Affordable Healthcare

There is one principal that I believe all Americans can all agree on: Americans need Affordable Healthcare.  The problem seems to be that no one knows what this means, or how to accomplish this.  When I get a problem that is as complex as this one, I like to break it down and walk through it bit by bit.  That is what I will attempt to do with this blog.

Let's start with some free market principals. 

• As a consumer, I should not be required or compelled to buy healthcare insurance.   It is that simple.  Yes, we are compelled to buy auto insurance; as a condition of being able to drive on public roads.  Yes, we are compelled to buy home owners insurance; as a condition of being able to finance the purchase of a house through a third party or a bank.  Both of these scenarios specify insurance as a required term and/or condition of a contract or agreement.  If I do not want to buy auto insurance, I can make the choice to not own and operate a vehicle on public roads.  If I do not want to pay home owner's insurance, I can choose not to finance the purchase.  I am still in control - I am still making the choice / decision.
•  As a consumer, I should be able to purchase a healthcare insurance plan from anyone selling healthcare insurance plans; the healthcare insurance company of my choice.  This means I should not be restricted to purchasing a healthcare insurance plan from my employer.  I should be able to purchase healthcare insurance from anyone who wants to sell me healthcare insurance, just like I can do for my auto or home owner's insurance.  The point here is to make healthcare insurance companies compete for my business.  If my employer wants to offer a special rate plan that they have negotiated on behalf of all their employees, that is great as long as I can elect (without penalty of any kind) to buy a healthcare insurance plan from anyone I want.

At the risk of upsetting all the employers in America, the key point here is that most Americans are essentially forced to buy healthcare insurance through their employers.  This is wrong!  Employers can provide additional compensation in the form of dollars to pay for healthcare insurance via employee owned Healthcare Savings Accounts.  Employers can also provide access to healthcare insurance plans they have negotiated on behalf of their employees.  But, employers should not be able to specify that compensation to pay for healthcare insurance is contingent on purchasing the employer's healthcare insurance plan.   It is simple: employers should contribute money to a Healthcare Savings Account on behalf of their employee(s), and this should be regardless of whether the employee is buying healthcare insurance through the employer's negotiated healthcare insurance plan. 
So, the solution seems simple:

• Employers can make contributions to employee Healthcare Savings Accounts (as a benefit and/or additional compensation)
• Americans can purchase healthcare insurance plans from any healthcare insurance company; no restrictions
• Americans should not be required to purchase healthcare insurance plans from their employers

Let's talk a little more about Healthcare Savings Accounts.  The idea here is to have a way for Americans to save for medical expenses.  I think it should be simpler than that.  Employers need a way to provide a healthcare benefit, without requiring their employees to purchase healthcare insurance plans exclusively through the employers (as we have already established).  By having the employer make deposits into a employee owned Healthcare Savings Account, we are decoupling the benefit payment from the purchase of a healthcare insurance plan.  Thus, if an employee decided to not buy a healthcare insurance plan, they could do so.  Instead, the employee might like to just pay for medical expenses as they come up; directly from their Healthcare Savings Plan.

There's another benefit to an employer's healthcare benefit that needs to be taken into consideration: it's tax free!  Why require an American to be working in order to take advantage of the tax benefit?  Wouldn't it simpler, and just make all medical expenses tax exempt?  That would give the same benefit, without coupling a person's healthcare to their job.  And, this gives us our third principal:

• All healthcare expenses should be tax deductible.  This means all healthcare insurance plan premiums, and all out of pocket healthcare expenses should be 100% tax deductible.  In the free market, the laws of supply and demand drive prices.  The theory is that competition will keep prices under control, much the same way the auto and home owner insurance industries work today.  I will address pricing strategies later in the blog, but, I want to mention the impact of making healthcare expenses tax exempt.  This point is about putting more money back into the economy.  We do not want healthcare to appear to be discretionary, because for some people it is not.  People with a chronic illness are going to be facing increased healthcare costs for the remainder of their lives.  There is no reason to add insult to injury by also asking those people to pay tax on something that is not really discretionary.  This is why all healthcare expenses should be tax deductible.

So, what's the role of government in all of this?  Should the government just stay out of the way?

