Majority Rule in the Senate on Health Care Reform?

From the New York Times comes this editorial titled "Majority Rule on Health Care".

The piece discusses how difficult it might be to get a broad health care reform bill through the Senate if traditional Senate rules are followed.

The editor argues:

The Democrats are thus well advised to start preparing to use an arcane parliamentary tactic known as “budget reconciliation” that would let them sidestep a Republican filibuster and approve reform proposals by a simple majority.

I wish to point out that part of the reason that independent, moderates were willing to vote for Democrats recently was because of Republican leadership in the Senate threatening to use the Nuclear Option to win their way. I will speak up that my vote was strongly influenced by my disgust at Republicans being willing to throw Senate tradition into the trashcan. I will be no less disgusted by Democratic attempts to do the same.

I also wish to point out that some of the Democrats elected to the Senate were elected because they were moderates are even somewhat conservative. While some of us independents were disgusted with the Republicans, our willingness to vote for the alternative was because they were not liberal extremists. If the Democratic leadership in the Senate now finds a way to cut those we voted for out of the decision making, we might now become just as disgusted with the Democratic Party.

I know that in the past, when I was more willing to vote for Republicans, I was not voting for the extremist partisanship that resulted. When the Republicans attempted to carve out the influence of moderates and conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh started preaching against them I was motivated to revolt. Within the Democratic Party I found fertile grounds to plant my seeds within the party's new willingness to embrace moderates.

If the Democratic Party now insists on attempting to sidestep the power of the moderates who's election they supported, I might have second thoughts about the wisdom of my vote.

If the Democratic members of the Senate who I voted for (Mark Warner and Jim Webb) support this dirty trick I am going to find it more difficult to vote for their reelection.

I joined the rebellion and the revolution. I am wondering if I need to start having second thoughts about victory.

The NY Times editor argues that:

Delay would be foolish politically. The Democrats have substantial majorities in the House and the Senate this year. Next year, as the midterm elections approach, it will be even harder for legislators to take controversial stands. After the elections, if history is any guide, the Democratic majorities could be smaller.

OK, just how deep do Democrats want the election losses to go? Just how many independent, moderate voters do they want to alienate? Perhaps I am unusual as a voter in valuing the traditions of the Senate, but I doubt I am completely alone.

Taxes going up?

In the Washington Post appears an article by Lori Montgomery which reports that the Obama administration is considering going back on a campaign pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class.

First off, let me state that it is my opinion that the pledge was broken for the 1 in 5 American citizens who smoke when taxes were increased by about 60 cents a pack early in 2009. For example, I estimate that taxes on my family (my wife and I both smoke) went up by almost $1000 a year as a result. (When I have made this claim in the past, it was pointed out to me that I also benefited from the payroll tax decreases enacted as part of the stimulus bill. However I am self-employed and due to the method by which my earnings are structured, I do not qualify for as large a payroll tax decrease as the average citizen. Also, the payroll tax decrease is only a one year temporary tax decrease while the increased cigarette taxes are permanent.)

Second, let me state that I consider myself a fiscal conservative. As such, I am not opposed to some increase in my taxes to help balance the budget. I would not object to a reasonable tax increase as long as any tax increase was progressive in nature (little to no increase on the lower class, some increase for the middle class and a larger increase for the upper class) and all citizens were expected to pay what I describe as being their fair share depending on their annual income. What I object to is when my family is forced to endure targeted tax hikes (like the cigarette tax) which the majority of citizens manage to escape. In fact the cigarette tax hike is actually regressive in nature because, as the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports, the lower a person's income the more apt it is for that person to be a smoker.

Why is such a tax increase necessary or justified? Well, as the Washington Post piece points out, it is highly unlikely that we are going to be able to eliminate the large deficit only through spending cuts. While I believe some spending cuts probably would become politically palatable, possibly even necessary as part of some grand compromise to eventually balance the budget, I believe that demands by some that we balance the federal budget only through spending cuts are unrealistic and unreasonable.

