Aiming at a society that shall be “an average drawn upon zeroes,” he knows exactly why he corrupts Peter Keating, and explains his methods to the ruined young man in a passage that is a pyrotechnical display of the fascist mind at its best and its worst; the use of the ideal of altruism to destroy personal integrity, the use of humor and tolerance to destroy all standards, the use of sacrifice to enslave.

The President has no clothes.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

The economics and political communities have recently gone bonkers arguing over details of a study that concluded economic growth declines as national debt reaches 90 percent of annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). An acknowledged math error in the analysis is being used by Keynesians (borrowers and spenders) to undermine the credibility of the study. John Mauldin wrote a useful summary here.

I think something is missing in this supposed controversy, that being both common sense and reality.

Any analysis about the relationship between national debt and GDP is meaningless in the absence of accountability for the use of the debt and the means of paying it off.

If we borrow money to build a bridge that carries freight for 100 years faster than could be done in the absence of the bridge we have a winner. The carrying cost of the debt is expected to be more than offset over time by the efficiency (GDP growth) offered by the bridge. The same argument is made in support of the 1980′s military buildup credited with causing the Soviet Union to evaporate, leading to a very real peace dividend in the 1990′s as military spending contracted while the US economy grew like a daisy in Spring and the nation had annual budget surpluses from 1998 through 2001.

Borrowing money to expand food stamps to 20 million more people (which has been done) has saddled current and future productive citizens with the burden of principle and interest for the term of the borrowing in exchange for current consumption for those 20 million more people without any possibility of long term improvement in economic efficiency (GDP growth). Money borrowed to pay for the expansion of food stamp recipients comes out of thin air but needs to be repaid with the product of productive enterprise in the form of future taxes that will be taken out of the private economy later. Any GDP impact of expanded food stamp consumption now is necessarily reversed upon taxation of productive endeavor to pay off the borrowing later.

This reality leaves us with anticipation of the BANG!, that being the point at which the level of debt and its use to fund current consumption on the backs of a dwindling supply of current and future productive citizens undermines the credibility of the currency to the point where the lenders go away, charge higher rates of interest, or simply don’t exist because they have put themselves in the same position.

What is it again that underlies the assured value of sovereign debt? Nothing much.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Search for “FAA” today and you get a ream of reports claiming airport delays resulting from budget sequestration. Mr. Obama is actually responsible for these delays.

Turns out the FAA 2013 budget is $15.9 billion and that the Department of Transportation that oversees the FAA claims FAA has to cut about $1.0 billion (6.3%) on an annual basis under sequestration rules. The FAA would rather cut air traffic controllers than delay capital funding of some of the $3 billion in Facilities and Equipment and Research, Engineering and Development accounts, as well as trim other accounts. The focus of the cuts selected is clearly engineered for political effect as any responsible manager with any experience would prioritize current customer needs against long term investments in a time of budgetary constraint.

This is all further suspect because Congress offered Mr. Obama the ability to increase the flexibility of budget cuts called for in the original sequestration rules and Mr. Obama declined. The only reason Mr. Obama declined responsibility is so he could blame someone else for the priorities his administration chose to implement.

Mr. Obama is intentionally causing airport delays in an effort to inflict pain. This is nothing less than an act of political terrorism, creating fear and uncertainty with intentional malice and try to harm as many innocent civilians as possible to score political points.

The Wall Street Journal adds some relevant facts to this reality but is less clear than I with regard to the intent.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Understand clearly that bank regulations and government money printing have nothing really to do with human interchange (the fundamental force driving economics) and everything to do with the politics of satisfying constituents dependent on various forms of welfare (from corporate cronyism to food stamps).

Here is a juxtaposition worth consideration.

If you put your life savings in a Cyprus bank in 2008 you would have earned a modest amount of interest, now had at least 40% of your “uninsured” deposits confiscated by a European Union regulator to repay the pain caused by your Cyprus bank “investing” your deposits in supposedly “safe” Greek bonds, whose value was earlier propped up by the fact that the Greek government outright lied about their finances while the European Union regulator now confiscating your money forgot to check. Read that again.

You would have been better off putting your money in LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (MC.PA), a company that sells arguably frivolous and overpriced merchandize to people who value status more than substance. One could argue that LVMH is the most risky of investments because the stuff it sells is not essential or even needed, yet, the common stock of the company has grown from $85 USD per share in April 2007 to over $133 USD per share in April 2013 (an 8% annual return) and currently pays a 2.2% annual dividend. LVMH is not regulated by anything other than its credibility with its customers.

Hmmmm…..

Now, if you live in the United States you can certainly put your savings in a bank, but keep in mind that Mr. Bernanke’s assurances that your money is “insured” is based solely on his ability to inflate the money supply while he pays you nothing for incurring the risk (or is it a certainty?) that he is devaluing your savings by doing so. So where do you put your money when the government prints $85 billion a month in new money (now over $3 trillion in money printing) used to purchase bonds in the open market for the known purpose of manipulating interest rates in an effort to force private savers to take risk? This is a circular game that compounds and delays the consequences of the uncertainty engendered by the policy.

