Like Obama’s Lie, Excuses Don’t Stand Up To Scrutiny

“So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage — they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

— President Barack Obama, appearing before the AMA on June 15, 2009

There is no ambiguity in this statement. You don’t need a Harvard education to understand the exactness in these words. President Obama did not say “If I (or the government) likes your doctor” or “If I (or the government) like your health care plan” you can keep it. Nor is this merely another broken political promise, misstatement or the prelude to any additional clarifying statements. This was the chant repeated over and over again, and it was a lie.

Obama was not the only one who made this dishonest commitment to the American people. Elected members of Congress and political operatives, including New Hampshire’s Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, repeated this same guarantee time and again, at times often mocking those who knew they were being lied to.

Almost all of the prevaricators who repeated this statement, and frankly many more untruths about Obamacare, share at least one thing: They are Democrats, and as such are now tasked with trying to deflect from what most reasonable Americans now know was a D.C. fairy tale told to win support for another flawed government program.

Many leaders within the Democratic Party are now doubling down, determined to ignore the original lie, and tell more untruths or offer up pathetic excuses that in the end only validate their shameless hypocrisy. In fact, Obama himself is leading the charge in this new facade, offering a revisionist statement:

“Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really like that plan, what we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.”

Like the original lie, the excuses cannot stand up to scrutiny. To the people offering these excuses, you really have no idea how utterly senseless you sound. Stop defending the indefensible. You lose all credibility with reasonable people who know the truth.

As many of you again choose to dismiss the atmosphere of dishonesty that controls our culture, think twice about what you are trying to defend. For far too many of these defenders, the end justifies the means. For those loyal to Obama, or for those who support Obamacare no matter what, I guess it is true when they say ignorance is bliss. But do not let your blind allegiance serve as an excuse for Obama’s dishonesty.

Moreover, the media should not ignore its civic duty either. In a recent article, Brian Beutler of Salon magazine callously described Obama’s original lie as “a noble lie …; in the platonic sense of the term.” This is a glaring example of failed journalism. There is nothing platonic or noble in the sham now known as Obamacare and the lies that were used to prop it up.

Some believe Obama just needs to “explain Obamacare better,” as if ignoring the lie or lying about the lie can be overlooked. That has not stopped Obama and some Democrats from trying, but their methods and tone are poisoning the conversation. Choosing to belittle those who have lost the plans they wanted to keep, or mocking those who are speaking out against the current failed state of Obamacare is not helping.

Yes, 5 percent sounds better than the more than 15 million (and counting) who will lose their plans, but it is not fooling anyone. Obama and his minions falsely describe the canceled plans as “sub-standard,” “inferior” or “junk.” Reasonable people, including more than 22,000 here in New Hampshire whose plans were canceled, know the primary reason Team Obama designated these plans as such. It is because these plans do not offer the “basic” mandatory coverage such as birth control, prenatal care, addiction treatment, even though the insured may not require any of those services.

Worse still was the fact supporters of Obamacare claimed those who purchased these plans were not smart enough to understand that the plans were “substandard,” according to the Obama administration. Other than being an incredibly elitist attitude, there is not one ounce of empirical data to support the claims that a majority of these preferred health policies were deficient. In fact several Democratic legislators, led by Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu, introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate, known as the “If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan” law to try to correct their mistake, with the understanding that “The promise was made, and it should be kept,” Landrieu said.

President Obama and the Democrats promised their efforts were an attempt to insure the uninsured, but what we got instead was a system that allowed millions to lose the health care plans they wanted to keep. To any reasonable person, that is not a failure to communicate but a failure of leadership.

Jeff Chidester was raised in New Hampshire and has lived and worked in the Far East and Europe for extended periods. He is the host of New Hampshire Perspective, heard each Sunday at noon on 96.7 The Wave and WGIR AM 610.

Now What? – Part II: Continue to Print More Monopoly Money

Two weeks removed from the federal government shutdown, and once again there is no sense of urgency to resolve vital budget issues and the next debt ceiling before the upcoming deadlines, the first of which falls on Dec. 13.

As I mentioned in my last article, I had two suggestions that would help avoid putting the American people through another futile exercise at governing. First, I explained how we should just get rid of the debt ceiling, ending any pretense of fiscal discipline. The second suggestion was to ignore any restraints on our money supply and merely print or borrow more money.

It is a little more complicated than just printing more money, because if you just print more money and add it to the economy, you would see the value of money drop, thereby causing inflation. There is another element involved as well, which is for the Federal Reserve to buy precise amounts of financial assets from larger commercial banks and private financial institutions.

Therefore, the Federal Reserve, the U.S. quasi-central bank (which many people feel is an illegal entity set up to circumvent constitutional mandates) needs to print money to buy those assets. These private institutions then invest the money from the Federal Reserve into numerous areas of commerce, usually through the stock market. This infusion of money is meant to stimulate the economy.

Over the past five years, the Federal Reserve has been printing $85 billion a month in an effort to “prop up” the U.S. economy. This effort is also known as quantitative easing, or QE.

QE is an unconventional method (theory really), which is fraught with far more risk than benefits, especially over a prolonged period of time, as we have seen here in the U.S. (for more on the risk, Forbes recently ran an excellent article, http://goo.gl/0Nw9JG).

There used to be a time when U.S. currency was fully backed by a desired commodity — gold. When a country ties its currency to something of value an amazing thing happens. Your money has value. By tying a country’s currency to actual assets, also known as stable money, it usually holds that country to spend within its means. That is less important today because we are the United States of America, and everyone knows the “full faith and credit” of our country is a bond better than gold. Just ask the Chinese.

However, along with the Federal Reserve’s current QE love fest, the U.S. federal government is borrowing more and more money, to the tune of at least $17 trillion so far. We borrow this infinite source of money from many sources, with many different names. The borrowing comes in the form of selling U.S. Treasury bonds that compound interest for the purchaser. That interest payment causes a shudder throughout the world every time we approach the debt ceiling. The simple fact is for every dollar the United States spends, 43 cents is borrowed from countries such as China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Brazil.

The selling of treasury bonds is not limited to just foreign countries. The U.S. also uses Social Security funds to buy Treasury bonds. In fact, our government actually mandates that Social Security funds must be used to “invest” in the U.S. government. From the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees report (2012): “Federal law requires that all excess funds be invested in interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.”

The federal government takes the money out of the Social Security fund and places an IOU in the fund. Not to worry though; the IOU is backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States.” I know you’re wondering, “How much money does the U.S. government owe the Social Security fund?” The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees estimate that it is approximately $4 trillion.

The interest on our debt is now at approximately $240 billion a year and represents the sixth-largest budget expenditure, according to the U.S. Treasury. According to the Congressional Budget Office, at our current rate of spending, we will be paying $1 trillion a year in interest on our debt, $5 trillion total, or 2.6 percent of our GDP. No worries though, because we have the “full faith and credit” of the good old USA.

Progressives jumped all over the fictitious $24 billion that Standard & Poor’s “estimates” the shutdown may eventually cost our country, but ignore the real impact of our nation’s failed fiscal policy every day.

Besides, this is the same S&P that is being sued by the Obama administration for what Obama believes was a politically motivated downgrade in 2011. The same S&P that numerous news outlets, including the Washington Post, N.Y. Times and CNBC, criticized for possibly using faulty data and incorrect calculations, and is still under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. A review of S&P’s Web site finds the $24 billion was an “estimate” that included deferred or delayed commerce, but not lost commerce. Once again, though, S&P has no real tangible numbers. Additionally, the U.S. Treasury Department will not confirm S&P’s estimates. Gee, I wonder why.

For those who may have missed the absurdity of my suggestions, I do not recommend we actually follow my suggestions. The lack of a mechanism to control debt-deficit spending and cranking out U.S. currency as if it were Monopoly money is a poor national fiscal policy. Sadly, it also happens to be the current fiscal policy of the United States.

Now what? Part I: Repeal the Debt-ceiling Provision

Yet another crisis has been averted in our nation’s capital, but what do we do now?

Reading the opinion pages of this paper and listening to the media, there is certainly no shortage of fresh ideas. Whether those ideas are based in reality is irrelevant. However, in the minds of many progressives where debt isn’t a problem, reality appears to be a luxury we cannot afford. We have a measly three months before another debt-ceiling battle, so let’s try to get ahead of the chaos and actually solve the problem before the deadline. I have a simple solution: Repeal the debt-ceiling provision and print more money.

By repealing the debt ceiling, we can just stop with the charade that we care about our debt and borrowing. Forget for a moment that the debt-ceiling rule was put in place in an attempt to force some fiscal sanity, necessitate a debate, and that it was never intended to be an automatic mechanism to increase our borrowing capabilities. Besides, can anyone name another major economic nation that has a debt-ceiling provision? Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Ireland don’t shackle themselves to an arbitrary debt ceiling. Aren’t they doing fine? The truth is there are so few people serving in D.C. who care; the vast majority believes the debt ceiling is getting in the way of spending ourselves into prosperity.

Other than Denmark, only America has the concept of a debt-ceiling trigger. Other nations try to control their debt (and usually fail) by using two equations, “debt as a percentage to GDP” and “deficits as a percentage of GDP.” “Debt as a percentage to GDP” is the total debt, as expressed as a percentage of total economic output, while “deficits as a percentage of GDP” references the amount by which a government’s financial obligations exceed its income, expressed as a percentage of GDP. However, even that is left to “political interpretations” because some, like the Congressional Budget Office, do not include transfer payments (interest and dividends), pensions or Social Security in their calculations.

Simply put, responsible economists believe any prolonged “debt as a percentage to GDP” over 77 percent is harmful to our economy. According to the U.S. Bureau of Public Debt, the definitive agency for proper tracking of actual economic numbers, in 2010 the U.S exceeded 81 percent, in 2011 the U.S. was at 95.2 percent, in 2012 we were at 99.4 percent, and in 2013 were are projected to surpass 101 percent.

Regarding the “deficits as a percentage of GDP,” any negative number is bad. The higher the negative deficit number, the harder it is for a government to move from a deficit to a surplus. According to the International Monetary Fund, the United States had the second poorest “deficit as a percentage of GDP” ratio (of leading economic nations), behind only Japan.

You do not have to be an economist to understand the United States of America is on a dangerous trajectory. Therefore, whether we use the debt ceiling as a gauge or percentage to GDP, our fiscal policies are damaging our economy, and the debt-ceiling debate only serves to expose the danger we are in as a country.

To many in D.C., the debt ceiling means nothing, simply an obstacle preventing them from “investing” taxpayer dollars in such important projects as spending $325,000 to create a “robo-squirrel” (http://herit.ag/QqlpgN). The debt-ceiling law was an instrument meant to reign in out-of-control spending, to force our representatives to justify our nation’s financial liabilities, to appear before the American people to defend what was so vital as to increase the financial burden on our children and grandchildren. The debt ceiling is an apparatus of a bygone era, placed on the books by far less enlightened people than those who serve us today. Do we really need to impose consequences, freezing the flow of debt/deficit spending (as the debt ceiling mandates) or try to maintain some simple safeguards? According to progressives, clearly the answer is no.

By eliminating any pretense that we respect the intent of the debt-ceiling provision and the safeguards it affords the American people, we would put an end to what many believe is an inconvenience. Without a debt ceiling, there is no debate or need to restrain our spending, which means there will be no conflict in D.C. Harmony will be the order of the day in our nation’s capital.

So forget the debt. It doesn’t matter whether we are $17 trillion in debt or $200 trillion in debt, because we can always borrow more or just print more money, which I will discuss more in next week’s article.

President Obama’s Tactics Are Petty

America is closed for business, and contrary to what many would like you to believe, the reaction to the debate in our nation’s capitol has very little to do with money and everything to do with pettiness.

The Republican-controlled House continues to pass bipartisan bills that would reopen a majority of the government. Unless the House drops any attempt to reform the Affordable Care Act (a one-year delay of the individual mandate, repealing the medical device tax and ending concessions for congressional staff), the Senate’s Democratic majority will block every GOP government-funding bill.

The president’s own words indicate his willingness to use the pain of his fellow Americans for political gain. In a press conference this week, President Obama stated, “Of course, I’m tempted (to accept the mini-bills, but) …; if there’s no political heat, if there is no television story on it, then nothing happens” (http://bit.ly/19Fkc15).

As the federal government enters its second week of a shutdown, the American people are witnessing firsthand the spitefulness of an unfit government. President Obama has dug in his heels and has decided to make this shutdown as painful and difficult as he possibly can on the American people. One only needs to see how President Obama chose to use his discretionary power when addressing the shutdown.

As the federal government continues to collect tax revenues and entitlement fees, and with only approximately 18 percent of the federal work force on forced furlough, President Obama has allowed his administration and the departments under his immediate control to enact draconian edicts. President Obama may not be putting up the barricades or hammering “closed” signs into the ground himself, but these are the actions of people and agencies he has direct control over. Shame on him for the way he has decided to punish the American people.

The federal government controls vast lands within every state. They “borrowed” our state property as a matter of public trust, claiming the federal government, and only the federal government, could ensure future generations be able to enjoy these lands, uncorrupted by the overreach of unscrupulous people. How ironic is it that these sites and public treasures are now being denied to their rightful owners, the American people, by a corrupt and overreaching federal government.

I am witnessing firsthand the indiscriminate application of this federal shutdown. While on my annual Columbus Day weekend trip to Acadia National Park, the federal government has gone out of its way to close the hundreds of miles of carriage roads usually unmanned by national park rangers. The roads are not only closed and blocked off, but rangers are patrolling in areas where I have never seen them before, issuing $100 citations to “trespassers.” People continue to display civil disobedience to the absurd by entering the park in defiance of this artificial closure.

Rangers have blocked off the road access to the highest viewing point in Acadia, Cadillac Mountain, a hugely popular destination for visitors to the park. I couldn’t help but chuckle at the fact the federal government can find billions of dollars to “save” GM, maker of the Cadillac car line, but has no money to “keep open” the normally open access to Cadillac Mountain.

In New Hampshire, the federal government has shut down access to the White Mountain National Park during the peak of leaf-peeping season and forced the closure of private campgrounds that have lease agreements with the federal government, costing New Hampshire millions in lost revenue.

The federal government continues to not only block open-air memorials, but has added additional rangers to enforce the blockade, going so far as to issue citations to joggers at Valley Forge National Historic Park. The government has ordered family farms, such as the Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Virginia, closed because they lease federal land. No government employee or funds are used to aid the farms and, in fact, the government is actually receiving revenue.

Morgan Jones, a Kentucky teen suffering from a deadly illness, traveled to the Statue of Liberty thanks to the Lexington Dream Factory. Instead of being greeted with “Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free,” Ms. Jones was turned away by park rangers, sending her home without fulfilling her simple wish to climb the stairs of Lady Liberty. It is unlikely Morgan will be able to fulfill her dream due to the coldness of a petty president.

We also learned this past week how the Obama administration attempted to play politics with the family death benefits for those Americans who were killed in the line of duty. Even though Congress approved funding of those benefits prior to the shutdown, currently unnamed bureaucrats in the Obama administration interpreted the language of the law as vague, stating the law did not clearly define continued payments of those benefits. Eventually, public shame forced Congress to pass another bill clearly defining the payment of previously approved death benefits.

Issuing citations to joggers in open-air parks. Forbidding access to vacationers at open national venues such as the Acadia carriage roads and White Mountain National Park. Refusing a terminally ill teen entrance to the Statue of Liberty. Withholding death benefits to family members of our fallen heroes. These are shameful examples of how D.C. has ceased to be a functioning government and is nothing more than thugocracy.

Jeff Chidester was raised in New Hampshire and has lived and worked in the Far East and Europe for extended periods. He is the host of New Hampshire Perspective, heard each Sunday at noon on 96.7 The

Shutdown A Result Of Failed Governance

This past spring the New Hampshire House and Senate passed our state budget. In fact the budget passed the Senate by an awe-inspiring vote of 24-0.