There are even some grounds for reasonable concern that the government projections for future deficit spending are grossly underestimated. On the Below the Beltway blog appears an article authored by Doug Mataconis that briefly explains some of the problems with the figures the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is forced to use for its projections. I will point out that there also are problems with the figures used by the Concord Coalition to come up with their own deficit predictions. These predictions appear as a foil to counteract the CBO's rather rosy outlook. However these predictions include:

...that all expiring tax provisions (including those from 2009 stimulus package) are extended...

It is pretty unlikely that the expiring George Dubyah Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will be extended. Also, while perhaps it is possible that the Social Security payroll tax decreases might be extended for another year, or even two, if the economy does not quickly recover, it is highly unlikely this temporary tax cut will become permanent due to the challenges the Social Security system already faces. Both of these tax cuts involve significant sums of revenue.

Let me state that I think the reality lies somewhere in the middle. Not as rosy as the CBO projection nor as dire as the Concord Coalition's projection. But if reality is somewhere in the middle, then future reality is intolerable.

Quoting from the Washington Post piece I linked to earlier:

"If you rule out inflating our way out of the problem and defaulting on the debt, there are two ways: Cut spending or raise taxes," said William G. Gale, an expert on fiscal policy at the Brookings Institution. With more than 80 percent of federal spending devoted to politically untouchable programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, he said, "it's going to be really hard to make significant headway on the spending side. So that means you've got to think about taxes."

So I am willing to pay my fair share of tax increases to balance the budget. While I am in favor of a progressive tax code, I do not think it is reasonable nor advisable to raise taxes on the wealthy alone. The middle class needs to pay its fair share of any tax increases as well. If one is in favor of a progressive tax system like I am, then increased taxes on the middle class is part of the equation.

I am also going to state that with the approximately $1,000 increased taxes on cigarettes my family already pays, I think my middle class family is already paying at least a significant portion of its fair share. Obama broke his campaign pledge to my family with one of the first pieces of legislation he signed into law. I do not think that is unreasonable for the 21% of middle class Americans (as reported by the CDC) who smoke to demand that we see a reduction of, or credit for, the increased tobacco taxes we already pay. While the 80% of Americans who do not smoke might not have a problem with increased tobacco taxes, I think the 20% who do might form a high enough percentage of the electorate to affect future election results.

Gay Marriage and Polygamy

The New York Times, in a piece written by Jo Becker, is reporting that powerful conservative attorney Theodore B Olson is attempting to challenge the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8. Proposition 8 added the ban of same-sex marriage to the California State Constitution.

The article reports that Ted is going to attempt to work off the 2003 Lawrence vs Texas federal Supreme Court decision which established that: “Texas had no rational basis to intrude into private sexual behavior protected by the Constitution’s due process clause…”. Now, such a decision about private sexual behavior probably could be stretched to include behavior that involves more then two consenting adults.

Since Mr Olson is going to argue that since the Lawrence decision established that private gay sex is a protected right, then California must demonstrate that it has a rational basis for discriminating against a class of citizens simply for engaging in that behavior.

Couldn’t the same argument then be made for polygamy? If it is OK to engage in sex with different partners (as long as all participants are consenting adults) in private, shouldn’t they too then be allowed to get married?

I know that the gay community hates it when attempts are made to connect polygamy to gay marriage, but the connection remains. If the line can not be drawn against gay marriage, then just where can the line be drawn? In fact, those who “unofficially” engage in polygamy (they have only one official wife and a few girlfriends - nothing illegal there) are already starting to make these types of arguments.

Social Security Going Bankrupt?

The sky is falling, Social Security is going bankrupt. (Please note that was sarcastic.)

(See here) on the MSN Money website where an article, written by Bill Fleckenstein, appears which attempts to fuel the panic over the solvency of Social Security.

Bill, in a good impersonation of Chicken Little, makes statements such as:

The public pension system's trust fund could go into the red in the next year, far sooner than expected.

And:

Those who've been paying attention have long known there is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund -- it's all been spent.

And again:

As I've already noted, there is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund -- just IOUs from the government to itself.

