State pension fund lost 2.8% in May

Seems like legitimate news – right? After all, that’s over $1 billion lost from a $50 billion retirement fund.

Or is it a diversion?

Here’s an example of a news article that the mainstream media should be running instead. The headline would be:

Social Security fund lost 100% in 2011 – again

and the article would read:

“After emptying 100% of the Social Security Trust Fund in both 2010 and 2009, the federal government spent nearly all of the fund’s yearly income again in 2011.

“$643 billion gone.

“Politicians withdrew all of the money paid into the Social Security Trust. They blew it on corporate bailouts, state government bailouts, foreign wars, aid to foreign governments, government employee retirement packages and other government hand-outs.

Now that’s news! But you never see this reported in the mainstream media.

Social Security is broke. Old Mother Hubbard empty. Congress has been raiding it for decades, depleting all of the retirement savings for hundreds of millions of private sector workers who paid into the fund and who depend on Social Security for their retirement.

Mainstream news coverage frequently laments that government employee retirement funds are only 70% funded. Or only 80% funded. They warn that we will soon have to cough up more tax dollars to pay for the remaining 20% or 30%.

But why should the focus be on a 20-30% shortfall in funding for government retirement plans — when millions of Americans have no backing at all for their retirement?

0% financial backing for Social Security versus an average of over 80% funding for government retirement funds.

Politicians have squirreled away close to 5 TRILLION dollars* for state, local and federal government retirees. An average of $250,000 for every government worker and retiree – a quarter of a million dollars - while saving nothing for private sector workers:

With no funds in the Social Security Trust Fund, hundreds of millions of private sector workers could face poverty in their senior years. They must rely solely on future taxes extracted from future workers – at the will of Congress – to see a return on the FICA taxes they’ve been forced to pay all their working lives.

Lavish funding of government retirement packages is a major cause of today’s astronomical government debt.

In 2010, concerned voters elected dozens of Congressman to do something about high government spending.

So far, they haven’t delivered. Rather, they continue to maintain and expand budget-busting government pensions for themselves and their political allies – while they blow through the retirement fund of ordinary taxpayers.

While some state lawmakers have begun to rein in the high cost of government employee benefits, they have only scratched the surface. Dramatic reductions in government retiree payouts and retirement fund subsidies are needed now to bring them in line with Social Security.

This will start to balance government employee compensation with what workers get in the private sector and stave off the debt crises that are unfolding in federal, state and local governments.

Meanwhile government employees will still enjoy a host of other advantages such as higher wages, better medical insurance plans with lower co-pays and lower deductibles, more vacation time, more personal and sick days, and more job security.

Question 1:

Will you vote out of office the politicians who raid your Social Security savings and cut your Social Security benefits — while they continue to pour billions of dollars into their own and their allies’ government employee retirement packages?

Question 2:

Will you vote for candidates who have the courage and integrity to take specific action that will bring government employee retirement pay and benefits in line with those of everyday taxpayers?

###

* A little math can give us a rough idea of the combined amount of all local, state, and federal government employee retirement funds – despite the fact that politicians refuse to report this data completely. For example, one of the ways they hide what they spend on government retirement plans is by funding them through “off-budget” accounts that are virtually never covered in mainstream news stories and almost never disclosed in government reports.

Consider that the $50 billion government retiree fund discussed in this article covers Massachusetts state government retirees and a portion of local government retirees. There are separate funds to cover the remaining local government retirees.

All retirement funds combined for Massachusetts government workers may well be worth $100 billion. And that’s just one state.

Massachusetts has an average population of about 6.5 million people – but it’s also wealthier than other states. If we assume that $100 billion in government retirement funds for Massachusetts is twice the national average, that means $50 billion is saved per state, times 50 states. That comes to $2.5 trillion saved just for state and local government retirees. According to the PEW Center on the States, the actual number was $2.35 trillion as of February, 2010.

Add to that total federal retiree funds – which are likely $2.5 trillion again – or more.

We should not be surprised to find that:

• $5 trillion – or more – is saved for about 20 million government workers.
• $0 is saved for hundreds of millions of private sector workers.

That comes to a quarter million dollars saved in trust for every government worker (current and future retirees) — versus ZERO, zip, nada, zilch saved for every private sector worker.

Are you sitting up in your chair yet? Are you ready to scream, “FOUL!“

No related posts.

These Republicans authorized a federal government deficit of $1.4 Trillion.

Their government spending raised the federal debt to over $15 Trillion.

The Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives have the unilateral power and authority and votes to block this massive overspending.

