Boeing Posts Record Revenue but U.S. Defense Spending Cuts, Rising Pension Costs and Higher Taxes are on the Horizon

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 29th, 2012

Week in Review

In Keynesian economics the government plays a large role in the economy.  By buying a lot of stuff.  And by hiring lots of government workers at all levels of government who buy lots of consumer goods.  Keynesians say these government expenditures are important.  Especially during bad economic times.  For when no one else is spending only the government can step in and sustain spending.  Even if it’s paying someone to dig a ditch.  And then fill it back in.  Because the wages for that person doing that useless activity will be used to buy consumer goods.  And it will stimulate the economy.

Interestingly, this love of government spending does not extend to military personnel.  Or defense spending.  Which, according to Keynesian economics, are just what the economic doctor ordered.  But, alas, they are always the first government spending to be cut to pay for other government spending.  Why?  Well, military personnel tend to vote Republican.  And defense spending tends to feed a lot of money to large corporations (see Boeing faced with strong headwinds by Tim Devaney posted 1/25/2012 on The Washington Times).

The Chicago-based plane-maker announced a 20 percent increase in earnings and record revenue gains in 2011…

But Boeing now faces likely cuts in U.S. defense spending, rising pension costs and a higher tax rate…

The company’s tax rate is expected to increase to 35 percent in 2012 from 33 percent last year, which will cost the company an additional $92 million, or 12 cents per share.

The Democrats use class warfare.  For they have little success with their policies and can’t run on successful track records during elections.  And in class warfare you need enemies.  Old rich people.  And, of course, evil corporations.  Hence the attacks on the industrial military complex.  Which Democrats are all in favor of.

And note that increase in their taxes.  That’s not an increase to $92 million.  That’s an additional $92 million.  Here I thought Boeing’s job was to build and sell airplanes.  When apparently they are nothing more than a cash piñata for the government to whack open to pay for more government spending.  That isn’t spent on, of course, defense spending.  Or Republicans.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT95: “Yes the VA is successful national health care…if you call NOT covering 93% of the population universal coverage.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 9th, 2011

Fundamental Truth

Since the Vietnam War Congress has made some VA Hospitals little more than Third World Hospitals

There are about 3 million people serving in the military.  This includes active duty and reserve personnel.  The current U.S. population is just over 300 million.  So if you do the math that’s approximately 1% of the population.  That’s a very small sliver of the population.  And yet they offer to sacrifice everything – including their lives – for the other 99%.  Wow.  Talk about selfless duty to country.  And to their fellow Americans.

Unfortunately some of these men and women suffer wounds serving their country.  Some severe wounds.  They receive state of the art medical care within hours of their wounding.  At the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.  And later at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.  Then they return to civilian life.  The Veterans Administration (VA).  And the VA hospitals throughout America.  That aren’t as nice as the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.  Or the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

Since the Vietnam War Congress turned against the military.  Gutting military budgets to pay for a burgeoning welfare state.  To buy votes.  Ronald Reagan put a stop to that.  Rebuilt the military.  But Congress did a lot of damage.  They made some VA hospitals little more than third world hospitals.  A second tier of health care that was good enough for the people that they didn’t like.  Even as late as the Eighties some VA hospital had a higher mortality rate than a comparable hospital in the private sector.  Sadly, a VA hospital was a place to put veterans.  And forget about them.

The VA System is a Pretty Small Health Care Program and Small Programs are easy to Fund and to Run

Thankfully, things changed.  The quality of VA health care today is much better.  Thanks to a surge in defense spending that paid for a lot of wars since the Eighties.  But things are changing again.  And Congress is scheduling more cuts in defense spending.  So Congress can use this money to pay for their ever burgeoning welfare state.

Currently the VA is about as good as it gets.  And those who love a good welfare state point to it as a fine example of a well-ran national health care program.  They say, see?  We just need to expand this system to cover all Americans.  All we have to do is to scale up the program a bit.  Of course this all depends on how large ‘a bit’ is.

