Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us ”” and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.
This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with “The Oil-Bust Panic,” The New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. In this space in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for “the government ”” through a tax ”” to establish a new floor for gasoline,” by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.
But instead of doing the obvious ”” tax the damn thing ”” we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates, and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system the Senate debated last week. These are infinitely complex mandates for inefficiency and invitations to corruption. But they have a singular virtue: They hide the cost to the American consumer.
Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.
Let those who want a tax volunteer for it. I am sick to death of people whose only solution for anything is to raise taxes. Double the taxes on all liberals and let the rest of us go.
Ok, explain to me again how raising my taxes “saves” me money. I agree with Br. Michael. Some folks are awfully generous with MY wallet. If they want to be generous, let them use their own wallet.
How does the U.S. instituting an additional tax keep OPEC from tightening production?
I’m all for a tax – a Protection Tax of $3.00 a gallon on all members of OPEC. It won’t pay for the lives and limbs of the American soldiers who preserve a relative peace among these vampires, but it will help balance the US budget – if we can keep the Congress from wasting the money on more foolishness.
I’m sure we could trust congress to use the tax revenues from gasoline to offset the payroll taxes!
Surely they wouldn’t just treat it as another source of revenue….
Fine, everyone is against higher taxes, but there is a simple reason that demand for low MPG vehicles has plummeted–the price at the pump finally got enough people’s attention. Earlier this year, Congress enacted higher fuel economy standards for future vehicle sales. It did nothing to lower consumption, did nothing to change the mix of vehicles being produced and sold currently. Recent price increases have changed both. If we want to see lower consumption–either to reduce emissions, or to extend supply availability into the future, or simply to lessen our reliance on overseas supplies, higher prices do more than any other factor. Once used to $4/gallon, even going back to $2/gallon will “feel” cheap and spark increased demand again. Unless we in the USA are willing to increase production (80% of reserves are off limits in Alaska, off the coasts, etc) or reduce consumption, the squeeze and high prices will be with us. So, pick your poison: increased production (which will likely be offset by increased demand in China/India) or decreased demand (which will be driven by cost) or a bit of both.
Sure, why pay taxes at all? Perhaps Bro Michael and Sick-Tired can organize a bake sale for the Air Force.
Let’s act like some misbegotten la-la land where no one does anything unless it feels good right now. After all, who should we care about except Me-Me-Me?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“How does the U.S. instituting an additional tax keep OPEC from tightening production?” —CStan [#3]
Good question. Higher energy taxes will reduce U.S. consumption and result in oil prices being lower than they otherwise would have been. We can’t prevent OPEC from tightening production. But OPEC accounts for only 36% of world oil production and OPEC countries have bills to pay. No one but the Saudis can afford to cut back much. Moreover, insofar as demand slackens, oil producers need to pump more oil to pay their bills.
Irenaeus, there is a difference between saying “let’s abolish all taxes” as you sarcastically say, and disagreeing that the solution to high gas prices is to impose sharply regressive tax increases in order to double the price of gas. MAYBE if the funds raised were used to provide vast credits towards the replacement of low MPG vehicles so as to minimize the severe impact this would have on the poor who are least able to replace older, less efficient vehicles, but I don’t trust the political slugs to do anything that reasonable.
Andrew [#8]: I favor progressive taxation. But a higher gas tax coupled with a lower FICA tax would be no more regressive than the status quo.
Note that your cynicism about any sort of legislation is worthy of a “la-la land where no one does anything unless it feels good right now.” Why think about tomorrow if involves taking any sort of risk with what you have now?
“Sure, why pay taxes at all? Perhaps Bro Michael and Sick-Tired can organize a bake sale for the Air Force.
Let’s act like some misbegotten la-la land where no one does anything unless it feels good right now.”
Know whom the majority of military donations go to? Ron Paul, and then Obama. Know why? The soldiers don’t want a bake sale or higher taxes. They don’t want to fight lying, murderous wars in their names.
