Ronald Reagan Was No Conservative: He's Responsible For The Healthcare Mess

Treatment regardless of ability to pay is all his fault, along with a number of other things:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004, or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.

Why Do We March? Why Do We Protest? Why Do We Hate Congress?

Surely the answer is because we believe that our government does not represent us.

And it doesn't. In fact, the current Speaker of the House doesn't even believe that it should, and never has believed it. He went on the record early in the current legislative session saying that the president should set the Congress' agenda, as here:

“While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government.”

Rep. Boehner is seriously mistaken if he thinks the Tea Party would agree with that. It's the president's agenda which created the Tea Party, and the Tea Party doesn't like the president's agenda one bit.

Whether from the right with the Tea Party or the left with Occupy Wall Street, there is massive discontent in the American people with government.

That is why Gallup can report in December here that Congress has the lowest approval rating ever, since the polling organization began tracking the issue in 1974:

From a broad, long-term perspective, Congress has never been popular. The average annual congressional job approval rating since 1974 is 34%. Still, this year's 17% annual average is by one point the lowest yearly average Gallup has recorded.

The actual number approving of Congress has also reached a record low: 11 percent.

Instead of trying to make the Congress we have more responsive to us, why don't we just get a new one, a bigger and a better one than the one we've got?

Say, with tail fins.

Your congressman and my congressman now represent on average 707,999 people other than you or me. Which is to say, each and every voice he or she hears is next to meaningless. Once elected, your congressman treats you more like a serf than an equal because he doesn't need you to get re-elected. He needs money to do that, big money for television and other forms of advertising to get his name out there. He needs movers and shakers, not you.

If your congressman represented only 30,000 people instead of 708,000, however, do you think that he would need less money to get elected, work harder for your vote, and have an incentive to vote in Congress the way you want him to instead of the way he does? I do. And so did the authors of the constitution.

Since 1929 America has not had a Congress of the size required under Article 1, Section 1. The Congress voted to fix the size by law at the 435 level, by-passing the constitutional requirement to expand the size of the House as population grows. The consequences for the American people have been negative ever since.

This was a neat little trick designed for the benefit of only one group, the Congress. As a consequence money, influence and power have been concentrated in their few hands instead of distributed and divided broadly in order to contain it as the founders intended.

It is no wonder that Congress has become the rich, corrupt, arrogant and vile body it is today.

The best way to repair this situation, however, is not to "throw all the bums out," or work to hand control to a different political party than the one that has it now, or throw out the electoral college, or amend the constitution in some way.

No, the best way is simply to follow it. What we need to do is dilute the power the Congress presently has as the constitution requires: with a population of 308 million Americans, we should have 10,267 members in the US House, not 435.

If you want to give business as usual the boot, just hand Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner the task of trying to herd 10,000 cats for a vote on the debt ceiling, or the Patriot Act, or any other measure.

Just the thought of it should appall them.

And make no mistake about it: this sounds like a revolutionary act, but it's anything but. The real revolution occurred when Congress voted to usurp your right to the founders' vision of adequate representation.

To restore matters to the status quo ante is only counter-revolutionary.

The Market is Not a Leading Indicator

It is a market that has followed . . . the ratings agencies, the Congress, the Fed, the EU appendage du jour. Anyone with any sense knows this and doesn't need an analyst to explain it to him. The smart money remains out of the market.

Herds keep following, and mostly in fear.

Today we're basically back to August 2 and the debt ceiling fiasco, falling then from the 1260 level and rising to it now.

This is a market longing for the days of QE II in late 2010 and early 2011, but it isn't happening, probably because Ben Bernanke doesn't want to be accused of getting Barack Obama reelected.

But all that QE really could do was reproduce a high level around 1360, last seen in June 2008 before all hell broke loose. 1560 might as well be Mt. Everest.

One false move and it's . . . say . . . 575.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Splat.

"In God We Trust" Passed the US House 396-9 on November 1

Even liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Jan Schakowsky, and Barney Frank voted FOR it, along with a boat load of other Democrats and Republicans.

This mostly blue map shows the very few pockets in red which voted against the national motto, as reaffirmed, supported and encouraged by House Continuing Resolution 13:

Here are the nine members of the US House who just had to vote AGAINST it, all Democrats except for Amash, last pictured (MI-3): Ackerman (NY-5), Honda (CA-15), Stark (CA-13), Judy Chu (CA-32), Scott (VA-3), Johnson (GA-4), Cleaver (MO-5), and Nadler (NY-8):

Consumers Increase Spending in 2011 From Savings and Social Security Tax Holiday

Net real retail spending looks set to come in up 2.9 percent in 2011 over 2010.

