US Medical - Part 3

The Congressional Budget Office found that "about half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology." On January 23, 2012 we heard about Ultrasound Therapy, surgery without a scalpel that’s been approved by the FDA for fibroids and is being tested for other surgeries; the recovery period can be as little as 10 seconds with less complications; I would think this type of technology change would reduce cost not increase it. In December 2011 the outgoing Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asserted that 20% to 30% of health care spending is waste. He listed five causes for the waste: (1) overtreatment of patients, (2) the failure to coordinate care, (3) the administrative complexity of the health care system, (4) burdensome rules and (5) fraud. I already talked about the failure to coordinate so I’ll talk about the other items.  

1)  In 2011 a Journal of the American Medical Association study suggested that half the angioplasties performed on stable non-emergency patients are either unnecessary or uncertain. It was also reported that $25 million in unnecessary Cat Scans are charged to Medicare as smaller community hospitals don’t have the resources of the larger teaching hospitals to make quick and efficient diagnosis on their own. In addition to the patient being put to an unnecessary higher risk of radiation, I think money would be better spent on providing the best equipment to all facilities; there could be a savings in 10 years. On January 19, 2012 we heard that Medicare pays for bone testing every 2 years, doctors are concerned only 13% of women are getting the baseline test by age 65; however the New England Journal of Medicine said women whose bones have been tested as good don’t need to be retested for another 15 years if they continue with calcium, vitamin D and walking; tests showing moderate bone loss need repeating every 5 years and severe loss every year; signs that can vary testing needs are a family history of osteoporosis, a broken bone after age 50, the consumption of more than 2 alcoholic drinks a day and taking medicine with steroids. People complain that old people cost too much in their last few years of life without a change in outcome – death. I wonder why the old and those with debilitating diseases are forced to live if there is no hope of living with dignity - we should suffer and die slowly while putting our families or the government through such financial burden. I would think assisted dying (not murder or suicide) would be an alternative. We’ve taken the first step with Do Not Resuscitate instructions. We have compassion in putting our animals to sleep so they don’t have to suffer; perhaps Jack Kevorkian understood that humans should be given the same compassion if it is what is desired by the person suffering.

3)  I believe that just a passing grade is all that’s needed to enter the medical field and there are loopholes that allow doctors to practice without a valid degree or sufficient sleep. I don’t believe that medical schools and licensing boards are doing enough to catch cheaters that shouldn’t be practicing. I’m assuming that facilities that hire physicians now have an expedient way of validating someone’s credentials as after the fact fines or lawsuits to not solve the real problem; some of our doctors are incompetent which leads to insurance companies charging outrageous malpractice fees to settle huge lawsuits. In 2011, I heard about 12 Southern California (CA) hospitals that were fined for errors that injured or killed patients. On January 6, 2012 Health and Human Services said 14% of hospital errors made on Medicare patients are being reported (others say it could be 1 in 10) and little is being done to stop them from reoccurring; Johns Hopkins pioneered a checklist of proper procedure and it reduced surgical deaths by 46%.

4)  Perhaps our strict laws on what is and is not to be used are a factor; people no longer needing a drug cannot turn them in to a doctor or pharmacist so they can be redistributed to others with a valid need. Although I understand why needles aren’t to be reused, I don’t understand why some instruments used in surgery are required to be thrown away instead of being sterilized and reused as with Doctors without Borders. 

5)  We need harsher punishments for fraud; in 2011 CA doctors were indicted for a $17 million worker compensation scam and 91 people in 8 cities were charged with Medicare fraud; on February 14, 2012, I heard federal authorities recovered $4.1 billion in health care fraud judgments last year.

6)  Other factors may include: US physicians' wages are double those in the Europe and US doctors are paid for procedures not results; some hospitals and doctors raise rates because they don’t get the full value of their services from insurance companies or the government and there’s the greed factor; changes in insurance coverage - the increased use of prescription drugs among adults who have drug coverage; rising prices - the US is one of 2 countries in the world that allows direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs; ads cost money and raise the overall price; we deal more with vanity issues such as Gynecomastia, a condition that causes men’s breast muscles to swell and take on a female shape; anti-aging - the Human Growth Hormone costs $150 a bottle and the FDA has done nothing with this or indoor tanning both of which cause several medical problems; plastic surgery – Americans spent $10 billion in 2010; on January 19 we heard ice chambers and snake venom facials are the new fad; and the cost associated with artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization (IVF) is about 4 times higher in the US than in Israel (#1 for IVF use).  

US Medical - Part 2

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary institution tasked with the safety and effectiveness of human and veterinary drugs. It approves products and establishes drug and medical device manufacturing and performance standards. One of the more contentious issues related to drug safety is immunity from prosecution. In 2004, the FDA reversed a federal policy, arguing that FDA premarket approval overrides most claims for damages under state law for medical devices; this was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Riegel v Medtronic in 2008. On 30 June 2006 an FDA ruling went into effect extending protection from lawsuits to pharmaceutical manufacturers even if it was found that they submitted fraudulent clinical trial data to the FDA in their quest for approval; leaving consumers with serious health consequences from drug use with little recourse; in 2007 opposition to the ruling was raised in the US House but the Senate upheld the status quo and on March 4, 2009 the US Supreme Court handed down a decision in Wyeth v Levine asserting that state-level rights of action could not be pre-empted by federal immunity and could provide "appropriate relief for injured consumers." In June 2009 under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, Health and Human Services signed an order extending protection to vaccine makers and federal officials during a declared health emergency related to the administration of the swine flu vaccine. When health care legislation was being written in 2009 the drug companies were asked to support the legislation in return for not allowing importation of drugs from foreign countries; as a result on January 4, 2012 we heard the number of new drug shortages is at a record high and on February 10 the drug Methotrexate Sodium used to cure about 90% of the kids with Leukemia to which there is no alternative is in short supply because the 4 companies that make the low profit drug are having production problems or can’t meet the demand; on February 22 more companies are approved to reduce the shortage.

The Office of the Actuary (OACT) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publishes data on total health care spending in the United States, including both historical levels and future projections. In 2007 the US spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person, up from $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per capita, the previous year. Growth in spending is projected to average 6.7% annually over the period 2007 through 2017. However, in September 2008 the Wall Street Journal reported that consumers were reducing their health care spending in response to the current economic slow-down. Both the number of prescriptions filled and the number of office visits dropped between 2007 and 2008. In one survey 22% of consumers reported going to the doctor less often and 11% reported buying fewer prescription drugs; this may explain why on January 10, 2012 it was reported that the rise in health care costs was its lowest in 51 years.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986 - is considered a critical element in the "safety net" for the uninsured but it established no direct payment mechanism for such care. Indirect payments and reimbursements through federal and state government programs have never fully compensated public and private hospitals for the full cost of care mandated by EMTALA. Emergency health care is generally more expensive than an urgent care clinic or a doctor's office visit especially if a condition has worsened due to putting off needed care. More than half of all emergency care in the US now goes uncompensated and has contributed to financial pressures on hospitals in the last 20 years causing them to consolidate and close facilities and contributing to emergency room (ER) overcrowding. According to the Institute of Medicine between 1993 and 2003 ER visits grew by 26% while the number of emergency departments declined by 425. Emergency rooms are typically at, near, or over capacity. Long wait times have become a problem nationally and in urban areas some ERs are put on "diversion" on a regular basis, meaning that ambulances are directed to bring patients elsewhere.

