Universal health care in America at any cost? No!

by Arnie Webre, Jr.

Last night, like millions of Americans, I watched President Barack Obama's televised news conference about health care reform.

Although he spoke in conservative terms about his very liberal, general ideas about universal health care in America, he had me until he said that taxing only rich Americans to pay for the health care reform would meet his criteria, or words to that effect.

I appreciated that the president backed off of the earlier insistence that all businesses would be punished for not providing insurance to their employees by billing them with high penalty fees.

Currently, the proposal is that small businesses that have an annual payroll of less than $250,000 are completely exempt from these penalty fees, and those with payrolls over $250,000 have their penalty fees capped at 8 percent of revenue.

That is much better than what the proposal was before last night; however, I still believe that 8 percent is too high -- it should be no more than 5 percent of any businesses revenue.

Although I genuinely admire and like President Obama, I was shocked to hear a sitting President of the United States say, in effect, that it was okay to tax only the richest Americans for the 46-million newly insured under his plan. I honestly do not remember when it was that the United States became a Marxist socialist [communist] nation.

As a matter of fact, I do not think that The United States of America is a Marxist socialist [communist] nation, and I do not remember such a thing having happened, while I was preoccupied with other things.

I have always given President Obama the benefit of any doubt because I liked him; he is affable, has a brilliant mind, and I was glad to see the United States get a worthy African-American as President. I think it was high time that we broke that glass ceiling.

Nevertheless, after I watched his televised newscast, I had a bad feeling about his approval of the idea of taxing only the richest Americans.

Communism (Marxist socialism) equals shared wealth.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that the number one definition of communism is "1: social organization in which goods are held in common."

Well, I guess fiat money can be called a type of good or a type of asset. But in this case, we are not talking about asking only the richest Americans to pay for goods for the 46-million who do not have goods. We are asking a small number of rich Americans to pay for the health care services of 46-million people, who do not currently have it.

I call that Marxist socialism, communism.

President Obama calls it a community.

In an interview earlier this week, the president said that it was alright for him and other rich Americans to pay for the health care of the 46-million Americans who did not have it; "that's what a community is. We share with one another," or words to that effect.

Excuse me, but I remember very clearly when President Chavez, after having met and talked with President Obama, said that Barack Obama was more of a socialist than Chavez was, or words to that effect.

As much as I dislike what President Chavez' socialist regime has done to Venezuela, its people and its businesses, it appears that Chavez was, indeed, correct about President Obama.

Barack Obama, the U.S. President, was, as he explained his program to Americans on television last night, doing what he did to, first, get elected as a U.S. senator in the conservative state of Illinois and, secondly, to get elected as President of the United States of America.

He hid his real agenda by talking in conservative terms about his outlandishly liberal, Marxist socialist agenda. Clearly, President Obama has read The Prince, by Machiavelli. Obama understands that he must say one thing, but mean another, saying what people do not want to hear in soft, careful, comfortable, conservative language, while his real agenda is totally different than what he is projecting.

He has duped the American voters, as he is not what he represents himself to be.

Now more than ever, I thank God for the conservative Blue Dog and moderate Democrats and the Republicans, who will not let President Obama make only the richest Americans pay for the health care of 46-million newly insured Americans(1).

That is not a principal of a democracy; that is not a principal of the United States, at all -- even if most voters want something for nothing, and President Obama wants to give it to them, so he will easily be re-elected in three-and-one-half years from now.

Most of all, I thank God for the checks and balances built into our democracy by our forefathers.

Please support conservative Blue Dog and moderate Democrats and Republicans fighting the idea of only one select group of Americans paying for health care reform: the idea is un-American.

In a democracy, we help each other by choice, not by government dictate.

NOTE:
The author of this article is not a rich American, though he is proud to be an American.

Universal health care in America

by Arnie Webre, Jr.

Forty-six million Americans do not have health care of any kind, therefore, America needs universal health care for those who do not have it, as well as to drive medical care costs down over the long-term.

So what is the problem?

The real question is how to pay for it.

Democratic New York Senator Charles Rangel thought he knew how to pay for it: a surtax on the highest earning Americans, to pay for those who cannot pay for their own health care.

Rangel originally proposed to raise $540 billion over the next 10-years with a one-percent surtax from couples who made over $350,000 per year, with graduating surtaxes at the $500,000 and $1 million levels of annual income.

Additionally, the proposed legislation would charge employers to provide health care for their employees.

In one such case, a Houston small-business owner was told by her elected representative in Washington, D.C. that she would get a bill of about $366,000 to provide health insurance for all of her employees, or she would have to pay a $44,000 penalty fee and all of her employees would then automatically be included in the federal government's health care program. Her annual income was slightly over $350,000.

We certainly do not want to over-tax small businesses disproportionately, as they are the engine of growth of our economy.

Since when did America stop requiring everyone who could afford to contribute to not pull their own weight?

The current drive to universal health care in the United States is sorely needed. On the other hand, the Canadians do not pay for their universal health care system by taxing only the rich -- everyone who can pay is paying for it through personal and corporate taxes; private insurance for individuals, hospitals and health care professionals; and, additionally, some provinces use sales taxes and lotteries.

As a matter of fact, the idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it by taxing the rich is nothing less than a cross between socialism and communism. It is also one more example of the corruption from within our decaying society, the symbiotic relationship between the voters [who want something for nothing] and the politicians [who want to insure their re-elections] who want to give it to them.

Who has not been milking America for everything it was worth over the last 45-years?

We are all complicit in this long-term fleecing of the United States.

Fortunately, it appears that a marriage of convenience between the conservative Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans has avoided the frightening method of funding mentioned above, for our needed universal health care reform. Let us maintain our vigilance until either universal health care is passed this year without charging only one select group of Americans for it, or it is defeated.

We still need universal health care, so where does that leave us?

Let us go back to the drawing board and fund this from a much larger tax base, without concern for political patronage. Everyone who can pay, pays, and everyone pulls their own weight.

We all need to contribute: businesses, tax payers, insurance companies who provide insurance to hospitals and health care professionals, the health care system -- everyone, according to their means, with the most nominal [tiny] insurance premium amounts paid by those who live under the poverty limit.

On the other hand, no American citizen who lives under the poverty limit should be turned away from medical care for financial reasons, at any time, with federal health care insurance as payer of last resort in such cases, until the patient or the patient's family can pay nominal [tiny] federal health care insurance fees.

When, and if, health care costs do come under control and the system is paying for itself (becomes cost neutral), then we might be able to consider, at that time, if those who live under the poverty level should even have to pay. However, in our current economic predicament, that does not seem to be a wise starting point for universal health care in America.

Let us just get this new health care reform bill off the ground first, and then we will see, in time, what is possible.

The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act

by Arnie Webre, Jr.

The United States government has a right to tax its citizens and the income of its citizens.

In its current form, The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act will prevent Wall Street, banks, hedge funds and other professionals who design and market questionable overseas tax shelters, from abusing secrecy jurisdictions, a.k.a. offshore tax havens. Ultimately, it stops high-earning Americans from dodging taxes, though not all high-earning Americans dodge taxes.

Why should we care about The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which is currently working its way through Congress?

Well, in addition to doing some good for the United States, it is also an attempt to look for demons to blame for the current economic and political problems of the United States.

A March 2, 2009, press release from the office of Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin(1) outlines parts of the proposed legislation:

"In a tax proceeding, any amount or thing of value – a) transferred to a U.S. person (other than a publicly-traded corporation) directly or indirectly from an account or entity in an Offshore Secrecy Jurisdiction, or b) transferred from such a U.S. person directly or indirectly to an account or entity in an Offshore Secrecy Jurisdiction, will be presumed to represent previously unreported income to the U.S. person in the year of transfer."

"Offshore secrecy jurisdictions" refers to 34-countries that have been labeled as uncooperative in sharing financial information with the United States, such as Anguilla, Liechtenstein, Panama, Switzerland and Vanuatu(2).

Who thinks they can win going up against the U.S. government, even if they are allowed to present evidence to the contrary? How could we intimidate a citizen more? I thought we lived in a democracy.

I do not think that we should demonize law-abiding Americans.

The onus should be on the tax havens, not those who legally declared all of their overseas financial assets and accounts on U.S. Department of the Treasury Form 90-22.1 (Rev. 10-2008), a.k.a. TD Form 90-22.1 (Rev. 10-2008), and, also, paid all taxes owed to the IRS.

As a matter of fact, economically and historically, any country that has nothing but debt as far as the eye can see, has not had a true national economic surplus for 45-years, and has printed too much fiat money, always ends badly.

On the other hand, I did observe that President Obama has aggressively been pushing a renewable energy agenda that seems to anticipate technological advances that could help us out of our current problems. I hope he succeeds.