Per the data here from the Census.

Average monthly retail and food expenditures in 2010 came to $363 billion per month, or $4.4 trillion overall.

Through October 2011 average monthly retail and food expenditures are running at $389 billion per month, or $4.7 trillion annualized.

That's a 6.8 percent increase so far, or about $26 billion more per month.

Less inflation running at 3.9 percent, the net real increase appears to be 2.9 percent.

$billions monthly

Unfortunately, about $14 billion of the $26 billion nominal monthly increase could be attributed to a reprieve on Social Security taxation of 2 percentage points on employee compensation running at an annualized rate of $8.3 trillion as of October. That extra money in paychecks is simply being spent.

Where did the remaining $12 billion per month come from?

From savings.

The savings rate has plummeted since January, from a rate of 4.9 percent to 3.5 percent. In January we were saving nearly $47 billion per month, but now only $33 billion, a difference of $14 billion per month.

Add the pernicious work of inflation on top of all that, and the rosy scenario of increased consumer spending doesn't look so good after all, especially since incomes are stagnant to falling. Hours worked year over year are flat, and real average hourly earnings overall are down 1.6 percent, according to the BLS here.

When the Social Security tax holiday expires on December 31, there will be less money available to spend, automatically. Robbing from Social Security for such temporary gains is a gimmick, but don't underestimate the politicians' and the voters' eagerness to repeat it under these grim circumstances. They'll take the money, even if it means saving less, because they need it.

Interest on Federal Debt Topped $454 Billion in Fiscal 2011

So says the US Department of the Treasury here.

With fiscal 2011 receipts running at $2.3 trillion according to Treasury here, interest payments now represent 20 percent of federal revenues. Since we're spending $1.5 trillion more than we presently took in, you could say that almost a third of this deficit spending is interest payments.

Total US government debt is running at approximately $15 trillion, so an interest payment of $450 billion per fiscal year implies an interest rate of about 3 percent.

Double that interest rate to 6 percent and interest payments balloon to $900 billion and 40 percent of current revenues.

Mark Steyn recently had some unhappy, pornographic thoughts about that, here:

R.I.P.

[W]ere interest rates to return to their 1990-2010 average (5.7%), debt service alone would consume about 40% of federal revenues by mid-decade. That's not paying down the debt, but just staying current on the interest payments.

And yet, when it comes to spending and stimulus and entitlements and agencies and regulations and bureaucrats, "more more more/how do you like it?" remains the way to bet. Will a Republican president make a difference to this grim trajectory? I would doubt it. Unless the public conversation shifts significantly, neither President Romney nor President Insert-Name-Of-This-Week's-UnRomney-Here will have a mandate for the measures necessary to save the republic.








(source)

Michael Barone Joins The Liberal Chorus Attacking Progressive Taxation

You heard me right, the liberal chorus attacking the progressive tax code, in this case the progressive tax code's deductibility provisions which are . . . well, progressive.

Barone and other liberal Republicans like Pat Toomey, Gang of Sixers and Gang of Twelvers do it on the grounds that the deductions for mortgage interest and state and local taxes help the $100K+ set more.

Nevermind "the rich" already pay the vast majority of the taxes. They want to make them pay even more because . . . well, they don't really need the money, and government does! And maybe liberals will like us more.

Talk about ceding the moral high ground to the left. Who would want to go to all the trouble of becoming rich just so that they can have the privilege of paying even more of the taxes?

Nevermind that the poor own one of the biggest "tax loss expenditures" in the form of transfer payments for the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit: $109 billion. Compare that to the mortgage interest deduction's tax loss cost to the Treasury : $88 billion.

Here is Barone:

[T]he big money you can get from eliminating tax preferences comes from three provisions that are widely popular.

The three are the charitable deduction, the home mortgage interest deduction, and the state and local tax deduction. ...


[T]he vast bulk of the "tax expenditures" -- the money the government doesn't receive because taxpayers deduct mortgage interest payments from total income -- goes to high earners . . ..


Well why shouldn't they under a progressive tax system? 


There's really no difference between Michael Barone and Republican advocates for "tax reform" and Democrats like Peter Orszag, for example, who makes an argument for similarly flattening deductibility for the rich by limiting their traditional deductions enjoyed by everyone across the income spectrum. What this amounts to is an admission that the progressive deductibility which we have now does NOT go hand in hand with the tax code's progressive taxation.

