Connecticut - On the Road to Oblivion

The great and beautiful State of Connecticut appears to be heading down the road with California, New York, and New Jersey. The road to oblivion: increased taxes, greater spending, increasing deficits, losing population, losing jobs, and disincentives to investors.

I lived in Westport, Connecticut for 4 years in the 70’s when the state had no income tax, balanced its budget every year, and became one of the richest states in the Union. Such was the case for 200 years until 1991 when Governor Lowell Weicker pushed the first ever personal income tax at 4.5%, saying it would remain flat thereafter. Thus started the era of excessive spending and pay raises for the unionized state government workers. Such is the case when a state gets more revenues, it starts spending on things it would never conceive of in the past.

Quickly, after the on-set of the income tax the state went to the top 10 in expenditures per capita. There has been a long and slow exodus of jobs, people, and businesses and Connecticut has generated no net new jobs in the past decade. During this time the nation added 22 million jobs, while right next door, Wall Street was booming. Over the last decade the state has lost population every year but one.

In addition, the state income tax was raised to 5.5% and now the Governor, Jodi Rell, has proposed a $1-billion+ income tax hike by raising the top rate to 6.5% for high income individuals in order to close the expected $8.5 billion deficit. History shows that when you have a heavy reliance for tax revenues on top income filers, tax collections will become very volatile and these swings will make governing very difficult.

The Governor also plans to eliminate the state’s death tax which has exacerbated the loss of wealthy seniors to states with no estate tax. This maybe a good idea but she also plans to use the money generated from the income tax increase to cut the sales tax, which is a bad idea. Again, history shows that when you cut the consumption tax but raise taxes on investment and small business, this is a formula for losing more jobs.

I think if the Governor just looked at what is going on next door to her in New York and New Jersey she would get some religion. Millionaires just evacuate when you focus on them and states like Florida, Texas, and Nevada benefit. Connecticut may not be as bad as its sister states yet, but like them, it certainly looks like it’s on the road to oblivion. At least California is beginning to wise up.

Robert Novak - A Brief Encounter with an Icon

By now you may have heard about the passing of the famous Washington columnist and reporter, Robert Novak, who died of brain cancer on August 18th at the age of 78. Novak covered the Washington beat for over 50 years starting with the AP, the Wall Street Journal, and his syndicated column “Inside Report” with Rowland Evans, which he continued to write long after Evans retired. Most of us know him from his television persona on CNN as a host and guest on many news shows such as “The Capital Gang” and “Crossfire” where he played the curmudgeon to his peers and was called “The Prince of Darkness”, which he said referred to his pessimism about civilization, not his conservatism.

I had the privilege of a brief encounter with Novak in Florida in February of 2008 just a few months before he was diagnosed with brain cancer. The Young American Foundation (YAF) was traveling to various cities on a promotional tour and, as a long time supporter, I was invited to the event. Bob Novak was traveling with the group as an after-dinner speaker about the coming presidential election and was promoting his last book, “The Prince of Darkness”, an autobiography about his 50 years in Washington. My wife had just suffered a heart attack, had triple bypass surgery, and was recuperating at home at the time and I was reluctant to leave her for the evening. However, she knew I loved Novak and urged me to attend. The meeting was held at the Ritz Carlton and following the afternoon session I asked Ron Robinson, the President of YAF, if Novak was around because I wanted to meet him and have him sign my copy of his book. Ron directed me to the patio where people were beginning to gather for the pre-dinner cocktails.