If we want to demonize anyone for the current economic and political problems of the United States, we have no further to look than the voters and politicians of the U.S., who have been milking the system for everything it was worth for the last 45-years. It has been that long since the United States had the last true, un-manipulated surplus.

Republican and Democratic administrations alike, as well as Congress, have routinely robbed the Social Security Trust Fund and manipulated [changed] the basket of commodities that our monthly and quarterly inflation figures are derived from. That enabled our government to report serious deficits as not so serious ones, and it magically turned some deficits into surpluses.

That being said, there is much that is good in The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act.

On the other hand, in the final analysis, we do want Americans, who legally report all of their financial assets and accounts to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and who pay all taxes owed to the IRS, to have assets overseas.

Why?

A currency default, which amounts to a national bankruptcy (a redenomination of one's currency), like Argentina, China, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Taiwan and many other nations suffered in the last century, is not pretty.

Since the year 2000, already there have been at least 11 currency redenominations, worldwide -- there are more waiting in the wings. Just one such example would be the year 2005, when 1 million old Turkish lira became one new [improved] Turkish lira(3).

If the worst should happen to America, there needs to be someone left who can re-liquify the American economy, other than just foreigners.

Let us think long-term of the consequences of our actions, not short-term. As a nation, we can work it out, for the good of our common wealth, if we are willing to put egos and party ideology aside for a sane compromise.

Let us redraft an honest version of The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which does not demonize law-abiding Americans.


Notes:

1. "Summary of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act: Title I - Deterring the Use of Offshore Secrecy Jurisdictions for Tax Evasion."

2. "As of the time of publication of this article, some of the 34-countries on the secrecy jurisdiction list have agreed to share financial information with the United States."

3. "Since the year 2000, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ghana, Mozambique, Romania, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe (3 times) have all redenominated their currencies."

Economic and political changes

by Arnie Webre, Jr.

I remember walking across the campus of The University of Texas at Austin as a 19-year-old student on a sunny day in August of 1971. What joy I had felt at that moment in having so few responsibilities, a little money in my pocket, and I looked forward to studying about the fall of Rome that evening.

Even then I loved history and its bed-fellows: economics and politics.

I had joined the Young Texas Democrats on campus that summer, Richard Nixon was then President of The United States of America and the Vietnam War was still going on.

As I came up to the main drag, that day, to cross the street to 2-Js hamburger joint (restaurant), I waited for a red light to change, while I read the last lines of a New York Times newspaper [the old paper version] article that continued about Nixon taking the United States off of the "gold standard."

Why does Nixon taking us off of the gold standard in 1971 matter to us today? Well, we need to know where we have been and compare that with where we are now, in order to know where we want to go in the future, right?

Might it not be valuable for us to not commit the same mistakes as in the past? Is it not fair to say that we have all been complicit in the reduction of the fortunes of the United States?

Have not most voters and consumers in the U.S. been trying to milk the system for everything it was worth, since the last time we had a real surplus was when John F. Kennedy was President of the United States?

Yes, you are right, for decades Republican and Democratic administrations have been changing the basket of commodites used to get the monthly and quarterly U.S. government inflation rates to make it appear that our deficits were not that bad or for deficits to magically become feel-good imaginary [political] economic surpluses.

On August 15, 1971, Nixon effectively ended the Breton Woods agreement and the U.S. dollar became a fiat currency. Due to the Vietnam War, the U.S. had a balance of trade deficit and domestic inflation had risen substantially.

America was not used to such things. Uncle Sam [read as "U.S. politicians"] had already mismanaged its home grown currency, and other nations had been exchanging U.S. dollars for gold in record amounts. In short, the U.S. had printed too many paper dollars, and there was not enough gold to redeem all American greenbacks.

While I ate my 2-Js double-cheeseburger, fries with a Coke, which I later paid for with fiat currency, I watched and listened to an American news commentator on 2-Js television. The newsman cut to everyday American citizens and Japanese politicians, who spoke about what a wonderful thing Nixon had done.

I wondered if what Mr. Nixon had done was more to the benefit of Japan than to the U.S. If the U.S. dollar became worth less and less, would not that make Japanese Yen more valuable? Would that put Japan in a better position than the U.S. in the flow of trade and balance of payments between our two great nations?

On the other hand, what does a 19-year-old student know, I thought?


