It occurs to me that far too often serious debates on social, political, and economic policy divulge into a morass that does little good for the American people. What we need is intelligent debate on the facts to enlighten the public and those voting on their behalf. It is my desire that all sides to an issue bring facts, comprehension of them, and logic to the table. However, far too often it appears that emotion replaces rationale for one, or both, sides. The healthcare debate is a shining example of this. Too many people revert to emotional retorts and lose credibility on a complicated subject.
If you are interested in seeing an example of this, compare the following articles. One written by a prominent conservative and the other written by a Nobel prize winning liberal. Who do you think presents the stronger case?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/24/why_obamacare_is_sinking_97598.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1
Thursday, July 30, 2009
President Obama and the Birth Certificate Controversy
With all of the talk this week about President Obama and birth certificates, I thought it appropriate to post this link: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU.
The article is posted on National Review and was written by Andrew McCarthy. Personally, I think the evidence heavily leans toward President Obama being born in Hawaii. However, I am also troubled by his secrecy and his refusal to put the controversy to rest by producing original documents (birth, schooling, citizenship, etc.). McCarthy does an excellent job of explaining why people are asking these questions, how the media is failing in its duties to investigate, and why blindly trusting the President and his supporters isn't inherently reliable.
If you are at all interested in this topic, take some time to read this article, learn the facts, help put an end to all of the conspiracy theories floating endlessly through email and blogs, and get the discussion focused on what is important and relevant.
The article is posted on National Review and was written by Andrew McCarthy. Personally, I think the evidence heavily leans toward President Obama being born in Hawaii. However, I am also troubled by his secrecy and his refusal to put the controversy to rest by producing original documents (birth, schooling, citizenship, etc.). McCarthy does an excellent job of explaining why people are asking these questions, how the media is failing in its duties to investigate, and why blindly trusting the President and his supporters isn't inherently reliable.
If you are at all interested in this topic, take some time to read this article, learn the facts, help put an end to all of the conspiracy theories floating endlessly through email and blogs, and get the discussion focused on what is important and relevant.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Good and The Bad of the Day
The Good
*This is a must read/see speech. Ronald Reagan gave this in support of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential Election. It is as timely today as it was when he first gave it 45 years ago. Take a look and think about the power contained in his words.
-A black and white video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977
-A transcript: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/filmmore/reference/primary/choose64.html
The Bad
*America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The Bill is over 1,000 pages long but wastes no time dropping a bombshell about private health care coverage being federally prohibited if the bill becomes law. Page 16 contains the text which clearly announces this.
-The article on Investor's Business Daily: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854
-The link to the bill in the House: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf (go to page 16, Section 102)
*This is a must read/see speech. Ronald Reagan gave this in support of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential Election. It is as timely today as it was when he first gave it 45 years ago. Take a look and think about the power contained in his words.
-A black and white video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977
-A transcript: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/filmmore/reference/primary/choose64.html
The Bad
*America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The Bill is over 1,000 pages long but wastes no time dropping a bombshell about private health care coverage being federally prohibited if the bill becomes law. Page 16 contains the text which clearly announces this.
-The article on Investor's Business Daily: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854
-The link to the bill in the House: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf (go to page 16, Section 102)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
ObamaCare: The Flowchart
The Republicans in the House of Representatives have put together an organizational chart depicting health care coverage and treatment under the Obama-Democrat plan. You can find it here: http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf.
Take a moment to look at this. Once your eyes uncross, ask yourself a few questions.
- Why are the Physicians and Consumers so far apart?
- Where are all of the people advocating that medical decisions be decided by a patient with the advice and consent of the doctor?
- How is a process with this many moving parts going to provide quality health care?
- How can something so large and bureaucratic cut costs?
- If overall costs can possibly be cut, is it more likely that the cuts will hurt the administrative agencies or the Physicians/Consumers? (Look to history for examples, i.e. Veterans Hospitals)
- Where are all of the non-government parties? And is there even room for them? (remember that we are told repeatedly that we can keep our insurance)
- Why does the American public need this many people weighing in on their medical treatment?