I spotted Novak standing with some young college students who were part of the YAF entourage. I immediately went over and introduced myself and asked if he would sign his book for me. He smiled graciously and signed it with a nice salutation. Thus began a most fascinating and memorable 30 minutes, in which we discussed his past and current experiences like friends who hadn’t seen each other for years. We had great chemistry and he focused on my questions, as I was mesmerized about his observations of several Presidents. There was no pretense or omnipotent preaching, just honest observation of first hand, uncensored interactions with Johnson, Carter, Ford, Clinton, Reagan,and Bush I & II. He had particular admiration for Reagan and Johnson, who hosted his wedding party because Novak’s wife was a secretary in Johnson’s White House. He had particular disdain for Carter, who he called the biggest liar of any President he covered. Needless to say, I was taken by his naturalness, his concern for my wife’s health, and his appreciation of my recognition of his accomplishments. He was a man comfortable in his own skin and at a time in life when interaction with your public was now more important than any hills to climb.

My admiration of Robert Novak stems from his obsession with the story and the facts rather than spreading his own ideology or opinion in his reports, a lesson that should be heeded by our modern day journalists. He had the unique ability to cultivate his sources and was always loyal to them. Although he was conservative in his views, he was not a partisan. Novak was hard on Republicans as well as Democrats and was skeptical about power and the intervention of big government in our lives.

Novak converted to Catholicism in 1998, so I expect he is continuing his column for Saint Peter, writing about the big stories in Heaven. We will miss his column here on Earth and also the prince of darkness, who was really a gentle and caring man.

Term Limits for Seniors or Politicians?

It’s clear that the healthcare bill that is currently before the House will require considerable savings in order to achieve the deficit neutral goal that President Obama promised when this process began. Even then, it now appears that a middle class tax increase will be required in order to supplement the significant tax revenue shortfall that is now apparent as a result of this severe recession. So the question is why do we need to junk our current healthcare system at a time when we clearly can’t afford it and there are also bi-partisan proposals presented which will reduce costs in the current system and maintain the quality of care we now have, cover those uninsured who want coverage and are qualified to receive it, without bankrupting the country. I guess Nancy Pelosi will have to answer that question.

The Real Objective Behind Healthcare
The real answer is that the Democratic Party is hell bent on single payer universal healthcare and eventually junking the Medicare system and this is Phase One of that effort. The initial focus is on seniors who represent one-fourth of Medicare costs in the final years of their life. Therefore, eliminating tests, procedures, and medications for seniors because they are no longer in their “productive” years will result in considerable savings according to some of Obama’s czars, who believe that an early exit for “non-productive” citizens will be beneficial for the economy. This philosophy has been discussed in the stimulus bill and further expanded upon in the healthcare bill and exposed in the Wall Street Journal article: http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/assaultonseniors.html

Seniors Are Assets Not Liabilities
Well, maybe someone should inform the current administration that these seniors are mostly responsible for the economic growth and accomplishments of this country to date and have already paid into the Medicare and Social Security system for all of those who have preceded them because the government has run a giant Ponzi scheme on the funds that have gone into these programs for the last 40-75 years.

Since all legislators have their own very generous government pension and healthcare benefits for life and can continue to work their 1-2 months/year in wheelchairs and walkers, since they have no term limits and people keep voting them in because their seniority provides earmarks and pork barrel legislation for their communities, I guess they don’t care about those of us who have mandatory retirement or get “terminated” because we’re “too old”.

Perhaps they should ask how much the currently “productive” people have learned from their predecessors, how much the youth of this country relies on and seeks the wisdom of their grandparents, and how many of the world’s population want to keep their mothers and fathers with them for as long as they can?

Doctors Not Government Should Decide
Sure, we know that many people have living wills and don’t want to be kept alive artificially, but most of us want to hold on as long as our quality of life is good and our families want us around. However, we’re not talking about terminal illness here; we are talking about government making Orwellian decisions about your right to available healthcare relative to someone who they conclude has more “productive” potential.

I think we should have term limits on politicians, not on seniors, and I think it is absolutely preposterous to have to write a column about this as a citizen of the wealthiest country that ever existed on this planet.

