Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Hendren Underpaid Labor Arrangement Ends

Senator Jim Hendren owns a plastics factory. Apparently, people sentenced to a drug rehabilitation program wound up working in Hendren's factory and payments went to the rehab outfit rather than the workers. The workers did not even get the minimum wage. The light has been shined, and the practice has ended, but come on people, can this guy not draw a serious challenger?

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

If I Could Ask the Governor

A friend and I were talking about how the Governor, and even his main spokespeople, hardly ever seem to get asked hard questions by the media. Further, the most superficial non-answers are routinely taken at face value without follow up. Compare this to the belligerent hectoring that President Trump or his spokespeople get from the media. So I thought "what if I could ask the Governor or his spokesman three questions?" What would I ask him?

So here are the three questions I would want to ask the Governor, or let's say his spokesman since not even my fertile imagination can see a situation where the Governor would submit to my questions.....

#1) The set up: First I would slap this article on the table from last month where the Governor touts $175 million in cuts to Medicaid. Beside it I would lay down this article from earlier this month which says that Medicaid spending overall is way up.

Here is my article with the background that puts these two together.... https://www.arneighbors.org/medicaid-spending-up-despite-cuts-to-disabled/

The bottom line is that under the perverse incentives of the Obamacare Medicaid program the FEDS pay more for states giving healthcare to able-bodied adults than traditional Medicaid gives to blind people, autistic people, people without arms and legs- the truly disabled. Because of that Hutchinson is slashing the budget of everyone who gets traditional Medicaid to pay for keeping Obama's Medicaid expansion for able-bodied adults.

So my first question to the spokesman would be...

Here is an article from last month where the Governor touted $175 million dollars in CUTS to Medicaid. Here is an article from this month that says that due to surging expansion in Medicaid  under Obamacare the state's spending for Medicaid is way UP. Behind the numbers is this reality- we have two Medicaid programs in Arkansas - there is the traditional one that helps blind people, autistic people, paraplegics, people who are truly disabled. That is the one the Governor is slashing. The other Medicaid program is the one for able-bodied adults under Obamacare, which the Governor relabeled "Arkansas Works". That is the one where spending is exploding. My question concerns the Governor's moral priorities: Do you think the voters of this great state approve of the Governor's slashing the care budgets for the truly needy in order to provide more money trying to save Obamacare Medicaid for the able-bodied?

Now I expect him to answer in part by saying that the Governor is working to reduce costs in both areas because he is shifting people from 100%- to 138% of FPL from Obamacare Medicaid to the Obamacare Exchange. When he does I would come back with.....

What you are touting as some kind of solution is no solution at all- it is the start of the next crisis. I have three things to say about that. First of all, Senator Bryan King and others tried to warn the Governor that the numbers and the budget would swell if we kept Obamacare Medicaid and he was totally blown off- so now that the Governor admits the same thing about the numbers the decent thing for him to do, and you can do it right now for him, is apologize to Senator King for dismissing his fair warning. Secondly those people are not getting off welfare by moving to the exchange, the taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this move it just comes from a different program. Or they would be if not for my Third point, President Trump just signed an executive order defunding that program. He did it because it had been funded illegally all along. Congress never appropriated the money, Obama just spent it anyway. Donald Trump just put an end to that. The mechanics are too complicated to describe here, but the impact is likely to be that a single person who makes over 250% of the FPL, $37,650, is liable to see a huge rate increase to pay for subsidies for those that the Governor is now adding to the exchange. He is playing fiscal whack a mole. He is not solving anything because he is not facing the real problem- we need to end Obamacare in Arkansas, it has a lot of crazy rules that result in a lot of crazy outcomes. It is dragging us to fiscal destruction and pushing people in wheel chairs off the health-care cliff first is not going to change that....



***************************************************

#2) My second question has to do with the appearance of impropriety with a sitting senator, David Sanders (R) Little Rock, working for a non-profit funded by state grants.....

"My next question has to do with both crony capitalism and the Governor's approval of something that appears improper regarding a member of the legislature. So Arkansas has an economic development commission which is a nice sounding name but unfortunately in practice it can wind up being the rich taxing the poor to fund a grant to the buddy of some insiders. I don't approve of taxing my neighbor so the state can give it to an insider to open a business which competes with his. We should not even have it, but we have it, and it turns out that since 2008 that commission has been giving tax dollars to someone called "Innovate Arkansas" and letting them hand out the money. Now State Senator David Sanders (R) Little Rock, just took a job running "Innovate Arkansas". So here is a legislator who votes on how much money to give the Commission and that commission then decides how much money to give to "Innovate Arkansas" which he directs.

