Fox News is the balance to CNN, ABC, etc.

Mr. President,

I find the criticism that your administration is making of Fox News and attempts to discredit it particularly non-democratic and totalitarian.  One of the reasons that Fox News gets high ratings is that CNN, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, and other major news media have become so liberally biased that many Americans don’t trust them to critically cover stories that are at odds with liberal political philosophy.  This liberal bias is EXTREMELY apparent – a good example is when Breitbart came out with the videos of ACORN encouraging illegal activity.  Initially the liberally-biased major media tried to sweep the story under the carpet.  The odd thing is “why?”  It would seem to me like a story like this would cause objective, critically-thinking media to look more closely at whether or not there was something worth further investigation, but instead they initially tried to discredit those who developed the videos.

I think you would agree that if the tables were turned and 90% of the major media were conservatively biased it would be troubling.  What makes the US great is not having a government controlled single-line of thought, but rather to have competing ideas vigorously debated and allowing the ideas that have the most merit to survive.

Your administration doesn’t need to agree with Fox News’ opinions, but it is EXTREMELY inappropriate for the executive branch try to influence other news media and the public to ostracize this organization.  I suspect that your administration is actually scared to death of Fox News because you recognize that your ideas and policies will be critically examined, and many of your administration’s ideas won’t look so good / survive when they are fully vetted.  Trying to suppress the communication of political opposition is not what the US is about – it is more similar to what would be be expected in China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina during the dirty war, East Germany from post WWII to 1989, or Nazi Germany.

$250 Payment to Seniors!?!

Mr. President,

Social Security payments should not go up automatically year after year.  If there are cost of living increases then, yes, it may be appropriate to adjust payments to reflect those increases.  But right now we are in a deflationary time, and that means that seniors can buy more goods and services for less money.  So, why should we be issuing an additional $250 payment?  It’s time to stop spending money like a drunken sailor.  This has got to stop.  You are doing intergenerational theft, leaving future generations with an astronomical debt burden caused by irresponsible spending.

A Nobel Peace Prize for Barack Obama?!?

Mr. President,

It sounds like you were as shocked and surprised as the rest of us that you were selected to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, particularly since you were nominated after serving only 11 days in office.

When you consider that Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for the award five different times and never received it, doesn’t it seem odd to you that you have been chosen to receive the award?  You have certainly had some significant accomplishments in your life:  you have written a few best selling books, obtained a law degree, served as a state of Illinois legislator, served as a US senator, and now are serving as US President.  While you’ve shared lots of ideas on your vision for a more peaceful world, none of your ideas have been successfully implemented, yet.  In fact, some of your ideas are already appearing to be pollyanna-ish, and many countries and groups are demonstrating that their dislike for the US had nothing to do directly with Bush or partisan policies, but rather they are opposed to the very ideas that make America great: freedom (of speech, religion, pursuit of happiness), self determination, free enterprise, etc.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the Nobel Prize Committee did not select you for accomplishments in creating peace, but rather that they are trying to manipulate, influence, and bribe you into behaviors that are consistent with your idealistic campaign rhetoric, but which may very well be antithetical to America’s best interest?  I would urge you to reject the Nobel Peace Prize.  Strategically, I believe this will even cause you to be held in higher esteem worldwide than the award itself.  Nobody can take away the fact that they DID choose you to receive it, but by rejecting it you send a very clear message that you will not be influenced by those in other countries.  You would be elevating the importance and integrity of the office of the US Presidency above the Nobel Peace Prize.  To have international success it will be important to be respected as an independent thinker who listens to others, but without the appearance of being manipulated or pressured by others.  It is clear to me that the Nobel committee’s primary goal in selecting you was to try to influence your behavior going forward.

