Fear of food has risen to dizzying new heights in Congress, and Rep. John Dingell’s H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, aims to grant FDA unheard of authority to clamp down on all facets of food production in the United States and wherever else in the world American food is sold.

This bill comes hard on the heels of Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s oppressive H.R. 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act, which could help concentrate our food supply into the hands of a few giant agro-corporations because its testing and examination procedures are unaffordable for nearly all family farms.

Between these two bills, America’s farming will be collectivized. And, small, independent, and organic farms don’t stand a chance. Only the super multinational agro-corporations have the money to overcome all the fees and testing costs these bills demand. Only they have the private investigators to charge small farmers with violations, and the lawyers to defend themselves from fines and violations of the regimented regulations in H.R. 2749 and H.R. 875.

But the most egregious parts of H.R. 2749 are the broad enforcement powers for the FDA. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund reports that:

H.R. 2749 would give FDA considerable enforcement powers. Under current law, FDA can administratively detain food if there is “credible evidence or information indicating that such article [of food] presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to human or animals” [21 USC 334(h)(1)(A)]. The FSEA would lower the standard for detention, permitting the government to detain food simply if there is “reason to believe that the article [of food] is adulterated, misbranded or otherwise in violation of this act” [section 132(a)–p. 82]. In other words, the agency could detain food based on a suspicion of a paperwork error.

Indeed, the biggest source of FDA revenue would be from collecting fines for errors in the massive amounts of paperwork. Farmers would have to hire administrative assistants to handle their forms and records, much like doctors and hospitals. And, like doctors, they will pass the costs of paperwork administration onto the consumer. Health care costs have risen 10 percent or more per year thanks partly to a tidal wave of government paperwork. Rep. DeLauro’s and Dingell’s bills will do the same to food costs.

The bureaucracy’s control of the food supply is not in America’s interest. The authors of these terrible pieces of legislation insist these oppressive measures are designed to keep us safe. But authoritarians throughout history have used “the people’s safety” as an excuse to deny them liberty. And surely the greatest liberty of all is the freedom to grow food.

The FDA’s role in food safety has already been determined by previous law, and failures to identify salmonella outbreaks are due to its personnel, not because of some loophole in the system. Turning the FDA into a “food czar” with its own secret police will do nothing to help bring healthy food to America’s tables.

Boaz ItsHaky does not support the government’s control of our food supply, nor does he approve of the overbearing paperwork regime these bills demand. He is a strong advocate for local farms, small producers and manufacturers of food stuffs, and organic growers.

“It has been an incredible six months,” sighed Rep. Ed Markey, “to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send president Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the of the world on climate change.”

And that’s one of the most important reasons Rep. Waxman’s American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) bill was passed: the President’s prestige among a very narrow group of elites. In the process, America’s constitutional process has been damaged as Congress once again voted on a bill nobody read.

Well, that’s not entirely true. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee might have read the 100-odd pages she contributed, which creates dozens of federal programs, tax breaks, give-aways, and loopholes for various special interests that will be affected by the bill’s rigorous demands. Rep. Frank Kratovil, a freshman, accepted handshakes from colleagues after casting an early vote in favor, while freshman Florida Rep. Alan Grayson accepted $50 million of carbon fees to fund Hurricane research for his YES vote.

But the sad reality is, not even the environmentalists approve of Rep. Waxman’s bill. Leading critics say it doesn’t nearly go far enough to address the reduction of carbon emissions. Meanwhile, one Congressman stated on the floor he was voting for ACES in order to stop EPA from issuing stricter carbon regulations. Of course, he couldn’t say how EPA was prevented from doing so by passage of ACES.

The bottom line is, ACES is a demonstration of the state of our republic under Democrat leadership:

• The most sweeping legislation in all of America’s 220 constitutional years was ripped out of committee and thrown onto the floor of Congress hours before it was voted on.
• Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s vacation schedule determined vote time.
• The tragic death of Michael Jackson diverted media attention.
• Three hours of debate preceded legislation that controls the American economy for the next 41 years and beyond.

We have already detailed the one-sided impact this bill would have on every facet of our lives. How it would raise prices on the poor, inflict bureaucracy on every facet of our lives, and weaken democracy in the process. All while enriching a very select elite who are positioned to profit from this legislation, and doing far too little to reduce carbon emissions. Nothing more need be said.

Rep. Markey is right. Its certainly been an incredible six months.

