Non-aviation post…
Posted by Paul Cox on October 26th, 2009
Well, mostly.
There’s been some carping and complaining amongst people who are unhappy with President Obama’s economic stimulus package. Never mind the fact that many economists are saying that it was only barely enough to stave off worse problems, and that in reality we should pass another stimulus package to really get the economy going again; these people think the first one was too much.
A common complaint is that it passes on a lot of debt to our children and grandchildren. This is something that right-wingers only worry about when it’s a DEMOCRATIC President and/or Congress that’s spending the money; when it’s Republicans racking up debt, no problem.
Anyway, here’s a little something I wrote the other day on Facebook about the whole passing-on-debt thing and our nation’s financial priorities… the comment I was answering said “No matter how you look at it we are leaving a tremendous amount of irresponsible debt to our children.”
And I said…
I disagree- I think it’s quite responsible debt. Our nation needs the kick-start to the economy, plus the projects that the stimulus is funding can be beneficial for a long time.
Look at it this way- President George W Bush, in his first month of office and in response to economic problems, put forward a economic plan projected to cost the nation $1.6 trillion dollars (with inflation that’s up to $1.9 trillion). The plan consisted primarily of tax cuts for rich people, with nothing built, created, or funded by the government.
President Obama, in his first month in office and in response to economic problems, put forward an economic plan that is projected to cost the nation just under $800 million dollars. The plan consisted of tax cuts to people making less than $200K/year, some extension of unemployment benefits to help those out of work in the crisis, and spending on projects like roads, bridges, investments in healthcare and education, and improvements to government facilities and fleets.
Both plans added to the national debt. Both represented deficit spending.
But given the choice between rich dudes getting tax cuts and putting money into our nation’s infrastructure (and putting people back to work at the same time), I’d say that the second thing is FAR more responsible than the first.
I bring this all up because in my opinion, my union (NATCA) isn’t doing enough to educate its members about why things like health care reform, or the economic stimulus are important. When you look at the hard numbers, it becomes very clear.
For example, think back to 2001. Were you, or people you know, getting taxed out of your home? Were you desperate for money? I bet that if you were like me, you weren’t crazy about the amount you were taxed, but you were managing to live with it.
To me, that means we didn’t really need the tax cuts that Bush passed. And in reality, the vast majority of us didn’t benefit very much from those cuts, at least not compared with how much the really rich folks made. The top 5% in income in this nation received over half of the money from those tax cuts.
Now ask yourself- putting all that money back into the bank accounts of the rich folks- how much do you think that really stimulated the economy? Compare it to President Obama’s stimulus package- which is putting hundreds of millions of dollars out there to pay for projects like roads and bridges and sewers and infrastructure. How much do you think that money, going to American workers, is stimulating the economy?
Think again of health care reform. The Bush tax cuts, over the first ten years they were in place, were set up to cost our nation over $2.1 TRILLION dollars. The health care reform proposal being kicked around by Congress right now will cost, over the first ten years, less than $1 trillion.
What’s a better use of money? Spending it on a health care proposal that will lower health care costs for all of us AND have the side benefit of pulling tens of millions of people back to where they’ve got health care coverage, or putting money into the pockets of already-very-rich people?
I know many of you don’t come to the Follies to get all political, at least outside of the FAA and aviation issues. The reality, though, is that all of these things affect us. Maybe you oppose health care reform, in which case I’d be willing to bet that A) you’ve already got decent coverage, and B) that you don’t personally know one of the 45,000 people who died in the past year because they didn’t have health care coverage.
But look at the numbers. We have choices. We can pass tax cuts which go into the hands of only a few people and don’t churn out there in the economy, or we can put in a stimulus package and fix our roads and stuff. We can pass tax cuts and see the top 5% take over 50% of the money, or we can implement a change in our healthcare system, save all of us money, and have the side benefit of a healthier nation.
I’d say it’s a no-brainer, and yet there’s a bunch of whack jobs in our nation’s leadership who can’t see this common sense.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:43 am
I am no financial guru, and I refuse to drink the kool-aid offered by both sides. So I went to google and searched for “bush vs obama spending”. Not that google is an expert, I just set a base search.