The VA’s successes are in large part due to its size.  It’s small.  For we don’t have that many veterans.  Currently they are only about 7% of the total population.  Which is less than our black population (which is about 10%).  So the VA system is a pretty small health care program.  And small programs are easy to fund.  And to run.  Not like a large national program.  Such as Medicare.  Which isn’t even universal.   But it is full of fraud and waste.  Just like any program will be that expands from serving 21 million to serving 300 million.  That’s an increase of 1300%.  Which would be like taking the existing VA system and building another 13 just like it.  All funded by guess what?  The mother of all tax hikes.  And do we really want to give government that kind of money with their record of reckless spending and deficits?  Because you know what will happen.  They’ll eventually use some of that money elsewhere.  To pay for other unfunded parts of the burgeoning welfare state.  Requiring higher taxes to fund national health care.  Or further rationing.

A VA-Type System won’t Work because you can’t Raise Taxes enough to give the Other 93% the same Quality of Care

The health care crisis is government made.  Going back to the wage controls of World War II.  When employers couldn’t offer higher wages to attract the best workers.  So they started offering benefits.  Which got around the government’s regulation of the private sector.  And gave us employer provided health care.  And the heath care crisis.

Health care costs grew because other people paid for our health care.  There wasn’t a problem before other people started paying.  When we paid health care was affordable.  Because there were market forces in health care.  Now there are fewer.  And those who favor a big welfare state want to remove all market forces.  Which will only continue the trend of increasing costs.  And when the government doesn’t have the tax revenue to pay these escalating costs they’ll start rationing services.  Because it will be the only thing they can do.  Just like other nations with national health care have done.

The VA is a success story for the 7%.  Because 7% of 300 million is a much smaller number than 300 million.  A VA-type system just won’t work for the other 93%.  Because you can’t raise taxes enough to give the other 93% the same quality of care.  So that leaves one option.  Lowering the quality of care for everyone.  Including the 7% who paid for their care by spilling their blood.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Debt Ceiling Debate – The Beginning of the End

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 31st, 2011

The Republicans will get Screwed

Politics is a murky business.  You hear a lot of sound bites from politicians.  And a lot of spin from the ‘objective’ media.  (I put ‘objective’ in quotes because it’s easier than writing that I’m winking.)  But you don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors.  What kind of deals they’re making. 

There’ve been a lot of news updates today on the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling.  From there was a deal to Nancy Pelosi saying the House Democrats may not support the Senate plan Harry Reid delivers.

So we don’t really know anything yet.  About the only thing we can know for certain is that the Republicans will get screwed.  As they always do in these types of deals.

Future Spending Cuts means no Spending Cuts

So what do we know?  Not a lot.  Word is that the Republicans are winning the tax hike fight.  There apparently will be no new taxes.  But they’re going to pay a steep price for that win (see Sen. Reid signs off on bipartisan debt-ceiling compromise by Alexander Bolton posted 7/31/2011 on The Hill).

It would cut about $1 trillion in spending up front and set up a select bicameral committee to put together a future deficit-reduction package worth $1.7 trillion to $1.8 trillion.

Failure of Congress to pass the future deficit-reduction package would automatically trigger cuts to defense spending and Medicare. An aide familiar with the deal said the Medicare cut would not affect beneficiaries. Instead, healthcare providers and insurance companies would see lower payments.

The last bipartisan agreement to cut spending happened over the negotiations to extend the Bush tax cuts last December.  And it was hell to agree on $100 billion in spending cuts.  And when the smoke cleared, that $100 billion was only about $30 billion.  So, yeah, I’m sure picking the $1 trillion in spending cuts will be easy-peasy with bipartisan love.  And no one will use the ‘taking hostages’ language like they did last December.

Future spending cuts?  Yeah, right.  You know what ‘future spending cuts’ mean in Washington?  No spending cuts.

And you couldn’t ask for worse triggers if you’re a Republican.  Gut defense spending?  It’s a dangerous world out there.  And most of the danger stays off our shores because the bad guys fear our military might.  Because our military protects and defends the United States against foreign enemies.  That’s in the Constitution.  One of the things the Commander in Chief is supposed to do.  But national health care isn’t.  And that’s where we’re heading with this trigger.

Provider reimbursements are already pushing providers out of Medicare.  This trigger will kill Medicare.  Which the proponents of Obamacare will love.  You can already hear the rhetoric.  “Oh, no.  Calamity.  Greedy providers dropping out of Medicare?  That’s just mean.  The government must step in and do something to provide for these seniors.  I mean, if no one else will provide for them then government should.”  And then Bob’s your uncle we have a national health service.

Health Care is easy when the Government runs It

And lest we forget the utopia of national health care, let’s take a look at a British newspaper (see NHS funding ‘moved away from poor areas’, says Labour posted 7/31/2011 on The Telegraph).

Changes to funding formulas means poor health rates will be given less consideration when cash is allocated, the party said.

It suggested areas like Manchester and the London borough of Tower Hamlets would lose out to parts of the wealthy south east, such as Surrey and Hampshire.

Labour based the claims on an assessment of funding reforms by public health bodies in Manchester.

But the government has disputed the allegations and claimed Labour’s figures were misleading.

Health care sure is a lot easier when government runs it.

This is the future that trigger gives us.  And if you thought the debate to raise the debt ceiling was bitter, you ain’t seen nothing yet.  The numbers will be bigger.  As will the stakes.  For they will be, after all, life and death. Who gets health care cash.  And who doesn’t.  And dies.

You know the Future is Bad when George Orwell’s 1984 is the Cheerful Option

When a deal is struck and the details come out, there’s a good chance the credit rating agencies aren’t going to be impressed.  Those future spending cuts are exactly the kind of thing they didn’t want to see.  So they will probably still downgrade U.S. sovereign debt.  Which will be a bitter pill to swallow.  After having to witness this farce.

So, without all the details available yet, here is my prediction.  Actually spending cuts will be less than $100 billion.  The credit rating agencies will downgrade the U.S. bond rating.  The trigger will activate the defense and Medicare cuts.  Defense spending will be gutted, leaving the United States the paper tiger it was at the end of the Vietnam War.  Medicare will collapse.  And Obamacare will morph into a full blown national health service.  Government spending will swell to beyond Greece levels.  There will be austerity riots.  Civil war.  Again.  And this experiment in self-government will come to an end.

Either that.  Or something more cheerful like George Orwell‘s 1984.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #48: “Government benefits aren’t from the government. They’re from the taxpayers.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 13th, 2011

Defense Spending is in the Constitution, Entitlements Aren’t – And it’s Entitlement Spending that’s Growing

People like to bitch about defense spending.  And I can understand why.  It’s a lot of money.  Just to kill people and break things.  People would rather see that money spent on education.  Health care.  Food assistance for the poor.  Entitlements.  Those nice, generous, government benefits.  The kinder, gentler side of government spending. 

People like the free stuff.  They want to get something for all those taxes other people are paying.  And it just kills them to see it spent on the military.  Because they’d rather see that money spent on them.  Of course if you read the Constitution, you’ll find defense spending in there.  It’s in the preamble (provide for the common defense).  You’ll find it in Article I.  In Article II, too.  Defense spending is pretty conspicuous in the Constitution.  Conspicuous by their absence, though, are entitlements.  Did the Founding Fathers overlook this?  No.  It was the whole point of federalism.  They designed the central government to do only those things that the states couldn’t.  To establish credit for the new nation, to treat with foreign nations, to coin money, etc.  And, of course, to provide and maintain a military force.  Alexander Hamilton wanted it to do more.  And he stretched the “necessary and proper” clause in Article I for some of the things he wanted the central government to do (to try and make the nation rich and powerful like Great Britain).  Pity, too.  For the Left has been stretching that clause ever since.

All right, defense spending is a constitutional requirement of the federal government.  Entitlements aren’t.  So how much are we spending on these?   In 1962, defense spending was 49% of all federal spending (see Federal Spending by the Numbers 2010).  Social Security and Medicare (the two biggest entitlements) were 13%.  Current baseline projections show that, in 2020, defense spending will drop to 14%.  And Social Security and Medicare will rise to 36%.  Medicare is the real cost driver here.  In the decade from 2000 to 2010, Medicare spending has jumped 81%.  It is outgrowing Social Security and Medicaid.  The runaway costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the Big Three) are projected to equal total current tax revenues in the year 2020.  That means the total federal budget today will only pay for the Big Three in 2020.  Concerned?  You should be.  Especially if you’re a taxpayer.

You can pay Uncle Sam with the Overtime.  And will.

Taxpayer, beware.  The government is feeling especially generous.  With your money.  By 2020, Washington will be spending $35,604 per household.  That’ll take almost $5,000 in additional taxes per household for the Big Three alone.  That is projected to jump to $12,636 in 2050.  And that doesn’t include Obamacare.  When that is factored in, it’ll cost you as much as paying cash for a new car each and every year.  And a nice one, not a subcompact with a sewing machine for an engine.  Can you afford that?  I hope so.  Because you won’t have a choice.  You’ll be buying it.  But not for yourself.  No.  That nice beautiful car you’ll be buying each and every year?  You don’t get to drive it.  It will be for someone else.