The current arrangement may not seem fair to flat taxers, but it is internally consistent. If you pay progressively more in taxes, your deductions should justly be progressively worth more to you. And so they are. If you pay progressively less in taxes, your deductions should justly be worth less to you, progressively. And so they are.

Proposals to limit deductions for one class of taxpayers amount to destroying the internal coherence of the progressive tax code itself. It is nothing less than an attack on the idea of progressivity and its fair unfairness, all in the name of extracting even more from the pockets of successful people.

Sheer nincompoopery. 

Tax Reform Should Come Off The Table: Spending Cuts Only Are Acceptable

To Sen. Reid and Pres. Obama, tax reform means tax increases.

So fuhgeddabowdit. 

Automatic cuts to defense and social spending it should be.

GDP, Q3 2011 First Report, at 2.5 Percent; Personal Savings Drop Big

See the full pdf at the Bureau of Economic Statistics, here.

Personal savings fell a full percentage point, or $116 billion, while personal disposable income went up $17 billion, matching exactly the increase in personal outlays of $133 billion.

Get it? People are saving less and spending any increases just to get by because of . . . increasing prices.

A falling savings rate, now at 4.1 percent, is woefully inadequate. A person saving at that rate making $50,000 per year would need over 12 years to save just 6 months' expenses.

Reuters' Mike Dolan Gets It Wrong On Depressions

The relevant passage from his story here on the recent debate about whether we've had, face, or are in a depression makes a real hash of it:

But search for a precise definition of economic depression and you'll be hard pressed to find anything more specific than it's more severe than typical business cycle recessions, tends to cross multiple countries and lasts much longer.

Anecdotal rules of thumb -- cited in The Economist magazine and elsewhere -- center on a peak to trough drop in real gross domestic product of more than 10 percent or recessions lasting more than three years.

On that measure, the 1929-1933 Great Depression in the United States qualifies with a 27 percent loss of GDP and a peak unemployment rate of some 25 percent. The shorter 1937 and 1945 downturns qualify on the GDP measure alone too.

"Hard pressed"? The most useful rule of thumb learned way back in my childhood is not even mentioned: back-to-back years with GDP declines, on the analogy of recessions, which are back-to-back quarters with GDP declines. String out a recession long enough with annual GDP failing to surpass a previous high and you have a depression.

People may have to disagree about such definitions, but not about the data behind the theory.

The GDP decline of the 1929 depression is not correctly represented by the writer. Nominal GDP in 1929 was $103.6 billion, falling to its nadir in 1933 to $56.4 billion, a 45.56 percent drop, not 27 percent as the author states. It took until 1941 to surpass 1929 GDP.

Nor did GDP decline from 1937 to 1938 by more than 10 percent. It declined by 6.3 percent, from $91.9 billion to $86.1 billion. But GDP in 1939 exceeded that achieved in 1937, technically not a depression within a depression because there weren't back-to-back years of GDP decline.

And the GDP decline between 1945 and 1946 was a measly 0.36 percent, falling to $222.2 billion from $223 billion. The $1.9 billion decline between 1948 and 1949 was only 0.71 percent.

Missing from the story are the real 10 percent or greater depressions in the 20th century apart from The Great one: the depression of 1907-1911, when nominal GDP fell by 11.1 percent; and the depression of 1920-1925, when GDP fell almost 17 percent. Prohibition, dontchaknow. The roaring '20s were really a lot shorter than ten years.

If the 2008-2009 depression will compare to anything, it will be to 1937-1938's 6.3 percent decline, or to 1913-1916 when GDP fell 6.6 percent. The problem is the numbers are still fluid. The numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis still show a nominal decline in one year only, 2009, of 1.8 percent from 2008, despite reports of larger nominal declines in 2008 from 2007 and in 2009 from 2008 in the neighborhood of 3.8 percent.

If it's pretty clear we've had at most only a very small depression, we're technically out of it in 2010 due to government spending. It's equally clear, however, that current GDP is so anemic in the aftermath that we may well repeat the episode.

Final Estimate of Q2 2011 GDP at 1.3 Percent

As reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, here.

With Q1 GDP at 0.4 percent, average GDP is at a paltry 0.85 percent so far in 2011.

Average annual GDP from 1930-2000 was 3.5 percent.

For the ten years from 2000 it averaged 1.67 percent (Europe was worse, at 1.5 percent).

A measly 0.85 percent in 2011 is stall speed, and that means less government revenue, which makes the deficit worse and the national debt grow, interest payments on which will exceed $434 billion this year, about one eighth of current spending of $3.8 trillion, or 12 percent.