UPDATE 5: 6/26/09, 7:25 pm. H.R. 2998 PASSES HOUSE, 219-212. REP. ROSA DeLAURO VOTES YES TO KILLING MILLIONS OF JOBS, RAISING BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN U.S. HISTORY, WAGING WAR ON THE POOR AND MIDDLE-CLASS, FORCING BUSINESSES SHUT, OPENING SHADY CARBON CREDIT DERIVATIVES TRADING, INFLATING BUREAUCRACIES. ALL FOR POLITICAL PAYOFF TO WELL-PLACED SPECIAL INTERESTS WHILE DOING NOTHING TO OFFSET GLOBAL WARMING. 

UPDATE 4: 6/26/09, 6:48 pm. House GOP Leader Boehner Filibusters Cap-And-Trade Bill

UPDATE 3: 6/26/09, 5:33 pm. The 300 “mystery pages” added to H.R.2454 have been retitled H.R. 2998. Several Democrat house members expressed dissatisfaction but accepted a promise from Rep. Waxman that clarifications and changes could be made to the Act after its passage!

UPDATE 2: 6/26/09 5:24 pm. Rep. J. Randy Forbes has proposed an amendment, The New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, to replace H.R. 2454 and its easily-abused cap-and-trade scheme.

UPDATE 1: 6/26/09 12:54 pm. Roll call #466: Rep. Rosa DeLauro has voted YES on H.Res. 587, bringing H.R. 2454 onto the floor for three hours of debate. Rep. DeLauro’s vote is STRIKE ONE against the the poor and middle-class of the United States on behalf of wealthy special interests!

Warning! Do not believe the newest price tag of H.R. 2454, the Clean Energy and Security Act. Its guaranteed to be much higher than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates being touted in Washington. But that’s all part of the game being played against the American people by the incumbent Democrat leadership. (We’ll issue the same warning for the government’s health reform as it progresses.)

The lower estimates are designed to lure wavering Democrats into voting for what may be the single biggest tax increase and scam ever to enter the halls of Congress. As CNN’s Evan Glass reports,

Democrats are hoping that a recent evaluation by the CBO, which estimates that the annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion — or about $175 per household, is enough to alleviate concerns of some members.

As is always the case, once the real price tag is made public, none of the Congressmembers who voted for H.R.2454 will admit they relied on fraudulent figures to get the bill passed. They never do.

Meanwhile, Rep. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman’s co-author, said the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average family. But that figure is unbelievable, and not just because the price of postage increases practically every year! As we reported weeks ago, even veteran incumbent John Dingell expressed caution over the price of Rep. Waxman’s scheme. And the Wall Street Journal breaks down the CBO figures so even a member of Congress can understand what’s going on:

For starters, the CBO estimate is a 1-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

This is where it becomes a scam. CO2 is made into a commodity which will be traded by brokers who belong to a tight-knit community of environmental elites. They collect huge commissions for trading basically nothing. These fees get passed on to the consumer. World-famous environmentalist Sir James Lovelock flatly calls cap-and-trade a scam that will do nothing to contain global warming but will make a few well-placed people immensely rich. (But then, perhaps that’s the whole purpose of Rep. Waxman’s creature.)

The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to “offset” their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

This will start earlier than 2020. It will be immediate. That’s because corporations must work anticipated cost increases into long-term forecasts and raise prices early to make the transition gradual, as well as to build a pad in case a more radical bill comes into Congress.

The CBO acknowledges that the resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.

Of course it doesn’t! Rep. Rosa DeLauro touts these measures as job creators in the green industry. And, she is right. But neither she nor Rep. Waxman have the courage to say how many times more jobs will be lost! Job loss is only part of the problem.

What the Wall Street Journal calls “the most massive tax increase in U.S. history” is directed right at the poor. Since all commodities, raw materials, farm produce, manufactured consumer products, and energy consumption will be taxed by cap-and-trade, everything used by the poor will increase in cost. For all their talk of “helping the under-privileged,” the veteran Democrat leadership are about to deliver a hammer blow to the poor.

Regardless of the consequences to our nation’s economic recovery, this bill would be a triumph for the leadership: Passing this 1,201-page barely-read bill ensures that the special interests that did most of the writing (especially the 300 extra pages that magically appeared in the bill this week alone) will get rewarded. And, the veteran incumbent Democrats can tout the bill as a fulfillment of their campaign promises to curb global warming, even though this bill is almost useless in accomplishing that!