The first one was a Heritage article that shows the Washington Posts article and bar graph that shows the opposite of what Paul Cox states.
Yahoo Answers – the same.
Washington Examiner – sorry, it disagrees.
Bloomberg – same.
Do any of us spend like Obama in our own finances?
Obama informed us that by doing the bailout we will avert a certain unemployment level – we are now above that level.
Where is the transperency in gov’t?? Why are politicians voting on bills that are not printed. Campaign pledge was to let the Americans read all bills 72 hours before a vote.
I’m sorry I voted the wat I did.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Paul, if I have a family income of 250K with employer provided health care, do you think this will lower my health care costs? I spent 25 yrs watching how the gov ran the FAA. I’m not to confident.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:03 am
All men are idiots, George Bush, Jr. is our King.
Grump
October 26th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Nice try Paul. I believe that there is a basic question that has not been answered. It is a personal question for each individual. The answer for each person pretty much determines where they come down on the current issues (not just health care).
the question is: Do you believe that , as a nation (arguably the richest nation on this earth), we should provide for the less fortunate among us at a cost shared by all of us.
OR , Do you believe that As a nation, we should provide the opportunity for prosperity, EQUALLY,to all individuals and let them prosper by their abilities and hard work OR suffer for their lack of ability and/or their lack of hard work. (ignoring disaster and circumstances)?
AM I My Brother Keeper or is it YOYO( You’re On Your Own)? And to what level is each carried to?
Not easy questions are they?
October 26th, 2009 at 6:30 am
The current deficit is about 38k for each citizen. Considering well over half are paying no taxes, where is this cash coming from. Should we be increasing this amount at an ever increasing rate. It’s not that I object to the idea of people getting health insurance. It’s that I (selfishly) don’t want to pay for the cost for 3 or 4 (or 10) of my fellow citizen’s insurance. I also don’t want my care rationed.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Not to mention a hugely expensive, unnecessary, wastefull war in Iraq, (Unless you were a govt. contractor, then life was good!) and loosing the war in Afghanistan, where were the republicans worried about fiscal responsibility then? My daughter has insurance but it doesn’t pay for swine flu tests or shots, disqualifies almost everything she has ever claimed for bogus reasons, and is virtually worthless! Hell yes we need to reform health insurance! We also need to eliminate the lobbying/buying/selling of our representatives before any meaningful reforms can take place, but I don’t see that happening any time soon unfortunately.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Your political system has failed, everywhere in the world it has been tried. This notion that it only failed every other time is history because the right people weren’t in charge has gone beyond lunacy. The current problems were CAUSED by government regulation and political correctness. I can’t understand how people of normal adult intellegence continue to believe this crap from the left.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:14 am
An article today from Bruce Bartlett’s blog. He is a real economist. Worked for Reagan and the first Bush.
Why the Economy Needs Spending, Not Tax Cuts
Oct
24
Bruce Bartlett
Yesterday, Mort Zuckerman, owner of the New York Daily News, exercised his prerogative by publishing an essay in that publication complaining that “Obama’s spending and borrowing leaves U.S. gasping for air.”
This is common criticism among Republicans, who have a vested interest in blaming everything bad that happens on the Democrats. The implication is that if voters weren’t so stupid and had instead elected John McCain to be president then the budget would be balanced, the debt would have disappeared, and the economy would be booming.
Mr. Zuckerman, however, is generally thought to be a liberal Democrat. And as a newspaper owner he likes to pretend that he is a journalist. But he or whoever ghosted this op-ed for him neglected to check the facts.
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement.
Therefore, unless one thinks that McCain would have somehow or other raised taxes and cut spending (with a Democratic Congress), rather than enacting a stimulus of his own, then a deficit of $1.2 trillion was baked in the cake the day Obama took office. Any suggestion that McCain would have brought in a lower deficit is simply fanciful.
Now let’s fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.
To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.
It should be further noted that revenues are lower to a large extent because of tax cuts included in the February stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these tax cuts reduced revenues in FY2009 by $98 billion over what would otherwise have been the case. This is important because the Republican position has consistently been that tax cuts and only tax cuts are an appropriate response to the economic crisis.