The budget wasn’t perfect, and as always some people complained about what was in the budget, while others lamented about what was missing. But the passage of a government budget is one of the solemn obligations every legislative and executive branch of government have throughout the United States. Except, of course, the federal government, which chooses instead to govern from one self-made crisis to another.

New Hampshire is one of many states not only constitutionally required to pass a budget by an absolute deadline, but also constitutionally obligated to pass a balanced budget. Although there is the usual grandstanding, political posturing and occasional fireworks during the budget creation process, it never rises to the level witnessed in D.C. What many people do not realize is that our federal government is also mandated by law to pass a budget.

The U.S. federal government shut down this past week because our elected representatives failed to approve what is known as a continuing resolution (CR). While some point fingers and resort to name calling, a juvenile spectacle that helps fill the 24-hour news cycle, there are many things missing in the debate, the most important of which is the reason we are still fighting over the passage of yet another CR.

A CR is the result of failed governance. A CR was meant to serve as a stopgap measure when our federal government was either unable to create and pass a budget, or if spending requirements beyond an approved budget were needed. Right now, members of our federal government are fighting over the possible passage of what was meant to be a temporary measure for short-term governing. Depending on your interpretation of history, the last time the U.S. government passed an honest budget was in 1997. One thing is for certain: Our federal government has failed to fully debate and approve a budget since 2009. This is no way to run a country. And as much as some would love to blame the tea party for this, we are here because of failures at all levels.

The most recent straw that broke the camel’s back happened in 2009 when Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, what they called a budget. In reality it was nothing more than just an omnibus spending bill (thanks to Grant Bosse of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy for reminding me of this during a recent interview), which was drowning with an excessive number of earmarks. In 2010, the Democrats chose not to put forth a budget bill. They did so because the Democratic leadership deemed it politically imprudent during the hotly contested midterm elections. The cycle of failure continued when Senate Leader Harry Reid failed to pass an annual budget for more than three years.

So shut down the panda-cam, shoo out all the leaf peepers from the White Mountain National Park, block World War II veterans from paying their last respects to their fallen comrades, and cancel President Obama’s sleepover to Asia, because our federal government is utterly broken and woefully devoid of any real leadership.

The reasons for passing or not passing the current CR are inconsequential. The fact we have chosen to permit our federal government to function this way is as much the fault of the people as it is of our elected officials. In the void of leadership, “We the People” must lead. In 2014, as politicians travel the state with their hands out for your money and begging for your vote, ask them these simple questions: “Will you fight to create and pass a federal budget?” and “If Congress and/or the president fail to pass a budget, what will be your course of action?” Their response will be telling and will help you determine if they will be a part of the problem or the solution.

I have no doubt I will receive comments attempting to place blame with the tea party. Our government admits to at least $17 trillion of debt. University of California economics professor James Hamilton puts our national debt closer to $70 trillion, while Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes the U.S. government is $200 trillion in debt. Either way, it would appear to any real objective observer that a small fraction of our government, supported by a group of honest and concerned citizens, seems to be the only people truly concerned about the real fiscal health of our country. Mocking them may boost your already inflated ego, but maybe this is the time to take a realistic look at the real problem, and it is not the tea party.

As for the panda-cam, not to worry. Head on over to explore.org and watch Zhuang Mei at Bifengxia in China. It will be a nice distraction from the sideshow in D.C. Plus you can see what the Chinese are spending our money on.

Jeff Chidester was raised in New Hampshire and has lived and worked in the Far East and Europe for extended periods. He is the host of New Hampshire Perspective, heard each Sunday at noon on 96.7 The Wave and WGIR AM 610.

Obama, Democrats own the ACA

At 11:19 p.m. on Nov. 7, 2009, led by the rousing Nany Pelosi battle cry of “But we have to pass the (health care) bill so that you can find out what’s in it…” and by an overwhelming margin of 220-215, with only one Republican vote, and with 39 Democrats defecting, the Affordable Care Act passed.

