Fwd: Obamacare Spreads the Wealth by Cutting Medicare

August 10, 2010 Obamacare Spreads the Wealth by Cutting Medicare Is Granny "disposable"? Some seniors may get that impression once Obamacare kicks in. As noted in a recent Wall Street Journal article, the new law cuts $200 billion from Medicare Advantage, a public-private "hybrid" of Medicare.  As a result, more than 11 million seniors will likely see their Medicare Advantage premiums rise significantly or their benefits noticeably lessened.  Either way, it will violate President Obama's promise that all who liked their current coverage would be able to keep it under Obamacare. But Obamacare giveth what it taketh away.  And the $200 billion it takes away from the seniors' program will go to finance new entitlements for younger, healthier Americans. Too bad for the oldsters.  Even before Obamacare, Medicare had racked up unfunded obligations of $38 trillion.  But rather than restructure Medicare to remedy the program's fundamental fiscal problems, Obamacare proponents opted to siphon off $200 billion and use it to start an entirely new—and equally financially unsustainable—health program for even more people. Congress would do much better by converting Medicare from a defined benefits program to a defined contribution system. Seniors would then apply their contribution to the health plan of their choice—with those opting for a richer benefit package paying the additional cost. Meanwhile, Congress should plow any "savings" it can find within Medicare (such as the $200 billion cut to Medicare Advantage) back into the program.  Cutting seniors' benefits to create costly new entitlements for younger Americans may help President Obama "spread the wealth around," but in the process it just hastens the nation's journey down the road to fiscal disaster. RECENT ENTRIES Side Effects: Obamacare Causes Some Insurers to Stop Offering Coverage for Kids VIDEO: Obamacare's Impact on Families It's Official: Medicare's Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty Share Today's Side Effects Facebook Myspace Digg Linkdin Twitter   Facebook Twitter YouTube Kindle Flickr Support our work by becoming a member with your gift of $25 or more. The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-4999 Call us at (202) 546-4400 Add newsletters@heritage.org to your address book to ensure that you receive emails from us.

Fwd: New Common Sense: Tea Party Populism: What Would the Founders Say?

New Common Sense Applying First Principles to the Issues of Today At Heritage What's so great about the separation of powers? Ever wonder about the rise of judicial policy-making? Around the Country Kagan joins the Court…now we will see what she really thinks. Is there a difference between legislating and administering? Charles Krauthammer thinks so. Quick Thoughts How much red tape does it take to open a lemonade stand?  Do you know who presented the first Purple Heart medal? What We're Reading: Athwart History: Half a Century of Polemics, Animadversions, and Illuminations A William F. Buckley Jr. Omnibus edited by Linda Bridges and Roger Kimball, with a preface by George F. Will   Tea Party Populism: What Would the Founders Say? With their homemade signs begging for fiscal common sense and a return to constitutional government, the Tea Party Movement has been a unique phenomenon in the American political scene and a unique brew of American populism. It is true that populism can be a destructive force, especially when passion rules reason. However, a populism that advocates limited government and constitutionalism - while still capturing the general discontent of the nation - is compatible with and beneficial to republican self-government. Such populism (tea party style) is consistent with the Founders' vision for our nation. The Founders were very aware of the dangers of a populism that elevated passion over reason. In Federalist 49, James Madison argued that it was suicidal for a nation if "the passions...not the reason, of the public would sit in judgment." Thomas Jefferson decried the characterization of the United States as a democracy, because "democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people rule the other forty-nine." Alexander Hamilton echoed these sentiments saying, "[T]he voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right." With this in mind, the Founders established a constitutional government with institutions to channel and check popular passion, while deriving its power from the consent of the governed. Passionate populism was not the only danger to self government. Rule by scientific expertise—such as the one Angelo Codevilla described—also threatened republican self government. The Founders, far from the progressive model of administration by experts, supported governance by those with, in the words of James Madison, the "most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society." Their concern was with electing the best potential leader, not with giving the person with the most expertise a legislative fiat to act however they wish. But the Tea Party Movement, despite its portrayal on MSNBC, is neither a wayward mob nor racially motivated hate group. As Matthew Spalding noted when awarding the Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship to the Tea Party Movement, "The debate between America's Founders and the modern progressive paradigm of government…has now been engaged in the public square;" the Tea Party has embraced the Founders' vision while fully rejecting the progressive paradigm. This revival of thought grounded in the permanent truths of the founding, by average citizens interested in nothing more than returning our nation to its founding principles, has animated "a deepening commitment and advocacy of the truths of the Declaration of Independence and the basic principles of the United States Constitution." This is a rational populism that conservatives should not fear, but instead wholeheartedly embrace. Keep Reading about Populism, Tea Party Style                        Forward this message to a Friend!   Quote of the Week                            Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint. ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 15 For more quotes, visit westillholdthesetruths.org About The Heritage Foundation Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute -- a think tank -- whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400

Fwd: Morning Bell: Under Obamanomics, Government Workers Win, You Lose

08/10/2010 Under Obamanomics, Government Workers Win, You Lose Today the House of Representatives is expected to approve yet another bailout for those states that have proved incapable of controlling their spending on government worker pay, benefits and pensions. The $26.1 billion price tag will be funded in part by $11 billion in tax hikes on U.S. companies that compete internationally. From his trillion dollar economic stimulus to his $3 trillion tax hike it has become clear that President Barack Obama views the private sector the same way the Huns viewed a city - as something to be sacked and plundered for the benefit of public sector workers. The effect of President Obama's policies is becoming clear. The Wall Street Journal reports that personal incomes fell across the U.S. last year except in areas with a high concentration of federal government jobs. Washington D.C. was one of just three metro areas that saw both net earnings and personal income rise. And those gains were due entirely to the growth of the federal government; private sector compensation in the Washington metropolitan area actually fell. Nationally, private wages fell six percent in 2009 while government pay rose 2.6 percent. And USA Today reports that federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn. Responding to the new numbers, National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley told USA Today: "The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison." And it is true: federal workers often are better educated and more experienced than private sector workers. But after controlling for education and experience, The Heritage Foundation's James Sherk found that federal employees get paid 22 percent more per hour on average than private-sector workers. Throw in the lavish benefits that federal government workers receive, and federal employees earn approximately 30 to 40 percent more in total compensation than comparable private-sector workers.