Bill Raggio Retires

From the Sun,

Citing health concerns, Northern Nevada's iconic state Sen. Bill Raggio said today he will retire this month. The announcement comes just two months after he was ousted from the leadership position he had held for two decades.

We wish him well and will pray for his good health.

UPDATE: The Nevada Republican Party issued the following statement:

CARSON CITY, NEVADA – Nevada Republican Party Chairman Mark Amodei released the following statement regarding the resignation of State Sen. Bill Raggio:

“For nearly four decades, Bill Raggio has served the State of Nevada with honor and devotion. Sen. Raggio departs the State Legislature with a record of unmatched service to the people of the Silver State. Not only did Sen. Raggio serve the constituents of his district, but he provided all Nevadans a true leader; one who will always be appreciated for his hard work and dedication as a public servant. We wish Sen. Raggio well, and thank him for his long and distinguished career.

Vote on Repeal of ObamaCare May Occur As Early as Friday (UPDATE: Not Friday*)

There is a rumor floating around that House Republicans may hold a vote on the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" (repeal of ObamaCare) on January 7, 2011.

ObamaCare proponents have already been mobilizing their forces, including their media allies. The Las Vegas Sun penned an editorial yesterday slamming House Republicans for the agenda they plan to pursue, including repeal of ObamaCare, and this morning I received an email from Organizing for America.

Our progress is under attack.

Their majority is not even a day old, but House Republicans are already getting ready to pass a bill to repeal health reform.

Instead of focusing on the future, they want to put insurance companies back in charge of our health care. To go back to the days when these companies could deny coverage to children based on pre-existing conditions, cancel coverage when people would get sick, or limit the care you could receive -- even when you needed more. When seniors would be forced to choose between paying their mortgage and paying for their prescription drugs, simply because they landed in the "donut hole" in coverage.

They want to turn our progress into a partisan fight.

But you and I know that the Affordable Care Act and other reforms to protect consumers did not pass because of a partisan or ideological agenda.

The facts that not a single Republican voted for ObamaCare and 34 House Democrats joined Republicans in voting against would tend to argue against that. But who cares about facts when you have emotion on your side?

For their part, conservative organizations are rallying their side as well. Also this morning, Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks released a letter urging House members to vote in favor of repeal.

On behalf of over a million FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to vote yes on the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," which would repeal the Obamacare law enacted last March. Despite Americans loudly voicing opposition to the misguided health care law, it was rammed through with backroom deals and major tax increases. Polls have continuously shown that the majority of Americans want Washington to reverse the government takeover of their health care.

Nearly 10 months after its passage, the new health care law has already done damage to our economy and way of life. Insurance premiums are soaring across the nation. According to the Washington Examiner, the numerous government mandates in the law have caused insurance prices to rise by as much as 47 percent in Connecticut. When the law is fully implemented in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the average price of insurance will be 27 percent to 30 percent higher for all Americans. Struggling American families will have to pay an average of $2,100 more for their health insurance. In other words, the law will accomplish the exact opposite of what it was intended to achieve.

The unintended consequences of the new health care law are heartbreaking. Due to a provision that insurance companies must charge the same rates for healthy and costly sick children, nearly every major insurance company has ceased offering child-only policies. Employer penalties in the law have led some major companies such as 3M to announce that they will no longer be offering health benefits to retirees. Employers have declared that they will drop insurance policies for low-income workers unless they are granted an exemption by the Department of Health and Human Services. So far, over 200 politically connected companies and unions have been offered waivers.

The worst is still to come.

Newly-discovered unintended consequences of the law appear with regularity. From those mentioned in Kibbe's letter to the provision that prohibits expansion and new facilities by physician-owned hospitals to the countless others, the law is making health care more expensive and less accessible.

