HEALTH CARE JOBS NATIONAL SECURITY BUDGET BAILOUTS PRO-LIFE
______________________________________________________
The question at hand is not whether we make changes to the system, but instead what that change looks like. The Republican Party has been painted as the party of no but that is not the entire story. Because government has never proven to be able to control costs in health care or any other venue, I am proudly the candidate of no when it comes to government intervention into our health care system. Instead, we need to find a solution that lowers costs first and therefore allows as many people as possible to purchase affordable coverage. Due to their desire for government run health care, I can only assume the Democrats and John Yarmuth are the party of no when it comes to lowering costs. As a matter of fact, John Yarmuth is on the record stating that under ‘Obamacare’ health care costs will go up.
Visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPnHwAXwWn4&feature=player_embedded
at 2:38 in the video.
In any health care solution, it is important that we root it in the free market system. Five years ago, if a consumer wanted to buy a flat screen television, they would have been prepared to spend upwards of $5,000 for a basic model. But because our free market system is predicated on the laws of supply and demand and competition between companies, those same televisions are now anywhere from $300 – $2,000 with better technology and sharper pictures. The same strategy must be implemented in dealing with health care costs.
First and foremost, we must allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. Encouraging competition instead of allowing three or four companies in each state to monopolize the system will bring down costs almost immediately. We must invoke the commerce clause of the Constitution and free up insurance companies to offer products that customers want instead of mandating what those products must be. As an example, if enough people want chiropractic care in their insurance coverage, there will be plenty of companies willing to compete for that market. But no government body should mandate that coverage. Would our state or federal government mandate that each television purchase must include a Blu-Ray DVD player and a surround sound system? Of course not.
Additionally, we need to put the power and reality of health care costs in the hands of the consumer. I will encourage employers to give a stipend to their employees and allow them to choose their own insurance coverage. If spent on healthcare, health insurance, or deposited into an HSA, this stipend would be tax free to the employee. For those paying their way, healthcare and health insurance should be made fully tax deductible. Currently, most consumers do not understand how much their employers pay into the system since premiums are often split between the employer and employee. With a more educated populace and more individuals getting into the private insurance pool, consumers can choose the best and most cost-efficient plan available and therefore give insurance companies an incentive to lower their costs.
Of course, no plan can be considered without a serious look at tort reform. Currently, doctors practice defensive medicine, not because they believe every test is vital but because they fear the repercussions of trial lawyers. We must reign in frivolous lawsuits by capping penalties and demanding that losing plaintiffs be responsible for court and lawyer fees for doctors. This will decrease the number of junk lawsuits, free up doctors to practice medicine as efficiently as possible and ultimately lower health care costs.
Finally, we must deal with pre-existing conditions. While the fundamental problem with covering pre-existing conditions is the potential abuse of consumers only buying insurance when they are sick, something must be done for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to be insured. What happens to the person who becomes so ill or injured that they can no longer work, lose their benefits and therefore cannot purchase insurance on their own? Or should the 22-year-old who gets hit with a heart murmur be permanently disabled by their inability to buy insurance for the rest of their lives?
To effectively walk this line, I propose a “one strike and you’re in†approach. Every consumer gets one opportunity to buy into private health insurance with a pre-existing condition. After that, it is incumbent on the consumer to continue this coverage. If they elect to drop coverage after that, any medical expenses will be covered out of pocket. This gives a safety net for consumers while still holding people accountable to the edict of personal responsibility that has made our country so great.
Health care is not easy for anyone to tackle. But as the greatest nation in the history of the world, we must find solutions for even the most difficult problems. And we must find these solutions through the free market system that has separated our economy from all other economies.
When a politician says he/she is going to create or bring high quality jobs
to Louisville, be sure to listen and ask for the specifics on how they are
going to do that. Unfortunately, under the guise of job creation our
government has actually been destroying jobs. In a rush to pass costly
stimulus legislation Congress promised unemployment would not exceed 8%,
here we are at 10% with no end in sight.
Not only has the stimulus package failed to create real jobs, our government
is hand picking the economy’s winners and losers. Now the administration is
talking about new plans and programs. The vast majority of the new proposals
are oriented to so-called “green jobs†and “shovel ready†projects.
Meanwhile, main street small business owners are still laying people off.
This is what happens when the government decides what is a good job and what
is a bad job.