“Let’s act like some misbegotten la-la land where no one does anything unless it feels good right now”
Said like any peevish person upset that his/her grand scheme is not being followed.
Ever wonder where the “progressive” tax money has been spent so wisely on behalf of the American people? Where is our social security money–not in Gore’s lock-box, I presume.
No, Irenaeus, we’re not a bunch of hedonistic two-year olds. We’re skeptical of government stealing more and more of our hard-earned money and then spending it on something we wouldn’t want it spent on ourselves.
I find it incredible how the political spectrum moving in the direction you desire is called “progressive.” Does that mean me choosing to keep MY money to “live a quiet life and mind my business” somehow “regressive?”
Riled.
Krauthammer is right when he says that the market is causing conservation. But he’s nuts to think that his gasoline tax would have been funneled back to American payroll taxpayers. It would have been rolled into the general fund and squandered like a whole lot of other taxes.
Katherine [#11]: If Congress decided to use increased gas tax revenues to reduce Social Security payroll taxes, it could do without putting the gas tax money up for grabs.
Congress could, for example, lower the FICA tax rate and direct that the Treasury use gas tax revenues to make an offsetting annual payment to the Social Security Trust Fund. This could be done through what is known as an “open and indefinite appropriation,” which need not be revisited.
A broad, potent political constituency would oppose any effort to divert that money to other purposes: it would, after all, have implications for most everyone’s Social Security benefits. If Social Security is the electrified “third rail” of American politics, trying to divert the money would be as satisfying as pressing one’s tongue against a high-voltage wire.
_ _ _ _ _ _
JustinMartyr [#10]: Cynicism and rage are painful and debilitating, all the more so when self-inflicted.
_ _ _ _
“Regressive” and “progressive” are economic terms of art. Andrew717 [#8] introduced that terminology; I responded to it.
_ _ _ _
If you want a reasonably informed discussion of Social Security funding, I could oblige. But there’s no point in offering facts and reason only to have them batted away by those who prefer the coziness of despair to having their preconceptions challenged.
_ _ _ _
Speaking of lockboxes, history amply confirmed the accuracy of the budget arguments Al Gore made during the 2000 campaign—and the falsity of Bush’s budget claims.
Remember: if the Clinton Administration’s fiscal policies had remained in effect, the federal government would be on track to pay off its publicly held debt next year—instead of seing that debt nearly double under Bush.
Irenaeus, you have a lot more confidence in Congress than I do. Congress could do what you suggest, but whether it would is another matter.
People on fixed incomes cannot afford these constant price increases at the gas pump…….or anywhere else, for that matter, so you can talk all you want about taking that $2.00 and adding it to the $4.00 we’re already paying, but they’re a lot more concerned about keeping that $2.00 and using it for food!
Congress needs to go after the oil speculators in the commodities market and clamp down hard on them, instead of just asking oil company executives to testify before investigating committees and getting nowhere! They admit they’re making huge profits, but are they spending any of it to build the new refineries they need? NO, because the Environmental Protection Agency and their friends the “environmentalists” keep putting obstacles in their way……and they’re getting away with it!
It’s time to put an immediate STOP to that and let the drillers get on with the job!
Cennydd, I am assuming that a lot of the speculators are not American. Are you suggesting shutting down commodities futures markets worldwide? How?
But there’s no point in offering facts and reason only to
have them batted away by those who prefer the coziness of despair to having their preconceptions challenged.
The difference between me and you sir, is I would fight for your right to spend your own money as you wish, or to pool it in whatever socialist way you please. You on the other hand feel you know better than I do what should be done with the fruits of my labor.
Call me cozy. Call me desperate. The ten commandments call you immoral and a thief. A sanctimonious thief at that.
Irenaeus, you have a lot more confidence in Congress than I do. Congress could do what you suggest, but whether it would is another matter.