And then he quotes from a piece that he links to written by Allen Sloan that:

The cash that Social Security has collected from my wife and me and our employers isn't sitting at Social Security. It's gone. Some went to pay benefits, some to fund the rest of the government. Since 1983, when it suffered a cash crisis, Social Security has been collecting more in taxes each year than it has paid out in benefits. It has used the excess to buy the Treasury securities that go into the trust fund, reducing the Treasury's need to raise money from investors.

OK, have you got that? There is no money the the Social Security Trust Fund, evidently Bill wishes everyone to think they need to panic because the Trust Fund is just going to be left holding a bunch of worthless IOU's.

Well, according the Social Security Administration (SSA) the Trust Fund has 2.4 trillion dollars invested in Treasury bonds. Are these bonds worthless? Well conservative investors do not think so. It was only a few months ago that investors thought the Treasury bonds were so safe they were willing to accept a negative return on their investment just to have somewhere safe to park their capital. What would Bill have the Trustees of the Trust Fund do? Put the money in a mattress? Perhaps he thinks the money would be better invested in the stock market or in mortgage related securities?

I do understand that the government has been using the Social Security surplus collections we have experienced in the past couple decades to fund deficit spending in other areas of government. However the bonds issued to the Trust Fund are no more worthless then the bonds issued to other investors. The decision to invest the surplus in government securities might have been an extremely conservative approach, but it turns out to perhaps have been the safest choice as evidenced in the recent collapse in the value of many other investments.

I also understand that if nothing is done, somewhere along the line the Trust Fund will run out of reserves (currently the SSA projects 2037, however this projection might not have yet been adjusted to account for the drastic drop in receipts due to the current economy). However in the meantime, it has 2.4 trillion dollars invested in some of the safest assets on our planet to draw on. What have we been saving all that extra money for all these years past if we were never going to be allowed to draw from these savings when we needed them?

Bill seems to think that it is a catastrophe if the SSA ever has to start drawing on the savings. That 2.4 trillion is not enough and we need to continue rack up never ending surpluses until the end of time.

Now I agree that something needs to be done to ensure Social Security remains solvent after 2037. But I wish to point out that even if nothing is done the system could remain solvent beyond 2037 by reducing payments to 76 cents on the dollar. However such a drastic reduction in benefits for future retirees while current retirees see zero reduction in payments seems a little unfair to me, so I am in favor of a better solution.

What is a better solution? Well I guess that is open for debate. Perhaps it should include some reduction in benefits, some increase in the age at which retirees qualify for Social Security payments and some type of increase in taxes such as raising the maximum amount of employee earnings that are subject to the social security tax (currently set at $102,000). However one thing I am personally going to demand is that any plan includes at least an eventual drawing on the over 2.4 trillion dollars currently invested in the Trust Fund.

If we are never allowed to draw on the trillions we have invested, wouldn't then our continuing to invest in anything be extremely foolish? Certainly some point in the future can be pointed to where the invested assets available would reach zero just at the point that enough baby boomers have passed on so that after-wards the system is in equilibrium or perhaps once again showing a surplus.

I will agree with Bill that the sooner the changes are made to the system the better. For every year we delay coming up with a better solution the more radical the changes necessary become to avoid a drastic decrease in promised benefit payments. However it is my opinion that starting to draw on the surpluses we have accumulated is actually a good thing. Social Security is supposed to be self funding and not for profit. It would be wrong headed to demand that Social Security is never allowed to draw on invested capital and must continue to expand on the 2.4 trillion already invested on in to infinity.

Why in the world did we invest all that money if we are never allowed to draw on the investments we made?

Alternative Theories for Global Warming - Snowball Earth?

Global warming is a threat?

OK, I will admit that greenhouse gasses are a threat to our species. But why must we limit our thinking to such a short term threat?

Scientists seem to generally accept that our planet more often then not experiences ice ages then it deals with warm global temperatures.

While in the short term, global warming is going to cause discomfort to mankind, the real long term threat facing our species are the ice ages.

Science Daily reports on research into how changes in our planet's axis and orbit effect climate. The piece reports that major climate shifts are:

...ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth's rotation and axis.

