troutspout

Why I Will Support SB5/Issue 2 After Much Analysis

2011-11-01T23:33:00.007-04:00

As another election day nears, Ohioans will be facing one of the most controversial choices to come down the pike in many years. Issue 2 has become one of the most divisive political hot potatoes that I have seen and all indications are that its proponents and opponents will be further estranged regardless of its outcome.

While many of us have followed Issue 2 from its inception as Ohio Senate Bill 5, the firestorm that has ensued over the past ten months has caused me to take a hard look at what I really believe but more importantly, why I believe it.

Being raised in a blue collar unionized home instilled no particular ideologies in me as my parents had typical lower middle class hodge-podge political leanings, or as many Americans now call it “Independent”. I did however come away with a work ethic that understood that there were no guarantees in this life and that I was not promised any outcomes good or bad. When I eventually became a small business owner and much more importantly, a Bible believing follower of Christ, my philosophies understandably evolved. I now clearly identify myself as a social and fiscal conservative because I concluded it most clearly aligned itself with my life experience, historical understanding and faith.

Reconciling faith and politics can be dangerous without an understanding that God transcends all of our petty opinions but with that being said, worldview remains an important component in an attempt to live a consistent life.

So as I attempted to analyze Issue 2 and the choice to repeal or endorse SB 5, I had to look through this prism that I call my worldview which does include many staunch ideological beliefs. Issue 2 was only reaction to SB 5 so understanding the bill is the real debate. In my attempt to become educated on the topic, I listened to the various news stories, blogs and websites but also made a deliberate attempt to spend more time on the side I was inclined to be opposed to, that is the union perspective. I must however acknowledge that I have a close friend who was involved in the direct drafting of some of the legislation and did receive many “inside” perspectives on the whole chain of events and processes.

There are clearly dozens of sub-issues and the debate has the potential to go in so many directions. That is why I believe it is so divisive and why foolish things have been said on both sides. One point often leads to another point and so forth but after months of introspection, I kept coming back to the same simple conclusion that the bill is generally fiscally conservative. In the process though, my opinion was shaped by some of what I believe to be the more important points of the debate which I have detailed below.

The current system involves little to no accountability
The basic process of public employee collective bargaining consists of contract negotiations between the workforce (via a union) and a governmental administrative unit. Typically both sides dig their heels in until arbitration when a legally enforced compromise is in effect forced on both sides. This results in both sides making concessions where workers get less than they wanted but never less than they already have and management giving something smaller than originally desired by the workers.

The problem with this is that it becomes a perpetual upward movement and overall costs can never be truly cut. We are routinely told that union workers made several concessions to save money but they receive benefit somewhere else. Why would one even negotiate if they ended up taking less? That’s not how the process works.

By allowing management and ultimately elected officials more say in the process and the ability to control costs in more areas, taxpayers are now involved. If constituents do not approve of increases or cuts, they can factor this into their vote. As it stands, elected officials do not have final say when arbitration trumps their actions. SB 5 opposition campaign ads have asked “do we really want politicians deciding what we spend on safety services”? My answer is absolutely. This is what the intent of a democratic republic is. Elected officials are to be directly accountable to the citizenry for the performance and function of government.

The theory that SB 5 supporters hate public workers is illogical
Passions have been running way too hot for my tastes on both sides but are clearly driven by efforts to win arguments in 30 second sound bites. While there has been a combative attitude between public workers and SB 5 supporters, it is due to their disagreement over the proposed changes and not because of job titles. It is simply irrational to believe that SB 5 was created out of jealousy or even hatred of public workers. With the possible exception of anarchists, who believes public workers are not a necessary function of government? There may be disagreements in regards to scope of services and more often spending, but not the mere existence of such workers.

The notion that politicians would use so much political capital just to be vindictive is mentally vacuous. In fact, politicians have a lot to gain by maintaining a governmental work force that consists of qualified and professional employees. It does not serve their interest to be viewed poorly unless they are acting on what they believe to be right or beneficial to their constituents.

I certainly have concern for public employees as I have two brother in-laws and two nephews who are fire fighters, as well as numerous friends and family who are teachers, police officers and even utility workers. That does not mean however that I can throw away logic and what I believe for a few more dollars to go their way. There is a much bigger picture that must be understood.

Management is not a bad guy
The concept of merit pay and performance standards has been ridiculed by many SB 5 opponents but there must be a tangible way to determine who are the most efficient and effective employees. The legislation itself does not clearly define the methods to determine these issues. It does however promote a system where additional needed accountability can be implemented.

I freely admit that the particulars for judging merit and performance can be complicated, particularly for positions like teachers, but management is the proper way to accomplish this. While it makes good sense to include actual employees in the process, ultimately management should be the liaisons to elected officials. It is much better for something like a department budget to be ironed out between these parties rather than a union. An effective management will naturally attempt to retain the resources and funding that is required to keep a satisfied work force, and at the same time be concerned for the fiscal health of the entire branch it represents.

In a recent televised debate, the spokesman for the opposition (thinking he was clever) asked Senator Keith Faber if he also supported performance and merit analysis for politicians. The correct reply should have been “yes we do… in fact it’s already in place and we call it an election”.

