If he’s in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after Nov 4, Barack Obama said he would classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant, and use the Clean Air Act to curb emissions by power plants and manufacturers. Such a move could halt construction on as many as half of the 130 proposed new coal-fired power plants.

“The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,” said Jason Grumet, Obama’s energy advisor. “We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus. So he’ll move quickly” (Jim Ofstathiou Jr., Yahoo! News 10/16/08).

Meanwhile, many Europeans, seeing the punishing financial costs of emissions reductions while already in a fiscal crisis, are saying “Not me!”

In 2006, Chancellor Angela Merkel promised to eliminate coal and nuclear power in Germany. Now she is calling for new coal-fired plants and for protecting chemical, steel, manufacturing, cement, and automotive industries from ruinous emissions caps (Paul Driessen, FreeRepublic.com 10/13/08).

“It cannot be us, who have the biggest manufacturing economy in Europe along with Germany, to take on the costs that would depress our economy, our automotive sector, compared with other economies, in a moment of crisis,” said Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Eight other countries (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia) also asked the EU to recognize their economic difficulties and block the EU climate plan (Francesca Piscioneri and Pete Harrison, Reuters 10/21/08).

The British government has “spent more than three years paving the way for the next [U.S.] president by chipping away at the road block the US has long represented on getting a binding agreement—designed to ‘penetrate every layer of American society’.” The Prince of Wales, religious leaders, and dozens of members of Parliament have been involved (Times 10/20/08).

British politicians, however, are being pummeled by a voter backlash, as cash-strapped families struggle with the £1,000/yr cost of climate policy (Daily Mail 10/17/08).

Half of America’s electricity is generated using coal. Demand is growing twice as fast as supply, and brownouts could occur as early as 2009 (Doctors for Disaster Preparedness Newsletter, September 2008).

EPA-proposed rules would require permits to emit carbon dioxide from the majority of American small businesses, farms with more than 25 cows, and even large single-family homes, as well as schools, hospitals, and public buildings. “It is difficult to overemphasize how potentially disruptive and burdensome such a…regulatory regime would be,” commented the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (Physicians for Civil Defense, July 2008).

Sen. McCain has not said how he would approach CO2 regulation under the Clean Air Act (Estathiou, op. cit.).

Additional information:

• Sample comments on EPA-proposed rule. Also search www.regulation.gov for “EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318.”
• “Ideas Have Health Consequences,” AAPS News, November 2008.
• “Supreme Court Rules that Building Block for All Life Is a ‘Pollutant’,” AAPS News of the Day 4/9/07.

As worldwide economic meltdown continues, and the cost of the U.S. bailout/”rescue” soars, the question looms: how will government pay even the short-term costs? Political candidates are not addressing this issue.

The make-somebody-else’s-children-pay-later strategy may soon reach the ultimate limit. Somebody has to load money into the Treasury now. Investors have been fleeing to the supposed safety of U.S. Treasuries, but how much debt can even a superpower accumulate before would-be creditors begin to worry about repayment?

The take from income taxes depends, of course, on the amount of income people have. If that isn’t enough, what next?

France and a number of other welfare states have a net wealth or “solidarity tax.” In 1999, Donald Trump once proposed a one-time net worth tax of 14.25% on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more, claiming it would generate $5.7 trillion, which could be used to pay the national debt—before it got swollen by the bailout/”rescue.” This is not likely to be indexed to inflation.

No political candidates, of course, are publicly announcing a plan to confiscate assets. However, in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview, Barack Obama signaled his approval of wealth redistribution—and said it was a tragedy that the civil rights movement did not accomplish that. A tape including Obama’s discussion of using legislative or legal means to force redistribution is posted on the Drudge Report.

Of particular note was Obama’s answer to an audience member, probably a small businessman, who said, “Your plan’s gonna tax me more, isn’t it?”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama said. “I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too. I think than when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

This doesn’t sound like the redistribution of wealth from the foolish to the prudent that occurs in a free market when a bubble bursts, but rather government redistribution, bailing somebody out of trouble by putting somebody into trouble, with a hefty “toll for the troll,” as Arthur Laffer describes recent government panic reactions (“The Age of Prosperity Is Over,” Wall St J 10/27/08).