I do agree that the government has the right to tax me.  I also agree that the government can choose to provide health insurance coverage using the taxes they have obtained from me (although this is a more detail discussion which we will not cover here).  The government should not be able to compel me to purchase a healthcare insurance plan (as we established with the first principal).  They can tax me and provide me with a healthcare insurance plan, but, they should not be able to compel me to buy a healthcare insurance plan.  This is a very fine distinction.

Americans need Affordable Healthcare.  The key here is affordable.  

I saw an interview with Mark Cuban on the topic of healthcare costing / pricing.  Mark was on Bill O'Reilly asking a very simple question: who is going to take less?  Bill cut Mark off before Mark could explain.  But, Mark was good enough to do a blog about this topic.  In the blog, Mark makes the point that someone will have to take less in order to reduce prices.  A hospital, for example, has to pay its doctors.  If the hospital is required to reduce its price, where does that money come from?  The doctor's pay?  Mark has an excellent point.

Competition is the key to the free market.  If a hospital charges too much, they should lose market share to a hospital that charges less.  Of course, the quality of the product and the brand will come into play, but, the principal should be obvious; the free market at work.  Mark makes the point in his blog that none of the healthcare companies have demonstrated a willingness to reduce their profit and thus their cost / price.  I see Mark's point, but, I also know that high profit margins bring opportunities for competition.  There are high profit margins in the supply chain somewhere, and that is where competition can make a difference.  I think the way our government can help is to:

• Stay away from regulations that are impeding the free market
• Encourage investment in the healthcare industry by making capital easier to obtain; this is simple, let the healthcare industry offer tax exempt bonds in order to raise cheaper capital (this should attract investment)

Mark makes another very important point in his blog about the "genetic lottery" and the "wrong place at the wrong time lottery".  His point is that no one knows when they might be facing a catastrophic (and potentially financially devastating) illness.  As a diabetic, I know exactly what he is talking about; I have already lost the genetic lottery.  Mark did a great job explaining why everyone needs some form of healthcare insurance plan; based on the fact that anyone can have a catastrophic illness or accident that requires significant healthcare resulting in significant healthcare costs.  I am going to attempt to embellish his description somewhat with my personal experience and observations.

My biggest fear is that healthcare costs will increase quicker than my income, making it impossible for me to take care of my own healthcare costs.  I have a great job that pays well.  But, I am not young anymore.  Someday I hope to retire.  And, at the same time, I dread retirement.  If I retire or lose my job, I would be financially devastated all because I lost the genetic lottery.  I'm not asking for anything.  I want to be able to take care of myself and my family.  But, I may not have the means to do so.  Nothing is more frustrating or humiliating than to be in this position. 

The point that I am trying to make is this: healthcare costs are not discretionary, because in most cases they are not planned.   That is why everyone essentially needs insurance.  That said, I am not advocating that we violate any of the principals that I have already articulated; that's why I started this blog with those principals.  I am simply trying to illustrate how hard this problem is to solve.  And, this is why I agree with Mark that we cannot simple repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 
If we were somehow able to spread the catastrophic costs across a larger pool of people, the impact  on a single person would be reduced.  Sound familiar?  This was the premise that was used by the folks who put together the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Even still, wouldn't this be a good thing?  Wouldn't it be good if people who require catastrophic healthcare would not be financially devastated by something that is beyond their control?

When a driver gets into too many accidents, the insurance company will drop them.  Insurance companies will not cover floods; this coverage has to be purchased from the government.  When a person is known to have a chronic or catastrophic illness (like Diabetes or Cancer), what do you think the insurance company will do?  The difference here is choice and accountability.  A bad driver gets dropped because of something they did.  Floods are not covered because insurance companies perceive the coverage to be too risky.  It comes down to risk management and profit.  I have no issue with companies making profit.  I just want to know what the equivalent to flood insurance is for the health insurance industry. 

Mark says: "Whether its Medicaid or a new program, every single person in this country should be covered 100pct for chronic physical or mental illness and for any life threatening injury."

I have to agree with Mark.  Keep in mind, the Americans suffering from these situations did not choose to be in these situations.  There needs to be some kind of program that covers Americans for the times when things happen beyond their control.  This is not for routine healthcare; this is for catastrophic healthcare that results from either losing the genetic lottery or being in some kind of accident.  If we, as a society of Americans, cannot do something that benefits everyone equally, then what is the alternative? 

