Is Obama Creating an Enemies List?

This disturbing directive comes from the official White House blog:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

This didn’t come from a political activist group or a fact checking organization.  The White House, the President, the people with the ability to use the full force of the IRS and the FBI want to know what “disinformation” is being spread about a policy they support and, I can only assume, who is doing the spreading of that “disinformation.”  What President Obama’s administration plans to do with this is unclear from the blog post.  Maybe they just want to be able to answer people’s concerns and shoot down wild, untrue rumors.  Or maybe they intend to punish the originators of the rumors. 

The scariest part about this request is the Big Brother aspect of it.  Now if you forward an email that someone on your list thinks might be full of rumor and speculation, that email as well as your email address, the email addresses of who else it was sent to as well as the email addresses of who sent it all go into a database.  And who sent them that information?  Your neighbor or co-worker or activist aunt.  If you thought domestic spying was bad when the government engaged in it, wait until the spies are literally everywhere.

-Jay

No matter what the illness...

...we can count on the same prescription.

At least when Dr. Obama is trying to cure the economy. Steve Chapman over at reason.com writes in his post today:

Students of the Obama economic policy will also note a curious consistency in its approach to economic issues. Some problems, like the near-collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, came about because competition worked very well at serving consumers and punishing poorly run companies. Some problems, such as high health insurance premiums, came about because competition allegedly didn't work so well. In both cases, the administration proposes the same solution: more federal spending and a bigger federal role.

And there are other examples of this "solution" as well. Executives in the financial industry making too much money? That's easy, we'll create a government entity to control their pay. Banks buying loans without knowing the risk of default? People mortgaging homes without being able to make the payments? No sweat, how many billions do you need?

Too be fair, government expansion is not a new phenomena. But the scale of this expansion is unprecedented. And insidious. I was listening to Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi this morning on NPR. He said that the federal stimulus money that his state received was laden with "strings."

For example, in this economy, with tax revenue falling, because Mississippi got stimulus money specifically for education, the education budget is 7.2% higher than its ever been while the public safety budgets are taking a 6% cut. Sounds OK, right? I mean do you really need that many State Troopers on the highway? But beyond the disparity between priorities, what happens when tax revenues stop their slide and level off. No need for new stimulus, but now the bar has been set for the education budget in Mississippi by the Feds. Imagine the political fight that is going to ensue once that funding has to be reduced or more likely replaced by higher taxes? Obama doesn't have to deal with the consequences of funding his national priorities year after year, he only has to do it once. From that point forward, if a state government wants or needs to return to a budget that can be paid for without federal largess, special interests can easily cry foul and accuse responsible public official of "cutting" spending and "hurting the children." If I were a conspiracy nut I might think that was a plan to get Democrats elected all along.

And that is what is so dangerous about government expansion. Once a dollar has been spent or an agency created, it is nearly impossible to remove it from future budgets. We need to be aware and concerned about these "emergency" actions Congress and the Obama administration are taking. We may never be able to undo them.

-Jay

Now where did I put that sickle...

Okay, when I started this blog I didn't really think I'd be writing about weighty matters all the time and especially not on a Friday. But this is too fresh in my mind and too outrageous to let go without comment.

Yesterday, in Wisconsin, President Obama gave a speech about health care reform and uttered this, "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down."

Are you kidding me?! Set aside the wonderful care our veterans get through the VA and the stellar financial shape of Medicare , the administration is going to, yet again, pick winners and losers in Corporate America.

Just to recap in the last two weeks we have:

• the New GM and Chrysler backed by tax dollars competing with Ford (and Honda and Toyota, etc.)
• a new Czar that is going to start with limiting the compensation of executives working in the bailout funded section of the financial industry (he'll get to the rest of the financial industry soon and then see if you are making too much money after that)
• and now a proposal to use the backing of law and the largess of the US Treasury to compete against the health insurance industry

This isn't tinkering around the edges of economy. This is evidence of supreme mistrust of our capitalist system. Obama even explicitly says he doesn't trust the market. "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down." Do you really think this desire to keep private companies honest through competition with a "public option" is limited to the health insurance industry? Why not all insurance companies? Or health care providers for that matter? Government doctors wouldn't have any incentive to order unnecessary tests. Maybe credit card companies? Reasonable rates, the Treasury makes a bit of a profit and if you don't pay up, Uncle Sam just takes it out of your tax refund...

All its going to cost you is some liberty. Don't get me wrong. I'm not some kook that thinks Obama is trying to take over and become a dictator. But capitalism is the manifestation of our freedom and independence from the government. It's vital that we protect it and reject the steps toward central planning and socialism.

We don't have to go ask our lords and masters to give us anything. We make it. We buy it. We sell it. We trade it. We make a profit and use that profit to enrich our lives. We make mistakes and we fail. We innovate and improve. This is what has made our country the richest and most free in all the world.

-Jay

You can't spell crazy without C, Z, A & R

According to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the federal government is concerned about what companies pay their top executives.

"We need to help encourage substantial reforms and compensation structures, particularly in the financial industry," he said.

Of course you're thinking, "But Jay, these companies are getting tax payer money in the form of bailouts from TARP." True, and I don't have much heartburn with telling the CEO's of AIG, GM, Chrysler and the dozens of banks that took bailout money that they deserve a pittance of pay until the money is all paid back to the Treasury. But we're not just talking about that. According to this story from the not particularly right wing Marketplace radio program (distributed by Public Radio International) we have this to look forward to:

But the government's push to limit compensation may not end with companies receiving taxpayer help. Members of the administration are also talking about reining in pay in the financial industry as a whole. They'd like to replace the current bonus-heavy system with one that pays people for long-term performance.

President Obama is set to appoint a "Pay Czar" to carry out the administrations reform of compensation. Beside the fact that this is an extra-constitutional position accountable to no one except the President. I am deeply troubled by ease of this power grab. Are we just going to stand by and allow the federal government to decide not just how much to tax the highly paid, but how high that pay should be? The argument for this "reform" is that the bonus structure encourages high risk for short term gain and is therefore poses a "systemic danger" to the stability of our financial system.

Suppose the next issue the government wants to tackle is the potential for housing price bubbles. Having solved Wall Street's problems with a new, fair compensation plan for the financial institutions, the Pay Czar asks, "Is it reasonable to cap amount a realtor can make by commission selling a home so they don't have an incentive to 'artificially' inflate the price?" It almost sounds reasonable doesn't it? That's why its so dangerous.

The United States is not like France. We won't have massive strikes that shut down cities with people demanding social safety programs from the government. It isn't that obvious. But what we are experiencing right now is a well intentioned administration doing things that seem reasonable leading us down a path to socialism.

If we are going to walk this path, let's at least do it being led by people who are accountable to us and must get elected on a socialist plan, not these "czars" that are appointed without review of the Senate and answer to no one but the President.

-Jay