Health Care Fraud

Friends,

A lot of us subscribe to on-line news letters, blogs and such. I am no different. One news release site I subscribe to is from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It always makes me feel a little better when I hear about bad guys being indicted, getting caught, and sentenced. Over the past year of so that I have been receiving these news releases it has struck me that at least four or five times a week there is an item about someone being charged or sentenced for health care fraud. The latest example is about a “Wheelchair Company, Its Owner and Physician Sentenced for Health Care Fraud.” Just today there were three news releases about such cases. Two more are: “Michigan Clinic Owner Pleads Guilty in Massive Medicare Fraud Scheme;” and “Florida Man Sentenced for Money Laundering Related to Health Care Fraud.” The good news is that some of the bad guys are being discovered and caught, but how many are getting away with their nefarious activities?

My first thought is that these cretins are stealing from us, the taxpayers of the country. While this is certainly true, this crime needs to be viewed from another aspect. What makes this type of crime so common is the ease with which the criminals are able to manipulate the public health care systems of Medicare and Medicaid. It is my contention that this is possible because these bloated and completely broken programs are being run by career bureaucrats who are not staying on top of their responsibilities.

These bureaucrats are able to get away with incompetence because the system allows them to. I have no doubt these programs were established with the best intentions, but where are the checks and balances to keep this type of fraud from taking place? Has there ever been a top-to-bottom review to try to discover if industry best practices are being employed?

The bottom line of this discussion is that every program established by the federal government is riddled with efficient management that comes from bureaucratic bloat. Medicare and Medicaid are only two broken and mismanaged programs in a long line. The during the Johnson administration the feds decided that all the money in the Social Security system was just what they needed to increase social programs under the war on poverty, part of the Great Society.

The US Post Office has continued to operate much as it has for the last 200 years. It is common for commercial businesses to look for new and innovative ways to improve their business processes. This is a concept that seems to have been lost on the US Post Office. Not only are they unable to operate efficiently, they seem to have little interest in looking for ways to improve their operations. Consequently, they have been eclipsed by UPS and FEDEX.

Now, the federal government is intent on taking the best health care system in the world and put it into the same category as Medicare and Medicaid. That is the category of failed programs. Never mind the fact that there is no place in the Constitution that gives the feds the authorization to even address medical care. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and the OWH are determined to establish a health care system under their direct control. What I find especially sad is that with the feds abysmal record at running programs we are likely to see our health system reduced to the status of a third world country.

With an increase in bureaucracy, there is a corresponding increase in propensity for corruption. Looking at the proposed health care legislation as it currently is proposed in the House of Representatives, the House Republican Conference has compiled a list of new federal bureaucracies that would be established by that 2000 page tome. They add up to 111 new organizations. They are listed below with the section and page number from the bill.

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved
coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and
Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

With 111 new bureaucracies, boards, etc. there is a golden opportunity for crooks to make millions off you and me, the average taxpayer while we take a number and wait in line for someone to set a bone or try to find out why we have a 104 degree temperature.

I ask you all to contact your congressman and senators to tell them that your health care is not the government’s business and to keep their hands out of our wallets.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Government Power Excesses

Friends,

It seems like every week there is at least one more conservative group that starts up to advocate for one or another of our constitutional rights. I applaud all of their efforts, but it seems like I am reaching overload. Like most of you, I am a go-to-work kind of guy; and like most of you I don’t have time to read all of the blogs and information that comes in every day. But scanning over the plethora of information I find a common thread in the complaints and concerns with our current governments; yes, I said governments, plural.

The common thread is that no matter what level of government the blogger is discussing, or the issue, the issues all seem to eventually boil down to an excess hunger on the part of our legislators, executive department personnel, and judges to exercise power that is not afforded them by our city, state or national charter or constitution. Since I don’t have time to write a volume on the excesses of government I will limit this discussion to a few of my hot buttons.

I recently received an email discussing Social Security as the system relates to our congressional representatives and senators. They do not seem to be bound by the same constraints that we mere mortals are when it comes to collecting Social Security. The crux of the email was that everybody should be covered by the same system. I agree. However I have a different idea. Why not just do away with Social Security! My proposal is to grandfather all individuals who are currently drawing benefits and those within 10 years of Social Security eligibility. For all others, move their accumulated money into whatever investment vehicle the individual chooses. Mandatory payroll deductions would still be made but instead of the Feds getting it to squander, the money would go into investments that each citizen deems right for him. There could be stipulations on the types of investments that could be made but the bottom line would be to keep the money out of the hands of the politicians. This would apply to ALL citizens. This is my concession to the federal government telling us what to do but it falls short of allowing them to do it for or to us.

Another area that is kind of sticking in my craw is in the area of our right to keep and bear arms. The OWH has appointed a fair number of “czars” whose decisions carry the weight of law. Take, for example, the Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein. He has called for the end to all hunting and even goes so far as to advocate animal rights to the extent that a human can sue another human on behalf of a “wronged” animal. If I shoot a bear charging me in my own yard do I go to jail or face a law suit on behalf of the bear that is trying to make me his dinner?

What about a ruling from the head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, David Michaels. If Mr. Michaels says that having a pocket knife in the work place is dangerous and I carry mine to work, am I subject to being fined or charged with a crime? To carry this a little farther, Oklahoma passed a law forbidding companies from discharging employees who carry their personal protection guns to work and keep them locked in their cars. This law has been upheld in federal court. However, the way federal regulations are structured, Mr. Michaels could declare that guns locked in personal cars pose an unacceptable risk in the work place. This declaration by an unelected official would carry the weight of law and negate the Oklahoma law. Someone needs to explain the constitutionality of that to me.

The recent abrogation of our first amendment rights comes in the form of the so-called hate-crimes bill. Now the feds can charge us under this act for not only the act of a crime, but for the reason for the crime. That gets into the category of retribution, not justice. Also, it does not apply equally to all citizens. “As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be.” It seems that Congress and the OWH are trying to foist class warfare on us. One class of citizen is more equal than other classes. This comes very close to double jeopardy. As I have written in previous posts, there is an element of hate in every crime. Further adding a characterization of the crime just to add retribution is far outside the realm of justice.

As I have stated numerous times, I am not a constitutional scholar, but I do refer to that revered document often. As many times as I have read it, I have yet to discover where it says that the federal government has the authority to do or say ANYTHING about our health care. As far as I am concerned, this entire debate is a complete waste of the taxpayers’ time and money. The bottom line of this waste is that it is going to cost every taxpaying US person a great deal of money. Of course, those who do not pay taxes will get off with a free ride.

Now to the bottom line; all of these regulations, social welfare programs and non-constitutional departments are not only breaking our bank but our backs. As well as not being a constitutional scholar, I am not an economist, just a working stiff. However, I think I have a way to pay off the national debt AND get our country back on the track set down by the Founders. It is a fairly simple solution. Eliminate all government departments that are not enumerated in the constitution; stop federal spending on all items that are not specifically laid out in the constitution (that includes all social welfare programs); eliminate the “death tax;” lower corporate taxes to 10%; and lower the income tax rate to 15% for all wage earners who earn over $35,000. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved that when you lower taxes, revenue to the federal government increases. Putting the tax burden on those who pay wages simply does not make sense.

This Discourse seems to have spread all over the spectrum but as I stated up front, there is a common thread throughout, and that is the excessive power assumed by the federal government. It is my crusade to assist in reversing that trend. I would hope you would join me in this effort.

Your comments and discussion are welcome.

Dan

New Secretary of Defense?

Friends,
There was something very scary in the rumor mill this last week. Columnist Bill Kristol has speculated that the Obama administration is going to cut and run in Afghanistan. These are not his words, but it is the bottom line of his predictions.

When Robert Gates was selected to continue as SECDEF for the new administration a lot of folks were surprised, myself included. I am not aware of one cabinet officer of a previous administration being held over to the next, new party administration. This says a lot for the capability and, presumably, apolitical stance held by Gates. From outward appearances, the Secretary enjoys the support of his senior military officers. At any rate, he certainly seems to be intent on winning in Afghanistan, despite the ruling party’s penchant to cut-and-run. However, this may be his undoing.

Mr. Kristol has speculated that the OWH is going to reject General McChrystal’s request for additional troops and ask Secretary Gates to resign. The OWH obviously has no experience dealing with professionals. The Secretary and the General are part of a team with a common goal in mind. This does not seem to be the same goal as the OWH.

The first question to come to mind is, why doesn’t he just tell the Secretary to draw down troop levels until they have to pull out? That way the goal is accomplished. But I have a feeling that the Secretary and the General may not go “quietly into the night.” No, these two have too much integrity to dishonor all those brave fighting men and women who have given so much to help the Afghan people. So, what has to happen?

The first thing that has to happen is for Secretary Gates to go away. In his place, needs to be someone who would have no shame in losing a war and a people in the process. This is where not-to-soon-to-cut-and-run former senator Chuck Hagel comes into the picture. Krystal speculates that the OWH will pick Hagel as the new SECDEF. Let’s take a brief look at Hagel’s history. He voted in favor of using troops in Iraq in 2002. However, in 2007, he was one of three Republicans who supported starting the troops home within 120 days of a Senate vote.

Senator Hagel was a decorated E-5 Army sergeant during Viet Nam. One can only speculate on the effect this experience may have had on his feelings toward the Iraq war. But this support for withdrawal certainly brings into question what actions he would take as SECDEF, should he be chosen and confirmed.

Just yesterday (05 Oct), the OWH said, through his press secretary, that he is not anticipating pulling out of Afghanistan. Does that include going against the experts in the field, implementing disastrous tactics, and causing many more casualties? The result of this strategy will be to declare that he is getting us out of Afghanistan to prevent more American lives from being lost.

Chuck Hagel is the perfect fall-guy to implement this strategy. He is a Republican for the liberals to point to, thereby somewhat shielding the OWH from criticism. With Senator Hagel’s demonstrated proclivity for giving up the fight, the blame will flow off the OWH’s back.

But what would be the consequences? The Taliban, al Qaida, and their affiliates only respect strength. It could be argued that US interests really became a target after the Beirut bombing in 1983. The Iranian “students” tested the waters in 1979 but seemed to be unwilling to face newly inaugurated Ronald Reagan. Hezbollah tested the waters again in Beirut and when President Reagan withdrew US forces from Lebanon they knew where our national resolve lay.

Withdrawing from Afghanistan will be no different. Once the Taliban, al Qaida and the rest of the gang sees that our national resolve is just as rubber-spined as always, they will be emboldened to take action where ever they please. This action will not be limited to outside our borders. In just the last two weeks, two plots to create massive craters in two of our cities have been foiled. How many other plots are in the works at this time, just waiting for final arrangements or for the word to come from some coordinator?

I sincerely hope Mr. Kristol is wrong. The consequences of this sequence of events could be devastating.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.
Dan

A Side Trip for a Memorial Service

Friends,
The following was sent by a friend, Colorado State Representative, Larry Liston. I gladly pass it along.
Dan
Friends,
This is no joke. This man was real. Read on.

> > May God Bless Shifty Powers.
> >
> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:38 PM
> >
> > Subject: Memorial Service: you're invited.
> >
> > Men like "Shifty" R few & FAR Between these days! May he rest in peace with the thanks of a grateful Nation!
> >
> > SPOOK
> >
> > Memorial Service: you're invited.
> >
> > We're hearing a lot today about big splashy memorial services.
> >
> > I want a nationwide memorial service for Darrell "Shifty" Powers.
> >
> > Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st Airborne Infantry. If you've seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10 episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.
> >
> > I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was at the right gate, and noticed the "Screaming Eagle", the symbol of the 101st Airborne, on his hat.
> >
> > Making conversation, I asked him if he'd been in the 101st Airborne or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the 101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served, and how many jumps he made.
> >
> > Quietly and humbly, he said "Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so, and was in until sometime in 1945 . . . " at which point my heart skipped.
> >
> > At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5 training jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . .. . . do you know where Normandy is?" At this point my heart stopped.
> >
> > I told him yes, I know exactly where Normandy was, and I know what D-Day was. At that point he said "I also made a second jump into Holland , into Arnhem ." I was standing with a genuine war hero . . . . and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of D-Day.
> >
> > I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France , and he said "Yes. And it's real sad because these days so few of the guys are left, and those that are, lots of them can't make the trip." My heart was in my throat and I didn't know what to say.
> >
> > I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in Coach, while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have it, that I'd take his in coach.
> >
> > He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are still some who remember what we did and still care is enough to make an old man very happy." His eyes were filling up as he said it. And mine are brimming up now as I write this.
> >
> > Shifty died on June 17 after fighting cancer.
> >
> > There was no parade.
> >
> > No big event in Staples Center .
> >
> > No wall to wall back to back 24x7 news coverage.
> >
> > No weeping fans on television.
> >
> > And that's not right.
> >
> > Let's give Shifty his own Memorial Service, online, in our own quiet way. Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.
> >
> > Rest in peace, Shifty.
> >
> > "A nation without heroes is nothing."
> > Roberto Clemente
> >

Constitutional Authority 2

Friends,
A few days ago I started a series looking at what I call “extra-constitutional” federal departments. Today I would like to continue that discussion by looking at the Department of Labor. As with the last Discourse, I will link Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution here for your reference.

The Department of Labor came into being under Present Taft in 1913 with the enactment of The Organic Act of the Department of Labor. Prior to this enactment labor issues were under the purview of the Department of Commerce and Labor; this act split the two. “The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. [Public Law 426-62]” The mission statement of DOL is:

The Department of Labor fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measurements. In carrying out this mission, the Department administers a variety of Federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthful working conditions; a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay; freedom from employment discrimination; unemployment insurance; and other income support.

This sounds great, giving the impression of a kindly grandfather making sure all of the kids play nicely together. But what happens when one of the kids is able to gain more influence over grandpa then the other kids, and what happens when grandpa allows that influence to make a difference in his judgment? You then have the same relationship as the US government (grandpa) and labor and management (kids). They will do all of this benevolent work on a budget of $10.5B with 16,848 full-time employees.

Let’s take a look at one situation in particular. With enough research I could undoubtedly fill a few volumes on the subject of union corruption but I will just look at the most recent one.

Last year the Bush administration advocated and initiated the bailout of the auto industry. This package has evolved a number of times in the last year, so many times that I am not sure I have the complete picture but I will try to put some of the larger pieces together.

As of 13 June of this year, the United Auto Workers’ health care fund was set to receive 17.5% of General Motors; the government was set to receive 60%; the Canadian government was set to receive 12.5%. That leaves only 10% for the only legitimate claimants to the company, the bond holders. I'm not going to give a blow-by-blow account of the rape and pillaging of the largest auto company in America by the government, but rather concentrate on the macro role played in this travesty by Big Federal Government (I’ll call it BFG), the DOL, and the UAW.

Looking at the DOL mission statement above, how does that square with participating in the destruction of a viable company like General Motors. There are three major players here; the BFG, the DOL, and the UAW. BFG forced the downfall of GM by placing unreasonable restrictions on auto manufacturing over a period of decades, causing the price and complexity of cars to skyrocket. I’m sure there may be a more regulated industry than the auto industry, but one does not come immediately to mind. These regulations cover everything from air bag safety requirements to tire manufacturing specifications, bumper crash survival rates, and gas mileage. Just managing the compliance paperwork alone must be a major cost of doing business.

The DOL is supposed to be looking out for the workers. Where was their advocacy to keep the company viable? I have not found any place where they have performed this function. They have taken on the mantle of surrogate for the UAW against the “big mean management team.” Where has DOL worked to ensure GM’s viability? This is the only way the workers will be able to maintain their jobs. Remember, if GM closes their doors, millions of people are out of work.

So, now we have a situation where we are throwing $10.5B at an agency of BFG that seems to be working for the destruction of jobs. Also, where in the Constitution is BFG given the authority to take such a hand, heavy or light, into matters of free enterprise? It is a historical fact that when BFG sticks its fingers into a situation, it invariably heads south; just ask the folks at Mustang Ranch (you can Google that one).

Why is DOL working so hard to paint big GM as such bad guys; because their masters at UAW have told them to do so. The unions hold such an iron grip over the DOL that they are sure to get their way; thus they will be receiving a big chunk of GM. But wait, remember BFG’s propensity to screw things up? With their 60% and given their track record, GM should be out of business within two years (I'm being generous here; I don’t think it will take that long). Where is the workers’ advocacy in this situation?

The DOL has not only existed in an extra-constitutional framework, it has actively worked to put American workers out of work. This is another BFG department that needs to go away and let the marketplace work. An adjunct to this is for BFG to let the marketplace determine the regulations placed on the industry. One lesson that BFG has never learned is that the consumer will ultimately determine what features they want and what they do not want.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussions.

Dan

Constitutional Authority #1

Friends,
It is time for me to get back up on my soap box. Not a day goes by that this administration and its stooges in Congress don’t make my blood boil. Whether it is the “stimulus package” or the federal government taking over our health care or Attorney General Holder giving consideration to prosecuting the former administration for their decisions, it all boils down to one issue. Where is the constitutional justification for any of their actions?

The more I look at this administration as well as administrations for the past 80 years (and I am being generous) I realize that most, if not all of our economic problems have come as a direct result of the federal government violating its constitutional authority. In this series of Discourses let’s concentrate on just the establishment and operation of what I call extraconstitutional cabinet-level departments. First, I suppose that we should determine which departments are authorized, expressly or by implication, by the Constitution.

I would submit that Treasury, State, Justice, War (now Defense), and Commerce are authorized or implied by the Constitution; there might also be a case for the Department of Interior. I have linked Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution here. This article details the powers of the Congress. You may want to open it in order to refer to it while I go through this discussion.

The first extraconstitutional department I will discuss is the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which came into being during the FDR administration with the enactment of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. HUD was elevated to cabinet-level by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 during the Johnson administration. The stated mission for HUD “is to increase homeownership, support community development and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.” I discussed Our Uncontrollable Debt in December of last year.

Being the simple-minded soul that I am, I have to ask, “Why?” What happened to working toward homeownership? Before you get all riled, I know that in years-gone-by discriminatory lending and home sales practices existed and may still today; but there are free market forces that can and should deal with that. Much of the current financial folly we are enjoying now is a direct result of “making” people eligible for homeownership when they just hadn’t gotten there on their own. What happened to good old American work ethic? What happened to the concept of setting your goals and working toward them? Why is the federal government in the business of business anyway? As a friend of mine is want to query, if you are not a homeowner, what are you? You are a renter. Is that bad? I don’t think so. Someone owns that house or apartment and is living the American dream. If you think it is easy being the owner of a rental unit, just ask those who do. If you don’t want to be a renter why do you have to have a department of the federal government behind you pushing you into a mortgage you can’t afford? If you want homeownership badly enough you go out there and work for it.

This great county has grown because individuals worked. At first it was just to subsist. Then as they worked harder they began to realize that their efforts could pay off and make their lives even better than just subsistence. Is this an easy path? No, but nothing worth the pride of ownership is easy. That is what makes one stick his chest out and say, “I worked for that and I earned it.” Where is the pride in saying “HUD got me this house”?

Looking at the Constitution and the enumerated powers, I do not see any place that allows the federal government to manipulate the marketplace for any group or for any reason. This interference in the marketplace is a very sharp overreach of constitutional authority.

The current budget for HUD is $41.5B. That is money that comes from people who have worked for that dream of homeownership. I can think of a lot more productive ways to spend that money, such as paying down our enormous debt. I can think of a lot more productive ways for people to earn their way into homeownership than working the federal bureaucracy to get a home. Working toward homeownership puts productivity in the community. Achieving that goal and purchasing that home means that someone earned a wage when the home was built, or the prior owner is going into another home that someone had to build. That is the way of economics.

By my way of thinking, if people have achieved the dream of homeownership or they are working toward it, that is good for the state and community in which they live. Doesn’t that make it a state issue? The states and municipalities should be more in tune with the individual citizens than the federal government. Why, then, is the federal government trying, and succeeding, to assume the duties of the states and local communities? While they are doing this, it is a continual degradation of states’ rights and responsibilities; a place the federal government has no business visiting.

This Discourse is very high-level and not in depth. That would take much more time and space to cover. These highlights should be enough to start you thinking.

This is the first in a series of Discourses discussing the gross assumption of power by the federal government. Hopefully, it will encourage a renewed interest in taking our communities and states back which, in turn, will give us our country back.

As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.

Dan

Obama and the UN

Friends,
As you know, I am no fan of the United Nations. Now, it looks like President Obama is becoming more of a Globalist than an American; I will not get into the birth certificate issue. The president wants badly to be seen as a “good guy” by the international community.

Last month, he traveled to Europe, and the Middle East looking for good will. At every stop he apologized for perceived wrongs of America, such as our arrogance. Not to put too fine a point on the issue, but is it arrogant to point out that twice in forty years this country saved the world from the despotism of megalomaniacal tyrants? Is it arrogant to point out that when Europe was in shambles after World War II it was the United States that funded much of the recovery from the utter devastation of that war? Is it arrogant to point out that America, along with our good ally England was able to face down the Soviet Union and end the cold war? Is it arrogant to point out that when Saddam Hussein invaded an ally, it was an American president who built a coalition of world nations to remove him? I might also point out that in none of these circumstances did the United States benefit financially. We did not take over the manufacturing base, agricultural base, or oil production base of any country we assisted. But I digress.

The president even went to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Saudi King. For an American president to bow to a foreign head of state, or for him to bow to anyone, for that matter, causes me to question whether he fully understands the role he has accepted. Let’s look at the relationship the United States shares with the international community, specifically the United Nations.

After World War II, this country joined with our war-time allies to establish a body that would prevent war and other international “man-made disasters.” The problem with the concept is that we made the pact with two devils, the Soviet Union and the Peoples’ Republic of China, not to mention the questionable friendship of France.

Over the history of this body, only one action that I can find has resulted in a victim of aggression being even partially protected, that being South Korea. Even that “police action” has never been finally put to rest. UN presence often results in either complete inability to accomplish the job or deploying thugs that terrorize the local populous, such as has been reported in numerous locations in Africa, or both. Seldom are these failures or abuses addressed by the whole body.

With this kind of track record what is the justification for President Obama to want to snuggle up to the UN? The Obama administration is attempting to gain a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is one of the agencies that is advocating for ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). As we all understand, any ratified treaty has the force of law over established US law.

The aforementioned treaty sounds wonderful until you start to dig into it. The UNCRC seeks to raise the best interest of children to a higher level. Who could argue against that? Well, it seems that the Supreme Court could. The Supreme Court held in Reno vs. Flores in 1993 that “‘the best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.”

The main problem seems to be who will determine what is best for the child. According to the UNCRC it is not you, the parents. This is a major “nanny state” advocacy program. The UN will become the determiner of appropriate discipline of your children. Not only does it supplant US law, it supplants your parental rights.

President Obama may be comfortable turning his daughters over to the state to determine how they are to be reared, but are you ready to do the same?

One of the provisions of the Convention is that if a child does not like the way his or her parents are exercising their responsibilities, the state must provide legal representation for that child in court against the parents. I have a problem with the concept that a child can take the parents to court if the child objects to being grounded for staying out after curfew, of if he or she objects to having a curfew in the first place.

Those countries that have signed this treaty must go before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on a regular basis to report their progress toward implementing the treaty. This just adds another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government.
This is the direction our president wants
to take our country. With each passing day, we are losing more and more of our national identity. Our president is spending an inordinate amount of time and energy denigrating our standing in the world community, not to mention our sovereignty. It is incumbent on all of us to tell him that he is on the wrong track. We are a nation of laws decided upon by our elected officials, not those of other nations.

In Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address he warned, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
President Obama’s desire for ratification of the CRC tracks very well with his disdain of all things culturally American. This is the kind of man elected by those wanting “change.” Well, how is this change working out for you? How is this global lack of respect sitting with you? How is the loss of your parental rights going to work out for you?

If you would like to read more about this problem I would like to direct you to here

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Also, I would like to thank Shyrl for her diligent research in support of this Discourse.
Dan