- If we do need this many inputs, how have we survived over 230 years without them while providing the best healthcare on the planet?
- Can pharmaceutical companies actually get new medicines and medical devices (possibly life saving or life altering) approved by all of these bureaucracies and added to the system?
- If the pharmaceutical companies can get innovation into this stream of government morass, will the cost be so prohibitive as to prevent new advances in medicine? (If so, will you be happy with 2009 level medical treatment for perpetuity?)
- How can cost cutting come primarily from preventing waste and fraud (as Senator Chris Dodd and President Barack Obama have suggested) when there are dozens of agencies that can commit those exact acts?
- Why is the Department of Defense on the chart?
- How many "advisory panels" do we need? Isn't overlap an example of waste?
- Do we really need three different agencies to monitor identity politics and race (Office of Civil Rights, Office of Minority Health, Cultural and Linguistic Competence Training)? Is this redundancy not waste?
- What does a federal mandate for websites do to improve healthcare?
There are dozens more questions that can be asked. With this much uncertainty on a healthcare plan that will only get larger and more complex, you have to ask yourself if it is actually going to benefit you, and/or society in general, and whether it is financially viable. If the answer to any of these questions is no, then how do you justify such a plan?
Take a moment to look at this. Once your eyes uncross, ask yourself a few questions.
- Why are the Physicians and Consumers so far apart?
- Where are all of the people advocating that medical decisions be decided by a patient with the advice and consent of the doctor?
- How is a process with this many moving parts going to provide quality health care?
- How can something so large and bureaucratic cut costs?
- If overall costs can possibly be cut, is it more likely that the cuts will hurt the administrative agencies or the Physicians/Consumers? (Look to history for examples, i.e. Veterans Hospitals)
- Where are all of the non-government parties? And is there even room for them? (remember that we are told repeatedly that we can keep our insurance)
- Why does the American public need this many people weighing in on their medical treatment?
- If we do need this many inputs, how have we survived over 230 years without them while providing the best healthcare on the planet?
- Can pharmaceutical companies actually get new medicines and medical devices (possibly life saving or life altering) approved by all of these bureaucracies and added to the system?
- If the pharmaceutical companies can get innovation into this stream of government morass, will the cost be so prohibitive as to prevent new advances in medicine? (If so, will you be happy with 2009 level medical treatment for perpetuity?)
- How can cost cutting come primarily from preventing waste and fraud (as Senator Chris Dodd and President Barack Obama have suggested) when there are dozens of agencies that can commit those exact acts?
- Why is the Department of Defense on the chart?
- How many "advisory panels" do we need? Isn't overlap an example of waste?
- Do we really need three different agencies to monitor identity politics and race (Office of Civil Rights, Office of Minority Health, Cultural and Linguistic Competence Training)? Is this redundancy not waste?
- What does a federal mandate for websites do to improve healthcare?
There are dozens more questions that can be asked. With this much uncertainty on a healthcare plan that will only get larger and more complex, you have to ask yourself if it is actually going to benefit you, and/or society in general, and whether it is financially viable. If the answer to any of these questions is no, then how do you justify such a plan?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Recommended Employment Article
This is a well written and informative article and includes many facts you may not know. I encourage you to take a few minutes to read it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html
Monday, July 6, 2009
Foreclosures, Renters, and Federal Law
The current economic downturn is damaging to citizens all across this country and across all walks of life. Americans watch as home values plummet, wealth dissipates, and consumer confidence gets shaken to levels not seen in decades. Foreclosures are a particularly unfortunate aspect of our current economic predicament. Families are losing their homes and real estate values become further depressed by fire-sale prices at auctions.
Individuals and families renting residences are also beginning to find themselves in unpleasant situations as the owners they lease from are unable to pay the mortgages on the rental property. In many instances, these people sign contracts to lease the property and rely on the obligations of the owners. When the owners default on their responsibility to repay a note on the property, the renters suddenly find themselves looking for a new place to live. This creates problems with moving costs, finding suitable alternatives for residence, and having little time to remedy the situation, even though the renters typically bear no fault in these scenarios.