I am reminded of a few lines from a famous story:

• Are there no prisons?  
• Are there no workhouses?
• If they are going to die, then they should do it and decrease the surplus population ...

I think we need to follow the three free market principals outlined in this blog.  But, I also think we need a solution for catastrophic healthcare that will benefit every American equally.

Bad Policies and Bad Decisions

I have not posted in some time, as I have just been completely disgusted with the whole 2012 election.  Now that the election is over, I would like to weigh in on why Romney lost the election.

Several of the talking heads have eluded to the fact that the liberal media is to blame for Obama's re-election.  I might be a bit weird here, but, this sounds an awful lot like blaming Bush.  It's clearly finger pointing.  In these cases, I like to do a root cause analysis.  So, here goes.

First, we need to look at the voting margins in the "swing states" for the 2004 election:

• New Mexico: ~6k votes
• Nevada: ~20k votes
• Iowa: ~10k votes
• Colorado: ~100k votes
• Ohio: ~100k votes
• Virginia: ~300k votes
• Florida: ~400k votes
• North Carolina: ~500k votes

This gives a total margin of around 1.5m votes.  Since Bush won that year by more than 3 million votes, this is the number that indicates the real margin; the remainder of the 3 million votes can be discounted because they are in states that are already politically polarized.  This might not sound good, but, the facts are the facts.  This is not to encourage people not to vote, I am simply doing the analysis.  The key point here is that Bush was able to get about 1.5 million votes from these states (listed above) in 2004 to win.  And, that he really needed every one of these votes to win, because Kerry only needed 19 more electoral votes to win.  This means that had Kerry managed to get either Ohio or Florida, he would have won the election.  The margin in Ohio was only 200k votes.  Kerry could have also won if he managed to get Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.  And, that was a margin of only 126k votes.  Are you starting to get the picture here?  To be clear, less than 200k votes decided this election.

Next, we need to look at the voting margins in the "swing states" for the 2008 election:

• New Mexico: ~125k votes
• Nevada: ~120k votes
  
• Iowa: ~150k votes
• Colorado: ~200k votes
• Ohio: ~200k votes
• Virginia: ~300k votes
• Florida: ~300k votes
• North Carolina: ~20k votes

Unlike 2004, I want to look at some more variances in the data first.  One key thing to note is that the Republican numbers were almost identical; except for Ohio.  In Ohio, there were 200k less votes than in 2004.  Coincidentally, there were 200k more Democrat votes than in 2004.  So, 200k people appear to have changed their mind.  Obama's margin in these states was around 1.4 million votes.  This means that nearly 2.7 million more people voted in the 2008 election in these states, than in the 2004 election.  And, they all voted for Obama.  Let me be clear here: the Republican vote was essentially the same.  The Democrat vote is what changed.  And, this is what determined the election results.

Finally, we need to look at the voting margins in the "swing states" for the 2012 election:

• New Mexico: ~50k votes
• Nevada: ~50k votes
  
• Iowa: ~100k votes
• Colorado: ~100k votes
• Ohio: ~100k votes
• Virginia: ~100k votes
• Florida: ~100k votes
• North Carolina: ~(100k) votes

Clearly, in 2012 the margin was smaller, in terms of the number of votes that decided the election.  Or was it?  Remember, in 2004 less than 200k votes in a few key states decided the election.  In 2008, the Democrat organization must have figured this out, and, they focused all their efforts on those key states.  Obama essentially won by around 500k votes in these same few states.  The key point here, is that Obama only need to beat Bush's number from 2004 to win (a bit ironic, given the Bush bashing done by the Obama campaign).

Given the horrible job Obama has done in the last four years, any rational person has to be asking themselves how he could win.  And, it is easy to blame the liberal media (as the right-wing talking heads are doing).  It is also easy to try to make those who voted for Obama appear as stupid (also, as the right-wing talking heads are doing).  Please forgive my candor, but, this sounds like a bunch of white males whining over the fact that they cannot get their way any more.  One thing is for sure, you are not going to bully the people who voted for Obama into voting Republican, by calling them stupid.  Wise up.