But they didn’t. They voted FOR sky-high federal government spending. $3.7 Trillion.

Republican House Leaders John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy refused to even try to substantially reduce this year’s federal government spending.

76% of the House Republicans just said ‘Yes’ and voted FOR $3.7 Trillion.

House Republicans just don’t get it.

Today’s Sky-High Government Spending is the #1 Biggest, Most Urgent, Most Dangerous Threat to America’s Survival.

High government spending drives up taxes and government borrowing.

High government spending is fueled and funded by high taxes, deficits, ever-increasing government debt, and inflation.

High government spending weakens and burdens the economy.

High government spending deprives small businesses of badly-needed income and earnings. It weakens fragile young businesses. It prevents, delays, and drives down small business job creation.

America’s survival requires a thriving and growing economy. One with robust, expanding small businesses. With private investments, private ventures, private enterprises.

Unless we dramatically reduce federal government spending now, and substantially reduce it again next year, and the next – the private sector in America will shrivel and shrink.

Without vibrant and vigorous private sector small businesses, America will follow the lonely path to the graveyard of once-great nations and civilizations.

With radically reduced government spending, with a prospering and proliferating private sector, America can rise faster and higher than we can imagine.

No related posts.

At least 60 Republican members of the House of Representatives would NOT have been elected in 2010 without strong Tea Party support, volunteers, donations, and votes.

Why did the Tea Party movement help put them in office?

To END federal bailouts of businesses and state governments. Now.

To quickly and substantially reduce federal government spending – starting this year.

To immediately and dramatically reduce, then stop, deficit spending – by reducing federal government spending, NOT by raising taxes.

To quickly balance the federal budget. And keep it balanced. By spending reductions, NOT tax hikes.

And then, to start paying down the federal debt. Year after year. Until it is paid off.

The Tea Party Movement arose to bring about fiscal and financial sanity in government.

The Tea Party Movement has Two Action Priorities:

1. Swiftly and substantially reduce TOTAL federal government spending – year after year – to reduce and remove federal deficits, federal borrowing, and the federal debt. NO bailouts. NO tax increases.

2. Repeat action priority number one. Do NOT change the subject. Do NOT do something else. Do NOT tell us there are other things equally important. There aren’t.

And what did the 242 House Republican Representatives give the Tea Party Movement – and America?

A 1.8% spending reduction. A $3.6 Trillion federal budget. A $1.4 Trillion deficit.

The House Republicans are giving us insanity from Alice In Wonderland, NOT fiscal sanity and solvency for the federal government. A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, NOT a Boston Tea Party.

Compare the Boston Tea Party mandates with Mad Hatter Tea Party lunacy:

=========

Boston Tea Party: “Reduce federal government spending now.”

Mad Hatter Tea Party: “Tiny, trivial spending reductions this year – then reduce the reductions next year – so we can overspend and campaign against overspending in 2012. We can make words mean what we want them to.”

=========

Boston Tea Party: “Dramatically reduce the federal deficit – starting this year.”

Mad Hatter Tea Party: “The federal deficit is addictive. If we cut down too fast or quit cold turkey, the special interests, government spending profiteers, and foreign governments will suffer agonizing withdrawal. Think of us as deficit methadone. By keeping deficit cuts very slow and small – we House Republicans can get the deficit junkies off the stuff in 15 or 20 years. Maybe.”

=========

Boston Tea Party: “Balance the federal budget. Start paying down the national debt.”

Mad Hatter Tea Party:“Don’t balance the budget. Wax eloquently and campaign on our goal, or intention, or hope, or prayer to balance the budget in 10 years – which we absolutely, positively mean. Unless something comes up.”

=========

House Republicans: you campaigned as Boston Tea Partiers, NOT Mad Hatter Tea Partiers. We took you at your word. That’s why we elected you.

House Republicans: you have exactly 3 swings at federal spending:

1. Now, with a real budget to replace the “continuing resolution” for federal spending.

2. This September, with the Fiscal Year 2012 budget. (Oct 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2012)

3. Next September, with the FY 2013 budget. (Oct 1, 2012 – Sept. 30, 2013)

Three Strikes and You Are Out — of office. Compliments of your friendly Congressional District Tea Party.

If you refuse to keep the promise of the Tea Party Movement – to vote for substantially lower federal spending – we do not want you. We do not need you.

You will be judged by your actions. You can’t talk your way out of watered-down, wimpy, and anti-Tea Party votes in the House.

And there will be consequences.