Herein lies the social justification for a strong currency. A currency that has a proven reputation for holding its value exactly because the government issuing the currency does not lie, does not borrow beyond its means, and does not print money stabilizes the value of private savings and increases trust needed to justify private risk taking, thereby creating jobs and opportunity for those willing to work.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Let’s see… supra-state regulators pull a cram down on Cyprus banks depositors without warning in order to get paid for the lax and incompetent actions of the supra-state regulators.

This is extraordinary and foreshadows tactics we can expect from statist economies run not by the interaction of free individuals in free markets but by regulators. In this case regulators are desperate to recover money from innocent bank depositors and crooks alike.

In the face of actual confiscation in Cyprus it cannot be paranoid to fear its presence. Where is your money and what assurances do you have that some state apparatus won’t simply order that 10% of your bank deposits be turned over to them on Tuesday morning?

What circumstances can lead to such over reach and what can we do to assure it does not happen to us?

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Perhaps one of the most challenging questions we’ll face this Session is whether we should expand Medicaid.

Let me start by saying, I know this is a very difficult issue.

Passions will run high and principles will clash within this chamber.

On the matter of expansion, allow me to depart from the message of the House for a moment, and speak to you about my personal views.

First of all, let me say, I believe in the safety net.

My family has benefited from the safety net.

As many of you know, I grew up in a family of nine children. My father was self-employed and did the best he could to provide for us but we never had health insurance. We could never afford health insurance.

My baby brother Peter was diagnosed with cancer when he was 13 months old. He was in and out of the hospital for seven months.

My Mom and Dad basically lived at the Ronald McDonald House – because they couldn’t afford to stay in a hotel.

After two major surgeries, Peter lost his battle with cancer and my father found himself with a mountain of medical bills that he could never afford to pay.

It was the safety net that picked my father up.

It was the safety net that picked my family up.

I will continue to believe in – and fight for – a strong safety net for Florida.

Because the measure of our state is not how well we take care of the rich, but how well we take care of the sickest and weakest among us.

But Members, I also firmly believe that a government that grows too big, becomes too intrusive, and fosters too much dependency will threaten our liberty, our freedom and our prosperity.

Members — I am opposed to Medicaid expansion because I believe it crosses the line of the proper role of government

I believe it forces Florida to expand a broken system that we have been battling Washington to fix, and I believe it will ultimately drive up the cost of health care.
This inflexible plan, thrust upon us by the federal government, is not aimed at strengthening the safety net.

It pushes a social ideology at the expense of our future.

The trouble with this social experiment is that it is destined for failure.

The notion that we’re going to receive free money from the federal government is laughable.

This is the same federal government that has not passed a budget in nearly four years.

This is the same federal government that spends 1.2 trillion dollars more than it takes in in every year.

Florida is being tempted with empty promises to comply with policies we would never pay for
if we knew the true cost.

They’re trying to buy off states one by one.

I am not buying it. Florida should not buy it.

Because their failure to deliver has such high stakes for Floridians.

If they get this wrong, we are on the hook.

It would be far easier for me, and for us, to simply say yes to the so called “free money,” enjoy the accolades for a few years, and leave office knowing that the true cost will come
due long after we’re gone.

It’s not right, and it’s not what I signed up for.

Florida’s governor disagrees, seeing a moral imperative to provide expanded Medicare so long as it is fully subsidized by the Federal government (borrowing even more against our children’s future).

Mr. Obama and the Democrats are trying to force us all to expand health care subsidies to the exclusion of economic opportunity and growth while we increase dependency and bankrupt the country.

Will Weatherford is right and we need to tell our congressional representatives to de-fund Obamacare now.

You can send Will a thank-you here.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

“Because Republicans in Congress refused to compromise to close tax loopholes for the wealthiest Americans, hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose their jobs or see their paycheck reduced, and middle class families will be hurt. Congress must join the President now to replace these cuts with a balanced approach that reduces our deficit while also making smart investments in areas that help our economy grow.”

This is desperate messaging.

Republicans just gave Mr. Obama over $600 billion in new taxes on the wealthiest Americans on January 3, 2013 without Mr. Obama’s agreement to cut spending one penny. That Mr. Obama now paints Republicans as uncompromising and paints his insistence on even more tax revenue as “balanced” is farcical in its presumption.

Continuing to promote government “investment” using the premise of economic growth when we have seen four years of nothing but government losses on almost every “stimulus” subsidy, and complete stagnation of national economic growth is laughable.

Even Mr. Obama’s most ardent and dependent supporters must be privately asking themselves what he is smoking.

Isn’t it time for the main stream press to pop this balloon?

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

A small but telling recent reality is that millions of people have fraudulently received cellphone subsidies. Federal spending on this subsidy suddenly increased from $846 million in 2008 to over $2.2 billion in 2012 with more than 6 million citizens receiving subsidized cellphone service. The federal agency overseeing this program is now back peddling and claiming to increase enforcement of eligibility requirements but the morality of those exploiting the subsidy is clear for all to see.