The way to increase employment is first to level the playing field by
offering the same solutions across the board and stop favoring certain
companies and industries. History has shown that the most effective way to
allocate goods and services is by allowing consumers to dictate prices by
where they choose to shop and what they choose to buy. When the government
steps in and picks certain favorites, consumers no longer have a choice of
where or how to spend their money and the entire market is thrown out of
balance. Predicting future sales becomes more difficult, and thus,
companies will expand less, hire less, etc.
There are really only two ways that the government can help the job market.
First is to stop hand picking what jobs they want to grow and which they
want to go away. Second, give employers tax incentives to hire. Employers,
having still suffered the economic pain of a recession, are slow to hire or
rehire. Therefore, I propose that on a temporary basis, any employer in
any industry of any size that increases the average number of employees they
have in 2010 over 2009 and 2011 over 2010 get a tax break. Whether a company
has averaged ten employees, or ten thousand, they could deduct twice the
full salary and benefits package for each new employee or re-hire for one
year. This will promote hiring, which takes people off of
unemployment, allows them to spend money in our community, and reduces the
risk for employers to hire folks now rather than later. This proposal
applies to all businesses, because it is not the government’s job to pick
which businesses should win and which should lose. That is up to you, the
consumer. Jobs especially should not be based on how the government wants
to spend your money, (and whoever donated the most to certain campaigns).
Jobs will be created naturally by the companies offering the best products
and services at the lowest prices, but we must level the playing field!
TOP
We are at war. The President can rename it, Congress can deny it, the media can mock it, but this is an indisputable fact. We are at war not because we’re an imperialistic country seeking other people’s resources, but because our enemies hate us, have killed our citizens, and continue to attack us.
Currently, our national defense is under assault from ideological radicalism, which has lead to Navy Seals being prosecuted and CIA agents fearing repercussions for doing their jobs, and enemy combatants being given full rights of U. S. citizens in U.S. criminal courts. We must not allow our national security to be subject to political agendas.
If elected, I would take seriously the oath of office that states: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.â€
The stability and prosperity of the United States has over the centuries depended on a strong national security architecture. Our national security architecture is made up of both the military and intelligence services and both services have a vital role to play in creating the type of secure environment that allows society to prosper.
GROWTH AND INNOVATION
National defense and intelligence allows for a civilization to operate free from fear of daily physical harm and creates a stability that has made the United States the envy of the world. A society that is stable has time to devote energy to building new businesses, cultivate the arts, and reach new advances in science and technology. In order to maintain this standing, we must stay vigilant against all threats to ensure the creative spirit necessary to help spur growth and innovation in our economy, arts and sciences.
NO TIME FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
One of the great strengths of the American people is our overwhelming desire to treat people with dignity and respect. If we were to lose that, our country would be worse for it. However, when we are at war with an enemy that has no country and plays by no rules, we cannot treat this as a criminal situation. We must remove the shackles of political correctness and fight our enemy with all of our available resources.
When a radical Muslim killed thirteen people at Fort Hood, General George Casey lamented that diversity might become a casualty of this incident: “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.†When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to set off a bomb on a plane headed into Detroit, he was put into custody and read Miranda rights. This is abhorrent.
Meanwhile, American citizens traveling on airplanes will be subject to additional security measures, maybe even full-body scans. And any time a Muslim is involved in an act of violence, the hand-wringers in Washington and in the media worry that extremist Americans might attack innocent Muslims. Thus, terrorists are being treated like Americans while Americans are being treated like terrorists.
MILITARY STRENGTH
National security architecture promotes stability chiefly by acting as a deterrent to potential threats. In order to be effective the deterrent must be visible and invisible. Visible strength comes from the military. It is shown in the military’s size, manpower, capabilities, technology and logistical ability. Visible strength also acts as a deterrent to those who consider attacking us.
Wars should be fought by military men and women. Therefore, I will continue to support fully funding the military budgets and an aggressive surge in Afghanistan and encourage the President to fully endorse General McChrystal’s original request of 40,000 additional troops.
INVISIBLE STRENGTH
Invisible strength comes from the intelligence services. It is shown in the quality of the information that the service is able to provide to the government and the military. In order to gather this information intelligence services must also be supported with first-rate technology, logistical support and people.
Especially in this time of war on terrorism, we must continue to adequately fund our intelligence agencies so they can operate unfettered by unnecessary financial constraints.