The fact that waivers from certain provisions are being granted to selected companies may be the most egregious aspect of this legislation. Not only does it scream for corruption, as the well-connected receive rewards not available to the rest, but it attacks the very foundation of our system. John Adams famously wrote that ours is "a government of laws and not of men." No one is above the law, everyone is subject to it. But when we have men - bureaucrats and politicians - who are able to select how and to whom the laws apply and able to force certain individuals to obey its proscriptions while exempting others, we have ceased to be a government of laws.

I am under no illusion that this law will be repealed. As long as Barack Obama (or nearly any other Democrat) occupies the White House, repeal is impossible. But it is important to not allow the people to forget and to force the President and the law's supporters to put their signatures on it, with all of its costs and consequences.

UPDATE: George Scoville has some thoughts here as well.

* UPDATE 2: The Friday vote is incorrect. According to Politico,

Majority Leader-elect Eric Cantor (R-Va.) announced Monday the timeline for considering the repeal legislation: The bill posted Monday, the Rules Committee will meet Thursday, and the rule for the debate will be considered on the House floor Friday. The repeal vote will follow on Wednesday, Jan 12.

The 12th was the date I had originally heard. Turns out that was correct, after all.

Wishful Thinking Will Not Save Entitlements; Nor Will Higher Taxes

A recent article in the Reno Gazette-Journal reports on a survey revealing "most baby boomers think Medicare will go belly-up before they do". The piece quotes Barry Gold, director of government relations for the AARP in Nevada, as saying

There needs to be a permanent fix that will rein in skyrocketing health care costs for both employers and employees[.]

Unfortunately, because of the way Medicare is structured, as an entirely government-run program, there is little in the way of cost savings that can be achieved other than through reducing access to care. As people live longer lives, the program's costs will continue to rise. Medicare costs have risen faster than overall health care costs.

The program currently costs $500 billion and covers 46 million elderly and disabled people. In about 20 years, when the last of the more than 70 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 reach age 65, an estimated 80 million people could be covered by Medicare.

Dale Lazzarone of Reno also comments,

"People say they don't want higher taxes, but we need to do something to keep this going," said Lazzarone, owner of the Lazzarone Group, which provides life, health and disability insurance, as well as retirement and long-term health care plans.

"My kids may never get Medicare or Social Security in their current forms," he said. "I'm hoping most of us baby boomers do, but to keep those programs in place, we are going to have to raise the unemployment tax. I would rather increase the tax than lose the benefits."

Of course he'd rather raise taxes on other people so that his benefits won't get cut. But even leaving that element aside, as long as Social Security runs a surplus raising the Social Security tax will only make the long-term problem worse.

That's correct. Additional surplus revenues in Social Security will make the long-term problem worse, not better. When Social Security runs a surplus, the SS system, through its Trust Fund, loans the surplus to the Treasury, where it is spent along with the other general fund revenues. This money eventually has to be paid back from the general fund to the SS Trust Fund. So increasing Social Security surpluses merely provides Congress more money to spend now, thus allowing Congress to avoid spending restraint, while increasing future deficits.

Medicare is already a basket case, running increasing deficits every year.

Despite Mr. Lazzaro hopes, these programs cannot exist in their current forms for much longer. As the Heritage Foundation reports, by 2052 Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid all by themselves will require a portion of GDP equal to the historical average of all annual federal government tax revenues. And will continue to consume a larger portion of the country's output each year for many years after that.

This is not a sustainable situation. Either these programs will be reformed, they will collapse or the nation's economy will collapse. The longer we wait the more likely one of the last two is to occur.

93 Million Miles Out of Touch

The New Year has not brought a new attitude to the Las Vegas Sun. Today the editorial board of the Sun launches into another vitriolic attack against Republicans.

They begin by criticizing GOP plans to repeal the health care reform bill. As is their standard fare in defending ObamaCare they offer little but Democrat talking points.

But Republicans just don’t get it. Americans largely support the health care law’s key provisions, and a repeal would once again give insurance companies the right to exclude people from coverage because of preexisting conditions and would reinstate the so-called “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription coverage.

Even granting that the law will accomplish what its proponents say it will, there are still a raft of issues with it. For one, those key provisions are not all there is to it. Not even close.

