It will be very interesting to see how Obama responds to this historic transfer of power in the House. Clearly voters were not voting for Repulicans but against the over reaching policies of the Obama Administration.
Will he still refuse to listen to "We the People?" Will he continue to call people who disagree with him enemies? Will he continue to insist on a European style of Socialism? Will he take responsibility for his actions and stop blaming Republicans?
The House needs to understand that they were sent to Washington to stop the excessive spending, reduce the size of government and to reduce the defecit. It is clear that if the newly elected House members do not listen to the will of the people, they will be tossed out in the next election.
The American people expect and deserve results.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
What does one TRILLION dollars look like?
All this talk about "stimulus packages" and "bailouts"...
A billion dollars...
A hundred billion dollars...
Eight hundred billion dollars...
One TRILLION dollars...
What does that look like?
We'll start with a $100 dollar bill.
A packet of one hundred $100 bills is less than 1/2" thick and contains $10,000 and fits in your pocket easily.
Believe it or not, this next little pile is $1 million dollars (100 packets of $10,000). You could stuff that into a grocery bag and walk around with it.
While a measly $1 million looked a little unimpressive, $100 million is a little more respectable. It fits neatly on a standard pallet...
And $1 BILLION dollars... now we're really getting somewhere...
Next we'll look at ONE TRILLION dollars. This is that number we've been hearing so much about. What is a trillion dollars? Well, it's a million million. It's a thousand billion. It's a one followed by 12 zeros.
You ready for this?
It's pretty surprising.
Go ahead...
Scroll down...
Ladies and gentlemen... I give you $1 trillion dollars...
Notice those pallets are double stacked.
...and remember those are $100 bills.
So the next time you hear someone toss around the phrase "trillion dollars"... that's what they're talking about.
It is time we stop tossing these numbers around like they are nothing. We have become desensitized and need to recognize that a billion is a lot and a trillion is way more than we should even be considering.
Hopefully this Tuesday you will make your voice heard and send a message to our elected officials that we need to manage the governmental budget like we do our own household budget. We don't spend more than we have and we don't spend everything we make. We put money aside for a "rainy" day and we only spend what we need to spend. Let's get people in office that understand this and that can get this country back on firm financial footing.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Health Care Hoopla
Look for the administration to begin a media blitz on specific provisions of the health care bill that take effect this week.
Leave it to a politician to time the changes in the law to the election cycle. Democrats purposely made these provisions effective just before the election because they thought they would be perceived as consumer friendly and therefore equate to votes.
What the administration will tout as great for the consumer actually is expensive to the insurer, so as a result they are being force to raise rates to pay for the mandated changes. Instead of acknowledging that these mandated changes have any cost, this administration simply criticizes the insurance companies for raising rates.
Since when did every business in this country become a non-profit? Oh yeah, Jan. 2009. Under this administration any company that makes a profit is frowned upon and immediately a candidate for investigation and further government scrutiny.
Regulated mandates have a cost despite what politicians will have you believe. So not only are we spending way more money than we take in each month, we are taking more and more money out of the taxpayer’s pocket through all of this government intervention.
So what are the health care changes that are going to take effect this Thursday?
1. Children over 18, but under the age of 25 can now remain on their parents' health plan.
Most insurers already provide this coverage as long as the child is a student. This change is likely to help some jobless young adults. Rules adopted after the law passed say insurers must charge the same for children regardless of age. That is good news for those with infants and older children who buy individual coverage—they previously paid more to cover the expensive first two years and those in their 20s—bad news for most others. What this means for insurers is more people insured on the same policy.
2. Preventive Care - New plans, sold after 9-23-10, must provide dozens of preventive services without charging a copayment. While a nice idea, it has cost implications for the insurance companies in the form of lost revenue formerly provided in the form of copayments.
3. Removal of Lifetime Benefit Cap - No lifetime limits on benefit payouts. Most plans today have some maximum amount that the insurance company will pay out over the lifetime of an individual. Many employer sponsored plans have lower lifetime limits than plans purchased by individuals. Again, while a nice idea, it is not without financial impact to the insurance company.
4. Phase out of Annual Limits – similar to the lifetime limit on benefits, this ruling begins to phase out annual limits on benefit payouts, starting by making the limit no less than $750,000. Several employer and individual plans can either get a waiver or will be exempt.
5. Pre-Existing Condition waiver for children - Insurers can't deny children coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Regulators broadened the provision so that insurers, in effect, must guarantee coverage to all consumers under age 19.
While it is hard to argue that these changes are not beneficial to consumers, for the most part, it is also equally true to state that these come at a cost. Then when the insurers try to point out this fact they are threatened by the current administration.
In fact, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, calling on their members to stop using scare tactics and misinformation to falsely blame premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. She further warned insurers that states have new resources under the Affordable Care Act to crack down on unjustified premium increases.
I am fed up with playing politics with every aspect of our life. Can anyone in Washington be honest with “We the People?”
Leave it to a politician to time the changes in the law to the election cycle. Democrats purposely made these provisions effective just before the election because they thought they would be perceived as consumer friendly and therefore equate to votes.
What the administration will tout as great for the consumer actually is expensive to the insurer, so as a result they are being force to raise rates to pay for the mandated changes. Instead of acknowledging that these mandated changes have any cost, this administration simply criticizes the insurance companies for raising rates.
Since when did every business in this country become a non-profit? Oh yeah, Jan. 2009. Under this administration any company that makes a profit is frowned upon and immediately a candidate for investigation and further government scrutiny.
Regulated mandates have a cost despite what politicians will have you believe. So not only are we spending way more money than we take in each month, we are taking more and more money out of the taxpayer’s pocket through all of this government intervention.
So what are the health care changes that are going to take effect this Thursday?
1. Children over 18, but under the age of 25 can now remain on their parents' health plan.
Most insurers already provide this coverage as long as the child is a student. This change is likely to help some jobless young adults. Rules adopted after the law passed say insurers must charge the same for children regardless of age. That is good news for those with infants and older children who buy individual coverage—they previously paid more to cover the expensive first two years and those in their 20s—bad news for most others. What this means for insurers is more people insured on the same policy.
2. Preventive Care - New plans, sold after 9-23-10, must provide dozens of preventive services without charging a copayment. While a nice idea, it has cost implications for the insurance companies in the form of lost revenue formerly provided in the form of copayments.
3. Removal of Lifetime Benefit Cap - No lifetime limits on benefit payouts. Most plans today have some maximum amount that the insurance company will pay out over the lifetime of an individual. Many employer sponsored plans have lower lifetime limits than plans purchased by individuals. Again, while a nice idea, it is not without financial impact to the insurance company.
4. Phase out of Annual Limits – similar to the lifetime limit on benefits, this ruling begins to phase out annual limits on benefit payouts, starting by making the limit no less than $750,000. Several employer and individual plans can either get a waiver or will be exempt.
5. Pre-Existing Condition waiver for children - Insurers can't deny children coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Regulators broadened the provision so that insurers, in effect, must guarantee coverage to all consumers under age 19.
While it is hard to argue that these changes are not beneficial to consumers, for the most part, it is also equally true to state that these come at a cost. Then when the insurers try to point out this fact they are threatened by the current administration.
In fact, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, calling on their members to stop using scare tactics and misinformation to falsely blame premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. She further warned insurers that states have new resources under the Affordable Care Act to crack down on unjustified premium increases.
I am fed up with playing politics with every aspect of our life. Can anyone in Washington be honest with “We the People?”
Monday, September 13, 2010
Exercise your Civic Duty
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 is Election Day in Wisconsin and your vote is important.
Many people complain about their elected officials, but when you ask, you find out they didn’t even bother to vote. If you won’t even take time to vote you have no right to complain.
I was curious about the voting behavior of Wisconsin residents so I visited the Wisconsin Governmental Accountability Board website and found some interesting statistics. Care to guess what percent of the eligible population in Wisconsin voted in the last September primary race?
In Sept, 2008, only 8.9% of the eligible voters bothered to vote in the primary. That is the lowest voter turnout in a September primary since they began tracking this in 1948. Over 81% of the eligible voters in the State didn’t think it was important enough for them to take time and cast a vote. No wonder we get the kind of representation we do.
