integrity, who just forgot to pay income taxes. These are people who don't understand that 65% of the people of the United States are against more government regulation, especially of medical services. These are the economists who don't understand that increased business expenses and more taxes don't create jobs.

The still unanswered question: Who's going to pay for this?

Makes yu' feel kinda proud of 'em, don't it.

New Philadelphia City Council Meets 3/22/10

New Philadelphia City Council meeting on March 22, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. There will be two committee meetings, the first being at 6:15, the second immediately following. For details, call the mayor's office.

Brady Campaign Continues Slide

On Friday, March 19, 2010, the following article was published by the NRA. I found it interestiang and thought you may as well.

The notion that lemmings deliberately hasten their demise by rushing into the sea may be a myth, but the anti-Second Amendment group and its spokesmen really are scurrying through a series of blunders that may hasten their steady march to irrelevancy.

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the group's two theories about the Second Amendment were rejected by the Supreme Court, one of them by five justices and the other by all nine. In 2009, they tried, with no success, to frighten America about tourists carrying guns for protection in national parks

This year, they've insulted their most powerful ally, President Obama, for not setting aside the economy, the war, and his social agenda to push for gun control legislation Congress does not support. They've given the states their worst "Brady grades" ever, even though violent crime continues to decrease. And, they've badgered the Starbucks coffee company for allowing customers to legally carry firearms in its stores.

This week, though, Brady lawyer Dennis Henigan—the world's most prolific advocate of the legal theories the Supreme Court sent to the shredder two years ago—further diminished the group's credibility by claiming "The evidence is overwhelming that the 'shall-issue' concealed carry laws have been a disaster for public safety. . . . [T]he scholarly research shows that the laws generally have been 'associated with uniform increases in crime.'

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

If he had just pushed himself away from the computer after his first four words, he would have been much better off. There's "evidence," all right, and it's certainly "overwhelming." Today, there are 36 states with "shall issue" laws—an all-time high. Sixty-three percent of Americans live in "shall issue" states, five million Americans have carry permits, and two states don't even require a permit to carry concealed.

"Uniform increases in crime"? The nation's violent crime rate is at a 35-year low. Since adopting "shall issue" laws, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia have had decreases in violent crime ranging from 26 to 53 percent.

Henigan also claimed to have 33,000 signatures on his anti-Starbucks online petition, which can be signed by anyone with a computer anywhere in the world. But in a country of five million carry permit holders, up to 80 million gun owners, and 300 million people, Brady's petition and $1.70 will get you …

Unemployment Statistics Explained, Sort Of

We hear a lot about unemployment, but from where do those figures come? It would seem that they would be based on number of folks on unemployment compensation. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, that is not the case. The numbers are determined by, are you ready for this, a government survey.

Sixty thousand households are polled each month, which means about 110,000 individuals are surveyed. None are polled for more than four consecutive months, then not sampled again for eight months, after which they are put back in the system for another four months. The selection of who gets called is made by the federal government, which also interprets the results, in an effort to determine how many people are working are working and how many aren't. According to the government, "the possible error resulting from the sampling is not large enough to distort the total unemployment picture."

The categories are pretty straight forward:
People with jobs are employed.
People without jobs are looking for a job, and are available for work are unemployed.
People who are not employed or unemployed are not in the labor force.

Some people aren't counted no matter what. Those in prison, nursing homes or mental institutions, and members of the armed forces, are eliminated, as are those 15 years old and younger.

Okay. So who's considered employed? Anybody who, during the survey week, worked at all, no matter how long, or short, for pay or profit, is employed. The boy across the street cut my lawn for a couple of dollars. He's employed. So are people who have jobs but didn't work during the survey week because they were on vacation, sick, have child care problems, maternity or paternity leave, out on strike, or didn't work because of bad weather. It doesn't matter if they were paid or not, they're still considered employed. If your husband has a business and you help out during the week, you're employed even if you don't get paid.

Who is unemployed? If you don't have a job, but have looked for one in the past four weeks and are available to work, you're unemployed. Looking for a job, in this case, means you have contacted an employer or had a job interview, have been in touch with an employment agency, have talked to friends or relatives, been to a school or university employment center, are sending out resumes or filling out applications, placing or answering advertisements, checking with union or professional registers, or contacted some other means of job placement. If you are on a temporary layoff, but expect to be recalled, you are unemployed whether or not you have been looking for another job.