TOP
Balancing the budget is the issue of our times and can no longer be ignored.
To quote one of our leading founding fathers John Adams, “Facts are a
stubborn thing!†And the fact is career politicians in Washington have spent
us to the edge of bankruptcy as a nation. No other single issue has as
pervasive effect over every area of our lives. Because of the reckless
spending Washington has inflicted on us, our businesses must compete against
the government to borrow money, and as a result, our friends struggle to
find employment and the purchasing power of our savings has been greatly
diminished. Politicians promise pork projects to their communities for the
sole purpose of being re-elected, without concern for the cumulative effect
this has on the country and the consumer. Facts are a stubborn thing… and
the fact is our current path is absolutely unsustainable.
As a consumer you cannot vote an increase your home equity line or credit
card limit when you decide you want to spend more. You are constrained by
reasonable limits on your spending based upon your income. This is not the
case with our government; they simply increase the amount they allow
themselves to borrow. Here are the stubborn facts, for Fiscal year 2009,
the government took in $2.2 trillion in taxes, but has over $105 Trillion in
debts. Our national debt is almost 50 times our income! No bank in the
world would continue to extend us credit, but since the Dollar functions as
the world reserve currency, we simply increase our own credit line.
But that is changing. China and many European nations are looking to abandon
the dollar as a reserve currency. They are warning us of the stubborn fact
that we are on an unsustainable path. For sure, if the Dollar continues to
plummet in value versus other major currencies and our debt keeps growing,
our government will not possibly be able to stop the only logical
consequence of this: hyper inflation – which would dramatically cut the
standard of living of every single American.
On a person level, if you were the nation, it would look like this today:
you make $22,000 a year, but you spend $36,000, and if you factor in Social
Security and Medicare, you owe $1,000,000 in credit card debt (which you
magically do not have to make payments on until 2016). When you look at our
situation in these terms the ridiculousness of it is readily apparent.
In practice, the government only actually pays interest on $12 Trillion of
the debt, which is around $300,000,000 in interest each year, and rising
rapidly. Much like the failed Enron Corporation, our government holds many
debts that they do not claim (off balance sheet). Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, promises we have made to veterans and retired federal
employees, etc. total up to around $93 Trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Layer in the horrible potential consequence of hyper inflation if our
current course is not changed now, and you can easily see the sense of
urgency that must be applied to balancing our budget now… not down the road
because the road is coming to an end, and that is a stubborn fact that
cannot be ignored!
The only reason our government has gotten away with this insane practice so
far is that they can actually print money. But, even that can only go on for
so long and as I already stated, the rest of the world is beginning to point
out this fact and are fleeing the dollar.
Most career politicians are basing our future on hope alone. Hope alone is
not a strategy in light of the stubborn facts. Even my opponent is on the
record as stating that he does not know how we can pay for all the massive
spending he has voted for.
I know how and I have two simple suggestions to rectify the situation:
BALANCE THE BUDGET
There are only two ways a business, or a country, can improve or restore
profitability. You can cut expenses or raise revenue (read: tax increases).
History has proven that raising tax rates actually stifles growth, and
therefore reduces the amount of raw tax dollars collected. Therefore we are
left with cutting expenses. By passing a Balance the Budget Amendment to
the Constitution, Congress would be forced to live within their means.
TAX BREAK FOR NEW EMPLOYEES
There is one way to raise revenue without increasing tax rates. If
businesses were allowed tax breaks for each new employee hired, they would
likely hire more. Those people hired would then be able to consume more
from other business and those businesses would need to hire more. This is
called the Multiplier effect. The net effect of this would be more people
working and more tax dollars collected, which could then be used to pay down
our debt.
Help me stop the insanity. Elect me and I will fight to balance the budget,
fight to protect your financial future and fight to assure we heed the
warnings of the stubborn facts of our current economic situation. Because as
a nation and as individuals we will not be able to shoulder the crushing
burden of a bankrupt country that can no longer fulfill its promise of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
TOP
The bailouts themselves are one of the biggest budget busting deficit
building activities in American history… and the facts are stubbornly clear:
they didn’t work. Our nation was promised by the current administration that
if we rushed through the stimulus package, that our unemployment rate would
not exceed much more than 8%. We are at 10% and still climbing. We were told
that all of this bailout money would stimulate economic growth. Well, it
did, but as you’ll see it is just a temporary bubble… the illusion of
economic recovery, and that illusion is beginning to fade.