What we need to be asking ourselves is who were the deciding votes, and, why did they vote the way they voted?  Well, based on the numbers, I think the answer is clear: Hispanics.  And, thus, to the point of this post.  The Republican policy on immigration is flawed (as I have said repeatedly on this blog).  And, unless this is addressed, the Republicans can kiss any chance of winning the presidency goodby forever.  In addition, given the really poor job Obama has done, one key decision I believe sealed the fate of the Romney campaign.  Instead of choosing Marco Rubio, Romney chose Paul Ryan (yet another rich white male republican).  The choice of Paul Ryan sent a clear message to Hispanics: we don't need you.  And, they did what anyone would do in that situation, they voted for the other guy.

It's time to put Marco Rubio in charge of the Republican Party.  If we are lucky, we can have a Hispanic Republican Candidate for 2016.  I suspect this is the only way a Republican president will ever be elected again.

Full Disclosure:  I grew up in Florida, and, most of my family still lives in Florida.  I am not related to Marco Rubio (as far as I know).  I admit I might be a bit biased on Marco Rubio, however, I think my logic is sound. 

Blaming the Tea Party?

I don't know about you, but I am getting tired of all the finger pointing.

During the 2008 election, I wish I had a nickle for every time I heard "Four More Years of Bush's Failed Policies", and all of the other attacks on the then sitting President. Now, I am not a Bush fan. But, he was the President.

It's ironic, because I just heard a Congresswoman from Texas claiming that Obama is the most abused President of all time. Hmm. Really? I will never forget a bumper sticker on a car in Virginia that read "Buck Fush". Other than talk radio, I have not heard near the criticism of President Obama that President Bush had to put up with. Even today, Bush is being blamed for the economy.

I could not believe my ears this morning. I heard a couple of the talking heads saying that the Democrats were blaming the downgrade of the US credit rating on the Tea Party. Wow. How does that make sense?

A credit rating is based on the ability of the borrower to be able to repay the amount borrowed. You have a credit card right? Well, what happens if you just keep spending and spending? Is your credit rating going up or down? Perhaps we could use some common sense here. Continued deficit spending is the real financial crisis.

It looks to me like the government elitists want us average working class Americans to believe that the Tea Party caused the downgrade. Are you serious? The Tea Party are the ones that were advocating fiscal responsibility - the only ones. So, how is it possible that the Tea Party is responsible for the downgrade? This is like blaming the person who is telling you to stop getting credit cards, or you will be in bankruptcy.

This is the ultimate and most despicable spin by the government elitists I have seen to date. This is why I say that our elected officials are either corrupt or incompetent. How can any rational person claim that the Tea Party is responsible for the downgrade, when all they were doing was advocating fiscal responsibility?

The fact is that this latest debt ceiling legislation does not reduce real spending one bit. It reduces the automatic budget increases for the next ten years, assuming the future Congresses agree to the proposed spending. In short, it is politics as usual. It was the Tea Party that forced the inclusion of the Balanced Budget Amendment in the legislation. It was the Tea Party that wanted to reduce spending, and to balance the budget. These are things that make fiscal sense. So, how can you blame the Tea Party for the downgrade?

I mentioned earlier that blaming the Tea Party for the downgrade is the most despicable thing I have ever heard. I was wrong. I heard that the Vice President of the United States called the Tea Party a bunch of Terrorists. Now, I heard this from one of the talk radio shows this past week; I have not heard the actual statement by the Vice President. So, I do not know if this is a "sound bite" from the talk radio crowd trying to get a reaction. Let me say this, if the Vice President did call the Tea Party a bunch of Terrorist, he should resign. This is not the kind of attitude I want from my Vice President. This is despicable behavior. And, if any of us working class Americans did this, we would probably be fired. Mr. Vice President, if you called the Tea Party a bunch of Terrorists, you need to do the right thing and resign.

From my point of view, the Tea Party are the ones that are fighting for fiscal responsibility. To blame them for the downgrade is just plain idiotic.

God Bless the Tea Party.

Incompetent Elected Representatives

I thought that raising the debt ceiling would fix the financial crisis. That's what the media and all the politicians in Washington told us. Event though it is counter-intuitive that we could borrow our way out of the financial crisis, that is what we were told.

Well, the S & P just downgraded the US credit rating. There are only two ways to look at this (in my opinion). Either we the American people were lied to, or, our elected representatives are incompetent. I'd certainly hope that the our elected representatives would not lie to the American people - ignore them maybe - but not lie to them. Therefore, we have to conclude that our elected representatives are incompetent. Notice: I did not say Democrats or Republicans; Congress, Senate or the President. I said our elected representatives (collectively) are incompetent.