True Tea Partiers will run a REAL Boston Tea Party candidate against you in your Republican Primary.

If you somehow win your primary, we will run and support a Third-Party or Independent Tea Party candidate in the general election. Whether our true Tea Party candidate wins or not, he will earn enough votes to make you lose.

Before you scream “spoiler,” remember that he will only run if your fiscal votes are tainted and rotten.

We want a Boston Tea Party Agenda federal government – and will settle for nothing less.

If you think you can vote as a Mad Hatter Tea Party Republican and still get Boston Tea Party votes in 2012 – you must be mad.

It’s not too late. Come to your senses.

America needs Tea Party-driven Congressmen. Be one.

No related posts.

These are some of the findings of a new report from the Government Accounting Office which uncovers massive redundancy in the federal government.

Congress needs to tell the legions of Special Interests knocking on their doors for favors everyday that duplicate federal agencies will not be tolerated. Struggling taxpayers, workers and businesses need that money.

“You may have just one lollipop. Not 15. Not 20. Not 80. Just one.”

We want one-stop shopping. No more than one government program or agency per objective.

But this is just the first step. We still need to examine the one agency that remains for redundancy and waste.

We also must determine whether government belongs in this area at all. 99% of all problems are worse served by government than by the marketplace, charities, churches, social groups, family and friends.

Congressmen and women, especially those who call themselves Tea Party Supporters:

1. Immediately defund every redundant agency and program. Leave no more than one in any area of government.
2. Reduce and remove redundancy and the money spent for it. Do not “consolidate” overstaffing and overspending under one bigger roof.
3. Cut TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Don’t blow the freed up money on something else.
4. To be sure the savings move out of government coffers, cut taxes or reduce deficit spending by the same amount. If you eliminate $200 billion in redundant spending, then cut total federal spending or taxes by $200 billion.

End the grab for handfuls of lollipops. This is the first step towards fiscal sanity.

###

Carla Howell talks about federal government redundancies on WRKO with host Barry Armstrong: http://audio.wrko.com/a/37329573/carla-howell-on-wasteful-government-spending.htm

Wall Street Journal March 1, 2011: Billions in Bloat Uncovered in Beltway

No related posts.

First, compare the 2011 Obama and Republican budgets – against the 2008 Bush Budget:

“The problem is not that people are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much.” -Ronald Reagan

• Why are the 242 House Republicans cutting Obama’s $3.7 Trillion “spends too much” government by only 1.8%?

• Why are they calling Obama’s $3.7 Trillion federal budget ’socialist’ – while calling their $3.6 Trillion federal budget ‘conservative’?

• Is ‘conservative’ government really only 1.8% smaller than ’socialist’ government?

“Government is not the solution; government is the problem.”- Ronald Reagan

• What are the 242 House Republicans doing to reduce the problem? Cutting federal spending by a paltry 1.8%?

• Do the 242 House Republicans really believe government is a big problem — if they only try to reduce it by 1.8%?

In The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Barry Goldwater said:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Using this Conscience of a Conservative Barry Goldwater Litmus Test for the 242 House Republicans:

• Where is this year’s House Republican budget for the federal government that will substantially “reduce its size?”

• Do the 242 House Republicans fail to realize that their proposed budget of $3.6 Trillion IS an “unwarranted financial burden?”

• Do they fail to recognize that the $1.4 Trillion deficit included in their budget IS an “unwarranted financial burden?”

• Which “failed in their purpose”, “unwarranted financial burden” current federal programs and spending will they VOTE to “cancel” and defund — this year?

- Michael Cloud and Carla Howell

No related posts.

Third Open Letter to the 242 Republicans

in the U.S. House of Representatives

From Michael Cloud and Carla Howell

The Center For Small Government

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Honorable Republican Representatives,

With your new 242-member majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, you now have the full authority and power to Veto all Federal over-spending and to quickly balance the federal budget.

From this day forward, no federal spending, no federal over-spending, no federal deficit spending can take place without your consent. Not one dime of federal spending can happen without your authorization.

Unlike President Obama’s Veto, your Congressional Veto cannot be overridden.

President Obama cannot stop you. The U.S. Senate cannot block you. Nor can the Democratic Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

It’s all in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

To pass a federal budget, you need a majority vote of the House, the Senate, and the signature of the President of the United States.

If the President disapproves of a budget, he can Veto it. But there are two ways you can pass a budget after a president has exercised the veto.

The House and Senate can change the budget to what the President asks or reach a compromise with him, get a majority in the House and Senate, and send it to the President for his signature.