SB 5 opponents have strange bedfellows
Perhaps one the most surprising results of the whole SB 5 debate is the alliance between radically opposed political adherents. It’s not every day that we see self-professed conservative republicans protesting alongside the likes of Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Hoffa Jr. and various left wing ideologues. It’s clear that national unions like AFL-CIO and SEIU have long sympathized with the far left but even local FOP and IAFF charters were endorsing neo-Marxist organizations like Progress Ohio for their opposition to SB 5.

It’s likely this resulted from each effectively using one another to further their goals in defeating the bill but something still feels very wrong when two polar opposites unite. Historically, the far left would clearly be the supporters of such opposition so it is enigmatic when professing conservatives agree and even join forces.

It’s not about the children or public safety
While watching the protest at the State House this past winter, one could hear chants from teachers yelling that they were fighting for the rights of children. Recent campaign ads utilized clips of police officers and fire fighters in the line of duty. When compared to the actual legislative language, I must conclude all this is just imagery intended to scare voters. Ultimately it diverts discussion from the budgetary intent of SB 5 to a more emotion based rationale. Why haven’t we seen visuals of disrupted water service or piling up trash heaps since other workers like utility services and refuse collection could also be affected? Is it because they are less important or is it because they do not evoke the same public sympathies?

Even if the argument was truly about safety, then why wouldn’t all public safety departments be fighting for significant increased spending on new precincts, fire houses, equipment and personnel? This would obviously increase response times and therefore improve safety. The standard is always defined where things currently are but if something like a budget crisis requires a retraction, then arguments like this come up.

SB 5 does not specifically call for the reduction in equipment and safety spending but may allow agencies to determine how they allocate funding for such items rather than through union contracts. Opponents would have us believe that the answer will always be “no” but by having elected officials more involved; the taxpayers will be the ones who decide the level of safety services they want.

The common thread is unionization
As the various debates are made, the end point to every argument always seems to boil down to whether or not one supports union control. While many opponents have called the legislation “union busting”, it will in no way deter union money and support still going to Democrats. The simple fact is that unions will maintain their influence in the process even if Issue 2 is passed. Yes, collective bargaining would be reformed but not eliminated.

My personal view is that unions are intrinsically anti-free market but that can be left for another debate. We must however decide if it is ultimately better for the entire system or only better for particular public employees. Like it or not, the primary intent of SB 5 is to gain more control over unionized public employee spending because management already has that ability with non-union employees. The Department of Administrative Services estimates that SB 5 will save taxpayers about 1.2 billion dollars over the next fiscal cycle with savings coming from details like the 15% and 10% mandates for employee contributions for health and retirement benefits.

Local, State and Federal governments are broke. If reductions are not made across the board somewhere, then harder choices will need to be made and that translates to layoffs. How will that be good for public employees or taxpayers?

I believe it is highly likely that Issue 2 will be defeated and if that is the case, it will clearly be due to the high numbers of self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives who opposed it. It seems as though many accept the realities of reduced compensation, benefits and jobs in the private sector but fight the same market forces when it threatens unionized public workers. It is understandable that no one wants to pay more but conservatives supporting the status quo in government spending is obvious hypocrisy.

At the end of the day, SB 5 allows local and state agencies to control operating costs and is why I will be voting Yes on Issue 2.

Simple Math Clarifies Misconception

2011-08-04T06:01:00.009-04:00

I've been seeing a lot of Facebook friends re-posting a canned comment comparing the pay of our elected federal officials to the military. It concludes by stating this is where the cuts should be made.

After thinking about this, I did some basic math and discovered that by reducing the salaries of the president, house and senate members down to the average military service person's $38,000 per year, it would save us approximately $75 million dollars annually. The federal debt clock reports that we accumulate 3.8 billion in debt every day, therefore cutting these salaries would save a paltry 28 minutes of debt accumulation. At this rate of reduction, it would require 17,520 equal cuts elsewhere to simply negate the annual debt accumulation.

While many Americans would share a common apathy towards politicians, simply lowering their wages would only be symbolic. In the grand scheme of our budgetary and debt crisis, it would essentially make no impact. If nothing else, it demonstrates the incredible financial hole we have dug for ourselves and how much of a behemoth our federal government has become.

True public service jobs such as non-commisioned officers in the military do make a relatively modest wage but this is exactly what makes our military so special. Most are not entering to make money but rather to serve a grander ideal. Some may utilize it for college tuition, some for advancement through the ranks, but it is essentially a sacrifice, hence the term service. Once sacrifice is removed from the equation, then motives can become questionable. This is not to say they aren't worth more pay, but as a true volunteer military, it would likely blur the service aspect of it's intent.

Elected officials are reported to be public servants as well, but most would agree today's reality is anything but that. Pay and benefit perks may provide some degree of comfort for politicians, but the rampant corruption comes from the power they have and power comes primarily from the ability to spend. Due to their experience and influence within the system, most politicians would likely garner higher paying jobs after leaving office than while they're in making it unlikely that lowering their salaries would dramatically impact our budget, debt or political system.