The entitlement spending is getting so out of hand that we have record deficits.  Compounding this problem is the 2008 recession corresponding with a huge jump in entitlement spending.  It’s opened a rather large gap between revenue and spending.  And that gap isn’t going anywhere soon.  Unless they cut entitlements.  Or raise taxes.  And you know they won’t be cutting entitlements.  So, guess what?  You can pay Uncle Sam with the overtime.  Because that’s all you’ll get for your money (borrowed from Billy Joel’s Movin’ Out (Anthony’s Song)).  So get used to it.  Paying Uncle Sam.  Because Sam is going to raise your taxes.  He has no choice.  Because he won’t cut entitlements.

And they’ll have to raise taxes.  Because we’re running out of creditors to borrow from.  I mean, the Chinese only have so much money to lend.  And we can’t keep printing money.  They’ve been doing that.  Quantitative easing, they call it.  But they can’t keep doing it.  Anyone alive during the Seventies will know why.  Or anyone who has done some reading outside the public school curriculum.  In a word, stagflation.  That’s a phenomenon where you have both high inflation and high unemployment.  It’s usually one or the other.  The normal rules of economics don’t allow both to happen at the same time.  Unless you’re printing money like there’s no tomorrow.  Which they were in the late Sixties and Early Seventies.  To pay for the Vietnam War.  NASA’s Apollo program (to the moon and back).  And, of course, entitlement spending.  The biggest to date was a group of programs we called the Great Society.  Inflation was so bad that they joked about it on Saturday Night Live.  Dan Aykroyd played President Jimmy Carter, joking about the pleasure of owning a $400 suit.  And how easy it was to just call the treasury to have them print off another sheet of hundred dollar bills.  (Or something like that.)

The Reagan Deficits were Bad, but they Make the Obama Deficits look Good

The Seventies were a bad time.  Economically speaking.  Printing money was bad.  Quantitative easing was bad.  Easy money was bad.  So Paul Volcker started tightening monetary policy.  And Ronald Reagan cut taxes. And the Eighties were like a glorious spring following the bleakest of winters.  But you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.  The liberal Democrats weren’t going to roll over and cry ‘uncle’.  For they knew there was more spending left that they could do. 

So the spending continued.  Reagan had a Democrat Congress.  They fought him tooth and nail.  But he spoke directly to the American people and got his tax cuts.  And Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in a windfall of revenue.  And the Dems in Congress couldn’t spend the money fast enough.  Actually, they could.  They spent it so fast that surpluses soon turned into deficits.  They blamed Reagan’s defense spending.  So he made a deal.  He agreed to increase taxes.  If they would cut some of their entitlement spending.  To get the deficits under control.  So they did.  Increased taxes.  But they never cut spending.  Which just goes to show you that you can’t trust liberal Democrats.

You youngsters probably have no memory of these times.  But Ronald Reagan was attacked more than George W. Bush.  Hell, he was attacked almost as much as Abraham Lincoln.  The Seventies were the high-water mark of liberalism.  Then it went head to head with Reagan’s limited government supply-side economics in the Eighties.  And lost.  The hatred for Reagan knew no bounds.  For he was the man that repudiated liberalism.  So they attacked him ruthlessly. Screamed about his defense spending.  And yet his deficits were only around $200 billion.  Obama’s, on the other hand, are around $1,500 billion.  But they’re okay with that.  It’s no big deal, they say.  Just raise the debt ceiling.

It’s Spending, not Tax Cuts, that’s Causing those Record Deficits

But they can’t just raise the debt ceiling to keep spending.  Because spending is the problem.  Our debt is approaching 100% of our GDP.  When you’re borrowing money at record levels, you’re doing this because you just can’t raise taxes anymore.  You put the two together and it’s destroying the economy.  Taxes kill economic activity.  And the interest on the debt is soaring.  It’s projected to be approximately $760 billion in 2020.   That’s more than 70% of the projected budget deficit.  That means that most of the money we’ll be borrowing will go to pay the interest on the money we’ll be borrowing.  At that rate we’ll never pay down our debt.

Revenue averaged 18.0% of GDP from 1960-2009.  During the same period, spending averaged 20.3% of GDP from 1960-2009.  Not good.  But not too bad.  That’s a small, somewhat manageable deficit.  But spending takes off in 2010.  It’s projected to rise to 26.5% of GDP.  Meanwhile, revenue is projected to rise only to 18.2% of GDP.  That’s a projected deficit of 8.3% of GDP.  That’s fricking huge.  And that’s all runaway spending causing this mammoth deficit.  It ain’t tax cuts causing this.  It’s those entitlements.  Those fat, generous government benefits.

By this time there won’t be anything left to cut from the defense budget.  So they will have to turn to the generosity of the taxpayers.  And hope they enjoy personal sacrifice.  Because they’re going to be doing a lot of that.  To pay for these generous benefits.  These benefits for other people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #40: “Big Government is more efficient when old people die sooner.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 18th, 2010

Big Government is a Ponzi Scheme

When it comes to government funding, birthrates and death rates are key.  Think of government as a great Ponzi scheme.  Ponzi schemes work when more people pay into the scam than collect from the scam.  Like in a pyramid scheme.  Those collecting benefits are the few at the top.  Those paying in are the many at the base.

An increasing birthrate means more taxpayers for each successive generation.  This keeps the base of the pyramid growing.  A steady or increasing death rate keeps the top of the pyramid smaller than the base.  A declining death rate, on the other hand, will flip the pyramid upside down.  Because the population at the top will grow larger than the population at the bottom.

Big Government tries to keep as many people as possible dependent on government.  Lots of different programs attach lots of different people to the welfare state.  But when it comes to big numbers, old people can’t be beat.  The lion’s share of government assistance goes to them via Social Security and Medicare.  And they are the most politically active.  That means they vote.  And when they vote, they vote to keep their benefits.

Of course, this is a dual-edged sword.  Yes, old people can provide a loyal voting base to sustain Big Government.  But on the other hand, the cost of their benefits is growing so large that it is undermining the very foundations of Big Government.  How?  By the double whammy of a falling birthrate and a declining death rate.  For various reasons, fewer people are being born.  And old people are living longer.  This has flipped the pyramid in the great Ponzi scheme upside down.  The growth rate of those collecting benefits is greater than the growth rate of those paying into the scheme.

An Increasing Life Expectancy is Bankrupting Social Security

FDR signed Social Security into law in 1935.  The average life expectancy in 1930 was approximately 59 years.  The retirement age in the Social Security Act of 1935?  65.  That’s right, the average American would have been dead for 6 years before qualifying for Social Security retirement benefits.  That’s a 6 year cost cushion.  But not everyone died at 59, though.  So a lot of people lived to receive those benefits.  But one thing the actuaries were sure about then, this Ponzi scheme was going to be a big winner.  For Big Government.

The average life expectancy increased to approximately 70 years in 1960.  In other words, people were living approximately 11 years longer.  That 6 year cost cushion just became a 5 year cost exposure.  That’s a swing of 11 years.  The actuaries in 1930 never saw this coming.

Social Security had its first crisis in 1975.  To save the program, they increased payroll taxes and decreased benefits.  Another crisis came in 1983.  Now they started taxing some Social Security benefits.  Even taxed federal employees (who previously didn’t pay these payroll taxes).   And they would increase the retirement age for later retirees.

By 2000, the average life expectancy increased to approximately 77 years.  That’s another 7 years.  That’s a swing of 18 years from 1930.  A huge actuarial miscalculation.  The population was getting far older then the FDR administration ever guessed.  And, to make matters worse, the birthrate was declining.

A Declining Birthrate is Bankrupting Social Security

The birthrate (per thousand of population) had been declining from 1910 (30.1) to 1920 (27.1) to 1930 (21.3).  That’s about a 10% decline from 1910 to 1920.  And a 20% decline from 1920 to 1930.    Perhaps that’s the reason for the 6-year cost cushion they gave themselves.  They saw fewer babies being born.  Which meant fewer taxpayers would be paying for later retirees.

The birthrate fell to 19.4 in 1940.  Though it was falling, it wasn’t falling as much.  Only 9% from 1930 to 1940.  Then came the baby boom generation.  The birthrate in 1950 shot up to 24.1, a 24% increase from 1940.  More babies meant more taxpayers.  This birthrate held pretty steady in 1960.  No doubt the LBJ administration felt optimistic. 

LBJ exploded federal spending.  He added Medicare and Medicaid.  Made Social Security more generous.  And why not?  Things were looking up.  Birthrate-wise.

But it was short-lived.  The birthrate went from 23.7 in 1960 to 18.4 in 1970.  That’s a 22% decline.  The birthrate was 15.9 in 1980.  That was a 14% decline from 1970.  Or a 33% decline from 1960.  Birth control and abortion were taking their toll on the U.S. birthrate.  Fewer babies meant fewer future taxpayers.  And fewer taxpayers could pay for less government, not more.  The LBJ administration was wrong to feel optimistic.

The Selfish Baby Boomers Invert the Ponzi Scheme Pyramid

The baby boom generation has really thrown a wrench in the works.  The government used their spike in the birth rate as a baseline for future government spending.  But they screwed the government in the end.  Instead of being good little taxpayers by making even more little taxpayers, they stopped having babies.  They didn’t stop having sex.  They just stopped having babies.  It was the era of free love.  And ‘free love’ had no room for babies.

And it’s these baby boomers that are working themselves up to the top of the pyramid.  But being the selfish ingrates that they are, they’ve left no one to follow behind them to keep the Ponzi scheme going.  And to make matters worse, they’ll be living longer in retirement than anyone ever guessed.

It’s a perfect storm of sorts.  A declining death rate.  An even more declining birthrate.  And a huge chunk of the population about to go on the public dole.  But it gets even worse.  The boomers will be living longer in retirement because of huge outlays in Medicare spending to keep them alive.  In other words, the government is spending a fortune to make their financial problems worse.

Amnesty, Catholics and Dead Retirees May Save Social Security

They’re trying to fix things on the taxpayer side.  The Big Government legislators are desperate to give illegal aliens amnesty and citizenship.  To them it’s simple math.  More people equal more taxpayers.  And these taxpayers will be Catholic.  Catholics don’t use birth control and abortion like Americans currently do.  Their birthrate is less likely to decline.  (Approximately 1 in 5 of young children in the United States is Hispanic already.  They project that to increase to 1 in 4 within a few decades.)

On the benefit side, they’ve already raised the retirement age to 67.  And there’s talk about raising it to 69.  If more people die before they’re eligible to collect retirement, that’s a lot of benefits the government doesn’t have to pay.  They’re also talking about cutting the Medicare budget.  The less they spend, the more may die.  And dead people don’t consume Medicare benefits.

There’s no getting around the fact that old people are a huge drain on government.  Though they worked hard to get these people dependent on government, their continued living is becoming more of a burden than a benefit.  An increasing lifespan is anathema to Big Government.  Old retirees take more than they give.  Young workers, on the other hand, give more than they take.  The government needs more young workers.  And fewer old retirees.

(Social Security + Medicare) Spending = 2 X Defense Spending

To be efficient government has to minimize costs in relation to revenue (i.e., taxes).  And there’s an 800 pound gorilla in the room.  Old people.  Nothing can impact the budget more.  Even war.  Social Security and Medicare combined make up approximately 40% of the federal budget.  Defense spending is approximately 20%.  A blind man can see the gorilla.  Government needs these old people to hurry up and die.

And now add Obamacare to the equation.  Which will cover more people than Social Security.  The costs will be astronomical.  Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare will easily eclipse 60% of the total federal budget.  That kind of spending cannot be sustained.  Greece, France and Great Britain have proven this in the 21st century.

That’s some serious cost to contain.  And how do you contain that kind of cost?  You do what the Left says the private health insurers do.  Deny coverage to sick people.  And they will.  They’ll have to.  And with the power of life and death literally in their hands (i.e., death panels), they’ll be able to.  They’ll be able to maximize the number of young workers (by treating them).  Minimize the number of old retirees (by not treating them).  As well as minimize the number of undesirables who take more than they give (by not treating them).  Or even take more serious measures with those seriously ill or impaired (euthanasia).

Don’t think it can happen?  It’s happened in other Big Government states.  In fact, the Progressives even talked about the scientific benefits of eugenics and euthanasia here in the United States in the early 20th century.  To deal with undesirables.  So, yes, it could happen here.  Because it almost once did.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  Next Entries »