OR: the House and Senate can each get a 2/3 vote for the budget, and override the President’s Veto.

But what if you 242 Republican Representatives want to block a federal budget that’s too high? Or has a deficit too high? What does it take for you to Veto a federal budget?

Simply cast your 242 votes for your House budget – say $3.1 Trillion – and vote against any budget over that level. Your 242 votes limit the budget to $3.1 Trillion – and Veto additional federal spending.

Re-think what the word “veto” means. It’s Latin for “I Forbid.” It’s the power to unilaterally stop a piece of legislation. With your Republican majority in the House of Representatives, you have the authority and power to forbid higher spending. To Veto it.

Here’s exactly how you can exercise your Veto.

Federal spending this year (fiscal year 2011, ending this September 30th) is $3.8 Trillion. Estimated federal revenue is $2.6 Trillion. This year’s deficit is on track for a staggering $1.2 Trillion.

Right now, you’re coming up with a federal budget for the last 7 months of FY 2011. For the first 5 months, the last Congress authorized a “continuing resolution” to spend at a yearly rate of $3.8 Trillion.

Suppose you 242 Republicans pass a federal budget for the next 7 months at a rate equal to that of President Bush’s FY 2008 federal spending: $3.1 Trillion.

$3.1 Trillion was one year’s federal spending just 29 months ago.

Nobody called the FY 2008 Bush budget “an austerity budget.” Nobody screamed that it would cause people to starve or be thrown out of their homes or forced to stand in bread lines. No one claimed the $3.1 Trillion Bush budget was so low that it would cause economic collapse or drive up unemployment.

Most Americans thought the $3.1 Trillion Bush budget was way too high.

Rolling back the current budget from $3.8 Trillion to a $3.1 Trillion-per-year rate of spending would have knocked $700 Billion off the deficit for the current year – if it were passed and put into effect last September. But because the fiscal year is almost half over, reducing it on March 4th – when the continuing resolution expires – to a $3.1 Trillion-per-year spending rate will reduce the deficit by $413 Billion this year. This is a start. But it still leaves us with a federal deficit of $800 billion.

This September when you pass the FY 2012 budget, suppose you limit it to $3.1 Trillion again. Estimated federal revenue is $2.9 Trillion. This reduces the deficit to $200 Billion.

Then the following year (FY 2013), suppose you again hold the budget to $3.1 Trillion. Estimated federal revenue is $3.1 Trillion. This balances the federal budget. During your first term in office. 35 days before the 2012 Elections. Just in time for a landslide victory.

How do you Veto all spending above your $3.1 Trillion budget?

Easy. Pass your $3.1 Trillion budget in the House. Send it to the Senate.

They’ll wail and moan and gnash their teeth. They’ll make pompous speeches.

Then they’ll send you back their proposed budget of $3.7 Trillion or more – at least $600 billion higher than your budget. .

House leaders will conference with Harry Reid and Senate leaders to try to hammer out an agreement.

Speaker Boehner and Representatives Ryan, Cantor, and McCarthy will probably speak for you, the 242 Republican members of the House.

All they have to say is this: “We 242 Republicans were elected to put the federal government – and America – on a sound financial footing. We have approved a first year budget of $3.1 trillion. We are willing to consider all revenue neutral proposals you have to offer. We’re willing to consider substitutions for our spending. If you want to replace our $50 billion expenditure with your $50 billion expenditure, we will discuss it with you. Negotiate with you. But we will not agree to add even a dollar to our spending. Our $3.1 Trillion House budget is our spending limit, our spending ceiling.”

You do not need to argue with the U.S. Senators. You do not need to appease them or make spending concessions.

Sit tight. They have no power over you. All you have to do is hold fast to your vote for a $3.1 Trillion federal budget limit.

You are giving the U.S. Senate 100% of the 2008 Bush budget and spending.

Neither the U.S. Senate, nor the President of the United States can override your Veto of spending more than $3.1 Trillion – or any frugal budget ceiling you 242 House Republicans decide.

You have the authority and power to roll back and limit federal government spending for the year to $3.1 Trillion.

You have a 242-member House Republican Veto.

Use it.

On behalf of over 10 million Tea Party activists, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, common sense independents and revitalized Republicans who voted you into office last November, we request that you boldly roll back federal spending as we suggest – and Veto any and all spending above it.

Reducing Federal Spending Is Possible,

No related posts.