SB5 Exposes Fundamental Problems

2011-02-17T13:06:00.012-05:00

The Ohio Senate chamber has been packed for multiple days by people wishing to express their opposition to Senate Bill 5 that was proposed by Senator Shannon Jones. The bill could effectively dismantle collective bargaining and binding arbitration for public employees via their unions. I am even personally aware that Governor Kasich and Senator Jones have been advised and are considering private security due to the threats their positions may possibly bring.

Many of my friends and family have expressed their vehement stand against SB5 by attending rallies at the State House or by commenting on social networks like Facebook. Some of these are traditional conservatives who would not typically be involved, but they believe their livelihoods could suffer. The common thread among them is that it must be stopped so public employees can have a reliable future.

Well, I'm not writing this to argue the merits or downfalls of unions, but it has caused me to take a serious look at what is really occurring here. If we cut through all the talking points, it's about protecting their own interest. I do not fault anyone for planning their material existence and future through career choice, wages or retirement, but we must start looking at hard cold realties.

Municiple, State and Federal governments are broke. They spend more than they take in and have grown more than the private sector can support. These facts cannot be disputed. I don't care what someone's political ideologies are at this point; we must make cuts in terms of spending and scope of services. Cuts must be across the board and go from the bottom to the top and some programs may even warrant complete termination. Simple budget cuts however, are not going to solve long term problems. It's time to fundamentally analyze the role of government and what we expect from it.

Whether we chose to admit it or not, we all have become overly dependent on government in many areas. The list is long and includes basic services, entitlements, and education. There is a fine line to walk in regards to balancing the role between what is most needed and what is not, yet the conversation must begin to make some of these sustainable. Something they have not been to date.

My public sector and unionized friends must try to understand, my frustration is not with them or the services they provide but rather how our government and we as taxpayers unconditionally fund them. We all must understand that the largest expenditures are typically in entitlements (primarily Medicare) and retired worker packages.

Since we are focusing on SB5, the purpose of every contract negotiation centers around money. That is wages, salary, benefits, pensions and retirement. Work conditions and productivity expectations are also included but this correlates to money too from a managerial standpoint. If the State is to get a handle on some of its largest expenditures, then it is certainly understandable why we must address costs that are unsustainable.

No matter how rediculous, some would have us believe that this is being driven by a petty dislike of public workers or unions. Let's be serious! The sponsors of SB5 and those who support it are not trying to shaft public workers. In fact, most appreciate the fine services provided by Police Officers, Firemen, and Teachers. We simply cannot accept the continuation of digging a hole of debt for promises that should never have been made from the beginning.

If we examine retirement packages, "30 and out" is attractive but how fiscally realistic is it? With life expectancies into the 80 range, that calculates to 30 years worked and 30 additional years of legacy costs. Adjusted for inflation, that means a worker earns about 60 years worth of wages and benefits in 30 years. That sheds a little light into the mantra overworked and underpaid. Workers must see the big picture. We earn a salary; it typically has periodic increases (at least over 30 years), factor in cost for vacation and paid time off, we receive benefits like health, vision, dental, possible life insurance and disability coverage, and employer provided retirement contributions. At retirement, even with wage adjustments of 90, 80 or 70% of salary, other benefits cost continue to rise and that can make 30 years of retirement benefits cost as much if not more than the 30 years worked.

In January of 2009, a "Troutspout" post proposed that public employees pay more into their benefits packages more in line with private sector trends. This is one of the key provisions that SB5 proposes. It could save far more money than laying off workers. Government administrations however, are attracted to the threat-like tactics of reducing essential services in order to increase revenues through higher taxes or by receiving federal funds which in turn solves nothing.

Public employee costs are only one of many areas that need addressed. It is however a large piece of the pie and justifies examination and possbile cuts. This will understandably be tough and painful for those that it affects (which will be all of us), but isn't that what the private sector has been dealing with for the last few years? No one is immune from bad practice and policy.

No More Bush-Bashing Please

2010-07-11T15:19:00.005-04:00

Alright! I don't think I can stand it anymore. President Obama is now on the campaign trail for the midterm elections and with waning poll numbers is beating the "it's Bush's fault" drum.

Now I do not want to over-simplify the reasons for our current economic problems but let's remember an accurate timeline and compare that to the reigning political ideologies. To do this, I want to go back to the early 1990's.

As the first President Bush was facing a mild recession of sorts in 1991, candidate Bill Clinton's campaign coined the phrase "it's the economy stupid". In addition to his charisma, he gained momentum by telling everyone how bad their plight was and by November 1992, won the election. In the first half of his term we had another mild economic downturn in early 1994 and by the fall Republicans won back control of the House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years. As part of their Contract with America, they fought for the passage of among other things, a balanced budget amendment which President Clinton originally vetoed. Many positive economic trends occurred during the remainder of the 1990's until the stock market fall of 2000. There was however, a budget surplus due to the balanced budget ammendment that finally passed a few years earlier.

President Bush narrowly wins the 2000 election (many on the left say selected) and now had power with a Republican House and Senate, then 911 occurred. Instead of turmoil and concern, a few weeks later, economic trends such as mortgage applications and housing took off like a rocket and lasted until housing peaked in 2006.