Then there are people not in the labor force. These folks fit into one of two categories. The first is termed "marginally attached to the labor force". They haven't looked for a job in the past four weeks. Some are going to school, retired, or have "family responsibilities" which keep them from working. They are jobless, are not currently looking for work, but have, in the last 12 months, looked for, or held, a job. They must be available for work to be termed marginally attached.

The second category for people not in the labor force, are called "Discouraged Workers." A discouraged worker is one who is not currently looking for work because: 1) they believe there is no job available in their line of work; 2) they have not been able to find work; 3) they lack the needed skills or experience; and, 4) employers feel they are too young, too old, or turn them down because of some type of discrimination.

Oops. Almost forgot about "seasonal fluctuations." The building trades, for example, tend to taper off during the winter months, as do the needs for ground keepers. This happens every year, so government numbers crunchers don't count them in the survey. I guess the logic is that unemployment change can't be determined as folks who are unemployed due to seasonal conditions aren't a factor to overall unemployment, even if they aren't working.

That being said, where does the government go to make these surveys? There are 7,300 areas the government uses, collectively called Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), to gather figures. These areas are Census Regions and Divisions, States, Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan NECTAs (New England City and Town areas), Metropolitan Divisions and NECTAs, Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan NECTAs, Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Combined NECTAs, Small Labor Market Areas, Counties and county equivalents, Cities of 25,000 population and more, Cities and towns in New England regardless of population. Seems to rely heavily on New England.

What about unemployment insurance? The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not use those figures, which are maintained by the Employment and Training Agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, for a number of reasons. The numbers of those on unemployment insurance exclude unemployed workers who have used up their benefits, those who have not been employed long enough to have earned unemployment benefits, those who have lost jobs because of their own actions such as being fired for misconduct, and others who do not file for benefits.

So, how are unemployment numbers finally determined? Through number crunchers and bean counters. How accurate are they? Only as good as the counters are. Do they give an indication of the employment situation in the country? Probably. But with the experience we have had of late with projections coming from the capitol, the old adage of figures never lie but liars figure, might cause some concern.

Consumers' Remorse

When I was little, adages were popular. For the younger generation, an adage is a saying, a proverb, if you will. Most of them were pretty good even if you had to figure them out, which sometimes took some thought.

Recently this one came to mind. Buy it new, wear it out, fix it up or do without. The mere fact that it came to mind is an indication of how our society has changed. Fix it up is no longer a priority. It used to be, twenty or more years ago, that you bought something with the expectation was that it would last for years. It wasn't unusual that things would last a lifetime. Sure, they may have had to be fixed or repaired a number of times, but they worked, sometimes for generations. Well, times have changed.

I had a pair of shoes, wing-tips, if you are old enough to remember shoes before they went to canvas and plastic. Had them about four years, only wore them for church, business meetings, nights out, that sort of thing. They didn't get a lot of use. A couple of weeks ago the sole wore out. A hole appeared in one shoe sole. No big deal, I thought. I'll go to the shoemaker and he put on a new set of soles and heels and bingo, a new pair of shoes. No so.

I went to the shoe repair shop in New Philadelphia and was told that the shoes could not be repaired. Seems that the stitching which held the soles and heels onto the shoe required a special stitching machine which he didn't have. Cost a bundle to purchase. Turns out no shoe repair shop in this part of Ohio has such a machine. Okay. So now I have a pair of shoes in great condition, shined up, ready to go, but with soles like Adlai Stevenson's. If you weren't around in 1950s you probably don't remember him. I needed a pair of shoes, so headed for the mall.

I'm a guy, so that shouldn't take that long. I knew what I wanted. Cordovan wing-tips, size 9 1/2 D. First store we went to, took the wife along, had hundreds of shoes but no wing-tips. Matter of fact they had all sorts of other shoes, but nothing in a size 9 1/2 D. The sales gal looked at me and asked, "What is a 9 1/2 D? Our shoes only come in small, medium, large, and extra large. I never heard of D." Obviously, she hadn't been in the shoe business all that long. Shoe widths used to come in sizes from AAA, which were very narrow, to EEEE, which were really wide. I had a friend who wore a 12 EEE shoe. They looked like rowboats. They were so big that he was almost rejected by the Army during the war because there was a question if the Army could supply shoes in that size. They could and he thought his tour of duty in the Pacific was "interesting".