Take Responsibility for Bad Ideas

Mr. President,

On Labor Day, while speaking to the AFL-CIO, you were highly critical of Republicans for their lack of a solution for fixing the health care system.  This is disingenuous.  If you believe that no solutions have been presented, then you aren’t listening (or, I suspect, you are ignoring them because you don’t like what you hear).  There have been many solutions provided but your partisan congressional leaders don’t want to make them part of any reform.  Some of the key ideas that have been presented by Republicans include:  significant tort reform; allowing individuals to deduct health insurance premiums on their tax returns (not just businesses); repeal government mandates about what must be covered by health insurance; and repeal all laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

I find it interesting that you continue to blame Republicans for the dying popularity of a health care plan with a government provider option.  Has it ever occurred to you that this is simply a very poor idea?  According to The Hill, “At least 23 House Democrats already have told constituents or hometown media that they oppose the massive healthcare overhaul touted by President Barack Obama.”  Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority.  If the health care scheme were such a good one, and it was only partisan politics inhibiting the plan, then there would be no problem or concern with getting democrats to go along with it.  However, despite massive propaganda and many media channels that refuse to critically assess and provide the public with accurate information on the plan (i.e. ABC) you are losing a significant amount of support for the plan in your own party.

It’s time to take responsibility for bad ideas, and stop blaming others.  I am getting very weary of you blaming everyone else.  Yes, you inherited a struggling economy, but had you implemented appropriate corrective action (i.e. tax cuts for corporations, tax credits for anyone buying a house – not just first time home buyers, elimination of double taxation of corporate profits, etc.) we would likely be seeing a much stronger recovery by now.  Instead, you promoted dangerous, government-expanding, anti-free market policies which you claimed would limit the rise in unemployment.  You were wrong.  Your ideas were wrong.  We are now likely experiencing worse pain than if you had done nothing at all. Your policies are making things worse, not better.  The ideas are yours.  Take ownership of them.  If they aren’t working, then try listening to and implementing views from across the aisle.

More specifically, please drop the current form of health care reform.  Instead, focus on reducing government and legal regulations and costs that make health care expensive.  Repeal the so-called stimulus spending – a growing national deficit and debt are going to lead to long-term financial disaster if you don’t get government spending under control.  Reduce tax rates to spur economic growth – this may not be consistent with your populist views but it worked under Kennedy and Reagan.

Ted Kennedy: The Greatest US Senator of Our Time?

Mr. President:

I recognize that it is bad form to be critical of those who have just passed away.  However, I must take great exception with your hyperbolic glorification of Senator Ted Kennedy.  Today, after learning of his death you said, “Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time.”  If you truly believe that Ted Kennedy was the greatest U.S. Senator of our time, then God help us.

Instead of honoring someone who evaded justice due to their family legacy and wealth, I would like to take this opportunity to remember Mary Jo Kopechne.  Had Ted Kennedy been a more honorable person, perhaps he would have attempted to save Mary Jo after driving her off the bridge in Chappaquiddick in 1969, or at least notified the police immediately after the incident occurred so that they could try to save her.  Instead the “greatest US Senator” went back to his hotel and didn’t bother notifying authorities until the next morning.  Experts believe that if the police had been notified, Mary Jo could have been saved.  I’m sickened that justice never occurred, and that the people of Massachusetts kept re-electing him.  I, for one, am not saddened by his passing.

Alternative Healthcare Reform

Mr. President:

I’m surprised that your administration and many in congress are so adamant and confident that the current proposed form of healthcare reform are in the best interest of the nation while totally disregarding alternate viewpoints.  What happened to the bipartisanship that you promised?

You and many members of congress chide those opposed to socialist-style government healthcare which over-time would likely turn into a single-payer system.  I hear you say that opponents of the plans only say “no” without posing good alternatives, but your criticism is not accurate.  There are many people presenting alternate suggestions and plans on ways to improve health coverage and reduce healthcare costs, you simply aren’t listening.