Katherine, a socialist is always certain that if only the biggest thug would implement his own ideas (against the will of his detractors) everyone would live in peace, prosperity and good will. The Bible teaches that aggression against the property of another as a means to a greater good is evil. Violence is hardly Irenic, I must add.
Irenaeus, if you want to pay extra taxes fine. Just keep your hand out of my wallet.
To decrease monies going to countries that fund islamic fundamentalists is a national security issue and all should pay for that. Cennydd is correct that it is a regressive tax and it hurts those on a fixed income. My solution would be to raise the income level that is not taxed.
I get really irritated when I see a Hummer with a Christian fish decal on it.
Cennydd is spot on with his comment about drilling. We have the resources so why do we not go get it? Could it be that the Lib Dems in congress are too used to the bribes….er…contibutions they get from the environmental fruitcakes
The IRS has a provision for anyone who wants to help reduce the national debt to send in extra monies to do so. Yet it seems the most ardent cry from liberals is “raise taxes to pay down the debt!” rather than “Here is my check to help pay down the debt”.
They would (it seems to me) rather keep their own money safe in their high yield investment portfolios and ask the working man to pay their share as well with higher taxes, than open their own checkbook.
Is “leading by example” too much to ask?
Jim Elliott
No, Katherine, I am not suggesting that Congress go after all of the commodities marketeers; only the vultures who happen to be American citizens who are doing their damndest to get rich off their fellow Americans! While there probably are only a relative few working at the commodities exchanges, they’re the same ones who are helping to bid up the price of a barrel of oil every time someone hiccups or burps in the Middle East oil fields! They act like a bunch of nervous Nellies, and when someone hiccups, we pay……and the price never goes down!
These thieves can commute by train to their offices, but what about the poor guy who has to drive 60 or 70 miles each way to and from work, and who tries to support his wife and kids while paying ever-higher prices at the pump…..with no relief in sight?
What about the driver who, if he wants a new car that he can really afford to buy, has to pay several thousand dollars more than he can really afford to spend (or finance) in order to buy a fuel-efficient car so that he can cut his driving expenses? How can he afford one if they’re too expensive to begin with? $35,000 is a lot more than I’M willing to pay for a fuel-efficient car! And public transportation in Merced County, California…..where we live? (We live in Los Banos) It’s a JOKE!
A lot of people……my wife and I included……have had to buy a home far from a major city (San Jose, where the majority of our son-in-law’s business accounts are) in order to have an affordable home. We’re retired, but that’s beside the point. Our daughter and her husband aren’t…..they actually work for a living! He’s self-employed, and she manages the business while at the same time she works at another job just to help make ends meet and put a little money aside for the future for their three daughters’ education.
His diesel bill is over $400 per week……and rising! They may have to shift their operation closer to home, which for him means a probable short-term loss of customers while he seeks new ones.
It’s a vicious and seemingly never-ending business, but it’s one which Congress can at least TRY to bring some order to by reining in excess profiteering (most call it price-gouging) in the oil market on this side of the Atlantic.
The first order of business is to cut government spending to match receipts. The government needs to seriously downsize. Once it has downsized, and its inflows match its outflows, then it can discuss the addition of a gas tax for a specific need. Until it balances its budget (and not just the public debt, but the intergovernmental debt as well) any new tax will evaporate immediately.
Okay, where would you suggest the government……US, by the way…….begin?
I would begin by eliminating the EPA and abolishing the regulation involved in it. Most states regulate business, water etc. and can handle these more efficiently then folks in Washington. I would then consider eliminating the Dept. of Education and letting the states deal with education as they see fit (preferably by issuing vouchers). I would eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, and simply give everybody a voucher to go buy health insurance, insisting that insurance companies not be permitted to drop individuals for any reason other than failure to pay insurance, or to refuse to cover individuals for any reason other than sexually transmitted diseases, cigarette/drug use, or obesity. This would result in a reordering of behavior that would tend to both improve health as well as civic virtue.As part of such universal policies it would be expected that individuals who chose low cost plans would not be permitted to sue for anything other than the years premiums. Buyer beware.
