DOLLARS FOR DALLIANCES

I am rarely in agreement with the liberal establishment east of the Mississippi, but this time Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) have managed a brilliant scheme to lift us out of recession. Together they have initiated the Fudge-Frank Bill soon to be made law.

Odder still, our local newspaper and its pugnacious editor have scooped the story leaving ordinary newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal scrambling. If you missed the story on The Wet Mountain Tribune’s local web page, here it is in full:

Now that Cash for Clunkers has expired, Congress is examining a new stimulus program–Dollars for Dalliances.

This new program will allow both men and women to dump their spouses provided they have been married for at least 20 years. The government will provide a $5,000 rebate for legal expenses, thereby helping many financially strapped law firms struggling with the dearth of married couples able to afford a divorce. Additionally, through the official government web site www.citizenshipnow.gov the newly estranged men and women can connect with those seeking legal status in America.

Barney Frank, the co-sponsor of this measure, envisions the demand of housing to double as every dissolved family will create two new families, all seeking new accommodations.

Being modest and trying not to fudge the ramifications of this bill, the humble Congresswoman said, “The consequences will be humongous.”

“Encouraging long marriages to disintegrate will help the restaurant industry as newly formed relationships usually find their stride over a good dinner,” she said. Other dating-related businesses will flourish as well, including chocolatiers, florists, clothing and drug stores. Cosmetic surgeons are expecting a banner year.

Frank couldn’t be reached for comment but aides advised he was busy solving health care, reducing the national deficit and working hard to keep those pesky wind turbines out of Nantucket.

 

Disclaimer: Although Mr. Frank and Ms Fudge are Congressional Representatives, the above is satire and should be taken with a grain of salt. Or something.

 

 

HOT AIR, HEALTH CARE

Apart from certain lobbyists, everyone in America was excited about the prospect of health care reform. To me, this meant lowering my insurance premiums, alleviating the fight with my insurance company for reimbursement and reducing the price of prescription drugs.

For the 250 million people who are currently insured, these priorities suddenly morphed into a social and economic engineering program. Those of us with health insurance are in a de facto manner subsidizing the uninsured through higher premiums.

Reform was to create a more efficient plan for insuring people without coverage or those denied coverage, reducing the burden on the insured. Americans are the most generous people in the world and coaxing Americans to help those less fortunate has always proved successful. But, mandating—and legislating–this type of program has always been met with vehement opposition.

Transforming the health care system is too important to rush through with an imposed deadline. Before pushing a half-baked plan on the American taxpayer, proponents from the President through Congress should carefully review the myriad of options borne out of numerous committees. A lot of us doubt the administration and Congress have done this due diligence.

We are a country founded in a frenzy of anti-government sentiment and asking this country of individualists to relinquish control over something as personal as their health and to do so this quickly may be asking too much.

This administration might be better advised to start more slowly, to tackle problematic pieces of the health care system instead of the massive whole.

Making legislation is a dirtier job than mucking out a barn—and under this administration seems no cleaner. In the second quarter of 2009, lobbyists received more than $814 million from their clients to buy political influence. In turn, our legislature will draft favorable language so health care reform will not limit the profits of drug and insurance companies, the largest distributors of money to Congress.

In addition, most of us have lost faith in government’s ability to administer program costs effectively, produce promised results or adhere to budgets. In 1965 when Medicare Part A was launched, projections showed that by 1990 the total cost would be $9 billion. The actual cost in 1990 was $67 billion.

Not all government programs have been failures, but history is rife with examples of failed government projects; government’s recent meddling in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, the banks, commodity markets and financial institutions have given us no reason to believe that this time government will rise to the challenge efficiently.

The GAO and CBO have repeatedly stated that more than 20% of Medicare funds are lost through waste and fraud. Does it seem wise to put government in total control of the nation’s health care system? . The government is already littered with an abundance of supposed deficit-neutral programs. I don’t think this is the type of reform or change most voters and taxpayers had in mind.

Over the next 20 years, the number of people in America over 65 years of age will double. The anticipated stress on Social Security and Medicare has become a can that every administration has kicked down the road.

These are the kinds of issues plaguing independent-minded Americans as the President and members of Congress host town-hall forums about health care around the country.

Change is desperately needed, but reform should empower individuals, not the government or the insurance and drug industries.

 

 

REDUNDANT ABUNDANCE

 

I recently stopped at 7-11 and observed a customer buying a Big Gulp, which is the equivalent of a 32- or a 44-ounce soft drink depending on where your local convenience store is located. Now there is a 64-ounce version called the Super Big Gulp–two quarts of carbonated water, artificial flavor and about 30 teaspoons of sugar or another sweetener.

I began to wonder if the Super Big Gulp is emblematic of what’s wrong with the economy in this country. Bigger has become better and more has become marvelous. Size seems to matter regardless of any intrinsic value.

Americans have become unhinged from common sense and government has provided the tools helping to loosen those hinges.

After World War II our factories that had been vital for producing military hardware switched to making consumer goods. The only way to absorb such massive production was to encourage consumers with easy credit. Until the 1950’s the percentage of consumer credit in America remained fairly constant. Then in the 1960’s credit began a slow then rapid upward spiral. By 2000, we Americans had debt equaling 100% of our disposable income. By 2005 debt equaled 125% of disposable income. In 2008, credit card debt alone averaged more than $10,000/family.

Once consumerism was born it took over our economy and now is responsible for 70% of our GDP. To return to a balanced economy, we either need to produce more or consume less – neither option seems to be on our government’s agenda

Needless, reckless and often unnecessary spending has become an American hallmark and it is cradling us back to familiar territory. On an individual and government level, our overall resources may not be able to keep up with our desires. The financial collapse caused by excesses on Wall Street’s level can be played as the villain, but  loose and unabated consumer spending and federal largess is not the solution to the problem. Without a new normal, we are destined for higher interest rates and a debased dollar. This will have global along with domestic consequences, including a diminished standard of living for many Americans.

The financial system that nearly bankrupted our country in the Autumn of 2008 is not being changed but is simply getting a facelift.  With government prodding, we are trying to spend our way back to prosperity. Joe Biden recently said “that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law, the nation will go bankrupt, and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.”

For us Baby Boomers there is a measure of good news. Those over 55 years old control 60% of the wealth in this country and recent surveys show that we are not spending it. The savings rate in America has risen dramatically since the financial crisis due in large part to Boomers’ fear of impoverished retirements.

Smaller cars, smaller houses and less luxury, however, run contrary to the belief that the existing American dream of larger homes, multiple cars and gadgetry can continue forever. Will the country’s economic meltdown prompt Depression-era frugality? Not likely given our collective sense of entitlement. But if we continue drinking the Super Big Gulp, I hope eventually there is someone in line behind us who can pay for it.