Now I understand that the economy was starting to slow down and clearly issues were already in play. In fact, I remember Treasury Secretery Snow testifying a few years earlier to the Senate Finance Comittee that Fannie Mae was headed for problems but ranking member Barney Frank-D stated he believed Fannie was fundamentally sound.

So as the 2006 midterm election rolled around, the primary politcal environment was to oust the Republicans which they did in Novemeber. Fast forward to now and we can view any economic trend graph and clearly see that worst of this economic collapse has occurred under total Democratic control. Though Bush was president through 2008, he had no real power since 2006. He was powerless to pass any legislation on his agenda. And now for close to two years we have had absolute Democratic control with President Obama.

Plenty has actually been done since the Democrats have assumed power. We had nearly a trillion dollars of debt that President Bush contributed to but now have over three trillion thanks to TARP and the Omnibus bill that were both intended to help us out of this financial fiasco yet we find our economic state worse off. We then passed a Healthcare bill that no one can seem to place a true cost on, probably because we could not fathom the amount of zero's.

It's been nearly four years since President Bush has been able to do much of anything and yet we are to believe he solely caused this? If this were the case, then why can't House democrats and the President even control the bleeding after spending unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money? We were told unemployment would not rise above 8% and yet it has reached 10%. Companies reduced overhead and are still viable but are not growing because of regulatory and tax fears. The housing market still continues to stagnate and foreclosure rates show no real sign of turning around.

Every since late 2008, there seems to be a resurgence of Keynesian economics with a "too big to fail" mentality leading the movement. Historically, factually and logically speaking, this has never worked and the only winner is government.

President Bush certainly supported some anti-conservative economic principles but if we could put politics aside for a minute and were honest with ourselves, the overwhelming majority of Americans would have to admit their financial situation and outlook was much more promising during the Bush years than they are under the current administration.

Health Care: A Diagnosis and Prescribed Treatment

2010-01-23T14:37:00.001-05:00

If the recent election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts was about anything, it was clearly related to the growing opposition against the so called health care bill. In fact, the legislation that had hundreds of millions in earmarks has possibly come to an abrupt halt as a result of one senate seat. It is becoming clear that this transcends simple Democrat and Republican politics. Many people have legitimate concerns over the massive overhaul of health coverage and are beginning to stand against it. The problem has never been about access to health care but rather access to affordable heath coverage.

While many agree that a government-run takeover of health care is frightening to say the least, we must come to terms with something. The current incarnation of our health care system in the United States is dysfunctional. Insurance premiums are rising exponentially higher than salaries, administrative bureaucracy often slows care and fear of lawsuits drive providers to perform unnecessary tests for the sake of liability.

Some in the conservative media have implied that the current system is fine and should not be altered. While the United States does clearly have the best health care in the world, there is a dark cloud on the horizon. A breakdown is almost inevitable unless we come to the realization that our current system is simply not market-based. The end user is not determining the cost of health care based on their ability to pay for it. Our lack of involvement in the process has allowed the cost to skyrocket.

A large part of the blame lies with employer-provided health benefits which came to fruition in the middle of the twentieth century when employers wanted to attract workers and were given a tax break for making such programs available. In the decades that have passed, the typical employee has expectedly developed a mentality that simply presenting a plastic card pays for the health care they receive. The real costs rarely become tangible in a system where fees are negotiated and paid behind the scenes between health providers and insurance companies. A simple co-pay or low deductible will not cause users of health care to price check or determine if a particular procedure is warranted. We have fallen prey to the mantra that one can not put a price on one’s health. This is easy to adopt if we don’t ever realize the actual dollars being spent on our behalf.

Another point is that our view of health insurance is measured by a different standard from other insurance products. When we need an oil change or other routine automobile maintenance, do we drive into the service station and present our auto insurance card? Do we call our homeowners policy agent when we need to replace a leaky window? Insurance is intended to be protection against unforeseen issues or catastrophic events, not a means to provide every need or want. If insurance does not pay for everything, then the price of an oil change and windows is held in check by normal market forces. A claim due to fire damage or a minor car accident is even typically paid via reimbursements. This allows the insured to control costs by obtaining competitive bids.

So what then is the solution? In order to be a market based system, consumers of health care are going to have to pay more out of pocket. This is understandably a hard sell but premiums will decrease when insurance providers are not paying for every billable procedure. This is the basic structure of Health Savings Accounts (HSA’s) where insurance kicks in after a predetermined limit has been reached. When the consumer is responsible for basic fees, then they will also become aware of the real cost of health care. An educated consumer will then demand competitive and affordable costs just as they would with any other service.

Many will argue that driving prices down would cause the quality of care to lessen but as in most businesses, new efficiencies could make up the loss. Imagine a doctor’s office that does not require over half of the staff to be a billing department.