Think of that as having to make interest payments on debts of $236,000 totaling $7,440 every year, $620 every month, on a salary of $62,000.

The implied interest rate of 3.15 percent won't last forever, but let's be generous and assume it does while what you owe keeps growing by 9 percent per year for the next decade because you keep spending and you never pay it down. Let's also assume you get a crummy annual raise of 1.7 percent every year for ten years.

Now you'll owe over $596,000 supported by a salary of nearly $74,000, but your interest expense will have grown to nearly $19,000 from $7,440 ten years prior, amounting now to 25 percent of your income as compared with 12 percent of your income then. More than doubled.

That's where America is headed . . . if interest rates don't rise and slow growth mirrors 2000-2010.  

Tariffs on Imports at 100 Percent Wouldn't Be Enough to Cover Federal Spending

Here are the import numbers (rounded) for the last three years for all goods and services, according to the latest revision from the US Census Bureau, here:

2008 = $2.5 trillion

2009 = $2.0 trillion

2010 = $2.3 trillion.

Federal revenues in 2008 equaled $2.5 trillion, coming mostly from income and social insurance taxes, as well as a more modest contribution from corporate and excise taxes.

To completely replace that income from tariffs would imply a 100 percent tariff, which is unimaginable.

Presumably at least some of our trade with the world is reciprocally fair, excluding it from such a punishing rate.

At some point along the tariff scale as you rise toward that extreme level, otherwise off-setting import revenues will fall as retaliatory tariffs are imposed by the global marketplace.

A 25 percent tariff on Chinese imports, as The Donald recommends, in 2010 could have generated only in our dreams something around $91 billion in revenues.

At a minimum, a vigorous reliance on tariffs for federal revenues today implies a much reduced size of the federal state.

Interest Expense on the National Debt Outstanding

Per the US Treasury, here:

Fiscal year 2011 will top $434 billion.

'Social Security's Long-Term Shortfall Grows About $1.2 Trillion Annually'

And by "long-term" the meaning is about 18 years.

So said Dennis Cauchon late in the spring for USA Today, here:

Social Security's long-term shortfall grows about $1.2 trillion annually — a sign of an imbalance between the number of young workers and older beneficiaries, according to the Social Security trustees' annual reports. The $21.4 trillion unfunded liability represents the difference between all taxes that will be paid and all benefits received over the lifetimes of everyone in the system now — workers and beneficiaries alike. This is the measure corporations and insurance companies use to assess financial adequacy of their retirement programs.

What this means is that this year and every year for the next two decades or so social security will be in the red annually to the tune of about $1.2 trillion, and government will have to borrow the funds to pay for that annual deficit spending.

Put another way, the social security scheme is a Ponzi scheme writ large. The pool of early fools putting up the dough for the few early, and very lucky, investors has now dried up so much that the program will run in deficit mode annually going forward, just like the rest of government has for years.

This will add significantly to the national debt, driving up interest payments on that debt and severely crimping the government's other spending options without massive injections of new revenues, aka higher taxes on the people.

In the short term, the $2.6 trillion in the social security trust fund (intragovernmental debt) would disappear in relatively short order under this analysis, say roughly in just over two years from now, except that the monies are invested in a mix of shorter and longer US Treasury securities which will reach maturity over a more or less longer period of time and thus force the program into deficit much sooner because redemptions are barred, compounding the pressure on the availability of funds for current year government spending.

Liberals Love Progressive Taxation. Progressive Tax Deductions? Not So Much.

Peter Orszag for Bloomberg here likes the idea of flat tax deductions for some reason, but not flat taxes.

Maybe it's because such equality in deductions would increase the taxes paid by the top 25 percent of taxpayers, who already contribute the vast majority of the government's revenue. Orszag sees no reason why a person in the top marginal tax bracket should have his taxes reduced at that marginal rate by a deduction for a 401K contribution, or a mortgage interest payment, or a donation to charity. He wants the deduction to be a flat deduction for everyone, regardless of income, which sounds to me like an admission that there's something actually immoral about progressivity in the tax code.

Sounds like progress to me, the logical implication of which is that the tax rate also should be one flat rate for all.

In the meantime it remains that "tax reform" is to "progressive" as "tax increase" is to "liberal." The name has been changed to disguise the guilty.

Sen. Rob Portman Will Shill for Gang of Six Taxes on Gang of Twelve

There's Portman on July 21 giving aid and comfort to the Gang of Six enemy while the US House is trying to push the only true plan to cut spending:

The bipartisan “Gang of Six” proposal on the deficit continues to draw attention from rank-and-file senators, even as House leaders come out in opposition to any plan that includes new revenues as part of a deal.

