Back in 2000, before we all became too familiar with hanging chads, a news reporter asked H. Ross Perot who he would be voting for in the presidential election, George W. Bush or Al Gore.  In his response, he stated that he leaned toward Bush, because he had executive experience, not just legislative experience.

Fast forward 8 years and the US had to decide between two senators - one a war hero and military officer who had been around the Beltway for a while and the other, a young, dynamic, well spoken newcomer with no executive experience, but years of experience as a "community organizer" and state senator and 2 years of experience as a US Senator.  Yes, the nation went with the dynamism of youth.  Now we are beginning to see the consequences of electing someone who has never had to execute an order.

President Obama, by his actions, has become the Chief Legislative Officer of the land.  True, he did not write the Health Reform Bill or the Financial Reform bill.  He punted that to his former coworkers in the US Congress.  However, when faced with a crises, such as the happenings in Egypt and Libya, or an massive oil spill in the gulf, he seems timid.  His responses come days, sometimes weeks after the crises has begun.  When his responses do come, they are masked not just in diplomatic speak, but also in committee speak as if he cannot respond with his singular voice.   While worrisome, this isn't the most problematic aspect of an legislator made executive.

In our political system, the legislative branch, consisting of the US House and US Senate makes law (legislates) and the executive branch executes and enforces those laws, but within the first 25 months of his administration, President Obama has begun enacting his own "laws" either ignoring statutes he disagrees with, ignoring federal rulings against his adminstration policies or "back-dooring" controversial policies left out of legislation passed by Congress.  For example, he has usurped the authority to rewrite bankruptcy laws for companies "too big to fail" when he led the effort to reorganize Chrysler and General Motors.  Secured creditors, who in any other bankruptcy would receive preference during liquidation, were sidelined as the unsecured creditor and Obama ally, the United Auto Workers, received preference and actual ownership in the new company created out of bankruptcy.  When confronted with a judicial ruling declaring an executive order unconstitutional, he ignored the ruling and kept his unilaterally declared moratorium on oil drilling. Most recently, he declared that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, even though no court has ruled it as such.  In his mind, DOMA was unconstitutional, so he won't defend it even though that it is his constitutional mandate as the President, the Cheif Executive Officer, of the United States.  DOMA may be unconstitutional, but just as one may not agree with Affordable Heath Care Act of 2010 (Obamacare,) as the head of the executive branch, he must enforce that law and defend that law as it is written.  Effectively, but not literally, he has rewritten this law.

Now the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under the authority of the executive branch, is attempting to delist the drug Avastin because it is expensive.  The FDA is charged with approving drugs for its effectiveness, not for its affordability. The effect of this delisting is to make other laws -- Obamacare -- more affordable because the review boards that could limit drugs like this were struck from the bill prior to it passing.  In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), again, under the authority or the executive branch, is going to limit productin of carbon dioxide (CO2) and create rules and regulations regarding CO2 releases.  Effectively, the EPA is going to install a regime like the so called "Cap and Trade" scheme that failed to pass congress.  Again, President Obama, through the executive branch, is effectively "legislating" new laws absent any constitution or legislative mandate to do so.  In effect, President Obama is not the Chief Executive officer, but the Chief Legislative Officer.

My thoughts and prayers go out Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, her family, staff and constituents.  My thoughts and prayers also go to the those killed and wounded today in what is a senseless tragedy.  As Americans, it is our right to disagree and it is our right to express that disagreement.  Never, however, can violence towards any elected person be condoned, justified or tolerated.  We do not know the reasons for the shooting as of this time, but no reason justifies such a pointless event.

Peace be with you, Rep Giffords, and us all.

As we get closer to what I hope will be a reformative election, creating a reality check on President Obama's desires to place more decision making capabilities in the hands of government, I hope Republicans have learned that they cannot be a party of congressional investigations and reflexive hysteria.  They MUST demonstrate leadership and put forward legislation that Obama can swallow and sign.  The economy must be points 1 -5 on any five point plan. Forget abortion for now, forget gay marriage, forget the Ground Zero Mosque controversy.  Let local politicians fight these fights.  Congress must deal with the federal economic mess and start with taxes, specifically income taxes.

Tax and Spend

Although center-right pundits such as Hugh Hewitt have called for an across-the-board extension of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, I would hesitate briefly to examine the validity of any claims that the Bush tax cuts contributed to the economic crash of 2008.  Liberals will quickly throw out the talking points that the Bush tax cuts 'cut taxes for the rich' and 'created that largest deficits until Obama had to spend his way out of the recession.'  For all but the most committed Keynesians, this argument is bunk.  Tax cuts, after a short shock to the economic system, historically create economic growth and produce more income tax revenue.  The inverse is usually true for tax hikes.  After a short-lived bump in tax revenue, economic growth stagnates or constricts.  The one exception to the rule, which is inevitably touted by Democrats, is Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike that 'lead' to surpluses in the mid to late1990s.   The economic boom of the 1990s was not created through this tax cut, however, but economic stability created by a divided federal government, increased productivity through extensive use of computers, new software, and robotics, and the new frontier dot-com bubble, which was an artificial economic expansion that when burst created an economic recession of its own.