Charity care for those who cannot pay is sometimes available and is usually funded by non-profit foundations, religious orders, government subsidies, or services donated by the employees. Massachusetts and New Jersey and the city and county of San Francisco, California have programs for health care when the patient cannot afford to pay (limited to those residents whose incomes and net worth are below an eligibility threshold). Some cities and counties operate or provide subsidies to private facilities open to all regardless of the ability to pay; means testing is applied and some patients may be charged for the services they use. The universal health care system adopted through the Massachusetts 2006 Health Reform Statute in part has earned Massachusetts the #1 spot in the country for its doctor to patient ratio. In July 2009 Connecticut passed SustiNet into law with the goal of achieving health care coverage of 98% of its residents by 2014. In 1997 of the immigrants who became US citizens 18.5% were uninsured, non citizens were 43.6% uninsured and 14.2% of native-born Americans did not have health insurance coverage. Without charity, government subsidies or donated services uninsured people who need care would end up in the more expensive EMTALA care via ERs. A national health care program should reduce the overall cost to hospitals as people would be able to get preventive care via doctor visits and be able to go to urgent care clinic instead of ERs. By doing this we should also be able to provide better and more efficient ERs. 

US Medical - Part 1

The Physicians for a National Health Program website said that during the Progressive Era that although President Theodore Roosevelt (1901 — 1909) believed that no country could be strong whose people were sick and poor and as such supported health insurance, most of the initiatives for reform took place outside of government. Roosevelt’s successors were mostly conservative leaders, who postponed for about 20 years the kind of presidential leadership that might have involved the national government more extensively in the management of social welfare; ever since the US has been pursuing a national health care program.

A USA Today March 2, 2005 article said studies say - The country needs to train 3,000 to 10,000 more physicians a year — up from the current 25,000 — to meet the growing medical needs of an aging wealthy nation. Because it takes 10 years to train a doctor, the nation will have a shortage of 85,000 to 200,000 doctors in 2020 unless action is taken soon. The predictions of a doctor shortage represent an abrupt about-face for the medical profession. For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. In 1994, the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000. "It didn't happen," says Harvard University medical professor David Blumentha . .  . "In fact, we're all gainfully employed, earning good incomes, and new physicians are getting two, three or four job offers." The nation now has about 800,000 active physicians, up from 500,000 20 years ago. They've been kept busy by a growing population and new procedures ranging from heart stents to liposuction. Even the AMA, the influential lobbying group for physicians, has abandoned its long-standing position that an "oversupply exists or is immediately expected." A July 1, 2010 article in the Arizona Republic reflects this saying - the estimated 2010 national ratio is about 299 physicians per 100,000 people but Arizona and many others states are far below this level. AMA has also aggressively lobbied for many restrictions that require doctors to carry out operations that might be carried out by a cheaper workforce. For example, in 1995, 36 states banned or restricted midwifery even though according to studies it delivers equally safe care to that by doctors. According to the consensus of economists the regulation lobbied by the AMA has decreased the amount and quality of health care - the restrictions do not add to quality, they decrease the supply of care. Moreover, psychologists, nurses and pharmacologists are not allowed to prescribe medicines. Previously nurses were not even allowed to vaccinate the patients without direct supervision by doctors. And, only 36 states require that health care workers undergo criminal background checks.

In the fragmented US health care system many patients and their providers experience problems with care coordination. For example, a Harris Interactive survey of California physicians found that 40% of physicians reported that their patients have had problems with coordination of their care in the last 12 months; more than 60% of the doctors reported that their patients "sometimes" or "often" experience long wait times for diagnostic tests and 20% of the doctors reported having their patients repeat tests because of an inability to locate the results during a scheduled visit. Many primary care physicians no longer see their patients while they are in the hospital. The use of hospitalists is sometimes mandated by health insurance companies as a cost-saving measure which is resented by some primary care physicians. The use of hospitalists fragments care because hospitalists usually have no previous relationship with the patient and do not have a personal knowledge of the patient's medical history. A study by Johns Hopkins University found that roughly 1 in 4 patients believe their doctors have exposed them to unnecessary risks and anecdotal evidence such as self-help books and web postings suggest increasing patient frustration. Possible factors behind the deteriorating doctor/patient relationship include the current system for training physicians and differences in how doctors and patients view the practice of medicine. Doctors may focus on diagnosis and treatment while patients may be more interested in wellness and being listened to by their doctors.

A New England Journal of Medicine article of October 1, 2009 said - Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options for health care; only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support. Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the “other” physicians — those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine — were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so. Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than non-owners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%), but a majority still supported it. Finally, there was also majority support for a public option among AMA members (62.2%). Overall, 58.3% of respondents supported an expansion of Medicare to Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 years. This support was consistent across all four specialty groups, with proportions in favor ranging from 55.6% to 62.4%.

Gas Prices

Gas prices started to rise toward the end of January and on February 18, 2012 we heard that they went up because oil refineries reduced production. On this same day we heard firefighters had to douse a fire at Washington’s largest oil refinery. On February 21 we heard because gas prices are at the highest they’ve ever been at this time of year that the Republicans are running with the increased gas prices and touting that it’s because of Obama’s failure to release fuel from the federal petroleum reserve and implement the Keystone pipeline. I’m going to address these 2 issues.

I’ve noticed that every spring we have oil refineries, usually in the south, that have fires thus reducing supply when the demand is high – this drives up the price of gas to consumers. It appears with the Washington fire that this process will start earlier this year and I’d bank on it being because it’s an election year and since Republicans are backed by the oil tycoons they’ll do whatever they can do to help out their cohorts and continue to get the tax credits they’ve been getting for years even though they make billions of dollars annually (don’t forget they don’t like the new smog rules). As far as releasing oil from the reserves - last year when about 30 million gallons of gas were released from the federal petroleum reserve gas only went down about 10 cents per gallon so that wouldn’t help much when you consider how much they’ve jumped in a month. But, experts are saying for every 10 cent rise in the price of gas the economy losses $11 billion a year – hmm – maybe this is a political ploy.

The pipeline issue is foolish. If we started today the oil wouldn’t be available for years so it obviously is not a factor in rising gas prices this year. Yes, there are tensions with Iran and we get 10% of our oil from there but remember that in December 2011 we once again began issuing permits to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and in January the President directed his administration to open up more than 75% of our potential offshore oil resources. These measures would work for the short term and we were reminded that we have only 2% of the world’s oil resources so we need a strategy that develops every available source of American energy in order to reduce our dependency on other countries.