The Israel Policy - Naive or Just Plain Dumb

The good cop/bad cop policy that Biden and Obama are playing with regard to Israel appears to be a cynical attempt by Obama to placate the growing fears within the American Jewish community over his increasingly extreme pro-Arab bias in Middle East policy. How he commanded so much of the Jewish vote has always been an enigma, since his bias has always been apparent to me. I realize the liberal tendency of Jewish voters, but Obama’s stance on Israel will eventually cause him to lose that voting block in 2012 if he continues on this path.

Back in early July, Biden proclaimed on national TV that “Israel can determine for itself – it’s a sovereign nation – what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran or anybody else…..Whether we agree or not. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that is going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.”

This is a reversal from his statement in January 2008 that “Israel will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran.” Then Obama jumps in and says that he had not given Israel a “green light” to attack Iran. His language was stunning in that he implied that Israel needs his permission to ensure its survival as a nation. This is bizarre to say the least. It sends the impression to Arab states that we dictate Israeli foreign policy and that they are a stooge of the U.S. and do not control their own sovereignty. This damages our credibility worldwide.

It seems that Obama’s remark is an attempt to placate our enemies in the Mid-East and attempt to change our “image” and show our willingness to negotiate our differences. Most of us realize that this approach has been tried by other administrations since Carter. We have found that strength is the only thing that resonates with our Mid-East adversaries. Our experience with Libya, Iraq, and Afganistan illustrate this. It certainly is Obama’s option to revert to this approach again; however, he must show progress. Thus far, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, have spit in his face. Things appear to be better in Syria now but they, like Libya, don’t have many options and we look like the best one at this point.

I hope that this is not the ignorance of a “community organizer” playing on the world stage. Where is our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Maybe we will soon see a Mid-East Czar, or is that George Mitchell or Richard Holbrook? At least they have a track record, compared with the bevy of czars we have now.

ObamaCare - A Travesty

We have been led to believe by the Obama administration that everybody wins with ObamaCare. We all will have equal right to quality healthcare, those who prefer their current plan will get to keep it, and all the currently uninsured will be covered, etc, etc., as the King says in “The King and I. Well, we have now learned that this is mostly, poppy-cock. The current plan on the table will have winners and losers and the only way to provide more care to more people and be deficit neutral is to have more losers.

Those of us with Medicare know about the shortfalls of government controlled healthcare. The government – not the doctors – determines the cost value for a particular procedure and they dictate the treatment protocols and how much the doctor can charge (or what they (Medicare) will pay), and how long a patient should remain in the hospital. Under ObamaCare, we will also have end-of-life counseling in case the government feels you’re too old to have open heart surgery, chemotherapy, or a hip replacement. “We think you should spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair because we’re trying to reduce medical costs and I have to meet my budget target on cost reduction this year”. Let’s be realistic that’s what you’re going to get with the current proposal.

In a recent New York Times/CBS poll (already, I’m sure your getting a little dubious), the pollsters concluded that most Americans are willing to pay higher taxes so that all can have health insurance and that the government could do a better job of holding down healthcare costs than the private sector. Since 10 percent of the population pays 55% of the taxes, I wonder how many of those polled actually pay taxes? It’s easy to be in favor of higher taxes when you don’t pay any.

The reality is that there will always be some people who receive less care than others under any healthcare system, depending on where you live, your social or income status, and how smart you are. Even under a free market, those who take from the system will get less care than those who pay for the system. Under Obama’s plan or that from the Democratic Congress, the government sets the standards that determines who gets care. Since most of the Obama’s czars are not accountable to anyone but him and not elected but appointed, do you want life and death decisions to be made by cronies, radicals, former criminals, and admitted communists? Do you want them making judgments on your health outcomes?

The administration and the Democrat controlled Congress have done their best to ram this legislation through before you have a chance to understand its ramifications. Their effort has failed, and now the summer recess provides the time for those legislators to get feedback from their constituency. The more we analyze this proposal the more their poll numbers will drop and the more we will realize that this is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress. It is critical that we the people stop this travesty and run those legislators who support it, out of town.