Worst of all, this legislation is being rushed because of Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s vacation plans. Almost like a few months back, when she and Rep. Rosa DeLauro forced through the stimulus bill without reading it so they could jet over to a luxurious junket in Rome.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro is certain to vote YES to H.R. 2454.

• She will vote YES to waging war on the poor by raising prices on everything from bread to clothes to electricity.
• She will vote YES to making a well-connected elite fabulously wealthy as they exclusively trade nonexistent carbon credits.
• She will vote YES to crushing America’s economic recovery as taxes force more business overseas.
• She will vote YES to a system that is a proven failure to off-set CO2 wherever its used.
• She will vote YES to massive job loss as manufacturers produce less goods to avoid the carbon cap.

And come November 2010, Boaz ItsHaky will remind voters in Connecticut’s Third District how Rep. DeLauro voted AGAINST every single one of them.

On Wednesday evening, a group of folks gathered outside local ABC affiliate WTNH on State Street in New Haven. The reason? To mark the occasion of ABC’s unprecedented departure from its self-proclaimed impartiality in reporting news and events by hosting the President’s forum on health care reform.

It was a small turnout, but enthusiastic in spite of intermittent showers. Some of the protests were directed at ABC for its poor judgment, which will undoubtedly affect its already downcast ratings. Others chose to protest the governmen’s top-speed health care reform push, which has been feeling more like a shove.

Boaz ItsHaky joined the group to express dissatisfaction with ABC’s decision. WTNH weather personality Geoff Fox and sportscaster Noah Finz were dispatched (without cameras) to engage the protest. A lively debate ensued over ABC’s advertised “impartiality of the media” and Bo asked Noah Finz if he could announce on the evening news the shocking 2-0 upset victory of the United States over Spain in the World Cup Soccer trials.

Finally, WTNH’s program manager appeared and engaged Bo and other folks in a debate of the media’s support for government projects. The program manager was genuinely surprised to learn that Bo was Rep. DeLauro’s opponent in the 2008 election, and expressed regret for not covering an election in which half a million voters participated.

Over all, the message of the protest was clear: advertising impartiality and then selling out to a favored group will cost ABC trust, viewership, and valuable sponsorship dollars.

As a result, we shall hope WTNH and the rest of the media will actually report on the 2010 election, and do so with some fairness and integrity.

Recently, USAID offered a grant of $22,000,000 to improve schools. Only, it’s for Burkina Faso. Although improving education is an excellent way to combat poverty, perhaps the same money could help fight the poverty facing America’s school budgets this year. Clearly, it’s another serious disconnect from reality for the Washington bureaucratic beltway. Grants.gov has a listing for the application:

Document Type:	Modification to Previous Grants Notice
Funding Opportunity Number:	USAID-WA-BURKINAFASO-624-09-012-RFA
Opportunity Category:	Discretionary
Posted Date:	May 13, 2009
Creation Date:	May 14, 2009
Original Closing Date for Applications:	Jul 20, 2009
Current Closing Date for Applications:	Jul 13, 2009
Archive Date:	Sep 13, 2009
Funding Instrument Type:	Cooperative Agreement
Category of Funding Activity:	Education
Estimated Total Program Funding:	$22,500,000
Award Ceiling:	$22,500,000
Award Floor:	$22,500,000
CFDA Number(s):	98.001 — USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas
Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement:	Yes

Agency Name: Ghana USAID-Accra
Description: THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEST AFRICA MISSION IS SEEKING APPLICATIONS FROM QUALIFIED ORGANIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM TO PROMOTE PRIMARY EDUCATION IN BURKINA FASO

But the Burkina Faso schools grant is not the only one of its kind. KASS is another such grant for Kosovo schools, for an amount of $6,000,000 while Cambodia Basic Education is requesting $10,000,000 for schools in that country. Basically, its business as usual for federal agencies that expect steep raises this year, even as state, city, and town budgets implode.

Is it unreasonable to ask why these funds cannot be broken into grants for a few of the thousands of American school systems facing steep cuts this year? The likely response would be, “A certain amount of grant money is directed to USAID. Period.” Its USAID’s money. And nobody else’s. Period.

As our Congressman, Boaz ItsHaky would not stand idle while Washington bureaucrats defend their petty empires. This grant application is one example of many. But in times that demand thrift and responsibility, even the “smallest” personal projects must be weighed according to necessity. When American schools are suffering, there is no excuse for superfluous spending.