On February 22 Gingrich said if you like $2.50 a gallon (of gas) we want you to be with us (Republicans). I looked at gas prices online and found that gas prices haven’t been this low since mid 2004 and they’ve been on the rise ever since. They only way to return to those prices would be for Wall Street speculators and oil companies to reduce their profits which we know they won’t do.

Per Sageworks of the $50 you spend at the gas pump $30.75 (61.5%) goes to the oil company, $7 (14%) to the refinery, $6 (12%) to taxes, $4 (8%) for delivery, $1.25 (2.5%) goes to the credit card company and $1 (2%) to the gas station. On February 23 the Commissioner of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission said big banks gambling on oil drives the price of oil up, excessive speculation pays Wall Street speculators 22% (this means if a barrel of gas is going for $80 it shoots up to $98 , if it’s $100 a barrel it goes to $122) before it’s sold to be made into gas, the Commission is trying to place limits due to speculation markup and Wall Street is suing them in order to keep things status quo. Now think about it – what political party is backed by Wall Street.

Manipulation in supply and demand by the banks, Wall Street, the oil companies and refineries are the reason for the increase in gas prices but they want you to believe it’s because of the tensions in Iran and the other parts of the Middle East.

On February 24 it’s reported that you can get gas for $2.95 per gallon in Colorado and the price in California is up to $5.12 per gallon; gas thefts are on the rise due to the increase in price.   

Santorum's Congressional Voting Record - Part 3

The Club for Growth (CG) supports broad school choice, including charter schools and voucher programs that create a competitive education market including public, private, religious, and non-religious schools. CG says that in an interview in early 2011, Santorum said, “I’ve been for school choice since the very beginning. I’ve sponsored school choice bills.” As a candidate for the Senate in 1994, Santorum filled out a questionnaire in which he signaled his support for school choice. And in 1997 and 2001 Santorum voted to allow a school choice program in the District of Columbia. He introduced a bill in 1998 which would allow states to establish voluntary parental choice scholarship programs. However, he indicated in that questionnaire that he wanted “national standards” from the federal government and he didn’t support eliminating the Department of Education. This bears itself out in his record. As mentioned, Santorum supported No Child Left Behind in 2001 which greatly expanded Washington’s control over education. Santorum now appears to have reversed course. In that same 2011 interview, Santorum said, “Well, the Department of Education is, in my opinion, unnecessary and overseeing a state bureaucracy which is already a big problem.” While Santorum’s school choice goals move in the right direction, he undermines that with support for too much federal government control.

I didn’t realize until the recent discussions regarding No Child Left Behind that education throughout our country was so unequal; that states determine whether or not a child should be held back if not performing at a certain level and a diploma received in one school is not equal to one in another. I find this a terrible inequity and therefore government control is necessary to ensure children in every state get a minimum education. Way back when I was in favor of the voucher program as it was a means for paying people for home schooling children but on February 14 I heard that New York Hasidic Jewish girls go to religious private school where they learn how to be a good wife and with a 4^th grade reading level they earn a diploma at age 16. I don’t care what kind of school children attend but I do think that there should be requirements for passing from one grade level to another in order to obtain a diploma of equal value. As such I do not agree with CG in that more competition in education will lead to higher quality; it does lower costs but that’s a sad exchange for the future of our children and country.  

Per CG Santorum has supported strong reforms to rein in litigation abuse. In 1995, he voted YES to putting caps on punitive damages in product liability cases and to restrict frivolous class action lawsuits. He has consistently pushed for medical malpractice reform in an effort to drive down the cost of medicine. In 2006, he sponsored a bill to cap non-economic damages related to obstetrical and gynecological services. I’m concerned with votes that support women as subservient beings. I too don’t like frivolous lawsuits but believe instead of just driving down the cost of medicine our medical professionals should provide a level of service that protects the people.  

Per CG in the biggest political free speech debate of the last ten years, Santorum voted NO on the oppressive 2002 McCain-Feingold bill calling it “an affront to personal freedoms and liberty.” In 1997 Santorum offered a campaign finance reform bill as an alternative to an earlier version of McCain-Feingold. He proposed expanding the law to ensure that “contributing to campaigns must be completely voluntary.” The practical effect of his proposal would have been that unions couldn’t use their members’ dues on political activity without their permission. But Santorum has supported a milder form of limits on political speech. He advocated low contribution limits in his 1997 bill; his proposal actually increased the individual cap from $1,000 to $4,000 but only for in-state residents. Out-of-state donors would still be capped at $1,000. On the Senate floor, Santorum said, “The fact of the matter is we have low limits. I think we should keep them relatively low, but they should be high enough so people can have some ability to form a little bit of seed corn to start a campaign if they want to run for office”. 

CG did give two notable exceptions of Santorum endorsing candidates that went against the Republican Party as a whole; one was in 2004 (as chairman of the Republican Conference in the Senate he did not back the incumbent Pennsylvania Republican for Senate) and the other in 2009 (endorsed a Conservative Party nominee over a liberal Republican in New York). CG said - What is troubling is the lengths to which he would stoop to mislead Republican voters; in the years that followed Santorum offered a series of revisionist explanations, those explanations have changed several times and none of them are consistent with what he said during the 2004 campaign. The only explanation that is consistent is political expediency. Santorum was willing to jettison conservative principles when it suited him in 2004 and wants to try to explain it away when it no longer suits him on the 2012 presidential campaign trail. Per CG as president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues. On February 20, 2012 Santorum said that prenatal testing leads to more abortions when fetuses are discovered with birth defects; some Republicans are saying his views will turn off independents, moderates, and women; a top Republican Senator said if Romney loses in Michigan they’ll need to find another candidate. 

Santorum's Congressional Voting Record - Part 2

According to the Club for Growth (CG) free trade is a vital policy necessary for maximizing economic growth. I believe this to be true to a certain point as recent events have shown the undercutting of our labor force and theft of technology. CG says before assessing Santorum’s votes against free trade, it should be noted that he cast several pro-trade votes, including the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Oman, Morocco, Australia, Chile, Singapore, Dominican Republic-Central America (CAFTA), Trade Promotion Authority, and extension of normal trade relations with China. But beyond those pro-trade actions, Santorum has some real duds. In perhaps the most important free trade vote during his career in Congress, Santorum voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. Days before the vote, he said, “NAFTA will produce pockets of winners and losers across the country. Our area is unfortunately one of the losers."  That analysis, while arguably correct with regard to a small number of industries in Pennsylvania, ignores the fact that every single consumer in Pennsylvania benefited tremendously from NAFTA, as well as did many more affected industries. As a member of the Senate Steel Caucus, Santorum voted for and co-sponsored a bill to slap tariffs on imported steel in 1999. In 2005, Santorum voted in support of an amendment that would impose a massive, job-killing 27.5% tariff on all Chinese imports if China didn’t readjust their currency upward. In 1997, Santorum sponsored a proposal that would impose a one-cent tax on imported honey with the proceeds going to the National Honey Board to aid in their research, a special interest giveaway. 

Per CG Santorum has a mixed record on regulation. He opposed card check and the over-reaching Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.   He also voted NO on a cap and trade scheme brought to the Senate back in 2003 and YES on opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. He voted YES to get rid of the Clinton ergonomic rules in early 2001. He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005 but on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage. He displayed similar duplicity on ethanol. In early 2011, Santorum said, “Prior to 9/11, I was not a big fan of ethanol subsidies, but 2001 change[d] my mind on a lot of things, and one of them was trying to support domestic energy and this is part of it." Evidence does show that Santorum was opposed to ethanol before 9/11 - in 1997 and 1998 as he voted to end ethanol subsidies. The evidence also shows that, at times, he was supportive of an ethanol mandate after 9/11 but in 2005 Santorum voted to end the ethanol mandate. If the original flip-flop was a principled stand taken by Santorum because of national security concerns, we’re at a loss to explain this flip-flop-flip-again vote. In Santorum’s 2006 campaign brochure he boasts about sponsoring a bill to regulate “price gouging and unfair pricing by the big oil companies.”  This contradicts his opposition to a “windfall profits tax” that Democrats tried to impose on oil companies in 2005. He also voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, which was an overreaching bill that tried to tighten accounting regulations following the Enron scandal. I’m not getting into my point on any of these.

CG says Santorum flip-flopped on government’s role in the housing market. In late 2000, Santorum wrote a document encouraging more home ownership, particularly for low-income families, with the help of government assistance, whether it was through the Federal Housing Administration, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, he changed his tune in 2005, when he urged reform of Fannie and Freddie. Along with 24 of his colleagues, he signed a letter that read, “If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.” Unfortunately, Congress did not heed this warning and the America public knows all too well what the consequences were.

Per CG on Social Security (SS), Santorum has been very outspoken in favor of pro-growth reforms; when SS was considered the “third rail” in politics, Santorum was advocating personal savings accounts as a way to strengthen the program while giving taxpayers ownership over their retirements. In 1998, he did a town hall meeting with President Clinton advocating for personal savings accounts. In 2005, Santorum led the charge to adopt personal accounts on behalf of President Bush; he also co-sponsored a bill that would “stop the raid” on the SS Trust Fund and in 2006 he voted YES on a similar piece of legislation.

Santorum is opposed to Obama Care and advocates its full repeal. In a recent interview, he said that if he were president, the second thing he would do once in office after repeal, would be to end Medicaid as a federal entitlement.  “We need to give a block of money to the states. We need to pare back some of these strings attached to this money, and let the states devise their own program”. Santorum supports allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines and open up tax free health savings accounts but Santorum supported the expensive Medicare prescription drug program in 2003.

Santorum's Congressional Voting Record - Part 1

On February 18, 2012 we heard that Romney was instrumental in getting $600 million earmarked for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Utah; I’m okay with this – we should be hosting games and it is a national event. Santorum got the endorsement of a former Ohio Senator who was backing Romney. On February 18 Santorum said Obama’s religion is based on false theology not the bible – he still doesn’t get it. On February 19 we heard that Romney’s top Arizona campaign co-chair is Gay and he resigns; now Santorum is 10 points higher than Romney in the polls. Now let’s get some Santorum background. Rick Santorum after receiving degrees in Pennsylvania entered the legal profession working for Kirkpatrick & Lockhart. He spent sixteen years in Congress – four years in the House (1991 – 1994)  followed by 12 years (1995 – 2006) in the Senate before losing re-election in 2006 to a Democrat. In the 5 years following the Senate Santorum worked as a consultant lobbying Congress, was a private practice lawyer and news contributor before becoming a Republican candidate for the presidency.

Per the Club for Growth (CG) which is committed to lower taxes as is the Tea Party and very Republican, some of Santorum’s high profile votes regarding taxes include:

1993 - NO on the Clinton tax hike*                                            1997 - YES on the capital gains tax cut

1998 - NO on a cigarette tax hike*                                            1999 - YES on repeal of Alternative Minimum Tax

2001 - YES on the Bush tax cuts                                             2002 - YES to repeal the Death Tax

2003 - YES to the Bush tax cuts                                              2006 - YES to extend the Bush tax cuts

*These are ones I’m okay with, as far as the death tax I think there should be limits not total repeal. 

CG considers Santorum blemishes to be: support of various proposals that increased the complexity of the tax code, his sponsoring of a bill in 2005 that would provide a general business tax credit for building or rehabilitating homes for low- and middle-income individuals in certain areas, support of a bill in 2006 that would provide a $100 “gas-tax holiday” in the form of a rebate check to every family in the country as a way of alleviating the pain caused by high gas prices and sponsoring of a bill that would give telecommuters a tax credit of $500. 

CG is also committed to reducing government spending. They say on spending, Santorum has a mixed record and showed clear signs of varying his votes based on the election calendar. In 1995 he voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto, in 1996 he was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system and voted for the Freedom to Farm Act that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies; when Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, in 2002 he opposed the bill to re-establish the subsidies but in 2005 he sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.” 

CG says there is a troubling part of Santorum’s record on spending, which is found in the years sandwiched between these periods of fiscal restraint. His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006. Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. He supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In a separate vote, Santorum voted to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Indeed, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.” 

CG says Santorum, although strong on taxes and spending in the first four years of his Senate terms, took a sharp swing, he supported raising congressional pay at least three times (2001, 2002, and 2003), in the 2003-2004 session of Congress, he sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican or Democrat. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to earmarks, but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. More recently, when he was out of Congress, Santorum opposed TARP, the stimulus that bailed out the auto industry and lending institutions. 

Europe's Crisis

In November 2011, European leaders were pressing some countries to cede partial budget control to the Central European Authorities in order to deal with the debt crisis. On December 9 all 27 EU countries came together and 23 of them (the UK did not) agreed on a fiscal pact to rescue the Euro; it included greater discipline on national budgets. On January 16, 2012 Standard and Poor’s (S&P) downgraded France stripping it of its top AAA rating, Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Portugal were cut two notches, with the latter two given "junk" ratings, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Malta were the other countries downgraded and the European stock market fell.

On February 7 the Romanian government collapsed after weeks of protests over budget cuts and European leaders put pressure on Greek politicians to comply with the bailout conditions. On February 9 the Greek debt talks broke down and more than 100,000 Greeks protest the austerity measures to cut their retirement and wages by 22%; at least 50 buildings were set on fire; police used tear gas against rioters and looters; nearly 200 were injured; despite opposition on February 13 the plan was passed; it’s said sales tax is up 23%, 50% of 25 year olds and younger are unemployed and suicides are up 40% over last year; stocks in Europe went up. Greek politicians took a hard stand to do their part to save the world economy. I feel bad for the Greeks but I’m reminded that some American auto workers took a 40% cut in pay and cuts in benefits for 4 years before they were rewarded.