The best turnout for a Sept. primary was in 1952 with 38.9% of population voting. Normally, the Sept. election has less than 25% of the eligible voters participating. People in Iraq were willing to risk being shot to participate in the election process. Where is that same passion here?
The numbers are a bit better when you look at the general election, especially when there is a Presidential race, but still 30-40% don’t bother to vote.
Tomorrow expectations are for a strong turnout but that equates to only 28% of the eligible population bothering to cast a vote. The stakes could not be higher with this election and I am just shocked and amazed that more people won’t be compelled to have their voice heard. Have we become that pathetic as an electorate or are we so disgusted with our leaders that we have decided no matter what we do it won’t make a difference?
But what is worse than not voting is casting an uninformed vote. Nothing irritates me more than someone who votes for someone because someone else told them to vote for that person. While you have the right to cast a vote, I believe you have a responsibility to take the time to understand the people on the ballot and their view on the issues.
Specific to Wisconsin, I have issues with the switching of parties for the primary so as to affect the results of the general election. A perfect case in point is the Governor’s race where it has been encouraged by many Democratic organizations that normally Democratic voters vote the Republican ballot instead of the Democratic ballot. The sole purpose of doing so it to vote for Mark Neumann, in hopes that he defeats Scott Walker.
Other states require you to register a Democrat or Republican and then you can only vote the ballot for the party to which you are registered. While it is nice that Wisconsin allows an open primary, it is games like these that undermine the reason why the primaries are open.
When you have such low turnouts in the primaries, tactics like those being proposed by the Democrats might influence the election. While there is nothing illegal about what the Democrats are proposing, it is unfortunate that they need to rely on such slimy tactics.
Let’s hope that Republicans have a chance to determine which candidate they want to place on the ballot for the general election and it is not determined by desperados who think the only way the can win is to hijack the system.
No mater what your political persuasion, please review the candidates on the ballot and make an informed choice on Tuesday.
Many people complain about their elected officials, but when you ask, you find out they didn’t even bother to vote. If you won’t even take time to vote you have no right to complain.
I was curious about the voting behavior of Wisconsin residents so I visited the Wisconsin Governmental Accountability Board website and found some interesting statistics. Care to guess what percent of the eligible population in Wisconsin voted in the last September primary race?
In Sept, 2008, only 8.9% of the eligible voters bothered to vote in the primary. That is the lowest voter turnout in a September primary since they began tracking this in 1948. Over 81% of the eligible voters in the State didn’t think it was important enough for them to take time and cast a vote. No wonder we get the kind of representation we do.
The best turnout for a Sept. primary was in 1952 with 38.9% of population voting. Normally, the Sept. election has less than 25% of the eligible voters participating. People in Iraq were willing to risk being shot to participate in the election process. Where is that same passion here?
The numbers are a bit better when you look at the general election, especially when there is a Presidential race, but still 30-40% don’t bother to vote.
Tomorrow expectations are for a strong turnout but that equates to only 28% of the eligible population bothering to cast a vote. The stakes could not be higher with this election and I am just shocked and amazed that more people won’t be compelled to have their voice heard. Have we become that pathetic as an electorate or are we so disgusted with our leaders that we have decided no matter what we do it won’t make a difference?
But what is worse than not voting is casting an uninformed vote. Nothing irritates me more than someone who votes for someone because someone else told them to vote for that person. While you have the right to cast a vote, I believe you have a responsibility to take the time to understand the people on the ballot and their view on the issues.
Specific to Wisconsin, I have issues with the switching of parties for the primary so as to affect the results of the general election. A perfect case in point is the Governor’s race where it has been encouraged by many Democratic organizations that normally Democratic voters vote the Republican ballot instead of the Democratic ballot. The sole purpose of doing so it to vote for Mark Neumann, in hopes that he defeats Scott Walker.
Other states require you to register a Democrat or Republican and then you can only vote the ballot for the party to which you are registered. While it is nice that Wisconsin allows an open primary, it is games like these that undermine the reason why the primaries are open.
When you have such low turnouts in the primaries, tactics like those being proposed by the Democrats might influence the election. While there is nothing illegal about what the Democrats are proposing, it is unfortunate that they need to rely on such slimy tactics.