The employer provided insurance system has perpetuated the problem so in order to shift control over to the end user, we need a new direction. One possibility is to allow companies to transfer what they spend on heath coverage to a non-taxable portion of the employee’s salary. After all, it is a part of their overall compensation package to begin with. Once this is routinely seen as part of wages, then subsequent premium increases would be “felt” and would make us educated to the unsustainable nature of the typical annual increases. Small businesses, the self employed and even some large employers are very aware that the current system cannot continue unchecked. There will be a breaking point as compensation packages rise above company growth due to disproportionate premium increases.

The goal is fairly simplistic in nature. If consumers demand some degree of value for the care they pay for, then prices will come down. Astronomic fee increases would be rare, particularly for routine procedures and visits. For major expenses above the out of pocket costs, insurance companies will be slower to price themselves above what consumers can pay in premiums.
We cannot expect a perfect health care system but can have reasonable expectations for it. The high level of medical breakthroughs, technology and expertise we already have is not in question but how we pay for it is. A new era will come one way or the other. Heaven forbid that it be government controlled.

Believers May Be Losing Saltiness

2009-08-14T10:04:00.000-04:00

The post modern age has brought many advances to our lives and many of these can be used as great tools to serve our Lord. Whether its media, technology, entertainment or our continual grasp at higher levels of academic education, we are surrounded by a growing preoccupation with the external. Spirituality is often talked about by even the unsaved but rarely from a truly Scriptural position.

I am often reminded of my own frailties as a professing believer when I observe those Christian brothers and sisters who have a zeal for the things of God. It seems the common thread in their testimonies is a life set apart. The Word of God has a theme of separation throughout the old and new testaments to “be ye separate”. Clearly the Lord calls us to stand out from the world around us so how can we obey that if we are muddled knee deep in the things of earth?

While I understand we are under grace and no longer under the law, the growing sentiment in the modern Church is that grace has become a justification to fill our minds and bodies with every deplorable thing the world offers. Further, even things that are not necessarily evil can be a distraction without self discipline. If we do not set limits for ourselves and practice self denial in all areas, how can we be the shining example to the lost we profess to care about?

Of many in my Christian circle of friends, there are some who openly drink alcohol, use off-color language or do things most mainstream Christians would be uncomfortable with but we are often unfazed by allegiance to television shows, music, movies and other cultural trends that are clearly in opposition to God’s Holy Word. Living a separated life sounds good coming from a pastor’s pulpit but has little effect on our personal choices in how we allocate our time and resources. All of these “choices” are being watched by the unsaved around us so how do we think they see us. Regardless of someone’s defense of drinking alcohol, what good comes from going to a bar for a drink and more importantly, why does someone feel the desire to go in the first place? Why is it acceptable to listen to music or watch movies that convey vile lifestyles? Questioning our own motives is a good place to start but if we are not communing with God through prayer and Scripture, we will never have an impact on the dying world around us.

I suspect we have been dumbed-down by the saturation of sensory appeals but ultimately we are accountable for what we partake of. The culture is not itself a bad thing but it has an ever-increasing grasp on the Church and the negative aspects of culture are readily apparent in it. Christians need to be vigilant and on guard against pernicious influences in their own personal lives. It will not only be an obstacle for our personal growth but a detriment to evangelization. No longer can we excuse sin by saying “Jesus went to where the sinners were”. Our Savior did indeed go to where the sinners were but he did not partake of the sins. He stood out in fact because of His vehement opposition to their sin. The image of Jesus “hanging out” as if He were condoning sin is misleading and should be rejected.

The Church clearly needs revival today both Spiritually and culturally. Please pray consistently for it.

City Has Choices to Save Money

2009-01-17T22:29:00.002-05:00

Official word came down from Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman this week that the City budget is millions in the red and that cuts were going to be forthcoming. One of first suggestions to reduce spending was a proposal to ask the police and firefighter’s unions to forego any raises in the coming year within their contract negotiations. This was met with staunch resistance from the police union and a similar response is expected from the firefighters as well. If the raises are not withdrawn, the City has stated it will have to lay off some of these essential services employees.

Every time a government agency has an income issue, it threatens to take something away from the taxpayers they serve without making inside cuts first. School districts have commonly used this ploy that utilizes cuts in bus transportation, scheduling and other services that affect parents the most so they feel forced to vote in support of the next levy or bond increase.

What the current Columbus City administration might consider is trying a private sector strategy. Though a freeze in wage raises is plausible in a recessionary period, job cuts are seldom the best place to begin. In the case of Columbus’ essential services like police, fire and infrastructure divisions such as refuse collection all have partial to fully funded benefits programs so why not make these more like corporate plans that are more self-funded. For instance, a plan that asked City workers to pay part of or more toward their health care plan like the majority of non-government workers would not require layoffs and would save exponentially more money in the long run.

Why is government compelled to provide these superior benefits when its private sector counterparts consistently attract top talent with lesser packages and less job security? With the current economic woes that face many State and local agencies, it’s about time that they consider adapting to a more efficient business model than the bloated one they have embraced for so many decades.

Insurance May Be Obstacle to Free Market Pricing

2008-11-14T07:53:00.003-05:00

The current downward economic spiral has caused many Americans to adjust their budgets in an effort to save money. Costs are rising on everything from basic necessities to consumer goods while income is stagnating and unemployment rises. One major area that consistently consumes family spending is insurance products.