On February 14 Moody’s Analytics downgraded Austria (affirmed short-term debt rating of Prime-1) and France from Aaa to negative, Italy and Malta were downgraded from A2 to A3, Portugal from Ba2 to Ba3, Slovakia and Slovenia from A1 to A2, Spain from A1 to A3 and the United Kingdom’s outlook on its Aaa rating was changed to negative. Moody’s kept the ratings of the following European sovereigns Denmark (Aaa), Finland (Aaa), Germany (Aaa), Luxembourg (Aaa), Netherlands (Aaa), Sweden (Aaa), Belgium (Aa3), Estonia (A1), Ireland (Ba1) and Greece (Ca). In November 2011 Moody’s issued Cyprus a Baa3 rating but their review is ongoing. In downgrading Italy Moody’s said peers at the top of the single-A category (like the Czech Republic and South Korea) as well as those in the middle of the category (like Poland) do not face Italy's high debt and structural growth challenges. February 15 articles in US News & World Report and the Chicago Tribune quoted Anthony Valeri, a fixed income strategist at LPL Financial based in San Diego, California as saying "The market expected this, and is not treating this as anything new per se . . . A successful Italian bond auction is an indication the market is largely ignoring this news." And on February 17 we heard the European market rose. The Chicago Tribune article also said - Credit ratings agencies serve an important purpose in the financial world, providing a shorthand estimate of the creditworthiness of debt issuers like countries and corporations. A rating provides an independent estimate of risk to investors and issuers alike. A downgrade for countries that look risk-free (France) can be a major blow to outside investment. However, recent experience suggests that the ratings agencies are following-rather than dictating-how investors view Europe's sovereign debt risk. Markets were calm after S&P's January and Moody’s February European downgrades and S&P's downgrade of U.S. credit last year did not push US borrowing costs upward. Government debt downgrades can hurt domestic banks that hold large quantities of government bonds; for example, following an S&P downgrade of Italian and Spanish debt the agency downgraded 34 of Italy's financial institutions as well as 15 Spanish banks.

I read many websites by economists on the European crisis, one gave reasons for China to help (2 reasons would hurt the US economy), one gave reasons for the US (our position is weak as S&P on 11/30/11 lowered the rating for the biggest banks and on 2/18/12 only 7 of 10 top economists said we’re on our way up) and one gave ways for Europe to bail itself out – one comment on this resolution was from -  @Rob saying ... Issuing bonds, printing money, and giving the EU more authority to tell member states how to handle their finances are all the same thing - I don't think you're going to pass your economics or reading comprehension tests; Rob seems sure that his view is correct. All of the solutions were provided by economic experts; this only proves there are no professionals skilled at handling the situation). The one thing all the websites had in common was that if Europe falls it will cause major ripples in China’s, the US’s as well as other economies. On February 20 the European leaders approved a $172 billion bailout for Greece so they would avoid bankruptcy.

I’m not an economist but I do know this–raising the borrowing rate for already troubled countries only makes their plight worse. In November China cut interest rates which made it easier for Chinese companies and workers to borrow money and Asian and US stocks went up. I heard Europe has the same problems we do with tax evasion and an unfair taxing system which means they too have problems with Swiss banks assisting high-profile tax evaders. I don’t believe there is one answer to the crisis; a combination of all 3 proposals is necessary for an equitable solution and I hope the US steps up to help. Lessons I hope Americans and Europeans have learned – freedoms and safety cost money, politicians should not be getting more than the people; government should be streamlined before taking from the people, businesses and rich people should pay their fair share, corruption is everywhere, in being civil we are too easy on criminals and greed even at the lowest level will be our downfall. 

US Congressional Pensions

On November 4, 2011, it was reported that a Congressman from North Carolina has been trying to change the Congressional pension (has 3 bills with no co-sponsors) for 28 years. I agree with him, the government needs to set an example and live by the rules they set. On February 17, 2012 they did pass a bill to align their pensions with other federal workers but I’m not sure what that will really look like so let’s look at what the 2011 salaries and pensions for Congress, the Vice President (VP) and the President were. Rank and file members of the House and Senate earn $174,000 a year, the Leaders of the House and Senate get $193,400, and the Speaker earns $223,500. As I already said, they get a cost living raise annually unless they vote not to take it. The President earns $400,000 including a $50,000 expense allowance and the Vice President gets $230,700. I believe they pay taxes on these earnings and do pay into Social Security (SS).

As of October 1, 2006, the 290 retired members of Congress were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972 ($17,681,880). Members of Congress get a pension at: (a) age 50 with 20 years of service or (b) any age after completing 25 years of service or (c) age 62 with a minimum of 5 years of service. Their pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of their salary and the starting amount of their retirement is not to exceed 80% of their final salary. In comparison, I know my SS was not based on my highest 3 years of pay. And it’s said that 46 year old Anthony Weiner gets to keep his $54,000 a year pension that is collectible starting at age 62. It is also being said that his pension and benefits during his lifetime could top $1 million if he invested aggressively in the Thrift Savings Plan (whatever that is).

Now, each former President is paid a lifetime taxable pension equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive federal department, the same annual salary paid to secretaries of the cabinet agencies – in 2011, that amount is $199,700. Each former President and VP may also take advantage of funds allocated by Congress to help facilitate their transition to private life. As an example Congress authorized a total of $1.5 million for the transition expenses of outgoing President George H. W. Bush and VP Quail. For 6 months after a President leaves office he gets funds for an office staff – during the first 30 months it’s $150,000 year; thereafter the combined rate of staff compensation cannot exceed $96,000 annually (for life). In addition, the GSA makes travel expenses available for former Presidents and no more than 2 staff members (lifetime). Widows get a $20,000 annual lifetime pension and mailing privileges. In addition, the Secret Service provides lifetime protection for Presidents and spouses and surviving spouses of former Presidents until remarried. And, former Presidents, their spouse & children are entitled to treatment in military hospitals. The Secret Service is provided for VPs and they get paid state funeral expenses with military honors whether or not they were in the military.

This seems like a lot of money for so few. I know of no company that pays their workers more or gives benefits greater than those given to management. Our government officials have forgotten that they work for us. They are the workers, we are the employers. Politicians need to end their pension plans (1984 Civil Service Retirement System and 1986 Federal Employees Retirement System) and have 401Ks and/or be in the SS system. Ann Coulter says the current system allows SS benefits to go to Donald Trump. I say okay, you pay – you play (unless without tax realignment it’s thought the rich should be exempt from collecting; this is okay with me and probably the average American). Trump’s 6.2% of his salary/income into SS and 1.45% into Medicare funds can only help especially if the money earned interest.

