Tag Archives: spending

Debt Limits

Posted on by
Reply

The reason we need to raise the national debt limit is to be able to borrow to pay existing obligations. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s threats that he can’t won’t pay our veterans, soldiers, and retireds is nothing but politically motivated, dishonest foolishness. He can pay these; the tax revenues are plenty for that. What he won’t be able to pay are the payables to Federal contractors and a number of other bills. Those are legitimately owed, though, and they need to be paid.

There’s also plenty of money coming in to pay the interest on our national debt—so there’ll be no default, either. That’s just nonsense.

What’s unacceptable, though, is the Democrats’ refusal to go along with a debt-raise bill that includes spending cuts that will obviate the need to raise the debt ceiling next year and in the out years. President Barack Obama has even said he’ll veto a debt-raise bill that includes such preventive measures. He’s said it’s nonnegotiable.

That’s unconscionable. The Democrats’ addiction to spending—and it is an addiction—has got to be broken. If the only way to cut spending so we don’t need to increase our borrowings next year is to close the Federal government, so be it.

But the Republicans, including the right side, and their “communications” directors had better be able to sell the shutdown to the nation’s public. Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) said it:

[T]hey ought to all be fired[.]

Unfortunately, he wasn’t looking in a mirror when he said it.

Turn the rascals out in a year and a month.

Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has turned to bashing drug companies, and in doing so, she’s exposing her ignorance of economics. Last Tuesday, she proposed in all seriousness

a $250 monthly cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs and other measures to stop what she called “price gouging” by pharmaceutical companies.
…
Under Clinton’s plan, the monthly cap would limit what insurance companies could ask patients to pay for drugs that treat patients with chronic or serious medical conditions.

Then she added this gem:

“We need to protect hard-working Americans here at home from excessive costs. Too often these drugs cost a fortune,” adding drug companies keep the profits for themselves while “shifting the cost to families.”

Well, yeah, they do keep the profits. Contra her BFF, President Barack Obama, they did build that.

Here’s a thought, Madam, for holding down costs for us “hard-working Americans here at home” about whom you claim to care so much: reduce the costs to the manufacturers by getting your Big Government’s regulations out of their way. Increase the incentives for manufacturers to reduce costs by getting your Big Government out of the way of competition.

And think about this: if your monthly cap, pulled straight out of rectal storage, plays out, what will be the cost of those drugs to us hard-working Americans here at home when the drug companies, unable to recoup their costs, stop manufacturing the drugs altogether?

Free College

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary wants to rein in the rising cost of a college education.

States would have to increase their own spending on higher education, and universities would be required to control spending[.]

With those strings, Clinton would send an additional $350 billion of your tax money (including your higher taxes she’s proposing to pay for some of this) over the next 10 years to the states for their public universities and community colleges.

And

…new rules would ensure a certain portion of total spending is directed to instruction….

How like a Progressive to think the answer to stopping a rise in the cost of a thing is to spend more money on the thing. And then to add to the cost of the thing with compliance cost imposition.

Can our nation really afford another four or eight years of this lack of understanding about how a free economy works?

Medicare Funding

Posted on by
2

The fund Medicare uses to pay hospitals will run out in the next 15 years, and experts say there are no easy answers to solve it.

Certainly not politically easy answers, and that does matter. However, the practical answer is quite simple, if expensive in the transition.

Keep everyone 55 and older in the current Medicare system, with the individual option to leave that system in favor of the one I’ve proposed many times and summarize here. It’s important to note also that the “experts” are referring only to Medicare Part A, the hospitalization part. My reform is broader and applies to Medicare Parts B, payments to physicians, and D, drug coverage.

Rescind the payroll taxes from both the employer and younger-than-55 employee, while requiring the employee to put his payroll tax equivalent into what would be essentially a Health Savings Account. This New Model HSA would contain investment vehicles of the account owner’s choosing—including stocks, bonds, mutual funds for the same, bank savings accounts, etc—and be held for the benefit of the account holder. Unlike the Old Model HSA, with its shameful limits, the NMHSA would have no income limits on contributions, no annual limits on contributions, no requirement to have a High Deductible Health Coverage Policy, none of those government-mandated limits.

Of course, this can’t happen in a vacuum. In conjunction with this, the bankrupt* Social Security system needs to be similarly privatized, also, and the overly expensive Medicare system blocked granted, on a declining-to-zero schedule, to the States. These need to be done, too, with significant tax rate reductions and Federal spending cuts (and not just one-time gimmicks or reductions in spending growth).

Most, if not all of the cost of the transition can be covered by that spending and taxing reform.

 

*Bankrupt: not strictly so because in a few short years, while the Social Security Trust Fund will be emptied of money, current payroll taxes still will be available to make the payouts, requiring the payouts to drop to 75% of their presently scheduled values.

Update: Corrected an empty reference to Part C to the correct reference to Part D.