According to the Council of Economic Advisers, as of August the actual budgetary effect of the February stimulus was to reduce revenues by $62.6 billion and raise spending by $88.8 billion. Of the spending, the vast bulk went to transfers such as extended unemployment benefits and aid to state and local governments, which may have prevented cuts in spending that would otherwise have occurred but probably didn’t do anything to increase spending. Only $16.5 billion in stimulus funds went to investment outlays for things such as public works. This is a trivial amount of money in a $14 trillion economy.
As if we needed further evidence that transfers have virtually no stimulative effect, the Bureau of Labor Statistics just issued a report on the 2008 tax rebate showing that only 30 percent of the money was spent; the rest was saved, thus providing no stimulus to short-run growth. (See also this CBO report and this new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research confirming this analysis.) On January 24, 2008, George W. Bush assured the country that a tax rebate was just the right medicine to prevent an economic downturn.
It continues to amaze me that no one on the left or right seems to have noticed that the essential factor causing the economic downturn is a decline in velocity: the number of times that money turns over in the economy, which is measured as the ratio of the money supply to GDP. In 2006 and 2007 this ratio was 1.9. I take that as normal. In 2008, velocity fell to 1.76 and currently is 1.69. (I divided end of year M2 into 4th quarter GDP; the latest figure is 2nd quarter GDP divided by end of June money supply.)
If velocity were 1.9 instead of 1.69, 2nd quarter GDP would have been $1.6 trillion higher. Therefore, no recession. The output gap would have simply disappeared. From this I conclude that a lack of spending in the economy is the central problem and the only policies that will help are those that increase spending – consumer spending, investment spending, net exports or government spending. How tax cuts would have helped – or at least the type of tax cuts advocated by Republicans – is a mystery to me.
I continue to believe that the Republican position is nonsensical. Final proof is that the previously cited CBO report shows total federal revenues coming in at 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product in FY2009. According to the Office of Management and Budget, one has to go back to 1950 to find a year when federal revenues were lower as a share of GDP. For reference, revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP during the Reagan administration and were never lower than 17.3 percent – 2.4 percent of GDP above where they are now.
I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration’s anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending – real spending on things like public works – has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I hate to admit, I am not helping the economy. I am paying off around $3800 in debt off each month. My family spending is at a minimum.
Right now I am living like no one else, so that later I can live like no one else!
Basic Premise is correct, which side do you fall on – continuously giving and providing for the less fortunate, or providing the opportunity for all to succeed or fail? And then you have to let them fail to learn.
Plus people are actually saving at a positive rate now instead of spending 2-3% more than they make. This may be a fundamental shift in the economy as people actually save money instead of using credit.
And to get out of debt, I recommend “The Total Money Makeover” by Dave Ramsey.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Just a bunch of upset people crying that McSame lost. The economy was already in a major tailspin when Obama took office. I wonder how many years it would have taken for things to get better had we not spent money on stimulating the economy. Fact is if we hadn’t stimulated the economy we would have went well past the target unemployment Obama was trying to avoid.
For all the Bush years the rich got richer, MUCH richer and my personal financial situation got worse along with a majority of the rest of the population. the runaway unemployment, rise in energy costs and gouging of homeowners with financial products they could not afford….all those where Bush products. Ohhh, all those wars, started by Bush.
As far as this medical stuff goes, I hate it. We should put people in debtors prison if they break a leg and can’t afford the medical costs, not put the costs on to someone else like they do today. The new plan still puts the costs from the people that COULLD afford insurance but choose not to, to the people like us that carry it because our job helps provide decent coverage and we know we need to pay our share to have it to avoid losing everything. There has to be a plan for deadbeats to pay for their own insurance. Maybe permanently remove welfare recipients from the welfare roster if they are even remotely associated with crime, drugs or gangs. Set a time limit on welfare, stop rewarding people for having babies they can not afford by increasing their monthly income. Make welfare cover the necessities in life, food, water and shelter (With heat). NO cell phones, no cars, no air conditioning, no cable tv. Stop paying more in welfare than minimum wage.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
If you really believe that Republican policies will make it so that, as a nation, we will provide the opportunity for prosperity, EQUALLY, to all individuals and let them prosper by their abilities and hard work OR suffer for their lack of ability and/or their lack of hard work, then I have a bridge to sell you.
