Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Mr President, Less More, is too Much.

Recs

4

May 11, 2009 – Comments (0)

First the Good News!

Government planning needs to look ahead much further than it has in the past. There is no better place to begin than dedicating money and work to the clean-up of decades of neglected problems. I will not see any personal benefit from this spending. My great grandchildren will thank you. I notice you are raising a tax upon business for clean-up costs. Excellent. That is much better than borrowing. I would prefer to see clean-up costs of each industry, taxed upon that industry rather than spread across all business's. Its always better to know what things really cost.

May 8 -- The Obama administration´s proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 includes $10.5 billion in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, a 34% increase compared with 2009 funding. The agency is receiving $7.8 billion for the current fiscal year.

More than one-third of the 2010 budget -- $3.9 billion -- would go toward improving the nation´s water and wastewater infrastructure, according to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who discussed the budget during a telephone news conference May 7.

The budget also would allocate $475 million for the multi-agency Great Lakes Initiative to protect and clean up the lakes and control invasive species.

The EPA would receive $17 million for creating a greenhouse gas registry, a first step toward limiting emissions of the gases. The agency will receive an additional $2 million to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions.

The Superfund program would receive $1.3 billion to increase the number of hazardous waste sites eligible for cleanup. Also, beginning in 2011, the federal government plans to reinstate the Superfund tax on businesses. The ax would generate $1 billion of revenue a year, rising to $2 billion a year by 2019, Jackson said.

The budget also proposes $175 million for the brownfields program.

And the EP plans to have enough money to hire 30 additional enforcement staff members in the EPA´s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program.

"EPA´s new budget reflects the president´s commitment to growing a clean energy economy while protecting human health and the environment," Jackson said.

Details about President Obama´s proposed fiscal year 2010 EPA budget -- which will next go to Congress -- is available online at www.epa.gov/budget.

Contact Waste & Recycling News senior reporter Bruce Geiselman at 330-865-6172 or bgeiselman@crain.com

Now the bad news, and this is Very Bad News (Very Bad News).

Splashed all over the papar and the Internets this morning is news of a voluntary arrangement drawn up by groups representing insurance firms, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical makers and a labour union that will deliver healthcare savings of 2 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

The problem is the answer to the question; where does this savings come from? It seems it comes from "cost increases". It seems the group in question  has managed to come up with a not detailed arrangement to not increase costs... AS MUCH, and save us 2 trillion dollars.

I like to think you are not a dummy. So I need to remind you that the insurance executives, who do negotiate and control Dr's salaries, hospital costs, and drug prices, think their top executives need tens of millions of dollars in annual paychecks to do a good job, whereas by comparison CNBC feels that Gov't officials are overpaid at $200,000 for the head of the CDC.

As near as I can figure, this 2 trillion in savings, that comes from reducing cost increases by 1.5% is going to sound like this; "We know costs have gone up 6.9% but without our hard work it would have been 8.4% so please thank us". Or "We know cost have gone up by 8.4% but without our hard work it would have been 9.9%.

I would like to point out that what I just described, is not really "hard work".

What is going to be "hard work" is convincing me that lower price increases is actually a better idea than actually lower prices.

What is going to be "hard work" is getting re-elected if you do not deliver real savings and H.R 676. That applies to the Senate and House too.

It will also be "hard work" to get re-elected if CNBC is slamming you every day for supporting H.R.676.

Take your chances with the Congressmen and women who support H.R.676. Take your chances with the majority of Doctors and Nurses who support H.R.676. Take your chances with the business's who support H.R.676. Take your chances with the majority of Americans who support Single Payer Healthcare. Take your chances with my boy Ralph Nader.

The plan you are going to get from the health insurers is going to be one that continues to underinsure their customers leaving them unprotected after years of monthly payments. The plan you will get from the insurers will be one that continues practices like only paying for a thirty day drug prescription after a Doctor prescribe 90 days. Effectively increasing the customers copay from $20.00 to $60.00. The plan you will get will be one that continues to pass the costs of sick people onto Government anyway.

Federal tax increases are not outpacing inflation. Banking costs and health insurance have. It is not our taxes that are killing us.

 

 

 

0 Comments – Post Your Own

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement