By Charlie Bucknam
The Obama administration continues to act surprised that its policies are not achieving job growth for our economy. Instead of stopping the rise in the unemployment rate at 8.00% as promised by Obama as part of his justification for the $787 billion in stimulus spending, the unemployment rate jumped to 10.2% in October and is still at 9.5%--and the rate is over 17% when you count discouraged work seekers. And, there is no sign that the unemployment rate is going to come down appreciably for the foreseeable future. Instead of paying lip service to the problem with “jobs summits” like the one hosted by Obama last winter, he and his administration should acknowledge that his policies and initiatives are inhibiting our economic recovery and the job growth that would follow.
The prospect of new taxes for individuals and businesses to fund drastic changes in health care is creating uncertainty in the business community and a disincentive to hire new people.
Obama’s push for a Cap and Trade system of energy allocation promises to be an enormous burden for our economy if it is ever enacted, because it will lead to higher costs for the energy that drives our economy. With the prospect of higher energy costs, businesses are delaying new projects and the related job creation.
The Obama administration and Congress are openly seeking new estate taxes, increasing capital gains taxes, high taxes and fines to support a health care overhaul, as well as a huge tax increase that will result when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year. The prospect of adding so much to an already heavy tax burden sucks the vitality out of the economy and stifles job creation.
The “stimulus” spending has not stimulated the economy. Most of the funds are being misspent. Much of the spending has gone to states to temporarily fill shortfalls in budgets that should have been trimmed years ago. Instead of getting the pain behind them, states (including Vermont) have used stimulus money to put off the day of reckoning.
Spending billions in subsidies for so-called “green” initiatives…wind energy…electric cars, etc. will likely turn into an enormous waste of our tax money. When the technology becomes economically viable, it will be developed without government help. Government’s effort to force us to buy “green” products will waste resources and slow the pace of economic recovery.
The stimulus bill also included thousands of pet projects for various members of Congress to take home to their states. They are essentially political payoffs and should never have been allowed by this president who came into office pledging “no more pork”.
If Obama wishes to reduce unemployment and support economic growth, he should consider doing the following:
End the push to establish a Cap and Trade system. Acknowledge that the global warming issue has been hyped for years and that there is no urgency to impose global controls on carbon dioxide emissions.
Promote energy self sufficiency by developing domestic oil reserves, building new refineries, building new nuclear power plants, and upgrading our power grid. Advances in technology are allowing us to burn fossil fuels cleanly and efficiently. Nuclear power is dependable, safe, and has zero carbon dioxide emissions.
Repeal the health care bill passed by Congress calling for massive government involvement in our health care to be funded with higher taxes. The public is against it and it is far too costly, especially for an already weakened economy. Instead, recognize that we already have the best health care system in the world and focus on making the kind of incremental changes that will make it even better including uniform regulation of insurance companies across state lines, tort reform, fully funding Medicaid and Medicare, elimination of employer-based health insurance, and subsidies and/or tax incentives for those who cannot afford health insurance premiums.
Do not re-deploy the TARP funds as they are repaid (with interest) by the financial institutions. The purpose of TARP was to temporarily shore up the financial institutions in a time of severe stress. We should celebrate the fact that the TARP program appears to have been successful, but the funds repaid should be used to reduce our staggering debt as originally planned.
Declare that there will be no new taxes and no tax increases for 5 years. This will provide the incentive and financial certainty to allow businesses to invest and expand leading to new job opportunities.
Temporarily reduce payroll taxes for employers.
These initiatives would accelerate economic activity and spur growth in the job market.
Our economy has suffered a great deal in the past 2 years, not only from the excesses in the financial arena, but even more so from the wrong-headed policies and initiatives promoted by the Obama administration. We need to change course immediately.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Environmental rules run amok
By Charlie Bucknam
Recently Judge Meredith Wright of the Environmental Court ruled in favor of Karl Rinker’s application to construct a 180 foot cell tower on Bridgeman Hill in Hardwick. That is potentially is good news for those of us who wish to see the Hardwick area extend its economic momentum. Reliable cell service is essential for a vibrant economy. Unfortunately, the opponents of the cell tower have again appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in yet another costly delay. Supreme Court decisions usually take between 18 months and 2 years after the appeal process has started. This case is symptomatic of a permit process in this State that takes too long and is far too costly for the applicant, taxpayers, and ultimately, consumers. Rinker first applied for his permit in 2004. Since then he has had to present his case over and over at town hearings, the Environmental Court on two occasions, and now twice to the Vermont Supreme Court. Rinker has won every time, but at an enormous cost. It has cost Rinker over $100,000 in attorneys fees so far, and we’ll probably never know what it has cost taxpayers. The one thing we do know is that the protracted process has deprived area residents of adequate cell phone coverage for six years.
Unfortunately, Rinker’s experience is not an isolated case. During my 30+ years as a banker in the Northeast Kingdom, I have encountered numerous cases where Act 250 permit applications for my customers routinely took more than 1 year and often over 3 years. I have had customers who decided not to undertake projects simply because they decided the permit process was too daunting. I am aware of a housing development in Lyndonville where the Act 250 process took over three years and effectively added $10,000 to $15,000 to the cost of each of the 16 homes that were ultimately permitted. Examples like these helped create Vermont’s unfortunate “unfriendly to business” reputation--and ultimately hurt the consumer. The extra cost of those homes was, without a doubt, passed on to the home buyers.
If Vermont is to be competitive with other states for new businesses and jobs, we need to support economic growth with a new permitting system that is applied uniformly, is cost effective, and timely. Karl Rinker and others requiring permits to start or grow a business are entitled to definitive answers at reasonable cost, in reasonable time. The system has failed in his case. It failed him. It failed taxpayers. It failed the abutting landowners, and it failed the rest of a community deserving of cell phone service.
Recently Judge Meredith Wright of the Environmental Court ruled in favor of Karl Rinker’s application to construct a 180 foot cell tower on Bridgeman Hill in Hardwick. That is potentially is good news for those of us who wish to see the Hardwick area extend its economic momentum. Reliable cell service is essential for a vibrant economy. Unfortunately, the opponents of the cell tower have again appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in yet another costly delay. Supreme Court decisions usually take between 18 months and 2 years after the appeal process has started. This case is symptomatic of a permit process in this State that takes too long and is far too costly for the applicant, taxpayers, and ultimately, consumers. Rinker first applied for his permit in 2004. Since then he has had to present his case over and over at town hearings, the Environmental Court on two occasions, and now twice to the Vermont Supreme Court. Rinker has won every time, but at an enormous cost. It has cost Rinker over $100,000 in attorneys fees so far, and we’ll probably never know what it has cost taxpayers. The one thing we do know is that the protracted process has deprived area residents of adequate cell phone coverage for six years.
Unfortunately, Rinker’s experience is not an isolated case. During my 30+ years as a banker in the Northeast Kingdom, I have encountered numerous cases where Act 250 permit applications for my customers routinely took more than 1 year and often over 3 years. I have had customers who decided not to undertake projects simply because they decided the permit process was too daunting. I am aware of a housing development in Lyndonville where the Act 250 process took over three years and effectively added $10,000 to $15,000 to the cost of each of the 16 homes that were ultimately permitted. Examples like these helped create Vermont’s unfortunate “unfriendly to business” reputation--and ultimately hurt the consumer. The extra cost of those homes was, without a doubt, passed on to the home buyers.
If Vermont is to be competitive with other states for new businesses and jobs, we need to support economic growth with a new permitting system that is applied uniformly, is cost effective, and timely. Karl Rinker and others requiring permits to start or grow a business are entitled to definitive answers at reasonable cost, in reasonable time. The system has failed in his case. It failed him. It failed taxpayers. It failed the abutting landowners, and it failed the rest of a community deserving of cell phone service.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
More Bureaucracy, Higher Taxes, Fewer Health Care Options
More Bureaucracy, Higher Taxes, Fewer Health Care Options
By Charlie Bucknam
In the closing days of this year’s session, the legislature passed 107 page long S.88, “An Act Relating to Health Care Financing and Universal Access to Health Care in Vermont”. (It is now referred to as Act 128.)See S 88 as passed by House and Senate
The bill authorizes the Commission of Health Care Reform to engage a consultant or consultants to design 3 options for “reforming” health care in Vermont. Each option must be in keeping with the 9 principles and 11 goals outlined in the bill. The 3 options must be presented to the General Assembly by February 1, 2011 in order for the next legislature to have time to enact one of them.
There are numerous troublesome components in this bill:
• We cannot afford it. The legislature allocated $300,000 to hire a consultant to develop the three options even though the state is facing substantial budget deficits over the next several fiscal years. (It was recently announced that a consultant from Harvard University has been selected.)
• It places limitations on hospital revenue growth that will leave Vermont hospitals at a competitive disadvantage to the New Hampshire hospitals that are under no such restrictions. It will cost jobs, reduce revenue for the state, and ultimately restrict Vermonters’ convenient access to health care.
• The timing is baffling. Undertaking this study at this time before anyone has a grasp of the impact of the 2,400 page Federal health care bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010) recently rushed through Congress will amount to a waste of time and money.
• The 9 stated principles and 11 goals, if adhered to and achieved, will limit health care options for patients and will alter the relationship between patients, physicians, and other health care providers. While the bill’s Principle #5 states the importance of the “primacy of the patient-provider relationship”, other principles and goals within the bill contradict this principle. For example, Principle # 7 states that the “system” must “reduce costs that do not contribute to efficient, quality health services”; and reduce “care that does not improve health outcomes”, …for “the health of the Vermont economy”. Who will be deciding which costs don’t contribute to efficient, quality health services? Who will determine what types of care “do not improve health outcomes”? These decisions will no longer be made solely by the patient in consultation with his/her physician. Instead, decisions regarding types of treatment and care options will be made by bureaucrats for the health of the Vermont economy.