Second Open Letter to the 242 Republicans

in the U.S. House of Representatives

From Michael Cloud and Carla Howell

The Center For Small Government

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Honorable Republican Representatives,

Last year, you campaigned against President Obama’s reckless, irresponsible, ’socialist’ budget of $3.8 Trillion.

You promised voters to roll back federal spending. To reduce the deficit. To get the federal government on the path to solvency and fiscal sanity.

We elected you to do just that.

What are you giving us? A federal budget of $3.7 Trillion. A $1.2 Trillion Deficit – which increases the national debt to over $15.3 Trillion.

Speaker John Boehner is working on a Republican budget that will reduce total federal spending this year to $3.74 Trillion.

The Conservative Republican Study Committee Representatives are calling for a budget that will reduce total federal spending to $3.7 Trillion.

Your ‘frugal, budget-cutting, conservative’ reforms cut federal spending between 1.7% and 2.6%*. That’s it? That’s your idea of serious budget cuts?

Obama’s $3.8 Trillion in federal spending is ’socialist’, but your $3.7 Trillion federal budget is conservative?

The Tea Party Test: How much is your federal budget? Write that number next to last year’s total federal government spending of $3.8 Trillion. If it’s not a lot lower, you fail.

Cutting a mere $38 Billion from last year’s budget is only a 1% reduction. Chump change.

You need to make spending cuts for this year’s budget in multiples of $38 billion – not fractions of $38 billion.

This is the political Honeymoon for your 242 member Republican Majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This is your time of maximum goodwill and the strongest support from those who elected you.

This year, give us a first Republican budget that’s 5% to 15% lower than last year’s federal spending.

Next year, make your second Republican House budget another 5% to 15% lower.

Two steps toward balancing the federal budget.

Two steps toward keeping faith with Tea Party supporters and sympathizers, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and independents. Toward attracting more like-minded supporters – and voters for 2012.

Two steps that just might jump start the American economy, revitalize small businesses, and trigger a 2012 hiring boom.

Much Lower Federal Spending Is Possible,

Carla Howell and Michael Cloud
Publishers, Small Government News
Center For Small Government
Sponsors of Massachusetts Ballot Initiatives:
2010: Roll Back the Sales Tax to 3% ( RollBackTaxes.com)
2008 and 2002: End the State Income Tax ( SmallGovernmentAct.org)

No related posts.

The Center For Small Government

Honorable Republican Representatives,

On behalf of roughly 45 million Americans who voted for you in the November 2nd Elections,

On behalf of the more than 10 million Tea Party Supporters and Sympathizers among them…whose votes gave you victory,

For the purposes of federal government and state government fiscal responsibility, solvency, and financial common sense,

We request that all 242 Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives pledge to actively oppose and vote against all federal government bailouts for state governments or local governments.

No Funding bailouts for state or local governments.

No Loans for state or local governments.

No Loan Guarantees for state or local governments.

No cash. No loans. No loan guarantees. No co-signing.

Not for California. Not for Massachusetts. Not for Illinois. Not for New York. Not for any state or local government.

They must live within their own means. They must reduce and remove fat and non-essential spending from their budgets. They must seek and find ways to accomplish their essential duties – with lower overhead and less money.

Just like private sector businesses.

You must not enable them to continue their reckless and irresponsible spending.

You must not enable state and local governments to postpone the day of financial reckoning.

They have behaved like spending junkies, like money drunks. Now they face detox. Some are begging for ‘just one more’ drink, ‘just one last dose’ of narcotics. Tomorrow they’ll get clean and sober…

That’s the addiction talking. Ignore it.

Once state and local officials realize that you will not bail them out, they will solve their own spending problems.

Once they come to terms with economic reality, they will seek and find cheaper, better, smarter ways to do their government’s essential tasks.

They will become more responsible and accountable stewards of government.

Because almost all of you 242 Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives ran campaigns promising to roll back federal overspending, to exercise fiscal restraint, and to end federal bailouts, we ask you to notify state governments and local governments that you will vote against bailing them out.

Together, your 242 Republican U.S. House votes against bailing out state and local governments give you a “Veto.”

Promising to exercise this Republican “Veto” – and using it, if the Senate or White House demands bailouts for state or local governments – will show Tea Party supporters, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and independents that you keep your campaign pledges.

This may create momentum for your proposed federal spending cuts.

It may create momentum for 2012 Republican candidates for the U.S. House and Senate who promise to substantially cut federal government spending, borrowing, and taxing.

Perhaps even a like-minded Republican candidate for President.

It starts with you. Now.

Will you make this pledge?