For example, in today’s Wall Street Journal, there is an opinion piece written by John Mackey, the co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, titled “The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare.”  When I go into a Whole Foods grocery store I feel like I’m in a bastion of liberalness.  So, I found it surprising that the CEO of that store has such pragmatic ideas for healthcare reform that are so dissimilar to the plans currently being promoted by congress.  I would strongly encourage you to change course, abandon the idea of universal government healthcare, and instead incorporate ideas such as those presented by Mackey.  Mackey offers eight steps to improve health care without adding to the deficit:

1.  Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

2.  Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

3.  Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

4.  Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

5.  Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

6.  Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what healthcare treatments cost.

7.  Enact Medicare reform.

8.  Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Please notice that John Mackey’s solutions ultimately call for less government, not more.  These are common-sense reforms that will lower healthcare costs, improve care, and won’t cost trillions of dollars.  These are the types of reforms that the majority of Americans will support.

The Real Healthcare Town Hall Meetings

Mr. President:

The town hall meetings you have been hosting have been very carefully managed.  The people that attend have been hand selected by your staff, and allowable questions carefully screened.  How do I know?  Because the questions and comments that arise are laughably out-of-synch with the questions and concerns that the majority of Americans I talk with express about government healthcare.  In short, the healthcare town hall meetings are nothing more than propaganda.

On today’s Drudge Report and Fox News websites there were a variety of links to videos that show non-scripted town hall meetings held by senators and congressmen, that I believe are more reflective of how most American’s feel about your Health Care scheme.  I would suggest you view them and take into consideration what the “silent” majority really think about your healthcare plan, not just the patsy’s you have selected to participate in your town hall propaganda shows.

Senator Arlen Specter (D – PA) Q&A

Congressman Tim Bishop (D – NY) protest

Congressman Lloyd Doggett’s (D – TX) meeting on Obamacare

Furthermore, an interesting video emerged which indicates that you are not being truthful with the American people about your goals for healthcare.  Recently, you have been reassuring citizens that you are not striving for a single payer system, and don’t want to put private insurers out of business.  Yet, this video which was posted on the Drudge Report website shows you, in your own words, describing that a single payer system is your ultimate goal but that it will take a while to achieve it.  Listen closely, Mr. President:  the majority of American’s don’t want socialized, universal, government health care!  In case you can’t remember what you said here’s a link to a video that captured what you have said:

UNCOVERED VIDEO: OBAMA EXPLAINS HOW HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN WILL ‘ELIMINATE’ PRIVATE INSURANCE

Economic & Political Lessons from Cash For Clunkers

Mr. President:

The “Cash For Clunkers” program has provided some interesting economic and political lessons.  Here are the lessons that I hope you recognize:

1. Incentives are more effective at improving the economy than spending money directly propping up or rescuing organizations, expanding government, creating new regulations, and deficit spending. While I’m not sure that I agree with providing generous tax-payer funded incentives for car buyers who trade in older vehicles, after only one week the program has had such a large number of participants that it is projected to have run out of its initial $1 billion funding.  With an estimate of $4,000 in incentives being provided per car in this program, that represents about 250,000 cars sold in one week using the program.  While there may have been some who participated in the program who were going to buy a car anyway, when you consider that for 2009 the average monthly sales of cars, light trucks, SUVs, and crossovers has been about 1 million units per month, I will be surprised if this program doesn’t show a 20%+ bump in unit sales for the month of July.  The fact that the program has been so successful in getting people to buy that it is thought to have run out of money after only one week, resulting in an additional $2 billion in funding being promised, clearly shows that providing people with incentives works at getting them to spend.  Another incentive program that seems to be helping the housing market is the first time home buyer $8,000 tax credit.  Yet, this program doesn’t seem to be as successful as the cash for clunkers.  I suspect that’s because it discriminates against many people who would take advantage of the program. The first time homebuyer credit  requires the buyer to have not owned a home for the past three years and the home must be the buyer’s primary residence.  If this tax credit was expanded to include anyone who buys a home this year regardless of whether or not they have owned a home in the past three years or plan on living in it, I suspect you would see the housing market rebound far more quickly and substantially.  I am not comfortable with the nature or size of the incentives, and I don’t agree that it is a good use of tax payer dollars to provide incentives to others who want to buy a new car or home.  That seems a little too much like re-distribution of wealth to me.  However, my point here isn’t whether the cash for clunkers or first time home buyer credits are good or not, but rather whether providing such incentives are effective at getting people to make economic choices – and clearly they are.  One of the most powerful government tools of incentives and disincentives is the tax code.  Higher taxes on anyone will hurt the economy, while lower taxes will allow the free market to correct the economy with less government involvement.  Consequently, I would encourage you to focus less on government spending, government programs, and government regulation which require economy-killing higher taxes, and instead focus on creating incentives through non-discriminating tax credits and cuts (i.e. not just tax cuts for lower or middle income people, while raising taxes on job producing high income earners and businesses.  Tax cuts must be for all – especially for those that have the greatest impact on the economy and job creation).