It was not long before the realities of life came crashing down around my ears. After an unplanned pregnancy and a quick marriage and divorce, before the approximate end of my second year of college -- my son hates me to this day for leaving his, in my opinion, histrionic mother -- in later years I returned to finish college.


On February 21, 1972, Nixon arrived in Beijing [mainland China] to meet with Premier Zhou En Lai to establish detente between our two governments.


In 1979, I had taken a number of the history of Japan, Korea and China-type courses from Dr. Young-Ick Lew, who now chairs Korean History at the Graduate School of Yonsei University. He was a brilliant Harvard PhD whose every word I listened to, intently.

On the day in question, the exact date in 1979 has been lost to posterity, Dr. Lew, then a history professor at The University of Houston, Main Campus, had just given a stimulating lecture on Chinese history. After class I stayed as all other students left.

We spoke about his belief that Deng Xiaoping of China was shrewd and that he could very well re-energize China with his proposed economic zones, where it had been projected that a form of capitalism would be practised. He also spoke about cheap labor in China and how the Chinese could build submarines much cheaper than could American industry.

Dr. Lew said that the U.S. might want to re-think its flat-ship U.S. Navy policy, which might not be a match for cheaply made Chinese submarines -- the plans of which had likely been stolen from the United States.


Professor Lew was, and I am certain is, to this day, staunchly anti-communist, as they had killed scores of his relatives in South Korea during the Korean War and by later assassinations.

At the end of his after-class mini-lecture, where I listened to and weighed every word, the time had come for me to ask Dr. Lew my burning question. Could the Chinese get rid of their differences with the Soviet Union and challenge the United States economically and militaristically, within our lifetimes?


Dr. Lew said it was possible to challenge the U.S. economically in time, but militarily that would require China and Russia to be on the same page, and that was not likely to happen in a rock-solid way in our lifetimes. "China and Russia have concrete, serious issues with each other," said Lew, or words to that effect.

In my opinion, history has backed Dr. Lew's view about China challenging the United States economically. However, challenging the U.S. militarily is more problematic for the Chinese, though they seem to be working on that as well.


Some years back, I remember a UPI/AP article about the Chinese equivalent to our CIA director defecting to Canada. When the Canadian authorities asked him why he was defecting to Canada, his answer was, "I have rich relatives in Canada, and the Chinese communists are crazy, as they believe they might be able to militarily dominate the world," or words to that effect.

Yes, I know. I think that is crazy also, folks. Nevertheless, the fact that these comments came from a former head of the Chinese spy agency (the Chinese Guoanbu), means that they need to be taken seriously.

Yes, there really are people and nations out there who do not wish us well.

This same defector to the West said that mainland China has thousands of spies in the United States, Canada and Australia, often mainland Chinese students, professors, businessmen, delegations, and those who work in Chinese companies in the U.S., Canada and Australia. They are looking for human intelligence about the intentions of our Western governments, as well as looking to steal Western technology.

There is a direct correlation between the current economic over-indebtedness of the United States and the quick on-going build-up of mainland Chinese military forces, the never-ending collection of intelligence and the stealing of Western technology by Chinese who visit the West.


By the early 90's, I was more than one-half my way through 20+ years in the U.S. military, and for a part of the 80's, all of the 90's and until the early 2000's, I thought I was a Republican. Unfortunately, our last president, the one before Barack Obama, put an end to that notion.


It should be required that every U.S. president read The Prince, by Machiavelli, and that they memorize it word-for-word before assuming office. They should especially take note of the part about not having more than one war at a time, as your country's treasury cannot afford such an extravagance, no matter how much gold and silver you have, or, as is the case in the United States, no matter how much gold and silver your country does not have.

On the other hand, we do have lots of fiat money and debts in the United States, as far as the eye can see.


From January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton was president of the United States. During that time, he pressured government sponsored enterprises through the Freddie Mac organization to give sub prime mortgage loans to millions of Americans who could not have otherwise obtained them.

It was certainly the democratic thing to do, was it not?

Then in 2008 the sub prime mortgage loan system imploded and that caused a severe worldwide liquidity crisis that was most acute in the U.S. and Europe.


As a result of the above, information, it is now clear that we need to change our ways, if we expect there to even be a United States of America, in the future.

After reading the above short recounting of a small part of modern American history, if you do not now think that it was a mistake for the United States to go off of the gold standard and effectively remove all economic discipline, restraint and reality, when we now have nothing but debt as far as the eye can see, then you are not a part of the solution; additionally, your ability to survive the consequences of our past wanton ways is in question.