Now we used to complain about the "revolving door" between legislators and entities which get money from the government. The legislators would appropriate money for an organization and later that organization wold hire the legislator. But this is even more unseemly. This is like quantum physics where the guy offering the bribe and the guy taking the bribe are the same person- Sanders is on both sides of the "revolving door" at the same time! He can actually vote to fund something so it can fund an entity which pays him! It seems to me that this is a new level of impropriety in state government, why did the Governor approve of this shady move?


***********************************************

#3) This question is about his award of a DHS Info Tech contract to the highest bidder.. https://www.arneighbors.org/red-flags-galore-in-awarding-contract-to-highest-bidder/

In 2015 Senator Bryan King called Arkansas Works/the Private Option a "scam" because the state was signing up everyone they could and were very slow to do eligibility checks since the FEDS were just making monthly payments for every person signed up. When they were finally forced to verify eligibility it turned out that there were people on the program that were dead, people from every state in the union were enrolled in Arkansas Works, people who had gone back home to Mexico, people who had long ago found jobs that had health care. So they were finally purged from the rolls but tons of payments were made to Arkansas insurers by FEDGOV on the basis that they were covering these ineligible people. Now we learn that after twenty years of using the same vendor for DHS Information Technology, the Governor directed that a new vendor which bid about twenty million dollars HIGHER be given the contract.

Now it just looks pretty bad when DHS is in a situation where the FEDS could ask to do an audit and try to find out how much they overpaid and suddenly after twenty years we just have to have a new information technology bidder even though it costs a lot more and even though the Senate committee never approved the switch. My question is what steps are you taking to make sure that the records that the feds would need to claw back these over payments are not lost in the transition to the new vendor?

********************************

I don't expect the Governor or his spokesman will ever be asked any of these questions by the MSM in this state, so compliant and docile have them become. As always in this country, we have this mess because we don't care enough to do anything to change it and care more about making excuses for whatever political party we ID with than actually reverting to self-government. If you are ready to really do something about it I encourage you to do this.. 

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Red Flags Galore in Awarding Contract to Highest Bidder

Last month Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson decided to proceed with a controversial move to award a large state contract to Deloitte Consulting even though their bid was twenty million dollars higher than the competing vendor, Northrup Grumman, who had fulfilled the contract for the last twenty years without notable complaint! The contract was related to Department of Human Services Information Technology services. 

The particulars of this story are worth looking into for many reasons, not the least of which is it shows how the legislature in this state has been neutered by the executive under essentially one-party rule (for what to do about it see here). It especially demonstrates that the establishment media in this state calmly passes on the most absurd and brazenly irregular claims of the administration as if they were not in the least bit out of the ordinary with no serious effort to dig into what real professional journalists ought to consider a big story. I will examine some of the claims surrounding this issue and you will see what I mean. Here is a link to the AP story on it, which I will reference, but the information for that article was drawn from one in our sycophant state-wide paper, the Democrat-Gazette.  

Legislative committees are supposed to review changes in large state contracts. The house committee voted overwhelmingly to do the review (opening the door to a change of vendors) but the Senate Committee voted it down. Because they did not vote the way the Governor wanted, they got the opportunity to vote again. But they again voted it down! The Governor then decided to proceed anyway! And here is how he described the action...
"Now that the Legislature has had its opportunity for review of the pending DHS contract with Deloitte for IT services, I will instruct the procurement director to approve the contract in accordance with his legal authority, which is the next and final step in the procurement process," Hutchinson said.
So his position is that so long as the legislature had their "opportunity for review" it is irrelevant whether or not they actually choose to do a review! They had an opportunity to approve doing what he wanted but since they choose not to take advantage of that "opportunity" he is going to do it without their approval! This is not "checks and balances" at its finest friends.

Then notice this paragraph from the story, which no one would put their name to because it is so absurd that no one with any sense would want to put their name on it. It was just thrown out there in the face of all contrary evidence.....
Advocates of the Deloitte Consulting contract said it would cost $5 million less annually than the current contract with Northrop Grumman. They added that Deloitte was awarded the contract based on its technical expertise.
Deloitte bid $74.3 million for the three year contract while the current vendor bid $54.4 million.  That without-attribution statement about Deloitte being "$5 million less annually" should not even be in the story. It only confuses people as to the truth- the Governor awarded the contract to the high-bidder over the people who have been doing it for twenty years by the specs!