The reality is that millions of people now expend a substantial portion of their human potential looking for federal subsidies and exploiting them wherever and whenever possible. While intended to help those less well off, subsidies offer free entrance to moral failing, not the benevolent society Mr. Obama preaches. History is clear that ever increasing government benevolence, whether or not justified by moral rationalization, serves only to decrease individual responsibility and work.

The dramatic increase in food stamp recipients and dollars spent per recipient needs to be publicly discussed in this context. My analysis is based on government data.

The facts show that:

• The number of food stamp recipients has increased from 26 million in 2007 to over 46 million in 2012.
• Food stamp participation as a percentage of total population averaged 8.24% between 1975 and 2007 with temporary increases to 9% in the early 1980′s recession to slightly more than 10% in the early 1990′s recession, always returning to a level below 8%.
• Food stamp participation as a percentage of total population increased dramatically after 2008, rising above 13% in 2010 and further increasing to 14.85% by 2012, an increase of 80% above the mean and 42% above highs in the early 1990′s.
• The average monthly food stamp benefit per participant jump by over 22% in 2009.

Our citizens need to understand why our government continues to subsidize food stamps for 20 million more people in 2012 than in 2007, why the average benefit increased over 22% in 2009 when inflation actually turned to deflation, and why the current participation rate is materially greater than that in previous periods of economic difficulty and does not show any sign of receding to the historical norm.

Our citizens need to understand how people on food stamps will be moved out of the program so as to avoid creating a permanent 15% or more of our population living in food stamp dependency and expecting more of it.

America is fast becoming a nation of dependency and expected entitlement. More people are exploiting available subsidies.

Mr. Obama frequently uses the word “responsibility” in describing his policies. The press needs to hold up the results of his “responsible” policies to the light of day.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Four years down the drain and four more to go. What a shame.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

_______________________

February 8, 2013

TO: US Department of Health and Human Services

I offer the following as a public comment concerning RIN 0938-AR42: Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act.

The proposed regulations attempt to selectively address faith and conscience based objections to a government mandate that organizations offering health insurance plans be required to pay for free contraceptives for their female employees.

After considering the regulations and the government’s arguments in support of a mandate any reasoned citizen might ask whether those praying at the altar of government should be entitled under our Constitution to impose their will upon those who pray at a religious altar, or upon those unaffiliated with a recognized religion having conscientious objections to paying to socialize the cost of female contraception.

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Deputy Director of Policy and Regulation at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services held a conference call on February 1, 2013 to announce revised proposed rules for socializing the cost of female contraceptives as those rules impact religious organizations.

Of particular note in the conference call was a question by an NPR reporter and the response of Chiquita Brooks-LaSure. The reporter asks whether it isn’t really the insurance companies who will be paying the cost of free contraceptives given to employees of religious organizations who request such coverage under the proposed rules, or won’t the Federal government really be paying the cost for those employees under self-funded health insurance plans offered by religious organizations?

In response, Ms. Brooks-LaSure notes that since “studies have shown” overall health costs are reduced when female contraceptives are provided free, insurance companies will realize an overall cost savings by paying for those costs. If this were true, in an open and competitive market, insurance companies would voluntarily include free contraceptives within coverages as doing so will save both the companies and the employees money while improving health care, and there would be no need for us to pay Ms. Brooks-LaSure’s salary let alone have to deal with a new 80 page proposed rule or any free contraception mandate at all. If free contraceptives actually reduce overall health care costs as claimed by the government, a competitive insurance industry would be foolish not to offer such coverage in all health plans, and those women declining free contraceptives would then rationally be subject to a higher, rather than lower premium payment.

Again, in response to the question as directed to self-insured organizations, Ms. Brooks-LaSure notes that the user fees under the Affordable Care Act paid by health plan administrators would be credited for the cost of providing the contraceptive coverage. While Ms. Brooks-LaSure doesn’t think that means the Federal government is paying for that credit, the reality is that we would be paying, as user fees supporting the government’s over site of Obamacare are reduced through such credits, which dollars will necessarily be made up from another Federal bucket.

The emptiness of the government’s reasoning in proposing religious exceptions reveals that those same flaws exist in the reasoning underlying socialization of the cost of female reproductive health services in the first place. What we really have here are competing belief systems, the Obama administration/HHS versus personally held religious beliefs and individual conscientious objections. No religion is entitled to impose its moral views on American citizens and no government is entitled to impose its moral views on any religion or individual.

The American solution to increasing access to female contraception is to make such products available over-the-counter and to provide Federal regulation requiring state laws to assure open competition in the health insurance markets.

Regulations such as those proposed here legitimately incite the resentment of millions of Americans who cherish their personal freedoms. Such regulations are completely unnecessary to the end of increasing access to female contraception and constitute an unacceptable intrusion into our private lives and pocketbooks, and an unacceptable challenge to our right to act in ways consistent with our individual moral beliefs.

________________________

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org