The answer for each person pretty much determines where they come down on the current issues (not just health care).
the question is: Do you believe that, as a nation (arguably the richest nation on this earth), we should set the example for how civilized humans should live, and slightly decrease our admittedly very high standard of living so that all may live with a minimum level of opportunity and dignity
OR, do you believe that as a nation, we should provide the opportunity for prosperity to all individuals based in large part on the quality of life and prosperity of their parents and let raging class disparities continue or even get worse, while allowing a vast number of people to languish in what becomes an increasingly large underclass that it becomes increasingly popular to secretly hate?
Am I a rational, civilized adult, or is it every man (or economic group) for himself? And to what level is each carried to? And can I really act like I’m ethical when my votes go towards pushing the boot down on the throat of the poor even harder than it already is?
Not easy questions are they? For some of us, at least.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
So now, objecting to the government giving my money to the poor is pushing the boot down on their throat? There is room for rational debate on these issues without demonizing the other side. Yes, I know republicans do it also.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Yes, in the long run it will lower your costs. There’s a simple reason why.
See, the government isn’t going to “run health care” according to this proposal. Doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, drug companies… all the big players will still be private.
But what true health care reform offers is the chance to get pretty much ALL of our citizens covered. This costs more in the short run and less in the long run for a simple reason. That is that right now, everyone has the right to last-ditch health care coverage anyway.
It’s just that we provide it the most expensive way possible, through the emergency room. We don’t treat problems until they become a crisis. It’s the worst thing we could be doing, because at that point these problems become tremendously expensive to treat (if we can treat them at all- over 45,000 people each year die from lack of primary healthcare coverage.)
So will the healthcare proposal wind up lowering costs? Absolutely. Right now, we all pay inflated costs because ER visits have so many unpaid cases. Get those folks under some form of coverage, get them treated for their problems when it’s earlier and less expensive, and we all wind up paying less.
There’s a lot of other stuff in the healthcare reform bill that lowers costs- electronic forms and a public option for a non-profit insurance provider and better preventative care- but the biggie is getting everyone covered so they can get health care when it’s far less expensive to treat a problem.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Paul, I understand the theory. I just don’t see it working out that way. I also see many companies dumping their health care coverage because the public option is there. I also don’t believe that 45k are dying every year because of a lack of insurance.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Ok, maybe 45,000 people don’t die every year from lack of insurance. But, certainly, thousands and thousands go bankrupt every year from health issues.
http://foxyurl.com/KEo
Go the the site and select your congressional district and see how many lives are ruined by health care issues.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
And, oh, by the way….my “government run health care”, or what we know as FEHBP…….my premiums are going DOWN 8 percent this year. (GEHA)
October 27th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Not sure Paul T gets your facts at …
Daily Briefing Current federal spending track called ‘unsustainable’ By Otto Kreisher, CongressDaily The Congressional Budget Office presented a long-range budget forecast Thursday warning that due to massive increases in projected health care costs, “under any plausible scenario, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path.” “The heart of the problems is that health care costs will literally consume the U.S. economy…
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/1207/121307cdpm1.htm&oref=search
interest rates will rise – inflation is around the corner people
October 27th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Paul T, FEHBP is not really gov. run. If the plan was to make the FEHBP available to all, I don’t think you;d see any (well, not many) objections.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:11 am
I’m shocked that you guys see how the government works (not), and then want them to run your health care! Not mine, thank you very much. Either you don’t really believe that the FAA or government in general is that badly managed and you are complaining (about FAA management) on this and other blogs just to complain, or you are at best ignorant of the result of any government managed program.