I would abolish the Federal Reserve, and put the country back on a gold standard. This would take care of inflation.
That would be a start. I’m sure I could find other departments to eliminate the second week I was in office.
I’m game – eliminate earmarks – easy….eliminate farm subsidies – harder…..eliminate the dept of education – ok very hard, but what do the feds need one for (other than political brownie points) – just distribute some of the $$ from eliminating it back to the states and let them do it
that’s a start to enough trouble
Okay, Clueless: Let’s get back to my statement about prices at the gas pump. What do YOU suggest?
The problem is not evil OPEC jacking up rates. Nor is it even clueless tree huggers refusing to let us tap our reserves. Nor even is it money hungry oil barons raping the US consumer.
The problem is that the Federal Reserve prints money (which it calls “credit”). It prints money so that the US government which is bancrupt, can buy social programs which it can’t afford by paying for them with pieces of green paper called “Treasuries”. Other countries take our worthless pieces of paper in exchange for months of labor producing TV sets, cheap clothing etc. and try to buy stuff with it. When they buy oil with unlimited amounts of green paper, the price of oil goes up. When they buy food with unlimited amounts of green paper the price of food goes up.
The solution to too much money chasing too few commodities is not to regulate the commodities. It is to stop printing money. To do that, the US government will need to stop spending money.
The prices as the pump will come down when the US government stops pumping more money into the system.
Tightening up on credit means fewer home sales, which means fewer jobs in the building industry, which means fewer jobs for people who support the building industry, which means…………….
I’m sure you get the picture. Somebody always has to suffer, don’t they?
29, at this point your are right. There is no painless way out. For years both parties have learned that the only way to be elected is largess to the voters. When the Republicans actually tried to be fiscaly sound the Democrats ate them for lunch. Now Republicans, in order to win, play the same game.
The electorate simply will not tolerate real pain in the short run in order to achieve sound economics in the long run. The result, some form of financial collapse.
I find it incongruent that we allow the President to go to Saudi Arabia to politely request that they put more oil into production so as to furnish our needs for oil while at the same time our congresspeople staunchly refuse to let oil companies do the work that would put oil already available to us into the mix. We let the environmentalists prohibit both on-land and off-shore drilling, squealing that the environment “might” be hurt while the oil rigs off-shore from New Orleans PERFECTLY survived Katrina with NO spills (some failed, to be sure but there was no leak.) We let the environmentalists prohibit nuclear energy by allowing them to spout the lie that Three Mile Island “proves” reactors can leak and harm the environment; it didn’t happen.
I wish our congressmen would stop parading in front of the CEOs of the oil companies and start listening to their reasonable suggestions: Drill off the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Gulf Coasts and probably even ANWR; drill in Colorado; develop new refineries. To tax the companies is innane; that only hurts the consumer.
Whew!
Second #30.
There is no painless way of improving your finances when you have a low paying job, a huge mortgage, a huge credit card debt and a kid who who expects to begin college this year which you promised to pay for.
Yes, you can declare bancruptcy, (and my guess is that the US will in fact eventually repudiate her Treasury debt, and her SS and Medicare obligations. It would be preferable to Weimar style hyperinflation, which is the alternate choice). But that still leaves you with no house, a lousy job with a garneeshed wage, and a kid who is working at McDonalds, and thinks with justice, that you suck.
There is no easy exit from the trap of debt. Ergo, pay off your credit card, pay off your car loan, and pay off your house (as much as possible). Don’t depend on your 401k it will be first frozen (to save it) and then confiscated via taxation.
In case anyone cares, Charles Krauthammer is as conservative as they come, so it doesn’t make sense to blame us liberals for his notion of increasing taxes on gasoline.