So why did so many apparently smart people from both sides of the aisle
recklessly jump onto many of these bailouts? Unfortunately, it was politics
as usual: don’t address the tough issues that Americans need our leaders to
address, but kick it down the road so as not to jeopardize the current
election cycle. Our representatives in Congress need to learn that we don’t
send them there for the sole purpose of figuring out how to get re-elected.
Let’s look at the devastating impact the bailouts are having on our economy.
First, the 2008 – 2009 bailouts are absolutely unprecedented in the history
of the world. That is not an exaggeration, but a truthful fact. According to
our government’s General Accounting Office, all of the bailouts from 1970 –
2001 (there were no bailouts from 2002 – 2007) totaled $347 billion dollars…
that is in 2008 dollars adjusted for inflation, just to keep this a true
apples to apples comparison. The 2008 – 2009 bailouts total in 2008 dollars
is ONE TRILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS. In other words,
we just spent FIVE TIMES the amount of money on bailouts in the last 2 years
than we did in the previous 40 years combined.
And what have we reaped so far from this almost two trillion sown: higher
than expected unemployment, higher deficits, a shrinking dollar and an
economy still in trouble.
Let’s take a brief look at what TARP has done for Louisville. My opponent
voted enthusiastically for this measure that will cost all of us $700
BILLION dollars. Kentucky itself received $330.6 million which is one-tenth
of one percent of the total. Louisville itself received $44.3 million that
went to two small banks… that’s it. Yet, all of us are on the hook to repay
the full $700 BILLION. Our taxes won’t be pro-rated down to reflect the
minuscule amount of TARP money that came to Louisville.
I’m sure you’ve heard that the economy grew last quarter. It did, but how?
Part of that growth came from the sales of cars from the “Cash for Clunkersâ€
program. As a matter of fact 690,000 cars were sold that received an average
rebate of $4,000 per car. Doesn’t sound too bad, does it? Well, according to
Edmunds.com., a leading auto industry automotive website, CNN Money and
executives from the big three, including Ford, they all project that only
125,000 of those vehicles would not have been sold anyway. In other words,
the program was only successful at increasing car sales on a real basis by
125,000. The rest are cars that would have sold throughout 2009, but people
moved up their purchases to take advantage of the rebate. Hence the real
cost for those increased cars based on the $3 billion spent to grow car
sales was $24,000 per car! I bet we all can think of better ways that money
could be spent!
But unfortunately, the damage done by Cash for Clunkers didn’t stop there.
Due to the rush to beat the program, steel mills sold out their inventory to
the auto companies and subsequently raised their prices during this
mini-auto bubble. So other industries that use steel actually saw their raw
material costs rise, offsetting their profits and more than likely leading
to layoffs in other steel related sectors.
When the government tries to pick economic winners and losers, it seems to
never work… we all seem to lose. If the government felt that flooding the
economy with borrowed dollars was the way to stimulate the economy, why
didn’t they just give it to us, the people? After all, don’t we know better
how to spend that money on ourselves than a bureaucrat in Washington? I can
promise you, I will never vote for or support any measure that looks like a
bailout or smells like a bailout… because it is your money.
TOP
I believe strongly in the sanctity of life, that it should be protected
from conception to natural death.
While I sympathize with women who find themselves pregnant unexpectedly,
the unborn should not bear the penalty of a “choice.â€
I believe the Supreme Court grossly exceeded its mandate to interpret the
law when it imposed Roe v. Wade in 1973. Because of this, we now need a
Constitutional amendment protecting life. I respectfully disagree that
one person’s dominion over their own body trumps the entire life of
another person. The lives of the unborn deserve our protection.
To pro-choice Libertarians:
As stated in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.†Liberty and the pursuit of
happiness for one person, do not negate the right to life for another
person. Personal autonomy is not to be valued over the life of another
human being. In short, the rights of one stop where another’s rights
begin.
To those who make an exception in cases of rape, incest and the life of
the mother:
Less than 4% of all abortions fall into these categories. The sole
ethical exception may be that the consequence of giving birth is certain
death to the mother.
I am proud to be endorsed by Kentucky Right To Life.
Listen for my pro-life radio commercial on WJIE, WFIA (AM&FM), and WLCR.
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube