Congress 112th

President Obama's cry for help in a feeble campaign speech to a joint session of Congress probably hurt him politically more than it helped him. It will do nothing for the American economy.

What a disgraceful pander to public sector and construction unions. How empty can a presidential suit look and sound? Now we've see and heard one of the weakest and most self serving speeches a president has ever delivered in an appearance before Congress.

U.S. House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is promising to work with President Obama to stimulate consumer spending that is needed to create jobs, and he asked for comments on his response to Friday's dismal jobs report. I doubt that President Zero really wants to work with Cantor or the Republicans, because that would cost him the support of the House Progressive Caucus and the Hard Left.

I posted this comment, which I've edited and expanded a bit:

How to stimulate consumption that will cause businesses to hire more people:

Over the last 35 years, there have been a lot of attempts to slow the growth in Medicare expenditures, which have continued to soar unabated because of poor policy making by both parties. 

Although the Budget Control Act of 2011 (S. 365) says the Joint Budget Committee that will try to agree on the next round of budget cuts won't be allowed to change Medicare's benefits, I think it should.

Here are some ideas for changing Medicare that would give consumers and providers strong financial incentives to increase access to care and higher quality care at lower costs per patient and per enrollee.

1. Means testing should be introduced to Medicare. 
2. Premiums should be upped 50% to 100% for the wealthiest beneficiaries, provided that they are allowed to buy non Medicare insurance in place of the lousy Medicare plan. That would take 5 million to 15 million of about 47 million beneficiaries out of Medicare and save billions, if not trillions.
3. The WSJ Health Blog reported on a study that estimated that defensive medicine costs $46 billion a year, or $460 billion over 10 years and growing. Tort reform is imperative.
4. Strip the pork and new public sector jobs built into ObamaCare from the budget and save close to $1 trillion.
5. Revamp Medicaid so that it serves the truly poor, and not every special interest group that votes Democrat. Save billions for the states and federal government.
6. Strip useless preventive care from Medicaid and Medicare and save more billions. Provide only the four preventive care services that actually save lives. Note that I've blogged on a Krauthammer column that reported that preventive services increase health care costs 162%. http://tiny.cc/k4hck
7. Stop using Medicare to subsidize over-staffed inner city and teaching hospitals and save more billions.
8. Reduce Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for providers' payments to GE and its competitors for equipment maintenance contracts and save more billions.
9. Give consumers on Medicare and Medicaid strong financial incentives to buy reasonably-priced Medicare and Medicaid insurance plans and save more billions.
10. Stop all subsidies to people who want and buy Medicare Advantage plans and to the insurers who offer those plans and save more billions.
11. Spend more on fraud and abuse enforcement for M/M and save more billions.
12. Give workers stronger financial incentives to save for their health care expenditures after they reach 65 and save more billions.
13. Reimburse hospitals for only 50% of the health insurance premiums that they pay for employees. Many hospitals pay 100% of their workers' insurance premiums, which are soaring like everyone else's.

The Budget Control Act signed by President Obama today creates a Joint Committee of a dozen members of Congress. It's job is to cut the budget by Thanksgiving.

Everyone expects that the committee, which will be comprised of six members of the Senate and six members of the House with six from each party, will target Medicare, Medicaid and other health services for savings.

This is a slightly revised piece I'm posting on comments sections and on Facebook:

1. How would you like to have Obama cut your income by, say, raising your income taxes, forcing you to buy expensive health insurance mandated by ObamaCare, forcing you to buy expensive food and gasoline as a result of ethanol mandates and forcing you to pay for others’ preventive care even though they can afford to pay for it themselves?

Oh, you are having your disposable income cut. So you know how it feels.

But say you’re a hospital employee—a nurse, a receptionist, a technician, etc. And you’ve been taught guest relations skills so that you’ll help patients and be friendly. Your pay is cut. What happens to your attitude, your attention to details and how much you care about quality?

Cutting the pay of highly-trained, skilled health care workers will destroy much of the quality that we see in today’s health care institutions.

I’ve had to be in and out of hospitals a few times over my pretty long life, and I think that while care always was as good as the workers could make it, today’s care is exceptional. The people who have cared for me and mine have been friendly and attentive with minor exceptions.