• The bill assures that any plan will raise taxes for Vermonters. Principle #8 states that “financing of health care in Vermont must be sufficient, fair, sustainable, and shared equitably”. Goal # 4 states that “the state is committed…to raising revenues that are sufficient to support the state’s financial obligations for health care on an ongoing basis”. Translation: higher taxes on working Vermonters.
• Incorporated in the Goals are provisions implying that the state will engage in price fixing to control costs. Goal (5)(D) states that “health care costs will be controlled or reduced by “reducing the cost of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other supplies through a variety of mechanisms”. Goal (5)(E) states that health care costs will be controlled or reduced by “aligning health care professional reimbursement with best practices and outcomes rather than utilization”. Again, Montpelier bureaucrats, funded by Vermont taxpayers, will be deciding the price of health care services and products Vermonters need.
Burdening Vermonters with higher taxes to fund more bureaucracy to control our health care choices is not the solution to lower costs or for better health care. Instead, we need to seek solutions that preserve and enhance Vermonters’ freedom to choose their health care options. Entrusting government to make the kind of life-altering decisions envisaged in this bill is a mistake.
Senators Kitchel and Choate supported this bill. I welcome their comments on my post, and suggest they post their analysis of Act 128.
By Charlie Bucknam
In the closing days of this year’s session, the legislature passed 107 page long S.88, “An Act Relating to Health Care Financing and Universal Access to Health Care in Vermont”. (It is now referred to as Act 128.)See S 88 as passed by House and Senate
The bill authorizes the Commission of Health Care Reform to engage a consultant or consultants to design 3 options for “reforming” health care in Vermont. Each option must be in keeping with the 9 principles and 11 goals outlined in the bill. The 3 options must be presented to the General Assembly by February 1, 2011 in order for the next legislature to have time to enact one of them.
There are numerous troublesome components in this bill:
• We cannot afford it. The legislature allocated $300,000 to hire a consultant to develop the three options even though the state is facing substantial budget deficits over the next several fiscal years. (It was recently announced that a consultant from Harvard University has been selected.)
• It places limitations on hospital revenue growth that will leave Vermont hospitals at a competitive disadvantage to the New Hampshire hospitals that are under no such restrictions. It will cost jobs, reduce revenue for the state, and ultimately restrict Vermonters’ convenient access to health care.
• The timing is baffling. Undertaking this study at this time before anyone has a grasp of the impact of the 2,400 page Federal health care bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010) recently rushed through Congress will amount to a waste of time and money.
• The 9 stated principles and 11 goals, if adhered to and achieved, will limit health care options for patients and will alter the relationship between patients, physicians, and other health care providers. While the bill’s Principle #5 states the importance of the “primacy of the patient-provider relationship”, other principles and goals within the bill contradict this principle. For example, Principle # 7 states that the “system” must “reduce costs that do not contribute to efficient, quality health services”; and reduce “care that does not improve health outcomes”, …for “the health of the Vermont economy”. Who will be deciding which costs don’t contribute to efficient, quality health services? Who will determine what types of care “do not improve health outcomes”? These decisions will no longer be made solely by the patient in consultation with his/her physician. Instead, decisions regarding types of treatment and care options will be made by bureaucrats for the health of the Vermont economy.
• The bill assures that any plan will raise taxes for Vermonters. Principle #8 states that “financing of health care in Vermont must be sufficient, fair, sustainable, and shared equitably”. Goal # 4 states that “the state is committed…to raising revenues that are sufficient to support the state’s financial obligations for health care on an ongoing basis”. Translation: higher taxes on working Vermonters.
• Incorporated in the Goals are provisions implying that the state will engage in price fixing to control costs. Goal (5)(D) states that “health care costs will be controlled or reduced by “reducing the cost of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other supplies through a variety of mechanisms”. Goal (5)(E) states that health care costs will be controlled or reduced by “aligning health care professional reimbursement with best practices and outcomes rather than utilization”. Again, Montpelier bureaucrats, funded by Vermont taxpayers, will be deciding the price of health care services and products Vermonters need.
Burdening Vermonters with higher taxes to fund more bureaucracy to control our health care choices is not the solution to lower costs or for better health care. Instead, we need to seek solutions that preserve and enhance Vermonters’ freedom to choose their health care options. Entrusting government to make the kind of life-altering decisions envisaged in this bill is a mistake.
Senators Kitchel and Choate supported this bill. I welcome their comments on my post, and suggest they post their analysis of Act 128.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)