The principle of cost sharing and risk management has become a necessary evil in light of the high cost associated with unforeseen events and catastrophes but insurance now seems to be accepted as a means to providing a way of life.

The most talked about example is our health care system which causes insurance rates to increase annually by as much as 40%. Obviously, this model cannot continue to outpace wages and inflation and hope to carry on business as usual. Insurance companies are often accused as the cause but there is enough blame to go around. Insurance companies have just as much right to make a profit as any other industry yet medical providers try to pass the buck to insurance companies when they are questioned about exponential increases in their fees.

As a cancer survivor, I know first hand the value of medicine from research and development to diagnostics and treatment but I am also aware of the bloated nature of the industry. One example is the new heart scan technology that when first introduced, most insurance carriers would not cover and the subsequent price was about $300 while 25 year old CT scan technology is commonly negotiated down to about $3,500. The small office where I receive regular CT scans does an average of fifteen scans per day six days a week roughly totaling $2,730,000 a year in gross revenue. Even after operation cost for radiologists, technicians, equipment purchase/service and office overhead, it is still a tremendous profit margin.

The problem has become that the use of insurance has trained us to think that someone else is paying for our use of these services and no forethought is given to how much it is actually going to cost. Rarely if ever do we predetermine what doctor we will consult with or what medicine we take based on the price. This is perpetuated by the medical profession’s mantra “you can’t put a price on your health” but a price can be placed on health if by accepting any cost it would jeopardize ones ability to carry on the rest of their life. The medical industry is simply not market based because the end users are not determining the prices based on their ability to pay. We have allowed fees to be established between two parties that both profit from our lack of involvement in the process.

For far too long, employees of large companies who provided full benefits have taken for granted medical usage but current trends are causing employers to pass their insurance costs directly on to the workers. As these self-funded rates increase so does the awareness of the problem of exploding insurance premiums and their inability to stomach these costs. Small business owners and the self employed have long known of the problem and now represent a growing number of uninsured workers due to unmanageable rate increases.

Insurance policies can also be an attraction to those seeking to profit through frivolous lawsuits. Medical malpractice is clearly a growing cost to health care providers and homeowner’s are often encouraged to purchase umbrella policies for legal occurrences outside the realm of natural disasters. Many professional trades are now required to carry liability policies which cover errors and omissions to offer a method of recourse for damages.

This seismic shift in our view of insurance has ironically caused our utter dependence on it. Insurance is not an anti-capitalistic concept and has historically been a way to protect us from risk, but now appears to be transforming into a perceived entitlement. We are told by politicians that we have a right to health care, a comfortable retirement and an education. Is a college preparedness policy going to be offered so we won’t have to worry about saving for college tuition? Our dependence on insurance appears to be here to stay and will not diminish until we decide how much of our income we are willing to spend on it.

Verdict Still Out on Fairness Doctrine

2008-11-07T10:44:00.003-05:00

For the past several years, there have been references to re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine to control the airwaves and now the debate has new life due to statements by key Democratic legislators. This time though, it may also include the internet and other media outlets.

The basic premise of the Fairness Doctrine is intended to allow equal time for opposing viewpoints but has primarily been directed at conservative talk radio sensations like Rush Limbaugh. Specifics of how such mandates would be carried out and enforced has been vague thus far and has many on the right justifiably fearful.

If this succeeds it would clearly be an attack on free speech and the First Amendment of the Constitution but there are doubts how far this could actually go. Media vehicles such as syndicated radio, broadcast and cable news networks, and endless internet forums have proven to be major economic forces that will not be silenced easily or without a fight assuming that the laws would apply equally to all media.

The deeper discussion is to have a clear understanding of reality. Networks like the defunct Air America (I was one of the 23 regular listeners) did not fail because of conservative strong arm tactics but rather because it had no substantial audience…translation; they were not profitable. If anyone thinks that giants like Clear Channel and Fox would not air more liberal shows if they were proven to be profitable, they are delusional; look at the liberal entertainment side of the Fox network if you have any doubt. At the end of the day ratings win and ratings mean money which eludes to the old adage that if money talks, you know what walks.

The simple reason that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham do so well is because they appeal to a demographic that actually listens and watches. Remember that NPR, Alan Colmes, Stephanie Miller, Tom Joyner and similar liberal pundits also exist but we are not hearing cries for them to be equaled out by an opposing viewpoint. Will the blatant bias of major organizations like NBC, CBS or ABC also fall under the umbrella of analysis?

There is no argument that Fox News overwhelmingly appeals to conservatives but this is because of its op/ed formatted shows. Its top rated programs are not the hard news segments which have been “fair and balanced” but rather its admitted right wing commentators. I would love to see a breakdown on the political demographics of viewer ship for all major news networks because I suspect that a fair amount of viewers to the more left leaning CNN and MSNBC are still conservative yet liberals will not watch FNC. This is why I contend that more conservative TV viewers are more inclined to watch news programs.

If House Democrats do indeed propose the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, it will happen because they desire to silence the opposition. This will not only include political speech but you can bet that religious broadcasting will be high on that list as well. It will be justified with the banner of ridding our land of hate and intolerance or any number of redefined verbiage that elevates liberalism as the only defender of humanity.

Inner City Politics Continue Plight of Poverty

2008-11-06T16:07:00.002-05:00

If the past months have not revealed anything else, it is that poverty stricken urban areas are desperate for change even if they may not fully understand what kind of change. This has applied to all demographics including black and white communities and to a lesser degree; the Hispanic population.

Americans can not possibly move forward or consider alternatives to inner city issues without first examining history. By and large, these communities have voted Democratic for decades and have had almost exclusively democrat representation ever since. Those elected have consistently implemented liberal ideals in the form of multiple welfare programs (General Relief, ADC, WIC), housing assistance, business loans and a plethora of similar stimulus packages. All may have been born of good intentions but most all of these programs have failed miserably in their stated goal of providing opportunities to rise above their circumstances.

As a student, I worked in an inner city clinic of Columbus for four and half years and got to see on a daily basis the state of affairs that liberalism has wrought on our country. As a real estate professional today, my frequent assignments in these areas has revealed no upward movement a generation later. Crime rates continue to soar and drug use, broken families and failed businesses make up the landscape. The only sense of community is often between gang members.

Home ownership has been made possible in recent years by the lowering of lending standards yet inner city housing markets are predominantly investor controlled. Foreclosures have been rampant and vacant boarded-up properties drive values down leaving little equity growth for existing owner occupants.

Economic conditions continue to stagnate and worsen as the cycle continues of electing the same old politicians. These manipulative leaders use the struggles of the poor against them by feeding them a steady diet of class warfare, racism and a sense of entitlement. Their only goal remains to strengthen their power and financial position. Rep. Charles Rangel even defended his $774/month lease of a luxury automobile by claiming “my constituents appreciate it”. Is that because they can only dream of owning such a car?

When will the people in these neighborhoods and communities realize that Republicans can not be blamed for their circumstances when after forty plus years of liberal policies have been enacted on their behalf, they remain in the same position? Maybe it is time for a new direction that has seemed to work very well for suburban areas…conservative principles.

Obama Wins By Turning Water to Kool Aid

2008-11-05T16:10:00.002-05:00

The results of Election Day 2008 should not have come to a shock to anyone. The final days and hours of the campaign brought forth such emotion from Obama supporters; the press could not ignore the trend that was occurring and subsequently reported little else.

In total euphoria, quotes from Obama supporters ranged from vague to obsurd. Some were claiming their jubilation that they would not have to worry about how to fill their gas tanks or pay their mortgages while others quoted generic catch phrases like hope and change were now possible. The mood was frighteningly parallel to a cult-like atmosphere where followers almost appeared brainwashed in their declaration of submission to the President Elect. Even Oprah Winfrey could hardly contain herself from an emotional orgasm when interviewed by the media.

Obamas elixir has consistently been all encompassing tag lines designed to appeal to the masses. Seldom does he ever divulge his true convictions unless caught on film in an intimate forum (ie. Joe the Plumber) nor does he rely on past accomplishments to illustrate his capabilities and historical contributions. He has instead fed us a heavy dose of ambiguous slogans and a monotone speaking style that appears non-confrontational. In fact, the very first time I saw him was in a round table discussion as a State legislator and I clearly remember thinking to myself “if the Democrats nominate this guy, he will win”. It was not based on any substantive points he made but rather exclusively on his demeanor and it appears I was prophetic. The vast majority of the groupies that worship at the Obama altar are eerily similar to the Jim Jones and Heaven’s Gate cult except in this case, they don’t lose their lives physically but rather sacrifice their intellect and freedom for a leader who appears messianic.

It is not good for any leader to possess this much control over any persons mind whether they are Democrat or Republican. Thinking for ourselves and not trusting in failed concepts of the past is what promises a bright future. In regards to hope and change; I have hope that these easily swayed voters will figure out what they truly believe, will then reconcile it with their decisions and then will act on conviction and not emotion. That will be the real change we need.

Olbermann Skit Is Admission of Bias

2008-11-02T15:23:00.001-05:00

Saturday Night Live is no newcomer to political satire but celebrity host Ben Affleck nailed an impersonation of Keith Olbermann that was so funny it may not have even been humor.

Olbermann is the host of MSNBC’s Countdown show and nightly tirades against Republicans and conservative principles despite claiming to be objective. His diatribes are often characterized by cleverly crafted insults that reveal his obvious dependence on a thesaurus. What Olbermann is not, is a journalist. He routinely belittles right wing commentators Bill O-Reilly and Sean Hannity but doesn’t seem to understand that he and fellow MSNBC host Rachel Maddow are their left wing counterparts. Many have said his anger is contrived but a look into his eyes during the “Worst Person in the World” segment of the show seems to reveal a seething vitriol that borders on hate…interesting for a guy who heralds tolerance.

The mere fact that the SNL skit had Ben Affleck, a self-avowed Liberal, perform the Olbermann routine was somewhat humorous but more importantly SNL airs on NBC which is the parent company of MSNBC. The only issue with the skit was its long length which eventually started to wear on viewers, not unlike Olbermann’s Countdown. Though he may be MSNBC’s flagship show, many wish he would have stuck to his sportscaster gig.