Here is Hutchinson with his Clintonesque triple-speak again...
"The Deloitte contract was considered by the legislative committee multiple times, discussed in depth and received numerous votes," Hutchinson said.
Yes, it was "considered" and discussed by the committee, but the conclusion of that discussion in the Senate was that Deloitte should not get the contract! It received "numerous votes" but those votes were not favorable to Deloitte. That is like your city council putting a sales tax increase on the ballot in a couple of elections, and when they fail to pass they increase the taxes anyway simply because the proposal was "voted on multiple times". 

Next is the one that really gets me. Again, no names are attached to the statement because that would get too close to accuracy and accountability......
State officials said Deloitte won the bid after scoring higher in a technical evaluation by a committee of state employees. The technical evaluation made up 80 percent of the overall score, while the cost made up 20 percent.
Well I could ask how they arrived at those weighted measurements, but the real problem is that this is not a real bidding process. That's not how they do it in private industry. In a real bid you lay out the technical specs in advance and people bid based on those specs. If they don't meet the specs, they are not a part of the bidding process. If they do, you take the lowest bidder. You don't say "well you meet the specs and you have been doing this for us without complaint for twenty years but now we are going to have what we call a technical evaluation that is way more important that cost." The one who meets the specs for the lowest cost wins the bid.

This is especially true when the parameters of the technical evaluation are unknown and it is done by who-knows who and they can wind up with jobs in this same firm three years from now. It invites corruption. This is too obviously some fig-leaf to attempt to give legitimacy to a very illegitimate move.

And that brings us to a very important question. Why the urgency to change information technology vendors after being satisfied with the same one for twenty years? One possible reason ties into a question I asked two years ago- Is Arkansas' ruling class involved in welfare fraud on a massive scale? State Senator Bryan King referred to our special version of Obamacare as a "scam" because there was a strong financial incentive for Arkansas to sign up as many people as possible for the program, eligible or not, and keep them on that program for as long as possible, eligible or not.

They were finally forced to verify eligibility of some program recipients- long after they were legally required to do so- and discovered that tens of thousands of people that FEDGOV was paying Arkansas Insurers to cover were dead, moved out of the state, in prison, or got a job that had other health care. They were not eligible, but the state just kept its mouth shut and so FEDGOV kept sending payments in! I can't help but wonder if the records in DHS could be examined in a way that would detect a deliberate pattern of evasion. If so, a lot of people, Republicans and Democrats alike, would be very anxious for those records to be scrubbed. What better way to obscure things than to change vendors? The incriminating evidence can be "lost in the transition" before anyone who can put it together gets a chance to look.


Saturday, October 14, 2017

Jan Morgan's List of Complaints Against Governor

Gun range owner and FOX News commentator Jan Morgan is exploring a primary challenge to Gov. Asa Hutchinson. Below are some of her issues. These are actions by the Governor that conservatives don't like, but some things on the list are things that nobody should like. And I would add a couple of things to that list. For example, he seems to hand out a lot of patronage jobs. Ex-legislators that get run out of office due to their following his agenda instead of listening to the people they are supposed to represent seem to wind up with cushy government jobs. I also dislike his Medicaid priorities- do whatever gets the most matching dollars from DC, even if it means cutting Medicaid to the truly disabled in order to fund Obamacare for able bodied adults. Her list follows...
* Tax increases.
The Governor opposed giving an income break on military retirement pay unless the bill included increased taxes on the rest of the state to offset any reduced tax collection. The bill he supported and helped pass included a military retirement pay exemption and a tax break for soft drink manufacturers, while imposing more tax on us which not only makes up for the tax breaks but also increase taxes by a projected $5.9 million dollars annually.

*More tax increases.
The Governor signed into law a special tax increase on new tires and a new special tax on used tires to fund growing government to monitor tires from initial sale through disposal.

* More taxes demanded.
The Arkansas House of Representatives rejected a sales tax on the internet and higher gas and diesel taxes. Governor Hutchinson vowed to fight on in his support of the taxes.

*Revenue problem not a spending problem.
In having to make some cuts in his increased budget for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the Governor claimed it was a revenue problem not a spending problem.
Awarding contract to the highest bidder. Despite recent state money problems, an ever-increasing state budget, and legislative opposition, Governor Hutchinson awarded a three-year contract for information technology services for the DHS in the amount of $75.3 million instead of to the contractor bidding $54.4 million.

*Money giveaway to private colleges. Despite months of public criticism over individual legislators giving state General Improvement Funds to a private colleges and after the Governor had to cut his overly optimistic general revenue budget, the Governor gave $150,000 in emergency funds to three private colleges in Pulaski County: Arkansas Baptist College, Philander Smith College, and Shorter College.