2.  The Cash for Clunkers program has been poorly administered. News reports indicate that the government computer system crashed when trying to accommodate the inquiries, requests, and applications for the rebates.  In a Wall Street Journal article “New Cash Steered to Clunkers“, Koons Automotive Companies, a large dealer chain around Baltimore and Washington D.C., said it took three days to get its 16 dealers registered, and that their accountant were having trouble logging on to the government’s system and were getting vouchers kicked back by the system.  Alex Perdikis, Koons’s executive vice president, said that it’s “. . . the worst-run program I’ve ever seen.”  It isn’t surprising that the program isn’t being well run.  It is rare for the government to operate anything efficiently or effectively.  This is why so many of us are opposed to programs like universal government healthcare – we are certain that the government will make things worse, overall, not better.  Instead, why not provide creative tax incentives that encourage private enterprise to solve the country’s problems?

Government Healthcare: Spend $1.5 Trillion to Solve a $100 Billion a Year Problem

Mr. President:

I continue to be baffled by the lack of common sense being applied to the national healthcare debate.  Universal government healthcare, particularly as being promoted in the House’s current bill, is a solution that is worse than the problem.

The estimates for the cost of implementing government universal healthcare is $1.5 trillion.  I suspect that significantly understates the true cost, but for sake of making my argument let’s assume that’s correct.  According to the National Coalition on Health Care (who appear to support universal government healthcare) the United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services.  Yet, if it is costing the US $100 billion a year, it means that we are already paying for it (by hospitals absorbing it, insurance premiums that are higher, etc.).  If the government provides universal health care it doesn’t really save money, instead it shifts the burden from being paid directly by individuals and businesses to the government that receives its money from citizens and businesses through tax revenues.  So, while the idea of having everyone not have to worry about the ability to come up with money for treatment is a nice goal, I would argue that the actual overall cost savings that will be achieved through a universal government healthcare plan is considerably less than $100 billion a year.

Consequently, does it really make sense to spend $1.5 trillion to save considerably less than $100 billion a year?  In addition to the outrageous cost, there are some significant risks of unintended consequences.  For example, the US has been the leader in developing innovative life enhancing and life extending pharmaceuticals and treatment programs, but under a governmental universal health care system the risk/reward relationship may be altered which will stifle this important innovation.  Another example, is that with the higher taxes imposed on businesses and individuals to pay for the system, there may be further deterioration of the economy and permanent levels of decreased money in the private sector (and aren’t higher incomes and wealth the best antidote to lack of affordability of health care?).

To further illustrate the absurdity of the cost, the most commonly cited number of uninsured in the US is about 45 million people.  Included in that estimate of uninsured are 5-9 million non-US citizens.  I don’t believe that it is anyone’s intent to provide coverage for non-US citizens, so that lowers the number to 36-40 million people.  Also included in the uninsured number are over 3 million people who have household incomes that exceed $100,000 a year who should be capable of buying insurance but choose not to.  I have also read that there are a few million people who are eligible for paid-for employer or government health care, who have simply not signed up for coverage.   Consequently, the true number of people who are uninsured, can’t afford it, and would be eligible for government health care as US citizens is likely closer to 30-35 million people.  Using $1.5 trillion as the cost of implementing universal government healthcare, this translates into a cost of between $42,857 and $50,000 per uninsured person.

