Problem Number 2: Cost

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the estimated cost of implementing H.R. 3200 would be aproximately 1.042 Trillion dollars over the first 10 years. The report suggests that they would offset $219 billion of the cost through savings in other areas. Another $583 billion would come from increased revenue(i.e. taxes). So what about the remaining $239 billion? There is no plan to pay for that at all. It would simply be tacked on to our nations perpetually growing debt.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention one small detail. The initial estimate of 1.042 trillion only covers the plan itself, but "does not include federal administrative costs or account for all effects on other federal programs," according to the CBO's report.

You can read the full report here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

Whether you like the idea of government run healthcare or not, I ask one simple question, "Where is a government with a current debt of 11.7 trillion dollars going to get this money?"

Problem Number 1: Unfair Competition

I've been so busy lately I haven't had time to sit down and put together a well written entry on the Health care bill, but I need to at least thow out a few thoughts.

The health care bill, as it currently stands, would create what is being called a "Public Option." Public Option basically means a government owned and operated insurance company would be created and insurance plans would be offered to anyone who can't get, or doesn't want, an insurance plan from a private insurance company. Problem number 1: Unfair competition. President Obama insists that private insurance companies would not be affected and that it is not the intent of this bill to put anyone out of business. Unfortunately, what one says, and what actually happens, are not always the same thing. I would ask any sensible person to consider the following scenario and then explain to me, if you can, why you think this scenario is not possible.

Scenario:
The Government health plan is put in place and is up and running. It is in direct competition with private companies. The government wants more people to switch to their plan so they offer a better plan for a better price; possibly even free. Private insurances lower their prices and alter their plans in order to compete. The government continues to be more competitive even though it is losing money. The government plan stays afloat because it is paid for by tax dollars. If they run out of money they simply raise taxes, print more, or move money from other areas. Eventually, private companies can no longer compete and they go out of business. People have no choice but to switch to the government plan. Now the government has complete control over all health care in our country.

I suppose it's time for me to write on Healthcare reform (Otherwise known as Universal Healthcare, Socialized Healthcare, Nationalized Healthcare). It is one of the biggest domestic political issues our nation has faced in a long time but I have held off addressing it until now because, until recently, there has not been anything official. We knew what politicians were in favor, and which against, but now we finally have a bill to look at. Of course there may be other bills proposed later, or the text of one bill may be included in a new bill, but for now, here is what we have:

Number: H.R. 3200
Full Title: To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.
Short Title: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
Status: Reviewed by Committee and recommended to the House
Size: 1017 page as an Adobe PDF file
Full text: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

I have only done a little research so far, but already I have found some very disturbing details to discuss. However, because the bill is so long, I will simply give the general info here, then create a seperate entry for each individual topic. Stay tuned...

The Tenth Ammendment, What's That?

There is something very interesting going on at the state level of government that could be very significant in protecting our rights and freedoms. It has to do with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. In the early days of our country there was a lot of debate about how much control and authority the new national government should have over the States. In fact, it was one of the major topics of concern during the three and half months that state representatives spent debating and designing the Constitution. Three years after the Constitution was completed, the Tenth Amendment was added as part of the “Bill of Rights” to make sure there could be no misunderstanding as to limits of Federal Government power. Nevertheless, more than 200 years later, this debate is still going on. Once you have read the amendment, there can be no misunderstanding as to its meaning. It reads,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, the federal government can do nothing except what is specifically granted them by the Constitution. All other issues fall to the State. The federal government has, many times in the past, exceeded this limit, but never more so than now. Even the States themselves are beginning to worry, as evidenced by the actions of the State of Alaska. On July 10th of this year the Governor and legislature of Alaska signed a joint resolution officially declaring their sovereignty and reaffirming their rights as expressed in the Tenth Amendment. The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.” The resolution passed the House and Senate with a total of 77 in favor and 0 opposed.
Common sense would question whether this resolution was even necessary. After all, The States already have these rights, with or without the resolution. Yet, for obvious reasons, they felt it was necessary to remind the federal government that the States have not forgotten the Constitution, and that they intend to uphold it.

It is important to note that at least 36 other states have already passed, or have in the works, similar resolutions.

Lighting and Appliance Energy Regulations

As I mentioned before, this bill is extremely large so it will be impossible to discuss all sections of the bill. I have picked one more to discuss here. Title 2, Subtitle B is labeled “Lighting and Appliance Energy Efficiency Programs”. This section describes government regulation and mandated standards for light bulbs, lighting fixtures, water dispensers, household appliances, hot tubs, furnaces, and televisions. I obviously can’t describe every single rule it contains but let me give you one example. By 2011 certain outdoor lighting fixtures called “Outdoor Luminaires” must have an efficiency rating of 50 lumens per watt, then 70 lumens per watt by 2013, and 80 lumens per watt by 2015. Similar requirements are given for “Outdoor high light output lamps”, “Portable light fixtures”, “Art work light fixtures”, “LED fixtures”, and every other possible type of lighting you could think of. Rules are set for every aspect of lighting from size of bulbs, type of bulbs, how bright they should be, and how much power they can use. Whether or not this conserving of energy is a good thing, or whether or not attaining these levels is even possible, is not the issue. The real issue is whether or not the government has the right to dictate these things. Is it the role of government to tell us what types of light bulbs we must use?

The most disturbing part of this is not what is specifically laid out, but rather, the details that are missing There are many parts that simply say things like, “Any other type of equipment that the secretary classifies as covered”, or “The Secretary shall issue a final rule amending the applicable standards established”. In other words, the secretary of Energy is given complete freedom to adjust the standards at will, include or exclude different types of equipment at will, or enact just about any other rule he feels is appropriate. Basically, if this bill passes, the government will have complete control over how, what, when all lights and appliances can be designed and built. If Thomas Edison were alive, he wouldn’t have a chance.
I will end this entry with a little quote from the bill about how the government plans to make sure manufacturers are complying:

“Each manufacturerer of a product to which the standards are
applicable shall file with the Secretary a labor a
laboratory report certifying compliance with the applicable standard for each lamp type. The report shall include
the lumen output and wattage consumption for each lamp type."

Energy and Climate Change Bill

As I expected, it didn’t take long after I created this blog for a new law to enter congress that strives to take away more of our individual rights and give more regulatory power to the federal government. Because of the size and complexity of this bill (1200 pages) I will cover only specific areas in this post.

First, some of the facts: The bill is commonly being called the “Climate Change Bill” but the official title is, “H.R..2454 - To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.” The official “short title” of the bill is, “American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009.”
The bill was voted on and passed by the House of Representatives on June 26. Before the bill can be put into law it still needs to be passed by the Senate, then the president has the chance to veto it.
The full text of the bill as approved by the House of Representatives can be found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454rh.txt.pdf
The website OpenCongress.com offers this summary:”This is the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill, known for short as "ACES," that includes a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020. Other provisions include new renewable requirements for utilities, studies and incentives regarding new carbon capture and sequestration technologies, energy efficiency incentives for homes and buildings, and grants for green jobs, among other things.”
A 22 page overview of the bill can be found here: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090515/hr2454_summary.pdf


Ok, now that you know all about the bill, lets talk about the rights we stand to lose if this thing is passed. I picked a section somewhere in the middle of the bill and here are some excerpts of what I found:

Section 201 would change federal building codes as follows:
‘(a) ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARGETS.—
‘(1) IN GENERAL
‘(A) effective on the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 30 percent reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code;
`(B) effective January 1, 2014, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2015, for commercial buildings, 50 percent reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code; and
`(C) effective January 1, 2017, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2018, for commercial buildings, and every 3 years thereafter, respectively, through January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, 5 percent additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code.

`(b) National Energy Efficiency Building Codes-
`(1) REQUIREMENT-
`(A) IN GENERAL- There shall be established national energy efficiency building codes under this subsection, for residential and commercial buildings, sufficient to meet each of the national building code energy efficiency targets established under subsection (a), not later than the date that is one year after the deadline for establishment of each such target.
Part (d) of the same says that the new codes shall carry down to all state and local governments and must be inforced by them.

So basically what we have in this section is a much stricter building code for both residential and commercial buildings. The new building code would attempt to reduce energy usage by 30%, then 50%.

This blog entry is already pretty long so I will not attempt to discuss all the possible problems this would cause for the consumer and the energy provider. Maybe next post.

Introduction to my blog and its purpose.

My name is Steve Peterson. I am a citizen of the United States of America and, like most Americans, I love my country, its history, and what it stands for. I cherish the freedom we have and I am proud to be called an American. I fear, however, that we are slowly losing all that makes this country great. In particular, I feel that our individual rights are being slowly stripped from us one at a time. I don’t blame any one particular person for this. There are many involved. It was happening before our current president took office, and I expect it will continue with the next. I do not mean to say that I hold our leaders guiltless. Each of them plays a major role in this battle and is in a position to make a difference on the outcome. The President, Congress, the Supreme Court, advisors to these, the media, and many others, each have their part and are each accountable for their own decisions. Much of the blame must also fall back on us as citizens. The founders of our country knew well the tendency of government to grow greedy and attempt to usurp power over its people; and so the founders gave us a weapon against it. The constitution, the very government itself is the weapon of which I speak. Democracy. Through the voting process, we as mere citizens have the power to completely replace the entire government in a few short years without a single drop of blood shed, or an ounce of violence displayed. This has never been possible before in the history of the world, but it is possible now. Why then are we not using this weapon? Am I to believe that the majority of our population wants to give up their rights and allow a large central government to dictate their lives? I will not accept that this is the case. I believe, rather, that it is simply a matter of ignorance. That most Americans do not see what is happening. Those that are striving to deprive us of our basic rights are very clever and are seeking their goal so patiently and precisely that most don’t even realize it is happening. My task then, and the goal of this blog is not to convince readers of my point of view by logic and reason, but rather to discuss current events, as they unfold, that relate directly to this topic. Each time a law is passed or a court ruling pronounced that chips away at our rights, I will discuss it on this blog. I believe that by simply showing readers what is happening, they will themselves begin to see the danger of our current direction without any further persuasion from me.