Next week, I will give you practical suggestions to survive in a weak dollar environment.


That is it for this week, dear readers. However, some administrative matters on the horizon: my brother Randy, a professional editor, is soon taking over editorial duties, as Mr. ADD, yours truly, is quite good at making clerical and grammatical errors.


My journalism professor, John Lenger, taught me just how valuable an editor can be. To this day, I remember him reading my articles, overflowing with ideas, helping me shape and give them form.

I still hate to throw away ideas that do not fit into the theme of an article, and I remember a number of conversations with John, who wears about seven hats in Harvard's publishing and journalism community, about story themes and hooks.


Now I am talking with Randy, and he is encouraging me to be more specific. Therefore, in future articles I will give you specific recommendations, economically and politically, for what I believe is in our immediate and intermediate future, as a nation.

On the other hand, other ideas will come from our interplay in this blog, and, as Americans, we are all responsible for turning this boat [USA] around.

Lastly, after I have given you brass tacks specifics, economically, in the future I intend to write about universal health care, needed changes in our political system [hint: viable third and fourth political parties would inject much needed competition in the American election system that would stop the poor results of business as usual, politically. Bull Moose Party, anyone?].

Yes, I know. No one likes to lose, but there is no other way to challenge the status quo, which will just give us more of the same [poor results] without viable third and fourth political parties in the United States.

I will also write about the U.S. tax system (needs some common sense changes), needed modifications in the thinking and behavior of us all (voters and politicians -- get personal responsibility and dump our political ideology for what works and what we can afford), the common wealth is more important than "Me," you plus all of us are more important than "Me," asset recommendations for an uncertain future with a flawed currency [the U.S. dollar].


When you think sub prime loans, think Bill Clinton -- ironically, other than the Lewinsky affair, Bill Clinton accomplished some constructive things for the United States and his heart was always in the right place.


Other than not reading The Prince [or, perhaps, reading The Prince, but not following its guidance], by Machiavelli, George Bush, who was not well-liked, did some notable things that were in the best interests of the United States, not the least of which was providing leadership at a time when America desperately needed it [that was and always will be his strong suit].

Yes! I am glad he was calm, cool and collected when he was told about 9/11, while he visited a school room of children in Florida.

I will review many more economic and political subjects in future posts; however, I am certain that I will not be able to resist, in future articles, writing blogs about three of the most interesting people I know of: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. No matter what any of us thinks about them, mixed bag or not, in my opinion, they are the three most likable presidents of The United States in the last 45-years.

Goals for economic and political sanity blog

by Arnie Webre, Jr.

This blogger has decided to develop a weekly written piece that defines, discusses and seeks specific solutions to some of the economic and political dangers that The United States of America and its people currently suffer from.

Although I never go into any endeavor planning to fail, it is possible that my lofty goal of one new, well-thought out blog entry per week will become a once daily, weekly or even monthly event, depending upon my varied and busy schedule and how pressing an issue might become.
My ADD is also an issue that will have a bearing on my weekly or varied production of written pieces for this blog, and misspellings, clerical errors and grammatical bloopers are time consuming and ever present, as well.
I am not a Democrat, Republican or an Independent -- I am an American, who wishes only the best for The United States of America and its inhabitants. Unfortunately, I am an opinionated American, and, therefore, I will make specific recommendations, both economic and political, when I think they are called for.
Fortunately, I am not impressed by political parties, group thinking, persons who do what is best for themselves, but not for The United States of America, whether it be citizens who want something for nothing or politicians who seek to get reelected by promising everything, including the last remaining credit [debt borrowings] of our country.
There is a price for everything that we do, as well as a price for everything that we should have done and did not do, due to political group thinking or ideology.
Let us all attempt to do what is best, to save this country from its selfish governed and selfish politicians. Let us all strive to be better and more self-reliant Americans, who are more concerned about saving this great republic from its governed [voters] and its politicians, than what is best for our own selfish individual interests.
Nothing is irreversible, if we have the will to change it.

We appear, as a nation, to be in serious decline, but that does not have to be the end of it. As a matter of fact, it is up to us to start making ourselves, each other and our politicians accountable for what is best for the common wealth and for The United States of America.

It might already be too late, but I never go into anything expecting to lose -- that will not get us anything but defeat and misery.
God bless America, and may God help us do what is right, as time is short and our problems are many.