There’s been a move by the Democrat leadership to legislate paid leave of all kinds on America’s employers. The timing is fortuitous, considering the rubber-stamping behavior of Congress, but could be troublesome while the economy remains weak.

According to the Huffington Post, our old friend Rep. Alan Grayson made history (if anyone cares) by introducing a bill requiring paid vacation:

The Paid Vacation Act of 2009 was announced today in a press release was issued by Take Back Your Time, a U.S./Canadian group that bills itself as an “initiative to challenge the epidemic of overwork, over-scheduling and time famine that now threatens our health, our families and relationships, our communities and our environment.”

Basically, Grayson’s bill requires one week of paid vacation for employees at companies with 100 or more employees. Three years after passage, the bill extends this requirement to companies with at least 50 employees, and requires two weeks for companies with 100 employees.

Virtually all employers of this size offer paid vacation of some sort as a benefit. Why Congress must legislate a common benefit into law is not clear, unless one is cynical and presumes its a political move to provide momentum to more controversial bills coming down the pike, such as Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s H.R.2460, the Healthy Families Act. This bill died in committee last year. But clearly the time is ripe for its resurrection.

The purpose of this H.R.2460 is to require employers to permit employees to earn up to 56 hours of paid sick time including paid time for family care. This follows in the wake of House Resolutions and Senate Bills regarding Paid Parental Leave for federal employees, which were introduced back in January.

Truthfully, we could all use a break. Life moves at a breakneck speed and time is a valuable commodity.

But making laws forcing employers to pay out benefits may have repercussions that cost far more than just a few days off. Employers will pass these new costs on to the consumer to make up for their loss. If they can’t do that, they’ll reduce their workforce. And, in a tight economy like ours, employers will simply not bother employing, or worse, transfer the jobs overseas.

Once again, Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduces and supports bill that could damage our future prosperity. Of course, that’s our future. Her future is much more prosperous and secure: Let’s help Rosa enjoy her golden parachute pension by retiring her in November 2010, and elect Boaz ItsHaky to give our district representation firmly rooted in reality.

Deficit-exploding appropriations for the next fiscal year caused a marathon of amendments by the Republicans the other day. At the epicenter was H.R.2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. Third District’s Rep. Rosa DeLauro voted YES to a bloated and wasteful expansion of government bureaucracy, and voted NO to every amendment to H.R.2847 that offered sensible reductions in expenses.

By her 25 votes cast between June 16th and June 18th, Congresswoman DeLauro has proven she will stop at nothing to waste our money even in the most difficult financial times.

Here is a list of appropriations provided by Congress Matters and the amounts above last year’s budget. Keep in mind, last year’s budget was based on predictable revenue. This year’s tax revenue has dropped at a record pace, meaning these figures are based on wild talk of economic recovery and tax increases. And, as expected, most appropriations are actually more than what the President’s record-breaking budget asked for.

• State and Local Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention Grants: $3.4 billion, $671 million above the President’s request and $197 million above 2009.
• Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): $802 million, $41 million above the President’s request and $252 million above 2009.
• Office on Violence Against Women: $400 million, $11 million above 2009.
• Office of Justice Programs: $2.2 billion, $644 million above the President’s request and $155 million above 2009.
• Second Chance Act Offender Reentry Programs: $100 million, $75 million above 2009 and matching the President’s request.
• Tribal Assistance: $155 million for tribal law enforcement, $65 million above both the President’s request and 2009.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation: $7.7 billion, matching the President’s request and $654 million above 2009.
• Drug Enforcement Administration: $2 billion, $5 million above the President’s request and $81 million above 2009.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms: $1.1 billion, $9 million below the President’s request and $52 million above 2009.
• Dept-wide Southwest Border Initiative: $1.5 billion, $345 million above 2009.
• Federal Bureau of Prisons: $6.2 billion, $97 million above the President’s request and $3 million above 2009.
• Adam Walsh and Child Exploitation: $325 million, $22 million above the President’s request and $41 million above 2009.
• Science Education: $1 billion, $68 million above the President’s request and $36 million above 2009.
• Space Science: $4.5 billion, $20 million above the President’s request.
• Global Climate Change Research: Over $2 billion, $100 million above the President’s request and $120 million above 2009.
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $18.2 billion, $483 million below the President’s request and $421 million above 2009.
• National Science Foundation: $6.9 billion, $108 million below the President’s request and $446 million above 2009.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology: $781 million, $65 million below the President’s request and $57.5 million below 2009.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: $4.6 billion, $129 million above the President’s request and $238 million above 2009.
• Census Bureau: $7.4 billion, matching the President’s request and $4.2 billion above 2009.
• Economic Development Assistance: $293 million, $9 million above the President’s request and $20 million above 2009.
• Legal Services Corporation: $440 million, $5 million above the President’s request and $50 million above 2009.
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: $367 million, equal to the President’s request and $23 million above 2009.
• Civil Rights Division: $145 million, equal to the President’s request and $22 million above 2009.

Many of the 26 amendments that followed Rep. DeLauro’s victory for excess and abuse attempted to reduce the amounts involved, or prevent use of funds for such things as giving raises to administrators or for other bureaucratic projects.

But, wherever modesty and moderation were called for, our Congresswoman flaunted disrespect for her constituents and voted against them. Every time.

Boaz ItsHaky is astonished by the waste of money in Washington. He simply would not vote for this kind of byzantine excess. Critical services and programs that help hard-hit families deserve to be funded throughout the crisis. But using dwindling tax revenue to expand the bureaucracy is just irresponsible!

The President has unveiled a sweeping reform of the financial industry, including the creation of a consumer protection agency that would set rules for everything from mortgage applications to credit card statements and all the fees and terms in between.

The goals of the consumer protection agency are good enough, particularly as the credit agencies and the banks that handle their services are dreaming up novel fees to make up for the lower return on credit card interest. However, the President’s overhaul also includes giving vast oversight authority to the Federal Reserve. As MSNBC puts it,

Embattled CT Senator Chris Dodd, who had been at Obama’s side for the announcement, raised questions about one of the plan’s key features — giving the Federal Reserve authority to oversee the largest and most interconnected players in the financial world. “There’s not a lot of confidence in the Fed at this point,” Dodd said.

During the announcement, the President rattled off his own interpretation of how the subprime crisis occurred, as well as returning to his favorite theme of curbing executive pay, even though it had nothing to do with the financial melt-down. The sum of his thesis is simple: Wall Street greed and lack of regulation led us astray.

But it is the government that got us into this mess to begin with! In fact, there is much evidence the Federal Reserve created the economic melt-down.

Back in the 1990s, it was Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s easy money policy that led to the dot-com bubble, which suddenly burst in 1998. The same policy followed to “soften” the effects of the dot-com crash, as well as to promote recovery from the 2000 recession and the 9/11 effect. But the artificially low interest rates kept the easy credit flowing, this time into rising property values.

Furthermore, earlier government bailouts may have contributed to risky business on Wall Street. As Eric Weiner wrote,

The Federal government bailout of thrifts during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s may have encouraged other lenders to make risky loans, and thus given rise to moral hazard.

Subprime mortgages came into the mix as a toxic asset thanks to government policy. As Carol Loennig wrote,

Since HUD became their regulator in 1992, Fannie and Freddie are supposed to buy a portion of “affordable” mortgages made to underserved borrowers. In 1995, President Clinton’s HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers.

The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans, such as the poor and minorities.

In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular.

That’s because Fannie and Freddie made them popular by taking them off the lenders’ hands, reducing risk. That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans. Fannie did not reveal its amounts.

In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans. But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie’s purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising. That year, President Bush’s HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent.

Back on Wall Street, high profits came from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie’s purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.

“The market knew we needed those loans,” said Sharon McHale, a spokeswoman for Freddie Mac. The higher goals “forced us to go into that market to serve the targeted populations that HUD wanted us to serve,” she said. But because Fannie and Freddie were buying mortgage-backed securities rather than the actual subprime loans, their involvement came too late to require stiffer standards from lenders.

If there was any place where more regulation could have been used, it was in monitoring the lending agencies that were selling the bad loans to Wall Street bankers as packages of mortgage-backed securities.

But seeing how HUD and the Presidents all wanted to extend house ownership to the lower classes, and how reckless the administrators of Freddie and Fannie were in buying up securities packages without even looking at what’s inside, it’s likely the overseers of the loaning agencies would have just turned their heads, mostly because they would been accused of discriminating against poor and minority applicants for loans.