The deficits under Reagan and Bush II were not created by tax cuts.  Tax cuts did increase economic growth, but increases in spending under both administrations outpaced the economic growth..  Reagan's push to outspend the Soviet Union and Bush's lack to reign in congressional spending and earmarks, in conjunction with the Medicare Prescription expansion and the War on Terror (sic), proved too much spending for the the growth that was occurring.  In stark contrast, Obama has increased or proposed increased regulation on almost every business class and threatens to increase taxes "on the rich." Indeed, if nothing is done, the automatic cancellation of the tax cuts, will create a de facto tax increase among all tax brackets. Keep in mind that he is doing this while increasing government spending by literally trillions of dollars.

President Obama has proposed, at least in the media, to make the income tax cuts permanent for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000. For those earning more, they would be subject to the higher pre-2001 rates for both regular income and capital gains.  Short term capital gains would be taxed at 20%, up from 15%, (for most brackets) and long term would be taxed at the new regular income level.  (They would also be subject to new taxes from Obamacare.)  Since most small business owners and business would not qualify for the "extensions," they  would get whacked by the tax increase.  They are the ones who can grow private sector jobs and would have little incentive to do so.  The dip in revenue from those who benefit from the tax breaks may not offset the bump in revenue from those who suffer under the tax break.  The long term effects of such a tax break will be negligible at best as those who are the growth engines do not benefit directly from the tax cut.

If the choice were a.) keep the tax cuts b.) let them revert to 2000 levels, or c.) do some of each, "a" is the best possible answer, but "b" may be the best we can get from this administration.

Perhaps, there should be a d.)  That is for another post, though.

Sometimes, when you look back and examine your beliefs, you realize that although they have changed over time, the way you describe yourself hasn't.  Case in point.  In college, I nearly brought my Dad to tears of anger when I explained how the US oppressed its Latin American neighbors during the Age of Intervention.  He was career Air Force officer and I was indicting the US on every ill ever faced in the hemisphere.  It wasn't my intention to anger my Dad, but my recent immersion in the sociology, liberation and mujerista theology of the region helped to form a leftist interpretation of geopolitics.  I was raised in a conservative household, so as the two view points merged, I was liberal on some issues, conservative on others, and agnostic on few.  Trying to explain my pigeon hole, I would often say I was a conservative-liberal, a Republican-Democrat or, my favorite, a "Radical Moderate."  As the years have passed, my experiences have demonstrated the axiom attributed to Winston Churchill.  In my early 20's, I used my heart and "feeling" as the barometer of politics.  Now, I have attempted, not always successfully, to use my brain and have become an capitalist. Still having nostalgia for those heartfelt understandings of youth, I have reluctantly decided to retire my self professed moniker "Radical Moderate"  to become a Reluctant Conservative . . .

(Published original under "Radical Moderate")

I am not an expert on Health Care, but I believe most things can be solved with a healthy dose of common sense. My family is not a stranger to large hospital bills. My oldest brother passed away from complications of Cystic Fibrosis (CF) four years ago. My sister had scarlet fever as a child, so she has heart damage and has had three open heart surgeries three years ago. Another brother has both CF and Phenylketonuria (PKU.) In addition, we also have run into more common ailments associated with aging.

This being said, I understand that pre-existing conditions need to be covered in any “universal” system, but any coverage that does not produce incentives for people to retain coverage when then are well will fail to spread risk and expense over the masses. For instance, if people can buy insurance only when they need it, they will only pay premiums for the months when their health expenses out way premium expenses. As soon as the cost for premiums out way health expenses, they would then drop it until the next time they “need” it.

I am also a proponent of individual choice when it comes to health care. When presented with a complicated or life threatening ailment, a patient needs to have trust and confidence in his or her physicians. They need to be free to seek other physicians’ advice or counsel.

My proposal is as follows.

1. Disassociate health care coverage from employment. 

      Why should an employee keep his or her job if they are unhappy only because of the health benefits? Why should government force a business to have fiduciary duty to provide health care for their employees? Currently, this is a benefit to employees so companies can entice better and brighter employees. But if mandated it will become only another hurdle to new entries into the business place and it will become an obstacle to entrepreneurship which in turn may stifle innovation.