Incompetent might sound like a strong word. But, I think it is appropriate. After all, these elitist in Washington live by a different set of rules than the rest of us average working class Americans. I don't know anyone (except the congress) that gets an automatic pay increase every year. Can you imagine? How can anyone with a conscience vote for legislation that gives automatic pay increases; knowing full well the number of unemployed people we have in this country. And, yet, I have not seen one of them stand up and offer to reduce their salary and benefits until unemployment is below 5%. Shocking.

The majority of Americans want a Balanced Budget Amendment. Why? Because they recognize that without a Balanced Budget Amendment, it is going to be politics as usual in Washington. For example, this latest legislation is supposed to cut spending. But, it does not cut real spending; it cuts the automatic increases that are planned for future years. This is like a gambler or drug user promising to stop gambling or taking drugs. Let me go out on a limb here, and say there is no way we are ever going to get a balanced budget without a Balanced Budget Amendment.

How can we trust our elected representatives? They were wrong about the financial crisis. And, this has not been the first time they have been wrong. They vote themselves automatic pay increases. They ignore the will of the American people time after time. I don't know about you, but, I have had enough of this! Unless we see some drastic changes very soon, I say we throw them all out and start over.

The need for a Balanced Budget Amendment is extremely obvious. And, even though there is supposed to be a vote for the Balanced Budget Amendment, as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, I believe this is a rouse. If they (Democrats and Republicans) were serious about a Balanced Budget Amendment, they would have made the debt ceiling increase dependent on the "passage" of a Balanced Budget Amendment - not just a vote. You see, its too easy for the Congress to block the passage of the Amendment; then it is back to politics as usual.

How do I know the vote for the Balanced Budget Amendment will be a token effort? Have you noticed the latest code words from the Administration: "Balanced Approach". This is innuendo intended to make us think that the government elitists are able to do a balanced budget without being bound by a Balanced Budget Amendment. I don't know about you, but I am done with believing that these government elitists are working on behalf of the average working class Americans.

Let me ask you: what happens if you get into too much debt? Does your credit score go down? You bet it does! So, using this logic, what do you think is the logical reaction to raising the debt ceiling? Well, raising the debt ceiling is a clear indicator that deficit spending is still not under control. And, I think it indicates that the government elitists have no intention of making the tough decisions in order to get the deficit spending under control. I also suspect that this is why our debt rating has been downgraded. Isn't that logical?

As I mentioned in my post on The Real Financial Crisis, we need a Balanced Budget Amendment. These government elitists cannot be trusted to balance the budget. So, we the people of the United States of America need to put something in place to protect our Country and our way of life.

Join me in making sure we get a Balanced Budget Amendment!

It's not hard at all. Here's what you need to do:

1. Go to your local office supply store and purchase blank postcards; you can get the kind that you can print in your printer, or, you can get the kind that you can write out by hand.
2. Write (or print) the following message on one side of the postcard: " We the People of the United States of America want a Balanced Budget Amendment. If you vote against the Balanced Budget Amendment, I will vote against you in the next election; and forever."
3. Make enough postcards for every voting member of your family, and, for your Congressional Representative, your two Senators and the President.
4. Address your four postcards for every voting member of your family to your: Congressional Representative, both of your Senators and the President.
5. Apply stamps and mail

I fully expect these government elitists to try to ignore this attempt to get their attention. They think they can wait us out. We have to be persistent. That is why I am asking you to do this once a month until the vote for the Balanced Budget Amendment is conducted. Please, your country needs you. Take a little time to make your voice heard. Let's flood the Congress and White House with your voice.

We the American People want a Balanced Budget Amendment, and we are not taking "NO" for an answer. It's time to take back our country! Make your voices heard!

Obfuscating the Truth

The President wants us average working class Americans to believe that the "sky is falling".

Isn't the government still collecting taxes? That money must be going somewhere. Perhaps we should be directing that money to the most important things. That's what us average working class Americans have to do every day, or we end up in bankruptcy.

If I understand default, that means we do not pay the principal or interest on our debt. I don't think we would default for something like ... not paying the President or the rest of those Government Elitists in Washington. In fact, if they (the elitists) truly cared about the American People, every last one of them would be volunteering to forgo their salaries until this "crisis" is over. At a minimum, these elitists should repeal their automatic pay increases and Cadillac Benefits programs. If I were the President or a member of Congress, that is what I would be doing. My point is: it looks to me like the "crisis" is manufactured, in order to push through a political agenda.

The President's position is that the Congress has already approved a budget. And, that this approval should include any borrowing necessary to meet those obligations. I agree that when a budget is approved for a particular year, the permission to borrow the money for that year is implicit. However, we are only getting half of the story.

The problem is the budget increases that are built into the future years. It would be one thing to base next year's budget on this year's budget - without any increase. But, for some reason, the budgets for future years are set to automatically increase year on year. What idiot did that?! Our deficits are already out of control. How can anyone in good conscience put in automatic spending increases under these circumstances? This is the other half of the story.

The Democrats are calling for the Republicans to compromise. Seriously? It looks to me like the Republicans are trying to control spending for a change. The majority of Americans want to cut spending, and, they want a Balanced Budget Amendment. It seems to me that this is precisely what the Republicans are trying to do. So, why should they compromise? To compromise is to ignore the will of the American People. The amazing thing is that the Democrats are ignoring the will of the American people again, and, they are getting away with it!

The Democrats know full well that there are lots of spending increases built into future budget years. And, they are blocking every attempt by the Republicans to rein in that spending. They have the media putting out fear-mongering stories to support their talking points. The Democrats want the American People to believe we will default, and, it will be the Republican's fault, because they will not compromise.

The Democrats say they want compromise. But, it looks to me like they are trying to manipulate public opinion by obfuscating the truth; in order to push through their agenda. It seems to me that the Republicans had better not compromise, because if they do, spending will continue to spiral out of control.

I am particularly disappointed in Senator Reid. How can you claim that a piece of legislation that is trying to get our deficit spending under control is "irresponsible"? Do you (Senator Reid) recognize the real finance crisis that this country is facing? Let me help you out: it's deficit spending. You want the Republicans to compromise; how about you? What are you doing to get the deficit spending under control? And I mean really under control? Are you in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment? If not, then I would like to know why. If so, then why aren't you working with Republicans to get it passed? It would be so easy to say that we are putting a Balanced Budget Amendment in place, and we are going to cap and reduce spending over the next 5 to ten years until we are where we need to be. Perhaps instead of trying to make legislation so complex, you should try to keep it simple. Senator Reid, why don't you try following the will of the American People for a change?

The American People had better wake up. It looks to me like the Republicans are trying to rein in spending. But, I think they are still weak. We the People need to continue to encourage (remind) the Republicans to do the will of the American People. If we don't keep up the pressure, we are going to be back to politics as usual. The Real Financial Crisis is the deficit spending.

The Real Financial Crisis

Time for some good old fashioned logical thinking. This debt ceiling debate is all the rage. But, it's time to take the politics out of the discussion, and stick to logic.

We have a national debt. We pay interest on that national debt. The bigger the national debt, the more interest that has to be paid on the national debt. So, logically speaking, allowing the national debt to grow is a bad thing; because eventually the interest will exceed the potential amount of taxes that can pay it. I don't think any rationale person can argue with this logic.

The rational thing to do is to ensure that the interest payments on the national debt do not exceed a certain percentages of "revenues" (as the Democrats call them) or taxes (as the Republicans call them). This means we need to keep our debt rating, so the rate does not go up. It also means that we need to stop increasing the debt; as the more debt, the higher the interest. Again, I don't think any rational person can argue with this logic either.

So, what's the real problem???

Clearly - anything that increases the national debt is a problem. This means that any deficit spending of any kind is a problem.

Here is where the political parties diverge based on their philosophies. Democrats believe the spending is important to "balance society". That is, they want social programs for those who are less fortunate. Republicans, on the other hand, do not want social programs. They like to spend (just like the Democrats); they just like to spend on things like the military.

Over the last forty or fifty years, both parties have been doing significant deficit spending; for all sorts of reasons. As a tax payer, it looks to me like both parties have been having a fifty year orgy with our tax dollars. Well, my fellow Americans, it's time to bring that spending orgy to a close.

Democrats claim that tax cuts are to blame for deficit spending. And, I believe they are right. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is irresponsible and stupid.

Republicans claim that spending is too high. Well, yeah. Then why didn't you cut spending when you cut taxes? Republicans believe that cutting taxes helps the economy. Well, yeah. Putting more cash into any economy will help. The problem is that this cash was "borrowed cash". You can't grow an economy on borrowed cash, just like you can't spend yourself out of a recession; particularly if you are spending borrowed money.

The Democrats know that if the American people were asked to support some (or any) of their social programs via tax increases, the answer would be "absolutely not". So, they don't ask - they just spend.

You can see the problem. The issue of how much taxes, and how much to spend on social programs has completely polarized both parties; to the point where the government is broken.

Now, I am absolutely not saying we should have one party in power. That has been a complete disaster in the past. I am saying that we need to solve the real problem: deficit spending. And, that tax and social program discussions need to be taken out of the debate.

The real financial crisis IS the deficit spending. It must stop, or America is going to be bankrupt. Both parties (Democrats and Republicans) have proven themselves untrustworthy when it comes to managing a budget. Therefore, the only solution to this crisis IS a Balanced Budget Amendment.

It's time to do your part, my fellow Americans. It's time to contact your Congressional representative, your Senators and the President to let them know that deficit spending is not going to be tolerated any longer. And, that We the People expect a Balanced Budget Amendment. We also expect both parties to put aside tax and social program spending discussions until a Balanced Budget Amendment is put in place. Let's go America - Call and Write now!!

Still not listening!

The majority of Americans want both spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Notice, I said spending cuts. This does not mean that Americans want spending cuts and tax increases to deal with the deficit issue - they want spending cuts - they do not want tax increases.

I do not want any tax increases on anyone other than those in the very top tax bracket. And, since this administration likes to parse every word, I define a tax increase as anything that increases the amount of taxes that I am required to pay. So, those thoughts of getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction had better be reconsidered. If my taxes go up, I will be sure to vote against anyone who was party to raising those taxes. I don't have an issue with raising the top tax rate from 33% to 38%, if that is what the Democrats want in exchange for the spending cuts and Balanced Budget Amendment. But, I am absolutely not in favor of anything else that will result in increased taxes.

Mr. President, how can you ignore the American people once again? The polling data is very clear: Americans want spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment. Yet, you go onto national television telling the American people that you are trying very hard to get the Republicans to agree to a solution. Huh? The congress has already passed what the American people want. Are you not listening! Did you not learn anything from the 2010 election?

If the American people ever needed better evidence that this President is putting his own agenda above the will of the American people, you now have it. Let's look at the events for the last couple of months.

In May, the US hit its debt ceiling. Did the administration make any attempt to cut spending? No - there is no evidence that spending has been reduced. When you are at your debt limit, should you continue to borrow? Well, I don't think so. And, it is obvious the American people think that spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment are the key to solving the debt ceiling crisis.

What have the Democrats done? Well, the Senate put together the "gang of six", as a compromise approach. And, as expected, the Conservatives were all over this plan as not being a good plan. In the mean time, Congress passes Cut, Cap and Balance. And, what do the Democrats do - nothing? Reid calls this irresponsible legislation, and refused to allow a vote. Then, the President goes on television to tell the American people that he is upset because Boehner will not compromise. The President claims that he has offered a compromise that is much better than the "gang of six" plan, and, that he does not understand why the Republicans will not compromise. Seriously? Mr. Boehner, don't you dare blink!

You have to look closely at the President's tactics here. First, the senate puts together the "gang of six", and, Reid blocks the vote. Then, the President comes up with a plan that is "better" than the plan from the "gang of six". This is a classic bait and switch. And, I suspect this administration thought they would get away with it.

Congress has already passed the Cut, Cap and Balance. This is what the American people want. So, if the President and Mr. Reid were really listening to the American people, they would get behind this plan. But, once again the Democrats are ignoring the will of the American people. After all, the American people are stupid, and, its up to the Democrats to save them from themselves. Getting the picture here?

It's time for action. Everyone needs to contact their Senators, and let them know that you will not tolerate ignoring the will of the American people any longer. We have a real opportunity for spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment. Please, take a few moments to call and write your Senator. We need to put pressure on these folks, to ensure they do what they are supposed to do: represent the will of the American people.

Call and write now! Make them listen!