Next store had leather. When I asked for cordovan I got another blank look. "Gee," the sales gal said. "I don't think I have heard of that brand." I explained to her that cordovan wasn't a brand, it was a color. She said she had shoes which were black, brown, and one or two in gray, but never heard of cordovan. Obviously she had never heard of the Marine Corps either.

Finally ended up at a clothing store on High Street and settled for a pair of shoes which were not wing-tips, not cordovan but infra-red brown in color, couldn't be resoled, had shoe strings which were nine inches too long, were 9 1/2 medium in size, and made in China for the Hush Puppy Company. They also cost a bundle. A few years ago, I could have had the old ones resoled and saved sixty-five dollars in the deal. It was getting on to cocktail hour, a time of day that was really needed after shoe shopping, so out came the credit card.

But that's not the worst of it. We had two VCR players. They were ten and twelve years old. While most everything now is on DVD, a big improvement over tape, we have one large stack of tapes which contain a lot of family history. You know what is coming, right? Within a month of each other both VCRs broke. They wouldn't even turn on let alone play. After a number of phone calls we came to the realization that one, they have no value because two, they can't be repaired. So what to do? The options are limited. Buy a new VCR, throw them away, or give them to our friends Jim and Sandy for use as boat anchors. The first choice won't work because plain VCRs are hard to find. You can get combination VCR and DVD players and recorders. I don't need a another DVD player but may be forced into buying one. Not a good deal for me as a consumer.

We bought a Bose CD player five or six years ago. It worked so well that we bought one for the office and a multi-CD player which will play three additional CDs. The first one still works fine. The second one has developed a problem. It doesn't play CDs. I called Bose for help. The accessory player not only didn't play a CD, but was hungry as well, and tried to eat it. Bose told me that the warranty had expired so there wasn't a lot they could do to help. If I would send it in, they would take a look at it and try to get the CD out. There would be a minimum charge. No, they said, there is no shop locally which can fix it, it has to be done by Bose. The minimum charge, which was shocking, and shipping and handling, helped make the decision to throw caution to the wind, grab a screw driver, and get the CD out myself. A friend of mine who has a complete Bose home music center, which has six speakers and cost about the same as a Caddy, had one of his speakers go out. He called Bose about getting it fixed or getting a replacement. Bose told him no, he couldn't do either. Some modifications had been made to the speakers and the new ones are not compatible with the old system. More boat anchors.

Now the surprising part about this is that folks evidently don't care. If it doesn't work, buy a new one. That way you get all the neat things you don't need, that will cost more, last less, and give you more frustration and trouble. We live in a throwaway society, not by accident, but by design. Folks today accept this as a way of life, albeit a very expensive way of life.

Children have been taught that money is expendable, that planning for the future isn't important. Businesses have lost concern for consumer needs, placing profit before quality. Manufacturers have discarded quality products for cheap products with made with minimal quality control. Retailers accept poorly manufactured goods on the premise that if there are problems with what they sell, they will take them back without question, eat the loss which will be paid for by their markup, or hope they will get reimbursed by the wholesaler.

And who pays the bill for all this? The consumer. Buy it new, wear it out, fix it up or do without? Forget it. That died when we lost pride in our work, our ethics, ourselves, and our country.

Health Care In A Free Society

The following is adapted from a speech delivered by Paul Ryan, on January 13, 2010, in Washington, D.C., at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship. Paul Ryan is in his sixth term as a member of Congress, representing Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. He is a graduate of Miami University in Ohio.



Someone once said that before there was the New Deal, there was the Wisconsin Deal. In my home state, the University of Wisconsin was an early hotbed of progressivism, whose goal was to reorder society along lines other than those of the Constitution. The best known Wisconsin progressive in American politics was Robert LaFollette. “Fighting Bob,” as he was called, was a Republican—as was Theodore Roosevelt, another early progressive. Today we tend to associate progressivism mostly with Democrats, and trace it back to Woodrow Wilson. But it had its roots in both parties.

The social and political programs of the progressives came in on two great waves: the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Today, President Obama often invokes progressivism and hopes to generate its third great wave of public policy. In thinking about what this would mean, we need look no farther than the health care reform program he is promoting along with the leadership in Congress.

Let me say here at the beginning that even though after survey shows that 75 percent or more of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care, no one I know in Congress denies that health care reform is needed. Everyone understands that health care in our country has grown needlessly expensive, and that some who want coverage cannot afford it. The ongoing debate over health care, then, is not about whether there should be reform; it is about what the principle of that reform ought to be.