I have even heard that some researchers think that at one point our entire planet was completely covered with ice. Such an event was caused by the tectonic drift which caused our continents to group together disrupting oceanic currents along with the axis wobble and changes in our planets orbit coming together to cause what they call Snowball Earth.

There are many other theories out there about how relatively recent abrupt changes in environment might have been caused by cataclysmic game changers like comet or meteor collisions with our planet as well as massive volcanic eruptions caused by tectonic plate movements. However one thing is generally agreed upon by almost every researcher. Planet Earth spends more time in ice ages then it does in temperate or even warm climates.

Perhaps our species will be intelligent enough to avoid otherwise possible extinction through our better now understood knowledge of how we can affect our planet's climate. Perhaps with our understanding of greenhouse gasses we can mitigate the effects of global cooling. Quoting the Science Daily piece:

Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age...

What is the bigger threat to our species? Global warming or global cooling? I guess it depends on whether you want to think short term or long.

President Obama and Signing Statements

The New York Times reports that President Obama is continuing the practice of issuing signing statements when he signs bills passed by Congress into law. Such statements instruct the Executive Branch on how to interpret certain provisions in the bills, and when they should not only be subject to interpretation but when they can be outright ignored.

How convenient. If you do not like something passed by Congress, the President can amend the legislation into something he likes or delete certain aspects completely with the stroke of a pen.

Now, I understand that President Obama is using this tactic far less often then President George Dubyah Bush. However I would have to consider myself a hypocrite if I condemned Dubyah's usage (which I did) and then say it is OK when the tactic is used by Obama.

I also understand that Obama most times is using signing statements to protect Executive Branch powers when Congress is, in his opinion, trying to tiptoe over the line separating the powers of the branches of government. However he could veto the entire bill based upon his objections as specifically allowed in the constitution. If Congress then overrides his veto, he could then delay enforcement of the bill by the executive branch, if he thinks some measures are unconstitutional, until the issue is decided by the Supreme Court.

I seem to recall that at one time our government tried to give the President the power of the Line Item Veto. The Line Item Veto would have given the President the power to sign into law bills he generally agreed with but where he disagreed with certain aspects, or line items, of the bill. Those line items he disagreed with he could selectively veto before signing the bill; placing into law only those specifics he agreed with. Problem was the Supreme Court decided the line item veto was unconstitutional.

Well signing statements seem to be an attempt to do an end run around the Supreme Court decision. Instead of vetoing certain line items, the President just issues a signing statement saying certain line items will be ignored. How convenient it must be for our dictator, err President, that while defending the powers of his office he can ignore the powers of both the other branches of government.

Reply from Glenn Nye

I have received a reply from Glenn Nye to my email to him. I must say I am impressed by how quickly I received this reply.

August 5, 2009

Dear David,

Thank you for contacting me with your suggestions for reforming our health care system. It is helpful to learn the views of my friends and neighbors in Tidewater, and I appreciate having your input.

Our country is facing a growing health care crisis. The cost of health insurance is skyrocketing while the average American is seeing their income stagnate. Many Virginia families are caught in the middle, they cannot afford health insurance yet do not qualify for Medicaid. Both the health of our citizens and the health of our nation are at stake, and we must take action. However, it is important that we also make the necessary reforms to the system and get health care reform right.

I recently spoke with a 20-year Navy veteran from Virginia Beach, who told me about his daughter's struggle with just this. When she was just 3 years old, she was diagnosed with cancer and continues to take expensive medication to keep the disease in remission. She is now a college student working toward her teaching degree. Since he is a military retiree, his daughter is currently covered under his TRICARE until she graduates. But after that, as she begins her teaching career, the current system makes it essentially impossible for her to find her own insurance that will cover the cost of her medication, because of her pre-existing condition. Stories like this are all too common and I will not support any health care reform legislation that does not include a provision to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

You will be pleased to know that the insurance companies are realizing they must make concessions in the health care reform discussion. In fact, the largest association of insurers, American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), has come to understand that they must include those with pre-existing conditions and now support a pre-existing condition provision in the upcoming health care reform legislation.

Medical care in the U.S. should be the best in the world, and to this point, it has been difficult to get an open and honest discussion of the facts. However one thing is certain, too many Americans are either uninsured or underinsured and Congress must act soon to provide the necessary catalyst we need.