*Picking winners and losers. The Governor continues to pick winners and losers by giving away state funds to private businesses ranging from a Taekwondo center to a steel mill seeking to become a competitor to an existing Arkansas steel mill, etc.

*Governor Hutchinson supported continued authority for the two parts of Obamacare that needed state action – Obamacare Medicaid Expansion and authority for a state run Obamacare Exchange. He calls his Obamacare Medicaid Expansion by the name “Arkansas Works.”

*More Obamacare.
Governor Hutchinson criticized congressional efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, wanting to keep much of it.

*Religious freedom.
In 2015 Governor Hutchinson stopped a Religious Freedom bill that had passed both houses. He didn’t want to go on record as vetoing the Religious Freedom bill, so he demanded the bill be recalled and another bill be drafted. The weaker bill quickly passed. Many of the cosponsors of the first bill were offended and refused to sponsor the weaker bill and didn’t vote for the weaker bill.

*Sharia law.
The governor didn’t sign HB1941 of 2017 (Act 980) to prohibit the use of Sharia law in Arkansas courts. It became law without his signature.
Sanctuary campuses. The Governor opposed HB1042 of 2017 to prohibit the creation of sanctuary college campuses in Arkansas. The bill did not pass.

*Bathrooms.
The Governor opposed SB744 of 2017 which would have limited bathrooms in schools and other buildings to one sex. The bill did not pass.

On the 2A front:
* During the 2017 debate over handgun legislation, Governor Hutchinson rubbed salt in the wounds of Second Amendment supporters by making sure to meet with and have a big photo op with Moms Demand Action, Michael Bloomberg's radical anti-gun organization who advocated for more gun restrictions in Arkansas .

Republican legislators, when approached about their anti-gun legislative votes which further restricted law abiding gun owners in this state, and were contrary to Republican Party platform, said they were strong armed by the Governor .

Although acknowledging that Arkansas is a Constitutional Carry state, Governor Hutchinson refused to publicly clarify this, refused to push for lower concealed handgun licensing fees, and refused to sign one of the few pro-gun pieces of legislation.

* Campaigning against Republicans who follow the party platform.
The Governor injected himself into a Republican primary race in 2016 by trying to unseat Republican Representative Josh Miller who is too conservative for the Governor. Asa endorsed the challenger and made the maximum contribution to the challenger though the Governor’s Political Action Committee (PAC). With the Governor’s influence, the challenger was well funded but the Republican voters said “NO” to the Governor and re-nominated Representative Miller.

Looks like 2018 will bring more of the same attacks with fiscally conservative Republican Senators in the Governor’s crosshairs.
Using bogus budget numbers aimed at hurting fiscally conservative Republican legislators.

*In 2016 his administration used bogus budget numbers and ridiculous doom and gloom claims of pending budget cuts if some Republican Senators continued to refuse to BREAK their promise to voters to oppose Obamacare Medicaid Expansion (which the Governor renamed “Arkansas Works”). The Governor’s administration’s bogus tactic led the Batesville Guard newspaper to embarrass itself by blindly accepting the ridiculous claims.
**********************************
Now one problem she is going to have in a GOP primary is that a lot of the incumbent legislators are going to back Hutchinson. Especially once the filing period is over or they think they are in a safe seat, (which most of them are absent a new party).

One thing that could be done to counter this is to put a new group on the ballot to recruit credible candidates to run against the GOP insiders all the way to November. Then they would be reluctant to alienate part of their base in the primary because they would need those folks in November. You can do your part to help make that happen. Go here, print out a petition and get ten Arkansas voters to sign it, and then mail it in to the address shown.

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

State's Spending for Medicaid Up

....despite the fact that per-person spending for traditional Medicaid is way down. What could explain this discrepancy? Get the details here. Expanded Medicaid coverage for able-bodied adults under Obamacare, disingenuously called first "The Private Option" and then relabeled with minor tweaks as "Arkansas Works". Coverage for these folks went UP 3.4% while coverage costs per person for traditional Medicaid went down on a per person basis. Total costs are rising because about a tenth of the time when someone signs up for "Arkansas Works" they send them to traditional Medicaid instead. So our state's integration with Obamacare is swelling the ranks of both Medicaid programs to the budgetary breaking point.

It is going to get worse. Arkansas was finally forced to purge its Obamacare rolls of thousands of people who were not eligible for the program, often because they no longer lived here or already had other coverage. People in those groups did not cost us a lot of money (but insurance providers still collected payments from FEDGOV for them). Now that they are gone, expect average costs to go up. In addition, at the mid-point of this fiscal year the FEDS started asking Arkansas to take what will be an increasing share of the costs. If we don't start shedding folks from this program it will be a fiscal disaster for us. The Governor is trying, but so far he seems to be caught in a trap of his own making. He wanted to suck every dollar he could out of taxpayers when DC was collecting the taxpayers but now that they are starting to come out of his budget he is scrambling.

The Governor is pushing hard to drive down the costs of traditional Medicaid- maybe in a way which will impact services for the truly needy and disabled. But he seems to be doing it to find fiscal room to keep the other Medicaid program- the one from Obamacare for able-bodied adults. So far most of his hard choices have fallen squarely on the shoulders of traditional Medicaid because the state pays a bigger share of the tab in that program than it does in Obamacare Medicaid. But this perversely cuts services to the very ones that most people don't mind paying taxes for, such as the blind, those with autism, and other disabled people in order to keep funding for health care for able-bodied adults. At some point, we are going to have to get some kind of priority other than taking as much taxpayer money as DC is willing to hand out.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Arkansas to Give Missouri $35 Million to Build Highway in Missouri!

Unbelievable. I guess Wal-Mart does not run Missouri to the extent they run Arkansas government. Arkansas just spent a ton of money building the "Bella Vista Bypass" up to the state line in Benton County. Our "leadership" funded our part of the highway with a tax which went to pay a new bond issue, because by golly we had to have this money right now. Then we get the road built, pay interest and fees on the bonds, and it turns out they did not even get a commitment out of Missouri for them to build the part on their side of the line!

It is a true "highway to nowhere".  BTW I opposed the tax increase to fund this "road to nowhere" and not only have we had to pay for our half. ....see this news report where it say that now we are going to have to give our grant money to Missouri and pay for their half. And OK, it is $32.4 million we hope to give them, not $35 million. Still. If this was a Wall, we'd be Mexico!

The guys who run this state look great in suits and speak in confident, reassuring tones, but the things they do are stupid, stupid, stupid. That is when they are not downright criminal. I am tempted to add this to the list of "seeing things coming". That was a list I put together a few years ago when I kept making predictions that were the opposite of what the "leading minds" of the state were saying, and yet I kept being right and they were all wrong. Yet somehow, they still have "credibility".  I chalk that up to a complicit fake establishment media in this state and a regrettable almost child-like trust and gullibility too many of my fellow citizens have towards their political leaders.

If these guys were that together, they would not make blunders like this. If they were that together, a hobby blogger would not be able to keep being right on things when all of them in unison have been wrong. I guess I won't add it to the list because I did not predict in print that they would be so amazingly incompetent as to build the road to the state line without an agreement in place for Missouri to do the same and then be forced to give their grant money to Missouri...

I am a part of Arkansas Neighbors and we are trying to put better candidates on your ballot. But we can't do it without your help. I ask each of you to print off one petition, and gather a mere ten petition signatures to help get us ballot access.

Neighbors Going for Ballot Access

Neighbors of Arkansas is going for ballot access. We are an honest more mainstream alternative to the two DC-based parties that have drowned us in debt shoveling money to their friends. I urge you to print off one of our ballot petitions and get ten friends to sign it and then send it in to the address on the link. If we all do a little, it can add up to a lot.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Reserve Currency Profound Thought

The U.S. dollar has been the world's "reserve currency" for decades. Say two nations trade with each other, whose currency do they use? What is Zambia going to do with currency from Yemen? The seller demand payment in U.S. dollars instead of the currency of the buying nation. This creates a vast global demand for dollars. That makes our currency stronger than it otherwise would be, and that's good for us right?

Well, who is "us"? If you are close to the printing presses and you can just print up dollars at will that most of the rest of the world trades their real goods in services for, then its great. You have a magic money machine. Even if you are a regular consumer it means that you can buy products from overseas cheaper. But this short term benefit contains the seeds of economic destruction. Like so many things, what is good in the short term is bad in the long term.

The flip side of what I described above is that it practically mandates that over time production will shift from your economy to other economies. All you are exporting is currency. And because your currency is artificially strengthened other nations can manufacture things at a lower cost than you. In addition, a global reserve currency must be held in very large amounts by other nations to be available to trade. How does this happen? Well, we have to run massive trade deficits.

We buy stuff from foreigners and our currency piles up in their treasury. What do they do with it? Since it is the global reserve currency they can buy things from anyone with it, it does not have to be us. And since we bought things from them and they did not buy things from us we had to borrow the money into existence to cover the difference. So they also buy debt from us- a claim on even more future dollars. That is another way of saying that we are exporting dollars to balance out the trade deficits.

Any currency issued without the gold to back it up is a claim on the future economic production of its citizens. In 1971 France called our bluff, we were issuing dollars without adequate gold backing and we were forced to either quit issuing so many dollars or de-link from gold. The ruling class was not about to give up their magic money machine. From henceforth a dollar would not be a specific amount of already-created value (as it is in for example a gold or silver coin). Instead it would be a promise of a claim on the future production of U.S. citizens. It would be a debt-instrument.

So our ruling class turned dollars into a pure debt instrument and then issued them like mad. There was an initial shock in the 1970s as nations doubted that a dollar backed by promises of the U.S. government to extract wealth from its citizens in the future was as good as a dollar backed by gold. This resulted in crippling inflation. We got past that hurdle by raising interest rates and by making a deal with the woefully corrupt House of Saud. They would only accept dollars in payment for oil and we would defend them militarily. In essence, the oil-rich Arabs hired us to be their body guards.

That tough medicine and hard bargain produced some boom times- but they were increasingly debt-fueled boom times. The long-term consequences of these moves is an economy where good jobs are increasingly difficult to be had as all goods and services which can be produced cheaper elsewhere (due in part to our artificially valued currency) fled the country. So if you were one of those who made a living working capital and were big enough to work that capital anywhere in the world, you won, whether you were good enough or not. If you made a living selling your labor, you lost. If you made a living working capital but you were small so that your capital was bound up in America, you lost. All of this is on average of course.

Most of us are on a playing field which has been tilted against us by policies which favor global corporations and billionaires over the rest of us. Despite the temporary gain consumers got from these policies, they long term result of them is destructive to our economy and we are now seeing that play out. An orderly and slow withdrawal of the dollar as the world reserve currency is in the interests of working Americans, though not the elites who run the country.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Hutchinson's Angle on the Graham Plan

Governor Asa Hutchinson has come out as a strong supporter of a bill sponsored by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. The bill is touted as an "Obamacare Repeal". That is going too far but it does repeal many of the parts of Obamacare which were considered most onerous. That includes the individual mandate and the employer mandate to maintain coverage. The plan also gives the states far more flexibility than the original program. So I would call it an Obamacare Reform bill. It does not repeal the measure, just some specific provisions in it. It does the rest of its function in a different way. It leaves FEDGOV in the business of funding health care for able-bodied adults if the states approve it (which 31 of 50 have when FEDGOV was paying all the bills).

The nineteen states that stayed off of Obamacare, at least the Medicaid expansion for able-bodied adults part, would gain money under this bill. Those states that expanded Medicaid, like Arkansas, would lose money. All states would get money from the Feds under this program, even those that did not vote to expand Medicaid. I consider that a bad part of the plan because it gets all states hooked on federal money that is unsustainable and which the feds are not even promising past 2026. The states could either take their money in a block grant, or a specific amount per person enrolled on Medicaid. This does not count the elderly or the disabled. They would be paid under traditional Medicaid, whose costs the Governor has been aggressively attempting to cut even while spending for Obamacare Medicaid expansion has soared.

The Feds are treating those two Medicaid programs differently, but activists keep trying to lump all Medicaid together. Eventually that is going to be an issue because those two programs are actually competitors, not allies. They fund health care for two different groups of people- one the able-bodied and the other disabled and elderly. Sooner or later people with disabled children for example are going to figure out this divide- Asa Hutchinson and the politicians already have.

Here is what I know: Governor Asa Hutchinson, and really the whole Republicrat establishment in Arkansas, is in a fiscal trap if something does not change. They structured things to take as much free money from D.C. as they possibly could when D.C. was paying 100% of the bills. But that "free" money was just a trap to get states to expand Medicaid. Now the state has to start paying a share of that bill and 1) they don't have the money even if the feds match 90% and 2) the feds don't have the money to keep their empty promises and match 90% going forward.

The Graham bill will rescue the political establishment in Arkansas. Not the citizens mind you because the new plan will fail too, but it will give them cover for getting out of the old plan. The Governor noted that the Graham plan "does not require the states to spend any money". So this tells you what he is going to do. He is going to do what they have been doing- take every penny from the next generation that FEDGOV will let him have so long as the state does not have to spend any money themselves. It is still being added to our tax and debt load of course, but the entity of state government prospers regardless of what happens to the individual taxpayers within that entity. He is just concerned that his department is still able to hand out money without any of it coming from their budget. If it comes from your budget, or your children's because debt is propping up this whole thing, then it appears to be no cause for the republicrats to worry.