Under the terms of our Constitution, every individual has a right to care for their health, just as they have a right to eat. These rights are integral to our natural right to life—and it is government's chief purpose to secure our natural rights. But the right to care for one's health does not imply that government must provide health care, any more than our right to eat, in order to live, requires government to own the farms and raise the crops.

Government's constitutional obligations in regard to protecting such rights are normally met by establishing the conditions for free markets—markets which historically provide an abundance of goods and services, at an affordable cost, for the largest number. When free markets seem to be failing to meet this goal—and I would argue that the delivery of health care today is an example of where this is the case—government, rather than seeking to supply the need itself, should look to see if its own interventions are the root of the problem, and should make adjustments to unleash competition and choice.

With good reason, the Constitution left the administration of public health—like that of most public goods—decentralized. If there is any doubt that control of health care services should not have been placed in the federal government, we need only look at the history of Medicare and Medicaid—a history in which fraud has proliferated despite all efforts to stop it and failure to control costs has become a national nightmare. In 1966 the cost of Medicare to the taxpayers was about $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that it would cost $12 billion (adjusted for inflation) by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was nearly nine times that—$107 billion. By 2009 Medicare costs reached $427 billion, with Medicaid boosting that by an additional $255 billion. And this doesn't take into account the Medicaid expansion in last year's “stimulus.

The health care reform bills that emerged from the House and the Senate late last year would only exacerbate this crisis. The federal takeover of health care that those bills represent would subsume approximately one-sixth of our national economy. Combined with spending at all levels, government would then control about 50 percent of total national production.

The good news is that we have a choice. There are three basic models for health care delivery that are available to us: (1) today's business-government partnership or “crony capitalism” model, in which bureaucratized insurance companies monopolize the field in most states; (2) the progressive model promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders, in which federal bureaucrats tell us which services they will allow; and (3) the model consistent with our Constitution, in which health care providers compete in a free and transparent market, and in which individual consumers are in control.

We are urged today—out of compassion—to support the progressive model; but placing control of health care in the hands of government bureaucrats is not compassionate. Bureaucrats don't make decisions about health care according to personal need or preference; they ration resources according to a dollar-driven social calculus. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the administration's point people on health care, advocates what he calls a “whole life system”—a system in which government makes treatment decisions for individuals using a statistical formula based on average life expectancy and “social usefulness.” In keeping with this, the plans that recently emerged from Congress have a Medicare board of unelected specialists whose job it would be to determine the program's treatment protocols as a method of limiting costs.

President Obama said in December: “If we don't pass [this health care reform legislation]...the federal government will go bankrupt, because Medicare and Medicaid are on a trajectory that are [sic] unsustainable....” On first hearing, this argument appears ludicrous: We must stop the nation from going broke by enacting a program costing $800 billion or more in its first decade alone? On the other hand, if the President means what he says, there is only one way to achieve his stated goal under the new program: through deep and comprehensive government rationing of health care.

The idea that the government should make decisions about how long people should live and who should be denied care is something that Americans find repugnant. As is true of the supply of every service or product, the supply of health care is finite. But it is a mistake to conclude that government should ration it, rather than allowing individuals to order their needs and allocate their resources among competing options. Those who are sick, special needs patients, and seniors are the ones who will be most at risk when the government involves itself in these difficult choices—as government must, once it takes upon itself management of American health care.

The very idea of government-run health care conflicts with the American idea of a free society and the constitutional principles underlying it—the principles of individual rights and free markets. And from a practical perspective it makes no sense, given that our current health care system is the best in the world—even drawing patients from other advanced countries that have suffered by adopting the government-run model.

But if one begins with the idea that health care reform to reduce costs should be guided by the principles of economic and political liberty, what would such reform look like? Four changes to the current system come immediately to mind.

One, we should equalize the tax treatment of people paying for health care by ending the current discrimination against those who don't get health insurance from their jobs—in other words, everyone paying for health care should receive the same tax benefits.

Two, we need high-risk insurance pools in the states so that those with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage that is not prohibitively expensive, and so that costs in non-high-risk pools are stabilized. To see the value of this, consider a pool of 200 people in which six have pre-existing heart disease or cancer. Rates for everyone will be through the roof. But if the six are placed in a high-risk pool and ensured coverage at an affordable rate, the risk profile of the larger pool is stabilized and coverage for the remaining 194 people is driven down.