Congress is currently working to totally revamp our health care system and I believe there are several key components this reform must contain to be successful: it is absolutely imperative that any health care plan must reduce costs for families and small businesses, allow Americans to keep their existing plan, choose their doctor, maintain Medicare benefits, accept those with preexisting conditions, and not strip any servicemember or veteran from their TRICARE or VA benefits.

It is unacceptable that more than forty-six million Americans do not have health care coverage. However, we must fix our current system before we add more people into it, which will only exacerbate our current problems. We need to fix current utilization, create real money saving efficiencies, and through a coordinated effort we must incentivize health and preventive care rather than sick care. Additionally, we must focus on improving our long-term and in-home care programs within Medicare. These programs are critical to providing consistent care and ensuring the high quality of life we all want for our aging population. To accomplish this we should look at the experiences of other countries when making future choices, along with finding the appropriate mix of public and private involvement that will best serve all Americans. Only then can we provide access to all Americans.

Like you, I believe that increasing access and the size of risk pools will help drive costs down. This includes not only the young and healthy, but those with pre-existing conditions.

Reforming our health care system is one of my top priorities in Congress, and I am convinced that we can develop a high quality system that remains fiscally responsible and does not increase the deficit. As Congress considers health care reform, I will make certain to factor your recommendations into my decision making.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact my office on this issue. I am proud to serve Virginia's Second Congressional District, and I am committed to working hard for you. If you would like more information about other issues I am working on in Congress, or if you would like to sign up to receive my monthly e-newsletter, I encourage you to visit my website at www.nye.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Glenn Nye
Member of Congress

For the most part, I am going to allow this reply to speak for itself, however I will say that I am heartened that Glenn Nye seems to share my concerns.

I am also going to add that while Glenn's being part of the Blue Dog caucus was not addressed in either my own email or Glenn's reply, his involvement with the caucus is something that I applaud. I am confident the Blue Dogs will be working both out front and behind the scenes to ensure the final result is fiscally responsible.

Scuderi Engine

Just yesterday I posted an article that where I reported that University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers have been researching a diesel cycle engine that lowers emissions and increases fuel economy by 20% which is achieved by fast response blending of gasoline and diesel fuel.

Today I found out about potentially even more impressive research on the Scuderi engine. (See here) an article that appears on the Fleetowner website (hat tip to Sean Kilcarr, Senior Editor Fleetowner magazine) that reports on the engine design's potential as it applies to diesel cycle engines. The Scuderi Engine is a design of a split cycle, internal combustion engine invented by the late Carmelo J. Scuderi. The Scuderi Group, founded by Carmelo's children, is working on development of the engine.

Quoting from the Fleetowner piece, Sal Scuderi, president of the Scuderi Group claims his new engine design offers several improvements, including:

• Improved fuel efficiency by almost one third vs. today’s gasoline and diesel models
• Emit 80% fewer emissions than today’s gas and diesel engines
• Provide significantly more power than a conventional engine

I think the Scuderi engine offers superior potential for the trucking industry, because, again quoting Sal Scuderi:

We estimate that this design can lower the cost to build diesel engines by as much as 40 to 50%.

These cost savings are realized through the elimination of the need for Exhaust Gas Recirculation, turbocharging*, exhaust treatment and half the fuel injectors as compared to a traditional diesel engine. Additionally, the engine probably will also have a savings in the weight of the engine and reduced maintenance costs.

Recent reports indicate the Scuderi Group now has cleared a hurdle by successfully running a prototype engine.

* Some reports indicate that the final design might include turbocharging to obtain maximum performance, efficiency and emissions reductions.

Gasoline-Diesel Cocktail

I am going to point towards something interesting I recently noticed as I surfed the web.

It seems that lower emissions from diesel engines do not always have to come at the expense of reduced fuel mileage.

