West Virginia Wesleyan College professor, Dr. Robert Rupp, quoted today in a Public News Service Article.
King Coal's Power "Tarnished" by National Trends
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) Op-Ed on "Cap and Tax"
I do not know too much about Congressman Royce's politics, but his office released the following piece explaining cap and trade... and it's many dangers.
_________________________________________________________________________________
"Cap and Tax: A Bureaucratic Delight" by Rep. Ed Royce
Washington, Jun 27 -
The following oped by Rep. Ed Royce appeared in the FlashReport:
Each year I give thousands of constituents a Capitol tour. We are all proud of our nation's capital. In the spring, when many come, its magnificent cherry blossoms bloom, and its monuments always inspire.
Yet the federal government that dominates the city is far less impressive. While in Congress, I have seen the good, the bad and too often, the really ugly side of many of the dozens of government agencies in Washington.
What does this have to do with today's pressing issues? The Democrats in Congress, with President Obama's backing, are pressing hard to give Congress and federal bureaucracies a whole lot more power with their very flawed energy bill, passed by the House of Representatives on Friday. Bad idea.
The crux of the Democrat's bill is "cap and trade". Businesses and utilities bid on (or are granted) the right to emit carbon dioxide. In turn, they may sell unused credits, supposedly creating incentives for conservation and the development of renewable energies. Over time, the government shrinks the cap, reducing the amount of carbon emissions. Sounds good? Here are some of its many problems:
* This Washington remaking of energy markets will raise a single household's energy bill between 79 and 129 percent. Do the math: your energy bill of $160 a month could soar to nearly $400. Candidate Obama himself said, "electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket." Family energy costs will rise on average by $3,000 a year. Cap and trade will increase the prices of gas, food, consumer products and nearly every item you buy. Republicans in committee offered an amendment to this bill to suspend the program if gas hit $5 gallon; the Democrats rejected it.
* U.S. manufacturing plants will relocate to countries with no such taxes, eliminating American jobs. Various studies suggest anywhere from 1.8 million to 7 million U.S. jobs could be lost. Indiana's governor writes, "'Closed: Gone to China' signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories." As if American manufacturing doesn't have enough challenges. And for what...
* Experts have calculated that the bill would at best reduce global temperatures by 1/10th of one degree, Fahrenheit.
Just as big a problem as what's in the bill is what's left out. Provisions for more nuclear energy, which emits virtually no carbon emissions, are no where to be found. Today, about 20 percent of our energy is nuclear generated. Yet we haven't built a single nuclear power plant since the 1970s. This energy bill does nothing to encourage nuclear power plant construction, a sure job creator. Ironically, the Obama Administration is promoting nuclear energy use overseas. Democratic opposition to do the same at home is deeply ingrained ideology, even though the Department of Energy reports that the best way for utilities to reduce carbon emissions is to increase their nuclear energy generation.
How did this bill pass? Democrats got the votes by dealing. Powerful members of Congress wrote their top interests into the bill. Other lawmakers leveraged their "yes" vote to advantage their interests, including with free and lucrative carbon credits. Tens of billions of dollars are on the table. One thing for sure: if made law, the same congressional players will keep working, doing all kind of bureaucratic meddling.
You'd think we'd have learned a thing or two from the large role Congress played in bringing about the current mortgage crisis? In that case, quasi-government Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development felt constant congressional pressure to keep the riskiest of loans rolling for "affordable housing," inflating the real estate balloon that burst. This cap and trade scheme will give the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Department, Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service and many other bureaucrats new-found levers over our energy markets. Many in Congress will have these bureaucrats in their crosshairs to game the system as this massively complex plan is established, implemented and enforced.
Amazingly, one key supporter of this 1201-page bill admitted, "The truth is, nobody knows for sure how this thing is going to work." He gets honesty points, I guess. But his crap shoot approach means that "cap and trade" will be all the more vulnerable to shenanigans as it is implemented. Ambiguity is a fixer's best friend.
Where does it end? Cap and trade gives Washington 17 percent control of the economy. Nationalizing health care, the next priority for many congressional Democrats, would give it another 16 percent. The federal government runs General Motors. It now has a huge equity stake in many financial institutions, and on and on and on... This is a set-up for inefficiency and worse. We have seen one powerful member of Congress pressuring GM to reverse a management decision to close a facility in his district. This is only the beginning.
This is the Washington my constituents don't see. The power grabs and political maneuvering can be as ugly as the city is impressive. The Democrats are relentlessly politicizing our economy. Let's hope this initiative's energy is sapped in the Senate.