What happens when the new “Health Care Agency” is rated 217 out of 217???? I for one don’t want that to happen.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:15 am
“I’m shocked that you guys see how the government works (not), and then want them to run your health care! Not mine, thank you very much. Either you don’t really believe that the FAA or government in general is that badly managed and you are complaining (about FAA management) on this and other blogs just to complain, or you are at best ignorant of the result of any government managed program.
What happens when the new “Health Care Agency” is rated 217 out of 217???? I for one don’t want that to happen.”
What happens if it’s rated number one ? You come back on the follies and recant ?
Just because FAA is a sick, diseased agency, doesn’t mean other agencies necessarily are.
Millions of American seniors, service members, in addition to members of Congress are receiving government funded or provided health care.
The key is to get more Americans covered…unless you think health insurance/coverage is a privilege and not a right.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Would a gov’t health care plan be perfect? Nope. Not by a long shot.
Will it reduce overall costs? I believe like Paul; yes, over time.
Is the ‘let’s not change a thing’ plan a recipe for disaster? You betcha. Just look at what the banking industry did when the gov’t turned it’s back on it. The housing crisis was COMPLETELY self-inflicted by bankers run amok. We gave the kids the keys to the candy store and then acted shocked when they robbed us blind.
The health care industry wants the same treatment. They want to be left alone to dictate costs, coverage, etc., all at OUR peril. The gov’t plans being proposed won’t eliminate private insurance. But it WILL give them something they don’t want: competition. It WILL make them begin to be accountable for their charges. It WILL take away their ability to drop your coverage once you actually need them. It WILL give them some gov’t attention that they simply don’t want.
Will a gov’t plan be perfect and efficient and the best thing out there? Nope. But it IS something that the health care industry needs.
The louder they squeal, the more you should ask yourself why.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Not too long ago, 95% of our premiums went to paying claims. Currently, the insurance companies only pay out 80% of our premiums and keep 20% for their salaries and bonuses. Something smells rotten here and needs to be fixed. I guess some people call this capitalism. I call it the rich getting richer.
Anyone who thinks that we do not need health care reform must be blinded by the smoke screen that the republican party and the insurance companies have put before us.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
If the overall goal is to convince people of the need for healthcare reform, I have a simple idea based on my own experiences.
As a small business owner, I’ve watched our healthcare costs rise at ridiculous rates for the past three years. Unicare just told us last week that our premiums will rise by 30% on January, 2010 over 2009, which BTW, was up 25% over 2008.
My guess is that if everyone had to spend one year – just one – experiencing the real cost of healthcare – not just in premiums – but in the reduction of services after you pay a $5K deductible each year, they might be a little more willing to listen.
A little dose of, “No honey, get your teeth looked at next year because this year it’s my turn,” or a pinch of, “Well, I know I have a pain in my gut, but I don’t have a spare $5 grand to get the ball rolling for a look see, especially when the doctors refuse to tell me what anything costs ahead of time.”
We all could use a dose of becoming better consumers of our own healthcare rather than simply saying “I have mine through work, but you sure do have a problem because you’re self employed.”
I know that sounds like a lot of Democratic clap trap about everyone being fair, but when do we as a country come together and decide where we’re headed as a nation and what services we’re willing to give our own people. Hell, they still have a mess in New Orleans on our hands while two two idiot airline pilots play on their laptops with 140 people in back. And how much does the war to free the people of Iraq and protect the Afghans cost, not in hard dollars alone, but in basic services we can’t afford to fund to our own people?
How anyone on this blog could have faith in the government running a healthcare system is certainly questionable at best. We’ve all pretty much worked for one mismanaged agency at one time or another.
Perhaps I missed something though, because I didn’t think the healthcare system was going to be run by the government. I thought one element of it would be, an option … an option we do not have to choose if we see fit.
I voted for the pres and I’m not ashamed to admit it. If I were a Republican though, right now I’d like to see my party help all of us out for a change. I’d like to hear a few solutions to the problems in the healthcare industry from the conservatives.
All I seem to see day in and day out are Republicans taking a stand against EVERYTHING the Democrats suggest. I know your party is broken, but I didn’t break it.
Maybe we might all be a bit more receptive to some of these glorious conservative principles if we saw you folks try to help someone besides yourselves.