In addition to changing their pensions Congress needs to forego their transition, travel and staff expenses after employment as we don’t get these. According to the US Constitution, all men are created equal and this is not what our government is exhibiting. Perhaps ending all their perks will get both parties more in touch with the people they work for. If the Tea Party wants to make a point, let it be this – the legislators shouldn’t get more than their employers - us. If the American people do not have health insurance, retirement, etc., then neither should Congress. If the military and those on SS are held hostage when government fails to do its job then politicians shouldn’t be paid either.  

Life & the Government

In my February 13, 2012 blog I told you about a Texas (TX) federal judge upholding a law that required abortion providers to show or describe to women the ultrasound of the fetus and have them hear the heartbeat before allowing an abortion. On February 16 I heard that there are a couple of bills pending in Virginia (VA); one follows the TX law and the other requires that if a heartbeat is not heard a trans-vaginal ultrasound is required which is extremely intrusive. The right of a woman to have an abortion is the law of the land (Roe v Wade) and although I realize states have the right to make laws that make it difficult to get an abortion I wonder if these state laws should be able to make it as uncomfortable as possible for women to get them. In the case of VA the question is whether or not other medical treatments for medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes and more are mandated or if this will be the first. Of course I went looking for an answer to this question and the only thing I could find that was mandated was the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that requires hospitals to accept patients regardless of their ability to pay for emergency room care. The act does not provide access to non-emergency room care for patients who cannot afford to pay for health care or provide the benefits of preventive care which are generally less expensive than emergency care. I found no evidence of a treatment being mandated. We know parents have the option of vaccinating their children, cancer patients have the option of radiation and chemotherapy, and the list goes on. Although parents are to get their children life saving care (on February 17 an Ohio couple was sentenced to 8 years in prison for their son’s cancer death – a case where religious beliefs are not considered), the type of care given by doctors is not mandated. I find it interesting that the people who don’t want abortion are the same ones that don’t want medical care for everyone and yet want to add to the cost of care with the proposed trans-vaginal ultrasound.

The US Health and Human Services Department says of each dollar spent on health care 31% goes to hospital care, 21% goes to physician/clinical services, 10% to pharmaceuticals, 4% to dental, 6% to nursing homes, 3% to home health care, 3% for other retail products, 3% for government public health activities, 7% to administrative costs, 7% to investment and 6% to other professional services (physical therapists, optometrists, etc). Although the US spends more on health care than any other nation (on January 10 it was reported that the rise in health care costs was its lowest in 51 years), the CIA World Factbook ranked the US 41st in the world for infant mortality and 46th for total life expectancy. The data available to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that the US’ health care for women ranked just above Mexico and Hungary and fifth from the bottom for men (Slovakia and Poland were worse). I was going to go into some of the reasons I found for our medical care costing so much but that’s not the point of this blog.

On February 16 I heard that Oklahoma passed a law saying that life begins at conception. I believe this is another attempt to circumvent a woman’s right to an abortion but this brought up a series of other thoughts as well. I wonder if birth certificates and social security cards will be issued when a fetus is discovered and will death certificates be issued for miscarriages and abortions. This could fundamentally change our thinking (to that of the Chinese) and ultimately increase the cost of care. I think we should concentrate more on keeping babies and people alive once they enter the world than on wasting time bringing unwanted babies into it.

I have always been confused by the fine line between state and federal government and think overall we waste a lot of time and money with unclear lines. I think because a clear line is not drawn that we are not treated equally as intended by the Constitution and the separation between Church and State is being distorted. The federal government has made a woman’s right for an abortion the law of the land and needs to put an end to this foolishness by no longer allowing states to hinder this right with a continued barrage of laws that blur the right to a separation between Church and State; a view that Santorum does not have clear. He seems to think that everyone should be a Christian with religion more specifically being in accordance to the bible. This has me perplexed as I read Samuel 1 and 2 the other day to find out more about David and Goliath and the events that followed; at King David’s death he had 10 wives which is a concept consistent with Mormonism that we don’t allow.   

Parent to Child Lessons

On February 10, 2012 the Facebook video of a North Carolina father shooting his daughter’s laptop in response to the outrageous message she put on Facebook is getting mixed revues. By some of the comments you’d think he shot her and not the laptop that he purchased for her. I heard a woman say that for the daughter to lash out at her parents there had to be something behind it. This may be true for some but not for all. She could be lazy or think her social life is more important than family life that she’s supposed to participate in. She could have been spoiled and now that her parents want something from her, she’s unwilling to give. I also heard child psychologist, Dr. Michael Bradley, say he’s embarrassing and humiliating his daughter in front of the world and all that will do is incite a rage in her. The man said he’d do it all over the again, he doesn’t care what other people say, his family including his daughter is okay with what he did and that’s all that matters. Even though I own a gun I would not have shot the laptop but that would be my reaction and I don’t judge the man for his.

I have a bigger problem with the psychologist thinking that the daughter should feel rage instead of learning to deal with an embarrassing situation; a problem that will, if it hasn’t already, come up in life. I think the people that were outraged at this man’s response are probably the ones that coddle their children or do not do what it takes to stop their children from gang or other bad behaviors and are a bigger detriment to our society; these are probably the same ones that don’t believe in the death penalty but don’t want ex-cons to be released in their neighborhoods. I believe this man has taught his daughter several lessons: we live in a great country where we all have freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, what you put on the internet will come back to bite you, there are consequences to your actions, you should obey Commandment #5 - Honor thy father and thy mother; if you choose to use a gun – do not shoot it at the object of your rage if it is human, and think twice before you destroy property as you’ll get over your anger and be the one that pays the cost of replacing the object.

In 2011 we had several reports of parents acting poorly and showing their kids the wrong lessons at sports games and during the tryouts. There was the New York (NY) mother who got arrested for threatening little league officials, the coach and school principal because her son didn’t make the team; 50 people who got into a violent melee that required police to be called to a Maryland Little League game; a hockey Dad who killed another parent over an argument about rough play on the ice; a Massachusetts mother who kicked an 11 year-old because he was cheering for the opposing team; a Texas cheerleader mother who hired a hit man to kill the mother of her daughter’s rival so the girl would be so devastated that she wouldn’t try out and thus her daughter might get a position on the squad;  a referee in Sarasota, Florida  was attacked because of a disagreement over a call, and the Pennsylvania T-ball coach who offered an 8 year-old $25 to injure an autistic child before the playoffs because he didn’t want to use the child for the 3 innings required by league rules. I hear that these cases are extreme but no longer rare. After a game on January 2, 2012 3 Philadelphia Flyer fans assaulted 2 NY Ranger fans (one was a seriously injured Iraq war veteran) just for supporting their team. 

On January 24 we heard that both the Baltimore Raven kicker and San Francisco 49er wide receiver that made mistakes in the playoff games received death threats from supposed fans. A father in speaking with his 7 year old upset 49er fan asked his son how he thought the player felt. The boy after thinking about it wrote and told Kyle Williams that he felt bad for him but for him to remember that he had a great year and that he’s awesome; the boy said it’s only a game. This lesson obviously was not learned by the older set as on February 6 1,500 University of Massachusetts students rioted in Amherst due to the New England Patriot’s loss to the NY Giants, police used smoke bombs to disperse the crowd; 14 were arrested.