Pro-Choice Supporters Must Make Decisive Choice

2008-10-31T09:49:00.000-04:00

A recent news story reported that Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden was addressing a Catholic group where he quoted Thomas Aquinas in defending his stand for abortion. His assertion being that there is no clear definition of when life truly begins.

When we engage in the debate over abortion, this is the only logical place we can possibly start. Assuming that both sides can agree that the concept of murder is morally and lawfully wrong, they both must make the determination of where life begins to support their position. If the proponents and opponents of abortion do not make the distinction of what is life and what is not, then they are on shaky ground. They must then face the fact that if they are even slightly wrong in their timeline, then they might in effect, be supporting murder. If one randomly selected the third trimester as the “life-point” then an abortion after this point would be murder.

The point must also be made that whatever “life-point” is selected, it must be clearly supported and consistent and contain no loopholes. If it is defined by a trimester stage, then how can a mother be absolutely sure of what day the sperm entered the nucleus of the egg or if it is at birth, what is birth? Proponents of partial birth abortion must believe it is when the body has completely exited the birth canal yet others might believe that the umbilical cord must be cut. Life at conception is certainly the safest position to take since it starts at the origination of pregnancy and therefore has no prior point to contend for life.

It is asinine to claim the mantra of the issue only being about a “woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body”. A woman clearly does not have the right to end the life of a child after one week, one month, or one year simply because she concludes that a child would be an inconvenience. The determination that this child was a life was already made at some point.

Abortion is not a simple issue but everyone in the debate must first have some kind of foundation. Once some basics are established, only then can the various scientific, moral and Scriptural arguments be applied.

Undecided Epilogue

2008-10-29T20:02:00.000-04:00

Just hours after posting "Undecided Voter or Uninformed Citizen", Fox News just ran a trailer of a John Stossel report that will air later this week on ABC. In the preview, Stossel hits the street to ask simple political questions to which he receives a barrage of ridiculous and even silly answers. Just after the clip, a focus group of more undecided voters were asked regarding the Stossel report, if these uninformed voters should be voting to which the majority answered absolutely not.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, this is simply unbelievable and makes my point in the earlier post that this so called "middle ground" voter is largely not a well-reasoned group. Unfortunately, this is what Presidential politics is all about these days and illustrates why both parties live and die by 30 second sound-bites. The majority of the voting masses could not comprehend anything more and clearly make no further effort to inform themselves.

People get the government they deserve.

Undecided Voter or Uninformed Citizen?

2008-10-29T11:57:00.001-04:00

As the 2008 Presidential election nears, the media has given us a large dose of polling data that indicates that Senator Obama is likely to win due to the large influx of new registered voters and a sizeable shift in the undecided category. While I do generally agree that this is the case, few seem to be asking deeper questions about what these groups really believe or know about either Senator Obama or Senator McCain. NBC political reporter Chris Mathews has frequently utilized the term “low information” voter particularly in regards to those attending McCain/Palin rallies but is this more indicative of Republicans than those about to vote Democrat?

Recent headlines have reported that organizations such as ACORN have registered thousands of people to vote and have even taken them to early voting locations to cast their ballots. While the premise of “getting out the vote” sounds good in theory, there are valid concerns that there may be more to this than the left wants us to believe.

Despite the increasing reports of multiple registrations and fictitious voters, the more important question should be where these groups are focusing their efforts. Most of the new voters are in two key demographics…college students and poverty stricken communities. College students typically have a high trend to vote more progressive and therefore liberal and low/no income voters are historically more likely to support a ticket that promises benefits. We rarely if ever see these same organizations fighting for college votes on conservative or Christian university campuses or setting up shop in the suburbs at a soccer match. This in part is due to the fact that they know their audience and part due to their partisan directives. The homeless have also been a source for new votes here in Ohio and a Federal circuit court even ruled that a park bench must be accepted as a valid address for voter registration. These groups are without a doubt just not as informed about political issues as many of the voters are on the more left and right end of the spectrum. College students have had little time to figure out their world view in light of limited life experience and many in poverty fall prey to the class warfare tactics of the left due to their circumstances. I don’t mean to imply in any way that such demographics shouldn’t be voting but rather am simply pointing out who it is that liberal organizations and the Democrats are relying on to win.

Another recent study indicated that only about 15% of the general population knew who Nancy Pelosi was and that seems to be very telling that very few actually read, watch or listen to any news outlets. This is scary considering that Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and third in succession to the Presidency.

Focus groups always seem to have people who claim they have not made up their mind, yet during debates and roundtable discussions, they inevitably conclude they will likely vote for the candidate who made them feel better. Knowing that the two mainstream parties are vastly different on most issues, how could anyone who claims to be informed and knows their own convictions, be torn about who they are voting for?
I encourage all to vote but only if they are engaged in the debate and have a reasonable understanding of various issues, ideologies and where the candidates stand on each. After all, how can anyone be informed if they don’t first understand what they believe and more importantly why they believe it.