Obama’s remarks are compatible with Marxist ideology—and he has yet to disavow the ideas of his Communist associates (Wes Vernon, RenewAmerica 5/28/08, Cliff Kincaid, Schwarz Report, October 2008).

“Whenever people make decisions when they are panicked, they are rarely pretty,” writes Laffer.

The election is occurring in a time when panic may be just beginning:

• A front-page article in the overseas edition of the People’s Daily said Asian and European nations should banish the U.S. dollar. “The grim reality has led people, amidst the panic, to realize that the United States has used the U.S. dollar’s hegemony to plunder the world’s wealth,” said Shi Jianxun of Shanghai’s Tongji University (Reuters 10/24/08).
• The dollar rally, in the face of deteriorating fundamentals, has been called a “death dance.” The gap between the paper gold market and physical gold market is widening. In Toronto, a multimillion-dollar off-market transaction in physical gold involved paying $1,075 per ounce—settled in euros. Foreigners may force changes causing the U.S. dollar to lose its global currency status. A freeze in short-term credit could interfere with distribution channels of railways and truckers in the U.S. (Jim Willie, Hat Trick Letter 10/23/08).
• The Federal Reserve is inflating at 341% per annum. Banks are buying Treasury debt; the Treasury spends the money. Businesses must compete with the Treasury to get money. Without productivity, it is not possible to emerge from a recession (Gary North 10/24/08). See charts from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and other sources.
• A £516-trillion derivatives “time bomb” is ticking away. Warren Buffet called derivatives “financial weapons of mass destruction” (Independent 10/12/08).

Apparently, both parties hope that the day of reckoning can be postponed until after November 4.

Additional information:

• “A Trillion Dollar ‘Rescue’?” AAPS News, November 2008.
• “About the Power,” AAPS News, September 2008.
• “About the Money,” AAPS News, August 2008.

Is Barack Obama a brilliant orator, captivating millions through his eloquence? Or is he deliberately using the techniques of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a covert form of hypnosis developed by Milton Erickson, M.D.?

A fundamental tool of “conversational hypnosis” is pacing and leading—a way for the hypnotist to bypass the listener’s critical faculty by associating repeated statements that are unquestionably accurate with the message he wants to convey.

A middle-school teacher at the Urban Community Leadership Academy in Kansas City, Mo., was suspended for posting a YouTube video of a slogan-chanting drill squad.

The video features 10 black male students in 8th or 9th grades, wearing military-style uniforms, marching and chanting slogans supporting Barack Obama. The students also recited claims about Obama’s healthcare plan.

A chant of “Alpha, Omega,” possibly originating from the black fraternity step-team tradition, gave way to “Yes, we can.” Each student proclaimed that “Because of Obama, I’m inspired to become the next doctor (architect, chemical engineer, firefighter, etc.).”

Further drill activities were halted. The teacher had been warned in a letter not to post the video, and was accused of insubordination for doing so anyway.

The video is imbedded in the story “Obama Commandos’ Teacher Disciplined,” (WorldNetDaily 10/6/08).

Other news concerning Barack Obama:

• Obama shown campaigning for the candidate of “change” in Kenya: Canada Free Press, scroll down and click on “The video that could cost Obama the election.”
• The economic crisis: “Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis,” American Thinker 9/28/08.
• Obama’s first priority as President would not be the economy, but rather removing all limits on abortions: LifeNews.com 10/13/08.

The basic difference in the major candidates’ proposals for “health care reform,” according to Mark Pauley, writing in Health Affairs, is that McCain recognizes that workers earn their health benefits, while Obama apparently views benefits as the employer’s money (Greg Scandlen, Consumer Power Report 10/16/08).

Obama and supporters claim that the McCain plan will cause workers to lose employer-sponsored insurance, while Obama’s will permit those who like their employer-sponsored plan to keep it.

Summarizing the only two academic studies of the McCain and Obama plans,
John Goodman writes that, according to the Lewin study, 9.4 million would lose employer coverage under McCain, and 13.9 million under Obama. That means for every three people who lose coverage under McCain, four would lose it under Obama. The loss under Obama could be much higher. Employer-based coverage could actually increase with the McCain plan, while dropping by 60 million under Obama, according to the analysis by Roger Feldman of the University of Minnesota.

Obama promised that people buying insurance on their own would have access to the same coverage as members of Congress. The Lewin study assumes that the government-sponsored “national plan,” with the same on-paper benefits, would pay providers 25%, or even 40% less than private plans do.

Medicaid rolls would swell by 16.6 million under Obama, and shrink by 12 million under McCain, as Medicaid enrollees shifted to private plans.

Neither candidate has proposed a realistic way to pay for his proposal. The estimated 10-year cost is $2.1 trillion for McCain and $1.1 trillion for Obama (according to Lewin), and $2 trillion for McCain and $6 trillion for Obama (according to Feldman).

According to an analysis by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), the McCain plan would help to end job lock, and result in a wage increase averaging $9,000 per year. PRI states that the Obama “job-killing” taxes would be especially harmful to low-income workers, and his reforms would lead to a “death spiral” for privately chosen health insurance (John R. Graham, “Presidential Prescriptions: Diagnosing the Candidates’ Health Reforms, PRI 10/14/08).

The McCain tax credit would correct the “arbitrary, unfair, and wasteful” distribution of tax benefits for health insurance, writes John Goodman. The Obama proposal would “build on today’s regressive, discriminatory subsidies for employment-based insurance,” while new rules would make insurers “little more than functionaries in a new federal government regulatory regime,” states Grace-Marie Turner (Health Care News, September 2008).

Senator Obama seems to be confusing a tax credit with a tax deduction, suggests Ralph Weber, who spoke at the 2008 AAPS annual meeting. A $5,000 tax credit is the equivalent of a $20,000 deduction for most families. It actually is enough to pay the average family health insurance premium in New Mexico, leaving $2,000 to start building up health savings. McCain has also proposed allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines (FlashReport 10/16/08).

The New England Journal of Medicine shows its political colors in its Oct 16 article, “Primum Non Nocere—the McCain Plan for Health Insecurity.” It concludes that “Senator McCain’s plan does not demonstrate the kind of judgment needed in a potential commander in chief of our health care system”—assuming a “system” that has a commander in chief (David Blumenthal, N Engl J Med 2008;359:1645-1647). For balance, however, Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute writes in an accompanying article that Obama’s “hopes are too audacious to be believed.” A pay-or-play mandate amounts to a tax on labor (N Engl J Med 2008;359:1648-1650).

The “usual suspects show up as savers: health information technology, prevention, and comparative-effectiveness research”—but none is “likely to produce savings any time soon,” Antos writes.

Additional information:

• “AAPS, Obama, and Socialized Medicine,” AAPS News of the Day 10/8/08.
• “Does Barack Obama Support Socialized Medicine?” by Michael Cannon.
• “White Paper on Medical Financing,” by Andrew Schlafly and Jane Orient, M.D., J Am Phys Surg Fall 2006.

For more than three decades, savvy world investors have feared that in any serious deflationary crisis, the U.S. would panic and open the floodgates of printed fiat currency, writes Richard Maybury.

Maybury believes that the deflationary crisis has arrived; dollars are being created by the Federal Reserve at an astounding rate. The steady upward slope of BASE, the St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base has become vertical.

Since officials don’t know the location of the threshold that would trigger an inflationary crisis, making the U.S. dollar worthless, they are dropping money into the economy in increments instead of one huge infusion.

Americans see each of the smaller injections as a failure. Thus, each one makes them more fearful. The velocity of money falls, nullifying the inflationary effect of the injections, Maybury writes (U.S. and World Early Warning Report, Special Bulletin #3, 10/10/08).

The only silver available for purchase is in 1,000-oz. bars. One explanation, suggested by Arthur Robinson, is that Americans are so frightened that they have bought up all the silver coins.

Nonetheless, “we have the tools to manage the crisis,” writes Paul Volcker reassuringly (Wall St J 10/10/08). Volcker was Federal Reserve chairman from 1979-1987. “Financial authorities, in the United States and elsewhere, are now in a position to take needed and convincing action to stabilize markets and restore trust.”

If confidence is restored, the game can proceed. At least for a time.

The international confidence-builders have had an “unprecedented crisis” come up at a most awkward moment: Just after World Bank president Robert Zoellick called for a “radical revamping of multilateral organizations in light of the global economic meltdown,” it was found that the security of the World Bank Group’s computer network has been compromised by cybercriminals. Intruders have had access to the Bank’s most sensitive systems for at least 6 months. Officials have been scrambling to find the cause of the problem, while also trying to keep news from leaking to the public.

Maintaining the Bank’s information infrastructure costs about $280 million per year. One disgruntled staffer complained that it doesn’t even have an internal search engine that works. But investigators found that intruders were “downloading anything and everything.” Among other problems, spyware had been covertly installed on workstations in the Bank’s Washington headquarters (Fox News 10/10/08).

As President Bush told Americans, the crisis is global.

Neither the Federal Reserve nor the World Bank is offering a confidence-inspiring path to financial stability.

Additional information:

• “A Trillion-Dollar ‘Rescue’?” AAPS News, November 2008.
• “Confidence Games,” Civil Defense Perspectives, September 2008.
• “Massive Pork Bill Passed by Unconstitutional Process to ‘Rescue’ Economy,” AAPS News of the Day 10/5/08.
• “About the Power,” AAPS News, September 2008.
• “About the Money,” AAPS News, August 2008.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans without health coverage has fallen for the first time in 20 years—to 45.7 million in 2007 from 47 million in 2006.

At the same time, the percentage of Americans with private health insurance fell from 67.9% in 2006 to 67.5% in 2007. An additional 1.3 million Americans went on Medicaid, 1 million were added to Medicare, and 400,000 to military health care programs.

States with budgetary problems are, however, trying to cut back on Medicaid enrollment—although the American Enterprise Institute estimates that the poverty rate now is half a percentage point higher than in June 2007 (Wall St J 8/27/08).

The way to enable more Americans to obtain private coverage is to reduce the cost. According to a new study by Stephen Parente and Roger Feldman of the University of Minnesota, Congress could boost the number of privately insured by permitting people to buy health insurance across state lines (Grace-Marie Turner, Wall St J 8/27/08).

Additional information:

• “Some good news on health financing,” AAPS News of the Day 7/15/08.
• “Restoring True Insurance,” by Frank Timmins, J Am Phys Surg , Winter 2006.
• “The Health Care Choice Act,” by Mark Schiller, M.D., J Am Phys Surg, Winter 2004.

Last month AAPS members voted unanimously to re-affirm the AAPS Resolution to Oppose a Single-Payer Medical System.

In that resolution, AAPS urges all physicians to oppose a government-controlled or single-payer plan as harmful to patients, and therefore inconsistent with a high standard of medical ethics.

Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has proposed an ambitious plan to restructure America’s health care sector — a plan some have called “socialized medicine.” Many others reject that label.

In the newest Cato Institute Briefing Paper, Cato director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon argues, “Reasonable people can disagree over whether Obama’s health plan would be good or bad. But to suggest that it is not a step toward socialized medicine is absurd.”

Cato Institute Briefing Paper #108
Introduction:

“Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (IL) has proposed an ambitious plan to restructure America’s health care sector. Rather than engage in a detailed critique of Obama’s health care plan, many critics prefer to label it ‘socialized medicine.’

“Is that a fair description of the Obama plan and similar plans? Over the past year, prominent media outlets and respectable think tanks have investigated that question and come to a unanimous answer: no.

“Reasonable people can disagree over whether Obama’s health plan would be good or bad. But to suggest that it is not a step toward socialized medicine is absurd….”

READ THE ANALYSIS

Additional Information:

• READ AAPS RESOLUTION OPPOSING SINGLE-PAYER MEDICAL SYSTEM
• READ AAPS RESOLUTION OPPOSING GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN MEDICINE
• READ AAPS ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE

According to the U.S. Constitution, all revenue bills must originate in the U.S. House of Representatives. How then did the massive bill to make taxpayers buy all kinds of toxic debt originate in the U.S. Senate?