_________________________________________________________________________________
"Cap and Tax: A Bureaucratic Delight" by Rep. Ed Royce
Washington, Jun 27 -
The following oped by Rep. Ed Royce appeared in the FlashReport:
Each year I give thousands of constituents a Capitol tour. We are all proud of our nation's capital. In the spring, when many come, its magnificent cherry blossoms bloom, and its monuments always inspire.
Yet the federal government that dominates the city is far less impressive. While in Congress, I have seen the good, the bad and too often, the really ugly side of many of the dozens of government agencies in Washington.
What does this have to do with today's pressing issues? The Democrats in Congress, with President Obama's backing, are pressing hard to give Congress and federal bureaucracies a whole lot more power with their very flawed energy bill, passed by the House of Representatives on Friday. Bad idea.
The crux of the Democrat's bill is "cap and trade". Businesses and utilities bid on (or are granted) the right to emit carbon dioxide. In turn, they may sell unused credits, supposedly creating incentives for conservation and the development of renewable energies. Over time, the government shrinks the cap, reducing the amount of carbon emissions. Sounds good? Here are some of its many problems:
* This Washington remaking of energy markets will raise a single household's energy bill between 79 and 129 percent. Do the math: your energy bill of $160 a month could soar to nearly $400. Candidate Obama himself said, "electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket." Family energy costs will rise on average by $3,000 a year. Cap and trade will increase the prices of gas, food, consumer products and nearly every item you buy. Republicans in committee offered an amendment to this bill to suspend the program if gas hit $5 gallon; the Democrats rejected it.
* U.S. manufacturing plants will relocate to countries with no such taxes, eliminating American jobs. Various studies suggest anywhere from 1.8 million to 7 million U.S. jobs could be lost. Indiana's governor writes, "'Closed: Gone to China' signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories." As if American manufacturing doesn't have enough challenges. And for what...
* Experts have calculated that the bill would at best reduce global temperatures by 1/10th of one degree, Fahrenheit.
Just as big a problem as what's in the bill is what's left out. Provisions for more nuclear energy, which emits virtually no carbon emissions, are no where to be found. Today, about 20 percent of our energy is nuclear generated. Yet we haven't built a single nuclear power plant since the 1970s. This energy bill does nothing to encourage nuclear power plant construction, a sure job creator. Ironically, the Obama Administration is promoting nuclear energy use overseas. Democratic opposition to do the same at home is deeply ingrained ideology, even though the Department of Energy reports that the best way for utilities to reduce carbon emissions is to increase their nuclear energy generation.
How did this bill pass? Democrats got the votes by dealing. Powerful members of Congress wrote their top interests into the bill. Other lawmakers leveraged their "yes" vote to advantage their interests, including with free and lucrative carbon credits. Tens of billions of dollars are on the table. One thing for sure: if made law, the same congressional players will keep working, doing all kind of bureaucratic meddling.
You'd think we'd have learned a thing or two from the large role Congress played in bringing about the current mortgage crisis? In that case, quasi-government Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development felt constant congressional pressure to keep the riskiest of loans rolling for "affordable housing," inflating the real estate balloon that burst. This cap and trade scheme will give the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Department, Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service and many other bureaucrats new-found levers over our energy markets. Many in Congress will have these bureaucrats in their crosshairs to game the system as this massively complex plan is established, implemented and enforced.
Amazingly, one key supporter of this 1201-page bill admitted, "The truth is, nobody knows for sure how this thing is going to work." He gets honesty points, I guess. But his crap shoot approach means that "cap and trade" will be all the more vulnerable to shenanigans as it is implemented. Ambiguity is a fixer's best friend.
Where does it end? Cap and trade gives Washington 17 percent control of the economy. Nationalizing health care, the next priority for many congressional Democrats, would give it another 16 percent. The federal government runs General Motors. It now has a huge equity stake in many financial institutions, and on and on and on... This is a set-up for inefficiency and worse. We have seen one powerful member of Congress pressuring GM to reverse a management decision to close a facility in his district. This is only the beginning.
This is the Washington my constituents don't see. The power grabs and political maneuvering can be as ugly as the city is impressive. The Democrats are relentlessly politicizing our economy. Let's hope this initiative's energy is sapped in the Senate.
UPDATE: It's OK to Speculate
Update: According to the Charleston Gazette, Senator Robert C. Byrd has been released from the undisclosed treatment facility and is receiving physical therapy at his home in Washington, D.C.
The Charleston Gazette continues to report that Governor Manchin consistantly denies any speculation about possible replacement for Senator Byrd's seat. Yesterday, Allison Knezevich quoted the governor as saying, "I'm not looking at anything right now." I find this hard to believe that the Governor is giving this no thought whatsoever, and for the sake of a rational contingency plan, I hope some serious thought is put into a possible replacement. It is ridiculous to think that anyone is wishing ill upon the Senator, but I do not think it is out of the question to give some thought to the future.
The Charleston Gazette continues to report that Governor Manchin consistantly denies any speculation about possible replacement for Senator Byrd's seat. Yesterday, Allison Knezevich quoted the governor as saying, "I'm not looking at anything right now." I find this hard to believe that the Governor is giving this no thought whatsoever, and for the sake of a rational contingency plan, I hope some serious thought is put into a possible replacement. It is ridiculous to think that anyone is wishing ill upon the Senator, but I do not think it is out of the question to give some thought to the future.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Employee Free Choice Act - Bad for West Virginia
In March of this year, federal lawmakers in Congress introduced identical bills in the House and Senate under the guise of the "Employee 'Free Choice' Act." As H.R. 1409 and S.560 currently sit in committee, worker freedoms within the workplace are threatened by a misleading title. In effect, this bill will ensure that workers who do not wish to participate in unions will have everything but a "free choice."
What does this mean for West Virginia? Well, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, West Virginia currently has 213,000 workers who are members of, or represented by, unions and similar interests. And while many states have had declining union populations over the past few years, West Virginia has been increasing its union membership (increasing over 1% from 2007-2008, alone). Also, West Virginia ranks 34th of 50 states in highest concentration of unionized workers, according to the AFL-CIO. Issues that greatly impact unionization directly impact West Virginia.
In effect, passage of the Free Choice Act would give unions increased powers to make union membership easier- through coercion. Currently, corporate unionization takes place via secret ballot, a time honored right that Americans have enjoyed since the introduction of the Australian ballot to America in 1884. However, under this proposed legislation, workers forfeit secret ballot privileges and are subject to scrutiny from peers and coercion from union organizers. Instead of voting behind the curtain, workers will publicly cast their vote by signing a card - through whatever "creative" means organizers deem acceptable. This is not only unethical and disingenuous, taking away central freedoms is un-American.
When it comes to wages and standard of living, data is often mixed and inconclusive in determining whether unionization is beneficial, or not. Some sources say unionized workers make higher wages than those who do not organize collective bargaining. However at the same time, there is an equally large contingency stating that non-unionized workers enjoy a higher quality of life and increased freedom. Risking individual freedom undermines the very liberties that America boasts and has sacrificed to secure, especially when gambling on an unsafe bet.
I am not necessarily against unions, or efforts to represent worker interests and rights. And in name, I would certainly support the free choices of employees. However, I am against the Employees Free Choice Act because it fails to protect those who do not wish to unionize, even forcing them to join the union with personal and professional threats. Unions have improved the lives of countless workers, but only when joining them was voluntary. Forcing a worker to unionize is unacceptable, and only supports large labor organizations that thrive upon power. Coercive unionization and the Employee Free Choice Act only have intentions to enact a vicious power cycle: increase membership, to raise more dues, to gain more political power, to increase membership, etc.
The Employee Free Choice Act undermines American freedom and liberty, and it is bad for West Virginia.
______________________________________
Center for Union Facts
What does this mean for West Virginia? Well, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, West Virginia currently has 213,000 workers who are members of, or represented by, unions and similar interests. And while many states have had declining union populations over the past few years, West Virginia has been increasing its union membership (increasing over 1% from 2007-2008, alone). Also, West Virginia ranks 34th of 50 states in highest concentration of unionized workers, according to the AFL-CIO. Issues that greatly impact unionization directly impact West Virginia.
In effect, passage of the Free Choice Act would give unions increased powers to make union membership easier- through coercion. Currently, corporate unionization takes place via secret ballot, a time honored right that Americans have enjoyed since the introduction of the Australian ballot to America in 1884. However, under this proposed legislation, workers forfeit secret ballot privileges and are subject to scrutiny from peers and coercion from union organizers. Instead of voting behind the curtain, workers will publicly cast their vote by signing a card - through whatever "creative" means organizers deem acceptable. This is not only unethical and disingenuous, taking away central freedoms is un-American.
When it comes to wages and standard of living, data is often mixed and inconclusive in determining whether unionization is beneficial, or not. Some sources say unionized workers make higher wages than those who do not organize collective bargaining. However at the same time, there is an equally large contingency stating that non-unionized workers enjoy a higher quality of life and increased freedom. Risking individual freedom undermines the very liberties that America boasts and has sacrificed to secure, especially when gambling on an unsafe bet.
I am not necessarily against unions, or efforts to represent worker interests and rights. And in name, I would certainly support the free choices of employees. However, I am against the Employees Free Choice Act because it fails to protect those who do not wish to unionize, even forcing them to join the union with personal and professional threats. Unions have improved the lives of countless workers, but only when joining them was voluntary. Forcing a worker to unionize is unacceptable, and only supports large labor organizations that thrive upon power. Coercive unionization and the Employee Free Choice Act only have intentions to enact a vicious power cycle: increase membership, to raise more dues, to gain more political power, to increase membership, etc.
The Employee Free Choice Act undermines American freedom and liberty, and it is bad for West Virginia.
______________________________________
Center for Union Facts
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Manchin "Triangulizes" Coal
Triangulization- a politician lingering between two ideological extremes, hovering above these opposite arguments to retain credibility and avoid taking one side or another.
Dick Morris first proposed "triangulization" in the 1996 Clinton re-election, and Governor Joe Manchin uses it now to stay above the fold in the "economy vs. environment" debate.
As the media has covered arrests and protests, tensions mount between envrionmental activists and coal industry supporters. Michael Hendryx released a questionable report yesterday, suggesting the costs of mining outweigh the economic benefits (This report is flawed in countless ways, but that is another topic). Massey CEO Don Blankenship challenged NASA climate scientist James Hansen to an academic debate about the effects of "global warming" and the West Virginia coal industry. A former Congressman and Secretary of State, 93 year old Ken Hechler was arrested at a protest!
While activists and citizens garner support for either side, where is Joe Manchin? Well, aside from dealing with the PEIA budget crisis, organizing a judicial reform board, and making official visits around the state, Governor Manchin is seemingly taking no firm position in the coal debate... yet.
The Gazette reports, in interview with Manchin, that he supports: peaceful protests, pro-coal legislation, environmentalism, alternative energy, natural resource management, mountain top removal... Huh?!?!
Attempting to stay between and above the two ideological extremes, Governor Manchin is clearly pro-coal, but supports environmentalist protests and ideals. If he is giving both sides an opportunity to voice opinions and come to the best consensus, then this could be great leadership. However, if this is an attempt to play politics with both sides, then he might be forced to choose one or the other, eventually.
Triangulization can be very effective when properly positioned. However, Aesop having a much smarter intellect than I, once said "Please all, and you will please none."
Dick Morris first proposed "triangulization" in the 1996 Clinton re-election, and Governor Joe Manchin uses it now to stay above the fold in the "economy vs. environment" debate.
As the media has covered arrests and protests, tensions mount between envrionmental activists and coal industry supporters. Michael Hendryx released a questionable report yesterday, suggesting the costs of mining outweigh the economic benefits (This report is flawed in countless ways, but that is another topic). Massey CEO Don Blankenship challenged NASA climate scientist James Hansen to an academic debate about the effects of "global warming" and the West Virginia coal industry. A former Congressman and Secretary of State, 93 year old Ken Hechler was arrested at a protest!
While activists and citizens garner support for either side, where is Joe Manchin? Well, aside from dealing with the PEIA budget crisis, organizing a judicial reform board, and making official visits around the state, Governor Manchin is seemingly taking no firm position in the coal debate... yet.
The Gazette reports, in interview with Manchin, that he supports: peaceful protests, pro-coal legislation, environmentalism, alternative energy, natural resource management, mountain top removal... Huh?!?!
Attempting to stay between and above the two ideological extremes, Governor Manchin is clearly pro-coal, but supports environmentalist protests and ideals. If he is giving both sides an opportunity to voice opinions and come to the best consensus, then this could be great leadership. However, if this is an attempt to play politics with both sides, then he might be forced to choose one or the other, eventually.
Triangulization can be very effective when properly positioned. However, Aesop having a much smarter intellect than I, once said "Please all, and you will please none."
It's OK to Speculate
The Charleston Gazette continues to report that Governor Manchin consistantly denies any speculation about possible replacement for Senator Byrd's seat. Yesterday, Allison Knezevich quoted the governor as saying, "I'm not looking at anything right now." I find this hard to believe that the Governor is giving this no thought whatsoever, and for the sake of a rational contingency plan, I hope some serious thought is put into a possible replacement. It is ridiculous to think that anyone is wishing ill upon the Senator, but I do not think it is out of the question to give some thought to the future.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Cap and Trade
Thanks to Steven Allen Adams with the West Virginia Examiner for this piece. He continually provides the investigative reporting about the issues that affect West Virginians the most. This is a great read, showing how "noble intentions" can create disastrous consequences for the Mountain State.
A WVEx Original: Capping and Trading West Virginia's Future?
THANKS TO CONGRESSWOMAN SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO FOR TAKING A FIRM STANCE AGAINST WAXMAN-MARKEY CAP AND TRADE!!!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
So Much for the 'Team of Rivals'
Just a couple of minutes ago, Politico's Mike Allen commended Obama for holding a "bi-partisan meeting of governors who share his commitment for lowering the cost of health care, protecting choice of doctors and plans assuring quality and affordable health care for every American."
The problem: Allen forgot to mention that this "bi-partisan" group also shares Obama's commitment to state-sponsored, nationalized health care. So much for Obama's commitment to diverse opinions, and those who might say that a government sponsored health care program is not the best option.
Link here: Politico
The problem: Allen forgot to mention that this "bi-partisan" group also shares Obama's commitment to state-sponsored, nationalized health care. So much for Obama's commitment to diverse opinions, and those who might say that a government sponsored health care program is not the best option.
Link here: Politico
Update: Blankenship Challenges Critic
Thanks to West Virginia Red for following this one...
Hansen Agrees to Debate Blankenship on Global Warming
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Scary Thought...
A great piece released this morning from the West Virginia Examiner.
A WVEx Original: Missed Connections in Ferrel Case
Blankenship Challenges Critic
On Saturday, the Wheeling Intelligencer reports that Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship issued a debate challenge to NASA scientist, James Hansen. The topic: climate change/ global warming and its relation to West Virginia. Hansen, yet to respond, is a leader of opposition activities against coal operations, as well as a professor at Columbia University.
This challenge comes in light of a recent protest in Boone County by terroristic environmentalists, many of which were arrested on several counts after the incident. Hansen, with many of these radical organizations, protests against surface mining and the coal production that is vital to West Virginia's livelihood.
Blankenship is to be commended for issuing a challenge for civil debate to Hansen, instead of militant protest. Massey acts within the law in its operations, rergardless of your feelings about coal production. Under the shadow of Obama's radical Cap and Trade policy, I hope Hansen accepts this opportunity to talk about real facts that affect every citizen in West Virginia.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Governor Expands Ohio Lottery
Governor Ted Strickland (D-OH) has decided to expand the Ohio Lottery Commission and permit slot machines at seven of the state’s horse tracks. Strickland conceded to his previous stances against slot machines, because budget-cutting efforts were not enough to close the $3.2 billion deficit. The Governor made every attempt to preserve vital programs, such as education, but decided that gambling expansion is the only way to make end meet in an uncertain economy. However, relying on slots is no sure bet.
The standard arguments are subjective, but worth thinking about as well. It is true that many habitual gamblers repeated wager fund they do not have in search of hitting it big. Proponents often claim that the expansion of social programs dealing with problem gamblers far exceeds whatever revenue the government receives from licensing and taxes. Society will not improve, or stabilize, with increased reliance on gambling profits.
Further, effects of destination casinos will carry beyond the tables and slots. Resort locations, undeniably, attempt to provide for every need or want of their guests. Restaurants, shops, boutiques, and area attractions around a casino will not benefit from increased traffic, but will actually experience adverse effects from the economic vacuum. For local shop owners, do not rely on destination-oriented traffic to bolster sales. Passers-by will do just that… keep passing by.
Personally, I am not against gambling or casinos. I think arguments such as increased crime and problem gambling can be somewhat inflated, depending on which report you read. I am against, however, the state monopolizing sole control over the industry, and I am certainly against the government and localities relying on gambling revenue for economic development and stable income. As long as gambling is seen as a portion of the entertainment and commodity industry, and unstable as such, then I think revenue can be a beneficial supplement to the budget.
Therefore, Governor Strickland, in my opinion, is acting irresponsibly in placing so much emphasis on flimsy gambling revenues to balance the budget. Not only is he refusing to let the voters decide, he conveniently misplaces 20 years of memories that say Ohio voters have turned down gambling referendums on 4 occasions. When times are tough, the budget must be cut… not establish precedent that threatens bigger government relying on profits that cannot be relied upon.
Gambling is not good \\Economic Development
Friday, June 19, 2009
Consumers Health Care Act Misses the Mark
Many supporters of nationalized, public health care continue to miss the point when it comes to affordable, accessible, and quality service for everyone. Yesterday, Senator Rockefeller’s office released the Consumers Health Care Act, claiming to “give the American people the complete coverage they need at an affordable rate”. Under this plan, Rockefeller proposes to establish a public health care option, alongside the private sector. Quality and affordability would be monitored by a non-profit Health Insurance Trust, according to an A to F grading system to be published annually.
Though this plan has good intentions, serious flaws weaken its chances of success if it survives the committee process. First, this plan requires a massive expansion of government, creating an entirely new office within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Health Plan Management. The bill requires the HPM Office to be managed by a director who is “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”. Therefore, if one party dominates the executive and legislative branches, large groups of Americans risk omission from the health care debate process. Repeatedly, large government proves to be inefficient and cumbersome, so the solution to the health care debate should not be to expand government.
Second, the Health Insurance Trust evaluates companies on subjective criteria that can deviate between individuals and ideologies. This bill is constrained by variable terms as “affordability of coverage,” “adequacy of coverage,” “consumer satisfaction,” and “any additional measures as determines by the board,” which provide little objective observation. Though proponents claim that a public option can parallel the private sector, subjective government opinion hinders the private sector’s ability to compete fairly and effectively. When determining the fate of millions of Americans, officials cannot rely on a letter grade to provide necessary health care.
Clearly, this is an issue of private goods and public choice, where special interests have the opportunity to thrive with the degree of empowerment under the Consumers Health Care Act. Few will disagree with the Senate’s findings that Americans deserve accessible, adequate health care. However, many do disagree on the way in which it is available. I argue that increased government regulation will only compound the problem, especially when freedom within the private sector is compromised.
Though this plan has good intentions, serious flaws weaken its chances of success if it survives the committee process. First, this plan requires a massive expansion of government, creating an entirely new office within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Health Plan Management. The bill requires the HPM Office to be managed by a director who is “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”. Therefore, if one party dominates the executive and legislative branches, large groups of Americans risk omission from the health care debate process. Repeatedly, large government proves to be inefficient and cumbersome, so the solution to the health care debate should not be to expand government.
Second, the Health Insurance Trust evaluates companies on subjective criteria that can deviate between individuals and ideologies. This bill is constrained by variable terms as “affordability of coverage,” “adequacy of coverage,” “consumer satisfaction,” and “any additional measures as determines by the board,” which provide little objective observation. Though proponents claim that a public option can parallel the private sector, subjective government opinion hinders the private sector’s ability to compete fairly and effectively. When determining the fate of millions of Americans, officials cannot rely on a letter grade to provide necessary health care.
Clearly, this is an issue of private goods and public choice, where special interests have the opportunity to thrive with the degree of empowerment under the Consumers Health Care Act. Few will disagree with the Senate’s findings that Americans deserve accessible, adequate health care. However, many do disagree on the way in which it is available. I argue that increased government regulation will only compound the problem, especially when freedom within the private sector is compromised.
No 'Free Lunch' for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
West Virginia lawmakers have crafted a responsible plan for infusing federal stimulus dollars into the state. West Virginia looks to spend its $1.8 billion of the total $787 billion by supplementing gaps in the budget and jump-start projects within the state, pursuing some stability in a weakened economic climate. State leaders have identified critical areas where easing specific burdens can afford some stability in uncertain times: healthcare, education, transportation, and energy.
Government officials, however, must remember certain principles to ensure spending effectiveness and efficiency. First, the ARRA stimulus money is a onetime infusion of federal dollars. Government expansion cannot be sustained without massive expenditures and deficit growth. Second, the ARRA stipulates that states dedicate funds to “shovel ready” projects to invigorate the economy and preserve jobs immediately. Third, this package cannot create long lasting wealth or jobs, because funding is temporary. Dollars should spare threats of bankruptcy and unemployment, not fund political favors that lead to excessive spending.
Taxpayers must remember that stimulus money is not free, and will require higher taxes than would otherwise be necessary, likely resulting in higher prices for consumer goods. However, if the state of West Virginia continues accordingly, funds can be spent responsibly and effectively. Federal lawmakers coerced the state into accepting stimulus money, but Governor Manchin and his administration can exhibit wise choices when spending sensibly.
- Michael Bush is an associate fellow at the Public Policy Foundation of West Virginia
June 17
For more information on this:
The West Virginia Examiner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