Let’s hope that Republicans have a chance to determine which candidate they want to place on the ballot for the general election and it is not determined by desperados who think the only way the can win is to hijack the system.
No mater what your political persuasion, please review the candidates on the ballot and make an informed choice on Tuesday.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
HOW TO SELL TOOTHBRUSHES
(Thanks Sue Foley for Sharing)
The kids filed back into class Monday morning. They were very excited. Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on productive salesmanship.
Little Sally led off: "I sold Girl Scout cookies and I made $30," she said proudly, "My sales approach was to appeal to the customer's civic spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success."
"Very good," said the teacher.
Little Jenny was next:
"I sold magazines," she said, "I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events."
"Very good, Jenny," said the teacher..
Eventually, it was Little Johnny's turn.
The teacher held her breath ...
Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher's desk. "$2,467," he said.
"$2,467!" cried the teacher, "What in the world were you selling?"
"Toothbrushes," said Little Johnny.
"Toothbrushes!" echoed the teacher, "How could you possibly sell enough tooth brushes to make that much money?"
"I found the busiest corner in town," said Little Johnny. "I set up a Chip & Dip stand and gave everybody who walked by a free sample. They all said the same thing, 'Hey, this tastes like dog shit!' Then I would say, 'It is dog shit. Wanna buy a toothbrush?' I used the governmental approach of giving people something for free, and then making them pay to get the shitty taste out of their mouth."
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Pay for Performance? Not at Fannie Mae
With all the outrage by the Obama administration relative to executive compensation at banks, why is the pay czar not concerned about the excessive pay at Fannie Mae?
If you look at the executive compensation table below you can see that Michael Williams was paid $6.68 million last year at a time when Fannie posted a ($71) billion dollar loss. That was after a ($58.7) billion dollar loss in 2008 when Mr. Williams was paid just under $7.1 million. So much for “pay for performance.”
Let’s make this even simpler. In 2008 Fannie lost ($8,270) for every dollar Mr. Williams received in total compensation. In 2009 the story got even worse. Fannie lost even more money in 2009, but Mr. Williams only saw a 5% reduction in his compensation, while losses at the company increased 22.9%. As a result, for every dollar that Mr. Williams received in compensation in 2009, Fannie lost ($10,722)!!
Let’s not demonize some about executive compensation and give others a free pass. Through the end of 2009, the government poured some $125 billion of capital into Fannie and Freddie and they still want more. They have received more federal aid than any other financial in this crisis and yet they are exempt from all the financial reform, including executive compensation.
Most of the banks have already repaid their TARP money and turned a profit for the government. With all the hand wringing about TARP, at the end of the day, if you take out all the non-financials, like GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc. you will find that the government actually made money with the TARP program. While the program has been demonized in the press as a taxpayer, I would do it all again, except I would keep it to banks and not car companies and insurance companies. Name me another government program that actually returns more money to the Treasury than it initially took.
It is hard to fight facts, so let’s keep the dialogue to the facts and quit using rhetoric, scare tactics and populist language to talk about these government programs.
If you look at the executive compensation table below you can see that Michael Williams was paid $6.68 million last year at a time when Fannie posted a ($71) billion dollar loss. That was after a ($58.7) billion dollar loss in 2008 when Mr. Williams was paid just under $7.1 million. So much for “pay for performance.”
Let’s make this even simpler. In 2008 Fannie lost ($8,270) for every dollar Mr. Williams received in total compensation. In 2009 the story got even worse. Fannie lost even more money in 2009, but Mr. Williams only saw a 5% reduction in his compensation, while losses at the company increased 22.9%. As a result, for every dollar that Mr. Williams received in compensation in 2009, Fannie lost ($10,722)!!
Let’s not demonize some about executive compensation and give others a free pass. Through the end of 2009, the government poured some $125 billion of capital into Fannie and Freddie and they still want more. They have received more federal aid than any other financial in this crisis and yet they are exempt from all the financial reform, including executive compensation.