In 2010, the American people were so pleased with the ACA that they helped Republicans gain a historic 60-plus seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The massive sea change in the U.S. House was nothing compared to what happened earlier in the year in Massachusetts when hell actually froze over. One of the most liberal states in the country, if not the most liberal, elected Republican Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat. Brown’s primary campaign promise was that he would vote against the ACA.

The ACA was known more for its generous bribes and kickbacks, with infamous names such as the “Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and the Baucus Bribe,” than for actually improving health care. Other states would receive special treatment, just without the special moniker. Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Florida and Hawaii would all receive special bribes for their support of the ACA. Vermont was promised $10 billion in additional funds. The population of Vermont is only 600,000 people (and approximately 150,000 cows). For a self-described socialist, you have to give Vermont Sen. Bernie Saunders credit; he knows how to bring home the pork. Although it may have been business as usual for politicians in D.C., these special favors not only weaken the integrity of the ACA, but expose the sleazier side of government for all to see, no longer in the shadows, but in plain view on CSPAN.

As President Obama’s approval ratings continue to sink and Americans’ distrust and confusion regarding Obamacare continues to increase, the Democrats have dug in their heels. Like the donkey that represents their party, they would rather remain stubborn than admit that Obamacare has been, and will continue to be, a disaster.

Obamacare is hurting our economy through higher taxes and the negative effects that numerous companies are experiencing. Still President Obama pushes on. The Department of Health and Human Services has handed out waivers like candy and admitted the technology meant to support the exchanges isn’t ready. It recently acknowledged portals such as the D.C. exchange, small business gateways and the Spanish language Web site will not be ready for the Oct. 1 deadline.

The Obama administration has missed half of all the statutory deadlines. Yet the Democrats push on. The employer mandate, a key provision to Obamacare, has been delayed by executive fiat, bypassing the House. Still Obama and the Democrats keep running for the cliff. To add insult to injury, just a few days ago we learned the IRS cannot account for $67 million from the Obamacare slush fund. That’s $67 million hard-earned taxpayer dollars unaccounted for. The Affordable Care Act was a program that Obama and the Democrats touted would be a model of efficiency, ensuring there would be no waste.

The Democrats blame the Republicans for being obstructionists, forgetting their own arrogance when they hastily crammed this down the throats of the American people late on a November Saturday night. Only the individual mandate remains, the Democrats’ last refuge of this shattered policy. While some Republicans and even some Democrats have suggested delaying the individual mandate, Obama and the Democrats remain obstinate, believing it is better to roll out a terrible plan than to admit they have handled this whole process with callous indifference. Americans know, even if Obama and the Democrats refuse to admit it, that delay is not only warranted, but it would be the sensible thing to do. Wiser heads would not only delay the individual mandate, but would delay the whole ACA.

President Obama recently stated that those who were opposed to ACA would stop calling it Obamacare if it succeeds. The crowd chuckled, clueless to the looming policy disaster. However, this statement got me thinking; when Obamacare fails will the Democrats admit they were wrong and finally get around to listening to the American people? Will they work in a bipartisan manner to improve health care? Or will they pump billions of dollars we don’t have to satisfy their egos?

The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. President Obama and the Democratic Party own it. No blaming the Republicans since the Democrats foolishly chose to go it alone. President Obama was the chief architect and the Democratic Party the builders of this dysfunctional and poorly conceived plan. Now the American people must try to live in a house built on a weak foundation.

Like hamsters in a habitrail, Americans will be forced to run around another endless maze of more unnecessary and burdensome bureaucracy. This was never about health care, it was always about power and ideology — just another grand experiment by D.C. elitists who conveniently excused themselves from the test, while casually reminding us that there will be “glitches” and “rough patches” along the way. So much for “shared sacrifice.”

To see a list of the Obamacare tax increase, go here: http://bit.ly/QWOgIY. To see a partial list of companies negatively affected by Obamacare, go here: http://bit.ly/1b7szjU.

Jeff Chidester was raised in New Hampshire and has lived and worked in the Far East and Europe for extended periods. He is the host of New Hampshire Perspective, heard each Sunday at noon on 96.7 The Wave and WGIR AM 610.