“It's a step in the right direction,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who was budget director under President George W. Bush, told us on ABC’s “Top Line” today. “It's the one effort out there where you've got Republicans and Democrats coming together. And I think it could actually mesh well with what I think is the ultimate solution here with regard to the debt limit increase.”

While many Republicans are pushing back against the notion of including revenues as part of any deal, Portman said tax reform must be built in to a bipartisan solution.

“We've signed up to the concept that we do need a bipartisan approach here, and it's got to deal with tax reform, and it's got to deal with the long-term problem -- which is sustainability of these entitlement programs,” Portman said.

Obama's Defeated 2012 Budget Would Have Taken Public Debt to $24 Trillion in 10 Years

TheHill.com reported the CBO projection in March here:

CBO estimates Obama's plan would produce 10 years of deficits totaling $9.5 trillion. By 2021, it would increase the debt held by the public to 87 percent of gross domestic product.

On March 18, 2011 public debt stood at $14.225 trillion, to which add $9.5 trillion over ten years, and you get nearly $24 trillion, nearly 122 percent higher than the debt at the end of 2008.

Was that "a balanced approach"?

Was Standard and Poor's wrong at $22.1 trillion? It would be more accurate to call it generous, in Obama's favor. Brow-beaten by criticism from the regime, S and P dropped the number to $20.1 trillion.

I predict that if Obama is still in office in 2015, we'll have already hit that $20.1 trillion mark by then and won't have to wait for 2021. 

Let's Play 'Who's The Bigger Liberal: Clinton, Bush or Obama?'

In January of 1993, the total public debt stood at $4.2 trillion. By the end of the year 2000, it stood at $5.7 trillion. So Bill Clinton increased the debt by 35 percent, about 4.4 points per year.

At the end of December in 2008, the debt stood at $10.7 trillion. So George Bush increased the debt by 88 percent, about 11 points per year, a rate 2.5 times higher than Bill Clinton's.

As of August 4, 2011, the debt stands at $14.6 trillion. So Barack Obama has increased the debt by 36 percent . . . in just over one half of one term in office, not two full terms like his predecessors, or 14.4 points per year.

George Bush is clearly a bigger liberal than Bill Clinton, but Obama is already topping him by a rate of 1.3 times.  

Today's DOW Drop Ranks 9th For Daily Point Losses. It's Not a 'Crash'.

Wikipedia has this nice chart, among others, here:

The percentage loss was big, but won't be truly significant unless it becomes part of a larger pattern of losses like we had in the fall of 2008, which dominates this chart.

For all we know, the decline today and Tuesday was the market's verdict on President Obama's and Senator Harry Reid's expressed resolve to raise taxes in the very near future in the wake of the debt ceiling deal.

Notice, however, that the historic market lows of February and March 2003, and March 2009 are absent from this chart. Those were incredible buying opportunities which did not reveal themselves precipitously. Those lows were achieved by grinding down to them.

Post-War Doubling Times For Federal Spending: Every 9 Years at 8 Percent per Year

US government spending on World War Two reached a crescendo in 1945 at $107 billion, after which spending reset to a post-war low of $36 billion in 1948.

Within 4 years, spending had doubled to $72 billion, in 1952.

It took more than 14 years for federal spending to double again, sometime between 1966 and 1967, when spending shot up on the Vietnam War and the Great Society programs under President Johnson. Spending in 1966 was $135 billion.

By 1974, just 8 years later, spending had nearly doubled again to $269 billion.

Under Jimmy Carter it took just over 5 years for spending to double again, sometime between 1979 and 1980. Federal spending reached $504 billion in 1979.

By 1987, 8 years later, federal spending had doubled again to $1 trillion under Ronald Reagan.

Federal spending did not double again until sometime between 2001 and 2002. It took more than 14 years to do so going through the Bush 41 and Bill Clinton presidencies to the presidency of Bush 43. Federal outlays reached $1.9 trillion in 2001.

Which brings us down the pike to today, when spending is projected to finish the fiscal year at $3.8 trillion, doubling in the 10 years since 2001.

That's 7 doublings in 63 years, or a doubling of US government spending every 9 years since World War Two.

According to the Rule of 72, a doubling every 9 years implies an interest rate of 8 percent per year.

In other words, federal spending has an effective rate of built-in spending increases at 8 percent per year every year since 1948.

When you consider that real GDP growth from 1930-2000 has been 3.5 percent and only slightly better than half that in the decade just past, our spending is completely out of step with reality.

(data from usgovernmentspending.com)