2. I’ve covered the hospital industry since 1976 for Modern Healthcare, Health Care Strategic Managment and my blog. I’ve learned that hospital executives care about themselves first. They’re human.

Therefore, they care about their bottom lines second. Profits are important to both tax exempt and taxable companies. They care about physicians third, because the docs control them. Then they worry about their employees and patients in that order.

So hospital associations, which also care about themselves before they worry about their members, are most concerned about protecting their members’ bottom lines. They never suggest changes that cut government’s or private payers’ costs. This is why the AMA, AHA, CHA, etc. are looked at with such scorn and cynicism in Washington where everyone is looking out for number one—himself.

3. Medicare expenditures must be cut by reforming the system, not by cutting payments to doctors and health workers. While it’s impossible to motivate people, it’s very easy to demotivate them by threatening their incomes and their status.

4. Reform Medicare by adopting significant parts of Paul Ryan’s plan and modifying Medicare and Medicaid as much as politically feasible.

Give patients strong financial incentives to be smarter about using Medicare. And give physicians and institutions strong financial incentives to cut costs.

Let everyone make as much money as possible by increasing access and quality of care while cutting Medicare expenditures per enrollee and per patient.

Providers have no control over disease outbreaks nor demographics, which is why controlling the rate of growth in health care expenditures is so difficult.

If the Joint Committee focuses on problem solving instead of politics, it can take $1 trillion to $3T out of Medicare over 10 years.

I assume politics will cut the real savings to about zero.

Will Paul Ryan or Michelle Bachmann speak for voters who gave the GOP control of the House when they reply to President Obama's state of the union speech Tuesday night?

The answer will not be known until we hear one of them articulate the GOP's missions to cut spending and taxes in terms that will resonate with voters.

If all they do is talk about cutting spending without explaining the benefits of such cutting, Obama will win the day.

Instead of harping on cutting spending "for our children," Republicans must talk about cutting spending that favors General Electric, General Motors and General Dynamics and members of public unions.

Spending must be cut to put lobbyists like GE's Jeffrey Immelt out of the business of using his political clout to win advantages for GE over Americans who don't work for GE, GM, GD or federal and local government agencies.

Only when government subsidies and tax credits for those with highly paid lobbyists are eliminated will all Americans be able to play on a level playing field. 

As long as Obama's government favors one type of energy producer over another and favors producers of goods and services over consumers, only the Democrats' favored few—the General Electrics of the world— will enjoy opportunities to share in the American dream.

Democrats have long dismissed the "trickle down" theory of economics. And they've been right. Pouring money into the pockets of GE, GM, GD and public sector unions will not bring prosperity to all. 

Yet, Democrats are trying to sell the "trickle down" theory that they despise. They're saying that if the government spends billions that it doesn't have on infrastructure, favored energy producers and education, everyone will benefit. 

That simply is not true. Obama's spending and taxing proclivities will only make his friends rich and the rest of us poor.

So Republicans in the House will stop Obama Democrats from paying off their favorite lobbyists. Sorry, GE, GM, public sector unions and the bloated higher education and health care industries. 

Like all thinking Americans, Republicans believe that we must minimize government spending so that we can cut taxes and give every American worker and consumer an equal opportunity to prosper.

Rep. Mike Coffman says on his web site that he supports the full repeal of ObamaCare. The Denver Post reported yesterday that "Rep. Mike Coffman, a Colorado Republican who has not committed to repeal, said he agrees with some aspects of reform but thinks President Barack Obama's push was "the wrong way to go. I look forward to working with Secretary Sebelius on meaningful, market-based health care reforms that expand access and lower costs," said Coffman, in Washington preparing for the new Congress." Of course, ObamaCare is not going to be completely repealed.

There are only four Republican members of the U.S. House and three of the four are on the Natural Resources Committee. Doug Lamborn (CD 5) is the fifth ranking Republican on the committee, Mike Coffman (CD 6) is ninth and and Scott Tipton (CD 3) is the most junior member. Lamborn is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The Democrats haven't named their members of the committee.

The Weekly Standard says this is the text of the two-page "Repealing the job-killing health care law act" that would repeal ObamaCare (Public Law 111-148).