As is often the case in our modern society, government feels the need to get involved and attempt to cure the problem. Never mind that the legal system, and typically the signed lease agreements themselves, provide remedies for breach of contract by either party.
The federal legislature has passed, and President Obama has signed, Public Law 111-22, also known as the “Preventing Mortgage Foreclosures and Enhancing Mortgage Credit” Act of 2009 (You can view the law here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bdFBvl::/bss/111search.html). This statute was written in an attempt to alleviate the current housing downturn and the effects on the economy and on individuals and families. Both are noble causes but the law itself fails to respect private contracts and further allows government to infringe upon reciprocal agreements between consenting parties.
Title VII, Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, is a particularly good example of just how this occurs within the context of this law. The statute requires any foreclosure of property backed by a federal loan, or any loan made subsequent to this law, to provide at least 90 days notice to any bona fide tenant before eviction can occur. It even requires this 90 day grace period for leases that can be terminated at any time by either party and situations where no lease was even signed. At first blush, this may not seem all that unreasonable. After all, it is easy to claim how unfair the situation is to the renter. This is exactly how the justification for the law is framed. Herein lays the problem with many politicians and the legislation they support.
As we should all know by now, there is always more than one side to the story. Yes, the renter is probably the victim of someone else’s irresponsible behavior. That bad actor is not the purchaser of the property at auction. However, the high bidder at auction is the one who must pay the price the federal government set for this situation.
A simple illustration may assist understanding of this. Owner purchases property to rent. Owner finds a suitable tenant and enters into an agreement with Tenant. Tenant moves in and pays rent on time. Owner is in a dire financial situation and can no longer afford to keep the rental property, even with Tenant paying as agreed. Owner defaults on his promissory note and the lender decides to foreclose to recoup the money it loaned. Notice of the foreclosure is sent to Owner and the property address prior to the sale occurring. A sale then occurs and a high Bidder becomes the new title owner of the real estate. Tenant is not required to move out of the residence until Bidder files eviction proceedings.
In reviewing this incredibly simplistic example, you can now identify several problems that may, and often will, arise. First of all, Bidder does not have someone living on his property that he chose nor has he established any relationship with Tenant. Tenant is required by federal law to be allowed to live in that house for at least 90 days. Second, Tenant is not required to pay any money to Bidder because Tenant signed a lease with Owner (who no longer retains title to the property). Bidder owns property that he cannot live in or rent out for money so he is taking a loss with each passing day. Third, the government removed the rights of Bidder in favor of the rights of Tenant. The sole justification for this was to correct a perceived wrong by Owner. Bidder must now deal with the consequences of such prying. Fourth, Bidder’s only recourse against damage caused by Tenant is a lawsuit (remember the security deposit went to someone else); this may become lengthy, costly, and ultimately unproductive. Finally, Bidder must incur the costs of complying with the new law (mailings, reading statutes or paying an attorney to do it, etc.). All of these impacts have the consequence of chilling the real estate market for those interested in purchasing foreclosed homes, which is exactly the opposite of what our economy needs at this point in time.
All of these costs and consequences to the new owner can easily be avoided by simply utilizing the legal system already in place. The proper way to handle this situation is for Tenant to file suit against the original owner of the property; this is the other party to the lease agreement and the party to whom the grievance should be directed. Contracts have terms which must be met by both parties. If either party fails to perform as agreed, the other party may proceed with a breach of contract lawsuit. This is how contract disputes have been handled throughout our history. The proper venue for such a claim is State court. Real estate suits are properly, and typically exclusively, the realm of State courts. The issue is rarely, if ever, one to be decided on the federal level.
I have met a significant number of these renters and have a great deal of sympathy for them; however, I also respect the rule of law and despise the notion that our federal government is interfering with individual contracts. These issues, in dealing with real property, should be discussed and dealt with at the State and local level. The principles of Federalism require States to retain sovereignty over situations such as these and our Constitution placed constraints on the federal government to prevent this kind of meddling.
When our government no longer respects the rights of individuals to contract and participate in commerce, then our entire economic system is put in jeopardy. The government is creating instability by removing the certainty that written agreements have meaning and will be upheld. At some point, laws have to be honored and the government has to allow the system in place to sort out the facts. Otherwise, we inch closer to anarchy. Intruding upon private contracts sends the message that any mutual agreements may be trampled upon if the political winds change. A government that fails to respect the decisions of private actors in the economy will soon find that agreements will not be made as often or will end up not being adhered to by the parties at all. This creates a vicious cycle of even more chaos.
Individuals and families renting residences are also beginning to find themselves in unpleasant situations as the owners they lease from are unable to pay the mortgages on the rental property. In many instances, these people sign contracts to lease the property and rely on the obligations of the owners. When the owners default on their responsibility to repay a note on the property, the renters suddenly find themselves looking for a new place to live. This creates problems with moving costs, finding suitable alternatives for residence, and having little time to remedy the situation, even though the renters typically bear no fault in these scenarios.
As is often the case in our modern society, government feels the need to get involved and attempt to cure the problem. Never mind that the legal system, and typically the signed lease agreements themselves, provide remedies for breach of contract by either party.
The federal legislature has passed, and President Obama has signed, Public Law 111-22, also known as the “Preventing Mortgage Foreclosures and Enhancing Mortgage Credit” Act of 2009 (You can view the law here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bdFBvl::/bss/111search.html). This statute was written in an attempt to alleviate the current housing downturn and the effects on the economy and on individuals and families. Both are noble causes but the law itself fails to respect private contracts and further allows government to infringe upon reciprocal agreements between consenting parties.
Title VII, Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, is a particularly good example of just how this occurs within the context of this law. The statute requires any foreclosure of property backed by a federal loan, or any loan made subsequent to this law, to provide at least 90 days notice to any bona fide tenant before eviction can occur. It even requires this 90 day grace period for leases that can be terminated at any time by either party and situations where no lease was even signed. At first blush, this may not seem all that unreasonable. After all, it is easy to claim how unfair the situation is to the renter. This is exactly how the justification for the law is framed. Herein lays the problem with many politicians and the legislation they support.
As we should all know by now, there is always more than one side to the story. Yes, the renter is probably the victim of someone else’s irresponsible behavior. That bad actor is not the purchaser of the property at auction. However, the high bidder at auction is the one who must pay the price the federal government set for this situation.
A simple illustration may assist understanding of this. Owner purchases property to rent. Owner finds a suitable tenant and enters into an agreement with Tenant. Tenant moves in and pays rent on time. Owner is in a dire financial situation and can no longer afford to keep the rental property, even with Tenant paying as agreed. Owner defaults on his promissory note and the lender decides to foreclose to recoup the money it loaned. Notice of the foreclosure is sent to Owner and the property address prior to the sale occurring. A sale then occurs and a high Bidder becomes the new title owner of the real estate. Tenant is not required to move out of the residence until Bidder files eviction proceedings.
In reviewing this incredibly simplistic example, you can now identify several problems that may, and often will, arise. First of all, Bidder does not have someone living on his property that he chose nor has he established any relationship with Tenant. Tenant is required by federal law to be allowed to live in that house for at least 90 days. Second, Tenant is not required to pay any money to Bidder because Tenant signed a lease with Owner (who no longer retains title to the property). Bidder owns property that he cannot live in or rent out for money so he is taking a loss with each passing day. Third, the government removed the rights of Bidder in favor of the rights of Tenant. The sole justification for this was to correct a perceived wrong by Owner. Bidder must now deal with the consequences of such prying. Fourth, Bidder’s only recourse against damage caused by Tenant is a lawsuit (remember the security deposit went to someone else); this may become lengthy, costly, and ultimately unproductive. Finally, Bidder must incur the costs of complying with the new law (mailings, reading statutes or paying an attorney to do it, etc.). All of these impacts have the consequence of chilling the real estate market for those interested in purchasing foreclosed homes, which is exactly the opposite of what our economy needs at this point in time.