I wish to point out how attempts up to now to meet improved emission standards for diesel engines have resulted in greatly reduced fuel economy by these engines. They might emit reduced nitrous oxides and particulates, but they consume greater amounts of fuel and add to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

But (here) the ScienceDaily web site reports that University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers have come up with an alternative. Blending gasoline and diesel fuel in diesel cycle engines results in lower emissions and an increase of 20% in fuel economy. Quoting from the article:

These dramatic results came from a novel technique Reitz describes as "fast-response fuel blending," in which an engine's fuel injection is programmed to produce the optimal gasoline-diesel mix based on real-time operating conditions.

(Please note that Rolf Reitz heads a University of Wisconsin-Madison engine research group.)

Now hopefully we truck drivers can get the diesel engine manufacturers to apply some of this new technology so we can get better, not worse, fuel economy out of the new engines we have to put in our new trucks.

My Email to Glenn Nye

In Response to a recent communication I received from Glenn Nye's staff on the issue of health care I sent this response:

I understand the Blue Dogs' concerns about rural health care needs and the need to control costs.

I hope you also understand the need to include that pre-existing health care conditions also need to be included in the requirements for solving our national health care problems.

I do not understand how this problem can be solved without including everyone in our society being required to contribute toward the care of the elderly and the diseased. As long as the young and healthy are allowed to opt out up to the point they become sickly, health care coverage will still be unaffordable in one way or another.

I am not going to demand anything other then what you (we) come up with includes coverage for pre-existing conditions. I am going to watch closely to see if the solution you support meets the common sense test of actually solving the problem without making the problem worse.

Please be aware I am posting this communication on my blog, and that any response I receive from you might also be posted.

Let's see what we hear in response.

Goodlatte: We Need Commonsense Health Care Reforms

There is a guest post on the Bearing Drift blog by Rep Bob Goodlatte (R-VA06) about his ideas on how to improve our health care system.

While Bob includes a few ideas on how to improve health care for American citizens which are worthy of consideration, I wish to point to the absence of ideas on how to solve one very large and difficult problem.

What about the problem with lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions?

I wish to give an example of how this is a problem. I heard about this example on NPR (National Public Radio). I tried to find a link to the program where I heard this, but could not locate it. A gentleman was laid off from his job and had exhausted his continuing cobra health care coverage. He obtained health care coverage through a private insurance company for a few months at a time, and at the end of each covered period he would obtain a few more months of coverage through the same insurance company. The reason he only obtained short term coverage was because he was continuing to search for employment, and he had hopes of obtaining cheaper coverage through a new employer.

During one of the periods he was covered through this private insurer, he was diagnosed with having a serious medical problem that would require expensive treatment. However the insurance company denied coverage because they determined the problem was pre-existing. They went back in their files and discovered that this gentleman had had a medical test done while covered by them under a previous policy. While his medical care providers did not catch it, that results of that medical test indicated he already had the problem at the point the test was taken.

Why should this be a problem? Because after the test was performed the policy he had then expired and he obtained coverage under a new policy. Since the problem existed prior to his obtaining the new policy, the problem was pre-existing and not covered under his new policy.

Now the gentleman is facing the choice of either living with the problem or financial ruin paying for treatment.

I believe I could give other examples of how the difficulty in getting coverage for pre-existing conditions is indeed a problem for many American citizens. I would imagine that most Americans know a friend or relative who faces such a problem because it is so pervasive in our nation's health care system.

Problem is that you just can not mandate that all insurers must provide coverage of pre-existing conditions at the same price level as others without them unless you require every member of society to obtain coverage. If individuals are still allowed to decline medical coverage, the young and healthy will often still decide to stick with pay-as-you-go health care and only opt for medical coverage after they have been diagnosed with something that is going to require expensive treatment. Costs for medical care insurance will go up for everyone covered.

Unless the burden of providing for the treatment of serious medical problems in our society is spread out amongst all the members of our society, including the young and the healthy, then the costs of providing coverage to those seeking it is going to go up. We will not have solved part of the problem for why our current way of doing things no longer works.

There might indeed be problems with the health care proposals winding their way through Congress which are largely being supported by Democrats. However at least the Democratic proposal seems to attempt to address how solve the pre-existing condition problem. I have yet to hear a serious proposal from Republicans on how to address this very real and very difficult problem.