To the Daily Sun,
Attorney/Professor Pollak seems to want to continue the spitting match. Unfortunately, he seems to be of the mindset that prefers not to be confused with the facts, as his mind is already made up. So, here we go again ...
The Attorney/Professor claims the Bush tax cuts didn't do much for the economy. The facts are as follows. Prior to President Clinton leaving office, the Internet "dot-com" bubble burst. It had a devastating effect on the economy and federal revenues dropped from $3.676 trillion in 2000 to $3.528 trillion in 2001. (Please note that President G.W. Bush has never "blamed" President Clinton for the problem. Passing blame seems to be a genetic deficiency of those on the left.) In 2002, after the terrorist attacks in 2001, Federal revenues again declined, this time to $3.299 trillion.
In 2003, the Bush tax cuts began to turn around the falling revenue picture and revenues increased to $3.457 trillion. Revenues continued to rise as in 2004 they were $3.891 trillion, 2005 increased to $4.243, 2006 to $4.696, and in 2007 the tax revenues reached $5,170.6 trillion. That track produced fifty straight months of revenue growth.
In 2008, the housing bubble burst and revenues dropped to $4.667 trillion. The attorney/professor might want to do a little research on how that "bubble" came into being. It actually started during the Carter administration when the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed. It had a noble purpose . . . to try and provide mortgages to those at the lower end of the earnings scale, and was backed by the government's Fannie Mae program. During the Carter and Reagan years, little was done to "enforce" the act but, when Clinton became president, a strong push was made to put it in play. Banks were pressured significantly by the government to give out loans to people who really were not qualified or able to pay a mortgage. That led banks, who knew that the mortgages were fragile at best, to bundle mortgages into securities and peddle them in financial institutions.
Attorney/Professor Pollak can find a pretty good history of the CRA in Wikipedia. (Please note, President G.W. Bush once again failed to lay the blame for the financial collapse on his predecessor.)
Now, as to Mr. Pollak's claim that our medical system wasn't working . . . pure hogwash. As to medical costs "skyrocketing," he might want to look into the need for tort reform. A while back, in response to politicians wanting to be able to have insurance sold "across state lines," I did a little research on what would happen if that was made possible. What I found was that the costs of malpractice insurance are not consistent from state to state. Some states are much more litigious than others. For example, an OB-GYN in Minnesota may pay $14,000 to $17,000 annually for his or her malpractice insurance, while the OB-GYN in Florida however, may be faced with a cost of $200,000 or more. These differences have caused many physicians to stop practicing medicine. Selling insurance across state lines will penalize citizens in all those location who now pay less because of lower malpractice insurance costs.
The Obama administration chose not to include any tort reform measures in the PPACA. People might want to know that the State of Pennsylvania instituted a small tort reform step in that state, independent of the Federal plan. It was a law that simply required that for a malpractice claim to be filed, the litigant must show that the Doctor did not follow established medical practices and, the law suit must be filed in the county in which the alleged malpractice occurred. That simple, honest, and straightforward law reduced malpractice lawsuits by 46 percent in its first year.
As to the attorney/professor's claim that there were too many uninsured, he might take note that the initial "need" was to insure the approximately thirty million people who were uninsured. However, a subsequent study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that when the PPACA is fully implemented, they expect there to be thirty one million uninsured.
As to the overall problems with Obamacare, there are too many to mention and comment on. However, if you have a leak in a bathroom faucet, you don't tear out the entire bathroom and build a new one . . . you fix the problem with the leak. Obama chose not to address the problem(s); he chose to destroy what was arguably the finest health care system in the world, to satisfy his desire for a legacy.
Ronald Reagan said it best, the government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 270