But unlike some, I’m willing to listen.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Well written Mr. Mark.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:16 am
In my mind in governments job to govern – not run a healthcare plan.
Name something great the government tries to run….
October 29th, 2009 at 8:04 am
“How anyone on this blog could have faith in the government running a healthcare system is certainly questionable at best. We’ve all pretty much worked for one mismanaged agency at one time or another.”
Just because FAA is mismanaged doesn’t mean the HHS or other agencies that provide healthcare are is. My 76 year old Mom seems to get along just fine on Medicare, as does my 78 year old Dad when he visits the VA for care.
In fact my Mom paid up for an eye care treatment recently in addition to the standard Medicare servce and she can read and drive now without glasses or contacts.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:26 am
1. Medicare and Medicaid lose an estimated $60 billion or more annually to fraud, including $2.5 billion in South Florida. (Miami Herald, August 11, 2008)
1. Every $1 the U.S. government invests in combating Medicare and Medicaid fraud saves $1.55. (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2009)
1. Medicare spends less than 0.2 cents of every $1 of its $456 billion annual budget combating fraud, waste and abuse. (Miami Herald, August 11, 2008)
October 29th, 2009 at 9:32 am
In the Swiss healthcare system:
* there is an insurance mandate for all individuals,
* the government defines a what the insurance benefit will be for all standard health insurers,
* insurance companies are not allowed to deny coverage to any individual,
* health insurance and medical procedure prices are made publicly available,
* in exchange for providing health insurance to consumers, insurance companies receive premiums from consumers and risk-adjustment payments from the government in order that insurance companies are not punished if they decide to insure a sicker population,
* premiums are community rated, meaning that sick and healthy individuals pay the same price within each age group (the age groupings are 0-18, 19-25, >25 years old).
* individuals are allowed to purchase supplement insurance as well (there is no regulated benefit for supplemental insurance),
* there is significant cost sharing in all insurance plans (i.e.: deductibles, 10% coinsurance rates up to an annual ceiling),
* open enrollment occurs twice per year (June and Ddecember).
October 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Well said Rob Mark. My parents run their own company and I hear the horror stories. He’s a staunch Democrat, and changed his affiliation for the up coming election….that’s another story. As I understand it, it will become a nightmare, and the option to opt for the government plan will be a no brainer and a cost saver to the employer. Its a lube job with no reach around as my father states. Sorry if I offended any democrats or anyone else without a sense of humour.
God speed – this hope and change stinks.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
“Hello, Division. How’ve you been?”
Point #1) Who’s saying that it was “OK” when Bush ran a deficit? It wasn’t. We need to live within our means.
Point #2) People who try to politicize it by saying “Bush did it for 8 years, but now that Obama does it, all the right-wingers are suddenly complaining” are not only not helping, but are trying to shift the focus from the main point. Many of those same “right wingers” or whatever were unhappy with the deficits Bush ran. So no, they aren’t complaining just because it’s a democratic president who’s running a deficit. They’re complaining because we’re STILL running a deficit, and it’s getting worse fast. There’s no end in sight and people are getting gravely concerned.. and discouraged.
We already know the consequences of what we’re doing. The day of reckoning is coming, and we’ll have to pay our debts. Either we print out way out and make our currency worthless, or tax the fun right out of life.
Point #3) This isn’t really a good place to discuss the Health Care Reform. This is the FAA Follies, not The Congressional Chronicles. Be that as it may, it all comes down to personal belief and opinion. It’s likely that a great number of the membership will have conflicting opinions on the matter, which really is irrelevant to both our Union and our cause. This leads me to my next point…
Point #4) To quote the original post:
“I bring this all up because in my opinion, my union (NATCA) isn’t doing enough to educate its members about why things like health care reform, or the economic stimulus are important. When you look at the hard numbers, it becomes very clear.”
Hell. No.