Has U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (CO R CD-6) been passed over for a seat on the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which he has been seeking since the Nov. 2 elections? It looks like more senior and prominent members got the job instead of Coffman, who's completing his first term in the House.

On Friday, the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner, appointed three new members of the committee for the 112th Congress, which opens Jan. 5. They have announced their appointments in press releases. Coffman hasn't announced his appointment, which indicates he didn't make the committee. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Tom Rooney (R-FL) yesterday announced their appointments to the prestigious committee. Because Congressional offices are closed on weekends, I won't be able to get a comment from Coffman until next week. Coffman serves on the House Armed Services, Natural Resources and Small Business committees in the 111th Congress. 

Rep.-elect Cory Gardner (CO CD-4) named three more members of his senior staff. Mike Bennet district director, Natalie Farr legislative director and Rachel Boxer communications director. Press release is after the jump.

Cory Gardner has been given a choice seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Politico reports. He will be one of 12 new members of the committee. The Republican beat Betsy Markey in Colorado's fourth Congressional district on Nov. 2.

President Obama and Colorado's Democrats in Congress apparently will agree to extend the Bush tax cuts and avert more Obama tax hikes only if Republicans agree to higher spending on extended unemployment benefits.

 Extending the unemployment benefits will ensure high levels of unemployment for years to come. Too many of the unemployed make more by avoiding low-paying jobs and staying on the dole. If the benefits were cut, unemployment rates would soon dip. How much they would drop if benefits weren't extended is hard to predict. At least I haven't seen any predictions on what would happen if benefits weren't extended.

Both Democrats and Republicans are playing to their bases in the deal that Obama announced last night, which is subject to approval by hard left Democrats who control Congress until next year.

Republicans are reasonably assuming that averting the Obama Democrats' tax hikes and new tax cuts that will be part of the deal will help the economy more than the additional spending will hurt it.

The tentative agreement to exempt estate, or death taxes, on the first $5 million in an estate and then tax the balance at 35% looks like a pretty good compromise, too. Of course, it would be smarter to completely eliminate estate taxes, but the redistributionists make that politically impossible.

Compromise has made America the wealthiest country in the world, and it's good to see a little compromise after two years of Obama's way or the highway.

Mark Udall and Michael Bennet voted for higher income taxes for those who make over $250,000, putting their belief in wealth redistribution out there for all to see. The two Colorado Democrats joined 51 other Senate Dems in voting for a prolonged recession when they voted on a bill that would extend tax cuts only for those who earn less than $250,000 a year. 60 votes were needed to pass the bill. Now the Dems and President Obama are settling down to wring as many concessions out of Republicans as they can before they vote to extend the tax cuts for everyone as demanded by voters on Nov. 2. Top priority for the Dems is extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. Distasteful as that will be for conservatives, they'll cave on the unemployment benefits to prevent the Obama tax hikes. That's politics, and if extending unemployment benefits will preserve the Bush tax cuts, so be it.

Colorado's Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet voted with most Republicans and against most Democrats when they voted for a ban on earmarks in the Senate. The ban failed 39 to 56. But in the 112th Congress, House Repubicans will have the power to reject any bills that include earmarks added to bills by Senators. Will the House GOP enforce their ban on earmarks on the Senate? In any case, Udall and Bennet voted for fiscal responsibility.

During the 2010 campaign, Republicans Ken Buck and U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (CD 6) wasted a lot of time talking about a balanced budget amendment. Coffman is trying to lead a movement in the U.S. House to put a balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Senate Republicans are grandstanding on the misleading promise to pass a balanced budget amendment instead of getting serious about budget cutting. While I believe we must reduce the nation's deficit and debt, I also believe that politicians who grandstand on the balanced budget amendment need to told to stop trying to win headlines with their false promises. In the internet era, such foolishness won't wear well with voters. Bloomberg points out that even the most serious budget cutters think that the goal must be to cut the budget deficit to less than 3% of gross domestic product. It's now about 9%. Here is a good, short summary of what economists and various budget panels and commissions think should be done and what they think is doable: Balanced-budget dream will take decades even for deficit hawks, by  Brian Faler.