In 2011 we had a NY mother who after having no success with the school or law enforcement in stopping her daughter from being bullied set up a fight between her 12 year old and one of the 10 bullies and during the fight she turned on one of the spectators and became the bully.

I don’t know what the heck is wrong with people exhibiting and thus teaching their children bad behavior but I do think the 2 Dads mentioned here taught their children very valuable lessons; I wish there were more like them. 

US Congress' Popularity & Bill Process

On George Stephanopoulos’ February 12, 2012 show he brought up the Gallup poll of a few days ago that found Congress’ approval at 10%, the lowest in nearly 40 years; approval of IRS is 40%, Nixon during Watergate was 24% and BP during the oil spill was 16%. The Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Republican Paul Ryan, responded with – there’s nowhere to go but up. People will realize that there is a difference between the House and the Senate. The House is controlled by Republicans (true as of January 31, 2012 there were 242 Republicans, 192 Democrats and 1 vacancy). Last year we passed a budget to save and shrink Medicare and Social Security, to pay off our debit, to grow our economy. We passed 30 bills aimed at growing our economy that are sitting in the Senate (as of May 9, 2011 there were 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and 1 Independent). We passed 4 budget process reform bills to strengthen the way we account for taxpayer money and the Senate has done nothing. The Senate, against current law, has not passed a budget law in 2010 or 2011 and they’re saying they won’t in 2012. We (the House) will because the law says we need to and we have a moral obligation to try and fix this country’s problems before they get out of control. He said there’s a big difference between the action in the House and total inaction by the Senate. Generally people are looking at what’s coming out of Congress which is nothing but when they look at what’s actually happening the House is acting while the Senate is sitting on its hands playing politics. Did you catch the difference in the Senate – 4 more Democrats than Republicans? Any Senator can propose a bill so just because the Senate is controlled by the Democrats I don’t put anymore blame on them than I do on the 47 Republicans. Besides, the House Republicans outnumber the total Senate.  

It is my understanding that the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." While the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it has the power to amend or reject them. If this understanding is correct than it makes no sense that the Senate waste its time preparing a budget as most will contain some sort of revenue change through taxes, fees, etc. Now let’s talk about a bill’s process. Each bill goes through several stages in each house including consideration by a committee and advice from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). And, most legislation is considered by standing committees which have jurisdiction over a particular subject such as Agriculture or Appropriations. The House has twenty standing committees and the Senate has sixteen; they all meet at least once each month. Most standing committee meetings for transacting business are open to the public unless the committee votes, publicly, to close the meeting and a committee can call for public hearings on important bills. Each committee is led by a chair belonging to the majority party and a ranking member of the minority party. Witnesses and experts can present their case for or against a bill and a bill may then go to a mark-up session where committee members debate the bill's merits. After debate, the committee votes whether it wishes to report the measure to the full house. Committees may offer amendments or revisions but the full house holds the power to accept or reject committee amendments. If a bill is tabled then it is rejected. If amendments are extensive, sometimes a new bill with amendments built in will be submitted as a so-called clean bill with a new number. Both houses have procedures under which committees can be bypassed or overruled but they are rarely used. 

On February 11 ABC reported that Americans are paying for unnecessary government spending. A decade ago Congress believed that there would be a need for additional court rooms (I suppose they were thinking that the Patriot Act would increase the need). The ABC story told us about a vacant lot being the site of a $400 million courthouse being built in Los Angeles (LA) where there are already 2 courthouses nearby, $163 million new Miami courthouse with the old one just down the road, padlocked and abandoned, and $105 million spent in DC for a new courthouse with the old one right next door mostly empty. According to the GAO $835 million has already been spent on unnecessary federal courthouses and the GAO wants to pull the plug on new building starting with the LA courthouse. LA politicians say their courthouses are overcrowded and unsafe – right now dangerous criminals use public elevators and corridors. I say start a swing or night shift to deter both conditions and if the structures aren’t up to snuff get them repaired. Now that we know how bills are handled let’s look at what went on the past year. Congress still hasn’t passed a Jobs bill, it did not stop the mint from producing presidential coins until there was public outrage, and it hasn’t stopped the building of unnecessary courthouses. While the President and his party leaders have pushed for reforming banks, corporations, the government, Wall Street and health care. On February 16 the House held 2 hearings regarding contraception/religion; one included no women and the other had only women opposing contraception; the nerve of the Republicans to hold hearings without all parties. Tell me, who is sitting on their hands or wasting time.

On February 16 Michigan’s Governor endorsed Romney even though he’s failing behind Santorum. Santorum’s tax returns showed he made $3.6 million from 2007-2010 (the first 4 years he left Congress) and bought a luxury German (not American) car. Santorum as Gingrich made the bulk of his money lobbying Congress. I found a Republican website that gives Santorum’s actual voting record while he was in Congress and I’ll provide that later.   

Proposed 2013 Budget

On February 12, 2012 George Stephanopoulos spoke with Rick Santorum who said he wasn’t disappointed with his Maine showing of third place. He did a lot of back stepping on his votes while in the Senate, his 2006 campaign issues and the comments he made in regard to women in a book he wrote; he said he’ll be releasing his tax returns this week. George Will who was on the show said that current polls show Romney losing by 4 points and Santorum tied with Obama. I’m not going to knock Santorum for his comments about the feminist movement; it gave women choices but I also feel it somewhat belittled the homemaker. On October 19, 2011 it was reported the use of antidepressants had gone up 400% in the last 15 years; per the Center for Disease Control women use antidepressant 2 ½ times more than men with nearly 25% of the women taking them being 40 – 59. Families may be better off if a parent stayed home and took care of the household so that there’d be more time for the children. Families with 2 working parents may be the result of the economy, the desire to get more things, or the fact that the parents just want to work. On December 13, 2011 per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of stay at home Dads had doubled over the last 10 years; it’s at 5 million and counting.