“When the Republicans actually tried to be fiscaly sound, the Democrats ate them for lunch” —Brother Michael [#30]
No, the Democrats were fiscally sound and Bush squandered the savings. Since 1981 there has been an extraordinary correlation between Republican presidents and huge federal budget deficits. All 19 budgets enacted under Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. had large, chronic deficits. President Clinton’s first 4 budgets slashed the deficit and his last 4 budgets were actually in surplus.
Bush and his congressional Republican allies reversed all that, producing record deficits and a huge increase in the national debt.
The facts are there for those whose minds are not hermetically sealed. The facts are those who value truth more than their own sense of grievance.
#34, very cute analysis. The only problem is that Congress is the one appropriating and spending the money, not the President. He sends a program over, Congress takes its own program and tries to come up with something they think the Pres won’t veto. Clinton had balanced budgets and surpluses because he had Republican Congresses that made him balance the budget. Reagan and Bush, Sr. had Demo Congresses that prevented them from balancing the budget (and Reagan had this little thing called the Cold War that he won by outspending USSR until USSR fell apart). Bush, Jr. has had a mainly Demo Congress and this little thing called 9/11 and the
War on Terror to support, for which he has had to make compromise after compromise with both sides of the aisle to get that War funded. So don’t mislead by blaming Presidents. It’s mainly been Congress.
And anyway Clinton didn’t have a balanced budget or surplus. He simply balanced the external (public) debt while increasing the intergovernmental debt (eg promises on SS/entitlements).
Total national debt rose every year of the Clinton presidency, despite record tax receipts thanks to the tech stock bubble.
Billy [#35]: The pivotal deficit reduction occurred in the fiscal 1994 and 1995 budgets, both enacted while Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Moreover, President Clinton repeatedly faced down Congressional Republicans on budget issues. There would have been no surpluses during Clinton’s term had Gingrich and his accomplices had their way.
Moreover, it was Republicans—in control of the White House and both houses of Congress who reversed Clinton’s policies earlier this decade.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Clueless [#36]: The national debt fell during President Clinton’s final years in office: not just the publicly held debt, but the total debt.
BTW, the distinction between the government’s external and internal debt has existed since the government began using a unified budget during the 1960s. Suggesting that Clinton engaged in some special chicanery (both here and in your “Slick Willie” comment a few days ago) is yet another falsehood from your pen.
The government has used “internal” and “external” debt since the 1960s, but only Clinton has pretended that he reduced the national debt.
The national debt increased each and every single year of his administration. Thanks to a stock bubble the rate of increase slowed temporarily but at NO time was there a surplus.
The numbers may be seen at
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure. And Slick Willie is a consumate liar.
And “Slick Will” earned his nickname fair and square. The name stuck (like “Tricky Dick”) because it fits.
Irenaeus,
In this area your blatant political bias causes you to veer off from your normal reasonable comments into demonstrably false assertions. For example, several months ago, in another budget discussion you alleged that Social Security receipts were NOT included in budget calculations. I provided you with a Congressional Budget Office link proving that SS receipts are indeed included.
The point is that the Clinton “surpluses” were only achieved by smoke and mirrors accounting tricks. An honest assessment of 90’s budgets looked at them with three methods of accounting: as reported, normal corporate (GAAP) but not treating SS as a pension, and GAAP treating SS as a pension. The last is the only honest way, as it forces govt to account in the same manner it requires of business. But under that method, in Clinton’s last year, there was a $12.5 TRILLION deficit, not surplus. (In the prior year, as a result of the dotcom mania, there was a $1 trillion surplus.)
After the Reagan tax cuts Federal income tax receipt rose dramatically. In Congress Republicans insisted on raising the defense budget to make up underfunding during the Carter years. Democrats insisted on raising social spending as the price of going along with DoD increases. The result was that instead of dividing up how to spend the tax increases, Congress spent them twice, creating large deficits. But the deficit was not, as often falsely stated, caused by the tax cuts.