There are tons (about 2000 pages worth) of additional provisions that will regulate every aspect of health care and the means it is delivered. Some of the intended and unintended consequences are prohibiting construction or expansion of physician-owned hospitals, driving hospitals out of businesses, and others.

Also, it was sold disingenuously. Maybe Americans do support some of its key provisions but, as with anything else, there is a limit to what they can afford. However, ObamaCare proponents promised us we could have all of these wonderful new things for free.

Closing the "doughnut hole" costs taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. In fact, the "doughnut hole" was created in the original Medicare Part D legislation as a means to control costs to the taxpayers and that law would never have passed without it; it would have been far too expensive. Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions costs insurance companies a tremendous amount of money, which has to be recovered by increasing premiums for everyone else.

Despite the fact that the "key provisions" that Americans supposedly support increase costs to taxpayers and raise insurance premiums, proponents of the bill told everyone that it would save taxpayers money and reduce premiums.

The editorial continues,

This is foolish, but the Republican desire to press ahead with repealing the health care law only foreshadows what is to come. They’re playing for the 2012 election, no matter what the public wants, and that will lead to a greater partisan divide and less work done in Washington.

Those wily Republicans! Their devious plan for getting re-elected in 2012 is to defy the wishes of the voters! Evil genius, indeed.

After complaining about the number of days GOP leaders will require representatives to be in Washington, the Sun expressed outrage that Republicans might have a problem with the way the Obama administration has conducted itself.

However, Republicans don’t intend to be totally idle. Cantor said the calendar would have time for “meaningful oversight.” That’s code for “witch hunt.”

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who will be the House’s chief investigator as chairman of the House oversight panel, made that clear. Last weekend he said President Barack Obama’s administration is “one of the most corrupt administrations” in history. Issa, who tried to back off a previous claim that Obama was corrupt, will have the power to subpoena administration officials and documents, and that means he’ll be able to tie up the daily workings of government, delaying progress on important issues like creating jobs and improving the economy.

Just as the Democrats delayed "progress on important issues like creating jobs and improving the economy" as they sidetracked themselves on issues such as ObamaCare and countless other tangents?

There is always the risk in these types of investigations spinning out of control and devolving into the criminalization of political differences. But the Sun didn't seem to have much of a problem with oversight when it was a Democrat-controlled Congress investigating a Republican administration.

The conclusion is classic Sun.

Once again, the Republicans just don’t get it. The message the American people sent in November’s election is that they want government to work. Instead, Republicans plan to deny health care to people, tie up government and take time off.

What a plan.

They display how out of touch they are by repeating their erroneous and self-serving interpretation of the November elections. And no Sun editorial would be complete without demonizing their political opponents.

The Sun proves the accuracy of their name - the space in which they live is 93 million miles from this planet.

Joe Biden is Not a Natural Born Citizen (Comic)

Hilarious strip from AAB.

Governor Sandoval Freezes Regulations to Promote Business Development

As Sean Whaley of NNB reports,

Gov. Brian Sandoval wasted no time getting to work after being sworn into office today, signing an executive order freezing many proposed administrative regulations as evidence that Nevada is a business friendly state.

The freeze, which will last until Jan. 1, 2012, has exceptions for regulations affecting the public health, public safety and security and those needed in the pursuit of federal funds and certifications.

Sandoval signed the order, and another establishing ethics requirements for certain public officers and employees, just minutes after being sworn in as Nevada’s 29th governor in a chilly ceremony on the steps of the state Capitol.

This is sure to raise the ire of those who believe in the sanctity of government regulations. There is also the potential that the regulators may interpret too liberally the exceptions granted by Sandoval.

4. The following regulations are not subject to the freeze:

a. regulations that affect public health;

b. regulations that affect public safety and security;

c. regulations that are necessary in the pursuit of federal funds and certifications;

d. regulations that affect the application of powers, functions and duties essential to the operation of the state agency, department, board or commission at issue;

e. regulations that affect pending judicial deadlines; and

f. regulations necessary to comply with Federal law.