That is NOT NATCA’s job or place, and I would intensely oppose any effort to have NATCA spend membership time or money attempting to extend its influence over the membership’s personal feelings toward these political developments. Do you think health care reform and the economic stimulus are important? Whatever your answer is, there are dissenting opinions, and the Union should not be in the business of telling us something is important if any of us personally believe it was not – especially that which has nothing to do with ATC or any other part of aviation! It’s the individual’s responsibility to seek out this information and decide for themselves – if they even care. If you’re reading this, you have access to the internet; you need nothing more. Having an organization “educate its members” opens the door to “influencing its members” according to the will of others. The Union may take a stance on political subjects from time to time, but this has nothing to do with us professionally. As such, I feel it’s inappropriate (in this instance) to make a political stand as a Union.
We’re united for the safety of the flying public, not for “cheerleading” Obama’s agenda – regardless of how much we adore him.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:28 am
What a punk *****. And what a waste of power that could be wrought for good. Obama is like Zeus transforming himself into a barnyard animal in order to seduce and **** a mortal. Like that brat kid in the Twilight Zone episode everyone fears because he’ll destroy you if you don’t appease his every whim. Like George Lucas and his prequels. A cheap, common squanderer of mighty talents.
This “first class temperament” is actually a fussy little crybaby, a coward who sends others out to bully for him, an effeminate sissy who throws tantrums when he doesn’t get his way.
This little ****** needs to man up. He wanted the loneliest job in the world, and he has it. The campaign is over, and this pussy needs to put away Dick Tuck’s dirty tricks bag and resolve to represent all of us. And that includes the fifty-plus percent that want him to cram his socialized medicine up his mom-jeaned ***.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Atlas Shrugged????
One man, one unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate, has the power cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent in the banks the government now “owns.” A single individual is given too much power without accountability. But more importantly, this charade masks the fact that the world we live in has nothing to do with capitalism. It’s nothing more than crony capitalism. The government went around bailing out out automobile companies that were producing cars that people didn’t want to buy, bailing out banks that were careless with their capital and assets, and bailing out homeowners that couldn’t afford the houses they were buying.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“One man, one unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate, has the power cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent in the banks the government now “owns.” A single individual is given too much power without accountability.”
And this is different how from a CEO, surrounded by cronies, who runs company into the ground, lays-off thousands of workers, company stock worth pennies, begs the federal Gov’t for bailout money and then gives bonuses and golden parachutes to himself and all his cronies. Too much power without accountability is bad no matter where it resides.
ANY company that went to the gov’t with their hand out knew (or should have known) that there would be some form of control/repercussion/mandates from the gov’t. An analysis of securities filings showed that CEO salaries rose 12 percent in 2004 compared with average raises of 3.6 percent for rank-and-file workers. That’s over 300% difference. But hey, they deserve that unaccountable power and control, don’t they? Bullshit.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:30 am
Let’s see ….McCain gets elected we work for Lockmart and lose our federal pension. Obama gets elected we get a new contract with a GURANTEEED 3% raise for the next 3 years.
You controller right wingnuts are dumber than a box of rocks !
October 31st, 2009 at 8:21 am
ZOBController: According to health insurance insider/whistleblower Wendell Potter, in general, the Health Insurance Cartel skims 30% off the top. The “Death Panels” concept, brought to us from the HIC and the GOP this past summer as a scare tactic exists today as the practice of “rescission” used by the HIC to deny claims by “dogs” for pricey procedures, long term rehab, expensive meds, etc.
As the HIC has bought and paid for so many of our house members and senators thru campaign contributions, the likelihood of enacting true reform is slim.
For the all of the $$$ we pay for health care, we deserve MUCH better than what we receive…
October 31st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I was wrong to back down about the numbers of people who die from lack of health insurance. 44,000 a year. About one every 12 minutes.
Here is the link to the Harvard Medical School study:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.157685v1
And the article in Scientific American that discusses the study:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17
November 1st, 2009 at 5:27 am
Here’s a good discussion on administrative costs in the heath insurance industry vs. Medicare:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/07/does_medicare_a.html
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 am
You’ve proven that you can call the President names VM.
Now, what’s your plan ?
Less gvt regulation, lower taxes for multimillonaires, reduce labor, safety and environmental standards, and privatize FAA ATC ?