However, I do agree with you that Bush and the Republican Congress have abandoned fiscal responsibility, pandering to our apparently insatiable greed for free” government money. I fear we are seeing the fulfillment of De Tocqueville’s warning that American democracy would last until the public learned to vote itself the benefit of govt largesse. While the giveaways were largely Democratic for 70 years, in the last ten the Republicans have succumbed to the temptation to buy votes.
Iraneus, #37, the Repubs took the House of Reps in ’94 and forced Clinton to “balance” the budget, which actually meant, as I understood it, to limit the growth of gov’t spending to something approaching what it was estimated to take in, not that there was an actual balance of income versue outgo.
Ah, yes, Mr. Newt’s “Contract with America”. We need that again.
This might work, too. A friend sent me this in an email:
Top 10 Items for Candidates:
1) To be the Candidate of National security:
a) Victory in Iraq
b) Fully support NSA, Patriot act, tough interrogations, keeping Gitmo open
c) A Candidate that pledges to NOT demean our military while they are fighting for their Country. eg Harry Reid: “the surge has failed”, “the war is lost”
d) Candidate that promises to ensure that our veterans can live out their lives in dignity.
2) The Candidate who pledges to oppose Appeasement:
a) The Candidate will oppose any and all efforts to negotiate with dictators of the world in places like Iran, Syria, N.Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela without “pre-conditions”
3) The Candidate Pledges to support Tax CUTS, and fiscal responsibility:
a) The American people are NOT under taxed, Government Spends too much
b) The Candidate who Pledges to ELIMINATE and VOTE AGAINST ALL Earmarks
c) The Candidate pledges to BALANCE the budget
4) The Candidate Pledges to be a supporter of “Energy Independence”
a) supports Immediate drilling in Anwar and the lower 48 states
b) Building new refineries
c) Begin building and using Nuclear Facilities
d) expand coal mining
e) realistic steward of the environment
While simultaneously working with private industry to develop the new energy technologies for the future, with the goal being that America becomes completely energy independent within the next 15 years.
5) The Candidate pledges to secure our borders completely within 12 months:
a) build all necessary fences
b) use all available technology to help and support agents at the border
c) train and hire agents as needed
6) Healthcare:
The Candidate will look for Free-Market solutions to the problems facing the Healthcare industry, and will vigorously oppose any efforts to “nationalize healthcare”.
a) The Candidate will fight for Individual health savings accounts, that includes “catastrophic insurance” for every American, so people can control their own healthcare choices.
7) Education:
a) The Candidate pledges to “save” American children from the failing educational system
b) The Candidate will fight to break the unholy alliance of the Democratic party and teachers unions, which at best has institutionalized mediocrity, and has failed children across the country
c) fight for “CHOICE” in education and let parents decide
d) fight for vouchers for parents
8) Social Security and Medicare:
a) The Candidate will “save” social security and medicare from bankruptcy.
b) Options will include “private retirement” funds so people can “control” their own destiny.
9) Judges
a) The Candidate vows to support ONLY judges who recognize that their job is to interpret the Constitution, and NOT legislate from the bench.
10) American Dream:
The Candidate accepts as their duty and responsibility to educate, inform, and remind people that with the blessings of Freedom comes a Great responsibility. That Government’s primary goal is to preserve, protect and defend our God given gift of freedom.
That Government’s do not have the ability to solve all of our problems, and to take away all of our fears and concerns. We need their pledge that we will be the candidate that promotes Individual liberty, Capitalism, a strong national defense and will support policies that encourage such…
It is our fundamental belief that limited Government, and Greater individual responsibility will insure the continued prosperity and success for future generations.
We the people who believe in the words of Ronald Reagan, that we are “the best last hope for man on this earth,” “a shining city on a hill,” and that our best days are before us if our Government will simply trust the American people.