There is a danger that a), b) and d) can be abused. We can only hope the governor and his staff are vigilant in ensuring that agencies do not take advantage of these exemptions.

Smoke and Mirrors: Part II

NPRI's Geoffrey Lawrence presents the second of his analysis of the recent PERS report. This part focuses on the lack of ownership of assets by the PERS participants. The assets belong to the plan, not the individual.

Under the current, defined-benefits pension scheme, participants are promised monthly payments based on a percentage of their highest-earning years, but they have no meaningful ownership rights over the assets accumulated by PERS on their behalf. If a retiree dies at an early age, for instance, the retiree forfeits those assets. This represents a potentially great financial loss for retirees who have contributed significant sums into PERS accounts over the course of a career.

[...]

This lack of portability can create unproductive "job lock" that prevents workers from seeking more gainful opportunities elsewhere. Under a defined-contribution retirement plan, this is not an issue because workers, maintaining their own, private savings accounts, can contribute toward that account wages paid by any employer.

Individual retirement accounts under a defined-contribution retirement system bestow an additional benefit on their owners: the flexibility to conform to each individual worker's lifestyle preferences and unique savings plans.

Today's workforce is more mobile than ever before. People change employers and change careers more often than in the past.

Imagine a government worker whose spouse lost his job in the construction industry. There is virtually no chance of him finding employment in Las Vegas. His only opportunities may be elsewhere. But if they move, she may have to forfeit all of the pension benefits she has accumulated.

Another possibly even more pernicious aspect of defined-benefit plans is their potential impact on the larger economy. If a plan's investments underperform, whether through mismanagement, investment losses or a downturn in the wider economy, the plan's shortfall has to be made up. It is not the fund's managers or the current beneficiaries who bear the brunt of this. It is the taxpayers and current contributors who must reach into their pockets for the difference.

The managers of these funds can be less concerned with the financial performance of the firms they invest in than are other investors. Thus, these funds can sometimes turn into activist shareholders where they prod companies into pursuing goals that are unrelated or sometimes even contrary to the goal of increasing long-term shareholder value. The fund managers can force companies to pursue feel-good initiatives that, in some cases, can make the firms less profitable and their shares less valuable. And if this negatively impacts the fund's value, they just get the taxpayers to kick in the difference.

This particular situation has already occurred in the case of CalPERS, the California Public Employee Retirement System. CalPERS, by its own admission, is an activist shareholder. While CalPERS touts its activism the reviews have been mixed and the reality is there's no downside for CalPERS if it fails. The taxpayers of California are forced to pay for any negative consequences of the fund's activism.

Defined-benefit pension plans for public employees aren't quite what their cracked up to be, either for the beneficiaries or the taxpayers.

Sun Headline Writers' War on Sandoval Continues

Once again, in Ties to rich special interests on display at Brian Sandoval’s inauguration, the Sun attaches an incendiary headline to a relatively fair article about the soon-to-be Governor.

The article, interestingly enough, notes how outgoing Governor Jim Gibbons resisted influence by powerful interests who supported his election. Such positive mentions of Gibbons are rare in the Sun.

The reality is that if Sandoval's opponent, Rory Reid, had won the election the list probably would not have been much different, aside from possibly the addition of a few unions - public employees, Culinary, etc. MGM Resorts, for instance, is cited as one of the sponsors. The company put up a quarter-million dollars in support of Reid's father. They likely would have dropped a few bucks on the son's inaugural.

One does not rise to the level of prominence required to be elected governor of a state without encountering some rich and powerful people along the way. For the most part, these people and their businesses are perfectly willing to play both sides, especially the winning one. But the Sun had to take the opportunity to get in yet another dig at Sandoval.

It should not be astonishing that those with the most to lose (or gain) by government action would be the most politically-active or that they would want to endear themselves to the victors. Companies in heavily-regulated industries (gaming, pharmaceuticals, health care) and those who have the targets of the tax-raisers on their back (mining, retail) are especially interested in what goes on in government and try to be as active participants as they can - better to have a seat at the table than to be on the menu.