Most of the banks have already repaid their TARP money and turned a profit for the government. With all the hand wringing about TARP, at the end of the day, if you take out all the non-financials, like GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc. you will find that the government actually made money with the TARP program. While the program has been demonized in the press as a taxpayer, I would do it all again, except I would keep it to banks and not car companies and insurance companies. Name me another government program that actually returns more money to the Treasury than it initially took.
It is hard to fight facts, so let’s keep the dialogue to the facts and quit using rhetoric, scare tactics and populist language to talk about these government programs.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Facts about Health Care Reform Part 1
I expect this to be one of many posts I do relative to the new health care law the President Obama signed. Most Americans, and I would venture to say, most politicians who voted on this, have no clue what was actually signed into law. I hope to shed some light on some of what is actually in this bill.
Here is my first installment after getting through the first 44 pages, of which the first 17 were the table of contents.
Talk about a blank check. Below is the actual wording on page 40 of the new Health Care Law. $30 million in initial funding to carry out tracking of consumer problems, assisting with customer complaints, education on consumer rights and responsibilities related to group health plans, assisting with enrollment in a group plan and problem resolution related to premium tax credits. The kicker is that this legislation authorized unlimited funds in subsequent years.
(1) INITIAL FUNDING.—There is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $30,000,000 for the first fiscal year for which this section applies to carry out this section. Such amount shall remain available without fiscal year limitation.
(2) AUTHORIZATION FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each fiscal year following the fiscal year described in paragraph (1), such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.’’.
What makes this amusing is the very next section of the law (Sec. 2794) is titled “Ensuring that consumers get value for their dollars.” Unfortunately, they are not referring to the $30 million above or the $938 billion in the whole bill. They are legislating the unreasonable increase in premiums for health insurance coverage. For that they are appropriating another $250 million. And by the way, if they don’t spend all $250 million by 2014, they won’t give it back to us the taxpayer, they get to keep the unused funds and use it for grants to the states.
I have an idea, how about if we design legislation that encourages the government to spend less, not more. There is absolutely no incentive here to save the taxpayer money. The provisions in this law always ensure that the money is spent, no matter how inefficiently. I would welcome incentives that provide good quality programs, but at a reasonable cost.
With the government I think it is safe to say: You can buy better, but you can’t pay more.
We need fiscally responsible legislation that encourages the most efficient use of limited resources. All too often politicians believe they have an unlimited source of funds. We, the taxpayers, provide that funding and it is limited and should be allocated where it can be put to the most productive use.
Enough rambling for now. I will continue to plow through the new law and report back what I find.
Here is my first installment after getting through the first 44 pages, of which the first 17 were the table of contents.
Talk about a blank check. Below is the actual wording on page 40 of the new Health Care Law. $30 million in initial funding to carry out tracking of consumer problems, assisting with customer complaints, education on consumer rights and responsibilities related to group health plans, assisting with enrollment in a group plan and problem resolution related to premium tax credits. The kicker is that this legislation authorized unlimited funds in subsequent years.
(1) INITIAL FUNDING.—There is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $30,000,000 for the first fiscal year for which this section applies to carry out this section. Such amount shall remain available without fiscal year limitation.
(2) AUTHORIZATION FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each fiscal year following the fiscal year described in paragraph (1), such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.’’.
What makes this amusing is the very next section of the law (Sec. 2794) is titled “Ensuring that consumers get value for their dollars.” Unfortunately, they are not referring to the $30 million above or the $938 billion in the whole bill. They are legislating the unreasonable increase in premiums for health insurance coverage. For that they are appropriating another $250 million. And by the way, if they don’t spend all $250 million by 2014, they won’t give it back to us the taxpayer, they get to keep the unused funds and use it for grants to the states.
I have an idea, how about if we design legislation that encourages the government to spend less, not more. There is absolutely no incentive here to save the taxpayer money. The provisions in this law always ensure that the money is spent, no matter how inefficiently. I would welcome incentives that provide good quality programs, but at a reasonable cost.
With the government I think it is safe to say: You can buy better, but you can’t pay more.
We need fiscally responsible legislation that encourages the most efficient use of limited resources. All too often politicians believe they have an unlimited source of funds. We, the taxpayers, provide that funding and it is limited and should be allocated where it can be put to the most productive use.
Enough rambling for now. I will continue to plow through the new law and report back what I find.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)