On Tuesday, I forwarded an e-mail I received that reminded us that every major program of the Federal Government has failed to finance itself in a sustainable fashion.
On Wednesday, I exposed Climategate (which finally got on a mainstream media outlet other than Fox News [CBS News, Dec. 2]) as a "licence to fleece, cheat, and rob," in the words of British writer James Delingpole.
Yesterday, I explained the real purpose of the war in Afghanistan, using Gen. Smedley Butler's phrase "war is a racket."
On Wednesday, I also reproduced an analysis of the health care reform act by Texas attorney Michael Connelly, in which he cites the dangers of the proposed legislation, both to the personal liberties of Americans and to their pocketbooks.
Now the Xenia Ohio Citizen Journal has run an article by Marc Kilmer, policy analyst at the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, which clearly explains the costs of the health care bill to Ohioans. The bill (HR 3200) certainly should be defeated; but if it passes, Mr. Kilmer provides some excellent reasons why Ohioans should support Ohio's HJR 3 and SJR 7 to prohibit mandatory participation in the proposed federal health care system.
Mr. Kilmer obeserves that in 2008, there were 272,000 Ohioans who live in families making at least three times the poverty level who were uninsured. "Under the plans moving through Congress, they will be forced to buy a product they presumably do not want or pay high fines. Either way, this legislation will cost them."
In addition, the 76,000 Ohio households that make over $200,000 will be subject to an income surtax. Many of these people are small business owners whose productivity will be further penalized if this bill is enacted.
The health care bill also creates a new unfunded mandate:
This federal legislation will also likely mean state taxes will need to be raised. Both House and Senate bills mandate that the state Medicaid program be expanded, which could mean as many as 519,000 new enrollees in this state. While the federal government would pay much of the cost for this expansion, state taxpayers would be required to fund part of it. One estimate puts that cost at $922 million over five years. With the governor and legislators struggling to find ways to balance the current state budget, it seems likely this new burden will mean even higher state taxes.
While proponents of the bill claim that health care is "deficit-neutral," that assumes that costs stay within projections [unlikely, as I showed on Tuesday], that Congress takes the politically unpalatable step of making the promised future cuts in Medicare.
Mr. Kilmer's conclusion:
Today the [federal] budget deficit stands at $1.4 trillion. Total government debt is 41% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Under President Obama’s budget proposals, it will rise to 82% of GDP by 2019. This type of deficit spending isn’t sustainable; someone, someday, will have to pay for it. If this health care bill adds to the deficit that will mean even more debt for future generations to pay off.
No one is saying that this health care bill won’t help some people. Of course some Ohioans will benefit from it. But to evaluate it fairly, both benefits and costs should be considered. The amount of money this bill will require in new and future taxes is significant. Ohioans simply can’t afford the financial burden of this so-called “reform.”
In other words, it is yet another scam to fleece the American people in favor of government and favored interests. It is blatantly unconstitutional. A better and far less expensive solution to health care would be a state-sponsored program along these lines.