This is just another example that lobbyists follow the power and money, not the other way around. The Sun, however, uses it as the basis for another attack in its war on Sandoval.

Discovering a Hero

This morning, through a Facebook post, I became aware of a true hero, Chiune Sugihara. A Japanese diplomat in the first half of the 20th century, he resigned his post in 1934 to protest his government's treatment of Chinese after it conquered their country.

In 1939 he took a position in Lithuania. As the German blitzkrieg overran Eastern Europe he defied orders and issued visas that allowed thousands of Jews to escape the oncoming Nazis and the Holocaust.

Nikki Haley Refuses to Grant Oprah Access to Woman Who Murdered Her Own Children

Cubachi:

The South Carolina governor-elect says she won’t allow for Oprah Winfrey to have access to murderer Susan Smith who is serving a life sentence after killing her two sons in 1995.

[...]

One of the most annoying aspects of Oprah and her show is that she tries to gain emotional sympathy and empathy for these pathetic, low-lives. Susan Smith does not need any more publicity. The woman is a cold-blooded murderer and should rot in jail.

Brava to Nikki Haley.

I couldn't agree more. As a parent, I can think of nothing more despicable, disgusting, condemnable than a person who would kill her own children. The last thing that anyone, including Susan Smith, needs is for her to be given a forum to blame someone else for her own evil acts.

The Ten Most Annoying Commercials of 2010

#9 is one that my wife really dislikes. As a guy of far less than unlimited means, jewelry commercials at the holidays are especially annoying. As are the gift of a new car ads.

The Sun Hearts the Democrats

The Las Vegas Sun offers an editorial in favor of altering Senate rules, in order to prevent Republicans from filibustering Democrat legislation. When Republicans were in control, the Sun editorialized against any change to Senate rules that would have prohibited Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. These are not entirely inconsistent or obviously partisan positions, although I don't recall the Sun ever favoring a rule change that would have served to benefit Republicans at the time at the expense of Democrats. But, you never know, it could happen.

The partisanship is revealed in today's piece here.

If there’s any lesson Washington should have learned from the last election, it’s that voters want Congress to work together.

This is not only completely wrong it's entirely self-serving. A little exercise to recall what actually happened a couple months ago may be helpful.

There are two parties, which for our purposes we'll call the Accomplishment Party and the Obstruction Party. The Accomplishment Party held the Presidency, a large majority in the House and (for a while) a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. They had successfully passed a number of major initiatives, including massive spending bills and unprecedented interventions into important industries.

The Obstruction Party, on the other hand, had been virtually powerless to prevent the Accomplishment Party from pressing its agenda. Its members had employed a series of procedural maneuvers attempting to oppose the Accomplishment Party with some success but much of the Accomplishment Party's agenda became law. The Obstruction Party campaigned on the promise of preventing the Accomplishment Party from advancing its agenda any further and attempting to undo the Accomplishment Party's accomplishments where possible.

If voters wanted the parties to work together to get things done, one would think that they would have rejected the Obstruction Party and relegated it to even smaller minority status. Yet the Obstruction Party trounced the Accomplishment Party, winning a victory of historic proportions.

The Sun's interpretation of the election results, while incorrect, serves its purpose of promoting the Democrat party. It is also entirely consistent with its historic interpretation of election results: When Democrats win elections, it is a repudiation of the Republican agenda and tactics and a message that Republicans need to work with Democrats to advance the Democrats' agenda. When Republicans win elections, it is a repudiation of Republican tactics and a message that Republicans need to work with Democrats to advance the Democrats' agenda.

To further emphasize the point, in the linked editorials when Democrats achieved large gains in 2006, the Sun ran an editorial with the title "Mandate for change". Yet when Republicans achieved even larger gains four years later, the Sun found it necessary to use scare quotes around "mandate" in a section with the same title. Let there be no doubt, only Democrats are given mandates.