Yes he will have to cut benefits to do this. At this point I don't see anyway out of a reduction in benefits anyway. It is just a question of an orderly collapse or a disorderly one. The original plan was never going to work. It was only a question of whether the state would renege on its pledge to pay 10% of the new bills starting in 2020 or if the FED was going to renege on their promise to pay at least 90% of those bills. It looks like both are attempting to default on those promises now. Some of us warned them against implementing such a long term disaster in order to get the early money. Now they have raised expectations about what government is supposed to do for people, but they cannot afford to come close to meeting those expectations. I favor the Pea Ridge option but that would require politicians accepting the limitations of government action and all special interests currently making money out of government intervention in health care to take a hit, so don't hold your breath.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Primaries are Special Elections

I know a lot of people who are upset at the corruption in our government, both state and federal. The font from which corruption draws its succor is of course government spending. That is, the more money government spends, the more that will be spent on patronage, graft, cronyism, and bribery. People who want ever more spending from government may not like this connection, but the connection is very real.

I know only a few people who are actively trying to do something about these things. Those are the ones I empathize with the most. They are not just complaining about it, they are attempting something like self-government. The people who run the looting-machine that government has become hate it when citizens organize and try to self-government. They have constructed an elaborate series of ruses and obstacles to prevent that from happening. Hold that thought while I bring to mind another recurring problem.....

Special Elections are routinely used by the insiders to pass tax increases and borrowing schemes which would not pass in a general election. The idea is that even though these tax increases benefit only a few at the expense of the majority, the people most directly benefiting from the tax increase are highly motivated to show up and vote for it. Those who are paying for it are only being robbed of a little bit each so they have less to gain from voting. Thus the promiscuous use of special elections leads to more taxes, spending, and government than most voters approve of.

Now those of us who actually want to do something are divided into two schools of thought. Some think that we should "take over" the Republican Party and make it do what it has claimed to stand for over the last five decades. Others of us, me included, think that it is one of those ruses designed to sap the energy and money of those seeking to limit government and it has proven that so many times that by now we should realize that it is time to start something new. It is easy to show that a national political party is the wrong sort of vehicle if your goal really is to limit government.

What this boils down to tactically is that some think that the way to change things is to enter "outsider" candidates in a party primary. I think taking on a party's favorite candidate in their own primary is the worst possible place you could challenge them. The filing fee of your candidate will wind up going to the campaign of the establishment guy you were hoping to beat!

If you will think about it, a primary election is a "special election". And like all special elections, those who disproportionately benefit from the current system have more incentive to show up and vote than the average voter who is only being robbed "a little bit each time". For example, imagine that there was a special election whose purpose was put a one-time $2 tax on every American to give $100 of tax money to every American with an Irish surname. You might think this proposal highly unfair and are against it, but it is worth more than $2 of trouble for you to take time out and go vote, so maybe you don't vote. Murphy and Finnegan will show up to vote! Twice each if election official O'Donnell will let them get away with it.

The exact same argument as to why we should not have special elections is the same reason we should not try to change things by going through the primary of a corrupt party whose leaders band together against honest people and whose primary elections are dominated by those on the take. And since the Democrats rarely have contested primaries the Democrat voters on the take will not hesitate to cross over and vote for the establishment Republican in order to freeze out a challenger who threatens the gravy train. Remember the Trent Lott vs. McDaniel senate primary in Mississippi a few years ago?

Party primaries are special elections, and special elections are the life-blood of special interests. If you want to take on the establishment of a party, do it smart, do it in the general, not in their own primary! I mean, conservatives have been putting all of their eggs in the Republican basket since the 1980s and its only gotten worse not better. Isn't it time to invest just a little bit of effort into something else? My friends and I at Neighbors of Arkansas have a plan to do just that, and we invite you to help by getting nine of your friends to sign a petition to put an alternative on the ballot. Or you can keep doing the same thing people have been doing for the last fifty years and expecting a different result.....

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

It's How You Spin It - Numbers for Uninsured

So the Census Bureau released numbers about insurance rates in Arkansas. The left is claiming that they prove how wonderful Obamacare has been in Arkansas. I look at the same numbers and think how few people have actually been helped considering how much trouble it has been for the rest of us, and how catastrophic it will be when this unsustainable system finally goes away.