While all of this was happening, the Fed’s artificially low interest rates fueled housing prices, putting ordinary families into debt that had never been seen before. But it couldn’t last forever. Once the Fed was forced to raise interest rates in response to market stress, a tsunami of mortgage payment defaults swept through the banking industry, bringing our financial system to its knees.

Well, now that millions of poor and minority borrowers have lost everything while the banks have gotten their bailouts, the President blames Wall Street greed for this mess. But it couldn’t have happened without our government’s institutions: HUD, Fannie/Freddie, and the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, written by Rep. Ron Paul to audit the Fed, has more than 230 Congressmembers cosponsoring it in order to uncover the Fed’s role in creating the conditions for economic melt-down. However, the President’s new oversight authority may be reason enough to kill H.R. 1207 in committee, so that the Fed can “do its job”.

Question is, what will the Fed do to us next time?

Old Senator Ted Kennedy is back for one more go-around on the health care carousel. He’s the one who sold us HMOs as the end-all solution to health care problems, assuring us they would streamline efficiency and reduce overall costs. Since that time, government mandated benefits and HIPAA’s administrative requirements have forced insurance prices into the stratosphere. But that hasn’t stopped him from making new, wild promises about his bill, the Affordable Health Choices Act (AHCA).

Here are some highlights from the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE assessment of Sen. Kennedy’s 1,500 page rough draft of AHCA:

• According to that assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.6 trillion (revised up from $1.0 trillion) over the 2010–2019 period.
• The legislation will leave at least 36 million Americans uninsured, although the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million.
• The proposal will force at least 23 million Americans to give up the health coverage they have.
• There would be no change from current law regarding Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

We’re not precisely sure what the CBO means by “deficits of about $1.6 trillion.” Perhaps they calculated that only 15 million people would drop their insurance coverage to opt for a no-cost government plan.

What is likely to happen, however, is that employers will forcibly drop their health plans as benefits, leaving their employees to pick up the tab, while the employees who are offered health insurance will find their benefits taxed as income, forcing them to drop it as well.

That must be when at least 23 million Americans will have to surrender the health coverage of their choice and go for government care. And, that is likely to bump up the cost far above $1.6 trillion per year.

And, the fact that Medicaid and CHIP will continue to run as-is without reform is bad news. Fully one-third of Medicare/Medicaid’s gigantic expenditure is pure fraud, mostly accomplished through over-billing, double-billing, claims for services not performed, and claims from nonexistent medical firms. This has been a persistent and unsolvable problem for decades.

The government’s suggestion that healthcare can be made more affordable by cutting out the wasteful administrative cost is ridiculous. They cannot handle $30 billion of fraud in the relatively small Medicare world. What will happen when the fraudsters begin billing in the name of AHCA? Perhaps an additional $300 billion in costs, bringing the total cost of government health care to at least $2 trillion a year.

Boaz ItsHaky is not impressed by the Democrat leadership’s promises. And he’s not surprised by the CBO’s findings. That’s why he supports the Republican alternative, the Patient’s Choice Act (PCA).

The PCA rejects a single federal solution and empowers the states to form policy and promote state-based health exchanges, where consumers can access a real health care market, with protections for lower-income Americans. The system must be state-based rather than a federal program simply because the needs of each state differ so greatly. In addition:

• PCA emphasizes prevention and wellness, with increased accountability for federal programs, incentives that reward results, and educational outreach driven by sound science.
• PCA modernizes Medicaid, putting it on a sound financial path, removing the stigma from Medicaid, giving Medicaid patients real choice for the first time, and roughly doubling the number of providers which needy families on Medicaid can access.
• PCA gives states options for health courts and expert review panels to reduce medical liability junk lawsuits and reduce the need for “defensive medicine”
• PCA creates a new public/private enterprise which will give all patients, consumers, and researchers substantially increased transparency on price and quality.

Furthermore, Americans who like their employer-sponsored health benefits will be able to keep what they have. But individuals should make that decision, instead of being victims of arbitrary tax rules or staying in a job only because they can’t afford to lose their insurance.