Three, we need to unlock existing health care monopolies by letting people purchase health insurance across state lines—just as they do car insurance and other goods and services. This is a simple and obvious way to reduce costs.

Four, we need to establish transparency in terms of costs and quality of health care. In Milwaukee, an MRI can cost between $400 and $4,000, and a bypass surgery between $4,700 and $100,000. Unless the consumer is able to compare prices and quality of services—and unless he has an incentive to base choices on that information, as he does in purchasing other goods and services—there is not really a free market. It would go a long way to solve our health care problems to recreate one.

These four measures would empower consumers and force providers—insurers, doctors, and hospitals—to compete against each other for business. This works in other sectors of our economy, and it will work with health care.

So why can't we agree on them? The answer is that the current health care debate is not really about how we can most effectively bring down costs. It is a debate less about policy than about ideology. It is a debate over whether we should reform health care in a way compatible with our Constitution and our free society, or whether we should abandon our free market economic model for a full-fledged European-style social welfare state. This, I believe, is the true goal of those promoting government-run health care.

If we go down this path, creating entitlement after entitlement and promising benefits that can never be delivered, America will become like the European Union: a welfare state where most people pay few or no taxes while becoming dependent on government benefits; where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in welfare than in producing wealth; where high unemployment is a way of life and the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by webs of regulation.

America today is not as far from this tipping point as we might think. While exact and precise measures cannot be made, there are estimates that in 2004, 20 percent of households in the U.S. were receiving about 75 percent of their income from the federal government, and that another 20 percent were receiving nearly 40 percent of their income from federal programs. All in all, about 60 percent of U.S. households were receiving more government benefits and services, measured in dollars, than they were paying back in taxes. It has also been estimated that President Obama's first budget alone raises this level of “net dependency” to 70 percent.

Looked at in this way, I see health care reform of the kind promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders as part of a crusade against the American idea. This is a dramatic charge, but the only alternative is that they are ignorant of the consequences of their proposed programs. The national health care exchange created by their legislation, together with its massive subsidies for middle-income earners, would represent the greatest expansion of the welfare state in our country in a generation—and possibly in history. According to recent analysis, the plan would provide subsidies that average a little less than 20 percent of the income of people earning up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. In other words, as many as 110 million Americans could claim this new entitlement within a few years of its implementation. In addition to the immediate massive increase in dependency this would bring on, the structure of the subsidies—whereby they fade out as income rises—would impose a marginal tax penalty that would act as a disincentive to work, increasing dependency even more.

And before I conclude, allow me to clear up a misperception about insurance exchanges: it makes absolutely no difference whether we have 50 state exchanges rather than a federal exchange, as long as the federal government is where the subsidies for consumers will be located. In other words, despite what some seem to believe, both the House and the Senate versions of health care reform set up a system in which, if you are eligible and you want a break on your insurance premium, it is the federal government that will provide it while telling you what kind of insurance you have to buy. In this sense, the idea of state exchanges instead of a federal exchange is a distinction without a difference.

Americans take pride in self-government, which entails providing for their own well-being and the well-being of their families in a free society. In exchange for this, the promoters of government-run health care would make them passive subjects, dependent on handouts and far more concerned about security than liberty. At the heart of the conflict over heath care reform, as I said at the beginning, are two incompatible understandings of America: one is based on the principles of progressivism, and would place more and more aspects of our lives under the administration of unelected “experts” in federal bureaucracies; the other sees America as a society of free individuals under a Constitution that severely limits what the federal government can rightfully do.

We have seen many times over the past 100 years that the American people tend to be resistant to the progressive view of how we should reform our system of government—and I believe we are seeing this again today. Americans retain the Founders' view that a government that seeks to go beyond its high but limited constitutional role of securing equal rights and establishing free markets is not progressive at all in the literal sense of that word—rather it is reactionary. Such a government seeks to privilege some Americans at the expense of others—which is precisely what the American Revolution was fought to prevent.

Americans understand that the problems facing our health care system today, real as they are, can be addressed without nationalizing one-sixth of the American economy and moving us past the tipping point toward a European-style social welfare state. They know that we can solve these problems while at the same time remaining a free society and acting consistently with the principles that have made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth. It is our duty now as their representatives to come together and do so.


(Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College)

Clerical Union Contract Part 2

Monday, March 8, was another one of those nights at City Hall. The good news is that City Council won't have to go through another union contract session this year. Well, maybe not. With this administration and the realignment of City Council, anything can happen.

The contract for city employees, the clerical workers, came to what appears to be its final stage last night when Council voted not to accept it. It wasn't the vote which was so disturbing, but how that vote came about. (To get part one of this story, take a look at the Blog "Wage Increases Strain City Budget", published March 2, 2010.) After failing to get a decision on resolutions to accept or reject the Clerical contract a week ago, the resolutions came up on the floor again last night for a final vote.

There were two resolutions. The first to accept the Clerical Contract, was defeated by a four to three vote, those voting against acceptance being Ms. Cox, Ms. Espenschied, Ms. Walker, and Mr. Lautenschleger, those voting to accept it being Mr. Locker, Mr. Maurer, and Mr. Zucal. The second resolution, to reject the Clerical Contract, was passed by a five to two vote. Those voting to reject the contract being Ms. Cox, Ms. Espenschied, Mr. Lautenschleger, Mr. Locker, and Ms. Walker, while those voting to accept the contract being Mr. Maurer and Mr. Zucal

Whoa. Wait a minute. It happened again. Councilman Locker voted both ways, to accept the contract on the first resolution, but to reject the contract on the second resolution. What's going on?

Messrs Maurer and Zucal voted for acceptance of the Clerical Contract because of the cost of a fee, quoted by both, of $5,000, which would be paid if the contract went to fact finding. They expressed their concern that the money would, for all intents and purposes, be wasted as past experience indicated that a Fact Finder would rule in favor of the union and $5,000 would have been spent for nothing

So what happens now? Mayor Taylor requested a special meeting of Council, Tuesday, March 16, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss changes it would recommend if another negotiating meeting can be arranged with Clerical Union representatives.

The Mayor should by this time recognize that neither he, nor any member of his administration is capable of negotiating union contracts. He has failed completely in three cases, Fire, Police, Maintenance, to protect the city from wage and benefit increases which are unique in municipal budgets during this period of economic disaster, and is only moments away from a fourth. He does not understand that it is not City Council's responsibility to negotiate these contracts, their responsibility is limited to advice and consent.

Advice and consent. The advice part he doesn't understand. If he did why is he requesting another meeting with Council so they can advise him "of what changes they would like to see." What went on in the executive session of last week? It lasted over an hour and was called to discuss the Clerical Union contract before a vote on the council floor. Can it be that council members did not express their concerns at that time? And if they did, should not the Mayor know what changes they thought necessary?

Trying to involve City Council in the negotiation of any contact is no more than an attempt to shift responsibility away from where it belongs, the Administration. In trying to shift responsibility which belongs solely to the Mayor brings back memories of when Mr. Taylor was running for his present office in 2007. He spoke before a group of downtown merchants and blamed the lack of planning for downtown New Philadelphia on City Council. He evidently didn't understand the system then and he surely doesn't understand it now.

The administration, and some council members, are unable to understand the fallacy, and stupidity, of making financial commitments which the city may not be able to meet in future years. The path they have set us on is based on the political credo that "it's not my money, so who cares?" They fail to recognize that unemployment is up and statements from the federal government that last month's job losses were "only 36,000" is not a good omen to New Philadelphia's economic health.

How long can we afford to spend money we cannot guarantee will become available over the coming years? How long could you, as a citizen, exist following the current fiscal policies of New Philadelphia government?

Wage Increases Strain Tight City Budget

Last night, Monday, March 1, 2010, many New Philadelphia City Council members displayed a lack of understanding of financial affairs when they considered contracts for the clerical and maintenance workers of the city. Not only did their action on those contracts increase the probability of the city falling into default, but also set the stage for layoffs of city employees, decreased city services, and lower levels of protection from both the Fire and Police Departments.

The Council failed in its responsibility to protect the residents of New Philadelphia when it refused to reject contracts for the clerical workers and the service, maintenance, and technical employees unions of the city. Even worse, their deliberations on those contracts were done in an unnecessary Executive Session, whose only purpose seemed to be hiding the true costs and dangers of accepting the proposed contracts. What transpired in that Executive Session should remain unknown except to those who participated in it, but the results were evident when Council resumed its public deliberations.

The two Union contracts were brought to the floor for a vote. Each contract had two resolutions assigned to it, one to accept the contract, one to reject it. Each contract resolution was brought to the floor as an emergency, which requires the council rules to be waived before any action can be taken. Six council members must agree to any action brought to the floor requiring a waiving of the rules. There were only six members of Council present, Ms. Espenscheid, Ward One Councilman, was absent.