The chart shows that when we first implemented Obamacare in Arkansas in 2013 about 14.5% of people interviewed did not have health care insurance at that time. There are lots of reasons for that but the biggest one is probably that a lot of young people are healthy and felt that they had no need for health care insurance. After all, the state has been giving it away since 2013 and signing up everyone they can and still about 8.5% don't have health care insurance. It is very likely that the bulk of those people are just those who are not bothering to get it because they don't feel they need it, even if they are so poor that the can get it paid for by the rest of us or so wealthy that they should be able to afford it and face a penalty from the IRS if they don't.

So all of the controversy and rate increases and losing our doctors for the rest of us has been so that at most six percent of the population gets covered. The number is probably less than that because if you look at the trend line before Obamacare was imposed the uninsured rate was already declining from 2010 through 2013. It looks like it would have gone down to about 13% rather than 14.5% by now if we had just left things alone. So that means that all of this hassle has been for the benefit of around 4.5 percent of the population. That is not counting the insurance companies and hospitals who are gathering in taxpayer money hand over fist.

Also, the rate of uninsured seems to be leveling off. In other words about everyone that wants it has it. We are not going to get the number down to zero uninsured, even giving it away to the poor. Even before Obamacare Arkansans provided health care for poor children, the poorest of the poor adults, the disabled, and the elderly. The only group expected to provide for their own health insurance was able-bodied adults.  Most of us did. This program and all the expense and trouble it caused was about getting 4.5% of the population of able-bodied adults a welfare benefit paid for by the rest of us and the children of the next generation. That doesn't even count that it is fiscally unsustainable and is in a slow collapse anyway- who knows how many will be caught in the fallout when that happens. I suppose if you throw enough taxpayer dollars at a problem you are bound to help a few people, but I question whether we have gotten our money's worth on this one.

Saturday, September 09, 2017

Who Is and Isn't a 'Real Republican'

Conduit for Action recently put up a piece that got a lot of attention called "In Defense of Governor Asa Hutchinson." The article was the furthest thing from a defense. It started with a run-down of all the ways that Hutchinson crossed not only the conservatives which are alleged to be the base of the Republican Party, but even moderates and liberals who are against corruption or downright idiocy ingovernment. For example when he, over the objection of legislators, awarded a contract to a vendor which submitted a bid $20 million dollars higher than the current vendor who had been providing the service without deficiency. Maybe the displaced vendor failed to "donate" to the right PACS?

After the long list of shady and/or leftist actions by the Governor the article finally got to the one thing that they were defending him for. They have heard more and more conservative activists complain that Hutchinson is not a "real Republican" because of issues like the ones that cropped up on that list. But they "defended" him by saying that he is a "real Republican" because the State Republican Party accepted his filing fee! Then they ended with the somewhat cryptic statement "this is what primaries are for."

Independent free-thinking persons will have slight disagreements from time to time and I have a disagreement with my friends at Conduit on their reasoning here. Asa Hutchinson is not a "real" Republican simply because the party accepted his filing fee. The whole point of distinguishing "Republicans" from "Real Republicans" is that some activists believe that there are people abusing the label and filing as Republicans even though they have no commitment to the agreed-on platform or what the vast bulk of the people who vote Republican want. So simply because they took his filing fee does not make him a "Real Republican".

However, the fact is that he is the realist of real Republicans. By that I mean that he accurately and fully represents what Republican leaders have actually done (as opposed to what they said when they campaigned) on a regular basis for a long period of time. He is a real Republican. He has served in very prominent roles for Republican administrations. And the "leadership" of the Republican party does the same kinds of things that he does. He does the kinds of things that leading Republicans have been doing for decades now.

That is because he is one of them and that is what the Republican party now in fact is, no matter what longtime conservative activists want it to be in their fantasies or think of it as in their fading memories. I hate to sound harsh, but the activists who insist that the Republican Party is something different than what Asa Hutchinson is and does are indulging in absurd delusion that we can no longer afford. Remember when you used to be critical of your Democrat neighbors because they refused to see that their party had changed? Well that's you now.

The only thing that might actually save it is for you to leave it and support other brands. At this point, staying is enabling. They have no reason to change anything so long as you continue to support their brand instead of another brand. I am a part of a group, Neighbors of Arkansas, who are seeking ballot access. We are not quite a political party in the traditional sense of the word. We are more like a network of citizens than a formal hierarchy. Starting Sept. 22nd, we will be circulating petitions to get on the ballot. I ask you to go to the link and print off one petition and get nine other voters to sign it and mail it in to us. If you want to do more, get in touch with us, but if we all do a little, it will add up to a lot.