22. Cennydd…apparently, you and your wife decided to retire at a younger age than most small businesspeople can manage today. You have mentioned in previous blogs that you have a ‘nice retirement’. I’ll bet a MILLION that you retired from some sort of government job. As a taxpayer, rather than someone who TAKES from the government trough, I must tell you, I find it ludicrous that you and those like you who constantly harp on ‘you make your choice as an individual, that’s tough’ are now feeling the heat due to poor policies by the GOP-led government over the past 8 years re: the plummeting value of the US dollar and the fuel crisis. It sounds like Los Banos is far, far away in the rural hinterlands. Well, THAT WAS YOUR CHOICE, RIGHT??? SO, LIVE WITH IT!!! That’s what you consistently tell others who find themselves making difficult life choices. How’s it feel to be told ‘you’ve made a choice’ when actually, you are the VICTIM of some idiot (GW Bush)’s choice?
To the Elives: what’s with ‘libraryjim’ importing a lengthy, not entirely germane email from some ‘friend’ of his (Mr. Limbaugh, perhap?) If we’re going to be allowed to ‘import’ a ‘friend’s’ drawn-out, heard-it-a-million-times-already piece of prose, then whoopee! Why participate here at all? Let’s just ‘cut and paste’ from any and everywhere, right?
Oops, I obviously meant ‘Elves’! 🙂
25. Clueless: Most Americans want to ‘eliminate’ Medicaid, until their elderly parent needs to pay for nursing home care, and the next generation wants to ‘protect’ ‘their’ inheritance by ‘spending down’ grandpa or grandma’s estate so that the rest of us taxpayers can pay for their care. It’s NOT as easy as you make it sound!
You know, in Sri Lanka the elderly do not have ‘nursing homes”. Nor do they die on the streets. What they have is zero regulation, which permits the elderly, on their pittance to hire extremely cheap labor to help them at home. The elderly usually live with their children and are cared for by nonstate certified, poorly paid, but cheerful teenaged or young mothers who bring their kids in to work with them.
Get rid of the regulation and the minimum wage stuff, and costs fall. Not just for business, but for the poor as well. Why should the elderly be shut into “nursing homes”? Only in order to ensure that those “caring” for them have suitable salaries.
Naturally, this means that the young, uneducated mothers can’t be trusted with medications (which are usually managed by the children of the aforementioned elderly. Nor is there any point of suing them.
However in Sri Lanka, it is assumed that if somebody is trying to help you, you would not dream of suing them. Ergo no insurance costs. Also, it is assumed that elderly people don’t live for ever. (Whether in Sri Lanka or in the US whose life expectancy is similar). Thus, it is not considered a necessity to have every test and treatment in the book in order to keep a 90 year old man ticking ever more painfully to 100. Most folks prefer to live and die in pleasant, familiar surroundings, in the company of their children and grandchildren.
The reason that old folks in the US get to die in hospitals and nursing homes is that Democrat sponsored liability and regulation makes it cost prohibitive to take care of Grandma in the home, while subsidizing such care in a nursing home.
So I think we should eliminate Medicaid. I think it would be a blessing to most people who have not alianated their families with their reckless, and selfish lifestyles.
Well, Cabbage, I was answering Billy’s post about the Contract with America, and mentioned that it would be nice if we had something like it again. And then, lo and behold, someone emailed me that! since it was germaine to my previous post, I thought it appropriate.
I’m sorry if you were offended by it. There are some very good ideas in there, though.
(I since researched it a bit more, it was Sean Hannity, not Limbaugh, who came up with the list. Well done, Sean Hannity — now if only the politicians would listen!)
Peace
Jim Elliott
PS,
I rarely listen to Hannity. The few times I’ve heard him, he just rambles on and on, making the same points over and over. He’s actually quite boring and tedious. And I can’t stand “Hannity and Combes”, it’s probably one of the worst “pro-con” shows on tv.
So, I’m no fan of his usually, but I did like the ten points — which as I said, I saw before I knew who wrote it.
JE
Meanwhile, some people take appreciation of Sean Hannity just a little too far.