It only appears that way. For purposes of our lawmakers, “it”—that is the shell bill wrapped around the “rescue” package—did come from the House. Apparently, any bill previously passed by the House will serve. This one was a bill requiring “mental health parity,” H.R. 1424, originally sponsored by Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and pushed through as the shell bill by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). That is an insurance mandate that forces employers and insurers who offer mental health benefits to more than 50 workers to provide them on par with medical benefits. There can be no higher deductibles or copayments for mental health benefits, or stricter limits on physician visits (Kevin Freking, LA Times 10/2/08).

Starting out as a 3-page bill, the package rapidly expanded to 442 pages, despite a promise by Sen. Chuck Schumer not to “Christmas-tree” the bill. It got decorated even more after the House rejected it in response to an outpouring of rage from constituents.

In a tape played on talk radio, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said his mail was running about 50:50. “Fifty percent no, and 50% hell no.” Incumbents have a lot of explaining to do, especially if they switched their votes from “no” to “yes.”

Possible rationales: The stock market plunge after the “no” vote. Disaster aid to states struck by summer storms. A one-year patch for middle-class families facing a sting from the alternative minimum tax. More students able to finish college if a credit crunch on college loans is forestalled. Increasing FDIC insurance from $100,000 to $250,000. Tax credits for “alternative” energy. A really good speech by Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) about how he was willing to pay the price of getting this important thing done.

The biggest single switch was in the Congressional Black Caucus. Thirteen members of the CBC switched from “no” to “yes”; many had heard from Barack Obama. Both presidential candidates strongly endorsed the bill.

“When I woke up this morning, I had real peace that this was the right thing to do,” said Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), a certified public accountant (Patrick O’Connor, Politco.com 10/4/08).

Among the switchers was Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the hero of conservatives credited with the initial rejection. Apparently because of the addition of $150 billion in “sweeteners” to the $700 billion bailout, he called on Republicans to vote for the modified bill.

Among the least well-known features of the bill is a provision that makes IRS authority to conduct undercover operations permanent. IRS agents can, for example, run an extended sting operation disguised as an accounting firm. The bill also empowers the IRS to share personal tax returns with any federal agency investigating suspected “terrorist” activity.

The most earth-shattering provisions in the bill lay the foundations for an economy-killing carbon tax like the “cap-and-tax” system that is now destroying European industry, observes Matthew Vadum (Capital Research Center 10/2/08). On Oct 2, while Americans were focused on the threat of a credit meltdown, House Democrats released principles for an aggressive plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions, which could cost even more than the failed $6.7 trillion Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, writes Marc Morano, communications director for Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Inhofe staff.

The $700 trillion that the Treasury is now authorized to hold in “troubled assets” is piled on top of other recent bailouts. These include: $29 billion for Bear Stearns financing; $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization; $85 billion for AIG; $300 billion for Federal Housing Administration rescue bill; and much more, for a total of more than $1.8 trillion, or more than $17,000 for every American household, writes Declan McCullagh (Politics and Law 10/3/08).

As Congress and the President celebrate “dealing with” the problem, Treasury Secretary Paulson, with his selected associates, is planning to move quickly to buy distressed assets. What is his experience in valuing assets? Paulson, remember, was formerly head of Goldman Sachs and, simultaneously, the Nature Conservancy. He presided over the donation of 680,000 acres of land in Tierra del Fuego, Chile, to the Wildlife Conservation Society without ever assessing the area’s potential value for timber, oil, or metals, in order that Goldman Sachs shareholders could know the true value of the giveaway (Vadum, op. cit.) (Also see Fred Lucas, “In Goldman Sachs We Trust: How the Left’s Favorite Bank Influences Public Policy, Foundation Watch, October 2008.)

Carbon emissions trading is the biggest potential moneymaker for Goldman Sachs.

Who will be competing to unload assets on the U.S. taxpayer? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger already has his hand out for California, which has been shut out of credit markets and could run out of cash by the end of the month. Many foreign banks are also on the verge of the abyss.

The stock market fell further after the bailout, as did the dollar. The focus has now shifted to the fallout and to the question of whether the latest, biggest bailout will succeed in containing the panic.

Additional information:

• Read the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1424_eas.xml
• See how they voted: Senate; House
• Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Bailout Watch.