All of these costs and consequences to the new owner can easily be avoided by simply utilizing the legal system already in place. The proper way to handle this situation is for Tenant to file suit against the original owner of the property; this is the other party to the lease agreement and the party to whom the grievance should be directed. Contracts have terms which must be met by both parties. If either party fails to perform as agreed, the other party may proceed with a breach of contract lawsuit. This is how contract disputes have been handled throughout our history. The proper venue for such a claim is State court. Real estate suits are properly, and typically exclusively, the realm of State courts. The issue is rarely, if ever, one to be decided on the federal level.
I have met a significant number of these renters and have a great deal of sympathy for them; however, I also respect the rule of law and despise the notion that our federal government is interfering with individual contracts. These issues, in dealing with real property, should be discussed and dealt with at the State and local level. The principles of Federalism require States to retain sovereignty over situations such as these and our Constitution placed constraints on the federal government to prevent this kind of meddling.
When our government no longer respects the rights of individuals to contract and participate in commerce, then our entire economic system is put in jeopardy. The government is creating instability by removing the certainty that written agreements have meaning and will be upheld. At some point, laws have to be honored and the government has to allow the system in place to sort out the facts. Otherwise, we inch closer to anarchy. Intruding upon private contracts sends the message that any mutual agreements may be trampled upon if the political winds change. A government that fails to respect the decisions of private actors in the economy will soon find that agreements will not be made as often or will end up not being adhered to by the parties at all. This creates a vicious cycle of even more chaos.
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Reason We Celebrate the 4th of July
As you gather with friends and family this weekend, grill food, relax during the long summer days, enjoy the amazing firework displays provided by municipalities and private organizations, but most importantly take a minute to stop and reflect on why this day is celebrated coast to coast by millions of Americans.
In the summer of 1776, representatives from the British-American Colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. The signing of this document was the culmination of long discussions, philosophical debates, and a review of both the history of the Colonies and of nations throughout recorded history. The purpose of the document was to initially, yet quite briefly, declare the philosophical and political underpinnings of the American people. What followed was a litany of abuses which the representatives felt were perpetrated upon them by the King of Britain and his government.
The language used by the authors of the Declaration was beautiful, brilliant, and displayed a wisdom that could only come from intellectually rigorous study of governments and history along with an amazing ability to perceive the nature of man.
Please take a few moments to read the Declaration of Independence. If you do, read it slowly. Pay attention to the words that they chose to capitalize. Think about the enormous meaning of the words, even though they use concise language. Read their understanding of where rights come from and why, in exceptional times, the people must rise up to protect those rights. Allow yourself to imagine what they must have felt at the time of signing – fear, exhilaration, escape from tyranny, power. And lastly, remember just how revolutionary the thoughts and words really were in a world dominated by monarchs, theocrats, and various other governments that controlled their subjects instead of governing on behalf of the populace.
You can read the document at the following website: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm. I hope each of you enjoy this as much as I do. Have a happy, safe, and reflective holiday.
In the summer of 1776, representatives from the British-American Colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. The signing of this document was the culmination of long discussions, philosophical debates, and a review of both the history of the Colonies and of nations throughout recorded history. The purpose of the document was to initially, yet quite briefly, declare the philosophical and political underpinnings of the American people. What followed was a litany of abuses which the representatives felt were perpetrated upon them by the King of Britain and his government.
The language used by the authors of the Declaration was beautiful, brilliant, and displayed a wisdom that could only come from intellectually rigorous study of governments and history along with an amazing ability to perceive the nature of man.
Please take a few moments to read the Declaration of Independence. If you do, read it slowly. Pay attention to the words that they chose to capitalize. Think about the enormous meaning of the words, even though they use concise language. Read their understanding of where rights come from and why, in exceptional times, the people must rise up to protect those rights. Allow yourself to imagine what they must have felt at the time of signing – fear, exhilaration, escape from tyranny, power. And lastly, remember just how revolutionary the thoughts and words really were in a world dominated by monarchs, theocrats, and various other governments that controlled their subjects instead of governing on behalf of the populace.
You can read the document at the following website: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm. I hope each of you enjoy this as much as I do. Have a happy, safe, and reflective holiday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)