Stephanopoulos pointed out to the White House Chief of Staff, Jacob Lew, that the President pledged on February 23, 2009 to cut the deficit in half by his first term in office and the deficit will be over a trillion dollars for the 4^th year in a row. Lew said because the economy was falling so fast that the President concentrated on forming a base (dealt with the housing crisis and jobs that hit the American people hard). Lew said the President’s budget includes $2.50 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase and we need an economy where everyone has a fair shot, where everyone does its fair share and everyone plays by the same rules. On February 13 the President released his 2013 budget plan that outlines his priorities (raising taxes on those making $200,000 or more, spending on education and energy to serve as an economic stimulus) and the spending of $3.8 trillion. ABC broke down the numbers - $3.8 trillion spent but only $2.9 trillion in revenues thus putting us $0.9 trillion further in the hole and we already have $15.3 trillion in debt. The Republicans called it a failure. I heard the President wants to cut the deficit by $4 trillion in 10 years by making spending cuts and raising taxes on the wealthy. ABC said there will be no budget passed by the House or Senate so the document was only to set the stage. The Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Republican Paul Ryan had told George the President’s proposals load massive tax increases on small businesses and hardworking families, they require bureaucratic rationing in government health care programs, and they hollow out our national security. I find it hard to believe that the plan loads massive tax increases on small businesses and hardworking families when he repeatedly pushes for increases on the rich and just recently I heard a Republican candidate say – aren’t you tired of hearing about Warren Buffet’s secretary. I think cuts are needed but they should aimed at government waste and bureaucratic spending (their gym, pensions, travel, etc.) before being aimed at middle or lower income Americans and revenue must be obtained the private sector must hire (in order to get people off welfare and food stamps and have them pay taxes) and the rich must pay more, perhaps they could raise tariffs on some countries.  

George said that in the short term the extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits are needed and are still stalled; Boehner’s office said the President has not contacted them directly. Lew said there’s a Conference Committee (includes both parties) that Boehner asked for and the President agreed to form, they know what needs to be done and Boehner said it should be handled by the Committee, they’ve been working even on the weekend. Ryan said it should get done but what they’re trying to do is make cuts because the payroll tax cut loses money to the Social Security (SS) Trust Fund and accelerates the bankruptcy of the fund; he said it seems the parties (he corrected himself to say the President’s party leaders) are not engaging in these conversations and we (the Republicans) have offered scores of different offsets, we’ve taken provisions from the President’s own budget as ways of paying for this tax cut holiday and they insist on not agreeing so he doesn’t know what this is going to come down to. On February 15 without demanding budget the parties agreed to a deal to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment and not reduce Medicare payments to doctors.

George said the Democrats are saying that the Republicans’ plan to reform Medicare is a voucher system that will end Medicare as we know it and not the premium support as the Republicans claim. Ryan said Medicare is going bankrupt, the President’s health care law puts 15 unaccountable people in charge of cutting Medicare which will lead to denied care to seniors and his health care law take a half trillion dollars from Medicare to spend on Obama care; so if you look at what we’re proposing you’ll see there’s a bipartisan consensus in Congress on how to save and strengthen the Medicare program; we don’t change the benefit for anybody 55 and older. George said there were talks that people would have the option of picking premium support or Medicare and asked if it would be in the Republican budget - Ryan said the budget hasn’t been written, it comes out in spring and repeated himself with their goal and the failure of the President’s leaders to talk. All I can say is just remember back to the holdups of our current budget and which party fought to keep SS and Medicare for the average American. 

Religion v Traditional

Religion goes back at least as far as human civilizations and according to many sources the Egyptians, East Indians, Chinese and Mesopotamians predate the Jews. According to the East Indian calendar, it is said that Rama appeared a million or so years ago (no exact date). Krishna, an Indian king according to the Vedic scriptures appeared about 5,000 years ago, Buddha (and Buddhism) about 500 years before Christ and Jesus a little over 2,000 years ago.

As Rama is the basis of Egyptian religion and its origins date back beyond 3000 BCE it predates Christianity, Judaism, and Islam which are all considered Abrahamic religions (Abraham dates back to 1800 BC). The origins of Hindu tradition have been traced as far as the ancient Vedic civilization (2nd and 1st millennia BCE more than 50,000 years ago and up to 6th Century BCE) and ancient Indus Valley civilization (c3,000 - 1500 BC) so Vedic Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are considered the oldest organized religions. 

There are archaeological indications that strongly suggest such spiritual traditions whether Hinduism or not existed long before that (into pre-history). Scholars have largely held that man's first rituals were carried out over 40,000 years ago in Europe but Associate Professor Sheila Coulson, an archaeologist from the Oslo University, claims to have proof that modern humans started performing advanced rituals in Africa at least 70,000 years ago; she discovered, what appears to be, the remains of the world's earliest religious worship site in the remote Ngami land region of Botswana where our ancestors performed advanced rituals, worshiping the python. It’s believed that Australian aboriginal beliefs probably go back 60,000 or more. But Coulson’s discovery strengthens Africa's position as the cradle of modern man.

Nobody actually knows what the first religion was but if you go through the different religious books and study this question deeply, you will find that Sanskrit is the oldest written language writing down religion and therefore Hinduism (although it is not strictly a religion in the formal sense of the word but a spiritual tradition) is the first known religion and therefore considered the first and oldest organized religion of the world.

The latest figures estimating world religious populations show the top 12 religions as: Christianity - 2.1 billion, Islam - 1.5 billion, Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist - 1.1 billion, Hinduism - 900 million, Chinese traditional - 394 million, Buddhism - 376 million, Primal-indigenous - 300 million, African traditional and Diasporic - 100 million, Sikhism - 23 million, Juche - 19 million, Spiritism - 15 million and Judaism - 14 million.

The words ‘traditional values’ are being spoken by many Christians lately. There are several meanings for the word ‘traditional’ some of what I take to be negative such as old-fashioned, unadventurous or conventional meaning being a conformist (a follower). If people used this meaning for the word traditional, Christians would not exist as they were created out of change and are babies in the world of religion. Just because Christians are now the largest population in the world it does not mean that your hate filled ways is what is intended for our world. I don’t want America to go back 150 or more years (prior to 1863) when we had slavery, brothers fighting brothers or even 1920 when women got the right to vote or the 1970s when we still didn’t have equality or even 2008 when taxes for capital gains were lowered. I want to move forward and correct the wrongs that exist. We seem to have no manners. There are less “please, thank you, you’re welcome, and excuse me” spoken. Love is reduced to ‘like’, a thumbs up, a word of approval instead of a true feeling of caring. I remember when a person was arrested for putting money in the parking meters for other people. With this type of government support for a random act of kindness it’s no wonder that people would rather commit a true criminal act. The movie ‘Pay it Forward’ is one of my favorites. The behavior shown in the movie is what we should be doing to make a better country. Generally, I’ve come to believe that we are not rewarding good people.

Christians although considered in existence since Abraham includes Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Episcopalians, and more that came into the world after Jesus was born. These religions were also formed out of a need for change and thank God that there were people that stood for change and those that allowed change to occur. America allows people of all religions to worship and when you look at the world’s population Christians are not the majority and should not be asking Americans to follow the negative meanings of the word ‘traditional’.

There are positive meanings to the word traditional such as customary, expected, usual, established and time-honored. I think these meanings coincide with what Ellen said she believes in (honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you want to be treated and helping those in need). I also think they are the basis for the continual growth of Americans in reaching the expectations of our Declaration of Independence (all men are created equal) and Constitution (to form a more perfect Union). So I say it’s time for Christians to step up and help create the positive change instilled in our doctrines by allowing those that are different from you to coexist here in America and in the world.