We eagerly await hearing about and publicizing your No Bailouts Pledge. It will be a beacon of hope during these crucial months of budget negotiations.

Small government is beautiful,

No related posts.

Allow each airline to set its own policies such as:

• Whether to require screening of passengers and baggage and what screening methods to use
• How to protect passengers on board. For example, one airline may train and arm flight crews to provide protection. Another may allow passengers to be armed for self-defense. Yet another may prohibit all arms and rely instead on screening of passengers and baggage.

Having options lets customers decide what level of cost, delays and intrusion they are willing to tolerate in exchange for added security by choosing the airlines whose policies suit them best.

Airlines should also be permitted to fully arm their own security personnel on the tarmac and in terminals (which was NOT permitted at Logan Airport on 9/11) so they are ready to take down a terrorist.

To offset the reduction in spending after eliminating the TSA, we can cut federal taxes. One option is to reduce income tax rates so that the total income tax levy goes down by $7 billion, which is what the TSA now costs every year. Another option is to reduce airport fees imposed on airlines and passengers, which will drive down the cost of flying.

Eliminating the TSA, freeing up airlines to protect their customers and cutting taxes will:

• Make it more difficult for mastermind terrorists as well as amateur shoe bombers to board planes
• Make crew and passengers better prepared to thwart an attack during a flight, making airline passengers more safe and secure.
• Allow Americans to decide for themselves what level of intrusion into their privacy is effective and worth surrendering in exchange for more safety measures.
• Save taxpayers an average of $70 – every year.
• Make air travel faster and more convenient
• Spare passengers from embarrassing and invasive encounters with TSA personnel at the airport

No related posts.

What if it were possible to cut your medical care costs by 20% or 30% or even 50% now — while keeping current levels of quality and service — by repealing and removing these government-created burdens and barriers?

If this were possible, would you want it?

Would you want the U.S. Congress to repeal and remove these laws, regulations, restrictions, and mandates?

Would you want your state legislature to do the same?

Yes? Well, these government-imposed burdens and barriers DO exist — and your federal and state legislators CAN repeal and remove them.

Would you like to see a small sample?

1. Allow price advertising. Let pharmacies, doctors, hospitals, and laboratories to publish their prices for goods and services. Eliminate all laws, regulations, and government provisions that hinder or prevent medical providers from posting their prices.

Charges for the same medical procedure can vary 30% to 300% within a 100-mile radius. But without price information, patients can’t shop for the best value.

In the 1970’s, U.C.L.A. Economist Sam Peltzman compared the costs of eyeglasses in states that allowed price advertising and states that outlawed it. Results? Much lower prices in states that allowed price advertising.

2. Let all Americans buy prescription drugs outside the United States. Do NOT force them to travel abroad. Allow them to have the prescription drugs shipped to their homes.

I’ve seen the 30% to 60% savings in prices of prescription drugs purchased in Mexico.

International competition for prescription drugs will drive down domestic prescription prices.

3. Let all people buy medical insurance across state lines. In New Jersey, a single man would pay $4,000 for medical insurance. If he lived in Pennsylvania, he’d pay $1,500. If the New Jersey man could buy medical insurance from a Pennsylvania provider, he’d save $2,500 a year.

Imagine this all across America.

This would cut medical insurance costs for millions who already have needlessly overpriced premiums.

AND, if the American Enterprise Institute study is correct, this would make medical insurance affordable for 12 million uninsured Americans.

4. Let doctors and patients negotiate discounts for paying cash. If a patient saves a doctor the time, trouble, delay and cost of dealing with insurance companies, Medicare, or Medicaid – let the doctor and patient share the savings.

5. Let patients, doctors, and hospitals enter into into legally binding, limited-liability contracts. This would reduce the cost of medical treatment by reducing the cost of malpractice insurance.

Just as Prenuptial Agreements limit marital risk, limited-liability contracts will limit medical risk.

6. End all government mandates that require businesses or individuals to buy medical insurance. End all government mandates that punish and tax those who do NOT buy medical insurance. Make insurance companies earn our business with lower prices and better quality — rather than lobby government to compel us to buy medical insurance by force of law. (See Carla Howell’s excellent essay, “Why We Need More UNinsured Americans”.)

This is just a sketch of small government proposals to UN-do the government-caused high prices of medical care.

A glimpse of small government proposals to come.

2009 Copyright Michael Cloud

Related posts:

1. Why We Need More UNinsured Americans
2. What Big Government Costs You
3. Big Government is Even Bigger Than You Think