1A. Instead of giving a tax deduction to businesses, give a tax credit to individuals. The tax credit would be based on age. Someone 0-17 would get a tax credit of X. Someone 18-30 would get X + 500. Someone 31-40 would get X + 1000. Someone 40- 50 would get X + 1500. Etc.  

1B. This tax credit would be an “up to” amount. Therefore, if an individual premium for a 31 year old non-smoker is 3600 a year and he or she can only get a credit of 3500 a year, he or she would have out-of-pocket of 100 once the credit is taken. If he or she only paid 3000, they would get a credit of 3000 on their taxes.

2. Pre-Existing Conditions must be covered.

      However, in order to prevent people from ‘jumping’ in and out of the coverage when it suites them financially, pre-existing conditions would not be covered until 3 years into the coverage, unless coverage starts within (3) three years of passage of the bill or coverage is transferred from one insurance company to another.

3. Expand coverage options not but mandated coverage.

      Insurance coverage should be allowed to be sold across state line. Insurance companies would be able to sell ‘a la carte’ so one could buy just catastrophic coverage, all inclusive coverage, or policies that lay in between. If one is against abortion, euthanasia, etc, as I am, then you could tailor your policy to exempt those items from the premium. It would allow new companies to spring up that  may cater to Evangelists, conservative Catholics, Progressives, etc.

4. Insurers would issue a 1099-“H.”

      Insurers would issue a 1099 that would show months covered, people covered, and total cost of months purchased. If one moved to a new insurer, you would get  two. This would be used on the IRS Individual income tax form to substantiate credit taken. If a person was born, died, or entered a new age category, they would get the higher of the two credits steps.

5. Create subsidized hospital/clinic system.

      Not everyone may purchase insurance so how should these people get help when they need it? They could go to a public hospital and the emergency rooms would be separated into divisions for non-emergency sick, injured or wounded, and then critical emergency for true emergencies. The person would receive the same credit on their taxes as they would with insurance, but they would be liable for expenses up until $25,000 per person, per year. Expenses after $25,000 would be covered by government. This would allow for a small punitive cost because they did not have insurance, but it would give people a way out of catastrophic bills.

6. Doctors must “work-off” student loans.

      Doctors who take student loans would be required to work 3 years in these public Hospitals/Clinics before they could open a private practice or move on to a fellowship for more specialized fields.

7. Tort Reform.

7A.Recovery Caps.

      One of the biggest driving forces of health care costs is medical insurance for doctors and medical facilities. Doctors order extensive tests for usually simple diagnoses because they need to do everything to prevent a lawsuit in case the      most common diagnosis for the symptoms turns out be incorrect. This is called defensive medicine and increases the cost of care. Doctors need to be protected when making educated diagnosis even if it turns out to be wrong. Limitations on “pain and suffering” need to be capped.

7B.Public option for Medical Insurance.

      Since Congress seems so intent on entering a public option for insurance right now, why don’t they have a public option for medical insurance? They could  undercut the “evil” insurance companies and lower costs for doctors and correspondingly their patients while letting insurance companies compete for individuals.

In the end, I think this would do more to fix the bad and keep the good in our current medical systems than most of the ideas floating around Congress at this time.

(Originally Posted as "Radical Moderate.")

Over the past two weeks, we have been witness to one of the finest examples of "punch-counter-punch" that I have seen in the last decade.  Barack Obama rallied and John McCain counter-rallied.  Central to these rallies were each candidate's picks for VP.  Pundits have been examining the "meaning" of the picks but I believe they have fallen short.  Regardless of the success or failure of these picks, they provide a window into the candidates' shortcomings as they see it.  They chose like-minded juxtapositions to their own selves.

Obama picked Joe Biden.  Why?  Obama is bright, young, inexperienced and possibly scared at his own success.  He is, more than anything, liberal.  As such, he chose a fellow liberal who is slower, older, more experienced (although to me his experience leaves me wanting,) solid, and stable.  If Obama is what Joe Biden isn't, we will have a very malleable and untested person at the helm of the world's largest power.

McCain chose Sarah Palin. Why?  McCain is headstrong, aging, experienced, independent, and possibly scared of "his" conservative base.  He is, more than anything, a maverick.  Conservatism is not his calling card although it does significantly influence his opinion.  As such, he chose a fellow maverick who is more conservative, younger, less experienced (although to me her experience has been overstated,) solid and unknown. (And yes, she is a she and she has "the looks" McCain is lacking.)  If McCain is what Sarah Palin isn't, we will have a very independent and headstrong person at the helm of world's largest power.

Independent or malleable?  Experienced or Inexperienced? McCain or Obama?  That is the question.  America will answer and we will all need to support the choice by loyal opposition when necessary.