The final result to all four Resolutions concerning the union contracts was a pass. Without the required votes, of which five were required, Council took no action. The agreement between the City of New Philadelphia and the Service, Maintenance and Technical Employees Union will go into effect the end of this week by default. The contract with the Clerical Union will be brought up in Council at its regular meeting on March 8, but will more than likely become effective by default because of inaction on the part of council Members.

A number of concerns were expressed on both contracts. Mr. Lautenschleger stated his concern about the City being able to keep the General Fund within budget because of pay increases contained in both contracts. He felt that if the contracts were rejected and referred to a Fact Finder, the next step, with proper and adequate representation by the City, the Fact Finder would understand the gravity of the City's financial situation and reduce the wage increases to a more realistic level. Ms. Cox expressed her concern as the future financial condition of the country being uncertain at this time, there was no certainty that the City would be able to meet its General Fund obligations in the future.

Two questions were asked from the floor by Bob Conner, who requested the total additional cost of salaries and benefits paid to workers covered by the contracts. He also asked if the four clerks, who were specifically denied a nine cent per hour bonus paid to clerical personnel in the last contract, were included in the nine cent per hour bonus being paid by this contract.

City Auditor Gundy replied that increased cost for the Service and Maintenance contract was $46,631, for the Clerical the increase was $10,585, both beginning on January 1, 2010. Conner asked Gundy if base wages for employees went up, did not the cost of city paid benefits based on salary, such as retirement, medicare, and similar benefits, also increase. Gundy replied that she only worked up base wage increases, that other costs related to wage increases were not considered. Conner asked the Council President if it would not be possible that Gundy provide the entire cost of the increased costs to the city.

The Auditor offered no further response to either question.

The concern about these contracts is the ability of the City of New Philadelphia to pay the wages they mandate. The Administration's statement that the Clerical contract is limited to a 1.5 % wage increase is inaccurate. Article 28 of that contract reports a base wage rate of 1.5% but fails to consider "a $.09 per hour allowance in addition to the base rates". This "allowance" increases wages in the Clerical contract to a high of 2.41%, with an average wage increase for this contract alone being 2.15%.

Mr. Maurer, Councilman of Ward Four stated he was against rejection of the contracts, as, if rejected they would be sent to a Fact Finder. The expense of paying a Fact Finder, $5,000 by his estimate, would be an unnecessary expense to the City as past experience has shown that fact finding rulings would probably favor the Unions in any event.

In the end, City Council failed to approve or reject either of the contracts last Monday. The Service, Maintenance and Technical Employees' contract will become effective by week's end. The Ohio Revised Code allows Council 30 days in which to approve or reject a union contract before it becomes effective by default. Those days expire Thursday. The Clerical contract will be be considered on the floor next Monday, March 8, as a No vote was cast by Ward One Councilman John Zucal to suspend the rules on a resolution to reject the Clerical Contract preventing further action by Council.

The debacle last Monday evening must be shared by the Administration. For its part, the Administration did not learn from the disaster of the Police and Fire Departments contract negotiations last fall. The lesson which should have been learned, that negotiations should not be left in the hands of amateurs, seems to have been lost. Hiring of a competent lawyer, one with proper training, knowledge, and experience dealing with union negotiators is essential to protect the interests of the City.

Mayor Taylor stated that he thought the agreements with the Unions were as good as the City could achieve and expressed optimism that the economy would improve so the wage increases would not create a problem. Taylor commented that if the economy did not improve and financing became a problem, the solution would be to cut back on city personnel and services. Another option may be what he promised when he was campaigning for election three years ago, when he said he would raise taxes should the city experience financial difficulties.

It was an interesting evening.

(Editor's Note: For the record, the following statistics:

Voted Yes to Accept the Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Jim Locker, At Large
Voting No to Accept the Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 3; Sandy Cox, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large

Voted Yes to Reject Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Sandy Cox, At Large; Jim Locker, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted No to Reject Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4

Voted Yes to Adopt the Clerical Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Jim Locker, At Large
Voted No to Adopt the Clerical Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Sandy Cox, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large

Voted Yes to waive the rules to allow a vote to reject the Clerical Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Sandy Cox, At Large; Jim Locker, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted No to waive the rules to allow a vote to reject the Clerical Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2

Absent from the council Meeting: Colleen Espenschied, Ward 1)