Universal government health care is bad policy and it is outrageously expensive to boot.  You have criticized opponents for not having alternate solutions, but the reality is that they do.  You just aren’t listening.  For example, you have totally ignored tort reform as part of the solution to lack of affordability of healthcare, despite the fact that implementing significant medical tort reform would save $100 billion a year (and this would be a real savings, not just transferring the burden from the private sector to the public sector).  In today’s Wall Street Journal, Bobby Jindal’s article, “How to Make Health-Care Reform BiPartisan“, provides a variety of ideas that should be considered in improving health care and making it more cost effective.

Change = Economic Uncertainty

Mr. President:

In January when you took office, you announced and started rapidly pursuing the numerous items of “change” on which you campaigned.  I believe you are on the wrong track on most of your initiatives.  In addition I think that one of the biggest inhibitors of an economic recovery is change itself.

Change sounds like a wonderful idea.  It’s dynamic, proactive, exciting, shakes up the status quo, and brings forth new ideas.  Yet change causes instability and uncertainty.  Instability and uncertainty inhibit business growth and investment.  For example, an investor will require a far lower price to entice him to buy a highly volatile stock.  You have tried to pass such a whirlwind of significant legislation that the only thing that feels certain to people right now is that there will be more change.

When the stimulus bill was passed you and your team thought that this would have an immediate positive impact on the economy and would lead to an unemployment rates that would top out at 8%.  Today the country is at a 10% unemployment rate and climbing.  While I am skeptical whether the stimulus spending would have any long-term positive impact on the economy, your Change agenda has prevented it from working at all.

Let me share with you an example, to illustrate why I think this is:  suppose you have an entrepreneur who owns a business with $5 million in revenue and earnings of $1 million.  He is at a point where his manufacturing business is running at near capacity.  By adding $500k in equipment, doing a $500k expansion of his building, and hiring four additional people, he expects to be able to add $1 million more in revenue with $125k in cash flow.  However, he then remembers that the President has said he will probably let the Bush Tax Cuts expire.  If the President does so, and the business owner goes through with the expansion he will have to pay $77k more in income taxes.  The entrepreneur also knows that if the current health care bill is passed in its current form, he will likely pay an additional $13k in sur-tax charges.  He wonders if the health care bill will have additional costs to him beyond the sur-tax (such as higher health care costs for employees, greater compliance requirements).  He also knows that the cap and trade bill may cost him some money.  There are a variety of other pieces of legislation that the business owner worries could impact his business which would make it less profitable, or require more fees.  His own state has increased their taxes a couple of percent which would cost him an additional $22,500.  He quickly does the math and says, “I’m not sure if all of this CHANGE is going to occur, but if it does, it looks to me like I’ll be paying at least $113k more in taxes, with $58k being attributed to my expansion.  Why should I make an investment of $1 million+ and a lot of headache in order to get an after-tax return of 6.7%?  Particularly when I don’t know what other types of CHANGE are coming down the pike that could cause further personal and business economic damage.  I’ll scrap my expansion plans until I can feel confident that there is going to be a more stable political climate where I can more accurately assess the risk / reward relationship for an investment.”

The Change you are promoting causes entrepreneurs like the one above not to expand.  In the above example, it would mean that four fewer jobs were created, a $500k building expansion would not have been pursued, and $500k in equipment would not have been purchased.

As long as you pursue aggressive Change, our economy will be unstable.  SLOW DOWN.  I believe if you had done absolutely nothing from the first day you entered office until now, that our economy would be showing more strength than it is now.  Your CHANGE is making the economy worse, not better.