From: Bill

Thanks for the information.  I see it is an opinion piece and can only assume it is accurate.  I know that I don't pay 61% of my income in federal, state, and local taxes.

We monitor all the networks at work, Fox is a favorite.  The more I watch the more it makes me laugh.

From: Steve 

August 12 is day 224. 224/365 = 61% of the year. Is the San Francisco Chronicle "fair and balanced" enough for you? http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/Cost-of-government-day-comes-a-month-later-this-year-53006242.html

Again, you're trying to force me into an extremist box and advocating no government at all. But now it's 45% of GDP. Is there any limit at all for you? 48% like Europe? 60%? 100% What is your personal level of tolerance? Under Carter the top marginal tax rate was 70%. You may disagree, but I consider that immoral. Ending slavery cost us a war and many lives, but it doesn't cost the government anything today. Giving women the vote doesn't cost anything today. Education, fire and police should be the responsibility of state and local governments, not the Federal government. I'm willing to pay local and state taxes (up to a limit) for those services, I just don't see why the residents of any state have to send their education taxes to Washington, only to have them take their cut and dole it back to where it came from.

As for the FOX thing, I watch it every day and see Democrats, leftist activists, all points of view argued and presented every night. Both sides are given an equal amount of time to make their case. So I have to respectfully disagree with your assertions. I don't know anything about the Florida Court of Appeals, but if it's anything like the 9th District Court of Appeals here in California which is overturned something like 75% of the time, then OK, whatever. Glenn is a showman, and admits it, but that doesn't diminish his message at all. I also watch George Stephanopolis every Sunday, read the Economist magazine published in London, read the LA Times, read AP and Reuters on the Internet and listen to CBS talk radio (news, not commentary). I think I'm getting a clear picture and get a pretty balanced picture.

From: Bill

Steve,

My opinion on Glenn Beck... well it is "not very high."  But he is an entertainer and people get entertainment from him.  People like to hear him speak.  Of course Judge Judy makes more money than he does.

Where do you get your stats?  How did we pay 61% to the government?  If people don't want government - great! let's start cutting and see what happens. Cut DOE, TSA, DOT, DOC, SEC, local fire, police, and schools.  If we aren't willing to pay for it then we just won't do it.  Well I've seen countries like this - please go see one and then tell me why we should emulate their example.  The America you are describing is make-believe - it never existed and never will.  If I am missing the any examples please let me know.  I am willing to follow anyone's best practices but are they real? 

In case you mention the founding fathers?  We had limited government back then.  Women couldn't vote or own property, we could have slaves, no health care, no fire or police protection, no education system for the masses, limited military, only white man land owners could vote, man I miss the good old days.  What did we ever change?  WWGBS?  What would Glenn Beck Say?

The GOP has stated for years they wanted to get rid of the Department of Education but they took n o action to do it.  They made government grow.  They created the TSA.  What a farce.  In the military we have reservists - most are GOP members and love FOx, Glenn Beck, etc.  They beg to get on orders to work in the government.  These are folks who hate big government but beg to be part of it.  My point:  if you don't like government then don't work for it.  I refer to them as White Collar Welfare.

Here is an interesting read:

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Lawyers paid by Bill O'Reilly's bosses argued in court that Fox can lie with impunity.  It's their right under the 1st Amendment

FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.

December 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida, to investigate bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation.

Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story.

Akre and Wilson refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.

August 18, 2000, a unanimous Florida jury found that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story”  The jury awarded her $425,000 in damages.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals  overturned the settlement awarded to Akre.

In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

Fox then filed a series of motions seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson.

My put:  If we had tort reform Fox would have been limited to $250K.

Bill

From: Steve 

Today, August 12th is Cost of Government Day. We've worked all 7 1/2 months to pay for Government. A People of the Government, by the Government and for the Government. We are slaves. 

I didn't say do nothing on health care, in fact I proposed solutions that I would like to see. Add to that tort reform, which will never happen because they contribute too much campaign money to the politicians, and we have a good start. If you ate an entire box of chocolate and after you were finished you turned down another bon bon, could someone accuse you of not liking chocolate? We've had 61% of working for the Government this year and I'm full. No more. We've finished the elephant and we're being force-fed a whale.

Stimulus money may be for the US, but we're borrowing the money from China. You can go out and buy a Ferrari for your family and go into debt with the excuse that it's for your family. It doesn't change the fact that it's a bad investment.

Power corrupts. We have to start scaling back on the power that Washington has over us, because we both agree it's corrupt. Whether it's Bush or Obama, they have too much power.

I'm reading Glenn Beck's Common Sense, which also includes the version by Thomas Paine. Recommended reading.

From: Steve

I'm not advocating elimination of Government. You worked in the Military, which is a necessary Government program. So necessary, that it's require by Article I of the Constitution. I also believe that Government has a role in regulating commerce and capitalism to make sure that the laws are upheld and that everyone plays by the rules. However, when Government runs or owns the means of commerce, such as health care, it is regulating itself which is a dangerous conflict of interest. See Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. I believe in the American people to run their own lives and make the millions of daily decisions that result in markets functioning at their most efficient, cost effective and beneficial to society as a whole. It is only when Government interferes and picks winners and losers, grants political favors, and uses the tax code as a weapon, that markets fail. Inevitably, the same Government officials who are responsible for the failures place the blame on the failure of capitalism, the free markets or private enterprise and use it as justification to take our freedom of choice away from us. See Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

I especially believe in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which states "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." I don't see anything in the Constitution allowing the United States to own health insurance, banks, or auto companies. Although it won't happen in my lifetime, I would very much like to see a dismantling of Government ownership of all programs not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.

You don't like the way the Government was run under the Republicans. I actually agree with you. I dislike it even more under the Democrats. Maybe we can agree they all have gained too much power when they can exert such economic power and catastrophe over the people. And, tick so many people off on both sides of the aisle. My answer is to take power away from the Government, both Republicans and Democrats, and limit their ability to interfere with our lives. The health care reforms proposed by the House are a move in the wrong direction. So is cap and trade, so is the stimulus bill, bailouts, TARP, etc.

As far as Iraq, I teased a friend of mine who was bitching constantly that Iraq was costing us $1 billion a month. After the first $700 billion stimulus, then TARP, then the omnibus budget, projections of $10 trillion in spending, he came to realize that $52 billion per year started to look like chump change.

I'm sure your Government run health care is everything you say it is. It should be. It's sure costing us plenty. A lot more than private insurance is. In fact, it's bankrupting our country and when the baby boomers retire, will enslave your children and grand children. I hope you have plenty to leave them in your will. Although, if you do, the Government will confiscate 50% of it off the top and then levy income tax to your inheritors. So, wasn't Walter Reed a military hospital? I don't think that's the example you want to use, is it? I've heard horror stories about Veterans hospitals for years, but I will defer to your opinion on that.

I'm glad you mentioned that we're building power plants in Afghanistan. The Washington politicians won't allow us to build power plants in our own country. They won't let us drill for resources in Alaska or right off the California or Gulf coasts. California could close it's budget deficits if the Democrats would just let us get the oil. They won't let us use clean coal technology that would not pollute and would provide a significant percentage of our country's energy. We're building water projects in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the environmental laws have shut down the water to the Central Valley of California to save a minnow. This has thrown thousands of families out of business, dried up their farms and killed their crops. This is an unimaginable horror reminiscent of the dust bowl days, although Government created not nature. Not only will we have to import our energy, we'll now have to import our food. Washington (and Sacramento) bureaucrats are committing national suicide, and I'm fed up!

I love this country too and would like to see us get back to the principals that made us the greatest nation on earth. Freedom. Capitalism. Entrepreneurship. Not European Socialism which is where we're headed. We're better than that. The American people are better than that. Washington has lost touch with those core principals. 

From: Bill

Steve,

I appreciate your comments.  I merely passed on an article written by an elected representative who was stating facts verse fiction.  The words of the author are his and his alone.  I did review the five bills - all in draft and it appeared to me the representative is correct.  I am not sure which house bill you are referring to in your comments.

I have been a government employee for almost 30 years.  I truly believe government has a purpose.  Many feel the size of government is too big, too inefficient, and basically the root of all evil.  I have only worked for the DoD so I will limit my comments to what I have seen..  I know waste when I see it.  The amount of waste the last eight years was incredible.  I have seen outsourcing - and I have seen many times when government completes again the private section - government surprisingly is the best value.  These are facts.   I know many are asking how the current administration and congress will pay for any changes in health care.  Great question.  But where was this concerned when we gave a blank check for Iraq?  This wasn't a concern then why is it a concern now?  Almost a trillion dollars spent - granted I have seen where the money went.  The taxpayers used borrowed money to pay for first class facilities in these countries.  My point is if we can borrow money to build power plants in Afghanistan - a country that lacks the infrastructure and education base to support - why can't we borrow money to pay for health care for our own citizens? 

I am realist and I see daily how government works - it is not pretty.  I have also been in countries without governments.  I consider us very lucky to be in this country.

I work on the resources side within the DoD.  I understand how the legislation process works.  So when I hear statements made those on the left and right I look them up in the draft bills.  If you did the same I bet we would agree on who is telling the truth.

I have single payer insurance.  I have had it 30 years. I currently am under Tricare and under the Veteran Administration.  Both are world class and I wouldn't trade my insurance for any other program.    My family is under Tricare.  They can chose their own doctors, etc.  This system works so well I want it for you too.  And if don't want it - you could (just like my family an d just like me) choose your own program.  I am a federal employee - I elected NOT to pick any of the programs offered by the federal government - the same programs offered to our congress.  Yes Tricare, although not perfect, is very very good system.  A government option would increase competition.

I am sending this email to all who originally received it.  But I excluded sending it to the White House.  I am guessing you were joking.

Let's continue this discussion.

Bill

From: Steve (FUFODOG)

You lost the argument in the first sentence when you referred to Republicans as morally depraved. The first to resort to name-calling loses. If you actually believe that this supports your position then I feel sorry for you, Bill. I don't think any reasonable rebuttal will persuade you and I think you really need to explore the source of your hate. I, and I imagine many of your friends, do not appreciate e-mails calling me names. If that's to be the intellectual level of your debate, then please "unsubscribe" me from further ideological diatribes. 

I guess dissent, which was considered patriotic when it was against Bush, is now manufactured, artificial and, according to Nancy Pelosi, "un-American" or, according to you, "morally depraved." It's OK for the current President to be a community organizer, but those who organize around issues he disagrees with are to be scorned and denigrated. Yeah, that's fair. By the way, Gallup, Rassmussen, PEW, and NBC/Wall St. Journal polls all show that Americans are opposed by 53% to the proposal in increasing numbers as the details are made available and discussed. By Nancy Pelosi's logic, the majority of Americans are now "un-American." Are they "morally depraved" too, or just stupid in your opinion? 

So, to explain my opposition to the House bill: 

Government is too big, too costly and too inefficient already. Government spending in 2009 is projected to be 45% of GDP http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html.. That's before the $1.6 trillion spending proposed by the House for health care. We are entering the realm of Socialism. Consider that government spending in France and Germany, who DO consider themselves Socialist countries, is around 48% to 49%. Government already has too much control over our lives and the trend is going in the wrong direction. 

In 1965 Medicare was originally supposed to cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost? $66 billion. Medicare is bankrupt. According to AP and MSNBC (hardly Republican sympathizers) the "looming Medicare shortage is seven times the size of the one that Social Security faces and nearly four times the entire federal debt." The current proposed budget for the House bill to reform health care is $1.6 trillion. Neither the House, nor the President has told us how they are going to pay for this. Especially if Obama keeps his promise to not raise taxes on those who earn under $250. If the government taxed everyone who makes over $250 thousand at 100%, it would still not pay for health care, let alone TARP, cap and trade, the omnibus budget, stimulus 1 or potentially stimulus 2. Am I "morally depraved" for wanting government live within its means? Is this so unreasonable? 

The U.S. spends $800 billion a year on Medicare and Medicaid, $60 billion of which is estimated to be lost to fraud. If Government can't run existing health care programs any better than th at, why should we trust them to expand health care through more Government programs? 

Massachusetts and Tennessee have both i implemented public options for health care and both states are being bankrupted by the programs as they are substantially exceeding their budgeted costs. 

The Fact/Fiction argument presented by Herb Kohl is somewhat misleading. He's correct in many of his assertions that the current version of the bill does NOT contain some of what he calls fiction. However, at least 31 new federal programs, agencies, commissions and mandates are created by this bill. Consequently, although the bill does not include many of the details that Americans are concerned with, these agencies and commissioners will have to implement the bill with all of those details that are yet to be determined. Determined BY THEM! That's why no one knows, not even Herb Kohl, what impact this bill will have on our health care system. Those specifics will be implemented outside the legislative process by design so that Herb Kohl will be able to deny complicity when it all goes wrong. 

So, who will Obama appoint to these coveted commissions? Perhaps his czars and advisors provide an insight into that question. 

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's advisors and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel wrote in January of this year "when implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated... The complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value." This sounds like rationing to me. 

Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory czar, is also advising the President on health care said in the Columbia Law Review in 2004 "I urge that the Government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people." 

During Obama's prime-time town hall on health care, Jane Sturm told the President that it took three doctors to agree to implanting a pacemaker in her 100 year old mother’s chest. She is now 105. Would Obamacare have denied her life? Obama's response? "Well now that's a tough one ... that costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take the painkiller." Sounds like rationing to me. 

Barbara Wagner, an Oregon resident who is covered through the state of Oregon's government health care plan, was denied an important cancer drug she requested and instead was offered a drug for assisted suicide. She eventually got the cancer drug she needed, donated by the evil Pharmaceutical companies, not the state. Oregon's bill didn't include an assisted suicide provision when it was passed either. 

Herb Kohl misleads the reader with some of the noted objections. For example, he says "none of the proposals being considered by Congress would make private health insurance illegal." No one that I've heard or read is saying that it would. What opponents are pointing to is that the bill will fine employers who do not provide insurance 8% of total salary expenses. 

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: All Civilian Workers,” September 2007, In 2006, U.S. employers spent 9.9% of payroll on health insurance contributions. An 8% penalty will be a cost effective solution for employers to reduce costs. This will lead many employers to eliminate private insurance for their employees, forcing them into the public option, and putting many private insurers out of business. So, when supporters of the House bill claim that the bill won't eliminate private insurance and you can keep the insurance you have, they are literally correct, but fundamentally dishonest. 

The Government can easily undercut private insurance by channeling more tax dollars into the government program. We can argue whether this will happen, but I don't believe I'm "morally depraved" for believing that it will. 

I believe that Government IS the problem and IS the reason why health care is so expensive. For example, there are 1,300 insurance companies in the U.S. that provide health insurance. I am only allowed to buy insurance from those companies that are licensed in California, which requires them to provide ridiculous coverage for acupuncture and trans-gender therapy, among other things. By opening up interstate commerce of insurance plans, we could significantly increase competition and lower costs. This is a Government restriction, not an insurance company restriction. 

Why is my employer responsible for shopping for my insurance? Because of Government mandated employer provided health insurance. I changed jobs last year, but wasn't allowed to keep my insurance because it's not an option on my current employer's plan. If I bought the insurance I was happy with, my employer would be prohibited from contributing to it, refunding me their contribution amount, AND the Government wouldn't let me deduct the expenses from my income for taxes. Another Government restriction that's unnecessary, increases the cost and limits choice and availability. 

What we need is personalized insurance, not nationalized insurance. Consumer choice, not only in the selection of insurance, but in the spending of insurance money on our own health care will lower costs, increase availability, and improve quality as it does in all areas where capitalism is allowed to work. Some Government regulation, not ownership, of the insurance industry and provisions for emergency care and vouchers for lower income people to purchase their own insurance is change I can believe in. 

So, Bill. I'm passionate about this issue but not "depraved." What about you? You initiated this conversation. Are you interested in a discussion, or are you only interested in a one-sided debate where opposing opinions are suppressed? Here's your intellectual honesty test for today. If you're firm in your convictions then you should have no problem forwarding this rebuttal to the same distribution as your original e-mail. If you're unwilling to do this, then I can only conclude that you're an ideologue with no interest in debate, only propaganda. If the latter is the case, please unsubscribe me from further propaganda. 

PS. I imagine you will forward my "fishy misinformation" to the White House Office of black-balled citizens and I'll probably end up on a domestic terrorist watch-list for expressing an opinion different from the Messiah. In that case, President Obama: I would like you to read the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech. 

Part 1 of a friendly debate with an old friend on health care. Bill initiated the conversation by forwarding the following e-mail.