There are about 45 million Americans without health insurance. Under PCA, all uninsured Americans could be covered through a combination of tax credits and state exchanges. PCA is comprehensive, offering health coverage to every single American, regardless of their health status, tax status, employment status, and whether or not they have health insurance. Under PCA, Americans would have money specifically allocated for the purchase of health insurance and medical care. HMOs would then compete for this money by offering the best quality service for the buck.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro should take notice: The 10.7 million individuals and families eligible for Medicaid or CHIP would have more money in their pocket, double their access to care, and could choose the coverage they need. CHIP, which Congresswoman DeLauro lauded so warmly, is a costly, overpriced, and wasteful patch barely covering the healthcare access problem. (It’s her favorite kind of big, bureaucratic federal program, and she wouldn’t have it any other way.)

PCA, by contrast, eliminates vast swaths of waste while encouraging free market competition for readily-accessible dollars.

Boaz ItsHaky has experience with a system quite similar to the PCA. He has lived in Switzerland, where the healthcare system is monitored by each Canton and the people have personal control over their medical coverage. It has been operating this way since 1997 without defaults or price increases. Most of all, the famously independent Swiss people would not have it any other way. They certainly would not submit to a one-size-fits-all healthcare system.

The President issued a tough warning on America’s health care system. Reuters quotes him:

“If we do not fix our healthcare system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke. It is a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.”

The President is right. But not about the healthcare industry, which is in no danger of bankruptcy. Rather, its the government’s healthcare and welfare programs Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security that are edging to the abyss. They are incompetently managed, wracked with fraud, and ready to run in the red THIS year.

But no politician wants to touch these toxic programs. They are like plutonium to incumbents. And it is particularly fitting that health care should be analogous to GM. It helps us remember just what happened to the industrial icon of America:

GM came crawling on its knees for a handout, was pumped with $30 billion tax dollars, went bankrupt anyway, was taken over by federally-appointed executives, and its investors were given 10 cents for every dollar they entrusted to the largest manufacturer in the United States. Effectively, our government stole 90% of worth from millions of private investors with 401(k) and mutual funds.

Get ready to see federally-mandated theft on a grand scale when the government goes after healthcare. The combined industry takes in $2.5 trillion per year, and is worth many times more in hard assets, all while employing three to four million people in the insurance sector alone.

Already healthcare-related stocks lost 2.5% of their value after the President’s speech to the AMA. Once the government health system is hoisted on top of the crumbling medicare/medicaid edifice, expect to see stock values dive, ruining virtually all mutual funds and pension plans across the world. It will be a theft of trillions in private investments.

Hopefully psychiatric care will be part of the federal health plan. Because an entire generation will need counseling to bear the theft of their retirement savings.

“I want to build cars,” insisted GM’s CEO, “But all I deal with all day long is health care and pension plans.” So lamented Rick Wagoner two years ago as skyrocketing fuel prices crushed demand for SUVs and brought GM to its knees.

Two years later, Wagoner is gone. Shown the door by the President of the United States. Enter Edward “Big Ed” Whitacre, pulled out of retirement to create a business plan for pulling whatever’s left of GM into the 21st century.

As Bloomberg reports,

The 6-foot-4-inch Texan nicknamed “Big Ed” said steering the nation’s largest automaker after bankruptcy is “a public service.” People who know him say he can meet GM’s need for the type of transformation he orchestrated at Dallas-based AT&T. “I don’t know anything about cars,” Whitacre, 67, said yesterday in an interview after his appointment. “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I’m not that old, and I think the business principles are the same.”

Perhaps Mr. Whitacre is right. The goal is to get GM out of bankruptcy protection within 90 days. But that still leaves the company indebted to the U.S. government. Whitacre have to put GM on the path of creative and transformational 21st century success, AND do so while the White House has its grip firmly around the company’s throat.

Since many historic examples show that state-owned operations fail to deliver products that customers want, “Big Ed” Whitacre may have traded comfortable retirement for the most unsavory job imaginable. And he may get the blame once the state-owned GM requires regular subsidies, much like another successful “temporary” government partnership called AmTrak. It’s lasted 30 years and cost tens of billions in tax payer subsidies.

On the House floor, Rep. Todd Akin discussed the worries many people are having with nationalizing firms in the United States. And Rep. Bachmann goes so far as to accuse the government of gangsterism in its manhandling of struggling GM dealerships. In fact, dealers have been begging well-connected Congressmembers like Rep. Barney Frank to spare them the axe, as though he is the Godfather.

Boaz ItsHaky does not believe nationalizing an industry just to keep it alive is the right answer. GM rose to its greatness by offering superb products to its customers. And Mr. Whitacre surely knows this is the answer to all of GM’s problems.